3rd Gen Ryzen based Threadripper could be released in October - up-to 64 cores

While AMD did go from 12nm to 7nm, when transitioning from 14nm to 12nm the whole transistor count remained the same, and also the position of all components. The only change was related to better spacing between components and better power drawn due to smaller size, so in a way they were largely the same processor, only more efficient. That's why AMD refrained from calling it "Zen 2" and instead called it "Zen +" - it was a simple refresh of the same design.

Source

The jump from 14/12nm to 7nm was vastly different though. And that's why I believe it won't happen for one or maybe two more generations - another die shrink would be needed to make enough space for more cores, and doing that too early would be more costly without a real need for it, since Intel can't match a TR with 64 cores.

2nd gen wasn't a surprise - we knew from EPYC that it was possible, only AMD didn't want to cannibalize their own products. So it was always known that there was enough space in TR to hold 32 cores.

With Zen 2, however, we already know the size of the chips and can guess how many would fit in a TR package - roughly 4 times of what is in regular Ryzen, provided that the 14nm IO controller can handle 8 different Zen cores. So, again, unless they shrink the 14nm chip, there won't be a lot of space (and power) left for more Zen cores, and thus the number of cores won't go up without fundamental changes. I don't believe that's the case for the foreseeable future, since AMD can really profit on the current designs for a while.

And I totally agree with your other points.

 

I understand all of that, but I guess the point that I'm getting at is the die shrink isn't what allowed AMD to fit 16 cores on AM4. It certainly helped quite a bit, but hypothetically, if everything about Zen2 were the same except AMD stuck with 12nm, I'm sure they could've still fit both CPU dies and the I/O die on the same package. It'd have been a tight squeeze, the overall efficiency definitely would've been worse, and the boost clock speeds would've been lower, but the main reason we're about to see 16 cores on AM4 is because of the chiplet design, not because of 7nm. Whether or not AMD would've even attempted that at 12nm is a different story, but, that's why I speak hypothetically.
It's worth pointing out that even though 7nm is about 60% the size of 12nm, to my knowledge, the transistor size is measured in total area. Due to things like FinFET, I'm not sure if the area is squared or cubed (from what I can tell, Intel measured in cubic area, hence being at 10nm instead of 7), but either way, that affects the total footprint on the die. In other words, a 7nm transistor compared to a 12nm isn't 5nm smaller in width and height. So the space saved on the surface of the CPU package isn't as substantial as some may think.

Back then, it was actually a surprise, because all existing TRs at the time only had 2 "living" dies; the other 2 on the package were just dummies. So, a lot of people just assumed that unless AMD increased the core density per CCX, 32 cores wasn't going to happen in TR. As we now know, the 2990WX has all 4 dies active, but 2 of them have to feed from the memory controllers in the neighboring dies (hence the horrible memory performance and issues with task schedulers).
So yeah, going by that model, even 1st gen TR had enough room to fit 32 cores. But since they didn't do that, this is what surprised people about 2nd gen.

Well at this point, I don't think anybody will be especially surprised about AMD cramming 64 cores into TR; I think that's implied at this point (if they intend to keep supporting TR). I assume TR will use a different IO chip than AM4 models.
So going back to my original point: we're not likely to see more than 16 cores for AM4, but, I think it's possible AMD will release more cores for their next-gen mainstream socket. Due to how much more expensive it is to get into AM4, this is why I feel it's best to just wait. And if you can't wait, might as well go for Epyc since that's already available.

 

Had 2500k, 2600k, and 6700k @ 4.2, 4.4, and 4.8 that didn't run any better (at the keyboard) The 6core(more cache) at 4g and triple channel mem was snappier under load and only few frames slower in games!!!
With 950pro nvme Boot drive still feels faster then 90% of High End Newer PC's that Use/Fix (Private PC Tech)
YMMV......

 

Yup, there are a lot of stupid people out there that do not understand how games work.

 

Im gonna need a bigger monitor just to look at them in device manager.

 

AMD, w/ all that power comes great responsibility