Ryzen2 rumoured to have up to 16 Cores

[Alaric]

I am wondering, if AMD go through with "moar coars" for consumers, is there a point where software might benefit from SMT off as mentioned earlier? At least, for a lot of software that wasn't designed with so many threads in mind... it would help prevent a level of inefficiency.

That's an interesting question. I really doubt I do much (if anything) that needs 8 cores. I wonder if I would benefit more from the potential clock speed increase from turning off HT?

Edit: According to the Resource Monitor "cores" 1,3,5,and 7 are parked most of the time. I'll have to log usage while in game and see what happens.

 

[Cnaydmancangt]

If ryzen 2 is 16 cores and 7nm.. And the AM4 socket supports it.. This would make me wonder if this is why the x470 boards have that extra cpu power plug on them.. It would make sense wouldnt it ? I dont believe the motion that its there for supreme overclocking.. I honestly suspected its there for future gen cpus.

 

[Alaric]

That sounds as good as any other theory. Probably better than most. That would mean they already have power requirements worked out? I wonder just how close they are with the 7 nm. Although, the mobo companies raked AMD over the coals for not enough lead time on the first gen (causing the Great BIOS Fiasco Of '17 to occur), so maybe AMD told them to just put it there in case.

 

[Scu84St3v3420]

It's all just speculation at this point. What is known is the intent to go from 12nm to 7nm, increase IPC some where between 10%-15% and increase clock speed. More core seems logical in theory, it seems to be AMD's niche and why wouldn't they follow suit or stick to single CCX 7nm @ 8 cores max and run Intel into the ground in single core performance and multi-threaded performance while doing it for cheaper.

But given history and trends, 16 Cores seems quite likely for mainstream Ryzen with TR getting the bump to EPYC core counts and EPYC going into uncharted territory. I mean TR2 is going to 32 cores, EPYC is going to 64 cores + on 7nm reboot, so why not a 16 core Ryzen 7. Thus I think the more common purchase will be an 8 core Ryzen 5 on a single CCX to appease the gaming crowds woes about intel and the all mighty FPS arguement.

And the 16 core Ryzen 7 to fit both gaming and content creation for the home user. 4K video/photo editing is going to be something done by the masses very soon, technology is driving us in this direction.

Just my 2 cents...

 

[Alaric]

It's all just speculation at this point.

That's where all the fun is! Once we know the facts they get a lot more dry and boring.
I think the limit on consumer core count is whatever they can convince a lot of people they "need". Epyc may be a different story altogether. I have no idea what the server environment is like, but there are a much higher percentage of folks "in the business" that actually know what's useful and what's marketing hype. I would ask ED and Woomack if there is any kind of market/application for gearing up with 64+ core server chips. I know there are multi socket boards that go there, but is a single chip solution really better? I don't know if there is an advantage to multi processor implementation (RAM bandwidth?) or not. I do know selling that gear will be in large part based on the IT customers believing in AMD in to the future. Nobody wants to sink that kind of money into new equipment if they suspect they'll have to go right back to Intel next cycle. I can't even imagine what that could cost an outfit like Amazon or Google.

4k video editing may be more available to the masses, but what percentage of said masses are actually going to do it? I try to keep in mind the folks on geek forums are a very small niche market.

 

[Woomack]

Right now I often run 2 games + multiple pages in web browser + couple of other things on 6 cores and CPU is loaded up to 50% for most of the time. I wonder what people do with more cores and still have internal feeling that they need more. I got 12 cores for tests and because I wanted but it's total waste of money at home. Even if someone is rendering etc. then it's not in global scale. Who is rendering 24/7 on their PC and need so many cores to save some time and money ... some people should see the difference between "need" and "want" (and maybe total stupidity).

It doesn't change fact that 1% of the market will be happy to have 16 cores in a "cheap" box. TR is way to expensive as a whole platform for many users.

 

[bigtallanddopey]

Right now I often run 2 games + multiple pages in web browser + couple of other things on 6 cores and CPU is loaded up to 50% for most of the time. I wonder what people do with more cores and still have internal feeling that they need more. I got 12 cores for tests and because I wanted but it's total waste of money at home. Even if someone is rendering etc. then it's not in global scale. Who is rendering 24/7 on their PC and need so many cores to save some time and money ... some people should see the difference between "need" and "want" (and maybe total stupidity).

It doesn't change fact that 1% of the market will be happy to have 16 cores in a "cheap" box. TR is way to expensive as a whole platform for many users.

Your point is certainly a valid one. My ryzen 1600 certainly offers me enough cores. But it is lacking on clock speeds a little but does the job that is required very well.

I think AMD are 1. Offering something that intel up until this year have not wanted to offer on a mainstream platform. And that is more cores. They now seem to be taking that one step further maybe something intel could not have planned for in offering 16 cores on a mainstream platform.

2. I think they are taking a bit of a gamble with upping the core count. They are hoping that in the next couple of years, applications (including games) will utilise all of these cores and they will be in prime position in the market. As it is they will have to gain massive market share for developers to put the effort in for this to happen.

Either way some interesting times ahead.

 

[mackerel]

I think part of this is an element of "halo product". If you are seen to be leading at the top, there is a trickle down effect that also makes your regular models more desirable. I think this is more the reason why Intel are trying to fight back in the core wars, and why AMD are giving out cores like candy.

 

[EarthDog]

If ryzen 2 is 16 cores and 7nm.. And the AM4 socket supports it.. This would make me wonder if this is why the x470 boards have that extra cpu power plug on them.. It would make sense wouldnt it ? I dont believe the motion that its there for supreme overclocking.. I honestly suspected its there for future gen cpus.

History would tell us a different story in thkse supplemental power plugs. Also, placebo and marketing.

 

[Johan45]

History would tell us a different story in thkse supplemental power plugs. Also, placebo and marketing.

Agreed, X370 boards also had the Auxiliary plugs. I know that a 1700X at 5.2 GHz plus was pulling close to 500W of power on it's own at the wall that's what those connections are for. Typical usage though the extra 4 or 8 pins aren't even remotely needed. A single 8-pin can deliver nearly 300W on it's own

 

[mackerel]

Anyone know if, on those mobos with more than one power connector for a single socket, is the power delivery connected or independent between them? To clarify, say there are 2x8 EPS connectors. Do they have their own set of voltage converter components, or are they just paralleled up on mobo? In other words, are there unused parts of circuitry by not using both connectors? Even if you didn't need the full load, it may be advantageous to spread the load over a wider stage.

Or is this just over-thinking it since I don't think I've come close to pushing 300W through a CPU. Still need to go sub-ambient...

 

[EarthDog]

Its overthinking it, really.

Parallel AFAIK.

 

[Johan45]

All the input voltages are controlled by the same PWM controllers, so yes the power just adds up on the same circuits but input is spread over more copper to help keep things cool when the system is really drawing on it. Typically on Ryzen, you'll have one controller for the CPU and SOC plus a separate one for RAM.

 

[Dolk]

The two power plugs are jsut for more current. Even if it doesn't do much for the current generation of Zen CPUs, why not just keep the "image" up from the last generation requiring that power? Outside of the fact that it can be helpful for rapid current pull events when all your cores go from 0% to 50% (and this can be in the millisecond range or faster).

Also, why not have more cores when they are free? If the only thing you are doing is shrinking the feature size, increasing performance, and power management why not just add in the extra cores with all the free space you got?

 

[EarthDog]

Well elaborated information, Dolk.

I'd rather they focus on what is needed now, IPC and speed. We (95% of home users) have all the cores we need. If we don't, that is what HEDT platforms are for.

It's an (annoying to me) e-peen game among Intel and AMD.

Again, a quad core came out for the masses nearly 11 years ago many sitll don't need it.

 

[Alaric]

If we don't, that is what HEDT platforms are for.

Way out of my budget if I had use for the cores. (Devil's advocate)

Again, a quad core came out for the masses nearly 11 years ago many sitll don't need it.

My first build! And I did find that all 4 cores were used a lot. Don't know if they were needed, but Task Manager showed them in use most of the time, with Core 0 getting most of the use of course.

 

[mackerel]

Part of me is hoping, something will happen and the weaknesses of lots-of-cores on consumer platforms get shown up in all their horror. Then we can move on with a more balanced system (save it for the other thread!) and I hope what we currently call HEDT will move down in price also.

As it is, I don't feel that low end HEDT is cost prohibitive, for example, on Intel side 7800X isn't much different in price from 8700k, other than higher mobo cost. Back a platform, the 5820k wasn't that different from the 6700k at launch. I just wish the gap to higher core count CPU models wasn't so big...

 

[EarthDog]

LOL, for the 1% that cares and needs (or wants) it... otherwise, I am with you 100%.

 

[Alaric]

The gap isn't very big with Ryzen chips. Team Red is hitting every advantage they have, so far. The now dead Skylake-X 7820x is $130 more than the 2700x. Same speed, same number of cores. (current newegg prices). The cheapest mobo for the Intel is $130, the AM4 can have a $41 mobo. There's a $171 difference just to get in. The Intel will OC better, but now your cost of temp control just went way over the AMD's, so you're probably an honest $200 more for the dubious "privilege" of getting an 'Intel inside' sticker.

 

[deathman20]

Well elaborated information, Dolk.

I'd rather they focus on what is needed now, IPC and speed. We (95% of home users) have all the cores we need. If we don't, that is what HEDT platforms are for.

It's an (annoying to me) e-peen game among Intel and AMD.

Again, a quad core came out for the masses nearly 11 years ago many sitll don't need it.

While sadly I would of said a few years ago quad core wasn't needed but these days I think its worthy to still have even in its lowest form thanks to how the OS (Windows in this case) treats the extra cores and the performance even browsers can use with content these days on the web. Now while more cores being utilized properly for the standard consumer market I think we are still a few years out but with all the general processes running on the PC and we want quick response extra cores for multi tasking is I think worthy of a minimum of quads these days.


Overall I'm eager to see what AMD has coming in their updates. Though core count yes I think is going a little overboard for the consumer desktop grade CPU's. Sure I'm guessing people will will utilize the cheaper systems vs some of the more expensive HEDT platforms if they can get away with it and save a few bucks.