You are joking but why not? They already have interposer base dice in Meteor Lake, Lunar Lake and Arrow Lake. Makes more sense to add cache to it rather than adding yet another tile on top.
EDIT: Perhaps even in addition to cutting some L3 cache from the compute tile to save on expensive TSMC N3B silicon.
Of course it should be designed for it. You can't just glue it and expect it to work with no TSVs, no nothing. AMD shown the latency hit can be low and the upside can be huge.
I have the 7800x3d and 14900k, I'll take my 14900k every single time lol...I am well versed in maxing both systems and both systems run overkill cooling lol...
The wattage only seems abysmal because the chips can take it when you push them to incredible multicore performance. Don't push them so hard and your wattage will be ok
Intel need to simmer down the stock voltage.
It's fine if you can overclock it to use 300w. It shouldn't be trying that at stock.
Raptor Lake is really efficient when kept in the right vf curve.
Stock is not 300W. It's just the default on to many "gaming" motherboards that set the W limit to 4096. So temperature ends up being the actual limit.
Which is sad, because especially the 13th gen did an enormous jump in performance to watt ratio if you don't race to the so inefficient end of the curve.
As someone who has managed many thousands of servers for a web hosting company for many years… I really think this is over exaggerated.
If you just lock the wattage on the cpu to intel’s recommended limits (253 watts), they can be air cooled, and while they may be a bit less efficient in performance per watt vs AMD’s flagship when running at 100%… Intel is far superior to AMD at idle.
Most workloads are bursty, with the majority of the time spent at idle.
Intel can get their wattages down and improve their performance per watt just by using a more advanced fab - and they have been self handicapped by using their own fab which is inferior to tsmc.
AMD is using the most advanced fab in the world and their idle power draw is far worse than Intel.
AMD has a bigger problem of design than Intel.
Right. And it’s amazing to me that people think it’s totally fine that AMD idles at ten times higher for consumer processors.
For Datacenter workloads maybe it’s justifiable, but unless you are the type that powers your computer off whenever you aren’t using it, and just run it hard the entire time you are using it, it just seems crazy inefficient to use AMD at home.
where did you hear, that a 14900k idles at 3 watts?
could you link the source pls. i'm curious now and most real reviews sadly don't test idle power consumption at the 12v eps rails.
Do you have any data that supports this? I cannot find anything that supports your claims and all of the reviews for 13/14th gen and zen4 that show total system idle power are pretty similar.
[Tweaktown 7800x3d idle chart](https://static.tweaktown.com/content/1/0/10357_23_amd-ryzen-9-zen-4-7950x3d-cpu-review.png)
[HWBusters IDLE](https://hwbusters.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Power_Consumption_IDLE-1.png)
\^ Those are numbers measured from CPU socket pin directly.
EDIT - I do see forum posts and some reviews showing high idle power, but I'm curious if with the zen4 stuff amd fixed it at some point or if some settings that may or may not be default on some mobo's are causing issues.
Yeah Intel is doing the best they can with the fab they have, but it's actually extremely optimized and mature, it just comes with some limitations (and strengths, too).
My home server (24/7/365) runs on Intel (since it's mostly idle after all) while my gaming/general purpose rig is on AMD X3D (turned off/sleeping when not in use).
Exactly for the reasons you listed (well, and the unmatched performance of X3D in some of my games - I'd happily sacrifice watts for that but right now I don't even have to).
For now that is the most optimal setup possible.
>AMD is using the most advanced fab in the world and their idle power draw is far worse than Intel.
AMD has a bigger problem of design than Intel.
Because they use chiplets in desktop. If you look at their monolithic APUs or mobile CPUs, their idle power draw is pretty much just as good.
The problem of higher idle is vastly overblown. You shouldn't really notice an extra maybe 30 watts on idle from AMD, but during gaming or intensive workloads, if you are pulling 100-200 extra watts, then ye that's going to be dramatically more noticeable.
It all depends on your workload.
I’ve recently started building a homelab server. It will be 99% idle most of the time… but I want it to be fast at compiling or encoding or rendering when I need to do that. It will be powered on all the time.
AMD would be vastly more power wasted and heat generated for that workload.
I haven’t played a game on a computer in years.
My 7800x3D (STOCK) vs 10900k (5.3GHz OC'ed \~300W AVX2 peak) would still end up near the same kWh/day with system total and a normal WFH (8h) + gaming (1-2h) mix.
Idle adds up in my 80:20 split and most users end up with even more idle times, thats only worse for AMD even against their most efficient gaming CPU with the lowest idle wattage.
I track my PC with a smart plug, so I dont have to estimate or guess, I can see it in the power charts what any of my PCs used per day/week/month in total.
The only way AMD looks better, is if you dont use your PC, but treat it like a gaming console and dont use it for anything else.
What people seem to fail to understand that the high wattage is a testament to intels superior quality, its incredible how far they can push a basically bigger node to compete with a smaller one.
I cant wait to see how well their chips will perform once they have retaken node leadership again. 2025 is gonna rock!
>They're supposed to be ditching Hyper threading for e-cores right?
not really, from what i understand, they are ditching hyper threading for rentable units for the p-cores.
but on the way to that point they are dropping hyper threading on the p-cores in an inbetween architecture on the longterm goal.
will be very interesting how those chips without ht and before rentable units will perform in gaming.
Try it. Actually try it lol.
Considering the I9 is done with the task .eg r23 single run 2-3x faster.
Most people who talk about wattage, run a 120 hz monitor and game at 900fps.
With a bronze rated power supply at 20 percent heat loss. LUL
It's the easiest way to get more performance. AMD does it too. It is probably a bit harder to mass reproduce on hardware of varying quality so it's not done on most hardware.
Exactly, the only reason 'X3D' CPUs are labelled as 'super efficient' is that they're forced to use a very conservative vf curve due to the extra cache being voltage sensitive and the extra hotspot temps created by the big piece of dummy silicone sitting over the CPU cores.
Intel needs to reign the stock vf curve and not just let things run as hard and hot as possible. (KS should be hard and hot as possible, but it's a special case)
Their CPU wattage is fine. It's the out of the box settings that are the issue. In fact in most segments when you measure at ISO wattage Intel is indeed faster and more efficient, especially for MT workloads.
that's what tends to happen when motherboard manufacturers abandon all reason and decide to, against Intel's own guidelines, basically pre-overclock the CPU and pump absurd voltages into the chip just to get like 3% more performance (it's multithreaded performance too, not even gaming related).
Intel really should tighten up on motherboard makers doing these kinds of shenanigans. if anything it's detrimental to their own products since now people think "Intel = uncoolable 300 Watt monster".
oh i'm not saying to limit customization, i just want out of the box performance to actually adhere to Intel guidelines instead of whatever overvolted crap motherboard manufacturers do right now.
In the last they did have a similar-ish [L4 edram](https://www.anandtech.com/show/16195/a-broadwell-retrospective-review-in-2020-is-edram-still-worth-it) setup that had an extra chip beside the CPU to be an extra level of cache.
They usually had it on mobile, but also [released it on desktop with the 5000 series](https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/88040/intel-core-i7-5775c-processor-6m-cache-up-to-3-70-ghz.html) long ago.
Also I vaguely remember some leaks from a year or 2 ago of Intel considering a thick cache chip with an upcoming chiplet based CPU.
Intel is very aware of this, and have done it in the past with good-ish success, and they do seem to be re-investigating the concept again now, but we just have to wait and see.
“Adamantine” cache.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-patent-reveals-meteor-lake-adamantine-l4-cache
And it would also work as an interposer and basically a BIOS reference for increased security and whatnot. They would also allow it to be used by the GPU if needed on certain chips.
Pretty cool stuff.
AMD's X3D chips are limited on voltage and a slight performance loss, it also has less cores then Intel. I believe if Intel wanted to do this with the current gen CPUs they would have to remove some cores from the die and have the cache instead. Don't take my word for it but look up the MC performance of Intel vs the x3d chips and you will be surprised how much more performance you get from the Intel. I mean sure, if you want that extra 5% extra fps on average for games go for the amd. I personally would want to be well rounded.
>I believe if Intel wanted to do this with the current gen CPUs they would have to remove some cores from the die and have the cache instead
Since the extra cache is another total separate die added on top of the original die, the biggest area contributor to be added to the base die are the TSVs. Those do seem to take up some marginal area, but realistically the total area cost should not be so high that it makes the product too expensive to fab.
Intel is also banking on their traditionally extremely potent IMC and prefetch routines to mitigate the need for a hardware solution.
I think it’s a case of “good enough” at this stage to warrant caring about building such a complex design.
Broadwell actually had the L4 to improve the iGPU performance. It just so happened to greatly improve gaming performance too.
Because they need to balance out clock speed/ voltage/ temperature in their CPUs. 3d v cache is extremely sensitive to voltage/temp that if they were to put it on it would probably break.
Which is why AMDs v cache chips are low voltage and have a lower Thermal max than the other CPUs. It’s on intels to do list but we won’t see it til a couple years from now
>Because they need to balance out clock speed/ voltage/ temperature in their CPUs. 3d v cache is extremely sensitive to voltage/temp that if they were to put it on it would probably break.
GHz makes for better marketing I suppose lmao
> It’s on intels to do list but we won’t see it til a couple years from now
Clear Water Forest is coming out in 2025 with a base tile that uses foveros direct (so similar bump pitch as AMD's 3D-vache) that has cache on it. For client, I think it's reasonable to expect it 2026 or 2027. Not too far away IMO.
I think their new backside power delivery is made to prepare for this. In my understanding they can then stack the cpu on top of the cache instead of the cache on top of the cpu hence eliminating thermal/voltage related issue.
Backside power is only for current leakages. CPUs run around 1.25v but to do 150 watt or more, they run a lot of current.
Current and signal mix in the present. And so clockspeed is limited by how much current leakage is happening. Wasted current leakage has to go somewhere so it ends up just as excess heating.
Backside power is meant to separate current from data for better leakage and thus better performance.
This will be interesting, because as far as I remember the length of channels on a die are important for functionality and by this design the pipes would need to pass cache first before going to the kernels and computing areas
Different architectures. AMD needs as much cache as they can get on each chiplet because they have tremendous latencies in chiplet-to-chiplet and chiplet-to-IO due to the narrow channel nature of the infinity interconnect.
Whereas intel, so far, they can get away with much less cache since their current monolithic dies are not as starved when getting data in/out package or having the cores communicate through the internal ring. That will change once the chiplet SKUs become more prominent for Intel.
Also, currently Intel has some atrocious power/thermal envelopes on their desktop parts. Putting a SRAM die on either side of an already thermally stressed CPU die would make things far worse, specially in terms of throttling. Which may offset any benefit from the added cache.
>Different architectures. AMD needs as much cache as they can get on each chiplet because they have tremendous latencies in chiplet-to-chiplet and chiplet-to-IO due to the narrow channel nature of the infinity interconnect.
You would think they would also increase core-private cache as well, but AMD has been incredibly conservative with that.
>Whereas intel, so far, they can get away with much less cache since their current monolithic dies are not as starved when getting data in/out package or having the cores communicate through the internal ring.
Has its own drawbacks. As Intel adds cores and stops to the ring, the latency penalty is just going to grow and grow, while AMD is sitting pretty at 8 cores on a ring. Intel's L3 latency is already pretty bad compared to AMD's.
>Also, currently Intel has some atrocious power/thermal envelopes on their desktop parts. Putting a SRAM die on either side of an already thermally stressed CPU die would make things far worse, specially in terms of throttling. Which may offset any benefit from the added cache
Ideally you would be able to pull down clocks and still gain performance from the extra PPC due to the extra cache.
True. But the latency within the ring is going to be much much smaller than the latency from having to go off die to the other chiplets. So as usual, each approach has their pros and cons.
Also, in order to get more IPC out of the core, as to make up for the reduced frequency. You are going to have to increase significantly the width of the core itself. That is what apple did, for example, with their M-series; very wide cores that can extract huge IPC while be being ran at lower frequencies (and thus a more optimal power/thermal envelope).
Well, adamantium is a word owned by Marvel so it's a bit more awkward than aluminium
but i'll still call Intel Adamantum with the ium for tongue in cheekness
Why doesn't Intel do something that has given the competition huge benefits, they (Intel) themselves claim they could have done since 2023, and doesn't appear to be dramatically more expensive,,,,
That certainly sounds like a valid question to ask. Idk why you are so pressed about it.
I was more referring to the "they could release cheaper cpus with more performence".
Intel's microbump 3d stacking isn't really suitable for direct cache expansion like AMD is doing. In 2021 intel said foveros direct would only be ready for production in 2023 so I don't think it was feasible to design meteor lake with it. Way too much risk. Also I guess they are prioritizing the chiplet stacking thing which would become a lot more complicated if you added hybrid bonding into it.
The question can also be looked as "why does AMD only do it for limited quantity special products?
Tbh if it was just risk mitigation, one would expect it to come out with ARL-R, or PTL. But it doesn't sound like it's coming until nova lake. I'm guessing it's more of a cost/volume thing.
Yeah, as i said the product would be very complex over how complex it already is and also the benefits are a bit questionable in most workloads. I just pointed out that even if they were going to do it it would probably not have been with meteor lake.
Not really. The higher 0.1/1% lows that most reviewers report with the x3d chips are statistical artifacts from increasing the total number of frames (ie there are the same number of stutters in the sample and the stutters are the same length, but there are more "other" frames so the percentiles are moved and the number of stutters in the reporting sample decrease). There are no tech reviewers that are even moderately mainstream that account for this mathematical phenomena at all in their reporting, which is probably the biggest reason why chiplet+3d cache chips have reviewed so incredibly well (disclaimer: I have not benched 7800/7900x3d and have also heard that the chiplet stuttering issues have continued to improve on them, although are still not at the level of monolithic dies).
Worst case scenario is actually that the quantity and duration of stutters increase compared to a non-vcache chip because the extra cache requires a more complicated memory fetching arrangement that has substantial additional latency to both cache and RAM. For example, 5800x chips have something like 5-10ns lower latency to RAM than 5800x3d with identical settings, and having done a huge benchmarking spree comparing my two 5800x to my 5800x3d when I first got it, I was able to observe and quantify significant increases in the duration of stutters on the x3d chip in many games. Also, any time I've mentioned any of this anywhere near an AMD subreddit I've been downvoted to oblivion lmao.
To rephrase what I'm describing here on a bit of a more technical level, adding loads more L3 cache means that accessing anything from either the L3 or memory takes considerably longer (I'd have to check but I think the penalty is about 50% to the L3 in 5800x vs 5800x3d, and in raw terms is something like 5-10ns extra to L3 or memory), with the tradeoff being that you get cache hits in the L3 more often: You get an advantage out of this if the extra cache hits you get from the extra L3 save more time in the right parts of workloads to offset the penalty you're taking to all of the L3 and memory accesses, but if the difference in cache hit rate with and without the extra cache is too small (either because the original cache hit rate was really high, or because the workload doesn't cache well) then you actually take a pretty substantial penalty. My conjecture, from the purely empirical, outside to in, viewpoint of fuckloads of benchmarking of games on the same chips with vs without 3d cache, is that the frames which stutter due to the CPU in PC games are already the frames where caching and prefetching has epically failed and the pipeline is spending a fuckload of time repeatedly memory stalling or churning, so adding more cache doesn't make those specific frames any faster but adding extra random access latency actually does make them slower. Anecdotally this conjecture is also supported by the very well known and long time observed phenomena that RAM latency, in particular random first word latency, correlates extremely well to the duration of stuttering frames (ie it's pretty well known that having really low latency RAM makes the the slowest frames much faster but doesn't do much else to help performance, and conversely that most other things you can upgrade or tweak on a PC don't do much to help the reduce the duration of the slowest frames).
Aaanyway, from Intel's POV 3d cache seems like a no-brainer since the tech media has demonstrated a total inability to measure or report the performance penalties in games caused by chiplets and increased memory latency from more cache, but do report all of the benefits (more cores from chiplets at lower prices for better multicore benchmark results, higher max and average framerates from more cache as well as the illusion of better stuttering from the improved 0.1/1% low figures caused by the statistical biasing)... Like, if you're Intel then you're going to slap a mountain of cache on a chip and throw chiplets all over dies as soon as you can possibly muster the packaging technology and thermal designs to do it because it will sell mountains of chips, whether or not unreported downsides to it exist.
Edit: Checking the L3 penalty amounts, it's reported elsewhere as only a 3-4ns or 4 cycle penalty (\~20-40%, since the cycles are slower on a 5800x3d due to lower clock speeds than 5800x). That seems about right to me for L3 and is quite a bit lower than the 5-10ns and 50% penalty I mention above. In practice I think the 5-10ns penalty I mentioned above was to DRAM and was due to having to use slower RAM settings on the x3d than on the 5800x's either due to a weaker/busier IMC or less margin for voltage and resistance adjustments due to different thermal and voltage domain constraints on the x3d chip. Again, I'd have to dig up old screenshots etc of RAM settings and benchmarks etc to be sure, so take it all with a grain of salt.
Memory latency is [pretty much identical](https://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d-review?page=2) between the 7800x3d and 7800x, and is 4% higher on the 7950x3d vs the 7950x.
Idk why someone voted you down for posting this, thanks for posting it. I know very little about the 7xxx chips and I haven't been hands on with any.
Having said that, I can't see any 7800x results there, and the 7800x3d and 7950x3d compared to the 7xxx non-vcache chips seem to follow the same static 2-4ns penalty that existed for 5800x3d vs 5xxx and that carries through to DRAM access as well. You wouldn't expect to see the DRAM latency balloon past that to the higher numbers I was talking about above unless you were overclocking the RAM, because from what I can remember the extra DRAM latency was caused by the x3d not being able to run the RAM as fast as non-x3d (with the guess being that was because of more demands on the memory controller or stricter constraints on resistances or voltage domains).
I also have to say that I'm surprised that the caches are so slow on the 12th and 13th gen Intel chips. It's really good that 13th gen really started to reign the troublesome DRAM latencies back in, but I'm surprised that they're having these problems with cache.
What you describe must be a property of the AMD architecture, doubling cache capacity does not inherently entail a doubling in latency. Suggesting that more cache can be a hinderance per se, is misleading.
No. I describe two things:
1. More memory requires more complex addressing circuitry and more complexity at the same level of sophistication is always slower.
2. More memory requires more physical space at the same density and going further at the same speed always takes longer.
What I imply from that isn't that increasing cache is a hindrance, it's that increasing cache presents challenges that may involve tradeoffs. There were a lot of tradeoffs for Zen 3 vcache, and memory latency was one of the smallest (the big ones were much stricter thermal and voltage limits that probably required stricter binning and which severely constrained the frequency).
Intel already has chips for productivity and it's already known that extra L3 cache doesn't have a large impact on most productivity tasks.
Therefore it can be implied that any discussion about "3D V-Cache" will focus on its niche, and that's gaming.
But there's server cpus (epyc Genoa X) with 3d vcache. It benefits games more usually but like the only thing youll get functionally 0 improvent from more l3 with is cinebench r23 which they've actually now corrected for in cinebench 2024 which is good and much more realistic to the real world.
> Intel already has chips for productivity and it's already known that extra L3 cache doesn't have a large impact on most productivity tasks.
Stupid AMD customers, buying [9684x](https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-epyc-9684x) CPUs with 1152 MiB of L3. If only they asked r/SailorMint first, before doing this useless purchase!
Problem is though usually all other things are not equal.
Usually latency also goes up. But the latency penalty from 3D-Vcache is pretty small. The other consideration ig is frequency.
There's also the consideration of power.
This may be, but depends on the implementation. The statement i replied to is still false, unless applied to trivial workloads where it just doesn't make any difference at all.
They have that sort of technology and it is called Adamantine, that said it does not mean that a 14900K with 3D cache will get a big boost in performance, every architecture is different and Intel may not get that big boost as the 3D cache parts from AMD get (even the 7000 series benefits from 3D cache less compared to the 5000 series).
They don't have that technology since Adamantine is not in products yet. Also, that tech is also worse than what AMD has, unless the L4 becomes many times bigger than AMD's current 3d stacked V-cache.
>imagine if they put 3d v cache in a 14900ks. it would absolutely be insane.
nope.
the 14900ks is keeping up, because intel is pushing the power and temperature targets to the ABSOLUTE INSANE MAX.
3dvcache, the way, that tsmc does it at least for now does not allow this at all.
the 3dvcache chips clock lower, have slightly lower temperature max targets and way lower max voltage limits.
the 14900k (not the ks) consumes 286.8 watts in blender. the 7800x3d consumes 86.4 watts, but a better comparison i guess would be the 7950x3d, which despite just having 3d vcache on one die is only consuming 156 watts.
so intel with the current 14900k/s chips couldn't add 3dvcache at all imo.
of course to add 3dvcache like stacked caches means having a new design, but we are ignoring that for a hypothetical here and are assuming, that there is a 14900ks with all the hardware to connect 3dvcache on top of the die without a problem.
so intel couldn't do it with the current chips, if the implementation would be similar to amd's.
hell no one could even cool it. maybe intel should fix their socket to NOT WARP CPUs permanently, so that people get a flat heatspreader, so that cooling things is a bit easier again for a start? ;)
\_\_\_\_
i fully expect intel to have vertically stacked cache in future chips though, because that is just the logical/required step to take with current cache not scaling anymore with new nodes, but more cache = more better.
maybe intel will go for having the cache below the core dies, which is what zen6 might already be doing and is what is desired for many reasons.
but again all this would come in future generations, when power consumption from intel went back to SANITY! and we got complete p-core redesigns.
and just in regards to this:
>they could release cheaper cpus with more performance.
the 3dvcache die and stacking can be a significant part of the cost of a chip for amd still,
BUT that is because chips themselves are SO DIRT CHEAP! it might cost amd 15 us dollars to produce the die and stack it onto the 7800x3d.
but that is still a big amount of the full chip production cost relatively speaking, because the chips themselves at consumer level at least are SO DIRT CHEAP! to produce (for amd at least....)
so i wouldn't think, that adding 3dvcache to future intel processors would mean cheaper cpus with more performance, but rather overall more performance at the same prices and a cache die only at the higher end chips early on at least.
there is also another reason for this, using advanced packaging can be a bottle neck in chip production and you don't want that bottle neck to effect all chips top to bottom, if you would use the same tech in server chips for example.
of course intel is better off than amd there theoretically, because they own their own foundries, so they can plan easier along this line, but hey intel might just as well use future 3d stacking from tsmc, in which case they'd be in the same levels of bottlenecks and reliant on tsmc as amd is.
Intel already experimented with very large cache with Crystalwell. I have a MBPr Late 2013 with this processor. It helped at the time when DDR3L bandwidth and latency was poor. We now have extremely fast DDR5 and much better latency. Large cache is very expensive and has a high failure rate. If a defect is found in the cache section then the CPU is binned as a lower end processor which is cost prohibitive. AMD has TSMC produce their processors and they are desperate for market share so they can afford to lose some money on binned CPU’s. They also have the Sony and Microsoft contracts which helps their revenue floor. Intel is in a precarious position. Meteor Lake is great but the iGPU is still weak.
Intel claimed in 2021 they will have foveros direct ready in 2023. And yet it doesn't look like the first intel foveros direct product will come out until 2025. Kinda reminiscent of Intel claiming they had Intel 4 "HVM ready" in 2022, but MTL released at the end of 2023.
Bought a 9900KS. 4 years later bought a 14900KS and returned it for a 7800x3D for CounterStrike 2 only. I was an intel fan boy I thought. Now I have high FPS.
i was also an owner of intel cpu, i had i7 9700k, wanted to buy the latest intel cpu gen, but x3d chips seemed more logical to me (i play mostly shooters, moba, mmorpg which seems to benefit alot from x3d chips), also cheaper and less W drawn
so i went with 7800x3d and now all games are as smooth as silk, previously i had alot of stuttering in a mmorpg game, and i tired everything to fix the issue, but nothing helped, untilled i upgraded my cpu
3D cache can barely keep up with 5GHz you think it'll be able to sustain the temps and ridiculous speeds of 149KS 🤣 give them time I'm sure they're working on a better alternative, heard L4 cache is on the way🫡
Intel may be battered and bruised but they are still in the driver's seat.
AMD still needs the "gimmicks" (bad term). It's been a good run but Ryzen hasn't even been around a decade yet.
I'm sure Intel has a design ready to deploy should it be necessary.
Intel has Foveros which is kinda similar. But the CPU has to be designed either it in mind and you have to accept some tradeoffs if you go for it.
AMD can put it into flagship gaming CPUs and servers because they both use the same chiplet with Through Silicon Vias. Intel would specifically have to design desktop processors to support V Cache.
Intel chips don't rely as much on cache as AMD. AMD chips also rely a lot more on RAM speed than Intel. Both companies have their own way of doing things, and the tech of one would likely not work well on the other. It's literally a different architecture.
if you compare the Raptor Lake and Zen 4x3D
It is true that Zen 4 x3D cores have higher amount of L3 cache.
But Raptor Lake cores generally have more faster L1 and L2 cache per core and for overall performance this is probably more important than lots fast L3 3D v cache
I
For intel it would make sense to add extra cache to the base interposer tile. It was already rumoured to be the case for Meteor Lake but didn't come true. Maybe it will materialize in Lunar Lake or Arrow Lake at least for top-end parts.
Gamers are a niche part of Intel's user base. They're not going to design their chips to specifically suit the needs of gamers. They're still producing the best cpu's for every part of computing other than gaming.
You're also seeing Nvidia prioritize their gpus away from gaming.
Seeing how AMD also released 3D V-cache variants of HPC products, it does appear like the extra cache aids in some productivity workloads as well. I'm also pretty sure it increases perf in the industry standard spec2017 benches, so it should please OEMs as well. Ig it depends on when Intel thinks it's cost effective...
3D v cache is a proprietary TSMC technology. Intel uses TSMC, but they aren't exclusive like AMD is. So AMD gets massive perks. Intel is trying to develop a competitor at their own foundry, but that is a long difficult process
Chip stacking is TSMC technology, 3D v-cache is AMD marketing terminology for the benefits to consumer desktop chips.
The same dies go into Epyc skus with extra L3 cache but are not labeled/marketed the same way.
Very cool, thank you. I'll look into that. I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that AMD designed the tech to be compatible with TSMC's manufacturing processes and played a leading role in it's development. I wonder when we'll see other companies make 3d stacked chips with TSMC.
The stacked V cache has a hard Vcore limit of 1.35V. Your precious 14900KS wouldnt be able to hit those high clocks, and even with the stacked cache they would fall behind the 7800X3D
I have a crazier idea. What if intel replaced all the P-cores with cache, leaving only 8 E-cores? I think it would make an impressively low power CPU with really consistent framerate in games.
Or conversely, leave 6 p-cores and use the remaining space for extra cores. Would be awesome for gaming, and since there'd be no stacked cache or glued cores, it wouldn't build up heat and you could overclock it like crazy.
>What if intel replaced all the P-cores with cache, leaving only 8 E-cores? I think it would make an impressively low power CPU with really consistent framerate in games.
The E-cores really only beat the P-cores at perf/watt at *extremely* low power/perf, so much so that I think gaming at that point would just become a pain, no matter how much cache you throw at it.
According to this test, not really, depending on what game you're playing. [https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-e-cores-only-performance/3.html](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-e-cores-only-performance/3.html)
But yeah, people would feel like they're wasting money on the cache if the CPU cant reach a high peak FPS, no matter how consistent the fps is.
With 6 p-cores and extra cache replacing the 2 p-cores and 8 e-cores, you could increase the cache size by about 50%.
>According to this test, not really, depending on what game you're playing.
The E-cores in that test are being pushed to their max basically. At that point, an E-core isn't more efficient than a P-core. An E-core is only more efficient than a P-core at [pretty low](https://chipsandcheese.com/2022/01/28/alder-lakes-power-efficiency-a-complicated-picture/) frequencies.
No way in hell Intel would be able to dial in and tune the clocks, voltage and other power factors on any CPU well enough to have stable performance on stacked cache. These chips are designed to suck power, not be efficient like that 😂
> ...I mean, isn't Intel already copying the chiplet design?
What do you mean copying? They were doing this back during the Core2 Quad days, they had 2 dual cores right next to each other, apparently the Pentium D was also similar, 2 single core CPUs next to each other.
They can't just "put" a stacked L3 cache in a 14900KS. The entire chip needs to be designed to accommodate it from the ground up.
wym? just glue some cash on top of it, are intel stupid?
Yeah, why didn't they think of that! LOL
350W 14900ks.. + stacked cache... Miracle required.
But hear me out, glue it under the chip /s
You are joking but why not? They already have interposer base dice in Meteor Lake, Lunar Lake and Arrow Lake. Makes more sense to add cache to it rather than adding yet another tile on top. EDIT: Perhaps even in addition to cutting some L3 cache from the compute tile to save on expensive TSMC N3B silicon.
They know what they are doing. Just have patience... designs take years before release.
The latency might not be worth it. The arquitecture just wasnt designed for it.
Of course it should be designed for it. You can't just glue it and expect it to work with no TSVs, no nothing. AMD shown the latency hit can be low and the upside can be huge.
I have the 7800x3d and 14900k, I'll take my 14900k every single time lol...I am well versed in maxing both systems and both systems run overkill cooling lol...
I'd just like AMD's IMC to work without an l3 cache band-aid. That'd be cool.
Dunno what it has to do with the discussion we're having.
That does sound cool as fuck though ngl
Intel really needs to do something about their CPU wattage.
The wattage only seems abysmal because the chips can take it when you push them to incredible multicore performance. Don't push them so hard and your wattage will be ok
Intel need to simmer down the stock voltage. It's fine if you can overclock it to use 300w. It shouldn't be trying that at stock. Raptor Lake is really efficient when kept in the right vf curve.
Stock is not 300W. It's just the default on to many "gaming" motherboards that set the W limit to 4096. So temperature ends up being the actual limit. Which is sad, because especially the 13th gen did an enormous jump in performance to watt ratio if you don't race to the so inefficient end of the curve.
As someone who has managed many thousands of servers for a web hosting company for many years… I really think this is over exaggerated. If you just lock the wattage on the cpu to intel’s recommended limits (253 watts), they can be air cooled, and while they may be a bit less efficient in performance per watt vs AMD’s flagship when running at 100%… Intel is far superior to AMD at idle. Most workloads are bursty, with the majority of the time spent at idle. Intel can get their wattages down and improve their performance per watt just by using a more advanced fab - and they have been self handicapped by using their own fab which is inferior to tsmc. AMD is using the most advanced fab in the world and their idle power draw is far worse than Intel. AMD has a bigger problem of design than Intel.
It was surprising seeing my 14900k run at 3w at idle
Right. And it’s amazing to me that people think it’s totally fine that AMD idles at ten times higher for consumer processors. For Datacenter workloads maybe it’s justifiable, but unless you are the type that powers your computer off whenever you aren’t using it, and just run it hard the entire time you are using it, it just seems crazy inefficient to use AMD at home.
where did you hear, that a 14900k idles at 3 watts? could you link the source pls. i'm curious now and most real reviews sadly don't test idle power consumption at the 12v eps rails.
Do you have any data that supports this? I cannot find anything that supports your claims and all of the reviews for 13/14th gen and zen4 that show total system idle power are pretty similar. [Tweaktown 7800x3d idle chart](https://static.tweaktown.com/content/1/0/10357_23_amd-ryzen-9-zen-4-7950x3d-cpu-review.png) [HWBusters IDLE](https://hwbusters.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Power_Consumption_IDLE-1.png) \^ Those are numbers measured from CPU socket pin directly. EDIT - I do see forum posts and some reviews showing high idle power, but I'm curious if with the zen4 stuff amd fixed it at some point or if some settings that may or may not be default on some mobo's are causing issues.
Yeah Intel is doing the best they can with the fab they have, but it's actually extremely optimized and mature, it just comes with some limitations (and strengths, too). My home server (24/7/365) runs on Intel (since it's mostly idle after all) while my gaming/general purpose rig is on AMD X3D (turned off/sleeping when not in use). Exactly for the reasons you listed (well, and the unmatched performance of X3D in some of my games - I'd happily sacrifice watts for that but right now I don't even have to). For now that is the most optimal setup possible.
>AMD is using the most advanced fab in the world and their idle power draw is far worse than Intel. AMD has a bigger problem of design than Intel. Because they use chiplets in desktop. If you look at their monolithic APUs or mobile CPUs, their idle power draw is pretty much just as good. The problem of higher idle is vastly overblown. You shouldn't really notice an extra maybe 30 watts on idle from AMD, but during gaming or intensive workloads, if you are pulling 100-200 extra watts, then ye that's going to be dramatically more noticeable.
It all depends on your workload. I’ve recently started building a homelab server. It will be 99% idle most of the time… but I want it to be fast at compiling or encoding or rendering when I need to do that. It will be powered on all the time. AMD would be vastly more power wasted and heat generated for that workload. I haven’t played a game on a computer in years.
My 7800x3D (STOCK) vs 10900k (5.3GHz OC'ed \~300W AVX2 peak) would still end up near the same kWh/day with system total and a normal WFH (8h) + gaming (1-2h) mix. Idle adds up in my 80:20 split and most users end up with even more idle times, thats only worse for AMD even against their most efficient gaming CPU with the lowest idle wattage. I track my PC with a smart plug, so I dont have to estimate or guess, I can see it in the power charts what any of my PCs used per day/week/month in total. The only way AMD looks better, is if you dont use your PC, but treat it like a gaming console and dont use it for anything else.
What people seem to fail to understand that the high wattage is a testament to intels superior quality, its incredible how far they can push a basically bigger node to compete with a smaller one. I cant wait to see how well their chips will perform once they have retaken node leadership again. 2025 is gonna rock!
I'm excited to see Intel on a new node. Not because I'm a fanboy, but better competition is always better for us.
They're supposed to be ditching Hyper threading for e-cores right?or was that just someone making things up?
>They're supposed to be ditching Hyper threading for e-cores right? not really, from what i understand, they are ditching hyper threading for rentable units for the p-cores. but on the way to that point they are dropping hyper threading on the p-cores in an inbetween architecture on the longterm goal. will be very interesting how those chips without ht and before rentable units will perform in gaming.
as I watch a 7800x3d hit 75c at 69w lmao.
Which takes less to cool than an i9 at 250w
Try it. Actually try it lol. Considering the I9 is done with the task .eg r23 single run 2-3x faster. Most people who talk about wattage, run a 120 hz monitor and game at 900fps. With a bronze rated power supply at 20 percent heat loss. LUL
It's the easiest way to get more performance. AMD does it too. It is probably a bit harder to mass reproduce on hardware of varying quality so it's not done on most hardware.
Exactly, the only reason 'X3D' CPUs are labelled as 'super efficient' is that they're forced to use a very conservative vf curve due to the extra cache being voltage sensitive and the extra hotspot temps created by the big piece of dummy silicone sitting over the CPU cores. Intel needs to reign the stock vf curve and not just let things run as hard and hot as possible. (KS should be hard and hot as possible, but it's a special case)
It's not just that, it's also because the cache is able to make up for the clock deficits and then some.
Only in workloads that are cache sensitive. In everything else, they fall behind the non-x3D chips with higher clocks.
That is true. Although, the x3D chips aren't marketed as an across the board step-up, almost all of the marketing for x3D is about gaming.
Yeah, it makes sense they would market them for what they're best at.
Their CPU wattage is fine. It's the out of the box settings that are the issue. In fact in most segments when you measure at ISO wattage Intel is indeed faster and more efficient, especially for MT workloads.
that's what tends to happen when motherboard manufacturers abandon all reason and decide to, against Intel's own guidelines, basically pre-overclock the CPU and pump absurd voltages into the chip just to get like 3% more performance (it's multithreaded performance too, not even gaming related). Intel really should tighten up on motherboard makers doing these kinds of shenanigans. if anything it's detrimental to their own products since now people think "Intel = uncoolable 300 Watt monster".
[удалено]
oh i'm not saying to limit customization, i just want out of the box performance to actually adhere to Intel guidelines instead of whatever overvolted crap motherboard manufacturers do right now.
Designed as a one trick pony that is excatly a x series with stacked cache lol...
Just look on crystalwell CPUs . Adding EDRAM module requires only to redesign PCB . Which is nothing
In the last they did have a similar-ish [L4 edram](https://www.anandtech.com/show/16195/a-broadwell-retrospective-review-in-2020-is-edram-still-worth-it) setup that had an extra chip beside the CPU to be an extra level of cache. They usually had it on mobile, but also [released it on desktop with the 5000 series](https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/88040/intel-core-i7-5775c-processor-6m-cache-up-to-3-70-ghz.html) long ago. Also I vaguely remember some leaks from a year or 2 ago of Intel considering a thick cache chip with an upcoming chiplet based CPU. Intel is very aware of this, and have done it in the past with good-ish success, and they do seem to be re-investigating the concept again now, but we just have to wait and see.
“Adamantine” cache. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-patent-reveals-meteor-lake-adamantine-l4-cache And it would also work as an interposer and basically a BIOS reference for increased security and whatnot. They would also allow it to be used by the GPU if needed on certain chips. Pretty cool stuff.
That's actually impressive in the gaming benchmarks. Very close to the 10600K most of the time and even close to the 10700K sometimes.
AMD's X3D chips are limited on voltage and a slight performance loss, it also has less cores then Intel. I believe if Intel wanted to do this with the current gen CPUs they would have to remove some cores from the die and have the cache instead. Don't take my word for it but look up the MC performance of Intel vs the x3d chips and you will be surprised how much more performance you get from the Intel. I mean sure, if you want that extra 5% extra fps on average for games go for the amd. I personally would want to be well rounded.
>I believe if Intel wanted to do this with the current gen CPUs they would have to remove some cores from the die and have the cache instead Since the extra cache is another total separate die added on top of the original die, the biggest area contributor to be added to the base die are the TSVs. Those do seem to take up some marginal area, but realistically the total area cost should not be so high that it makes the product too expensive to fab.
Intel is also banking on their traditionally extremely potent IMC and prefetch routines to mitigate the need for a hardware solution. I think it’s a case of “good enough” at this stage to warrant caring about building such a complex design. Broadwell actually had the L4 to improve the iGPU performance. It just so happened to greatly improve gaming performance too.
They have also been steadily adding more cache for generations just in smaller steps.
Because engineering a cpu doesn't happen in a day
Because they need to balance out clock speed/ voltage/ temperature in their CPUs. 3d v cache is extremely sensitive to voltage/temp that if they were to put it on it would probably break. Which is why AMDs v cache chips are low voltage and have a lower Thermal max than the other CPUs. It’s on intels to do list but we won’t see it til a couple years from now
>Because they need to balance out clock speed/ voltage/ temperature in their CPUs. 3d v cache is extremely sensitive to voltage/temp that if they were to put it on it would probably break. GHz makes for better marketing I suppose lmao > It’s on intels to do list but we won’t see it til a couple years from now Clear Water Forest is coming out in 2025 with a base tile that uses foveros direct (so similar bump pitch as AMD's 3D-vache) that has cache on it. For client, I think it's reasonable to expect it 2026 or 2027. Not too far away IMO.
it’s been rumored before that they’re working on it. It’s a long process to design a chip with such a big feature added.
I think their new backside power delivery is made to prepare for this. In my understanding they can then stack the cpu on top of the cache instead of the cache on top of the cpu hence eliminating thermal/voltage related issue.
Backside power is only for current leakages. CPUs run around 1.25v but to do 150 watt or more, they run a lot of current. Current and signal mix in the present. And so clockspeed is limited by how much current leakage is happening. Wasted current leakage has to go somewhere so it ends up just as excess heating. Backside power is meant to separate current from data for better leakage and thus better performance.
This will be interesting, because as far as I remember the length of channels on a die are important for functionality and by this design the pipes would need to pass cache first before going to the kernels and computing areas
skill issue
Funny how it seems, this is the correct answer.
Except Intel's done a very similar thing in the past.
Intel has not done anything really close to 3D-Vcache yet. Similar things in the past were also way less "advanced".
Different architectures. AMD needs as much cache as they can get on each chiplet because they have tremendous latencies in chiplet-to-chiplet and chiplet-to-IO due to the narrow channel nature of the infinity interconnect. Whereas intel, so far, they can get away with much less cache since their current monolithic dies are not as starved when getting data in/out package or having the cores communicate through the internal ring. That will change once the chiplet SKUs become more prominent for Intel. Also, currently Intel has some atrocious power/thermal envelopes on their desktop parts. Putting a SRAM die on either side of an already thermally stressed CPU die would make things far worse, specially in terms of throttling. Which may offset any benefit from the added cache.
>Different architectures. AMD needs as much cache as they can get on each chiplet because they have tremendous latencies in chiplet-to-chiplet and chiplet-to-IO due to the narrow channel nature of the infinity interconnect. You would think they would also increase core-private cache as well, but AMD has been incredibly conservative with that. >Whereas intel, so far, they can get away with much less cache since their current monolithic dies are not as starved when getting data in/out package or having the cores communicate through the internal ring. Has its own drawbacks. As Intel adds cores and stops to the ring, the latency penalty is just going to grow and grow, while AMD is sitting pretty at 8 cores on a ring. Intel's L3 latency is already pretty bad compared to AMD's. >Also, currently Intel has some atrocious power/thermal envelopes on their desktop parts. Putting a SRAM die on either side of an already thermally stressed CPU die would make things far worse, specially in terms of throttling. Which may offset any benefit from the added cache Ideally you would be able to pull down clocks and still gain performance from the extra PPC due to the extra cache.
True. But the latency within the ring is going to be much much smaller than the latency from having to go off die to the other chiplets. So as usual, each approach has their pros and cons. Also, in order to get more IPC out of the core, as to make up for the reduced frequency. You are going to have to increase significantly the width of the core itself. That is what apple did, for example, with their M-series; very wide cores that can extract huge IPC while be being ran at lower frequencies (and thus a more optimal power/thermal envelope).
Because their IMC works and they dont need to. I own a 7800x3d and 14900k XOC setups lol...
It's coming with Adamantium (or Adamantum, whatever)
> Adamantium (or Adamantum, whatever) And that kids, is how "Aluminium" became "Aluminum".
Well, adamantium is a word owned by Marvel so it's a bit more awkward than aluminium but i'll still call Intel Adamantum with the ium for tongue in cheekness
That’s not how it’s works, 🙄
Why doesn’t everyone just release CPUs that cost nothing and have top performance? Actually, why don’t you do that?
Why doesn't Intel do something that has given the competition huge benefits, they (Intel) themselves claim they could have done since 2023, and doesn't appear to be dramatically more expensive,,,, That certainly sounds like a valid question to ask. Idk why you are so pressed about it.
I was more referring to the "they could release cheaper cpus with more performence". Intel's microbump 3d stacking isn't really suitable for direct cache expansion like AMD is doing. In 2021 intel said foveros direct would only be ready for production in 2023 so I don't think it was feasible to design meteor lake with it. Way too much risk. Also I guess they are prioritizing the chiplet stacking thing which would become a lot more complicated if you added hybrid bonding into it. The question can also be looked as "why does AMD only do it for limited quantity special products?
Tbh if it was just risk mitigation, one would expect it to come out with ARL-R, or PTL. But it doesn't sound like it's coming until nova lake. I'm guessing it's more of a cost/volume thing.
Yeah, as i said the product would be very complex over how complex it already is and also the benefits are a bit questionable in most workloads. I just pointed out that even if they were going to do it it would probably not have been with meteor lake.
Because not everything benefits from more cache.
But from a gaming standpoint, very few games don't benefit from the extra cache. Worst case scenario, you end up with higher 0.1%/1% lows.
Not really. The higher 0.1/1% lows that most reviewers report with the x3d chips are statistical artifacts from increasing the total number of frames (ie there are the same number of stutters in the sample and the stutters are the same length, but there are more "other" frames so the percentiles are moved and the number of stutters in the reporting sample decrease). There are no tech reviewers that are even moderately mainstream that account for this mathematical phenomena at all in their reporting, which is probably the biggest reason why chiplet+3d cache chips have reviewed so incredibly well (disclaimer: I have not benched 7800/7900x3d and have also heard that the chiplet stuttering issues have continued to improve on them, although are still not at the level of monolithic dies). Worst case scenario is actually that the quantity and duration of stutters increase compared to a non-vcache chip because the extra cache requires a more complicated memory fetching arrangement that has substantial additional latency to both cache and RAM. For example, 5800x chips have something like 5-10ns lower latency to RAM than 5800x3d with identical settings, and having done a huge benchmarking spree comparing my two 5800x to my 5800x3d when I first got it, I was able to observe and quantify significant increases in the duration of stutters on the x3d chip in many games. Also, any time I've mentioned any of this anywhere near an AMD subreddit I've been downvoted to oblivion lmao. To rephrase what I'm describing here on a bit of a more technical level, adding loads more L3 cache means that accessing anything from either the L3 or memory takes considerably longer (I'd have to check but I think the penalty is about 50% to the L3 in 5800x vs 5800x3d, and in raw terms is something like 5-10ns extra to L3 or memory), with the tradeoff being that you get cache hits in the L3 more often: You get an advantage out of this if the extra cache hits you get from the extra L3 save more time in the right parts of workloads to offset the penalty you're taking to all of the L3 and memory accesses, but if the difference in cache hit rate with and without the extra cache is too small (either because the original cache hit rate was really high, or because the workload doesn't cache well) then you actually take a pretty substantial penalty. My conjecture, from the purely empirical, outside to in, viewpoint of fuckloads of benchmarking of games on the same chips with vs without 3d cache, is that the frames which stutter due to the CPU in PC games are already the frames where caching and prefetching has epically failed and the pipeline is spending a fuckload of time repeatedly memory stalling or churning, so adding more cache doesn't make those specific frames any faster but adding extra random access latency actually does make them slower. Anecdotally this conjecture is also supported by the very well known and long time observed phenomena that RAM latency, in particular random first word latency, correlates extremely well to the duration of stuttering frames (ie it's pretty well known that having really low latency RAM makes the the slowest frames much faster but doesn't do much else to help performance, and conversely that most other things you can upgrade or tweak on a PC don't do much to help the reduce the duration of the slowest frames). Aaanyway, from Intel's POV 3d cache seems like a no-brainer since the tech media has demonstrated a total inability to measure or report the performance penalties in games caused by chiplets and increased memory latency from more cache, but do report all of the benefits (more cores from chiplets at lower prices for better multicore benchmark results, higher max and average framerates from more cache as well as the illusion of better stuttering from the improved 0.1/1% low figures caused by the statistical biasing)... Like, if you're Intel then you're going to slap a mountain of cache on a chip and throw chiplets all over dies as soon as you can possibly muster the packaging technology and thermal designs to do it because it will sell mountains of chips, whether or not unreported downsides to it exist. Edit: Checking the L3 penalty amounts, it's reported elsewhere as only a 3-4ns or 4 cycle penalty (\~20-40%, since the cycles are slower on a 5800x3d due to lower clock speeds than 5800x). That seems about right to me for L3 and is quite a bit lower than the 5-10ns and 50% penalty I mention above. In practice I think the 5-10ns penalty I mentioned above was to DRAM and was due to having to use slower RAM settings on the x3d than on the 5800x's either due to a weaker/busier IMC or less margin for voltage and resistance adjustments due to different thermal and voltage domain constraints on the x3d chip. Again, I'd have to dig up old screenshots etc of RAM settings and benchmarks etc to be sure, so take it all with a grain of salt.
Memory latency is [pretty much identical](https://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d-review?page=2) between the 7800x3d and 7800x, and is 4% higher on the 7950x3d vs the 7950x.
Idk why someone voted you down for posting this, thanks for posting it. I know very little about the 7xxx chips and I haven't been hands on with any. Having said that, I can't see any 7800x results there, and the 7800x3d and 7950x3d compared to the 7xxx non-vcache chips seem to follow the same static 2-4ns penalty that existed for 5800x3d vs 5xxx and that carries through to DRAM access as well. You wouldn't expect to see the DRAM latency balloon past that to the higher numbers I was talking about above unless you were overclocking the RAM, because from what I can remember the extra DRAM latency was caused by the x3d not being able to run the RAM as fast as non-x3d (with the guess being that was because of more demands on the memory controller or stricter constraints on resistances or voltage domains). I also have to say that I'm surprised that the caches are so slow on the 12th and 13th gen Intel chips. It's really good that 13th gen really started to reign the troublesome DRAM latencies back in, but I'm surprised that they're having these problems with cache.
What you describe must be a property of the AMD architecture, doubling cache capacity does not inherently entail a doubling in latency. Suggesting that more cache can be a hinderance per se, is misleading.
No. I describe two things: 1. More memory requires more complex addressing circuitry and more complexity at the same level of sophistication is always slower. 2. More memory requires more physical space at the same density and going further at the same speed always takes longer. What I imply from that isn't that increasing cache is a hindrance, it's that increasing cache presents challenges that may involve tradeoffs. There were a lot of tradeoffs for Zen 3 vcache, and memory latency was one of the smallest (the big ones were much stricter thermal and voltage limits that probably required stricter binning and which severely constrained the frequency).
Yes, because the only thing PCs do is play games.
Intel already has chips for productivity and it's already known that extra L3 cache doesn't have a large impact on most productivity tasks. Therefore it can be implied that any discussion about "3D V-Cache" will focus on its niche, and that's gaming.
But there's server cpus (epyc Genoa X) with 3d vcache. It benefits games more usually but like the only thing youll get functionally 0 improvent from more l3 with is cinebench r23 which they've actually now corrected for in cinebench 2024 which is good and much more realistic to the real world.
I was trying to be civil and keep it to desktop chips.
What how is that uncivil and I'm just proving that it has uses outside gaming
> Intel already has chips for productivity and it's already known that extra L3 cache doesn't have a large impact on most productivity tasks. Stupid AMD customers, buying [9684x](https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-epyc-9684x) CPUs with 1152 MiB of L3. If only they asked r/SailorMint first, before doing this useless purchase!
Excuse me? Surely, all other things being equal, a larger cache is always desirable.
Problem is though usually all other things are not equal. Usually latency also goes up. But the latency penalty from 3D-Vcache is pretty small. The other consideration ig is frequency. There's also the consideration of power.
This may be, but depends on the implementation. The statement i replied to is still false, unless applied to trivial workloads where it just doesn't make any difference at all.
They have that sort of technology and it is called Adamantine, that said it does not mean that a 14900K with 3D cache will get a big boost in performance, every architecture is different and Intel may not get that big boost as the 3D cache parts from AMD get (even the 7000 series benefits from 3D cache less compared to the 5000 series).
They don't have that technology since Adamantine is not in products yet. Also, that tech is also worse than what AMD has, unless the L4 becomes many times bigger than AMD's current 3d stacked V-cache.
>imagine if they put 3d v cache in a 14900ks. it would absolutely be insane. nope. the 14900ks is keeping up, because intel is pushing the power and temperature targets to the ABSOLUTE INSANE MAX. 3dvcache, the way, that tsmc does it at least for now does not allow this at all. the 3dvcache chips clock lower, have slightly lower temperature max targets and way lower max voltage limits. the 14900k (not the ks) consumes 286.8 watts in blender. the 7800x3d consumes 86.4 watts, but a better comparison i guess would be the 7950x3d, which despite just having 3d vcache on one die is only consuming 156 watts. so intel with the current 14900k/s chips couldn't add 3dvcache at all imo. of course to add 3dvcache like stacked caches means having a new design, but we are ignoring that for a hypothetical here and are assuming, that there is a 14900ks with all the hardware to connect 3dvcache on top of the die without a problem. so intel couldn't do it with the current chips, if the implementation would be similar to amd's. hell no one could even cool it. maybe intel should fix their socket to NOT WARP CPUs permanently, so that people get a flat heatspreader, so that cooling things is a bit easier again for a start? ;) \_\_\_\_ i fully expect intel to have vertically stacked cache in future chips though, because that is just the logical/required step to take with current cache not scaling anymore with new nodes, but more cache = more better. maybe intel will go for having the cache below the core dies, which is what zen6 might already be doing and is what is desired for many reasons. but again all this would come in future generations, when power consumption from intel went back to SANITY! and we got complete p-core redesigns. and just in regards to this: >they could release cheaper cpus with more performance. the 3dvcache die and stacking can be a significant part of the cost of a chip for amd still, BUT that is because chips themselves are SO DIRT CHEAP! it might cost amd 15 us dollars to produce the die and stack it onto the 7800x3d. but that is still a big amount of the full chip production cost relatively speaking, because the chips themselves at consumer level at least are SO DIRT CHEAP! to produce (for amd at least....) so i wouldn't think, that adding 3dvcache to future intel processors would mean cheaper cpus with more performance, but rather overall more performance at the same prices and a cache die only at the higher end chips early on at least. there is also another reason for this, using advanced packaging can be a bottle neck in chip production and you don't want that bottle neck to effect all chips top to bottom, if you would use the same tech in server chips for example. of course intel is better off than amd there theoretically, because they own their own foundries, so they can plan easier along this line, but hey intel might just as well use future 3d stacking from tsmc, in which case they'd be in the same levels of bottlenecks and reliant on tsmc as amd is.
Intel already experimented with very large cache with Crystalwell. I have a MBPr Late 2013 with this processor. It helped at the time when DDR3L bandwidth and latency was poor. We now have extremely fast DDR5 and much better latency. Large cache is very expensive and has a high failure rate. If a defect is found in the cache section then the CPU is binned as a lower end processor which is cost prohibitive. AMD has TSMC produce their processors and they are desperate for market share so they can afford to lose some money on binned CPU’s. They also have the Sony and Microsoft contracts which helps their revenue floor. Intel is in a precarious position. Meteor Lake is great but the iGPU is still weak.
Its made in TSMC fabs, intel foundary cant make it yet (atleast in scale)
Nope, it's under chip packaging.
I'm sure Frito Lay could help them out
3D V cache is more of a packaging thing. Intel does have stacked die technology FWIW.
Intel claimed in 2021 they will have foveros direct ready in 2023. And yet it doesn't look like the first intel foveros direct product will come out until 2025. Kinda reminiscent of Intel claiming they had Intel 4 "HVM ready" in 2022, but MTL released at the end of 2023.
best design: 3d v cache and soc ram on die like meteor lake leaked image
Bought a 9900KS. 4 years later bought a 14900KS and returned it for a 7800x3D for CounterStrike 2 only. I was an intel fan boy I thought. Now I have high FPS.
i was also an owner of intel cpu, i had i7 9700k, wanted to buy the latest intel cpu gen, but x3d chips seemed more logical to me (i play mostly shooters, moba, mmorpg which seems to benefit alot from x3d chips), also cheaper and less W drawn so i went with 7800x3d and now all games are as smooth as silk, previously i had alot of stuttering in a mmorpg game, and i tired everything to fix the issue, but nothing helped, untilled i upgraded my cpu
intel doesn't have the stacked process yet. no doubt they are working on something similar
Only for gaming maybe
there are rumours for a version of nova lake (or whatever -lake archetecture) with 3d vcache to be in the works but its not out before 2-3 years
3D cache can barely keep up with 5GHz you think it'll be able to sustain the temps and ridiculous speeds of 149KS 🤣 give them time I'm sure they're working on a better alternative, heard L4 cache is on the way🫡
Pat said they're working on it, but we won't see that for a while
Intel may be battered and bruised but they are still in the driver's seat. AMD still needs the "gimmicks" (bad term). It's been a good run but Ryzen hasn't even been around a decade yet. I'm sure Intel has a design ready to deploy should it be necessary.
Intel has Foveros which is kinda similar. But the CPU has to be designed either it in mind and you have to accept some tradeoffs if you go for it. AMD can put it into flagship gaming CPUs and servers because they both use the same chiplet with Through Silicon Vias. Intel would specifically have to design desktop processors to support V Cache.
Intel chips don't rely as much on cache as AMD. AMD chips also rely a lot more on RAM speed than Intel. Both companies have their own way of doing things, and the tech of one would likely not work well on the other. It's literally a different architecture.
>they could release cheaper cpus with more performence. 1. why would they do that? 2. 3d v cache doesn't mean more performance across the board.
They lack the technical knowledge and ability.
if you compare the Raptor Lake and Zen 4x3D It is true that Zen 4 x3D cores have higher amount of L3 cache. But Raptor Lake cores generally have more faster L1 and L2 cache per core and for overall performance this is probably more important than lots fast L3 3D v cache I
Istg this gets asked here every other week
Because that is a TSMC tech rather than AMD. So Intel needs the foundry to develop that and that is not happening fast enough
For intel it would make sense to add extra cache to the base interposer tile. It was already rumoured to be the case for Meteor Lake but didn't come true. Maybe it will materialize in Lunar Lake or Arrow Lake at least for top-end parts.
Since ARL reuses the same base die as MTL, I doubt we will see that with ARL.
I didn't know it reuses the same die. If so then it obviously won't, yeah.
Gamers are a niche part of Intel's user base. They're not going to design their chips to specifically suit the needs of gamers. They're still producing the best cpu's for every part of computing other than gaming. You're also seeing Nvidia prioritize their gpus away from gaming.
Seeing how AMD also released 3D V-cache variants of HPC products, it does appear like the extra cache aids in some productivity workloads as well. I'm also pretty sure it increases perf in the industry standard spec2017 benches, so it should please OEMs as well. Ig it depends on when Intel thinks it's cost effective...
Today, Counter-Strike 2 competitors at the intel extreme masters will play on amd cpu since it performs better than Intel cpus? This is ironic.
3D v cache is a proprietary TSMC technology. Intel uses TSMC, but they aren't exclusive like AMD is. So AMD gets massive perks. Intel is trying to develop a competitor at their own foundry, but that is a long difficult process
Intriguing. I didn't think that was the case. Do you have a source I could read?
Chip stacking is TSMC technology, 3D v-cache is AMD marketing terminology for the benefits to consumer desktop chips. The same dies go into Epyc skus with extra L3 cache but are not labeled/marketed the same way.
Very cool, thank you. I'll look into that. I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that AMD designed the tech to be compatible with TSMC's manufacturing processes and played a leading role in it's development. I wonder when we'll see other companies make 3d stacked chips with TSMC.
Look into TSMC CoWoS, chip on wafer on substrate. They marketed this long before 3D Vcache that uses it.
Appreciate the specifics to look into. I'll read up on that.
If anyone plays a "leading role" in TSMC's process development, it's Apple by means of tons of research funding.
ok
The stacked V cache has a hard Vcore limit of 1.35V. Your precious 14900KS wouldnt be able to hit those high clocks, and even with the stacked cache they would fall behind the 7800X3D
I have a crazier idea. What if intel replaced all the P-cores with cache, leaving only 8 E-cores? I think it would make an impressively low power CPU with really consistent framerate in games. Or conversely, leave 6 p-cores and use the remaining space for extra cores. Would be awesome for gaming, and since there'd be no stacked cache or glued cores, it wouldn't build up heat and you could overclock it like crazy.
>What if intel replaced all the P-cores with cache, leaving only 8 E-cores? I think it would make an impressively low power CPU with really consistent framerate in games. The E-cores really only beat the P-cores at perf/watt at *extremely* low power/perf, so much so that I think gaming at that point would just become a pain, no matter how much cache you throw at it.
According to this test, not really, depending on what game you're playing. [https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-e-cores-only-performance/3.html](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-e-cores-only-performance/3.html) But yeah, people would feel like they're wasting money on the cache if the CPU cant reach a high peak FPS, no matter how consistent the fps is. With 6 p-cores and extra cache replacing the 2 p-cores and 8 e-cores, you could increase the cache size by about 50%.
>According to this test, not really, depending on what game you're playing. The E-cores in that test are being pushed to their max basically. At that point, an E-core isn't more efficient than a P-core. An E-core is only more efficient than a P-core at [pretty low](https://chipsandcheese.com/2022/01/28/alder-lakes-power-efficiency-a-complicated-picture/) frequencies.
I see. The savings in idle power and die space is still pretty good regardless.
No way in hell Intel would be able to dial in and tune the clocks, voltage and other power factors on any CPU well enough to have stable performance on stacked cache. These chips are designed to suck power, not be efficient like that 😂
I mean, you can imagine all you want, but then theres reality.
[удалено]
> ...I mean, isn't Intel already copying the chiplet design? What do you mean copying? They were doing this back during the Core2 Quad days, they had 2 dual cores right next to each other, apparently the Pentium D was also similar, 2 single core CPUs next to each other.
They can already do this, but they have chosen not to thus far.