| shikamaru317 said: I realize that desktop Ryzen's are much too big and power hungry to go into a console. I was referring to the Ryzen based successor to Stoney Ridge, AMD's next ultra-mobile chipset, not the Ryzen desktop APU's. The evolution of AMD's ultra mobile line looks like this: 2013- Kabini/Temash- Jaguar CPU cores | 2014- Beema/Mullins- Puma CPU cores | 2015- Carrizo L- Puma+ CPU cores | 2016- Stoney Ridge- Excavator CPU Cores | 2nd half 2017- ????? Ridge- Ryzen CPU cores
Basically what that would mean is similar size and power usage as Jaguar, but about 60% better IPC as best as I can tell. |
Just so you know, Jaguar, Puma and Puma+ are evolutionary improvements to Bobcat, they are built from the outset of being extremely tiny, energy efficient and cheap to manufacture for cost sensitive markets like netbooks and tablets.
The consoles opted for Jaguar because of all that. Small, energy efficient and cheap, allowing the consoles to spend more of their TDP and Transistor budget on the GPU portion of the SoC.
Excavator is not a successor to Puma+. And keep in mind there are two Carizzo chips. One based on Excavator, one based on Puma+.
Excavator is a successor to Bulldozer, it is the 4th generation of the Bulldozer core. It's big.
AMD did manage to get power levels down thanks to 28nm and their resonant clock mesh and optimizing layout.
And the reason why I doubt an Excavator core will be used is simple.
AMD Shares the Floating-point unit between two threads, but gives each thread it's own integer unit, which is what makes up a "module". - That ignores all the other architectural issues as well.
For Ryzen or Excavator to still be a possibile, it would need to be severely castrated to meet the transister and cost budgets, possibly even removing the L3 cache completely, which has a ton of ramifications.
Remember, Puma+ only takes up 3.1mm2 at 28nm per core. It's absolutely tiny. You could be looking at 1.5mm2 or smaller at 14nm. (And these chips are a few hundred mm2 all-told.)
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
