-
ZEN 4D & ZEN 5 Leak: AMD makes big.LITTLE Cost-Effective
-
The elephant in the room is Apple and how they have an unreal advantage in memory bandwidth that you're just not going to get in a PC platform unless you put something like an HBM layer between the CPU and system RAM.
ID: hj7nzuwID: hj7s2k0Apple haven't done anything unbelievable, or unable to be copied, for AMD in particular.
The only true differentiating factor with the M1 Max is the wide memory interface, which is equivalent to adding more channels.
So AMD only needs to make an APU with an 8-channel memory controller (as opposed to the common 2-channel) to make an equivalent product. And then the consumer just has to buy 8 sticks of RAM instead of 2.
Most of Apple's advantage/differentiation is they have full control over the hardware+software stack. They also have some extra accelerators (like AI), but that's also easy to copy.
ID: hj7ral6The M1 Max is a big APU, if AMD or Intel want to compete they'll probably go for a GPU-styled memory subsystem like the one on the PS5.
The 6800m/6700XT has a similar bandwidth (384GB/s against the M1 max's 400GB/s) , with an APU maybe even a 256bit bus would fit. With a 192 bit bus they could make a 24GB and a 48GB variant with a 384GB/s throughput, with a 256bit bus they could even make a 32GB and a 64GB variant with a 512GB/s throughput.
-
I think this is pretty interesting, especially since we have Intel implementing AMD's chiplets strategy (chiplets) late, while AMD is adopting Intel's big.little strategy.
However, they are still implementing these concepts slightly different from eachother. Intel tiles are supposedly less scalable than amd chiplets, but have much lower latencies, while AMD big.little uses little cores from the previous generation that is revamped to lower die space but still keep a massive amount of the MT perf.
I think AMDs way of designing little cores might be more economical for the company, but I also think Intel can take the brunt of the cost of having two separate architecture teams for their big and little cores. I also think this allows for more flexibility in terms of differing the core design of big and small cores, which could end up being beneficial for Intel. Hopefully the extra costs from having two separate design teams don't end up getting passed down to the consumer though...
All in all, if this leak turns out to be true, I could see AMD continuing to be extremely competitive (and imo should still beat Intel for the next couple of generations in MT unless Intel surprises us) while not having to increase costs by adding extra , full big core chiplets.
ID: hj7fe4sI think this is pretty interesting
Just keep in mind this guy is a fraud who consistently makes up bullshit.
ID: hj7mcwfMLID has a pretty bad track record, that is true. However, one other source got quoted from videocardz here so I am hoping it is real.
ID: hj7o7k6I think this is legit. It matches their patent filings from last year. We were calling it Slim.Fast at the time. We just didn't realize the slim cores were a generation behind of the big ones.
ID: hj7uf8tAs an aside to any of the actual content of his video's, in which I find little value, his voice is nails-on-a-chalkboard to me, does anyone else feel that?
ID: hj7edheI follow him, he's got A LOT of realiable sources and a good track record (I think that Arc DG2 in the background speaks for itself)
-
Next few years look exciting. Planning to build a new PC 2025 so this will be sick
ID: hj75eg3wait non stop xD
ID: hj7nbsvI'm not waiting. I already have a PC that is perfect for me
ID: hj7gif3Bit silly to make this plan so far out, when so much will change in that time.
But, more importantly, the next-gen consoles will likely come out in 2026, +- 1 year. So, a beefy 2025 PC may very quickly seem less beefy.
Generally, I think it's best to build a PC around 2 years before or after a new console generation happens. (so e.g. this would be 2018 or 2022 with the new console gen, or 2024 and 2028 with the next gen)
ID: hj7hecyI find roughly 7 years seems to be the lifecycle for processors, with 1 GPU upgrade in there.
ID: hj7ndy9Why not? I already have a PC that works for me? Next time I need an upgrade will be 2025
-
I don't see the point of big.little on desktop, even on notebooks it's arguable.
ID: hj760vpThe little cores scale better than big ones both on efficency and performance per area. If a program needs more than 8 big cores it means that said program is built to scale on lots of cores so the better scaling of little cores comes to an advantage.
ID: hj7fxlzAs shown by Xeon Phi /s
ID: hj7d44mWhat good are big cores if you have to back their clocks down to 3.4GHz if you use them all?
A bunch of small cores that can roughly match that level of performance while allowing the big cores to do their thing without throttling notably is the obvious performance benefit.
ID: hj7eywpBig cores will always have a higher performance ceiling than small cores. And in the world of CPU's for general purpose computing, single thread performance is still extremely important. Only specialized tasks are super scalable with high core counts where it might make sense to go with mostly efficiency cores. Otherwise, you'll still want big cores that can be put on the heavier lifting for main threads and whatnot.
Honestly, Big/little will likely take quite a while before its full benefits get seen. Smart scheduling is necessary for it work at all now, but there's a lot more that could be done at the application level to split tasks in even more optimized ways.
ID: hj74qm0Same. Intels play for it seems desperate.
ID: hj753nqAMD's chiplet design was born out of desperation as well, and that turned out alright. I won't knock Intel for trying something new. We'll just have to see if it turns out to be a good idea or not.
-
Still waiting for my zen 3 CPU that was "confirmed" to have smt-4 and ddr5
ID: hj7qkicCan you link a video where he confirms that?
ID: hj7tmk1He never stated that those features will 100% be in zen 3, he stated thad AMD was considering putting them in and other leakers at the time sayed the same thing.
Remember that according to Intel's initial timelines Zen 3 should have faced what nowdays we know as Raptor Lake. Also DDR5 got delayed.
These companies are always discussing differente designs with support for different technologies but they can always change until tape-out (it's particularly true for AMD now that they have the separate IO die)
引用元:https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/qm39yt/zen_4d_zen_5_leak_amd_makes_biglittle/
Benefit of a closed system. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if AMD adds 2 more LPDDR5x interfaces to it's Van Gogh followup.