News Ryzen 7000 3D V-Cache CPUs Could Be Limited To 6-Core, 8-Core Configurations

[Admin]

Hardware leaker claims that AMD may limit its Ryzen 7000 3D V-Cache models to just two six-core and eight-core models.

Ryzen 7000 3D V-Cache CPUs Could Be Limited To 6-Core, 8-Core Configurations : Read more

 

[Amdlova]

If is true, amd is dead...

 

[Sergei Tachenov]

Well, I'd be surprised if it wasn't the case.

The very strength of V-cache comes from it being connected to a single chiplet, which very strongly reduces memory latency. No inter-chiplet latencies plus huge cache is what makes them excel at some games to the point of beating the 12900KS.

For example, the 5900X has twice the cache of the 5600X, but it's barely any faster in gaming than the 5600X, even though it's clocked slightly higher, while the 5800X3D has triple the cache and clocked even slightly lower, but it'ss tremendously faster.

And as we've seen, V-cache provides little advantage in workloads other than gaming. So there's no point really trying to squeeze it into dual chiplet SKUs.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

3D Cache for home use is only good for games.
Games do not scale well past 8 cores (or even to 8 cores).
Therefore 12+ core 3D Cache Ryzen chips are not needed.

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

If is true, amd is dead...

Why? You do realise the 5800x 3d is still one of the best gamer centric CPU's available!?

It only makes sense that a Zen 4 part will give increased performance over even the stellar 5800x 3d.

Also, why is it most sites are reporting a 7700x 3d as the next iteration of the 3d sku's? Doesn't it make sense given the previous gen (5800x 3d) that the next logical step is 7800x 3d? This gives a clear differentiation than the 5800x/5800x 3d didn't have. With the 7700x remaining 'vanilla' if you like.

 

[zecoeco]

Makes sense and if true, will be a smart move by AMD.
3DX chips will improve AMD's position in lower-end market (Gamer's segment).
So, I think 3D V-Cache on 12/16 core chips is an overkill and won't be cheap for customers as we know it's an expensive tech to implement.
AMD don't need to compete in the high-end segment because 7900x/7950x are already good enough and won't consume too much energy like its counterparts.

 

[buttabean2]

Didn't they just put 3d cache on their server cpus? I don't see why they wouldn't release a top tier 7900x/7950x 3d. It's all about the margins. What's going to make them more bank

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

And as we've seen, V-cache provides little advantage in workloads other than gaming

This was never in doubt and always clearly stated by AMD.

So there's no point really trying to squeeze it into dual chiplet SKUs.

They are not. I'd imagine they will keep it to single CCD, as this gives the best performance uplift.

 

[Sergei Tachenov]

3DX chips will improve AMD's position in lower-end market (Gamer's segment).

Not sure if "lower-end" is a proper term here. For a lower end gaming build, the 5600 is plenty. On AM5, the 7600X is currently a gaming beast even for high-end gaming builds. The 3D lineup will be for the top of the top gaming builds.

I figure you meant "lower-end" in the sense that the gaming segment itself isn't very CPU-demanding, so as compared to something like the 7950X even the 7700X3D can be considered low end, it's just when I think of it, I imagine it being paired with something like the 4090 and 32 GB of DDR5-6000 and calling that low end seems like heresy 🙂

They are not. I'd imagine they will keep it to single CCD, as this gives the best performance uplift.

Which was exactly my point, and exactly what the news article says. Add it to single-chiplet SKUs to turn them into gaming beasts, and leave dual-chiplet SKUs as they are.

 

[zecoeco]

Didn't they just put 3d cache on their server cpus? I don't see why they wouldn't release a top tier 7900x/7950x 3d. It's all about the margins. What's going to make them more bank

Think about the heat it will generate, and the space it'll need..
So, for the consumer market, it is not beneficial, and it'll be EXPENSIVE

 

[zecoeco]

For AMD, gaming is a lower end segment in a business perspective, as it is not very profitable for them.
So for the server business, 3DV is worth is.

 

[hotaru251]

If is true, amd is dead...

not even.

even if they never sold a single 7000 cpu they'd be fine.

They are untouchable in the server space & thats where most of the $ is.

Didn't they just put 3d cache on their server cpus?

they havent yet. its future planned.

 

[ezst036]

For AMD, gaming is a lower end segment in a business perspective, as it is not very profitable for them.
So for the server business, 3DV is worth is.

Why tailor products for such an unprofitable segment? And I assume you mean just their CPU division, right? Why make gaming GPUs if it so unprofitable? Why not just ditch all of Radeon all together?

Besides, on the flip side, reducing core count and simplifying this product but keeping the price point would potentially increase AMD's profits for this product line.

 

[buttabean2]

I'm sure a lot of people are hoping to see a 7950x3d. I'm one of them. I want to upgrade my threadripper 1950x but i'm waiting to see what they announce first. People who game on their workstations would want that additional boost. Not to say I haven't worried from the beginning that we won't see a dual ccd variation of x3d. Hopefully thinking here.

 

[buttabean2]

not even.

even if they never sold a single 7000 cpu they'd be fine.

They are untouchable in the server space & thats where most of the $ is.


they havent yet. its future planned.

"The Genoa processors drop into the new SP5 socket that isn’t backward compatible with the Socket SP3 found on previous-gen EPYC systems, meaning the chips require an entirely new platform. In the future, SP5 will also support the Genoa-X processors, which incorporate 3D-stacked L3 cache like Milan-X, and the Bergamo chips, which have new dense Zen 4c cores that enable up to 128 cores in a single socket."

edit
"Milan-X CPUs were launched March 21, 2022.[6] Milan-X CPUs use 3D V-Cache technology to increase the maximum L3 cache per socket capacity from 256 MB to 768 MB. "

 

[zecoeco]

Why tailor products for such an unprofitable segment? And I assume you mean just their CPU division, right? Why make gaming GPUs if it so unprofitable? Why not just ditch all of Radeon all together?

Well, from a financial perspective, intel is ahead of AMD and is much stronger financially as a company. We can't forget that AMD was about to go bankrupt few years ago.
For that reason, the innovation pace AMD is making is much slower, and now we can see that intel is catching up, huge generational leaps because they're investing heavily and financially capable. And so on, in order to compete with intel in all segments, lower-end market too, AMD will need more volume and the cost will be high. So its more like they're focused on short list of portfolio. I feel like they're moving forward slowly and expending their business more as they grow as a company.

 

[ManDaddio]

The fact that people are talking about 3D cache chips from AMD is why I didn't even consider buying one yet.
Plus I think I would rather have an all-around chip rather than just one targeting gaming specifically.
At the performance level all these chips (AMD & Intel) are at right now do we really need much more performance for gaming?
Some people did mention latency so I guess that's important.
But it's good AMD is kind of getting ahead of everyone else in this department. Intel seems to be able to keep up with what they got and they're not even on a very small node yet.
Same with Nvidia versus Radeon.

 

[junglist724]

Well, I'd be surprised if it wasn't the case.

The very strength of V-cache comes from it being connected to a single chiplet, which very strongly reduces memory latency. No inter-chiplet latencies plus huge cache is what makes them excel at some games to the point of beating the 12900KS.

For example, the 5900X has twice the cache of the 5600X, but it's barely any faster in gaming than the 5600X, even though it's clocked slightly higher, while the 5800X3D has triple the cache and clocked even slightly lower, but it'ss tremendously faster.

And as we've seen, V-cache provides little advantage in workloads other than gaming. So there's no point really trying to squeeze it into dual chiplet SKUs.

Except there's people who want to use one machine for both gaming and productivity. It should be up to the scheduler to figure out how to confine threads to a single ccd when necessary.

 

[Adaneshade]

If is true, amd is dead...

I mean, the x3d chips are really meant for gaming, and 6 or 8 cores is plenty for that.

 

[-Fran-]

It would kind of suck if true, but I can't say I'd be terribly shocked either.

Their most profitable market is Server and that is where these are worth a fortune. The fact they're willing to use these in the consumer market tells me these will be dies not fully qualified for server duty or just a low volume part to compete with the future 13900KS in gaming. The latter is less likely, since they're different segment of CPUs altogether. I wonder if there could be other explanations? Either way, at least we'll see them on the consumer side, right?

Regards.

 

[Amdlova]

If amd likely try to justified 399us for a 6 core and 450us for a 8 core will be eat by i5 and i7 cpus, people do more than gaming on pc.

 

[-Fran-]

If amd likely try to justified 399us for a 6 core and 450us for a 8 core will be eat by i5 and i7 cpus, people do more than gaming on pc.

Much like with the 5800X3D, AMD would be positioning these as "premium gaming" CPUs and bench against the 13900K(S). As long as the market of people looking to play games first over working is big enough, they won't care much and price them accordingly.

The 5800X3D seems to be selling quite well, even with the 13600K being the better all-rounder at about the same price, because the 5800X3D is still faster for games, at least slightly faster overall and a lot more in specific titles.

So, I think AMD has seen how the 5800X3D is doing and will just use the same-ish formula. I'd love it if they could release a 7950X3D, but I would not be surprised if they just don't release them at all and try to speed up Zen5+VCache instead.

Regards.

 

[Amdlova]

Much like with the 5800X3D, AMD would be positioning these as "premium gaming" CPUs and bench against the 13900K(S). As long as the market of people looking to play games first over working is big enough, they won't care much and price them accordingly.

The 5800X3D seems to be selling quite well, even with the 13600K being the better all-rounder at about the same price, because the 5800X3D is still faster for games, at least slightly faster overall and a lot more in specific titles.

So, I think AMD has seen how the 5800X3D is doing and will just use the same-ish formula. I'd love it if they could release a 7950X3D, but I would not be surprised if they just don't release them at all and try to speed up Zen5+VCache instead.

Regards.

Amd 5800x sell well because have a tons of motherboards can place a update, but this is new am5, people need a new Entry level work machine, for now intel have the best and will launch new hedt... Amd still focused in server market and loose grounds on consumer products. not all is about gaming.

 

[newtechldtech]

Well, I'd be surprised if it wasn't the case.

The very strength of V-cache comes from it being connected to a single chiplet, which very strongly reduces memory latency. No inter-chiplet latencies plus huge cache is what makes them excel at some games to the point of beating the 12900KS.

For example, the 5900X has twice the cache of the 5600X, but it's barely any faster in gaming than the 5600X, even though it's clocked slightly higher, while the 5800X3D has triple the cache and clocked even slightly lower, but it'ss tremendously faster.

And as we've seen, V-cache provides little advantage in workloads other than gaming. So there's no point really trying to squeeze it into dual chiplet SKUs.

Then they can use 2 Vcache modules, one for each chiplet . AMD can still do it.

 

[TerryLaze]

Except there's people who want to use one machine for both gaming and productivity. It should be up to the scheduler to figure out how to confine threads to a single ccd when necessary.

Yes that's the point, if the games only use one ccx then why have vcache on both ccxs?

Then they can use 2 Vcache modules, one for each chiplet . AMD can still do it.

It's not a matter of if they can, it would be more expensive to put two vcache modules into a CPU and it would be even less per/$ since games would only use one of the ccx/vcache modules.
It doesn't make much economic sense.

If they can pull it off putting vcache into only one of two ccxs and cement the "game mode" then maybe, but that would just make it more clear to more people that games can't use more than 8cores and that would probably hurt AMD more than it would help them.