I’ve said it before, but I don’t think they’ll do a 2nd cache this generation. If they do it’s gotta be named 9999x3d
Me at CES today
Submitted 3 months ago by Alk@sh.itjust.works to [deleted]
https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/ca83450f-e837-4011-bc87-edc918deb3d2.png
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Are you talking about the 9600x3d?
Alk@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
9950x3d. It has double the cores of the 9800x3d, with an extra CCD that has 8 cores, but the 2nd CCD has no 3d cache. Which was known, to be fair, but still is disappointing.
ggtdbz@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
My understanding of the tech is that there are virtually no scenarios where having the 3D cache on the second CCD would actually help right now, unless I’ve got something wrong? Like even applications with enough threads to saturate the 3D CCD couldn’t possibly need that many threads that that
Unless you’re running multiple high-thread-count programs that benefit from the lower latency, and I don’t know what a realistic scenario for that would be. Some kind of multi-user scenario.
Granted I would have liked to see identical CCDs. I’m sure asymmetry is something they’ve figured out by now, but for the $$$ they’re asking for, a few extra overkill headroom can’t be a ridiculous ask.
IHawkMike@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Probably the 9950x3d. And we’ve known for a while now that the cache would only be on one CCD.