Agreed, AMD desperately needs clock improvements. With Intel having both an IPC and clock advantage it is going to be interesting to see how much AMD can gain in either stat. Curious to see how the "10%" higher performance of 12LP translates into real world clock speeds for AMD.
If AMD can manage to improve the clockspeed by 10%, I think AMD can remain competitive until the Zen2 architecture and 7nm. I'm not expecting much out of Coffee Lake other than more cores, which is where Ryzen already has things covered.
The 10% is increased performance at the same power level.
but really that's already fine with ryzen. significantly better then intel per core even.
The real problem is the clockspeed wall ryzen hits around 4ghz. i HOPE this means that that is also increased, and some improvement seems likely, but we can't really tell from the information given in the article.
The 10% performance uplift they're talking about in this article is strictly from clockspeed gains.
"GlobalFoundries promises that its 12LP provides a 15% higher transistor density and enables a 10% higher frequency potential (at the same power and complexity)"
So at this point it's really impossible to know what final gains will be, without knowing how much AMD has managed to overhaul Zen in the short time. They've had their hands full with lots of projects. Maybe they've tweaked the design enough to net another 5-10% IPC? Who knows. That, coupled with the frequency increases, would help tide things over.
Personally I'm more interested in whether they can manage to improve CCX-to-CCX latency, and/or boost their IMC's capabilities (which would likewise improve said fabric latency).
Just a hunch, but it's probably an architectural problem that has them hung at 4GHz. Stuff like that has happened in the past, pretty sure the FX had a similar issue in it's original release.
I'm sure the limitation has been found and if it isn't fixed in the Zen v2 then it will probably be corrected in the third release.
It would be tremendous if they could find as much improvement on Zen v2 as they did on Bulldozer v2.
I guess it is true that it will be a while before we see 7nm chips from AMD. AMD only has, so far, ONE cpu chip on 14nm. With the cost of designing a chip sky rocketing I'm sure AMD is not in a hurry to rush out 7nm chips which is something that Papermaster himself has said. Most in the public expect AMD to have 7nm chips by as early as late 2018 but I would guess late 2019 is more realistic.
I was always thinking 7nm was 2019, unless I was mistaken. The AMD slides seemed to suggest late 2018 at the earliest for 7nm. Raven Ridge is another CPU chip on 14nm, and it's bouncing around development and close to release. It's Zen, yes, but still a different die.
I would not be suprised at all if 7nm was 2020 for AMD and I can see them skipping the initial 7nm for the EUV version to try and save some more money (Yes I know what they have shown in slides regarding their use of 7nm and 7nm+). I personally hope they get even more aggressive with their timelines and push for an accelerated roadmap. Of course this would require more expense but I think it would be worth it for the financial returns.
I'm not Lisa Su, so I know as much of AMD's internal roadmaps as you do :) They could skip 7nm DUV, but I feel like that could be a bad idea. We'll have to see how it plays out!
I think AMD is actually advantaged here. If you look at somebody like Intel, they need to design multiple chips to recoup the costs of their fab. It's a business model that has worked for them and likely still is, but not one AMD needs to follow. It's true that they've only designed one chip, but that chip has covered pretty much every market segment they can. Everything from high end laptops to high end servers is answered with the Zeppelin die. The only other spaces left to cover are desktop mainstream with integrated graphics, which is handled by Raven Ridge, and ULV mobile, which is covered by Ryzen mobile. It's not clear to me if those are the same die, but maybe they are. Even if not, that brings their total 14nm chips to three. If they can cover their entire market with those three dies, they probably don't have to bother with another.
If risk is in Q1 how exactly are you confused about products in H1 or H2?
Anyway, this means that a Ryzen refresh is very very late , instead of a Q1 next year. 7nm is 2019 as always so ofc they need a Vega refresh next year but unlikely that a Polaris replacement can wait for 12nm as they need that in H1.
Ofc this is AMD and seems that they are suicidal and insisting on moving 2x slower than they should and not doing anything right. Wish they would just drop half their roadmap and do the other half right instead of missing any and all opportunities and failing at everything.
Ryzen refresh could be Q2, and Ryzen is still very competitive right now. As for the GPU market, I'm not sure what AMD will do, but unfounded speculation is unwise.
I've always wondered if the reason why Zen, Polaris and Vega hit such a hard overclocking/voltage limit (e.g. 4 Ghz on Ryzen) has less to do with their microarchitecture and more to do with their lithography (GloFo 14nm). To be honest, when people complain about how power-hungry or hot Vega cards can be, I wonder if it would be a different story had Radeon chose to fab Vega with TSMC instead.
Still, a better process is a better process, so I hope AMD chips obtain a vastly improved power/thermal profile once they migrate to 12nm.
That's an interesting idea. While I would not be sad to see it, I wouldn't place bets on a VASTLY improved power/thermal profile. I'd expect SOME savings, but maybe not vast. It's a half-node after all
Vega 56 is guite power effient because it runs lower clockspeeds. Vega 64 runs too high clockspeeds and is very uneffient, so Yes, the production proses is real hinderance. The architecture of Vega itself is sound, the production proses not so... Clobal founders proses now is much better suited to low power mobile prosessors than high speed CPU or GPU.
I'm guessing Ryzen and Vega refreshes in early H2 2018.
The former will hopefully incorporate some or all of Zen 2 updates (and have higher IPC as well as higher clocks), and the latter will hopefully sort out whatever is holding Vega back now.
I know that retooling a chip for a new (half) node is a lot of work in and of itself, but I'm really hoping that for Zen they can include some of the architectural "low hanging fruit" that that I remember being alluded to around launch. I don't remember where I read that or if it was a rumor or not. I'd love to see more than just a die shrink, either in the form of IPC or just architectural improvements that increase clock speed in addition to the gains from the die shrink.
If there is similar low hanging fruit or even just last minute design improvements that didn't make the deadline for Vega I hope they can integrate those if/when they end up manufacturing it on 12LP. I feel like reducing power should be their main objective. If they achieve that, clocks will follow. As much as I want it, I don't think we can hope for much more from their transition to 12LP as those would require larger architectural changes.
Power reductions for Vega would be fantastic since it looks like that's the most significant shortcoming of AMD's current GPU design. Zen isn't in as bad of a place with respect to power and heat so a half node refresh would be nice, but I think the benefits wouldn't be as substantial unless the 12LP can help AMD reach above the 4GHz barrier.
If they can get the 10% improved frequency, 4Ghz to 4.4Ghz from the process alone it would be nice if they could eek out another 5% from design tweaks. I'm not holding out much on this "half node". The 7nm process is made for high frequencies which is where AMD's thermal efficiency should shine because they have thermal headroom for higher clocks today so 7nm should be a real boon as they can use most of the gains from the process to increase clocks instead of power draw(one can dream).
12LP mentioned a 10% frequency increase, which should help with the barrier a little bit. Power draw reduction for no performance loss in any situation is still nice.
I am not sure if 12nm will be able to save AMD's Vega. I feel the architecture of Vega is not exactly meant for high clockspeed in the first place, which probably is also be compounded by Global Foundries 14nm that is supposedly inferior to TSMC's 16nm. AMD had to push the clockspeed on both Polaris and Vega just to keep up with the bar that Nvidia set with Pascal, and therefore, resulted in very power hungry GPUs.
Actually the vast majority of ICs these days are guaranteed to work at -40C to +105C, so it's a bit disingenuous to say they are specifically designed for automotive applications
"There are a number of players developing various chips for automotive applications these days, but when it comes to designers of SoCs that need to pack a lot of transistors, run them at high frequency and be Automotive Grade 2, the list shrinks rather dramatically."
AMD may be at a disadvantage in terms of IPC and clockspeed, but it makes up for it with more cores and better value. The good thing is, Intel no longer have the advantage of a more advance fab, i.e. when they release their 10nm, AMD should also be on 7nm. Previously, AMD's mis-step with Bulldozer was made worst by the fact that Intel is on 14nm, while they are still trying to squeeze every single drop of performance out of 28nm.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
32 Comments
Back to Article
MajGenRelativity - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
Looks interesting! I hope that 12nm can let AMD push the Zen architecture further to counter any of Intel's potential gains with Coffee LakeSunnyNW - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
Agreed, AMD desperately needs clock improvements. With Intel having both an IPC and clock advantage it is going to be interesting to see how much AMD can gain in either stat. Curious to see how the "10%" higher performance of 12LP translates into real world clock speeds for AMD.MajGenRelativity - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
If AMD can manage to improve the clockspeed by 10%, I think AMD can remain competitive until the Zen2 architecture and 7nm. I'm not expecting much out of Coffee Lake other than more cores, which is where Ryzen already has things covered.The_Countess - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
The 10% is increased performance at the same power level.but really that's already fine with ryzen. significantly better then intel per core even.
The real problem is the clockspeed wall ryzen hits around 4ghz. i HOPE this means that that is also increased, and some improvement seems likely, but we can't really tell from the information given in the article.
MajGenRelativity - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
That's what I was thinking too. Have to wait and see.Alexvrb - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
The 10% performance uplift they're talking about in this article is strictly from clockspeed gains."GlobalFoundries promises that its 12LP provides a 15% higher transistor density and enables a 10% higher frequency potential (at the same power and complexity)"
So at this point it's really impossible to know what final gains will be, without knowing how much AMD has managed to overhaul Zen in the short time. They've had their hands full with lots of projects. Maybe they've tweaked the design enough to net another 5-10% IPC? Who knows. That, coupled with the frequency increases, would help tide things over.
Personally I'm more interested in whether they can manage to improve CCX-to-CCX latency, and/or boost their IMC's capabilities (which would likewise improve said fabric latency).
0ldman79 - Saturday, September 30, 2017 - link
Just a hunch, but it's probably an architectural problem that has them hung at 4GHz. Stuff like that has happened in the past, pretty sure the FX had a similar issue in it's original release.I'm sure the limitation has been found and if it isn't fixed in the Zen v2 then it will probably be corrected in the third release.
It would be tremendous if they could find as much improvement on Zen v2 as they did on Bulldozer v2.
SunnyNW - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
I guess it is true that it will be a while before we see 7nm chips from AMD. AMD only has, so far, ONE cpu chip on 14nm. With the cost of designing a chip sky rocketing I'm sure AMD is not in a hurry to rush out 7nm chips which is something that Papermaster himself has said. Most in the public expect AMD to have 7nm chips by as early as late 2018 but I would guess late 2019 is more realistic.MajGenRelativity - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
I was always thinking 7nm was 2019, unless I was mistaken. The AMD slides seemed to suggest late 2018 at the earliest for 7nm. Raven Ridge is another CPU chip on 14nm, and it's bouncing around development and close to release. It's Zen, yes, but still a different die.SunnyNW - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
I would not be suprised at all if 7nm was 2020 for AMD and I can see them skipping the initial 7nm for the EUV version to try and save some more money (Yes I know what they have shown in slides regarding their use of 7nm and 7nm+). I personally hope they get even more aggressive with their timelines and push for an accelerated roadmap. Of course this would require more expense but I think it would be worth it for the financial returns.MajGenRelativity - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
I'm not Lisa Su, so I know as much of AMD's internal roadmaps as you do :) They could skip 7nm DUV, but I feel like that could be a bad idea. We'll have to see how it plays out!Drumsticks - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
I think AMD is actually advantaged here. If you look at somebody like Intel, they need to design multiple chips to recoup the costs of their fab. It's a business model that has worked for them and likely still is, but not one AMD needs to follow. It's true that they've only designed one chip, but that chip has covered pretty much every market segment they can. Everything from high end laptops to high end servers is answered with the Zeppelin die. The only other spaces left to cover are desktop mainstream with integrated graphics, which is handled by Raven Ridge, and ULV mobile, which is covered by Ryzen mobile. It's not clear to me if those are the same die, but maybe they are. Even if not, that brings their total 14nm chips to three. If they can cover their entire market with those three dies, they probably don't have to bother with another.jjj - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
If risk is in Q1 how exactly are you confused about products in H1 or H2?Anyway, this means that a Ryzen refresh is very very late , instead of a Q1 next year.
7nm is 2019 as always so ofc they need a Vega refresh next year but unlikely that a Polaris replacement can wait for 12nm as they need that in H1.
Ofc this is AMD and seems that they are suicidal and insisting on moving 2x slower than they should and not doing anything right.
Wish they would just drop half their roadmap and do the other half right instead of missing any and all opportunities and failing at everything.
MajGenRelativity - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
Ryzen refresh could be Q2, and Ryzen is still very competitive right now. As for the GPU market, I'm not sure what AMD will do, but unfounded speculation is unwise.wizfactor - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
I've always wondered if the reason why Zen, Polaris and Vega hit such a hard overclocking/voltage limit (e.g. 4 Ghz on Ryzen) has less to do with their microarchitecture and more to do with their lithography (GloFo 14nm). To be honest, when people complain about how power-hungry or hot Vega cards can be, I wonder if it would be a different story had Radeon chose to fab Vega with TSMC instead.Still, a better process is a better process, so I hope AMD chips obtain a vastly improved power/thermal profile once they migrate to 12nm.
MajGenRelativity - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
That's an interesting idea. While I would not be sad to see it, I wouldn't place bets on a VASTLY improved power/thermal profile. I'd expect SOME savings, but maybe not vast. It's a half-node after allThreska - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
Well people are asking more of their GPUs so it's not totally unexpected. At best mature water-cooling will become prevalent.0VERL0RD - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
AMD uses TSMC's 16nm for XBOX & PS4 so maybe it wasn't much of a difference in performance. Cost & yields probably played a part in those decisions.haukionkannel - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
Vega 56 is guite power effient because it runs lower clockspeeds. Vega 64 runs too high clockspeeds and is very uneffient, so Yes, the production proses is real hinderance. The architecture of Vega itself is sound, the production proses not so... Clobal founders proses now is much better suited to low power mobile prosessors than high speed CPU or GPU.psychobriggsy - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
I'm guessing Ryzen and Vega refreshes in early H2 2018.The former will hopefully incorporate some or all of Zen 2 updates (and have higher IPC as well as higher clocks), and the latter will hopefully sort out whatever is holding Vega back now.
sor - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
“A legitimate question about the 12LP in the context of automotive applications is who will be GF’s primary customer(s) for the process”Well, it was just announced that Tesla and AMD are working together on a chip, so it’s a good guess one of those might be Tesla.
FreckledTrout - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
Probably a little better than a good guess :)MrCommunistGen - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
I know that retooling a chip for a new (half) node is a lot of work in and of itself, but I'm really hoping that for Zen they can include some of the architectural "low hanging fruit" that that I remember being alluded to around launch. I don't remember where I read that or if it was a rumor or not. I'd love to see more than just a die shrink, either in the form of IPC or just architectural improvements that increase clock speed in addition to the gains from the die shrink.If there is similar low hanging fruit or even just last minute design improvements that didn't make the deadline for Vega I hope they can integrate those if/when they end up manufacturing it on 12LP. I feel like reducing power should be their main objective. If they achieve that, clocks will follow. As much as I want it, I don't think we can hope for much more from their transition to 12LP as those would require larger architectural changes.
BrokenCrayons - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
Power reductions for Vega would be fantastic since it looks like that's the most significant shortcoming of AMD's current GPU design. Zen isn't in as bad of a place with respect to power and heat so a half node refresh would be nice, but I think the benefits wouldn't be as substantial unless the 12LP can help AMD reach above the 4GHz barrier.FreckledTrout - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
If they can get the 10% improved frequency, 4Ghz to 4.4Ghz from the process alone it would be nice if they could eek out another 5% from design tweaks. I'm not holding out much on this "half node". The 7nm process is made for high frequencies which is where AMD's thermal efficiency should shine because they have thermal headroom for higher clocks today so 7nm should be a real boon as they can use most of the gains from the process to increase clocks instead of power draw(one can dream).MajGenRelativity - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
I agree with you Freckled TroutMajGenRelativity - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
12LP mentioned a 10% frequency increase, which should help with the barrier a little bit. Power draw reduction for no performance loss in any situation is still nice.watzupken - Friday, September 29, 2017 - link
I am not sure if 12nm will be able to save AMD's Vega. I feel the architecture of Vega is not exactly meant for high clockspeed in the first place, which probably is also be compounded by Global Foundries 14nm that is supposedly inferior to TSMC's 16nm. AMD had to push the clockspeed on both Polaris and Vega just to keep up with the bar that Nvidia set with Pascal, and therefore, resulted in very power hungry GPUs.ishould - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
Actually the vast majority of ICs these days are guaranteed to work at -40C to +105C, so it's a bit disingenuous to say they are specifically designed for automotive applicationsFreckledTrout - Thursday, September 21, 2017 - link
I disagree, Tjmax on Ryzen is 95c so they are tweaking things to meet automotive grade 2 specs even if its minor its certainly not disingenuous.unrulycow - Monday, September 25, 2017 - link
"There are a number of players developing various chips for automotive applications these days, but when it comes to designers of SoCs that need to pack a lot of transistors, run them at high frequency and be Automotive Grade 2, the list shrinks rather dramatically."Tesla is a likely customer https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/09/report-tesla-...
watzupken - Friday, September 29, 2017 - link
AMD may be at a disadvantage in terms of IPC and clockspeed, but it makes up for it with more cores and better value. The good thing is, Intel no longer have the advantage of a more advance fab, i.e. when they release their 10nm, AMD should also be on 7nm. Previously, AMD's mis-step with Bulldozer was made worst by the fact that Intel is on 14nm, while they are still trying to squeeze every single drop of performance out of 28nm.