Check out this fist-sized socket for next-gen AMD Epyc CPUs

mongeese

Posts: 591   +119
Staff member
The big picture: AMD's drive to design ever-larger Epyc processors has produced an enormous new socket. Called the SP5, it's about a third the size of a mini-ITX motherboard, while each processor's package is almost four times the size of a regular Ryzen processor.

AMD announced the Epyc 7004 CPU series, codenamed Genoa, in November last year. It uses the Zen 4 architecture and is built on the TSMC N5 node, and features 12-channel DDR5 and PCIe 5.0. The CPUs will have as many as 96 cores / 192 threads and as few as 16 cores / 32 threads.

It's no surprise that it will need a bigger socket than the up-to 64-core, DDR4-wielding 7003-series. The SP5 has 6096 pins, 49% more than its predecessor's 4094, and 46% more than Intel's present-day Xeon socket, the LGA 4189.

A member of the ServeTheHome forums has posted the first photo of the socket (above) and it shows how enormous it is compared to some memory slots. It looks like the photo is of an engineering sample board of some sort that might even have two sockets, judging by the layout of the memory.

In the photo, the socket uses the retention hardware described in the documents leaked in the Gigabyte hack last year, which confirms that it is SP5. Because of its size, it likely needed a new retention mechanism to secure it evenly while sandwiched between the motherboard and cooler.

In these two photos of an alleged 16-core Genoa part, from VideoCardz, you can see just how large they've become. In numbers, each processor's package is about 75 mm by 72 mm, almost four times the size of a regular Ryzen processor.

AMD has said that Genoa parts are already shipping to key partners, which is likely who we have to thank for these photos. A full release is slated for later this year, possibly in Q3.

Permalink to story.

 

VitalyT

Posts: 6,232   +6,761
It has so many cores that it can probably running without any GPU at all: just all GPU tasks done in CPU with like idk probably 256 cores 512 threads or something crazy like that.
Modern GPU-s are all about raster and vector operations, which generic CPU-s do not naturally support. That's why their performance won't scale well for graphics, no matter how many cores.
 

yRaz

Posts: 4,424   +5,169
Modern GPU-s are all about raster and vector operations, which generic CPU-s do not naturally support. That's why their performance won't scale well for graphics, no matter how many cores.
That's not the point, yeah the performance will suck compared to GPUs but being able to actually render Crysis solely on the CPU would be pretty F***ing impressive.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,210   +4,248
Modern GPU-s are all about raster and vector operations, which generic CPU-s do not naturally support. That's why their performance won't scale well for graphics, no matter how many cores.

I didn't say run it at a decent framerate or resolution, just the fact that it would run at all without a GPU is remarkable precisely because of the reasons you mention: it really shouldn't work but alas:

my threadripper pro which has 64 cores and is almost as large as this can run crysis albeit slowly without a gpu.
 

mbk34

Posts: 308   +211
That's not the point, yeah the performance will suck compared to GPUs but being able to actually render Crysis solely on the CPU would be pretty F***ing impressive.
I believe the new AMD APUs with their RDNA2 integrated graphics run Crysis fine at 1080p. I also understand the latest laptops from Apple with the M1 processors do it even better. Someone is going to have to right another game that no computer can run just so we have a new yardstick.
 

yRaz

Posts: 4,424   +5,169
I believe the new AMD APUs with their RDNA2 integrated graphics run Crysis fine at 1080p. I also understand the latest laptops from Apple with the M1 processors do it even better. Someone is going to have to right another game that no computer can run just so we have a new yardstick.
We aren't talking about integrated graphics, we are talking about rendering 3D images on x86/64 cores. IE, using something to do stuff it's not meant to do and it doing it.
 

Tom Yum

Posts: 166   +395
That red mobo is giving me strong MSI Socket A-era motherboard flashbacks. I remember drawling over this beastie (MSI K7N2) for ages....

k7n2-board.jpg
 

mbk34

Posts: 308   +211
We aren't talking about integrated graphics, we are talking about rendering 3D images on x86/64 cores. IE, using something to do stuff it's not meant to do and it doing it.
unfortunately I'm not a mind reader.
 

ypsylon

Posts: 507   +512
Whoever is responsible at Intel for socket design should ASAP steal AMD engineers or subcontractor responsible for retention mechanism.

Really Intel dumped such massive load of manure with LGA3647 or new 4189. Who thinks of this nonsense? On the other side of the spectrum, AMD has foolproof mechanism which is rock solid. Putting aside accidents of dropping CPU and first iteration of 4096 retention mechanism from Foxconn IIRC, which has been rectified in a timely manner. Even here with over 6000 pins and size of small stadium, mechanism stays the same in principle.

BTW: AMD can shout to Intel and say: see mine is BIGGER! :D
 

Puiu

Posts: 5,550   +4,518
TechSpot Elite
Modern GPU-s are all about raster and vector operations, which generic CPU-s do not naturally support. That's why their performance won't scale well for graphics, no matter how many cores.
A CPU can do GPU tasks, it just won't be fast. This should be able to some simple 3D games if somebody decides to make a CPU only emulator for them (90s games).
 
Last edited:

kinetix

Posts: 29   +26
It has so many cores that it can probably running without any GPU at all: just all GPU tasks done in CPU with like idk probably 256 cores 512 threads or something crazy like that.
I have seen it done in linus tech tips, with current EPYC models