Page 1 of 4

16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Sun May 26, 2019 10:49 pm
by chuckula
But you get 12.

AND YOU BETTER FREAKIN' LIKE IT

https://www.anandtech.com/show/14407/am ... -coming-77

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 12:25 am
by Waco
Damn. Impressive announcement...but the 3950X is going to be an insta-buy for me at 16 cores. You know they will, the chiplets have the cores...

I'm going to impatiently await benchmarks of the consumer chips. I hope to have Rome into a few testbeds in the next couple months, but those will be gated by NDAs expiring for releasing results. :(

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 1:10 am
by CScottG
chuckula wrote:
But you get 12.

AND YOU BETTER FREAKIN' LIKE IT



..pff.

Just a wanna-be *Shrout ..err, -shill for Intel that's a bit soured by current red-team news. :P


*I mean, just look at how happy he seems to be:

https://www.engadget.com/2019/05/26/int ... _source=dl

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 1:37 am
by f0d
looks like adoredtv got everything wrong even just days before this announcement
i dont think anyone was expecting him to be right though... $99 6 core? $179 8 core? 5ghz clocks? model names?
all wrong

was fun talking to amd fans who thought it was going to be true though :lol:

that said im going to get a ryzen 5 3600 for $199 after i sell my ryzen 7 1700x, looks like a good ipc upgrade and i dont use 8 cores on my gaming system for any games i play

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 2:15 am
by NTMBK
Yeah, the midrange chips are what I'm interested in. The 3600X has slight clock boost, double AVX throughput, double the L3 cache and faster memory support than its predecessor- I wonder how much difference that will make.

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 3:30 am
by JustAnEngineer
Chuckula,

Have you considered how much happier your life might be if you gave up your crusade against a certain corporation?

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 4:37 am
by thx1138r
12 cores at 4.6Ghz running in a 105W TDP envelope for $499 is pretty damn impressive and more than I was expecting from AMDs announcement. I'm really glad there is some healthy competition back in the CPU market again.

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 6:12 am
by Krogoth
This reminds me of Athlon 64 launch. Intel really doesn't have any counter to this. The entire Lake family and 14nm+ node just can't keep up. Intel needs to go back to the drawing boards and move beyond 14nm++ if they want any realistic chance of overtaking Zen2 and beyond. IMO, the hardware-level security exploitations and performance loss to migrate them have done far damage to Intel's prestige and reputation then any of AMD's efforts.

FYI, the 9900KS is just the 8086K stunt again.

The abstinence of a customer-tier 16-core Zen2 desktop SKU can easily be explained that AMD doesn't want to cannibalize their Threadripper 1/2 line-up yet. They'll probably announce them around the same time as Threadripper 3's official debut. It'll also be probably be a challenge to run on older AM4 boards that pre-date 5xx family.

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 6:56 am
by USAFTW
15% IPC uplift and matching the i9 9900K in single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads at less power is pretty impressive in my book. Add to that the new chipset and support for PCI-E Gen 4. We'll see what Intel's response will be.
The Navi tease is a quite intriguing as well. That looks to be a rather small chip, and beating an RTX 2070 (just, Strange Brigade favors AMD) isn't that bad. We'll see how RDNA ends up being in a week or so.

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 7:40 am
by ptsant
It seems to me that the $100 extra for double cache, 50% more cores and 100MHz more boost is a reasonable price to pay. Then again, $499, is more than I've ever paid for a CPU. At least it would be a slot-in upgrade: no MB, no RAM to buy. Convenient.

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 7:41 am
by steelcity_ballin
The 3900x is a day-1 buy for me. Shout out to our own builders-anonymous forum for suggesting I get a crappy 2200g and wait for for Ryzen2. Very excited that I did, and the payoff looks to be legit. Almost 70MB of L3 cache? Lets gooooooooo!

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 7:56 am
by chuckula
f0d wrote:
looks like adoredtv got everything wrong even just days before this announcement


I wish I had the cult-like following that Jim at AdoreTV had. Maybe I need to 1. Get a Youtube channel. 2. Turn off my brain. and... 3. Be overwhelmingly wrong over any over again to the point where any rational person would know I'm just making stuff up with no sources!!

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 8:03 am
by chuckula
Waco wrote:
Damn. Impressive announcement...but the 3950X is going to be an insta-buy for me at 16 cores. You know they will, the chiplets have the cores...

I'm going to impatiently await benchmarks of the consumer chips. I hope to have Rome into a few testbeds in the next couple months, but those will be gated by NDAs expiring for releasing results. :(


To be perfectly blunt: When a regular 16-coar Threadripper is running at $500, why do you want to pay more money for a desktop board that cuts off half of the memory channels and memory capacity??

If you're so in love with AMD, help them out by by buying a 16 core threadripper and using it, because these little chiplets are more for show than for go.

Bonus: Here's Xeon AP beating a 128-coar Epyc system in literally the exact same NAMD demo that AMD showed off on stage at Computex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCsIETb ... e=youtu.be

You might say "But Inte's 56 coar Xeons are too expensive!" Well for one thing: No they aren't for the customers who matter. For another thing: I never said that was a 56 coar Xeon AP platform because it wasn't. It was a two-socket 96 coar platform beating AMD's monstrosity that has a full 33% more coars in the exact benchmark that AMD cherry picked for its demo.

When Intel launches Sapphire Rapids, I fully expect everyone here to be overjoyed if a Sapphire Rapids part with 33% MORE coarz than an older AMD part still manages to lose in the exact same tests that Intel shows off on stage at the launch. Fair is fair.

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 8:08 am
by sconesy
The pre-announcement buzz I heard seems to mostly have been true, concerning boost frequency range and that AMD is now the certified IPC champ. But I think I heard "5.0 soon" so often I kind of wanted it to be true. The boost of the 65W TDP 3700x is within 100 MHz of the 105W TDP 3800x.

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 8:36 am
by jihadjoe
Desktop maxing out at 12C strongly hints that AMD is saving all of the 8-core chiplets for EPYC. I bet the desktop 8C are using 4+4.

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 9:04 am
by chuckula
jihadjoe wrote:
Desktop maxing out at 12C strongly hints that AMD is saving all of the 8-core chiplets for EPYC. I bet the desktop 8C are using 4+4.


No, the 8 core desktop parts are using a single chiplet as has already been publicly shown. They are certainly harvesting lower-core count chiplets for the 12-core parts of course.

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 9:11 am
by DeadOfKnight
jihadjoe wrote:
Desktop maxing out at 12C strongly hints that AMD is saving all of the 8-core chiplets for EPYC. I bet the desktop 8C are using 4+4.

Nah, I''m pretty sure they are saving it for after Intel plays their hand. Still, even 8 cores and 16 threads is more than enough for most people. The real question is how much of a bottleneck the next iteration of infinity fabric really is. I look forward to TR's inside-the-second benchmarks. Also, with Zen 2 and Navi chips being mass produced for consoles, I would expect an APU to come out that will give the power of a next gen console in one package. Something like Kaby Lake G possibly, with HBM on package, is also likely. Intel is already hard at work to come up with something similar, and they'll probably have it whenever they get their next gen fabrication process ready to go as well.

Whatever happens after today though, the real winners are the consumers. Intel is going to have to slash prices by as much as 50% to compete with AMD. Even if real world benchmarks don't look as good as the ones AMD has shown, it's most likely going to be roughly the same performance per core. Exciting days are here again in the CPU space. Looking forward to Intel bringing the pressure to the discrete GPU market to stir up that pot also. They've poached the right talent for it, so I guess we will see.

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 9:28 am
by Krogoth
chuckula wrote:
Waco wrote:
Damn. Impressive announcement...but the 3950X is going to be an insta-buy for me at 16 cores. You know they will, the chiplets have the cores...

I'm going to impatiently await benchmarks of the consumer chips. I hope to have Rome into a few testbeds in the next couple months, but those will be gated by NDAs expiring for releasing results. :(


To be perfectly blunt: When a regular 16-coar Threadripper is running at $500, why do you want to pay more money for a desktop board that cuts off half of the memory channels and memory capacity??

If you're so in love with AMD, help them out by by buying a 16 core threadripper and using it, because these little chiplets are more for show than for go.

Bonus: Here's Xeon AP beating a 128-coar Epyc system in literally the exact same NAMD demo that AMD showed off on stage at Computex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCsIETb ... e=youtu.be

You might say "But Inte's 56 coar Xeons are too expensive!" Well for one thing: No they aren't for the customers who matter. For another thing: I never said that was a 56 coar Xeon AP platform because it wasn't. It was a two-socket 96 coar platform beating AMD's monstrosity that has a full 33% more coars in the exact benchmark that AMD cherry picked for its demo.

When Intel launches Sapphire Rapids, I fully expect everyone here to be overjoyed if a Sapphire Rapids part with 33% MORE coarz than an older AMD part still manages to lose in the exact same tests that Intel shows off on stage at the launch. Fair is fair.


Zen-2 parts have higher clockspeeds and have access to PCIe 4.0 if you really need it. Otherwise, you can wait for Threadripper 3 if you want Zen2 on the HEDT-side. It is part of the reason why AMD is withholding their 16-core desktop Zen2 SKUs.

Power efficiency is much more important metric in the HPC world. Intel has an uphill battle here without their historical foundry advantage. They need move away from monolithic designs ASAP but again they have been slowly doing that since Broadwell-E/Broadwell-EP. The Lake dynasty is at wits end. What were seeing is a repeat of Netburst dyantsy's end days and emergence of the K8.

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 11:16 am
by cegras
When AMD catches up to intel, chuckula's meltdown will be epic. Or maybe he will implode in a spiral of denial.

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 12:09 pm
by DancinJack
I've a hard time believing AMD kept the TDP of a 12/24 CPU to 105W with 3.8GHz base and 4.6 Turbo, even on TSMC 7nm. Like, maybe in one very specific benchmark. Oh well. COME ON ICE LAKE. TIME TO PARTY.

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 12:17 pm
by DancinJack
sconesy wrote:
...and that AMD is now the certified IPC champ.

This made me lol.

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 12:27 pm
by setaG_lliB
That 65w 3700x looks delicious. That might be the CPU going into my next build. I'm still on Ivy Bridge, itching for an upgrade, and Intel keeps not delivering Ice Lake desktop CPUs.

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 2:40 pm
by CScottG
chuckula wrote:
f0d wrote:
looks like adoredtv got everything wrong even just days before this announcement


I wish I had the cult-like following that Jim at AdoreTV had. Maybe I need to 1. Get a Youtube channel. 2. Turn off my brain. and... 3. Be overwhelmingly wrong over any over again to the point where any rational person would know I'm just making stuff up with no sources!!



-yes, but it's pure click-bait and it works! :lol:

https://youtu.be/fHsa9DqmId8?t=737

-particularly:

https://youtu.be/fHsa9DqmId8?t=910

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 2:57 pm
by Chrispy_
I'm surprised there's no 16 core announcement for the consumer 3000-series.
I guess there are two potential reasons AMD might be holding back on that model:

  1. At $499 the Ryzen 9 beats every Coffee Lake model Intel makes, using just 12 cores by the looks of it?
  2. Why waste the most efficient, highest-clocked dies for low-profit consumer parts? Sell them as Epyc servers!

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 5:08 pm
by LoneWolf15
Krogoth wrote:
chuckula wrote:
Waco wrote:
Damn. Impressive announcement...but the 3950X is going to be an insta-buy for me at 16 cores. You know they will, the chiplets have the cores...

I'm going to impatiently await benchmarks of the consumer chips. I hope to have Rome into a few testbeds in the next couple months, but those will be gated by NDAs expiring for releasing results. :(


To be perfectly blunt: When a regular 16-coar Threadripper is running at $500, why do you want to pay more money for a desktop board that cuts off half of the memory channels and memory capacity??

If you're so in love with AMD, help them out by by buying a 16 core threadripper and using it, because these little chiplets are more for show than for go.

Bonus: Here's Xeon AP beating a 128-coar Epyc system in literally the exact same NAMD demo that AMD showed off on stage at Computex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCsIETb ... e=youtu.be

You might say "But Inte's 56 coar Xeons are too expensive!" Well for one thing: No they aren't for the customers who matter. For another thing: I never said that was a 56 coar Xeon AP platform because it wasn't. It was a two-socket 96 coar platform beating AMD's monstrosity that has a full 33% more coars in the exact benchmark that AMD cherry picked for its demo.

When Intel launches Sapphire Rapids, I fully expect everyone here to be overjoyed if a Sapphire Rapids part with 33% MORE coarz than an older AMD part still manages to lose in the exact same tests that Intel shows off on stage at the launch. Fair is fair.


Zen-2 parts have higher clockspeeds and have access to PCIe 4.0 if you really need it. Otherwise, you can wait for Threadripper 3 if you want Zen2 on the HEDT-side. It is part of the reason why AMD is withholding their 16-core desktop Zen2 SKUs.

Power efficiency is much more important metric in the HPC world. Intel has an uphill battle here without their historical foundry advantage. They need move away from monolithic designs ASAP but again they have been slowly doing that since Broadwell-E/Broadwell-EP. The Lake dynasty is at wits end. What were seeing is a repeat of Netburst dyantsy's end days and emergence of the K8.


Although I'd say that Netburst was a far less efficient architecture, so the analogy isn't near as valid. Lake could scale further IMO if Intel could have gotten their die process ducks in a row, but that killed them. The vulnerabilities in their SMT aren't helping either; it looks like there needs to be a real change in how this is done.

The IPC will be the most interesting thing to see from AMD, IMO. For them to take the crown there will be impressive indeed.

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 5:31 pm
by anotherengineer
chuckula wrote:
But you get 12.

AND YOU BETTER FREAKIN' LIKE IT

https://www.anandtech.com/show/14407/am ... -coming-77


It's because they realized 12 would be enough with all the security issues Intel has been having of late ;)

WHO NEEDS 16 COARZ ;)

sigh, I'm getting dragged down to chucks level
time to go to techpowerup

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 6:16 pm
by Redocbew
LoneWolf15 wrote:
Although I'd say that Netburst was a far less efficient architecture, so the analogy isn't near as valid. Lake could scale further IMO if Intel could have gotten their die process ducks in a row, but that killed them. The vulnerabilities in their SMT aren't helping either; it looks like there needs to be a real change in how this is done.

The IPC will be the most interesting thing to see from AMD, IMO. For them to take the crown there will be impressive indeed.


Agreed. I wonder how useful of a metric IPC still is though. It's never been a static figure that always stays the same. Some average value is the best we can do, and now with op-caches, op-fusions, skipping of decoders, and differing numbers of floating point and/or integer instructions accepted for each clock the wiggleroom for this metric has probably increased possibly by quite a lot. It's outside my field, but it always makes me wonder when there's a new announcement like this, and everyone goes bonkers over IPC even though nobody knows what it is.

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Tue May 28, 2019 9:24 am
by Usacomp2k3
Any word on the APU variant? The 3600g was rumored. Maybe it's later in the year? My wife's, A10 is still holding pretty good for desktop use, but stupid javascript-laden websites are causing it to hitch more frequently than I like.

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Tue May 28, 2019 9:51 am
by dragontamer5788
Redocbew wrote:
LoneWolf15 wrote:
Although I'd say that Netburst was a far less efficient architecture, so the analogy isn't near as valid. Lake could scale further IMO if Intel could have gotten their die process ducks in a row, but that killed them. The vulnerabilities in their SMT aren't helping either; it looks like there needs to be a real change in how this is done.

The IPC will be the most interesting thing to see from AMD, IMO. For them to take the crown there will be impressive indeed.


Agreed. I wonder how useful of a metric IPC still is though. It's never been a static figure that always stays the same. Some average value is the best we can do, and now with op-caches, op-fusions, skipping of decoders, and differing numbers of floating point and/or integer instructions accepted for each clock the wiggleroom for this metric has probably increased possibly by quite a lot. It's outside my field, but it always makes me wonder when there's a new announcement like this, and everyone goes bonkers over IPC even though nobody knows what it is.


Anyone who has actually measured IPC using a real profiling tool like AMD uProf or Intel vTune, will know that IPC is something the programmer controls.

I can change the IPC of my code to focus on things that AMD does better, or I can change it to make Intel look better. I can change my code to be memory-limited (0.2 IPC or less), I can change my code to be very CPU heavy (kinda arbitrary, but I can write loops with 2 or 3 IPC. I've heard of programmers hitting 4 to 6 IPC in special cases)

As such, IPC only matters if you somehow keep the fight "fair", and there's a lot of opinion that goes into what makes a fair test. In any case, IPC + Clock rate is a better measurement than just raw clocks, but IPC has "all the complexity" because you have to make a lot of assumptions behind IPC.

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Posted: Tue May 28, 2019 10:48 am
by MileageMayVary
Dropping this here for comparisons

Image