What about dual-channel DDR4-4200 with Zen 2?
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD announce EPYC
- Thread starter Journey
- Start date
What about dual-channel DDR4-4200 with Zen 2?
Brand awareness and clogging the market with pointless SKUs are two different things
Not sure what the winky smily is for? You missed the point entirety, the inability for the most direct competition to respond with any SKU that compares gives them further marketing ability regardless of the size of the market. Intel only released an 8 core desktop part to stop AMD having 'the most cores' so they can have 'the best' in all market segments, but they would be unable to react to anything higher.
Why did AMD release TR2 32 core CPU's on the HEDT platform, and why are they priced so aggressively?
Zen+ tops out at 3600Mhz RAM, and is extremely sensitive to ram speeds and latency. So you are adding 600mhz more for double the cores? Don't think it will be enough.
Winky face is to remind that we are discussing pointless topic in the wrong thread. Intel already cannot price/perf match what AMD has now on the market, in other words, AMD already is setting the market ablaze. 8core Zen 2 based cpu which clocks similarly to Intels offerings would reinforce the fire. You guys think that AMD will lose the edge against Intel if they do not release 16 core AM4 cpu. I'm done with this discussion, since some of you think that Intel is in this great position to counter AMD. If you think AMD could release 4.5ghz 32 thread CPU on dual channel interface with normal sized wraith cooler for reasonable mainstream money to the market which is seriously lack software support for so many threads, you are seriously tripping, and its not even funny anymore :/
Soldato
Actually, if someone buys a good 4600C19 it will work
MESH CPUs also exhibit the same behaviour (Skylake-X) where the 4600C16 minimum FPS is the same number as the 2400mhz average.
See you later then.
But since you are so utterly convinced you are right, you haven't considered that the I/O is removed from the CPU dies, that they may very well be a L4 cache carried over to the standard desktop part also. You seem to have completely forgotten, or are just ignorant of the fact that currently EPYC is 32 cores with 8-channels, and that is going to 64 cores with 8-channels still. That is a total of 8 cores per channel, exactly the same as the AM4 version would end up, so do you really think they are going to starve a data centre grade CPU of memory bandwidth, no they won't.
Soldato
Also the fact is even if the normal range were to top out at £500 to £550,there is nothing stopping AMD pushing a higher end FX.
If AMD sticks to 8 cores on desktop,it will only happen IMHO,if they switch to an APU only and have no AM4 based Ryzen 2 CPUs for desktop.
If AMD sticks to 8 cores on desktop,it will only happen IMHO,if they switch to an APU only and have no AM4 based Ryzen 2 CPUs for desktop.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Are we forgetting Intel, the elephant in the room with their low end chips. Id does not matter what AMD is pushing, it matter what intel is suggesting.
Why does AMD need to bring 16 core Ryzen, when they already have 12/16/32 core Threadripper? Why confuse the market by dumping overlapping SKUs to the market. We have one Intel with their isomethingmeaningless naming nomenclature and hundreds of same chips under different names, why we need same thing from AMD? I would understand everyones desire to get 16 core desktop from AMD with Zen 2 if Threadripper was never introduced, but it has been and its here.
It is very likely that 3700x will woop Intels top dog to the pulp, and then comes Zen 2 threadripper with higher clocks to completely wipe the floor with i9s or whatever Intel will bring if ever.
Its amazing to see all this personal customisation going on
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13401/intel-9th-gen-cpus-9900k-9700k-9600k
Look that that table... do you notice the lack of a dual core i3? Figured out why it matters yet?
https://ark.intel.com/products/series/122593/8th-Generation-Intel-Core-i7-Processors
8th gen launching around a year after Ryzen and Intel went from multiple dual core offerings to a single dual core and that is a 5W laptop model and not in any way going into even low end gaming computers. At the same time Intel bumped their high end in mainstream from 4 to 6 core.
So AMD up the core count and Intel's very next move is dumping dual cores almost entirely? Even then it's largely because Intel were extremely slow to react. Another reaction is the 9th series bumping up from 6 to 8 core and now there isn't a i3 9th gen cpu at all, meaning the lowest core 9th gen is 6 core.
But you have no clue why this matters because Intel? Yes, Intel have to compete with AMD. AMD releasing JUST 8 cores caused Intel to only launch 8 and 6 core 9th gen, and to already all but dump dual core in the 8th gen. So if AMD moves from 8/6/4 core on 14nm, to 16/12/8 core for 7nm... you think Intel won't react even though it's provable and patently obvious Intel already reacted to AMD raising the core count?
If AMD go 16/12/8 core, expect at a minimum 10/8/6 core from Intel, probably 12/10/8/6 cores from two different dies. We might see the end of dual core completely, as in those 5W low base clock mobile parts become quad core themselves, with the real low end cheaper desktops with any level of discrete gpu moving to 6 core.
Intel IS competing with AMD, full stop, argue against that if you want but it would be silly to do so.
Threadripper is meaningless, 99% of gamers do not use threadripper, and the entire argument was the same one made against dual cores, you could get a dual core FX90 or whatever at £700, why would we need dual core £100 chips, single core is fine. Oh, who needs £150 quad cores, extreme people can buy £800 extreme editions, we can stick with dual core, and on, and on and on. It's flawed argument, it's always been a flawed argument, it will never not be a flawed argument.
Extreme priced desktops hold no push on the market, they command <2% of desktop sales, little to no software is targetted to it. Software is targetted at workstations (which is what HEDT is) and they are targetted at mainstream, HEDT is just conning people to throw more money for a workstation CPU and motherboard to be used primarily for mainstream usage with nearly no benefits to the end user. THe only place HEDT makes even the slightest bit of sense to anyone, is if you want a single computer and do both work AND want to game on it. If you want to game and browse the web, then you want mainstream and game devs target mainstream.
EDIT:-
Again look here
https://ark.intel.com/products/series/95545/7th-Generation-Intel-Core-i3-Processors
https://ark.intel.com/products/series/122588/8th-Generation-Intel-Core-i3-Processors
7th gen had 12 dual core models and most were higher clocked, higher tdp desktop models, I believe only 3 are definitely laptop models, maybe the H as well.
8th gen has exclusively quad core i3s in desktop and 3 dual core models, all for laptop, as yet, and as far as we know, 9th gen has simply given up on i3 completely because they already realise dual core is completely dead in desktop. Raise core counts from AMD will cause quad core to die in desktop as well.... if it hasn't because we don't have quad core 9th gen either.
Hell, raised core counts for Ryzen 2 might cause the 6 core to get killed off by 10nm for Intel.
Soldato
I think AMD will hold at 8 cores for this generation so they can focus on getting clock speeds up and latencies down, then start pushing the core counts up for Ryzen 4000. By that time Threadripper will probably be on 24 core minimum so a 16 core Ryzen won't seem to be treading on HEDT toes.
Soldato
I don't think now they will hold it to 8 cores, because they don't need to. Certainly on my CH6 i can disable or enable cores, i would imagine most AM4 mobo's can as well. So when Ryzen 2 is released, if you only want 8 cores, then just select it in the bios if it's a 12 or 16 core cpu.
Soldato
tbh if people just keep saying it over an over for years at one point it might come true.
then its going to be i told you this " insert whatever amd chip it is " was a intel beater. haha.
I dunno who's the bigger intel fanboi, you or GavIntel87.
Amd used to hand intel their azz when intel had the pentiums out.
I am not convinced they will increase the core count for the Ryzen chips. It makes sense because Intel is now on core parity (albeit at stupid prices) but they have an existing socket they need to fit into and the new design includes a 14nm I/O part. They'd have to fit two dies plus the I/O die in the package to get more than 8 cores, I'm not sure that's feasible from a technological standpoint, although I kinda hope it is. Ryzen going up to 12 cores, Threadripper up to 48, and EPYC up to 64 would be nice, keep them ahead of Intel, and also leave some room for easy expansion with Zen 3 on 7nm+.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 2,755
Jim (AdoredTV) made the point in one of his videos about chiplets that in a chiplet design you can select your cores / chiplet as needed; so for instance in a 2 chiplet design (16 cores), you could have a "lower quality" one that works ok at the base frequencies (let's say 3.7GHz) and another one that clocks to the same level as the "standard" 8 cores ones (4.5-4.8GHz for instance). In this situation the processor can behave very good in both lower core/high frequencies situations (ie games) as in higher core, lower frequencies => best of both worlds.
Anyway, even an 8 core 3700x being at the same or higher performance with Intel, but lower price, will drive sales like crazy. Let's hope AMD can make enough of them!
Caporegime
man, you need to opt for some Cray based AMD systems then to drive your 1500thread Windows 10Oh, come on, my Windows 10 runs with about 1500 threads right now and I do want that 32-thread CPU as soon as possible, and preferably for 400 euros or less
You don't know your interest, my dear @muziqaz
I don't know why you are bothering with 32 threads then :/And you believe 16core 32 thread high clocked desktop worthy Ryzen will not be expensive, high TDP which needs high end cooling, and not clumsy with various games having issues with 16+ threads? Oh and 32 threads on dual channel? It would be interesting
So you believe that 8 core Zen 2 clocked at say 4.5ghz will not be dominant against intels offerings? Intel already showed their hand with 9900K, and they are bleeding with pricing they MSRPd them at. Yet it still look pointless to everyone except 2-3 people in the market, even with Ryzen 2000 series.
And its so easy for you guys to wish AMD to release twice the cores for less money, but we need strong AMD with more money pumped in R&D, not the one which is selling their chips for peanuts just to satisfy few select people, just to prove that hey they can. Market woke up already, thanks to Ryzen.
No, a 4.7Ghz 9900K would be on parity or better than it and at that point people go Intel because of the name.
The chiplets are 1/3rd the size of the old core. You have a fair bit of room around it as it stands so packaging while a bit more expensive wont be impossible.
Caporegime
Zen+ has the same IPC as coffeelake, Zen 2 is rumoured to have upto 15% higher IPC, so at 4.5Ghz Zen 2 would easily be faster than a 9900K.
MAYBE, but even a small advantage is not enough to maintain the momentum.
Yeah it's possible there's room on AM4 for the I/O die plus two "chiplet" dies, I'm just not sure.