I was hoping they would at least make a passing reference to Amdahl's Law.

As you optimize one part of the system so that it is blazingly fast or lower power or whatever, then the amount taken up by the rest of the system increases proportionally.

(In other words, real performance wins happen gradually as all the parts receive their own little optimizations which add up.)

Sounds a lot like how to play factorio.

It will also means many consumer software can now optimise from low core count to a 64 Core / 128 Thread scenario. And this is likely be a decade worth of work.

I was amazed at how much power the interconnect was taking on these parts. Even with all the other downsides I was convinced it was the right move, but those power requirements are giving me second (third?) thoughts.

The 7nm parts (incl. Ryzen on up) are rumored to use 16-core CCXes, so we should see 64-core EPYC and possibly Threadripper with no worse IC power use. Hopefully they'll make the IC better as well.

7nm EPYC being fabbed on TSMC does give some chance for a big monolithic die. TSMC has a long history making large dies and their 7nm process should be mature enough for decent yields at that point. I am speculating out of my depth, though.

The larger the die the worse the yields, and 7nm will have worse yields than previous generations. AMD will go even harder on MCMs because it makes 7nm cost-effective.

Any wins they make in interconnect efficiency could either be used to boost the power budget of existing cores or add even more cores.