I no longer think there will be a mid cycle refresh of Zen 5 to give the gaming/office series the same IOD as Strix. Its not necessary and it would canabalize Zen 6. When I look back at what was said shortly after the Zen 5 launch, I believe a ton of people did everything they could to say negative things about Zen 5. It was always clear to me, Zen 5 was a nice uplift from Zen 4. Linux saw a nice uplift. A bunch of server benchmarks saw a nice uplift. Games mostly didn't see much of an uplift, although a few specific games were boasted nicely by Zen 5. We're at or near the end of the line for design gains on CPUs. There isn't a lot more water to squeeze out of that rock for traditional computing. AI, maybe. We are at or near the end for process gains. There isn't much gain left to gain from process steps and the cost of 2nm is ridiculous. The bulk of gains moving forward will be brute force. If you need more memory bandwidth, that will be had by adding channels. If we need more compute, that will be had by adding cores. This is why chiplet production technique is so important. Zen 6 will have 12 cores per die. The big gun will be a 24 core part. All performance cores. That's a lot of cores.
I agree with most of this but I have to add that I believe that this logic applies to silicon as a material. https://www.industryemea.com/news/64892-beyond-silicon-–-what-will-replace-the-wonder-material After silicon, it might be a whole new ballgame. I still stand by my initial statement that Zen 5 was held back by a crappy I/O chip.
If dominating gaming, content creating, workstation, and literally everything except a couple of benchmarks that are memory constrained isn't enough for you, maybe you are looking for an excuse to talk crap? They were number 2. Now they're number 1 and the lead is stretching out as Intel's microcode and various fixes have come at the cost of performance while AMD has improved performance a bit since launch. Somehow you're trying to frame that as a failure? How much does AMD have to win by before you'll call it a tie?
I believe I have made my point very clear previously, so I am not going to litigate it again. Perhaps you view my wanting AMD to be better than they already are as me talking crap, but I assure you it's not.
Look, my good friend, I want more too. We both understand how identical our interests are, in this regard. But, this is a thread about $AMD. AMD has checkmated Intel and appear poised to cut into nVidia's long standing GPU dominance. AMD's GPU gains are extremely important for integrated graphics applications, which is almost everything, these days. That's great for AMD's business and important to AMD. AMD, even on the cusp of a big step forward, is of only passing interest to hard core gamers. This crowd is hugely pandered to but does not move the stock price in any significant way. AMD seems poised to move from 20% share to 40% of this market but time will tell. From what I can tell, AMD is irrelevant in the AI world. They may play in the same league as nVidia but they aren't as good (based on what little I currently know) and it's a winner take all proposition. If I was looking to spend a half trillion dollars to build the biggest AI network in the world, I wouldn't knock on the door of the second best supplier. This is a case where whomever has a minuscule advantage in compute per Watt will take 99.9% of the AI business. It very much appears that GPUs will become irrelevant to nVidia's income statement within 24 months.
Wow! That's pretty heavy. I didn't realize there had been a lawsuit involving you about this subject!
I haven't been able to go swimming since the last time he and I disagreed. This damn ankle bracelet is really inconvenient.
