
AMD Zen 2 Update: 7nm EPYC in Labs Now, Launching in 2019 - robin_reala
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12912/amd-zen-2-update-7nm-epyc-in-labs-now-launching-in-2019
======
tutanchamun
I'm really curious if AMD can overtake Intel in single threaded performance.
They already have the lead in number of cores (per socket) and multi threaded
benchmarks like cinebench (when using same number of cores and clocks).

At the moment Intel has a slight edge in IPC and quite a bit better clocks.

If they can close the IPC gap or even overtake Intel and GlobalFoundries 7nm
process really can clock around 5ghz this will be an interesting matchup.

    
    
       Q17: Does the first generation of 7LP target higher frequency clocks than 14LPP?
    
       GP: Definitely. It is a big performance boost - we quoted around 40%. I don't know how that exactly will translate into frequency, but I would guess that it should be able to get up in the 5GHz range, I would expect.
    

[https://www.anandtech.com/show/12438/the-future-of-
silicon-a...](https://www.anandtech.com/show/12438/the-future-of-silicon-an-
exclusive-interview-with-dr-gary-patton-cto-of-globalfoundries)

~~~
ajross
The IPC gap is directly related to their smaller cores. If you want to get
more work done in a cycle you need to spend transistors to do it. You're
asking them to have and eat cake, basically. That's not likely.

~~~
bhouston
Case in point, Apple's ARM chips are huge (and hot) compared to the stock ARM
chips and that is because they are throwing transistors at the problem.

~~~
et2o
Would you have a particular reference for this? I have read that the Apple ARM
chips are more power efficient than comparable ARM chips powering Android
devices.

~~~
opencl
SD835 was 72mm^2[1], A10 was 125[2]. A11 and SD845 are actually very similar
in die area[3]. However Qualcomm integrates their modem on the SoC and Apple
does not, and Apple's CPU cores are still significantly larger as can be seen
from die shots.

Phone SoC makers don't really publish TDPs and there is a lack of good data
about it, but Apple clearly has high peak power draw (and very good idle
efficiency). Battery life and thermal throttling observed under a sustained
heavy workload is probably the best proxy for measuring SoC power. For
example, see GFXBench battery life/throttling results in Anandtech's review[4]
of the iPhone 7/plus. Much higher power consumption (and performance, but this
is resolution-dependent because it's a graphics benchmark) than the
competition.

[1] [http://www.techinsights.com/about-
techinsights/overview/blog...](http://www.techinsights.com/about-
techinsights/overview/blog/qualcomm-snapdragon-835-first-to-10-nm/)

[2][https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/236091-new-
apple-a10-tear...](https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/236091-new-
apple-a10-teardown-sheds-like-on-quad-core-soc-confirms-intel-won-the-modem-
contract)

[3] [https://i.imgur.com/KBw8K8N.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/KBw8K8N.jpg)

[4] [https://www.anandtech.com/show/10685/the-iphone-7-and-
iphone...](https://www.anandtech.com/show/10685/the-iphone-7-and-
iphone-7-plus-review/5)

~~~
et2o
This is a great answer, thank you.

------
Roritharr
Am I missing something here or is Intel starting to lag behind on Fab Tech?

I thought they were years and billions ahead?!?

~~~
veebat
The most likely cause of Intel's lagging is a wall of cost/benefit to being
both designer and fab. This hit AMD earlier by being smaller(and arguably,
with a different management style, AMD could have held on to their fabs
longer) but each node only gets more expensive and harder to keep busy with
orders which in turn means a greater need for external customers to fund R&D.

Intel had a reprieve of almost a decade with a weak AMD that let them coast
along with the desktop monopoly and extract a yawn-worthy 5-10% improvement
per generation, but now that they have the incentive to compete again they're
struggling to get their house in order - the chip design hasn't had a major
refresh in a long time and they have been very late with their version of
10nm.

So they're really at a crossroads now where they can't rely on old tactics and
their long-term prospects are in serious doubt, since they didn't position
themselves to counter the efficient small-core/big-package architecture that
AMD is pushing with the Zen chips. For now, they can still put out competitive
flagship product launches simply by binning extremely expensive parts and
running them hot(e.g. compare i9 and Threadripper) but that advantage might
erode within one more generation.

~~~
dogma1138
Intel's biggest mistake over the past 10 years was not to open it's foundry
services sooner now it's custom foundry services are nearly irrelevant outside
of a few niche markets.

Mobile SoC design and being answerable to a huge number of very large
customers forced fabs to evolve their processes in a way where market forces
and customer demand forces requirements rather than office politics.

Intel has still an edge on many parts of the manufacturing process but as far
as the lithography goes they've lost this round.

Luckily for them their 10nm was much more ambitious than any of the 7nm
designs and they are facing problems that other fabs will not face until their
5nm and beyond processes.

Intel is also fighting a much tougher fight now TSMC was always good (better
than AMD/GloFo) but now you also have the Alliance which is IBM/Samsung/GloFo
which combine resources on process R&D.

GloFo botched their 20/22nm process and had to scrap it completely and if they
couldn't use Samsung's 20nm process and call it 14nm AMD's Zen would likely
would never have materialized because of the WSA.

And this is essentially the gist of things GloFo/Samsung/IBM are essentially a
united front, TSMC is as capable as ever and what all of these 4 (and more)
share in common is that they answer to external customers so if something
doesn't work there is a much bigger pressure to drop it and find something
that would instead of sinking more and more cost into it because of internal
politics.

~~~
rbinv
Aren't all manufacturers dependent on ASML's stuff, anyway? As far as I know,
none of the big guys are developing their own EUV tech. Where's the edge?

~~~
ylk
Got told once* that they have specific teams working with Intel, etc. with
pretty strict rules, where if you ever work for one of those teams you can't
ever work for one of the others. So if I got it right ASML develops their EUV
tech, etc and then those teams build things on top of that with Intel, TSMC
and so on.

*at an ASML booth at a kind of job fair at my uni

------
roel_v
So there was a rumor last year there might be a dual socket Threadripper/EPYC
mobo, and that the CPU's would be capable of it, but now that I search for it,
it seems that it only was 'some guy on Reddit says' style rumor. Despite that,
anyone knows if there is any chance for that?

~~~
merinowool
But there are mobos for dual socket epyc...
[https://www.amazon.com/Supermicro-H11DSI-NT-Dual-sockets-
Mot...](https://www.amazon.com/Supermicro-H11DSI-NT-Dual-sockets-
Motherboard/dp/B074CNPT5G)

~~~
roel_v
Sorry misspoke there, meant only Threadripper. I would exhaust my budget
buying cores on just a single Epyc...

------
edwintorok
How is the quality and stability of AMD chips lately? Although I've always
purchased AMD chips everytime I upgraded my desktop, the segfault problems
reported with Ryzen made me cautious about further upgrades (on Piledriver
now).

Are the latest Zen/Zen+ CPUs stable enough now, or should I wait for Zen 2?

------
dman
I am hoping we see some Epyc SKUs clocked to be closer to the threadripper
equivalents.

~~~
zlynx
With water cooling and 400 watts per socket, why not?

~~~
dman
Well if Threadripper 2 can do 32 cores at ~4GHz@250W is there a good reason we
cant have an Epyc SKU that does the same? (So that we can take two of these
and put them in a machine).

