Read more.Chinese tech site says that this 'Rome' processor is an engineering sample.
Read more.Chinese tech site says that this 'Rome' processor is an engineering sample.
Oh boy, AMD is really pushing.
I think their stock will (continue to) go through the roof.
So, this will be the top Threadripper (64 cores/128 threads) in 2020?
The more you live, less you die. More you play, more you die. Isn't it great.
So does it being a 64C/128T lend credence to Zen 2 being designed around 4 core CCX's?
If so how's that going to work with existing sockets only supporting dual, quad, and eight channel DDR.
That works out to a score of 196 per core. That puts the Rome Zen2 on an equal per core performance to a CoffeLake 8700K.
As this is a server chip I doubt it's running at 4GHz let alone the 4.7GHz an 8700k can turbo to, then they must have made some Serious IPC gains over the last 18 months or so.
I read a rumour that they've changed the memory and IO controller design for Zen 2 so that the number of memory channels available isn't based on the number of CCX's wired in; there's a single IO/Memory controller chip surrounded by the CPU core chips on the interposer, instead of each CCX talking to its local memory & IO.
To be honest in my experience AMD have always seemed to have lower overheads when using multiple cores compared to Intel. Just look at the way threadripper/rizen scales with multiple cores compared with Intel.
Even back at uni when I had a dual socket AMD MP1900 machine the fall off from '2x performance' when using both cores was far lower than the Intel options that were available at uni.
So I wouldn't necessarily say the gain is quite as high as you're suggesting but it's clear there's been a gain somewhere.
That had me confused so i had to do a quick refresher on current Zen design and unless I've got it wrong the memory controller isn't tied to the CCX's, it's on the same die but it sits outside the core domains. Then again I've just realised I got the design of the CCX wrong as a single CCX encompasses 4 cores already.
Intel ICE lake 64 core to be built on TSMC 7nm process to combat AMD and remain on top.
8c/12t on desktop now, give it 5 yeara and we could see this double within the same power/thermal limits and I think may struggle.
I wonder what the tdp on that beast is. VERY impressive,
Keep up the good work AMD, and perhaps we will have genuine advancements in high-end consumer CPU's.
It would be no denser, thermally, than 2700E as a matter of fact. If they are able to fit 8C/16T at 45w TDP, this would only be a 180+180 watt dual-socket.
PS: Technically, it will act as a 48C/96T 3.9GHz Ryzen, imo.
Last edited by mtcn77; 17-09-2018 at 11:48 PM. Reason: Performance projections added.
I am really curious how you can align CPU groups on that with Windows, last time I worked with that they were masked by 64bit integer and you couldn't put more than 64 in one group...
(see https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/devtest/boot-parameters-to-test-drivers-for-multiple-processor-group-support )
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)