1. TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users. Ask a question and give support. Join the community here.
    TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users.
    Ask a question and give support.
    Join the community here, it only takes a minute.
    Dismiss Notice

AMD's next 12-core CPU appears in benchmark database denoted as Ryzen

By mongeese · 29 replies
Jan 27, 2019
Post New Reply
  1. When asked about the spare space, Su said to PC Gamer, "I think you might expect that we will have more than eight cores. I didn’t say how many more." At least 12 seems to be the answer, given the AMD 12-core processor spotted in Userbenchmark's database by APISAK this week.

    The entry reveals that the processor is a 12-core, 24-thread part that sustained an average of 3.6 Ghz during the benchmark run. Most importantly, the chip's Ordering Part Number (OPN) reveals that it is destined to join the Ryzen lineup.

    OPN is a code used by manufacturers to classify their processors, and while the exact meanings of each letter or number aren't always known, a general gist isn't hard to grasp. Userbenchmark lists the OPN as 2D3212BGMCWH2_37/34_N.

    As with past generations of processors, the "2" signifies this is the second successful prototype. "D" stands for desktop. In released chips the next number stands for generation, which is what the "3" could mean, or the number in whole could signify the base clock is 3.212 GHz as has occasionally happened in the past. It could also signify the configuration of the chip: 3-cores doubled in a single die, of which there are two.

    Moving on, the "B" is only found in Ryzen parts, denoting that this chip will be mainstream. "G" signifies a 105W TDP, same as the current 2700X. Only AM4 processors have an "M." As with past releases the "C" is for 12-core, though Userbenchmark confirmed this separately.

    The "W" represents how much cache the processor has, though it seems to use an amount that Ryzen processors haven't reached before because we don't know what it is. However, Userbenchmark tests the latency of the cache from 1MB to 128MB, and judging from a spike at 32MB, it's at least that much.

    While AMD's current 12-core, the Threadripper 2920X, has 32MB of cache, that probably isn't the case here. Analyzing the shape of the latency curve shows that it's much more similar to the EPYC 7551, which has 64MB of cache. It probably spikes at 32MB because that's how much each die has.

    The "H2" at the end apparently denotes Matisse, AMD's codename for Zen 2, according to Reddit, though that can't be verified. The "34" represents a 3.4Ghz base clock, and the "37" represents a 3.7Ghz boost clock. Being an engineering sample, however, those are very unlikely to be the final speeds. Lastly, no one has any clue what the "N" at the end means.

    Moving on to the actual benchmarking, the results are somewhat disappointing. In the table below, the percentage is the engineering sample compared to the average result of five 2700Xs that also averaged a 3.6 Ghz clock speed. Higher is better.

      Integer Floating Mixed
    Single-Core 89% 103% 96%
    Quad-Core 79% 79% 80%
    Multi-Core 117% 148% 149%

    As you can see, in the single-core and quad-core results the engineering sample is mostly slower than the 2700X, which indicates that it hasn't improved on the IPC front from the last generation.

    The engineering sample does much better in the multi-core results, where its 50% extra cores nets it nearly exactly 50% better performance in some workloads. This is impressive and shows that it will be great in professional situations, if not for gaming.

    So how can a next-generation part perform worse than or equal to current parts? Possibly by bottlenecking the processor with disappointing RAM. Userbenchmark detected a 4GB stick (with 6.1GB free somehow) running at 1333Mhz, though it is possible it was running at 2666Mhz. Either way, it benchmarked it with just 25.3 GB/s bandwidth, which is 20%+ less than Ryzen needs.

    The honest answer, though, is that this is simply an engineering sample benchmarked in unknown circumstances in what is only a mediocre benchmarking tool anyway. When AMD benchmarked their 8-core processor live at CES on Cinebench it was able to match the 9900K, which shows it is either very fast or has very high IPC.

    What this leak does tell us is that AMD is developing mainstream Ryzen processors with two 8-core dies, and that means they will almost certainly release 12-core and 16-core Ryzen processors sometime in the not-too-distant future.

    Permalink to story.

  2. Puiu

    Puiu TS Evangelist Posts: 3,444   +1,910

    The memory is most likely the reason why the single core results are so low. The RAM compatibility is probably not good enough yet for these early samples (and god knows what testing mobo they used)
  3. 144hzGamer

    144hzGamer TS Addict Posts: 214   +132

    Im still sceptical about 12 cores or 16 cores/32 threads for mainstream users. Would prefer them to focus on improving 8c parts, higher clocks around 5ghz, better ipc and 3600mhz ram support.
    MaitieS, rpjkw11, xxLCxx and 2 others like this.
  4. Sausagemeat

    Sausagemeat TS Maniac Posts: 409   +205

    12 or 16 cores is all very well and good. But what Ryzen really needs is a decent IPC and/or a clock speed increase if it wants to really stomp on Intel. As it stands I’m happier to pay more per core for Intel because of Intel’s significant clock speed advantage couple with its modest IPC advantage.
    144hzGamer and BSim500 like this.
  5. Vulcanproject

    Vulcanproject TS Evangelist Posts: 740   +1,070

    It goes hand in hand, because AMD appear to be building a fast 8 core chiplet and then daisy chaining from there to create higher core counts. Bolting bits and pieces of a CPU together. This is how AMD are competing financially against Intel.

    Instead of designing enormous complex fixed monolithic parts that cost a fortune to fabricate, AMD are separating parts of their processors and designing clever ways to link them together with (hopefully) minimal performance loss. You can scale core counts easily up or down, to fit any conceivable market segment. They have now even separated their I/O, so they can potentially bolt on different controllers to scale PCIe lanes for example according to segment. It appears the I/O of Zen 2 may even be built on an older cheaper process, to further reduce costs!

    While monolithic chips will likely be advantageous for ultimate performance, the future advancement of the industry as shrinking chips become increasingly difficult is going to rely on chiplet designs. AMD saw it before Intel. Intel now acknowledge this also and are heading to this direction.

    To that end AMD can get fantastic yields, have very low costs and give away only a small order of performance percentage to a monolithic part, a part potentially costing twice as much to build.
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019
  6. Dimitrios

    Dimitrios TS Guru Posts: 467   +350

    I hope someone looks at my post in a few years from now and I bet once the new GEN gaming console are in the market they are promised RYZEN CPU's with 8 cores so expect AMD hardware to be tweaked and take advantage of AMD's new CPU's. This explains why AMD's 7790 GPU card (which I owned) has stayed very strong within the years since during that time old game consoles had a similar chip that was used.

    Flood the gaming market with AMD products and it will pay off sooner or later. Or maybe I'm wrong?
  7. Dimitrios

    Dimitrios TS Guru Posts: 467   +350

    Very well said!!!!!!!!!! Also what's great is that AMD is strong from living on pennies during their hard times. If AMD conitunes to make cheap high performance hardware sooner or later INTEL has to cave in and re adjust their pricing but stock holders will be mad and INTEL's CEO's are not going to like the low profit numbers so it will slowly eat INTEL.

    If INTEL stay's stubborn and KEEPS it's pricing expensive that means AMD can charge a little more but will end up making MORE profit since INTEL leaves AMD a large gap to charge more for their products. It's a win/win!
    Lounds likes this.
  8. Puiu

    Puiu TS Evangelist Posts: 3,444   +1,910

    You are misunderstanding something here. Having 12 and 16 cores doesn't mean that they are cutting corners on the 8 core parts. Their core complexes (chiplets) have 8 CPU cores, it's just that they made it so that they can use multiple core complexes. In fact the changes they made to infinity fabric and their I/O chip helps improve 8 cores a lot.

    AKA you get the cake and you can eat it too. You get more cores, better single core performance and better memory support (hopefully on this last one).

    Besides, it's the server market where AMD needs to focus, not mainstream. That's where they'll get the serious R&D money they need.
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019
    gamoniac likes this.
  9. CaptainTom

    CaptainTom TS Maniac Posts: 404   +213

    Zen 2 is going to have 10-20% higher IPC, and there will be multiple models at 5GHz. Why do you care if there are also 16 core models?
    JaredTheDragon likes this.
  10. ACE76

    ACE76 TS Member

    They already increased IPC and demonstrated a engineering sample 8c beating a 9900k...they're just getting the tech to work at 12 & 16c now..they could release the 8c Zen 2 tomorrow and take the performance crown from Intel with no issues...by June/July, they will likely have everything working to their expected specs.
    CaptainTom likes this.
  11. ACE76

    ACE76 TS Member

    They are well ahead of their expected sales in the server market...and Zen 2 will give data centers 64c/128t 2u server blades...that's unheard of power with a small rack footprint...if they release dual socket boards, forget about it.
    CaptainTom and Puiu like this.
  12. yRaz

    yRaz Nigerian Prince Posts: 2,892   +2,219

    I have a different perspective because I use a lot of multithreaded workloads instead of single threads.

    My opinion of what's going on here is that AMD is trying to get a foothold in the workstation market while they survive of the budget gaming market. For those of us interested in multithreaded work loads, AMD is creating a budget option for people who are interested in the work station side of computing instead of buying used server hardware on ebay
    meric likes this.
  13. Puiu

    Puiu TS Evangelist Posts: 3,444   +1,910

    They are definitely trying to steal the low end side of Intel's server market.
  14. 144hzGamer

    144hzGamer TS Addict Posts: 214   +132

    Meh, Cinebench doesn't tell me much. I want real world benchmarks and they should show the clocks used aswell. That CES comparasion is just hype feeder.
  15. Ira Wechsler

    Ira Wechsler TS Rookie Posts: 24   +12

    There is no contradiction between having a 12 core cpu and a close to 5 GHZ clock speed. This is NOT a monolithic die and these chiplet can reach 5 GHZ with the 7nm process of TSMC. Unfortunately for Intel they will not be able to compete against Zen2 Ryzen and Epyc even with their 10nm process if it ever comes later in 2019 or early 2020. Not only are Intels yields poor, but their costs per wafer are way above that for AMD/TSMC. INTEL will not compete successfully on cost of their ICE Lake products. There is.no sign Intel has moved away from their obsolete monolithic die designs. It will be a very promising 2019 and 2020 for AMD.
  16. Ira Wechsler

    Ira Wechsler TS Rookie Posts: 24   +12

    Already the IPC is better on the engineering samples than on the 9900k. At CES the cinebench competition was run at the same 4GHZ clock speeds. Ryzen 3000 slightly beat the Intel chip. So that proves Ryzen 3000 IPC is already slightly ahead of Intel already and will further surpass Intel as tweaks occur in the next 2 months before the chip goes into production.
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2019
  17. Vulcanproject

    Vulcanproject TS Evangelist Posts: 740   +1,070

    I wouldn't count out Intel just yet. They are going to suffer some serious challenges in the server space over the next 2 years for sure. That will mean a lot of money headed AMD's way.

    For consumer parts it is easy for people to forget AMD were demoing a Zen 2 part on AMD's favoured benchmark. It just about scraped past a 9900k, but that is built on a previous generation process. AMD might have finally caught and even slightly surpassed Intel in ultimate performance, however they needed a considerably superior, brand new node to manage it. A node Intel will (finally) exploit in 2019.

    Desktop 10nm parts are likely at least 6 months behind Zen 2 at this point but I expect Intel will have made significant IPC gains. That is what they were hinting at when revealing their Sunny cove core design last month, including road maps, which hasn't been Intel's thing for a few years. Public road maps mean they now have confidence about future products, unlike the past.

    AMD will gain a lot of new customers this year, it is hard not to when Intel dominated the scene for so long. Intel are still a long way from death. A looooong way. We are simply seeing the fruits of increased competition so 2019 will be a great year for CPUs!
  18. Ira Wechsler

    Ira Wechsler TS Rookie Posts: 24   +12

    Intel 10nm cannot compete against AMD 7nm on an attractive price point. Intel 10nm has poor yields and is a far more expensive process. Intel is unwilling to compete on price and developing a CPU that can only surpass AMD by 5 or 6 percent at $200 to $300 more is going to alienate customers and corporate clients. Intel is not dead but will be in a declining state over the next 3 to 4 years at least.
  19. Vulcanproject

    Vulcanproject TS Evangelist Posts: 740   +1,070

    You can't possibly know details of Intel's 10nm process, since it's not complete yet! We will finally see it with Ice Lake and can assess it then. It has been respun, failed with Cannon Lake, and redesigned again in the past year so whatever Intel cook up for Ice Lake will determine what they actually have on their hands.

    When Intel revealed details of Sunny Cove last month it certainly impressed upon me that there will be significant architecture changes and potentially a notable increase in single threaded IPC. The whole front end has been widened and Intel are still well ahead with introducing better instructions.

    Chances are they will regain the consumer platform lead when it arrives, and will do what they usually do. Charge a premium for it. Which a lot of people will pay, just as they have done the past few years despite Zen being on the scene.
  20. Puiu

    Puiu TS Evangelist Posts: 3,444   +1,910

    Until Sunny Cove launches Intel is going to have trouble competing at mainstream level. AMD will most likely have gen 4, the Zen 2 refresh, out before Intel can start sampling.
    I don't know why but I have a feeling that Intel will skip 10nm for their major redesign and move to 7nm (not the same one as AMD, but their own version) with Sunny Cove.

    Nothing about 10nm says to me that it will ever be ready to replace 14nm with how much trouble Intel has keeping stocks up even on a very mature process. AMD at least tries to mitigate the yield issues for a new process using chiplets to lower the size and complexity and keeping the I/O chip on 14nm.
  21. CaptainTom

    CaptainTom TS Maniac Posts: 404   +213

    They are trying to steal the entire market at this point. They demoed a single Epyc 3000 defeating TWO of Intel's top Xeon's while using less energy than one. That means 2-cpu EPYC rack will defeat a 4-cpu rack from Intel... And AMD is also talking about possible 4-cpu racks as well.

    AMD demoed an underclocked R5 3600 matching a 9900K. That's a ~$250 CPU beating Intel's $500 flagship! We aren't talking about AMD edging past Intel, we are talking about AMD's low-end destroying Intel's Halo products. This is about to get so much worse for Intel than I think most realize.

    It isn't easy to just "make IPC gainz" either btw lol. Intel is lucky if they can have an architecture with even 10% higher IPC next year. No, they aren't going out of business (for at least a decade), but they could lose half their value depending on how long the bleeding continues...
  22. HardReset

    HardReset TS Guru Posts: 653   +263

    Just remember that Sunny Cove is 2016 architecture and Intel's 10nm is 2016 manufacturing process.

    Sunny Lake architecture changes can be hardly called "significant". It's just tweaked Skylake. Changes from Ivy Bridge to Haswell or Haswell to Skylake were on same league than changes from Skylake to Sunny Cove.

    Changes also reminds me of Haswell. 33% more ALU's from Ivy Bridge ALU's equal 33% more performance, eh, no?

    Also, where is Sunny Cove exactly being positioned? Wider core probably means less clock speed and since L1 cache should be 12 way associative, it's going to be quite power hungry one.

    Sunny Cove was thought to be released on 10nm+ process somewhere around 2017 when Intel would have manufacturing and architecture leadership (Ryzen was supposed to be somewhere around Ivy Bridge). In that case shortcomings like less clocks and more power wouldn't be any problem. That didn't happen. Next year Intel tries to compete against equally strong IPC architecture (Zen2) with one that consumes more power and clocks poorly. Combine that with 10nm tech that works like crap and is not even better than TSMC 7nm AMD has.

    So it's very hard to see Intel is going to regain consumer platform lead. They might have slightly better IPC but AMD clocks better, have lower power consumption and have better manufacturing tech.
    CaptainTom likes this.
  23. Mike BE

    Mike BE TS Rookie

    On the amateur side, it's a good time to be building your own PC.

    AMD's products are competitive on price and performance. Plus, competition is always good for the marketplace. It pushes (or should push) Intel to improve its products.

    The same is true on the graphics side with its Radeon RX and Vega cards, as well as the upcoming Radon VII. That last product hasn't been released, and many are disappointed by the perceived performance vs. price. Independent testing will confirm whether the concerns are valid.

    My belief is simple: Intel and Nvidia offer the best performance that money can buy. AMD offers the best value.

    What you do with your money is up to you. Either option is fine. And that's why competition is great for us consumers.
    Sausagemeat and Peter Farkas like this.
  24. CaptainTom

    CaptainTom TS Maniac Posts: 404   +213

    I mean your belief is wrong. Ryzen currently wipes the floor with Intel at all levels besides some edge cases. You basically have to try to make Intel look good to give them any wins these days.
    HardReset likes this.
  25. 144hzGamer

    144hzGamer TS Addict Posts: 214   +132

    If by "trying" you mean 144hz gaming then yeah. Tell me more about having a capped, locked and steady VRR/Async 141 framerate with Ryzen on Battlefield V, Black Ops 4, Destiny 2, Pubg, Fortnite, WW2, etc

    As you can see I didnt have to "try" that much
    Peter Farkas likes this.

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...