No, it's unlikely "Ryzen 11000" will have more cores as it hasn't been officially released yet.
No, it's unlikely "Ryzen 11000" will have more cores as it hasn't been officially released yet.
I understand the mixed reactions around the Ryzen 9000 launch, even though it's only a slight improvement. The power efficiency is impressive. I was thinking about what would happen if the Ryzen 9000 series offered more cores per generation while keeping the price the same. For instance, imagine a Ryzen 9600X with 8 or 16 cores/threads instead of the current 6 or 8. Would you think AMD could really shake things up and create a new line like the Ryzen 11000 series? With a progression similar to Ryzen 5 (8/16) and Ryzen 7 (10/20, etc.), increasing core counts? Or do you believe AMD is content with its current dominance in gaming and professional markets and only focuses on incremental gains, like boosting performance by about 15%? I'd love your perspective!
The decision on cores per tier mainly depends on cost factors rather than technical requirements. This makes the topic less intriguing. The main concern is whether AMD will shift away from their current chiplet-based approach for desktop CPUs. They seem limited to eight large cores per chipset, which affects what they can offer. It’s possible they’ll eventually expand beyond that by adding more chiplets. Improvements in scaling will allow them to increase cores without necessarily adding more physical cores—just optimizing existing ones. The biggest challenge remains the interconnect, which offers lower bandwidth compared to traditional designs. For workloads that don’t scale easily, treating cores as groups is necessary. Current IFOP solutions won’t be replaced soon. With better TSMC packaging advances, AMD could adopt more Apple or Intel-style connections. Another related point is how many consumer applications can actually run on multiple cores in the near future.
They now support 16-core CCDs on EPIC chips. I've used them with Zen 4C for some time and noticed similar performance on Zen 5. It seems they could handle 16 cores on desktops if needed. Consoles, on the other hand, are major players in consumer markets and have received their CPUs well enough that upgrades haven't been prioritized recently. From a CPU perspective, users are quite satisfied with the 16-core configuration; many software applications can take advantage of it, though some legacy programs still lag due to older development cycles.
There's no real need for "consumer grade" CPU with more than 16C/32T, people really needing more power can get Threadrippers or Epyc chips AMD problem is the 8 core/CCD limitation and the relatively slow I/O slowing things when they jump from one CCD to the other, they should work at having say 10 oreven 12 cores on the same CCD, rather than adding chiplets to compete with their server/pro products
It's also why I mentioned the same for Zen 5—they seem to have full 16-core CPUs there. That’s definitely an option! But honestly, those smaller or fewer cores aren’t really appealing to most users; AMD’s cores still outperform Intel’s E-series at least.
I overlooked a nuance the first time around. My focus was on large cores and their impact on count per silicon, not enough to reach 16 cores in one unit. We approached it from different perspectives. The older E cores (14th gen and earlier) weren’t ideal but offered quantity over quality. The newer LNL/ARL E cores show significant improvements. I’d appreciate a more detailed analysis of their capabilities, as most evaluations stopped after gaming tests. Their worth should be assessed at the chip or system level, not just individually.
Absolutely. The latest eco-chips we observe are significantly improved. Noticeably in the 15-watt laptop category, Intel’s 12th and 14th generation models often felt sluggish because of numerous cores but insufficient high-speed performance under varied workloads. Results remained decent but running at around 1ghz wasn’t ideal. Older chips from the 11th generation and even the 8th generation offered better responsiveness. Amd generally matched Zen3 designs but was much more responsive. The new E-core models deliver a solid experience despite modest overall performance gains. A lot more practical to use. I’m eager to see when the full E-core lineup releases—how much of a performance and usability boost would it provide compared to a 300 series chip? In terms of packaging, it’s crucial they maintain good compatibility and avoid overly restricting CPU power, particularly on Windows where the scheduler isn’t very strong.
The main reason I haven't chosen an Intel hybrid CPU has been performance issues with certain software that requires all cores to function together. It's not just about Windows; it can also cause problems in many other programs. While it might work, the speed could be very poor. I'm still using my 7980XE as a workstation for now, but I might switch to a 9950X later if needed—though it won't be a 3D chip. The downside is that performance in many areas would suffer. For the best balance in budget-friendly setups, Sapphire Rapids is the top pick, except for the cost of the platform.