AMD Zen 5 rumours

[humbug]

Wouldn't be surprised, for the most part current Gen CPU's are sort of like this by accident, given that not all cores preform equally. Binning already segregates CPU's and software already prioritizes use of fast and slow cores for appropriate purposes.

Arm proved it works, so there really isn't a good reason for it to not exist on desktop. It will mean however that CPU's that preform well at multiple virtualization are going to become increasingly associated with server and workstation roles over Desktop going forward.

Not that any rumours which are over a year out really worth commenting on though.

On the desktop i would rather have big core, i don't need to save 2 Watts at idle but i would like to get my rendering done much sooner, or have more frames in my games.

 

[Curlyriff]

I mean stating it is silly for something that is likely 2023 or later from AMD based on the suggested roadmap there where likely Windows finally might fix their scheduler to understand and it give the performance expected. With that we have no idea if we will have 16 big cores and 4 little cores as example. So it might well make sense where background stuff and windows are on the 4 small cores taking a watt or two of power whilst having ability for 16 large cores to chug through gaming and such then.

 

[humbug]

I mean stating it is silly for something that is likely 2023 or later from AMD based on the suggested roadmap there where likely Windows finally might fix their scheduler to understand and it give the performance expected. With that we have no idea if we will have 16 big cores and 4 little cores as example. So it might well make sense where background stuff and windows are on the 4 small cores taking a watt or two of power whilst having ability for 16 large cores to chug through gaming and such then.

Watching Youtube right now i'm using 29 Watt's total package power, if you're on a Laptop that's way too high, but this variant of Zen 3 is not tuned for Laptops

I like the idea for Laptops, where the difference 7 Watts vs 3 Watts when watching Youtube is huge, it will double your battery life..

For Desktop? i don't get it, use the space for big cores.

 

[Armageus]

On the desktop i would rather have big core, i don't need to save 2 Watts at idle but i would like to get my rendering done much sooner, or have more frames in my games.

For Desktop? i don't get it, use the space for big cores.

You aren't the target of the idle power saving though. Saving 2 Watts on an enthusiast's desktop is nothing; Saving 2 watts per PC on an estate of 500 Dell or HP Office machines is potentially a huge deal.

Dell ship something like 11 Million PCs per Quarter, so that's a huge opportunity.


The other random thought is that the Little cores could in fact be ARM, given that Windows on ARM is sort of a thing, meaning browser + Windows Store style apps could run on the Little Cores, but you would still have Big x86 cores for rendering and other Apps that either don't get ported, or perform much worse on Arm.

 

[Curlyriff]

Watching Youtube right now i'm using 29 Watt's total package power, if you're on a Laptop that's way too high, but this variant of Zen 3 is not tuned for Laptops

I like the idea for Laptops, where the difference 7 Watts vs 3 Watts when watching Youtube is huge, it will double your battery life..

For Desktop? i don't get it, use the space for big cores.

I think it is that if you take a look at it when say you have Discord, YouTube and such and they are tucked away on a small core only pulling 3watt cause that is all it really needs without the overhead then it makes sense. What it needs is the scheduler to understand it because then it isn't trying to move about or switch out where that software is loading the core but leaves all say 16 big cores alone. I think AMD might well look at is additional rather than instead of like Intel have done currently. This means you still get your big full 16 cores but with the additional to suit.

And although it isn't a huge saving compared to it, means less heat, less space, less power. Well all that total means more for the big cores where it is needed for gaming or simulation etc. So yeah there can be things there it makes sense with.

 

[humbug]

I think it is that if you take a look at it when say you have Discord, YouTube and such and they are tucked away on a small core only pulling 3watt cause that is all it really needs without the overhead then it makes sense. What it needs is the scheduler to understand it because then it isn't trying to move about or switch out where that software is loading the core but leaves all say 16 big cores alone. I think AMD might well look at is additional rather than instead of like Intel have done currently. This means you still get your big full 16 cores but with the additional to suit.

And although it isn't a huge saving compared to it, means less heat, less space, less power. Well all that total means more for the big cores where it is needed for gaming or simulation etc. So yeah there can be things there it makes sense with.

Ok fine. as long as they 'as you say' don't take big cores off to add small cores.

 

[Deleted member 209350]

People are getting ahead of themselves, its only for APU (so laptop chips) not desktop ones

 

[Armageus]

People are getting ahead of themselves, its only for APU (so laptop chips) not desktop ones

APU aren't only laptop

 

[alec]

Watching Youtube right now i'm using 29 Watt's total package power, if you're on a Laptop that's way too high, but this variant of Zen 3 is not tuned for Laptops

If you care, could tune somewhat.
Try setting power plan to Power save. Cores will be running at 2200MHz, sipping power in all but most heavy workloads. I use it when I leave PC on overnight.
Additionally if you run your memory at 3200 or below, IO die will be using significantly less power. 6W vs 12W at 3800 for me. Could be gigabyte or bios specific thing.
Total package power should drop to 15-18W.

 

[humbug]

If you care, could tune somewhat.
Try setting power plan to Power save. Cores will be running at 2200MHz, sipping power in all but most heavy workloads. I use it when I leave PC on overnight.
Additionally if you run your memory at 3200 or below, IO die will be using significantly less power. 6W vs 12W at 3800 for me. Could be gigabyte or bios specific thing.
Total package power should drop to 15-18W.

I don't. thanks tho

 

[neo-omega]

I do see a benefit of the big/little design is that the little cores could take some of the background OS tasks away from the big cores and let them focus more effort on the tasks they are good at.

 

[q974739]

When do people expect there to be more actual information?

 

[neo-omega]

2023 perhaps? We are still a long ways away from this releasing after all.

 

[q974739]

Was hoping that we'd at least know if another am4 chip line was coming out. If there is, I'd delay the upgrade for that. If not, well... 5900x when prices hit RRP. Probably.

After a few weeks of procrastinating.

 

[neo-omega]

Has it not already been confirmed that the 5000 series are the final chips on AM4? Though that said I have seen rumours of a 5000+ series also on AM4.

 

[humbug]

Has it not already been confirmed that the 5000 series are the final chips on AM4? Though that said I have seen rumours of a 5000+ series also on AM4.

There have been rumours of Warhol, Zen 3+ on 6nm, then a couple weeks after that it was apparently cancelled, maybe AMD saw Rocket Lake for what it actually is, the new rumour is there might be some XT revisions of Zen 3, but that's it until Zen 4.

 

[philo-sofa]

On the desktop i would rather have big core, i don't need to save 2 Watts at idle but i would like to get my rendering done much sooner, or have more frames in my games.

I think the idea is more that there will always be 'weak threads' in a PC schedule. If you build a deep que, wide instruction processor (think I got that terminology right) then you have one core doing one task. Whereas if you used the space to build two weak cores, you'd be able to get twice as much done.

That's the idea anyway. Like you I'm a bit doubtful r.e. desktop, although I'm excited about getting truly hetrogenous specialist CPU cores at some point in the future and I guess this is a step on the way to that.

 

[Troezar]

I think people are getting a bit premature predicting the end of the PC. Bigger will always be better, moar powah will always be faster. Whether anyone will need more is a different question. I suspect the PC market will just go back to being the niche it used to be. As long as people are prepared to pay for it someone will make it.

 

[thepfy]

It's nothing to do with being "silly enough", but has everything to do with power consumption for Laptops/Tablets and and USFF PCs - despite improvements to performance/watt in Ryzen, there is only so much potential to improve.

Apple have showed big gains in this area by switching to the M1 Processor, and in order to stay competitive especially in the laptop market, AMD will have to follow.
With increased focus on carbon footprint etc, then reducing power consumption is going to be an even bigger push going forward

Knowing Apple switching to M1 is to get away from Intel and reduce costs.
Not sure about Mac books but the latest Mac Minis are not upgradable.
RAM and SSD are part of the SoC..
Like going back to their proprietary roots pre original iMac...

 

[alec]

I'm going to hijack this thread with a nod to https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/zen-5-chat.18953487/

Made a decision to skip Zen 4 X3D, so naturally started looking for whats next.

Rumours say
not much increase in clock speed
different cache structure
substantial IPC increase
still 8 cores per CCD
and whatever in https://www.techpowerup.com/review/future-hardware-releases/#zen5