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.
The wait is killing me already. Yes i am mad and am going to try and wait for Zen 4 before changing from i5-8600K.
Don't forget AMD is the premium band now so I doubt any cost savings will be passed to consumers.Hopefully not opting for PCIe5 will make motherboards cheaper
Weren't there already warnings that Alder-Lake PCIe 5.0 boards are going to go up another £100 or so for the higher end ones?
I am probably more worried about how power hungry PCIe 5.0 will be.
We haven't even got PCI-E 4.0 SSDs fully sorted yet,and now its PCI-E 5.0 all of a sudden.
TBH I'm happy with PCIe gen 3.0 until there's a valid reason to upgrade, would rather have double the capacity for the same price as a gen 4.0 drive as an extra 1TB is more noticeable than any speed increase currently.We haven't even got PCI-E 4.0 SSDs fully sorted yet,and now its PCI-E 5.0 all of a sudden.
Weren't there already warnings that Alder-Lake PCIe 5.0 boards are going to go up another £100 or so for the higher end ones?
I am probably more worried about how power hungry PCIe 5.0 will be.
Yep, double the capacity or a bit more mostly theoretical speed? That's an easy choice for most sane people. Someone who is trying to run a production database which has to serve millions of transaction or something similar, or sometime who absolutely "must" have the latest and fastest even if theoretical: let them either extra for PCIe 4.0 drives or even more for PCIe 5.0 drives.TBH I'm happy with PCIe gen 3.0 until there's a valid reason to upgrade, would rather have double the capacity for the same price as a gen 4.0 drive as an extra 1TB is more noticeable than any speed increase currently.
Added power draw means better designs are needed that drive costs.
and mboard/psu are two things one dont want to skip quality on
This is a significant change, AMD have never ever had a CPU with an iGPU by design.
The APUs so far have been monolithic dies, which leads to things like lower cache, yes they're often slower although the margins are also pretty small. 5600X vs 5600G is pretty close really. The main point though is that Zen4 will never be monolithic.
More transistors sure, almost certainly in the IO Die that has no real effect on CPU speed and is due a die shrink anyway so not really going to change much.
The skies not falling down just because they add a few GPU cores, overreaction much...
Instead of making one large IO die, they could have offered chiplets with more cores.
The integrated graphics part WON'T be small.
Actually, if you look at the die shots, you will see that it takes 40-50% of the die area of the monolithic chip!
Not sure it makes much (business) sense to have 10/12/16 core chiplets, they already provide 6 to 64 cores with an 8-core chiplet, and rumours are they'll bump that to 96 cores maximum just by extra chiplets. Increasing the size of the chiplet makes it unfeasible to sell the lower chips, if you've got a 12 core chipset you're not going to want to fuse off half of it to sell a 6 core chip... And whilst as a consumer it'd be great if the low end bumped up to 8 or 10 cores there's no 'need' for it and it just increases costs/decreases the cpus they can make...
Hell, you even are comparing them to Intel and the competitiveness with Alder Lake, Intel aren't due to have more than 8 'P-Cores' for several generations.
As for die shots, that's not what this shows: https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5000g-cezanne-apu-first-high-res-die-shots-10-7-billion-transistors/ that's not 40% of the die area...
AMD has to offer chiplets with more cores, that is how the die shrinks has always worked, look at the graphics cards, each generation gets double the shaders count.
Instead of making one large IO die, they could have offered chiplets with more cores.
The integrated graphics part WON'T be small.
Actually, if you look at the die shots, you will see that it takes 40-50% of the die area of the monolithic chip!