• 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 6 rumours

Nutty667 said:
Some power figures for Zen6 EPYC processors released by AMD comparing relative performance on a 100KW budget.

cc77269a_18f9_4d8f_8873_1ea2152793ca.webp


www.guru3d.com

AMD Venice EPYC 256-Core Zen 6 Rack Benchmark Shows 100kW Performance Scaling

AMD has published early performance data for its next-generation EPYC processor family, codenamed Venice. The new server CPU generation is based on the Zen 6 architecture and a 2nm-class process node, with AMD using a 256-core configuration to demonstrate rack-level performance scaling under a...
www.guru3d.com www.guru3d.com
Click to expand...

0.01234 vs 0.01289 per core

So zen6 is 5% faster per core vs zen5

So it's another zen5% generation but at least this time we get more cores
 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
0.01234 vs 0.01289 per core

So zen6 is 5% faster per core vs zen5

So it's another zen5% generation but at least this time we get more cores
Click to expand...

No that's not what this is, 256 Zen 6 cores are limited to the same power as 192 Zen 5 cores.

Its a total of 36,000 Zen 6 cores vs 27,000 Zen 5 cores at 100,000 watts, if you do the maths that's 2.7 watt per core Zen 6 and 3.7 watts per core Zen 5, Zen 5 at whatever clock speeds are 60 watts for 16 cores while Zen 6 is 65 watts for 24 cores. Obviously they don't run at 60 watts and 65 watts as Desktop CPU's, its more like 200 Watts each. Its a 42% improvement in efficiency. That's what this chart is showing.
 
Last edited:
smilingcrow said:
Replaced by an NPU.
I can understand them wanting to add that for marketing purposes, but removing the iGPU seems dumb.
Click to expand...

Very, no IGPU is one of the frustrating things about standard desktop AM4 chips. Its convenient for simple display output, running without a 100+ watt gpu, or just troubleshooting/getting up and running if there's some issue. It can't be taking up that much die area.
 
Last edited:
On Zen5 (9600X example) I think it's actually quite a lot of space.

 
Last edited:
Not surprising they gave up on the igpu as still no headway in terms of the desktop OEMS for the regular cpus.
 
Toasty said:
Not surprising they gave up on the igpu as still no headway in terms of the desktop OEMS for the regular cpus.
Click to expand...
That's the best argument that I have heard for dropping it.
I don't use a dGPU and nearly built an AM5 Zen 5 system earlier this month on the back of Zen 6 and possibly 7 support.
Glad I didn't now but picked up a GMKtec K12 Mini Ryzen 7 H 255 for just over £150 as I already had cheap RAM and storage from last year.
That and a MacBook Pro for DAW/Video usage will keep me going.
Dual boot Linux on the GMKtec and drift away from the wonderful world of Windows.
 
eddyr said:
Very, no IGPU is one of the frustrating things about standard desktop AM4 chips. Its convenient for simple display output, running without a 100+ watt gpu, or just troubleshooting/getting up and running if there's some issue. It can't be taking up that much die area.
Click to expand...

I’d imagine there will still be plenty of better equipped APUs to choose from for those not interested in powering a dedicated graphics card.
 
Rob_B said:
On Zen5 (9600X example) I think it's actually quite a lot of space.

Click to expand...

it is, almost half the I/O die. Still, I think its a mistake (as a consumer, I'm sure for AMD financially the numbers more than make sense).

jigger said:
I’d imagine there will still be plenty of better equipped APUs to choose from for those not interested in powering a dedicated graphics card.
Click to expand...

I foresee them being as impaired as the Zen3/Zen4 APU's.
Pcie gen, lanes, bifurcation capability either reduced/removed, reduced cache and clockspeed, which makes sense as they're mobile focused chips.

For the desktop, amusingly the rationale about the added cost for no value argument remains, just from a slightly different angle.
Users interested in basic display output as primary, additional or backup outputs, don't want to be paying for an oversized IGPU that will never get used, and sacrifice CPU performance for the privilege. The APU is likely a monolithic die too, so adds significant more cost manufacturing wise versus the moderate cost on separate I/O chiplet dies built on older processes, which undoubtedly gets reflected in the price.
 
Last edited:
eddyr said:
it is, almost half the I/O die. Still, I think its a mistake (as a consumer, I'm sure for AMD financially the numbers more than make sense).



I foresee them being as impaired as the Zen3/Zen4 APU's.
Pcie gen, lanes, bifurcation capability either reduced/removed, reduced cache and clockspeed, which makes sense as they're mobile focused chips.

For the desktop, amusingly the rationale about the added cost for no value argument remains, just from a slightly different angle.
Users interested in basic display output as primary, additional or backup outputs, don't want to be paying for an oversized IGPU that will never get used, and sacrifice CPU performance for the privilege. The APU is likely a monolithic die too, so adds significant more cost manufacturing wise versus the moderate cost on separate I/O chiplet dies built on older processes, which undoubtedly gets reflected in the price.
Click to expand...

I think heterogeneous chip designs are future of computing and APUs are definitely becoming more popular with many even replacing desktop even workstation systems along with consoles. I think it’s more likely non APU desktop chips will become more expensive as time goes on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom