Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 33 to 48 of 48

Thread: Current gen AMD cooler forward compatibility looks likely

  1. #33
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    32,042
    Thanks
    3,911
    Thanked
    5,224 times in 4,015 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: Current gen AMD cooler forward compatibility looks likely

    Reading up on the AT article:

    Anyway, by these graphics it looks like that for peak single thread, we should see around +8% better than Skylake performance while consuming just over half the power – look for Cinebench R20 scores for one Gracemont thread around 478 then (Skylake 6700K scored 443). With +8% for single thread in mind, the +80% in MT comparing 4 cores of Gracemont to two fully loaded Skylake cores seems a little low – we’ve got double the physical cores with Gracemont compared to Skylake here. But there’s likely some additional performance regression with the cache structure on the new Atom core, which we’ll get to later on this page.
    So it seems peak single threaded performance is similar,but some weird funkiness is happening when you use more cores....might be a lack of cache,etc??

  2. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,385
    Thanks
    181
    Thanked
    304 times in 221 posts

    Re: Current gen AMD cooler forward compatibility looks likely

    Quote Originally Posted by watercooled View Post
    That sounds a likely explanation TBH. It doesn't take much for speculation to take off online these days. I also can't see AMD having separate designs for desktop and server; not just because of having to produce two separate chiplet designs, but also because it would mean two entirely different core complex implementations. I find the latter especially unlikely.
    I have to admit, I sat myself on the 12 core bandwagon because it kind of makes sense if Genoa tops out at 96C but if it is actually topping out at 128C then it doesn't so I'll go back to my box!

    Quote Originally Posted by watercooled View Post
    You might be surprised by the projected performance of the 'small' cores, see link in my previous post.
    Yeah, just reading through it now, not sure how I missed one of Mr Cutress' articles!

    As an aside, I am interested to see if they really are "as good as Skylake" because if so, then Intel does have some interest edging but it begs the question, this is at ISO frequency (which I presume is locked and matched frequencies) so if they can't clock as high but have the same IPC then they may not be able to go as far as Zen 2.

  3. #35
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,478
    Thanks
    1,541
    Thanked
    1,029 times in 872 posts

    Re: Current gen AMD cooler forward compatibility looks likely

    Oh I think it needs to be taken in context. The small cores might not be hitting 5GHz but they don't really need too - for their uses, peak single-thread performance is less important and you're well past the point of diminishing returns in terms of power at those sort of clocks. Lots of small(er) cores at moderate clocks could be immensely useful in terms of overall performance and efficiency for highly-threaded applications. Or even to get background tasks off the main cores if the scheduler is advanced enough.

    @CAT: Yeah, with all four cores of a cluster maxed out, they could be fighting for cache and memory bandwidth, so a 4 core cluster might not reach the same performance as say a 6600k. But at that stage, the CPU would likely already have 8 big cores loaded, so there are other factors in play anyway.

    Personally, I've been interested in the Alder Lake concept for some time now, and I'm really keen to find out how it all pans out in the product.

  4. #36
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    32,042
    Thanks
    3,911
    Thanked
    5,224 times in 4,015 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: Current gen AMD cooler forward compatibility looks likely

    Actually I think there was a rumour AMD might go the same way after Zen4:
    https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-3nm-...g-little-cores
    https://hothardware.com/news/amd-pat...zen-8000-zen-5

  5. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,385
    Thanks
    181
    Thanked
    304 times in 221 posts

    Re: Current gen AMD cooler forward compatibility looks likely

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    Actually I think there was a rumour AMD might go the same way after Zen4:
    https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-3nm-...g-little-cores
    https://hothardware.com/news/amd-pat...zen-8000-zen-5
    I remember those articles, quite an interesting patent, I would like to know more how it'll compare as a hardware level thread manager versus Intels software (seemingly) level thread management.

  6. #38
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,478
    Thanks
    1,541
    Thanked
    1,029 times in 872 posts

    Re: Current gen AMD cooler forward compatibility looks likely

    On the face of it, it does make a lot of sense when you start getting to high core counts, when considering area and power limitations. If you can get 4 smaller cores into the area of 1 big core, where the smaller cores are significantly lower power, that's an obvious win for highly multithreaded workloads. By just adding more and more big cores, you're eating die space and likely won't be able to run them all at high clocks anyway due to power/thermal limits.

  7. #39
    Senior Member Xlucine's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,160
    Thanks
    297
    Thanked
    188 times in 147 posts
    • Xlucine's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus TUF B450M-plus
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB @ 3.2 Gt/s
      • Storage:
      • Crucial P5 1TB (boot), Crucial MX500 1TB, Crucial MX100 512GB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 980ti
      • PSU:
      • Fractal Design ION+ 560P
      • Case:
      • Silverstone TJ08-E
      • Operating System:
      • W10 pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Viewsonic vx3211-2k-mhd, Dell P2414H

    Re: Current gen AMD cooler forward compatibility looks likely

    I'd like to see intel cram as many small cores as possible in a server. It'd be a laugh

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    AdoredTV Jim,leaked an Intel roadmap. It seems Intel is going to be at 8C for the next few generations,but adding lots of Atom cores,to bump up thread count.

    It also seems the mainstream is going to be stuck at 6C(big cores) for a few years at least,and might not even get many of the Atom cores either!
    6 big cores with a 7700K/8700K bolted on the side in the i5 segment will mean that AMD has to go >6 core to compete

    Quote Originally Posted by Tabbykatze View Post
    As an aside, I am interested to see if they really are "as good as Skylake" because if so, then Intel does have some interest edging but it begs the question, this is at ISO frequency (which I presume is locked and matched frequencies) so if they can't clock as high but have the same IPC then they may not be able to go as far as Zen 2.


    ISO power, not frequency (and even then it's slightly less power than skylake)

  8. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,385
    Thanks
    181
    Thanked
    304 times in 221 posts

    Re: Current gen AMD cooler forward compatibility looks likely

    Quote Originally Posted by Xlucine View Post


    ISO power, not frequency (and even then it's slightly less power than skylake)
    It's been many a year since I believed anything Intel has to say in their slides. Out of the big three I find Intel to be the least trustworthy in these aspects, follow by now a joint tie between AMD and Nvidia

  9. #41
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    32,042
    Thanks
    3,911
    Thanked
    5,224 times in 4,015 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: Current gen AMD cooler forward compatibility looks likely

    This might also explain the TDP increase:
    https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-zen4...rated-graphics

    Maybe there is a higher end model with 24 cores and an IGP. That would sound pretty awesome TBF!!

  10. Received thanks from:

    Corky34 (23-08-2021),DanceswithUnix (23-08-2021)

  11. #42
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,993
    Thanks
    781
    Thanked
    1,591 times in 1,346 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 5900X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 2TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 39 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 900Mb/900Mb (CityFibre FttP)

    Re: Current gen AMD cooler forward compatibility looks likely

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    This might also explain the TDP increase:
    https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-zen4...rated-graphics

    Maybe there is a higher end model with 24 cores and an IGP. That would sound pretty awesome TBF!!
    I wonder if things have gone full circle again here.

    There was a time when chipsets became pad limited on the silicon, so there was spare silicon area on the north bridge chip. A GPU was added to make use of that spare silicon in a way that helped sales.

    Now the IO controller chiplet (which is pretty much a north bridge in old money terms) is being shrunk to 6nm, but the pads around the outside don't shrink so if AMD were using the whole perimeter then the area inside stays the same. That could be a lot of transistors to use.

  12. #43
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    31,032
    Thanks
    1,871
    Thanked
    3,385 times in 2,722 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: Current gen AMD cooler forward compatibility looks likely

    I'd rather have more cache Even L4+ or eDRAM type stuff.

  13. #44
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,993
    Thanks
    781
    Thanked
    1,591 times in 1,346 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 5900X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 2TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 39 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 900Mb/900Mb (CityFibre FttP)

    Re: Current gen AMD cooler forward compatibility looks likely

    Quote Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
    I'd rather have more cache Even L4+ or eDRAM type stuff.
    ISTR that was the trick with the early NForce chipsets, using spare northbridge space for cache and prefetch buffers (fed by the revolutionary dual channel ram)

  14. #45
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,478
    Thanks
    1,541
    Thanked
    1,029 times in 872 posts

    Re: Current gen AMD cooler forward compatibility looks likely

    If the GPU were to go onto the IO die, I wonder what implications that would have for reusing that die for the chipset? Assuming they're planning to do the same as X570 of course.

    If they really are pad-bound, I guess it's effectively some dark silicon to help with thermals/yields.

  15. #46
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    31,032
    Thanks
    1,871
    Thanked
    3,385 times in 2,722 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: Current gen AMD cooler forward compatibility looks likely

    Quote Originally Posted by watercooled View Post
    If the GPU were to go onto the IO die, I wonder what implications that would have for reusing that die for the chipset? Assuming they're planning to do the same as X570 of course.

    If they really are pad-bound, I guess it's effectively some dark silicon to help with thermals/yields.
    Allows them to reuse the chip if the fault is in the GPU area I guess, though it would be neat if they could use DX12 move engines/storage acceleration

  16. #47
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,478
    Thanks
    1,541
    Thanked
    1,029 times in 872 posts

    Re: Current gen AMD cooler forward compatibility looks likely

    Or.... Crossfire?

  17. #48
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,993
    Thanks
    781
    Thanked
    1,591 times in 1,346 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 5900X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 2TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 39 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 900Mb/900Mb (CityFibre FttP)

    Re: Current gen AMD cooler forward compatibility looks likely

    Quote Originally Posted by watercooled View Post
    If the GPU were to go onto the IO die, I wonder what implications that would have for reusing that die for the chipset? Assuming they're planning to do the same as X570 of course.

    If they really are pad-bound, I guess it's effectively some dark silicon to help with thermals/yields.
    The GPU needs to be near the memory controllers, and that's the IO die. It just all seems to tie in.

    If it is otherwise dead space, they don't lose anything by not using it in a chipset variant.

    Quote Originally Posted by watercooled View Post
    Or.... Crossfire?
    I'm just wondering if they would add some sideport HBM3

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •