Return to Level1Techs.com

AMD CPU Road map *SPECULATION*

amd

#81

I still want to see a die shrunk Excavator with RX 550 graphics as iGPU and 1GB eDRAM for a framebuffer as an embedded PC part to take on Atom processors.


#82

Realistically, Vega and Zeppelin are better suited for that because you can downclock and undervolt them both to make them extremely power effective.

Excavator was terrible, and Polaris isn’t quite as effecient as Vega, and realistically doesn’t cost any less either. Vega is just a giant die.


#83

I thought Zeppelin was a 16 core design? Or are you just talking Zen in general?

Didn’t know Vega was so good for power when undervolted. So maybe a cherry picked R3 2200G with eDRAM?


#84

Zeppelin is a 4 core design. A 1700, for example, has 2 Zeppelin dies on one package. A 1950x has 4 Zeppelin dies on two packages, and similarly, the 32 core EPYC CPU has 8 Zeppelin dies on a 4 packages.

Packages being the things that you see after you delid the CPU.

I don’t even know that you need them to be cherry picked. Undervolting is easy, overclocking, not so much.


#85

It would need to be fairly cool as were talking about 20W of heat at the high end. To compete on the low end your gonna need to be at around 5W of heat.

Could maybe get away with 1C/[email protected] if you can get the undervolting good enough


#86

Yeah. AMD isn’t quite there on the low-end. AMD doesn’t quite have Intel’s power efficiency in mobile, but they’re definitely up there in the 3.5-4.0 range, and it scales wonderfully from 4 to 16 cores due to the MCM architecture.


#87

Would sell like hotcakes if they could get a decent cpu and gpu combo at 10W of heat.


#88

Why would AMD do that when they can just use cast off Ryzen dies much cheaper?

What you’re proposing is a bunch of R&D (to build the new die) and a seperate production line to produce dead superseded technology.

When they could just use dies they already made that they’d otherwise be throwing away…


#89

Vega is pretty great at low power. The only real issues with vega are:

  • dependence on software for new feature support
  • clocks pushed too far

It scales down quite well. It just doesn’t clock as high as AMD might like (for higher end desktop parts) and at the high end is also somewhat bandwidth starved (yes, even with the HBM).

7nm Vega with 2x the HBM modules for more bandwidth, and higher clocks will fix that.


#90

More speculation of 48 cores next year 64 cores in the wind.


#91

“More than eight cores” interesting :slight_smile:


#92

given the quality of oc3d reporting the “more” is the infinity fabric or the psp


#93

I forgot to post this yesterday, sorry.

The second part of this rumor is that three different designs may already have been finalized for the Zen 2 core. These include:

AM4 (Up To 16 Zen 2 Cores)
TR4 (Up To 32 Zen 2 Cores)
SP3 (Up To 64 Zen 2 Cores)

128C/256T 2S Servers… Yes, please!


#94

And then there’s intel’s 28 core…


#95

Its pretty locked in that high density zen 7nm will be 48 cores. Now my naval gaze. That is a 2 cpu per board chips that needs interconnects. Lots of heat in a rack too.

I have a small fleeting hope that the stand alone chip can be 64 core. AMD may hold that for 7nm+ . Not like Intel can match it.


#96

I liked what Leo Waldock (kitguru) said sometime ago.
AMD is so much ahead of intel in the high core count server stuff it’s not even funny.


AMD can just snap their fingers and boom… 64 core. Intel can’t do anything about it. There are actual rumors AMD had a plan for higher core count chips, but are holding back, because Intel can’t compete really with what they have already.

#97

Puts another layour of tinfoil on the tinfoil hat and gets a nice refreshing glass of kool aid

More Cores… MORE CORES!!! I fucking love it. I can’t afford any of these chips, but regardless, I love it.


#98

Well, in the server market more cores is actually better, right? So 64 core server chip from AMD will do you better than 28 core chip from Intel, would it not?
Can AMD release 64 core processor? They can. Why didn’t they? Cause Intel don’t have an answer for the 32 core processor yet.
On desktop we will have soon 32 cores while Intel still have 10 or 12 cores… I can’t remember.


#99

It is funny Intel bashed AMD for glue. Now AMD have 48+ core CPU’s and 8 channel memory with insane ram caps and PCI lanes.

Intel is 28 cough 22-24 core. 6 channel memory. PCI limited and Intel Optane marketed as “Extra Memory” not storage.

Someone buy Intel a beer at the local bar :slight_smile:


#100

Don’t forget the RAID Keys Intel introduced, they are also a huge success!