Medusa Point Zen 6 APU claims

[mackerel]

AMD Ryzen 9 "Medusa Point" Zen6 APU set to feature 22 cores thanks to extra CCD - VideoCardz.com

AMD Medusa Point 1 detailed Unusual configuration with monolithic and non-monolithic variants. A possible configuration of AMD’s next-generation APU has just been shared by known leaker HXL. According to a post on X/Twitter, AMD is expected to launch two variants of Ryzen APUs based on Zen 6...

videocardz.com

Having some fun thinking about this. The main "APU" chip itself is claimed to be 4 full (classic) cores, 4 dense cores, 2 low power cores, which will be used at R5 and R7 tiers. There is also a claim the R9 will add to that an extra 12 full cores, which is presumably the same as the chiplets that would go into the regular desktop/server CPUs. I'm struggling to think, have there been any implementations of low power cores so far from AMD? Their current hybrid could be a mix of full and dense cores. I'm wondering if LP is same as dense or is there more to it?

The other side is the graphics. Down to 8 CUs from 16 currently. Unless the next gen will be that much more efficient, or clocks a lot higher, this seems like a reduction. Given the claim of RDNA3+ I wouldn't expect a significant change in IPC but there is some scope for clock depending on how TSMC N2 goes. I'm wondering if now that Strix Halo exists, if AMD are shifting the coverage between the Halo and Point offerings. What was top end Point could be low end Halo going forwards.

I do wonder what the market segment for the R9 APU will be. Without the extra CCD the offering sounds like a great laptop offering, as well as possible SFF desktop uses. With the CCD, that's a lot of CPU perf, so why would you choose this over the desktop CPU? Edit: maybe it is still for high performance laptops. When unplugged, mainly the APU chip will be used as normal. Only if you fire up a heavy workload, preferably plugged in, do the extra cores fire up?

Also, 12 core CCD will (presumably) let us go beyond 8 cores on AMD without the pains of crossing CCX, so I look forward to the X3D version of that for desktop gaming.

 

[Woomack]

I won't touch any APU until I see actual test results. The last desktop one was a total disappointment. Low sales and quick price drops confirm that. The two previous generations were also significantly slower than regular Ryzens, but not so power-efficient. Mobile chips seem great, but they could skip desktop APUs, especially when all other series have integrated graphics.

 

[mackerel]

The main desktop CPUs might have iGPUs since AM5 but they're minimal just for display output, like Intel does. Some people want a bit more than that, but without going to dGPU, so that's the gap APUs traditionally filled. There must be enough use cases for AMD to keep doing this, even if it is not obvious to us.

 

[Woomack]

APUs are mainly sold in branded office desktops ... and they have some significant market shares. This is also the only usage I see for them. If you want a home PC with multiple video outputs, then it's better to get a mini PC with a mobile AMD or Intel CPU.

It's only that boxed APUs on the retail market seem like a mistake. Branded PCs could actually use soldered chips. Some of them do, but most have APU Pro series and a regular AM5 socket.

 

[Kenrou]

What's a "dense" core?

 

[mackerel]

What's a "dense" core?

The cores they laid out to take less space yet do the same execution as classic cores. I used to call the two types C and c cores accordingly. It looks like the new lingo is C and D. Cost of making them dense is they don't clock as well, but they have a similar argument to Intel E cores. You can have more of them in the same space and get more work done overall.

 

[Kenrou]

Thought those were the low-power cores? What are low-power cores then, pretending to be SMT? What's the point here, make them all dense and/or classic+dense, it's an APU, no one really cares if it clocks high? Use the extra space for more GPU

 

[mackerel]

My question was the same, what are Low Power cores? Are they tuned D cores for even more efficiency, or something else again? For a general use case, I don't think they would remove C cores altogether. You still need some higher perf single-thread from time to time.

 

[The Coolest]

Dense cores don't clock as high, thus, they're more efficient. The also take up less die space. I *think* most chips with dense don't have as much L3 cache per dense core as they do for classic.
In Zen6 the rumors are not only will there be low power cores, which are a first for AMD, these will be separate core designs.
And there are going to be "3D" "classic" cores for performance.
There's a good "leak" video about it from Moore's law is dead YouTube channel.

 

[Kenrou]

There's a good "leak" video about it from Moore's law is dead YouTube channel.

This one, I'm guessing?

"AMD Zen 7 Specs Leak: 264 Cores, TSMC A14, X3D Chiplets, IPC, Release Date!"

0:00 MLID Zen 6 Leaks are CONFIRMED (So take this Seriously)
2:17 Five Zen 7 Core Variants!!!
6:31 Zen 7 IPC, Core Counts, TSMC 1.4nm, Release Date
12:11 Zen 7 seems like "the next Zen 3"!!!

 

[The Coolest]

d'oh. of course I'd get that confused, sorry
Yeah, the Zen6 LP is supposedly something new, but I guess we'll have to live and see.

 

[mackerel]

That channel is on my blacklist but that slide is interesting, assuming it is genuine.

BTW AMD have already started increasing core variations. In Zen 5 there's 4 that I'm aware of:
Classic with good AVX-512
Classic with Zen 4 style AVX-512
Dense with good AVX-512
Dense with Zen 4 style AVX-512