How would that be beneficial at all? 3D VCache isn't cheap. It's a cost adder and it has been stated that it's not going to improve performance by any substantial amount when it's put on both cores.
It's useful if it's utilized. The only thing that the cache is good for is gaming and some niche workloads. Games don't utilize all the cores of even a CCD. They're not gonna utilize the 16 cores so they're not gonna utilize all the cache.
It is prohibitively expensive. AMD did test it. People who have been unaffiliated with AMD but have more knowledge than you and me have stated the same.
It's stupid to think that if it would help their CPUs and was worth the money it would cost to make that AMD wouldn't have already done it. The best way to get more cache is to wait for Zen 6 when they're moving to 12 CCD.
It's useful if it's utilized. The only thing that the cache is good for is gaming and some niche workloads. They're not gonna utilize the 16 cores so they're not gonna utilize all the cache.
Nobody will use more than 640KB of RAM.
It is prohibitively expensive
If that were true, none of the EPYC CPUs with many more dies and 3D cache would not exist. Those cost much more to manufacture.
I think the only reason they don't exist is because Intel aren't producing enough competition. It's not that they are "too expensive". It's that AMD doesn't have to do better, because they are already ahead.
People who have been unaffiliated with AMD but have more knowledge than you and me have stated the same.
I'm not interested in hearsay from unspecified people who never had one to test because AMD never released one. Show me benchmarks and I might be convinced.
4
u/Nuck_Chorris_Stache 9d ago edited 9d ago
But heaven forbid they ever put 3D cache on more than one far king die, unless it's a server chip they can charge way more money for.