Massive AMD Zen 5 IPC gain of 25%+ reported as leak alleges increased L1 cache and revamped L3 cache for Ryzen 8000 CPUs

[erek]

Granite Ridge incoming

“One of the biggest changes that AMD’s Zen 5 processors are rumored to feature is the revamped cache structure. Paul claims that the Zen 5 CPUs will pack a larger L1 cache but, unlike his past assertions of a larger L2 cache, the L2 cache is expected to remain the same as Zen 4 at 1 MB. Interestingly, Paul suggests that AMD could be internally testing SKUs with bigger L2 caches which is something that AdoredTV also recently alleged. The L3 cache could be a “Ladder” cache shared among the CPU cores.
Finally, although the leaker posits that AMD did consider upping the core count of the Ryzen 8000 processors, the desktop Zen 5 chips will top out at 16 cores/32 threads.
As always, leaks and rumors should never be taken as gospel, so we’ll have to wait and see what AMD Zen 5 brings to the table when it releases next year.”

Source: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Massi...ed-L3-cache-for-Ryzen-8000-CPUs.713355.0.html

 

[Rev. Night]

Maybe we'll have a 7800xt by then

 

[CyberJunk]

Maybe AMD will build a core scheduler in Zen 5. So they don't create wasteful products like 7950X3D.

 

[Ebernanut]

Maybe AMD will build a core scheduler in Zen 5. So they don't create wasteful products like 7950X3D.

I think the next gen version of the 7950x3d will likely have 3d cache on both CCDs.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Maybe AMD will build a core scheduler in Zen 5. So they don't create wasteful products like 7950X3D.

I thought that was a software issue with the OS?

 

[CyberJunk]

No, unlike intel with their pcore/ecore scheduler AMD 7000 series chips do not have a core scheduler built into them. basically its the same design as zen3 but higher clocks. I don't think they will be able to put more cache on other ccx. I think they will add a scheduler and it will give 15-20% increase in performance over the 7950X3D.

 

[CyberJunk]

I just wanted to say the 5800X3D is one helluva chip ! That is AMD at it's best.

 

[M76]

If they keep this up we'll be over 9000 soon.

 

[Flogger23m]

I feel like I may as well wait for these CPUs. Current AM5 boards have a lot of issues it seems. 25-38 second boot times? My X370 had quicker boot times in less than a year and the initial AM4/Ryzen launch was a mess. Maybe the next generation of boards will be superior and have these issues ironed out.

My only regret is going with a 5700X (yes, in the same $125 board that I bought alongside my Ryzen 1600). The CPU itself is fine, I feel like I should have went with the 5800X3D if I was going to wait another 9 or so months.

 

[CyberJunk]

5700X could be used in a low power ASROCK AM4 server board? They support ECC memory. Just an idea.

 

[bizzmeister]

I feel like I may as well wait for these CPUs. Current AM5 boards have a lot of issues it seems. 25-38 second boot times? My X370 had quicker boot times in less than a year and the initial AM4/Ryzen launch was a mess. Maybe the next generation of boards will be superior and have these issues ironed out.

My only regret is going with a 5700X (yes, in the same $125 board that I bought alongside my Ryzen 1600). The CPU itself is fine, I feel like I should have went with the 5800X3D if I was going to wait another 9 or so months.

I had the same worries with my current 7800x3D / gigabyte X670 build. Long boot times with cutting edge tech? Wtf ?

Was a huge red flag for me. I didn’t get to experience any of these “slow boot” times though. Flashed to latests bios, selected “ultra fast boot” from bios and I’m in windows in 10 sec or less.

 

[Lakados]

5700X could be used in a low power ASROCK AM4 server board? They support ECC memory. Just an idea.

Sort of...
*Conditionally support ECC error reporting function
*For AMD Ryzen Desktop Processors with Radeon Graphics, ECC support is only with Processors with PRO technologies.
So if you limit it down to the CPUs that have both the Pro moniker and the built-in graphics, you are left with a short and fairly hard-to-come-by list of CPUs that will actually use the EEC bits. The others will still run and boot fine, they just ignore EEC functionality.
I am a little miffed at AMD for that, because they have put in big bold letters that they support EEC, but you have to dig into the manuals and documentation on a board-by-board basis and figure out their individual caveats for what conditions you need to abide by for it to actually work.

So a 5700x will boot with EEC memory but it will never use the EEC bit, but a 5750G or 5750GE would however.
But a 5750G is going to run you a cool $450 in most cases.

 

[LigTasm]

I had the same worries with my current 7800x3D / gigabyte X670 build. Long boot times with cutting edge tech? Wtf ?

Was a huge red flag for me. I didn’t get to experience any of these “slow boot” times though. Flashed to latests bios, selected “ultra fast boot” from bios and I’m in windows in 10 sec or less.

If you're running fast RAM you're going to want it to train every boot which is what takes it so long. DDR5 is prone to "forgetting" what settings it was at and causing boot failures apparently. They've been improving it with BIOS and agesa updates so hopefully it will be better soon.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I hope this is true. And I also hope they are working on building a hardware scheduler.

 

[bizzmeister]

If you're running fast RAM you're going to want it to train every boot which is what takes it so long. DDR5 is prone to "forgetting" what settings it was at and causing boot failures apparently. They've been improving it with BIOS and agesa updates so hopefully it will be better soon.

Sorry, forgot to mention running gskill trident 32GB 6000mhz ram on EXPO also. With no issues.

 

[TheSlySyl]

I see no reason to upgrade to the 7000 series, so I'm curious if the performance improvements for the 8000 series will be enough to invest into AM5. This is a good start.

 

[Burticus]

I see no reason to upgrade to the 7000 series, so I'm curious if the performance improvements for the 8000 series will be enough to invest into AM5. This is a good start.

Yup. I'm sitting out the 7xxx gen and hoping AM5 matures.

 

[NightReaver]

I see no reason to upgrade to the 7000 series, so I'm curious if the performance improvements for the 8000 series will be enough to invest into AM5. This is a good start.

Yeah, a great deal is about the only reason.

 

[vegeta535]

/yawn. I can't bring myself to be excited about CPUs. GPUs barely get a rise out of me.

 

[RanceJustice]

Maybe AMD will build a core scheduler in Zen 5. So they don't create wasteful products like 7950X3D.

I think the next gen version of the 7950x3d will likely have 3d cache on both CCDs.

I can only hope that by then (next year? So 8000 series will not be debuting Q4 this year then?) they will be able to provide cache on both cores and its ability to withstand voltage/temps equal to the rest of the chip. Then again, this was the hope for the 7000 series 3D Cache after the limitations of the 5800X3D. While they did make some progress, it clearly didn't happen and if it will next time will depend if the fab process and components can handle it. I admit I am disappointed that it wasn't all sorted out this time but frankly even the current 7950X3D with the compromises made is one hell of a chip - when everything is working optimally.

What bothers me the most is that they didn't include either on-die monitoring (which yeah, I get would have meant rearranging the chiplet design and whatnot) like Intel did with their P + E core 12/13 series, but they could make up for this with a combination of firmware/BIOS/mobo features and (ideally open source, platform independent Windows + Linux ) software utilities that act as a user-editable profiler, monitor, benchmarking, and heuristics for what cores to use when running a particular application. I actually just wrote a big post on the web form for CS/tech support requesting this (any ideas where it could get seen by those with actual interest and capability to make decisions?) becuase it seems completely insane to me to leave their new halo CPU with new tech dependent on a Windows only Xbox bar to decide what is a "game" and therefore to pin it first to 3D cache cores, overly simplistic solution. No doubt this is why some users are having vastly different experiences even on benchmark reviews because the scheduler isn't being told what to do properly, nor does it have either "best guesses", sane defaults, or user's ability to easily customize what they want on a case by case basis. None of this seems like its extravagant (hell, back in the days of SLI and CrossfireX each driver update came with some profiles for particular games, or you could create your own) and would seem a way that even without on-die monitoring the same general effect could be available regardless of OS , while also making a lot of the overclocking, enthusiast, Linux, and free/libre software community users another reason to go for AMD.

Maybe they'll have it sorted out by the 8000 series but if the dating is right and this is a late 2024 Ryzen thing (to say nothing for if the 3D cache or other advanced versions of the chip will get a delayed launch or not) there's no reason to let the current top of the line halo products flounder for a year when the hardware itself is quite capable!

 

[OutOfPhase]

/yawn. I can't bring myself to be excited about CPUs. GPUs barely get a rise out of me.

You may have taken the wrong turnoff to get here...

 

[crazycrave]

The 5700x is way more chip than I thought it was,after you tune it in Ryzen Master even a stock AMD cooler, it can game at 4.75Ghz without the need of hard clocking it.

 

[toast0]

I thought that was a software issue with the OS?

It is and it isn't. The root issue is that OSes were built for Symmetric multiprocessing, where all cores are the same. With the 5900x3d or 5950x3d, things are weird because a process that has a small memory working set would be better on the cores without extra cache because better clocks, and a process with a working set that only fits in the enlarged cache will be better served on those cores, and one that doesn't fit there either is gonna be waiting for ram all the time anyway. But OS schedulers don't know how to gather or use that sort of information. I'm not sure how Intel's hardware scheduler works, but if AMD keeps giving us assymetric systems, they'll need to develop or at least document how OSes can figure out whether a process is more clock speed limited, cache size limited, or neither. AMD has tended to have more limited performance metrics available, but maybe there's something already there that could be integrated. Otoh, if they put v-cache on all the ccds in the future x3ds, then OSes will probably ignore it for 5900x3d and call it a day.

 

[Lakados]

It is and it isn't. The root issue is that OSes were built for Symmetric multiprocessing, where all cores are the same. With the 5900x3d or 5950x3d, things are weird because a process that has a small memory working set would be better on the cores without extra cache because better clocks, and a process with a working set that only fits in the enlarged cache will be better served on those cores, and one that doesn't fit there either is gonna be waiting for ram all the time anyway. But OS schedulers don't know how to gather or use that sort of information. I'm not sure how Intel's hardware scheduler works, but if AMD keeps giving us assymetric systems, they'll need to develop or at least document how OSes can figure out whether a process is more clock speed limited, cache size limited, or neither. AMD has tended to have more limited performance metrics available, but maybe there's something already there that could be integrated. Otoh, if they put v-cache on all the ccds in the future x3ds, then OSes will probably ignore it for 5900x3d and call it a day.

Intel has a dedicated bit of silicon in its CPUs to monitor cores and report back to the OS so it can schedule accordingly. AMD uses the OS exclusively which is fine, but it then relies on drivers and 3'rd party tools to allocate thread priority by using some relatively simple scenarios and a lookup table in their drivers. XBox game bar says this game is running, the lookup table says this game works best on these cores, and set thread priority to 0-7 or 8-15 accordingly.
Intel has a lot of extra odds and ends on their chips that AMD just doesn't, which has tradeoffs obviously but it keeps the AMD silicon very lean in comparison. I am pretty sure in the grand scheme the stacked cache thing will work itself out and future releases will either be all CCDs or none, I think the mixed CCDs is at best a gimmick that will resolve itself in time.

 

[tangoseal]

And the mobo prices will be what... $1799.95 for a basic nonfrills board for zen 5?

 

[luke51087]

Doesnt zen 5 use the same boards as the current zen 4? I really hope prices dont go up anymore its insane already

 

[staknhalo]

Show me the power consumption

 

[sfsuphysics]

Doesnt zen 5 use the same boards as the current zen 4? I really hope prices dont go up anymore its insane already

Yes Zen 5 will still use AM4 motherboards. I doubt any prices, on motherboards, will increase if anything you should start to see decreases as adoption becomes more widespread even with things like DDR5 ram.

 

[sc5mu93]

Yes Zen 5 will still use AM4 motherboards. I doubt any prices, on motherboards, will increase if anything you should start to see decreases as adoption becomes more widespread even with things like DDR5 ram.

AM4? Seems like going backwards. That said I welcome the backward compatibility.

 

[Mega6]

AM4? Seems like going backwards. That said I welcome the backward compatibility.

AM5 = zen4 zen5 and on through 2026

 

[Brackle]

And the mobo prices will be what... $1799.95 for a basic nonfrills board for zen 5?

Zen 5 will be compatible with the current AM5 motherboards.

 

[tangoseal]

Zen 5 will be compatible with the current AM5 motherboards.

Yeah I don't know. I'm not keeping up with it right now. I still have my humble 5800x.

 

[tangoseal]

/yawn. I can't bring myself to be excited about CPUs. GPUs barely get a rise out of me.

You're getting older. Im going through same thing.

 

[KazeoHin]

You're getting older. Im going through same thing.

That's because AMD is stagnating, we've had 16/32 max for 3 generations now, looking to be 4 generations. and now Intel is catching up. AMD used to offer more cores for less, now they're offering less cores for more.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again regarding Intel's E-Core strategy: If it's stupid, but it works: it's not stupid.

 

[Flogger23m]

That's because AMD is stagnating, we've had 16/32 max for 3 generations now, looking to be 4 generations. and now Intel is catching up. AMD used to offer more cores for less, now they're offering less cores for more.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again regarding Intel's E-Core strategy: If it's stupid, but it works: it's not stupid.

I think the next round of CPUs from AMD may up the core round. 1*** was behind but offered more cores. 2*** increased IPC. 3*** really started reaching parity. 5*** is where they got really competitive. New CPUs still are, and Intel has put out some likewise similarly impressive CPUs. The problem with AMD currently is platform issues and costs are still a bit high for motherboards.

I am hoping by early next year this will change, and AMD's next line up introduces some more cores.

 

[Lakados]

That's because AMD is stagnating, we've had 16/32 max for 3 generations now, looking to be 4 generations. and now Intel is catching up. AMD used to offer more cores for less, now they're offering less cores for more.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again regarding Intel's E-Core strategy: If it's stupid, but it works: it's not stupid.

Now most people have more cores they can use and they are the wrong types, I expect soon we will see CPU's with 3, 4, maybe even 5 different types of cores all geared towards different tasks soon enough.

 

[KazeoHin]

Now most people have more cores they can use and they are the wrong types, I expect soon we will see CPU's with 3, 4, maybe even 5 different types of cores all geared towards different tasks soon enough.

I wouldn't say 'Soon' but I would say that dedicated accelerator architectures are going to be the only way forward when simply throwing more power at a task isn't helping. I don't think that time is soon, though. General purpose performance is still king at the moment, though I would imagine we will see a push for tiny, efficient RISC (RISCV or ARM) cores added alongside x86 CISC cores, specifically to handle OS/background tasks sooner rather than later.

 

[zandor]

If a larger L1 cache could produce huge gains across the board it would have been done a long time ago. +50% L1 cache can produce massive gains in a benchmark selected by the marketing department.

 

[Red Falcon]

That's because AMD is stagnating, we've had 16/32 max for 3 generations now, looking to be 4 generations. and now Intel is catching up. AMD used to offer more cores for less, now they're offering less cores for more.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again regarding Intel's E-Core strategy: If it's stupid, but it works: it's not stupid.

The 16-cores of three cycles from AMD is hardly the stagnation that was quad-cores for over a decade from Intel, and each set of 16-core CPUs has had a significant uptick in performance and improvements per generation.
Unlike the 6700K and 7700K which were virtually the exact same CPU with less than a 1% performance uptick from Intel, with both being on a singular and equally dead platform, all by design.

The only reason we are currently getting many-core CPUs from Intel is thanks to AMD and ARM's competition.

 

[LukeTbk]

On newegg best selling cpu first page, none of the AMD has more than 8 cores, despite some being quite expensive (like the 7800x3d) and I suspect a lot of higher than 13900k sales are more because of the bigger cache, better bin than wanting 8 more E-core, not many people would sacrifice the first 12 core being any slower to have more of them in that price range-segment, 16 cores model appear on page 3.

They would know the demand, I would imagine that for 24 core cpu to be worth it, in many case you would want more than 2 memory channel to not starve those extra core and you go into threadripper pro-epyc segmentation territory issues even more than the high core count started to do.

Starving core of memory bandwith is such an issues that they add CXL memory to system with 12 channels