Very Excited About Upcoming 7nm Ryzen, but...

Pieter3dnow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
6,784
I never really expected 5.0GHz anyway. My expectations were max boost ~4.7GHz as documented here, and we got 4.6. Pretty close!

Maybe on the 7+nm node they can get there. Then again Zen 3 is a whole different thing from what the rumours tell us (having more then 2 threads per core).
 

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
Maybe on the 7+nm node they can get there. Then again Zen 3 is a whole different thing from what the rumours tell us (having more then 2 threads per core).

They may very well be able to get 5GHz, or near to it, out of the 7nm process right now. But due to binning for Epyc (since they use the same dies), the best quality dies may be going elsewhere. Or the yields may not support enough dies reaching that boost clock, so they dialed down from that to get enough in each bracket to keep supply good (if true, overclocking on these should be fun). Or - and I think this is very likely - they are having to play a balancing act with power requirements, especially on older boards.

Notice the odd segmentation. The 3800X gains +300 base and +100 boost over the 3700X for 105w vs 65w.

You might say "oh, that's because it's hitting the frequency limit for the design". Okay. Then why can the 3900X support -100 base and +100 boost relative to the 3800X with FOUR MORE CORES and the **same** 105w power envelope?

Better binned 6 core (functional - remember all are really 8 core dies) dies are for the 3900X are my thoughts. So where do the better binned 8 core dies go? Epyc, probably (hence why we're not seeing a 16 core AM4 part yet - that's for later when yields improve and supply is better). Where do the crappier 8 core dies go? The 3700X and the 3800X. Where do the crappier 6 core dies go? 3600X and 3600. And even then, the 3900X is constrained by the 105w limit imposed by boards with crappy power delivery. I would not be surprised if the 3900X overclocked way better than previous Zen chips (on the right motherboards), just because AMD probably had to leave more on the table than usual due to power limitations. So design-wise, perhaps Zen 2 can hit 5GHz, or near enough to it (I'm thinking a design wall of around ~4.8). But because of binning, yields, and AM4 power limitations AMD isn't bothering right now.

Since Lisa said that Threadripper is still in their plans, that's probably where you get your closer-to-5GHz-boost chips, a few months after the AM4 product launch.

Remember, the original Threadripper was +100/+200 Mhz boost over garden-variety Ryzen. Probably similar for Zen 2.
 

NKD

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
8,850
They may very well be able to get 5GHz, or near to it, out of the 7nm process right now. But due to binning for Epyc (since they use the same dies), the best quality dies may be going elsewhere. Or the yields may not support enough dies reaching that boost clock, so they dialed down from that to get enough in each bracket to keep supply good (if true, overclocking on these should be fun). Or - and I think this is very likely - they are having to play a balancing act with power requirements, especially on older boards.

Notice the odd segmentation. The 3800X gains +300 base and +100 boost over the 3700X for 105w vs 65w.

You might say "oh, that's because it's hitting the frequency limit for the design". Okay. Then why can the 3900X support -100 base and +100 boost relative to the 3800X with FOUR MORE CORES and the **same** 105w power envelope?

Better binned 6 core (functional - remember all are really 8 core dies) dies are for the 3900X are my thoughts. So where do the better binned 8 core dies go? Epyc, probably (hence why we're not seeing a 16 core AM4 part yet - that's for later when yields improve and supply is better). Where do the crappier 8 core dies go? The 3700X and the 3800X. Where do the crappier 6 core dies go? 3600X and 3600. And even then, the 3900X is constrained by the 105w limit imposed by boards with crappy power delivery. I would not be surprised if the 3900X overclocked way better than previous Zen chips (on the right motherboards), just because AMD probably had to leave more on the table than usual due to power limitations. So design-wise, perhaps Zen 2 can hit 5GHz, or near enough to it (I'm thinking a design wall of around ~4.8). But because of binning, yields, and AM4 power limitations AMD isn't bothering right now.

Since Lisa said that Threadripper is still in their plans, that's probably where you get your closer-to-5GHz-boost chips, a few months after the AM4 product launch.

Remember, the original Threadripper was +100/+200 Mhz boost over garden-variety Ryzen. Probably similar for Zen 2.

I honestly do think that among the best reasons was probably keeping the power in check to allow broad compatibility. I think these chips might overlcock past 4.5ghz easy but AMD probably wants to let the user take responsibility for that and go above and beyond in power usage, as long as they delivered power efficient part out of the box, let users mess with it depending on the motherboard.
 

Verado

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 16, 2017
Messages
330
Would be prudent to expect zen2 to be clocked out of box at the ragged edge just like the previous ryzen chips.
Time to stop overhyping AMD before every release.
I'm sure ryzen 3000 are awesome, but a lot of people buy into the OVER-hype and end up disappointed even if the product is great.
 

Pieter3dnow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
6,784
They may very well be able to get 5GHz, or near to it, out of the 7nm process right now. But due to binning for Epyc (since they use the same dies), the best quality dies may be going elsewhere. Or the yields may not support enough dies reaching that boost clock, so they dialed down from that to get enough in each bracket to keep supply good (if true, overclocking on these should be fun). Or - and I think this is very likely - they are having to play a balancing act with power requirements, especially on older boards.

Notice the odd segmentation. The 3800X gains +300 base and +100 boost over the 3700X for 105w vs 65w.

You might say "oh, that's because it's hitting the frequency limit for the design". Okay. Then why can the 3900X support -100 base and +100 boost relative to the 3800X with FOUR MORE CORES and the **same** 105w power envelope?

Better binned 6 core (functional - remember all are really 8 core dies) dies are for the 3900X are my thoughts. So where do the better binned 8 core dies go? Epyc, probably (hence why we're not seeing a 16 core AM4 part yet - that's for later when yields improve and supply is better). Where do the crappier 8 core dies go? The 3700X and the 3800X. Where do the crappier 6 core dies go? 3600X and 3600. And even then, the 3900X is constrained by the 105w limit imposed by boards with crappy power delivery. I would not be surprised if the 3900X overclocked way better than previous Zen chips (on the right motherboards), just because AMD probably had to leave more on the table than usual due to power limitations. So design-wise, perhaps Zen 2 can hit 5GHz, or near enough to it (I'm thinking a design wall of around ~4.8). But because of binning, yields, and AM4 power limitations AMD isn't bothering right now.

Since Lisa said that Threadripper is still in their plans, that's probably where you get your closer-to-5GHz-boost chips, a few months after the AM4 product launch.

Remember, the original Threadripper was +100/+200 Mhz boost over garden-variety Ryzen. Probably similar for Zen 2.
Were not going to get there not just due to binning reasons but also due to how the market is now. There is no need for such a cpu and the more headroom there is in the next Zen iteration then that is extra performance gain for next year (this is not what we want but it is prolly what is happening).

The segmentation can not just be there for the sake of that I mean there must be silicon that will fail to run within 65 Watt and do just fine with bit more voltage to fit in the 3800X range.

I would say that since there are no 6 core based server products the 3900x can do anything if it is a 6+6 and not a 8+4 but I also think this is relative it can only scale that much due to heat from the other chiplets.

I think the Threadripper products will be a bit weird if there going beyond 32 cores it would need substantial amount of chiplets and what will the trade off be in that case will Threadripper use Epyc quality or Ryzen quality chiplets and this time around I'm willing to guess that the latter will be the case. If you look at the demand for Epyc from places as Cray that will only grow when there was no high demand for the Epyc parts it is easier to share them with Threadripper in a way very good promotional move to allow HEDT recognition and bring AMD back from the dead.

But the situation for Threadripper is somewhat worse since the niche product requiring the same chips that are in demand could also make it easier for AMD to not do the same thing again. That would still mean that there getting what that platform needs.

What I would not rule out is that Threadripper might see some of those magic 6 core dies that are way to good for the consumer market :).
 

ebduncan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,008
I would like to point out that the Ryzen 3xxx series cpus come in two different configurations.

The 8c/16 thread and lower parts will only have a single chiplet on the package. While the higher end parts the 12c and 16c will feature 2 chiplets. This tells us that these chips are being aggressively binned. The Ryzen 7 3800x and 3700x have to fully functional chiplets. While the Ryzen 9 3900x can actually use chiplets which don't meet quality of the epyc chips, and have defects but still are able to hit higher clock speeds.
This is very different then how first and 2nd gen ryzen was created. Since the cores came in 8c/16t ccx's meaning the 8c/16 1800x/2700x were made of ccx's with 4 cores active in each ccx.

Threadripper only adds more complexity to the picture, likely why 3rd gen was delayed or held back. Same reason for the 16c/32t Ryzen 9. It tells us that the A binned chiplets are not having the best yields, but they are still producing lots of viable chips. So the A dies go to Eypc and then all the B dies are being used in Ryzen 3xxx series.
 

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
Would be prudent to expect zen2 to be clocked out of box at the ragged edge just like the previous ryzen chips.
Time to stop overhyping AMD before every release.
I'm sure ryzen 3000 are awesome, but a lot of people buy into the OVER-hype and end up disappointed even if the product is great.

For one, speculation and hype are not the same thing. If idiots want to take speculation and run with it as fact and get themselves excited over it, then suffer a let down later if the speculation was wrong, that is their own business.

Second, Zen2 is a different beast from original Zen and Zen+. With original Zen, AMD was at a disadvantage from a process AND IPC perspective, and so needed to milk every last MHz they could in order to keep up. In this case, the situation is different. They have a modest process advantage, and the IPC looks comparable-ish, if not a hair better. They *MAY* not need to milk it to the raggedy edge.

We'll see in a month!
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
In this case, the situation is different. They have a modest process advantage, and the IPC looks comparable-ish, if not a hair better. They *MAY* not need to milk it to the raggedy edge.

As they get their supply settled and yields maximized, I'd wonder if they don't do some enthusiast spins. Hypothetically, swap the 'X' out for a 'Z', and let the part boost as high as it can stably. Like a high-binned 'X' part would be but with the limiter removed.
 

otg

n00b
Joined
Apr 14, 2017
Messages
15
As they get their supply settled and yields maximized, I'd wonder if they don't do some enthusiast spins. Hypothetically, swap the 'X' out for a 'Z', and let the part boost as high as it can stably. Like a high-binned 'X' part would be but with the limiter removed.

I've been having trouble finding the link, but over on r/AMD, somebody posted a tweet from CanardPC leaking (or whatever) a special edition 5.0ghz all core boost 8-core. I think it was a 20th anniversary Athlon or some such, to be released next year.
A quick wiki check shows the Athlon was released in 1999 though, so wishful thinking?
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
I've been having trouble finding the link, but over on r/AMD, somebody posted a tweet from CanardPC leaking (or whatever) a special edition 5.0ghz all core boost 8-core. I think it was a 20th anniversary Athlon or some such, to be released next year.
A quick wiki check shows the Athlon was released in 1999 though, so wishful thinking?

I think you can be guaranteed that is just nonsense wishful thinking.
 

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,340
I honestly do think that among the best reasons was probably keeping the power in check to allow broad compatibility. I think these chips might overlcock past 4.5ghz easy but AMD probably wants to let the user take responsibility for that and go above and beyond in power usage, as long as they delivered power efficient part out of the box, let users mess with it depending on the motherboard.

Dan was saying in one of the other threads that he expects overclocking to be roughly all cores to boost clock, or a bit under it. That is probably reasonable.

The 16 core at 3.5/4.7 is interesting, though, should that prove correct at E3 today. If so, I think there's a good chance it won't be ready on the 7/7 launch date, though. Like I said earlier, I expect that the best 8 core dies are headed to Epyc products for the time being.

Then again a 16 core on AM4 might be niche enough that it doesn't really matter.
 
Top