WYP
News Guru
This plus higher clocks will make for a compelling product offering.
Read more about AMD's Zen 3 architecture and IPC gain rumours.
Read more about AMD's Zen 3 architecture and IPC gain rumours.
Last edited:
AMD's Zen 3 architecture is expected to deliver an 8+% IPC boost
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
Master&Puppet
New member
It doesn't sound like much but a further 8% and a 100-200mhz boost on top of the ryzen 3000 will look pretty good vs Intel.
Clock for clock ryzen 3000 is what, 5-9% faster than Intel coffee refresh? Add this news together and Intel are in real trouble. My guess would be that the Ryzen 4900X would look something like 4.7-4.9Ghz, +8% IPC and 12C/24T for 449-499$ and it will probably be the last generation of chips on the existing AM4 platform to boot.
To clarify it means Intel will loose the performance per core title, be essentially non-existent in most multicore environment and will be less power efficient. Interesting times.
Clock for clock ryzen 3000 is what, 5-9% faster than Intel coffee refresh? Add this news together and Intel are in real trouble. My guess would be that the Ryzen 4900X would look something like 4.7-4.9Ghz, +8% IPC and 12C/24T for 449-499$ and it will probably be the last generation of chips on the existing AM4 platform to boot.
To clarify it means Intel will loose the performance per core title, be essentially non-existent in most multicore environment and will be less power efficient. Interesting times.
Last edited:
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
I wouldn't expect anything more than 4.3-4.5ghz. Ryzen can barely hit those clocks reliably now.
Depends a lot on how well TSMC's EUV node matures I think, AMD can clearly make chips Ryzen that can hit 4.7Ghz, but seemingly only on like one core per 16 core CPU with current 7nm. If the node matures well then we might see like, one part hitting 4.9Ghz boosts, but yeah it's probably going to be closer to ~4.1Ghz for base clocks. Worth noting though TSMC's 7nm+ doesn't use EUV on the bulk of the chip and that's not what will deliver the benefits here but the general maturing of their 7nm tech will help.
Last edited:
demonking
New member
Agreed on all but i think that another part is heat. Whilst overall these chips produce less heat (compared to previous nodes), because of there smaller size the heat is compacted into a smaller area. Dissipating a similar amount of heat on a smaller surface area is much harder, takes longer and requires more energy. There is no easy way round this either, its basic physics, getting the heat transferred to the IHS faster is the problem in this case not the cooler on top of it. We may well be pushing the limits of silicon transistors here and an alternative material or more exotic cooling methods or transistor shapes may be needed to push much further.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Everyone talks about heat density but these CPUs are running just as cool. Even with the stock heatsinks they are not much different than the 1 and 2 series. It doesn't make much sense to me why everyone keeps bringing it up. If you had everything compacted in the center sure, but these CPUs are using the entire surface area as they are each in their own modules. Which reduces complexity, which reduces the number of transistors in one given area, which reduces heat, etc.
Intel and their architecture, given they keep decreasing overall CPU die size area and increasing overall GPU die size, they will more than likely run into that issue. Unless they can reduce power draw so significantly that it doesn't output much heat to begin with and goes unnoticed until pushing to the extreme.
Intel and their architecture, given they keep decreasing overall CPU die size area and increasing overall GPU die size, they will more than likely run into that issue. Unless they can reduce power draw so significantly that it doesn't output much heat to begin with and goes unnoticed until pushing to the extreme.
Last edited:
Master&Puppet
New member
My mistake, I wasn't clear on what I meant. 4.7-4.9GHz would be what they put on the box, I. E. single core turbo. I would expect 4.3-4.4GHz all core I think.
Just wanted to agree with you on this. We may well see more F SKU processors without iGPUs in the future to compensate and maybe shift towards their own APU line.
Last edited:
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
All good bud. Hopefully Zen can clock that high. With their advantage in multi threaded applications, focusing on single core turbo boost should be a higher priority to help boost the overall performance.
And even if they removed the iGPU the overall heat density probably would still pose a challenge I would assume in next gen CPUs they release.
And even if they removed the iGPU the overall heat density probably would still pose a challenge I would assume in next gen CPUs they release.
Yeah the heat density thing isn't too much of an issue for CPUs atm, they have huge amounts of "dark silicon" which mostly negates the issue, and you rarely max out every core on a chip and put enough sustained load through it to hit the kind of Watts/mm^2 dissipation you get on GPUs and it's a lot easier to spread out at a design level and nowadays AMD can split the uncore up so they can spread the whole thing over 3 spaced out chips. It's quite obvious on GPUs though, very little dark silicon under load, usually pumping out 150W+ from a concentrated area on the die(Since a good chunk on a GPU is the memory controller), so you get dies like Navi which don't have particularly high draw but arn't the easiest to cool.
