AMD talks next-gen Zen 4 CPUs, Ryzen 7000, Socket AM5, and more

Status
Not open for further replies.

yRaz

Posts: 4,405   +5,134
It's not simply about power consumption, but heat generation, die yields (smaller cores mean higher yields as well as more chips/die) and many other factors.
replacing the 2 e cores with 1 p core would not take up any extra die space. Also, in a desktop, cooling isn't an issue as there is room for bigger heatsinks.
 

Revolution 11

Posts: 133   +172
A low IPC gain and increase in single-thread/multi-thread performance is not the end of the world as long as the pricing is very competitive and the power usage is low compared to Intel.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,127   +2,256
7656e8bf0c9ba2e0177b0d38aff08488ba7654b311620f08fd2eb10430b140e2.gif
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,434   +2,409
V-cache adds to power consumption and cost and negatively affects core clocks. 5800X3D shines at 1080p. Not much else to justify doing it again on a new architecture already with cache improvements.

AMD themselves basically admitted V-cache only made sense on the 8 core 5800X in an interview, and they would consider doing it to more if the demand was there, whatever that meant, since AMD would know before anyone before announcing it if the performance was worth it in their testing. They def avoided confirming AM5 would last as long as AM4 when asked.

"There aren't many games that get much more uplift out of an 8 core processor and the 5800 is really like the ideal gaming processor of all of them."

Personally I think AMD blew their load on V-cache with the 5800X and it wouldn't add much more performance to games going forward compared to what we've already seen. I mean, come on. AMD 96MB L3 vs Intel 30MB L3 and it's only how much faster???
 
Last edited:

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 3,364   +5,590
E cores are single threaded and slower. They are also about half the size of regular cores. Replace the e cores with P cores and I'm sure the score would be even higher. And don't get me wrong, I'm totally for E cores but only on laptops and mobile devices, in desktops where power consumption isnt an issue e cores are kind of pointless
I'm fine with e cores but dont understand why we need so many. Do you really need 8+ low power cores? For low use tasks where the cores sit at 1% util anyway you only need 2, anything you are actively using should be on a P core. And as the i3 and 5 show, without e cores the p core only models are not only quite efficient but still beat AMD at threaded tasks.
Really nice info, but sure we don't see the full picture yet. Integrated gpu is nice if you using vm with gpu passthrough, but very often it will be simply not used. Kinda waste of silicon. Hope there will be done cpus option without it.
As always, you can just turn it off if you dont want it, or pay mroe for threadripper
 

yRaz

Posts: 4,405   +5,134
I'm fine with e cores but dont understand why we need so many. Do you really need 8+ low power cores? For low use tasks where the cores sit at 1% util anyway you only need 2, anything you are actively using should be on a P core. And as the i3 and 5 show, without e cores the p core only models are not only quite efficient but still beat AMD at threaded tasks.
Totally, it just feels like intel is using the E-cores backwards. And benchmarks have shown that on the higher end models with more E-cores, it's not the E-cores that increase performance so much as it is the larger Cache on those models. E-cores are a fantastic idea but they really belong in low end machines or mobile devices. Give me an i3 with 2P4E cores for an office computer meant for typing word documents, sending email and the occasional zoom meeting.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,697   +6,636
Totally, it just feels like intel is using the E-cores backwards. And benchmarks have shown that on the higher end models with more E-cores, it's not the E-cores that increase performance so much as it is the larger Cache on those models. E-cores are a fantastic idea but they really belong in low end machines or mobile devices. Give me an i3 with 2P4E cores for an office computer meant for typing word documents, sending email and the occasional zoom meeting.
According to this https://www.techpowerup.com/295134/...00-zen-4-desktop-processors-am5-ddr5-platform there will be no E-cores in Ryzen 7000 parts.

IMO, the E-cores were a stopgap that Intel implemented because of power consumption/cooling issues of including all P-cores and attempting to squeeze out maximum performance.
 

yRaz

Posts: 4,405   +5,134
According to this https://www.techpowerup.com/295134/...00-zen-4-desktop-processors-am5-ddr5-platform there will be no E-cores in Ryzen 7000 parts.

IMO, the E-cores were a stopgap that Intel implemented because of power consumption/cooling issues of including all P-cores and attempting to squeeze out maximum performance.
wasn't suggesting they were, I was just talking about how I think Intel's implementation of E-cores seems backwards and a missed opportunity. An office full of theoretical 2p4e i3 machines could potentially save thousands a month on their electric bill. People who need an i9 would probably rather have an extra 4P cores instead of 8E cores.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,697   +6,636
wasn't suggesting they were, I was just talking about how I think Intel's implementation of E-cores seems backwards and a missed opportunity. An office full of theoretical 2p4e i3 machines could potentially save thousands a month on their electric bill. People who need an i9 would probably rather have an extra 4P cores instead of 8E cores.
Actually, I agree with you. I think it was Intel being Intel and trying to put a band-aid on their gaping wound of the failure to move to another, more efficient process node.

It's not like, IMO, Intel has not shot themselves in the foot before in an effort to be the king of the hill.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,499   +1,441
People who need an i9 would probably rather have an extra 4P cores instead of 8E cores.
An Alder Lake e-core uses about 25% of the die area of a P-core, so you'd give up all 8 cores just to gain 2. Most desktops have a few hundred threads running at any given time. I'm sure there's plenty for those e-cores to chew on. Remember, benchmarks are good at measuring foreground performance, but they're rather more opaque as to the effect of that foreground task on multitasking or background applications.
 

Mr Majestyk

Posts: 1,212   +1,107
AMD is playing its cards close to the chest. Let's just say the single threaded performance jump is of order 15-27% and multi-threaded is greater than this. You really think they are going to blurt out to Intel what the actual improvements are before release. The 15% figure makes no sense at all so take it with a huge bucket of salt. Zen 4 is a bigger uplift than Zen 3 mark my words.
 

yannus

Posts: 55   +45
I listened to coreteks on youtube and he has quite a different interpretation of the 7xxx numbers. I have to say that his explanations make sense. When you sum it up : process node, frequency, new architecture, L2 increase, possibly L3 increase and faster memory, I think AMD wants to have the numbers on the low side to keep the hype for next events to come. We'll have to wait and see anyways.
 

Strawman

Posts: 565   +289
E cores are single threaded and slower. They are also about half the size of regular cores. Replace the e cores with P cores and I'm sure the score would be even higher. And don't get me wrong, I'm totally for E cores but only on laptops and mobile devices, in desktops where power consumption isnt an issue e cores are kind of pointless
Well, you are wrong. One P core is almost the same of an e cluster, which means 4 ecores. And yeah, 4 ecores perform way better than one P core. So by replacing the ecores with P cores, you get the same single threaded performance and way less multithreaded performance. Great idea...
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,665   +1,321
Well, you are wrong. One P core is almost the same of an e cluster, which means 4 ecores. And yeah, 4 ecores perform way better than one P core. So by replacing the ecores with P cores, you get the same single threaded performance and way less multithreaded performance. Great idea...
Or then not. Otherwise it would be wise for Intel to include just ONE P core and all other E-cores for every Alder Lake CPU.

For some reason, Intel didn't want to...
 

Strawman

Posts: 565   +289
Or then not. Otherwise it would be wise for Intel to include just ONE P core and all other E-cores for every Alder Lake CPU.

For some reason, Intel didn't want to...
Because a workload might have more than one intensive thread? Like...games?
 

Strawman

Posts: 565   +289
Exactly. And that means multi threaded performance is about something else than just adding more E cores.
And intel figured out that most apps that scale up to 8 physical cores, can probably scale to infinity, that's why they increased the ecores.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,665   +1,321
And intel figured out that most apps that scale up to 8 physical cores, can probably scale to infinity, that's why they increased the ecores.
Just looking at power consumption figures, it's cleat that E-cores was basically only way Intel could add more than 16 threads on AL desktop CPU's. That is very evident since Alder Lake server CPU (Sapphire Rapids) will not contain E-cores despite server software being very scalable...
 

Strawman

Posts: 565   +289
Just looking at power consumption figures, it's cleat that E-cores was basically only way Intel could add more than 16 threads on AL desktop CPU's. That is very evident since Alder Lake server CPU (Sapphire Rapids) will not contain E-cores despite server software being very scalable...
Consumption has absolutely nothing to do with it, stop being silly. P cores take more DIE space for LESS performance.

My 12900k for example, is the most efficient CPU on planet Earth. Over 15k+ cbr23 score @ 35 watts. So yeah...tell me more about the power consumption
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,665   +1,321
Consumption has absolutely nothing to do with it, stop being silly. P cores take more DIE space for LESS performance.

My 12900k for example, is the most efficient CPU on planet Earth. Over 15k+ cbr23 score @ 35 watts. So yeah...tell me more about the power consumption
Of course they do but they also give much more performance in almost everything else than simple computing tasks.

15K@35 watts makes 428 points per watt.

AMD Ryzen 6800U scores 14,231 @ 28 watts. That makes 508 points per watt. Your 12900K gets smoked by AMD laptop CPU on both performance and power consumption. I won't even bother to say how much it trashes your 12900K @35W on other tasks...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.