• 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 4" thread (inc AM5/APU discussion) ***

Dontrocktheboat said:
console design CPUs
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? If anything, all of Zen is server design CPUs.
AMD has indicated expected IPC increase through Zen4 and Zen5. They are doing absolutely fine.

For me, sticking iGPU to IO die makes a ton of sense. IO die is desktop-specific, so servers are not affected. Its close to memory. Chiplet cores and iGPU can be now upgraded independently, mixed and matched.
 
alec said:
What are you talking about? If anything, all of Zen is server design CPUs.
AMD has indicated expected IPC increase through Zen4 and Zen5. They are doing absolutely fine.

For me, sticking iGPU to IO die makes a ton of sense. IO die is desktop-specific, so servers are not affected. Its close to memory. Chiplet cores and iGPU can be now upgraded independently, mixed and matched.
Click to expand...

I don't want iGPU, I want more cores and/or better cores and/or more cache and/or better memory controller.

Not an useless iGPU that will sit there unused, especially when i have a dedicated gfx card.

Most people will agree with me, so its an absolute waste of sand and real estate on the chip die.
 
Dontrocktheboat said:
I don't want iGPU, I want more cores and/or better cores and/or more cache and/or better memory controller.

Not an useless iGPU that will sit there unused, especially when i have a dedicated gfx card.

Most people will agree with me, so its an absolute waste of sand and real estate on the chip die.
Click to expand...

OEMs won't agree with you and if AMD want to get decent market share the OEMs are their masters.
 
Dontrocktheboat said:
waste of sand and real estate on the chip die
Click to expand...
Thats why igpu on IO die is good. Doesn't compete for silicon with chiplets. Unused iGPU doesn't consume power either. And it could still be put to use (potentially, when AMD finally catches up) for video encoding/decoding/streaming and other gimmicks like Nvidia RTX Voice
 
timorous said:
OEMs won't agree with you and if AMD want to get decent market share the OEMs are their masters.
Click to expand...

I dont give a monkeys about OEMs. I am talking as a customer here. I dont need a iGPU, like many of us dont, and never will.
I need iGPU in my mobile, NOT a high end desktop PC.

now if they could make the iGPU boost the discrete cards, or boost DLSS type post processing effect, great i am interested. But if its just going to sit there unused, its a waste of sand.
 
Dontrocktheboat said:
I dont give a monkeys about OEMs. I am talking as a customer here. I dont need a iGPU, like many of us dont, and never will.
I need iGPU in my mobile, NOT a high end desktop PC.

now if they could make the iGPU boost the discrete cards, or boost DLSS type post processing effect, great i am interested. But if its just going to sit there unused, its a waste of sand.
Click to expand...

High end desktop PC's are a fraction of the market that OEM is. AMD want a chunk of that massive OEM market and the $$$$ it brings.
 
Dontrocktheboat said:
you have APU CPU segment for that. That's not relevant.
Click to expand...

As I've said in thread previous. I would like inboard gpu, it helps with certain things like diagnosing issues. It also helps say if need to RMA a gpu and don't have a spare and such forth.

My work computer also finds it handy that I wouldn't necessarily need a high end gpu but do need a high end cpu so having the igpu works for that too.

Your view seems very narrow in my opinion.
 
I’d agree. I’ve no issue with a igpu included. In the current market , where people are struggling to get a gpu at reasonable price , if you stuck with AMD, you’d be forced to find a gpu card if you wanted anything more than 4 cores. That’s a lot of expense to get less of a product than you might have hoped for at a certain price point.

Going intel you would get a igpu included for not much more cost than the cpu alone even for the higher core counts. Intel becomes a much more viable proposition for simple desktop stuff that has the future benefit of additional cores.

AMD including a gpu simply makes themselves more marketable in that space.
 
Has there been any update on 3+ / warhol in the last few months? Not seen anything new except that it's going down to 6nm but surely there's some more info by now?
 
I do not think there has been any new leaks since early April but Warhol would probably be the one I would go for when I upgrade my 3700X.

1618245152910.jpg
 
Thanks, I hadn't seen this one before. Seems like their pre-release info is quite sparse. Will hopefully hold on until warhol before I upgrade now. I normally leave the big-change-releases for an iteration or two to let them iron out the kinks :)
 
Dontrocktheboat said:
After Warhol - AMD looks like it will be in a spot of bother me thinks.
Click to expand...

I also think that AMD will have serious problems with Ryzen 7000 and will start losing competitive advantages shifting the die area for functions that are completely irrelevant.

First, AMD has already got APUs like Cezzane which could serve the OEMs just ok, if there is a true and real interest from these OEMs.
Second, the OEMs don't care about AMD's products, they will be buying Intel no matter what.

These are just fake excuses to drive AMD in the wrong direction.

timorous said:
OEMs won't agree with you and if AMD want to get decent market share the OEMs are their masters.
Click to expand...

This is just wrong.

AMD cannot convince the OEMs to use superb 16-core CPUs instead of slow, hot and expensive 8-core Intel CPUs.
 
4K8KW10 said:
I also think that AMD will have serious problems with Ryzen 7000 and will start losing competitive advantages shifting the die area for functions that are completely irrelevant.

First, AMD has already got APUs like Cezzane which could serve the OEMs just ok, if there is a true and real interest from these OEMs.
Second, the OEMs don't care about AMD's products, they will be buying Intel no matter what.

These are just fake excuses to drive AMD in the wrong direction.



This is just wrong.

AMD cannot convince the OEMs to use superb 16-core CPUs instead of slow, hot and expensive 8-core Intel CPUs.
Click to expand...


Its not as simple as that, AMD's production is split between GPU's, Consoles and CPU's, all on the same 7nm, Intel has 14nm and 10nm for mobile, just for CPU's alone, Intel can flood the market with millions upon millions of CPU's, AMD can't, Some of the best selling Laptop's like The G14 from Asus are powered by AMD's APU's, OEM's are begging AMD for stock constantly. They literally can't get enough of AMD's stuff.
If AMD could make a lot more CPU's you would find them in a lot more OEM products.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Its not as simple as that, AMD's production is split between GPU's, Consoles and CPU's, all on the same 7nm, Intel has 14nm and 10nm for mobile, just for CPU's alone, Intel can flood the market with millions upon millions of CPU's, AMD can't, Some of the best selling Laptop's like The G14 from Asus are powered by AMD's APU's, OEM's are begging AMD for stock constantly. They literally can't get enough of AMD's stuff.
If AMD could make a lot more CPU's you would find them in a lot more OEM products.
Click to expand...

The news from AMD is a doubling of production in 6 months - although they are dependant on TSMC, they have the lead now likely for at least a year with just a modest release so I'm not convinced they're pouring engineering resources into more performance. Realistically Intels response comes next year and likely will equal 5000 series at best when AMD preempt with 6000 series.

The biggest risk is TSMC and its reliance on Taiwan, they would be safer with some plants outside of earthquake/Chinese zones.
 
Lomax said:
The news from AMD is a doubling of production in 6 months - although they are dependant on TSMC, they have the lead now likely for at least a year with just a modest release so I'm not convinced they're pouring engineering resources into more performance. Realistically Intels response comes next year and likely will equal 5000 series at best when AMD preempt with 6000 series.

The biggest risk is TSMC and its reliance on Taiwan, they would be safer with some plants outside of earthquake/Chinese zones.
Click to expand...

Rocket Lake was supposed to be the Zen 3 killer, what happened to that? Intel's CPU's are only good when AMD's CPU's are bad.

AMD's entire MO over the last few years has been "get the performance up" Near match Intel's IPC and HEDT core count with Zen 1.
Exceed Intel's IPC with Zen 2, get the core count up to level's that Intel can't compete with, at that point AMD killed Intel's HEDT stone dead.
Zen 3, get the IPC up even more, get the clock speeds up to match Intel, deal with the intercore latency issue that's capping the gaming performance, all done, i don't know if you have noticed or not but the intercore latency on Zen 3 is lower than Intel's with their Ring Bus, with it AMD take away the only thing Intel can lay claim to, rendering Intel obsolete.

AMD know what they have to do and they know now is not the time to take the foot off the go pedal.
 
humbug said:
Rocket Lake was supposed to be the Zen 3 killer, what happened to that? Intel's CPU's are only good when AMD's CPU's are bad.
AMD know what they have to do and they know now is not the time to take the foot off the go pedal.
Click to expand...

Well rocket lake did kill AMD in the sub £200 segment, simply to AMD not having anything poor enough to launch in that price range. They're back to last gen for that competition.
:P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom