AMD's Zen 4-based Ryzen 6000 CPUs will probably be limited to 16 cores

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,727   +2,047
TechSpot Elite
Can we please try to not let the same plague that hit Videocardz‘ forums affect Techspot ?

Besides being completely illogical - why would Intel be back if AMD under promised ? - this is a zero effort troll post that actually subtracts value from the discussion.
That's what the ignore button is for. I highly recommend it. It makes life so much better. :laughing:
 

Dyper

Posts: 37   +22
What under deliveries? Have you been living on a different planet in the last 3 years?

They managed to deliver every single time what they said they would and a few times, like with RDNA 2 and Zen3 they actually over-deliverd...

The amount of ignorance and fainboi blindness these days is incommensurable... bleh.

Totally agree about promises kept. Just look at the desktop APU due out in a few weeks.

My only beef with ALL of these chip makers is we’ve lost the 5GHz base frequency promise for a “boost” and endless core counts.

It took a year for my software to even address 12/16 cores.
But the latency inherent with additional cores is terrible.

Zen 3’s unified cache has addressed this from what I’ve read.
Sure hope so, I’m jumping to an AMD 5700G and already pre paid for the board due in the States tomorrow.

Sure wish for a 7/5/3nm 5.5GHz Quad with a huge CPU cache someday.
Keep the 24/32 cores.
 

Austinturner

Posts: 277   +325
I don't really understand how this is news because it's not really significant to anyone except for Intel fanboys looking for a reason to complain about AMD. Ryzen 9 has always been either 12 or 16 cores with 24 or 32 threads, respectively. I'm sure that people will be just fine with 16 cores and 32 threads for top-level consumer-grade CPUs since the vast majority of programs . Anyone who REALLY needs more than 16 cores would probably have been looking at ThreadRipper anyway so it doesn't affect them.

I just wonder how many fools there are who bought the 16-core Ryzen 9 CPUs who have at least half of their cores sitting at idle at all times just so they could boast about having 16 cores.

I think that AMD's being smart here. By keeping the core limit on consumer-grade Ryzen at 16, they're able to produce more total CPUs to satisfy demand. That would go a long way to ensure that there's enough CPUs to go around. It's clear that AMD has learnt the lessons taught by the silicon shortage and it's also clear that anyone whining about this hasn't.
I have no idea why the article didn’t touch on this, AMD has no reason to offer more than 16 cores on its consumer platform at the moment, it would just cannibalise higher margin sales of TR. Intel doesn’t have a decent Threadripper competitor which makes that a very lucrative segment for AMD.
 

Adi6293

Posts: 907   +1,272
well it is AMD thing promoting cross-generation compatibility which often as in this case does not exist and you as the end user cannot do a thing about it and just do the bet that you get the right bios flashed on your mobo and prey it was not sitting somewhere on the shelf for many months before you picked it. just to let you know that simillar cross-gen compatibility with intel chipset
mobo it just lets you boot to bios with wrong cpu identification so you are at least able to flash it from the bios itself

Look you can try to spin it whatever way you want but you will not get out of it, You didn't do your homework, its not that hard to do a quick google search to see if what you were about to buy was going to work its literally common sense and I would bet you £100 000 that somewhere out there is someone like you who bought an incompatible Intel CPU / motherboard and then tried to blame Intel for it, it happens ;)
 

theruck

Posts: 365   +193
Look you can try to spin it whatever way you want but you will not get out of it, You didn't do your homework, its not that hard to do a quick google search to see if what you were about to buy was going to work its literally common sense and I would bet you £100 000 that somewhere out there is someone like you who bought an incompatible Intel CPU / motherboard and then tried to blame Intel for it, it happens ;)
that mobo is compatible with proper bios. as per amd promises. the problem is that amd designed it that you cant boot to bios with newer cpu thanks to the amd architecture and design, it must be so hard for them todo it as intel does and allow you to enter bios with newer cpu.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 3,611   +1,715
Again... the flaw wasn't AMD - it was YOU.

Intel makes you buy a completely new motherboard just about every time they update their CPU - AMD doesn't.

There really is no way that you can justify this as "Intel is better than AMD"... next time, do a little research before you buy something if you really think this is AMD's fault and not your own.
Intel doesn't make you do anything. History has shown time and time again that if you stayed on that first gen Intel board, you were better or equal in performance by the time AMD moved on to their next socket. We can all agree Zen and Zen+ were not gaming threats, so if you were on Intel, where is the force to upgrade? Bulldozer the same thing. Phenom too. Intel socket changes also came with better chipset improvements, so when you did do a platform upgrade, you had new and more useful improvements waiting for you compared to AMD chipsets.

Blaming the user that is used to buying plug and play hardware for not doing compatibility research first, because AMD needs time to get back on their feet is unfair. You're assuming people that aren't techies are responsible for knowing what we know. Prebuilts are king, but it shouldn't be a challenge if you venture outside of that. And as a result that hurts AMD, not consumers as much, so not sure the benefit of blaming him. It's not the consumer that is in the midst of a major comeback after near death.

TL;DR Not everyone is a computer nerd or cares to be one when all they want is a working computer. If he returned AMD hardware and got Intel and he's happy, who's the real loser? Intel's pulling ~$80B revenue on the regular and I'm sure even they are surprised 14nm held up as well as it did against AMD for the most part.
 

theruck

Posts: 365   +193
Intel doesn't make you do anything. History has shown time and time again that if you stayed on that first gen Intel board, you were better or equal in performance by the time AMD moved on to their next socket. We can all agree Zen and Zen+ were not gaming threats, so if you were on Intel, where is the force to upgrade? Bulldozer the same thing. Phenom too. Intel socket changes also came with better chipset improvements, so when you did do a platform upgrade, you had new and more useful improvements waiting for you compared to AMD chipsets.

Blaming the user that is used to buying plug and play hardware for not doing compatibility research first, because AMD needs time to get back on their feet is unfair. You're assuming people that aren't techies are responsible for knowing what we know. Prebuilts are king, but it shouldn't be a challenge if you venture outside of that. And as a result that hurts AMD, not consumers as much, so not sure the benefit of blaming him. It's not the consumer that is in the midst of a major comeback after near death.

TL;DR Not everyone is a computer nerd or cares to be one when all they want is a working computer. If he returned AMD hardware and got Intel and he's happy, who's the real loser? Intel's pulling ~$80B revenue on the regular and I'm sure even they are surprised 14nm held up as well as it did against AMD for the most part.
I knew I needed the new bios and I do know how to flash it but amd does not allow me to if I do not buy old and new cpu with a new mobo :)
 
I knew I needed the new bios and I do know how to flash it but amd does not allow me to if I do not buy old and new cpu with a new mobo
I understand your frustration, but how is that AMD's fault and not the manufacturer of the board? AMD release new product and compatibility code for old boards. New product is compatible with old boards, if compatibility code is implemented. Manufacturer doesn't implement code because they want another sale or didn't design board with enough space for AGESA. This makes AMD the bad guy because ASUS/MSI/Gigabyte are greedy, e-waste creating punks? Also, it's the board manufacturer's choice not to put the ability to update BIOS without a CPU installed. AMD seem to have done the right thing and provided all the tools for their CPU customers to get what they were promised. It's a 3rd party that's dropping the ball.
 
Last edited:

nnguy2

Posts: 308   +610
well I knew that the moment I started it, but as a customer I expect that if I buy some new components they should work and there is nothing I could do about it just to return. is it amds fault? no and yes at the same time. its under their control as a manufacturer not under distributors or
customers control. and yes the result for the customer is the same as with Intel - you need to buy new gen mobo with new gen cpu if you are building a new pc

I don't know about you, I have x570 taichi with 3700x. got 5900x on release, dropped it in and it worked like magic.

I mean it's not the car manufacturer's fault you put diesel in a gasoline engine...
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 3,611   +1,715
Would be cool if all mobo makers had bios flash without CPU, OR.... AMD and Intel made a "dummy" CPU that could be used solely to POST just to flash BIOS. Not everyone would need one so they wouldn't need to make too many of them. I don't know. I'm just throwing ideas out that I haven't heard before. Charge like $20 for it.
 

Austinturner

Posts: 277   +325
Would be cool if all mobo makers had bios flash without CPU, OR.... AMD and Intel made a "dummy" CPU that could be used solely to POST just to flash BIOS. Not everyone would need one so they wouldn't need to make too many of them. I don't know. I'm just throwing ideas out that I haven't heard before. Charge like $20 for it.
Bios flash without cpu makes sense, particularly for the longer lived AMD socket compatibility.

But in the current situation a decent PC component retailer should be able to assist a customer to flash the bios, a good reason not to buy from companies like Amazon.
 

theruck

Posts: 365   +193
Bios flash without cpu makes sense, particularly for the longer lived AMD socket compatibility.

But in the current situation a decent PC component retailer should be able to assist a customer to flash the bios, a good reason not to buy from companies like Amazon.
you mean a retailer like amazon? :)
 

Kosmoz

Posts: 382   +687
sorry to burst your bubble but I am in EU and even availability of ryzen 3 1300x and athlon GE cpus was 0 for many months since 2020 and it is not even zen3 arch so my underdelivery point is real
You got the short stick draw and you're mad about it, I had the opportunity to buy dozens of Zen3 processors at any tiers in any month and at MSRP (some of them), yeah crazy! So I have the exact opposite experience...

So who is right in this situation? Hm?
Totally agree about promises kept. Just look at the desktop APU due out in a few weeks.

My only beef with ALL of these chip makers is we’ve lost the 5GHz base frequency promise for a “boost” and endless core counts.

It took a year for my software to even address 12/16 cores.
But the latency inherent with additional cores is terrible.

Zen 3’s unified cache has addressed this from what I’ve read.
Sure hope so, I’m jumping to an AMD 5700G and already pre paid for the board due in the States tomorrow.

Sure wish for a 7/5/3nm 5.5GHz Quad with a huge CPU cache someday.
Keep the 24/32 cores.
I never understood the 5GHz craze...

Never cared, never will... all I care is how good the CPU is, it's actual performance.

I couldn't care less if it was a 1 core CPU at 1GHz and inexplicably beat all the 16 core CPUs at over 5Ghz, I would praise that one. That would be the best CPU.

I'm not sure what type of psychological disorder is this one (it sure looks like one), but some people really need to see that 5Ghz clock speed or they start breaking down, or something...
 

Bobbydpue

Posts: 220   +145
It's almost like they don't have dedicated fabs, and almost like they are a much smaller company than Intel, with less resources (Including money). And they're still more capable than Intel at making CPU's.

Being an Intel fanboy in 2021 is cringe.
You are being a fanboy. "And they're still more capable than Intel at making CPU's." AMD doesn't make CPU's they design them. Intel is just as capable at designing CPU if not more so, they just aren't as capable as TSMC or Samsung in manufacturing them, but neither is AMD.
 

Bobbydpue

Posts: 220   +145
Bios flash without cpu makes sense, particularly for the longer lived AMD socket compatibility.

But in the current situation a decent PC component retailer should be able to assist a customer to flash the bios, a good reason not to buy from companies like Amazon.
I don't think there was a motherboard that support more than three generations of AMD Ryzen CPUs. That's just one generation more than Intel normally supports and AMD didn't really want to do it.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,675   +2,812
I don't think there was a motherboard that support more than three generations of AMD Ryzen CPUs. That's just one generation more than Intel normally supports and AMD didn't really want to do it.
The X570 boards used by TS support Zen, Zen+, Zen 2 and Zen 3, same for e.g. the B450 Tomahawk Max. There may even be boards out there that still support Bristol Ridge, making this five generations.

But four does actually seem to be the standard.

Edit: I forgot that Carrizo Pro was also on AM4.

 
Last edited:

Austinturner

Posts: 277   +325
you mean a retailer like amazon? :)
No, I mean if I had the issue you described, the computer shop I buy from (which I can visit in person) would be able to use one of their older cpus to flash the bios and let me use my new cpu. A company like amazon would have no capability to help a customer like that.
 

Austinturner

Posts: 277   +325
I don't think there was a motherboard that support more than three generations of AMD Ryzen CPUs. That's just one generation more than Intel normally supports and AMD didn't really want to do it.
Upgrading two cpu generations would be much more compelling than upgrading one generation, so my reasoning stands that AMD socket compatibility lasted longer and the need to flash the bios would be more common.
 

Puiu

Posts: 4,866   +3,749
TechSpot Elite
Would be cool if all mobo makers had bios flash without CPU, OR.... AMD and Intel made a "dummy" CPU that could be used solely to POST just to flash BIOS. Not everyone would need one so they wouldn't need to make too many of them. I don't know. I'm just throwing ideas out that I haven't heard before. Charge like $20 for it.
There are mobos that you can flash with just a thumb drive that contains the new bios (no CPU required). Most mid-range and better B550 and X570 boards have this feature.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,727   +2,047
TechSpot Elite
I have no idea why the article didn’t touch on this, AMD has no reason to offer more than 16 cores on its consumer platform at the moment, it would just cannibalise higher margin sales of TR. Intel doesn’t have a decent Threadripper competitor which makes that a very lucrative segment for AMD.
Such is the way of corporate media. Create controversy where none exists and it will draw more readers.
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,403   +1,999
I am not a fan but when I tried to build an AMD system with the new cpus I came to incompatibility (system did not light up on power perhaps due to bios incompatibility so had to return both) and unavailability only (lile no cpus of interest on stock anywhere)and it was with premium price tag over Intel so thanks AMD I tried you failed

Sounds like a PEBKAC issue.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,727   +2,047
TechSpot Elite
Totally agree about promises kept. Just look at the desktop APU due out in a few weeks.

My only beef with ALL of these chip makers is we’ve lost the 5GHz base frequency promise for a “boost” and endless core counts.

It took a year for my software to even address 12/16 cores.
But the latency inherent with additional cores is terrible.

Zen 3’s unified cache has addressed this from what I’ve read.
Sure hope so, I’m jumping to an AMD 5700G and already pre paid for the board due in the States tomorrow.

Sure wish for a 7/5/3nm 5.5GHz Quad with a huge CPU cache someday.
Keep the 24/32 cores.
Don't be so hung up on clock speeds because they're VERY deceptive. Having a CPU that can clock at 5GHz doesn't mean anything by itself. Hell, the FX-8350 can EASILY clock to 5GHz and beyond but it doesn't mean anything because the IPC is so damn low. Worry about total performance which is clock speed x IPC.

Higher clock speeds are seemingly harder to do with smaller production nodes because the smaller the transistor gates become, the less resistant they are to the thermals caused by higher voltages. This is one of the reasons why it was easier to have higher clock speeds in the past than it seems to be now. When you increase your multiplier, you usually have to also increase your voltage to keep the CPU stable. With production nodes getting so small, the voltages have to be kept down or you'll fry the CPU.

I'll use the old AMD K6 CPU as an example because it has the core voltage printed on the heat spreader.

The original K6 was manufactured using a 350nm process node. It had a core voltage of 2.9V at 166MHz:
AMD_K6-166ALR.jpg

However, once it advanced to 250nm and the clock speed increased by ~30% on average, the core voltage had to be lowered to 2.2V: This means that the first version would probably have been a better overclocker and would be able to reach a higher overclock than the newer one as long as sufficient cooling was given because the transistor gates are just that much larger and sturdier. Unfortunately, overclocking was not a really a thing yet.

Silicon is a semiconductor and therefore has a good amount of resistance to the transmission of electricity. That resistance creates a lot of heat and so the core voltage had to be dropped considerably because the smaller transistor gates were unable to tolerate the thermals generated by resisting 2.9V at 300MHz.
KL_AMD_K6_LittleFoot.jpg


So you see, worrying about some clock speed that is only useful for comparing two CPUs of EXACTLY the same architecture and node. It is otherwise a completely useless metric. The only thing that matters is what the numbers say in Steve's graphs and tables.
 
Last edited: