• 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 Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
14,047
Location
West Midlands
Stumbled across the user manualk for teh Giugabyte Xtreme X570. Grabbed soime bios screenshots which are interesting

m5ux0jG.png
[/IMG]

By stumbled across you mean, you went to their website product page, support section, and downloaded it? :p
 
Associate
Joined
24 Nov 2010
Posts
2,314
This chipset chip is the same as the IO die on the processors themselves, and is effectively a massive overkill for 99% of the users out there.
I don't know why AMD didn't design something else for a chipset.

Because of it, the mobos become so expensive.

I don't understand why two 75 sq.mm dies + one a little bit larger should be sold for $750.
It boggles my mind how small and cheap these chiplets are.

Complete nonsense.

It's a very small component of the increased cost, and makes sense for AMD themselves as they're not redesigning the wheel again.

Main increase in costs are higher spec power delivery and VRMs, far more complex traces for the PCIe 4.0, higher layer count PCBs (even on 'low end' boards) to meet the signal integrity spec for PCIe 4.0, more heatsinks and active cooling (fan) .. and these are the first wave of new boards being shifted back to Taiwan from PRC, in order to avoid Trump's tariffs for the US market, which is is the biggest % cost increase at the low end (I think virtually all the X570s are going to be made in TW).
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Jan 2006
Posts
2,525
I think you'll find you are... might want to read how power scales with frequency. ;)


Well if you want to be a pedant, I could have typed 'power usage scales exponentially with frequency because in 30 years of overclocking I've yet to find a CPU where you don't need to ramp up the voltage with any significant overclock and this has a drastic effect on power usage. I'm also not aware that AMD has invented any new physics to avoid this effect' but hey, I didn't realise this was a dissertation. :)

I'm quite aware of the power laws and how power usage scales with frequency so you get a mutiplied effect of both frequency increase and square law power increase from voltage uplift, I was keeping it simple.

Still ~12.5W per core @ 4,1Ghz is a good result for AMD (assuming the 200W in the images is correct). Odd that everyone jumps on 5.5W but doubts the vcore, amps and package / core power readings.

12.5W @ 4.1Ghz would give us 100W + SoC power on a mildly overclocked 3800X which is a little above the stated 105W TDP and so seems to be in the ball park.

In my view these high core chips are about efficiency, the 3950x can run 16 cores at 3.5Ghz, giving you the equivalent of a 7Ghz 3800X on a 105W power budget - a fantastic achievement.
If you then have a game or task that needs a few fast cores, it can scale it's power budget to give you a few fast cores (vs intel I9 class) in a way that threadripper didn't so you get a really versitile chip for diverse workloads.

However all core, high ghz will have a high power cost as there is no free lunch, the images show 1.428V @ 4.1Ghz and 1.572V for 4.25Ghz, so even if there is an offset issue somewhere in the vcore reading, you're pushing an extra 0.15V for 0.15Ghz which is getting well into law of diminishing returns.

Also it's notable there are no higher overclocks, they stopped at 4.25Ghz @ indicated 1.6V.

Odd if it was so easy to go faster they didn't post something a little more exotic.
 
Associate
Joined
4 Oct 2017
Posts
590
Location
Australia - Sunshine Coast
This chipset chip is the same as the IO die on the processors themselves, and is effectively a massive overkill for 99% of the users out there.
I don't know why AMD didn't design something else for a chipset.

Because of it, the mobos become so expensive.

I don't understand why two 75 sq.mm dies + one a little bit larger should be sold for $750.
It boggles my mind how small and cheap these chiplets are.
So you didn't get the prices you wanted so have gone from the most rabid AMD supporter to being incredibly negative post Computex. It's amazing to see, but still disappointing.

How do you define making money back on 7yrs of R&D to get to the point of Zen 2?? Not to mention funding Zen 3, 4, 5 etc...
 
Joined
2 Jan 2019
Posts
617
Well if you want to be a pedant, I could have typed 'power usage scales exponentially with frequency because in 30 years of overclocking I've yet to find a CPU where you don't need to ramp up the voltage with any significant overclock and this has a drastic effect on power usage. I'm also not aware that AMD has invented any new physics to avoid this effect' but hey, I didn't realise this was a dissertation. :)

I'm quite aware of the power laws and how power usage scales with frequency so you get a mutiplied effect of both frequency increase and square law power increase from voltage uplift, I was keeping it simple.

Still ~12.5W per core @ 4,1Ghz is a good result for AMD (assuming the 200W in the images is correct). Odd that everyone jumps on 5.5W but doubts the vcore, amps and package / core power readings.

12.5W @ 4.1Ghz would give us 100W + SoC power on a mildly overclocked 3800X which is a little above the stated 105W TDP and so seems to be in the ball park.

In my view these high core chips are about efficiency, the 3950x can run 16 cores at 3.5Ghz, giving you the equivalent of a 7Ghz 3800X on a 105W power budget - a fantastic achievement.
If you then have a game or task that needs a few fast cores, it can scale it's power budget to give you a few fast cores (vs intel I9 class) in a way that threadripper didn't so you get a really versitile chip for diverse workloads.

However all core, high ghz will have a high power cost as there is no free lunch, the images show 1.428V @ 4.1Ghz and 1.572V for 4.25Ghz, so even if there is an offset issue somewhere in the vcore reading, you're pushing an extra 0.15V for 0.15Ghz which is getting well into law of diminishing returns.

Also it's notable there are no higher overclocks, they stopped at 4.25Ghz @ indicated 1.6V.

Odd if it was so easy to go faster they didn't post something a little more exotic.
https://hothardware.com/photo-gallery/NewsItem/48380?image=big_3950x_cpuz.jpg&tag=popup
This image shows all core 5.0GHz for 1.608V...
A little more exotic since it used LN2.

Edit: that's a 0.18V increase for a 0.9GHz uplift in frequency, or a 12.6% increase in Voltage for a 22% increase in clocks. To me, that suggests the listed voltage for the 4.1GHz sample is not correct, or at least not as low as it could be set.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
27 Mar 2013
Posts
9,121
IId be amazed if the fans on the choose don't throttle down. I can't imagine it's going to be working that hard for most people. Surely 11W is only when going crazy and doing aan nvme to nvme transfer.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2018
Posts
12,638
For me this puts x570 in whatever category is opposite of premium and desirable.
Why would I pay more for a board that consumes triple power and doesn't downclock?

I'm not entirely sure we're seeing the whole picture here, yes GN said it doesn't down clock but IIRC some board manufactures have also said something along the lines of the fan being temperature controlled and/or adjustable / capable of running passively, the only way both statements can be true is if the chipset, supposedly based on the I/O die from EPYC, powers down unused parts of the chip.

We know Infinity Fabric includes a control fabric with a fairly sophisticated system management unit so it's not beyond the bounds of reason that the chipset would just power gate the unused parts and thus reduce power requirement significantly.
 
Back
Top Bottom