[SOLVED] Questioning the Ryzen 3000 Series, 12 Cores/16 Cores (7nm)? FX Stunt?

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Chiplets don't make economic sense at the entry-level, which is why AMD went monolithic 12nm for its 3200G and 3400G instead of using a chiplet and IO-die with IGP or GPU chiplet. In all likelihood, AMD's next generation of entry-level APUs are going to be monolithic 7nm: can't afford the extra design and manufacturing overheads associated with chiplets on ~$100 chips, which is about the same price point as the cheapest Icelake models.

Chiplets only work on fashionably large designs where the added overheads don't contribute a disproportionately large amount of cost and complexity. This works reasonably well for AMD's $200+ CPUs because AMD's primary focus is EPYC and mainstream is essentially an outlet for salvageable EPYC rejects so it can afford the added manufacturing cost to turn these rejects into marketable products.

Intel's Icelake currently being capped at four lower-clocked cores seems like a strong indication that Intel's 10nm still scales rather poorly at the moment. While Intel could hypothetically make quad-core chiplets, building CPUs using those would get stupidly expensive stupidly fast, so I can't see this happening. Eight cores per chiplet is probably the absolute minimum where this makes any sense and Intel's 10nm can't deliver this yet, probably never will with most R&D moved to 7nm.
And I don't disagree there. I never said Intel should use EMIB on lower end, but build it for the i7 and i9 series (maybe i5?); not even necessary for their X line exclusively as the K line is still expensive enough to justify it, lol.

And no, Ryzen 3K is not rejected Roma parts. I'm confident in that being the case for two simple reasons: the CCX'es may be coming out from TSMC with little issues, so they won't have many defective ones. The proof of this could be thanks to how little time they took to announce the 16 core part. The other one is more obvious and implied in Ryzen's design: the packaging. It's completely different from Epyc's and even though it uses the same dies, thanks to the previous, they can be scaled down to reasonable price points.

Cheers!
 
Intel is hypocritical.
Remember when Intel described Epyc as being a "glued-together" solution.
I mean, there's 2 sides of that coin:
  1. It seems like it's an "accepted term" to describe the technique.
  2. The world has been making fun of Intel for pulling a Pentium-D since forever. Well, the people that knows. I bet Intel was like "OH YEAH; WE CAN FINALLY MOCK THEM BACK!".
Cheers!
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
And no, Ryzen 3K is not rejected Roma parts. I'm confident in that being the case for two simple reasons: the CCX'es may be coming out from TSMC with little issues, so they won't have many defective ones. The proof of this could be thanks to how little time they took to announce the 16 core part.
Cores do not need to be 'defective' to be rejected: they can have excessive leakage current, excessively steep frequency-voltage curve, excessively steep voltage-current curves or any other similar parameter that falls out of the EPYC mold, same goes for the 16-cores halo SKUs which likely require some of the best chiplets that don't make it in EPYC or ThreadRipper parts - AMD will need chiplets with epic low leakage and flat power-frequency scaling to fit 16 cores in the same 105W TDP as its 12-cores parts and high-end 8-cores.
 
Cores do not need to be 'defective' to be rejected: they can have excessive leakage current, excessively steep frequency-voltage curve, excessively steep voltage-current curves or any other similar parameter that falls out of the EPYC mold, same goes for the 16-cores halo SKUs which likely require some of the best chiplets that don't make it in EPYC or ThreadRipper parts - AMD will need chiplets with epic low leakage and flat power-frequency scaling to fit 16 cores in the same 105W TDP as its 12-cores parts and high-end 8-cores.
While, again, what you're saying is not incorrect, I don't believe this is the case given the speeds they're touting. This is not the first time AMD would be using fully qualified dies to fit a market gap they want to fill. Fortunately for them, it's going to be the "upper" gap they need to fill. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the lower core parts are just fused off and not really defective.

Cheers!
 

valeman2012

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2012
1,101
7
19,315
21
Trolling and name calling is NOT acceptable behavior
While 1080 med runs 100FPS faster,do you have any understanding on what benchmarks are?
If zen2 can't hit the same 500FPS mark it's not just as fast it's a 25% difference in speed.
Im still waiting for 3rd party reviews of 3900x vs 9900k. Both non-hedt $499 cpus. Although the 9900k can be bought a bit cheaper usually.

Apparently ther is some confusion about the 3950x release date. Although AMD's Lisa Sue said that it would be launched in september, amds website says 7/7.

I believe it will be in september since sept means 7 i think.
The same AMD Fanboys that said AMD FX 8350 (8 Cores?) Processor with more cores beats Intel back then.🐸
 
My comment says I am waiting on 3rd party objective reviews of Ryzen 3000 and confused about the release date. How does that make me a fanboy?

I agree FX is terrible, but the I3 6320 is 3 years newer than the FX, not really a fair comparison.

A more accurate comparison of a Core I3 3220 from late 2012 vs the FX 8350 from late 2012. https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-3220-vs-AMD-FX-8350/m272vs1489
Even though the fx wins, the FX would have cost more and is generally still horrible. I would rather have the I3 for the upgradability to a 3770k.
 
My comment says I am waiting on 3rd party objective reviews of Ryzen 3000 and confused about the release date. How does that make me a fanboy?

I agree FX is terrible, but the I3 6320 is 3 years newer than the FX, not really a fair comparison.

A more accurate comparison of a Core I3 3220 from late 2012 vs the FX 8350 from late 2012. https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-3220-vs-AMD-FX-8350/m272vs1489
Even though the fx wins, the FX would have cost more and is generally still horrible. I would rather have the I3 for the upgradability to a 3770k.
Because it's always easier to attack the person than give arguments against the message.

--

I'm still wondering why this thread is open and the troll is still being fed.

Cheers!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS