I-I swear on me mum intel is releasing an 8 core consumer CPU

Even if they shit out 16 cores its literally useless since most consumer programs don't use that many cores, no matter what AMD shills claim

In the end AMD just shat out a halo product that nobody will ever really need and they just nuked their profits by shitting on their Threadripper base

They probably know that Ryzen 2 will get annihilated by Intel's 8-cores so I can actually see them do a 10-12 core Ryzen 3 just to claim that they have more cores than Intel since I don't see them beating them in the single core and IPC department

>MOAR CORES
This is why AMD is dying. They never learn from their mistakes.

they already shit ryzens with 2x8 core dies with 4 cores locked on each, AMD will sell the same chip 3 times and drones won't even notice

I don't think we'll see 16 cores on AM4. At that point the dual channel memory would be severely limiting in some workloads. I think they'll produce separate dies for Ryzen vs. TR and EPYC. 7nm 6T for 4x4 CCX 16-core dies for TR and EPYC, lower max clock speed but also lower voltage and power requirements. 7nm 9T 3x4 CCX 12-core dies for Ryzen, which gives higher clock speeds but requires more voltage/power.

>by shitting on their TR base
You mean by doubling the core count to 32 cores for TR?

What the fuck are you talking about? Ryzen is limited to one zeppelin, which is two 4-core CCX. There are no Ryzen CPUs with two dies.

If they had 10nm working they wouldn't have release Coffee Lake on 14nm++++++ and they wouldn't be announcing that 10nm won't see mass production until at least mid 2019.

They're not sacrificing IPC or clock speeds for this. In fact, IPC and clock speeds will almost certainly increase with the next generation, and early leaks suggest as much as 15% IPC increase. The process they're using is targeted at 5GHz operational frequency too, so clock speed bump is almost guaranteed.

when AMD first tried moar coars a.) they half-assed it (remember bulldozer's """modules"""?) and b.) muh games didn't have their multithreaded shit together. Both of those have changed.

Games still don't use beyond 2 cores

Only a handful of titles use 4 and never more

Game devs won't make games that need 4 or more cores until the next decade

Civ VI can make full use of at least six cores, GTA V can also use multiple cores. That might have been true several years ago but it's not longer true.

>more heat, more heat means more power consumption
motherboard partners obviously got a head's up. I was looking at 470X boards the other day and noticed that _several_ of them have a 8-pin and a 4-pin power connector on them. Most PSUs don't come with more than one 8-pin, you'll have to look at 750W+ ones to support a motherboard like that. And you sure as hell don't need it for no 65W 2600 or 95W 2600X.

It makes sense if they are told that 16-core Ryzen's are in the pipeline, though.

I'm calling a CCX a die, because it essentially is one

corelet, I personally don't give a shit if your silly games use 2 cores or not. Everything useful in the GNU/Linux world has been multicore for a decade. If it takes more than 10 second then it'll load all them cores. I know gamers and wintoddlers are in a different situation but all-core total performance is all that matters if you're running a sane OS.

Cross-CCX latency is lower than cross-die latency though

I know, but it's still more latency than just having 1 8 core CCX, and it would solve all the issues ryzen has, yet they don't even consider making a 4core model with 1 CCX but just laser cut low bin parts.

Attached: amd ryzen 7 cpu die shot.jpg (1200x527, 306K)

The problem is interconnects. Interconnects for an 8-core CCX would be massively more complex than a 4-core CCX.

So the 16 Core will be 2 dies?
Or maybe 4 CCX

Intel seems to be releasing an 8 core coffee lake and it will probably be ring bus which doesn't make any compromises, it will even be soldered according to rumors

Attached: 800px-coffee_lake_die_(hexa_core).png (800x438, 784K)

I laid out my theory here . I think it's more likely they put more than 2 CCX in a die than redesign L3 cache and interconnects inside the CCX.

Daul core cpus show drastic fps drops from quad core in benchmarks on games. What the fuck are you talking about

More like half a year

>45 year old boomer

Attached: 16.png (2560x1080, 1.06M)

> game still don't use beyond two cores
2010 called

And Intel's superior market is.........

Type htop or, probably in your case, open the task manager or whatever crap is called on windows. Do you see that list of task? Do you see a different task for each chrome or firefox tab?
Are they more than 16 tasks? In that case more cores matter.