Rumor: AMD Epyc2 processors could get 64 cores over 8+1 dies
Click here to post a comment for Rumor: AMD Epyc2 processors could get 64 cores over 8+1 dies on our message forum
sverek
I wonder if data centers waiting for it, instead of jumping on Zen1 😀
djmcave
With every CTX being produced individually it should keep costs down... Wondering if they intend to do the same on the GPUs.
sverek
Can you glue GPUs together? Wouldn't it be crossfire?
Fediuld
AMD has developed Infinity Fabric for GPUs, and was announced back in August with all the 7nm GPUs supporting it. In addition to pcie4.0. (next round of ryzen boards support it)
So the bandwidth is there, after all CF didn't needed a separate bridge since Hawaii in 2013.
HWgeek
https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/amds-rome-is-rumored-to-be-designed-with-8-zen2-dies-can-it-look-like-this.423107/
Fox2232
It would be crazy if they decoupled CPU cores from uncore this way. Because from what I have seen Cores themselves can clock higher, it is all that stuff around which does not like it on 2700X.
Evildead666
Yup, this is going to be the new normal.
This way, you get the System Controller with everything you need, on a slightly older process, due ot it not needing to be going at break-neck speed, in fact it would be better because the PCIe Controllers and SATA controllers wouldn't be bothered by the CPU speeds anymore.
The CPU's would be able to be done much cheaper on the latest fab processes, with much faster chips, and better yields.
GPU's would be the exact same idea, just with more "cores" per "GPU-CCX".
Four cores per CPU-CCX now, maybe ~2048 cores per GPU-CCX ? (about Polaris 30 type, but with Navi)
Arbie
[Sorry if this comment steps on any toes... it is removable]
AdoredTV on Youtube has some very good presentations, including a brand new one on this topic - which he previewed some time ago.
(Though anyone not a native speaker of English may have a 'herd toim' following it).
Venix
8 cores in 64 nm^2 ??? isn't that waaaaaaay too low ?
tunejunky
Yes you can, it is roadmapped.
No, it wouldn't be crossfire, it would act as a single gpu in exactly the same way as threadripper and ryzen.
this is the high-end 7nm gpu from AMD that will be announced at the end of next year.
scalability is the single highest goal at AMD.
there will not be any performance goals that cannot be met because of Moore's Law, which was the driving force behind the design.
they can just add graphic cores.
so for the first time ever in a gpu there will be "moar cores". and double gpu's do not count because those are crossfired or SLI'd.
tunejunky
very true at 12nm.
if they use a "hub" design for the controller a la "epyc 2" as shown, that would be a major difference.
also remaining to be seen is whether or not HBM2 is going to be used and/or if the related costs have come down. there very well may be a "HBM 3" made at a smaller node as well, which would lower the cost (after production costs are earned back).
tunejunky
i was thinking re: gpu on the above comments Fox
nevcairiel
Its not exactly news. Uncore and actual CPU cores have been using seperate clock domains in various CPUs everywhere.
waltc3
My first thought was wondering why the system controller wasn't also 7nm, as it surely is a much simpler circuit design than a single cpu. But according to the diagram, if they did that where would they physically position the cores relative to the controller?...Just an errant thought...
Picolete
The controller it's rumored to be 14nm because it's bigger than the other chips and the process is not mature enough for such a large chip on 7nm and decent yields
Fox2232
Not that I wrote it for purpose of clock. What I wrote about is minimizing area of dies which host CPU cores and put as much of uncore to central "hub". That way you have all CCXes in sync much better. And There is saving of transistors too. And cost of 7nm would affect only minimum needed part of CPU. On top of that uncore is not power hungry, therefore 14/12nm is fine and it does not need 7nm. So no reason to pay for 7nm transistors which can be moved to central "hub".
WareTernal
So they are maybe going to ditch the '2 NUMA node' setup? Better late than never 🙂
chispy
128 threads would be Epyc " Pun intended " 😀
Aura89
I kinda hope this is wrong. I was hoping that 7nm would bring a core count change to the CCXs, and have it capable of having 64 cores on 4 CCXs (AKA 16 cores per CCX)
Even 14, 12 or 10 cores per CCX would be nice.
user1
thing is cost per transistor is probably higher than 14/12nm, sticking with the same core count and dropping the die size, would maximize yields and keep costs lower, at least until EUV matures
