AMDs chiplet design allows them to reduce cost of the Ryzen 9 3950X by half
Much is said and spoken about the Chiplet design from AMD. It works out well for them, really well. But the main reason of using chiplets was dropping expensive monolithic processor die designs, in favor of more economical cores to fabricate. But nobody really knew how much of a benefit that was in terms of money.
AMD revealed that if a monolithic design was used (as Intel uses), a 16-core processor would cost more than double what it currently costs. We mentioned this many times, but if you fabricate big huge die's then chances that on a wafer the yields are bad, is bigger. If you design lots of smaller processors dies on a wafer, the risk of a damaged die is far smaller, and thus far more economical to fabricate as you end up with more working CPU dies (better yields). Of course chipset design have challenges of their own, but AMD isn't rather bothered by it by designing an ultra fast IO chip.
So for a 16-core model you only have to add an additional core die and IO, which is much smaller, cheaper to achieve and this economic. As the new slides indicate, it turns out that it has reduced cost by half. Thanks to this new design, you have the possibility of only marking the price at US $750 to get the Ryzen 9 3950X with 16 cores and 32 threads, while it would surely have cost more somewhere north of USD 1250 perhaps USD 1500, if a monolithic design had been used.
Senior Member
Posts: 14125
Joined: 2013-01-17
Good for them (and for customers).
And now when the guy behind that design has moved to Intel (as I take it) we will look at Intel`s future designs...
Senior Member
Posts: 4841
Joined: 2009-09-08
For me the chiplet design is the real advantage Ryzen has over Intel parts right now. The ability to put more cores at a cheaper price gives them an unsurpassable advantage over the competition. The problem is that sooner or later Intel is going to do the same and then AMD will lose their lead...
Senior Member
Posts: 4672
Joined: 2014-01-17
And that my friend is called competition. That's what we've been asking for, for a long time.
Senior Member
Posts: 2770
Joined: 2010-01-03
well i hope intel takes at least 2 more years to catch up so AMD can at least have a third of the marketshare by then, if they come back today our long hoped competition is dead, back to business as usual
ryzen might be a no brainer upgrade for us, but big business would rather buy yet more intel servers to compensate instead of going amd, amd needs a lot more time to change that
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 2014-08-15
Lets not forget what these ...noobs says:
At its Xeon CPU launch event (2017), Intel accused AMD’s Epyc chips as being an “inconsistent” and “repurposed desktop product” with “glued-together” dies.
Once you look at the processor as a whole, it should become clear that “this is not a glued together desktop processor“.
Aylor also noted that the company could have built a monolithic part but it would involve “trade-offs that would performance down because it would too large and too difficult to manufacture“.