AMD's upcoming Zen 6 processors could fix microstutters and improve 1% lows in games — Next-gen CPUs tipped to feature per-core optimizations for thermal and power budgets

AMD Ryzen Processor
(Image credit: AMD)

AMD is expected to unveil its next-gen Zen 6 platform at CES 2026 with Ryzen 10000 series processors. While we're looking forward to IPC and clock speed improvements, it seems like more subtle, under-the-hood changes could end up upgrading the gaming experience in a big way. According to a tip received by Videocardz, AMD is implementing various per-core optimizations to ensure foreground tasks get priority over background applications. Each new feature is supposed to more smartly manage the power and thermal budgets at the silicon's disposal, so let's go over each of them.

First up, we have CPPC Performance Priority — CPPC stands for Collaborative Processor Performance Control, and it's responsible for communication between the silicon and the OS. It lets the firmware sitting in between decide the performance of each core separately. This feature has actually existed since the Ryzen 3000 series, but it doesn't work perfectly. Zen 6 CPUs are apparently supposed to apply a band-aid fix and improve their effectiveness.

Secondly, we have FloorPerf, which acts as a dynamic, targeted power delivery system. It sets a minimum clock speed for all cores that the silicon can clock down to in case of thermal throttling. For instance, imagine you're running a game in the foreground while Discord and Spotify sit in the background. The temperatures on your Zen 6 CPU rise to the point of throttling, but instead of reducing the speed of all cores, FloorPerf will target the cores running the background tasks first, in order to maintain the performance of your game.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware

We covered a recent fix like this for the Linux world as well, where a sudden spike in the background can cause the foreground task to choke. Linux has an issue with priority allocation across tasks, so that was a different situation, but similar logic applies here. On a Zen 6 CPU, instead of your game suddenly experiencing microstutters because of aggressive throttling, FloorPerf will try to limit whatever's running in the background first. The aforementioned CPPC Performance Priority should work hand in hand with this feature to maintain clocks on the important cores.

CPPC will get another boost in the form of HighestFreq, which will allow the OS to access more granular chip data to make better core management decisions. As the name suggests, it pertains to maintaining high clock speeds on the cores running a foreground task. The OS will be aware of exactly which core can boost the highest and maintain that speed the longest. This will allow it to assign, for instance, a game's main rendering thread to the fastest cores, while pushing background apps to more power-efficient ones.

In conjunction with this, Zen 6 is also seemingly getting per-core EPP boost. EPP stands for Energy Performance Preference, and it's supposed to fix core parking issues caused by a momentary bottleneck. For example, if the CPU is waiting for the GPU to render the next frame, the clock speeds for the active cores will drop in that moment and struggle to ramp back up in time, forcing all cores to boost when the frame is ready. EPP boost is supposed to identify the active cores and individually keep them in high-performance mode to eliminate any wait times.

Lastly, Zen 6 is reportedly introducing PQOS Global Bandwidth Enforcement and an updated IBS Memory Profiler. Both of these target memory bandwidth with the same goal of maximum stability as everything else discussed so far. The former is responsible for allocating RAM to background tasks, ensuring their usage stays under the limit for foreground priority. The latter will limit L3 cache access to background tasks when it detects that those tasks are slowing down the foreground application, which should help with frametime consistency in games.

As you can tell, all of these optimizations are supposed to work together and harmonize into a more efficient processor at the end — one that maximizes the silicon's potential as much as possible. Of course, none of this is confirmed and there's a lot that could be gated behind product segmentation. We could see some features only on high-end parts, while some are limited to mobile; there's no telling at the moment, but it's exciting stuff, nonetheless. Seems like a battle for the ages is brewing between Nova Lake and Zen 6 next year.

Google Preferred Source

Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.

Hassam Nasir
Contributing Writer

Hassam Nasir is a die-hard hardware enthusiast with years of experience as a tech editor and writer, focusing on detailed CPU comparisons and general hardware news. When he’s not working, you’ll find him bending tubes for his ever-evolving custom water-loop gaming rig or benchmarking the latest CPUs and GPUs just for fun.

  • Gururu
    Are 1% lows always present despite the average? If one were to lock framerate to an observed 1%, would the 1% disappear or would a new lower 1% appear?
    For example:
    Average: 150 fps
    1%: 88 fps
    >>change settings to lock framerate to 88
    Average: 88 fps
    1%:???
    Reply
  • moon2
    Gururu said:
    Are 1% lows always present despite the average? If one were to lock framerate to an observed 1%, would the 1% disappear or would a new lower 1% appear?
    For example:
    Average: 150 fps
    1%: 88 fps
    >>change settings to lock framerate to 88
    Average: 88 fps
    1%:???
    Consider rendering 1000 frames. The 1% low is the 10th slowest frame to render. There are 9 frames as slow or slower.

    Adjust the calculation to use FPS and then choose how you want to measure it (what are you averaging across) and it'll still hold true
    Reply
  • Gururu
    moon2 said:
    Consider rendering 1000 frames. The 1% low is the 10th slowest frame to render. There are 9 frames as slow or slower.

    Adjust the calculation to use FPS and then choose how you want to measure it (what are you averaging across) and it'll still hold true
    So based on that logic, the slowest frame would remain 88 fps, thus the average and the lowest would be identical if one were to lock the framerate to the lowest observed.
    Reply
  • moon2
    Gururu said:
    So based on that logic, the slowest frame would remain 88 fps, thus the average and the lowest would be identical if one were to lock the framerate to the lowest observed.
    No, that's wrong. The explanation is in the message you quoted though.

    Remember 1% of 1000 is 10. There are still 9 frames slower, or as slow, as the 10th slowest.
    Reply
  • usertests
    We already expected Zen 6 chiplets to have lower latency from using bridge dies and InFO-oS interconnects.
    Reply
  • Gururu
    moon2 said:
    No, that's wrong. The explanation is in the message you quoted though.

    Remember 1% of 1000 is 10. There are still 9 frames slower, or as slow, as the 10th slowest.
    So then, just to answer the original question, would a new lower 1% appear then? Or is it inconclusive?
    Reply
  • vanadiel007
    Gururu said:
    So then, just to answer the original question, would a new lower 1% appear then? Or is it inconclusive?

    Under ideal circumstances each frame would have an equal time slice, perfectly evenly divided over 1 second and that would provide you the FPS number which in that case would never see any up or downs.

    Practically slowdowns happen and the FPS is not a stable rate but fluctuates up and down.

    1% lows in games is the measurement chosen to display the effects of fluctuating FPS over time, and show the 1% of the lowest frame rates as a constant measurement over time.

    With this technology you would still see a 1% low, but the FPS of that 1% would be higher. Like for example instead of seeing 1% low as 24 FPS they might now be 39 FPS with an intended rate of 120 FPS.
    Or in other words, the 1% lows would be higher with this technology than without it, and if you can keep them high enough you might not be able to visually see them hence no more visible micro stuttering.
    You will still be able to measure them.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    Admin said:
    A new report suggests AMD is cooking up a range of per-core optimizations for Zen 6 that might not seem huge on their own, but they could add up to make a world of difference in gaming performance.

    AMD's upcoming Zen 6 processors could fix microstutters and improve 1% lows in games — Next-gen CPUs tipped to feature per-core optimizations for t... : Read more
    The OS will be aware of exactly which core can boost the highest and maintain that speed the longest. This will allow it to assign, for instance, a game's main rendering thread to the fastest cores, while pushing background apps to more power-efficient ones.
    This can have negative effects, and almost always has, remember that all games are made for consoles and the method of synchronizing threads on consoles is the physical limitation of the cores, having the main thread "run wild" much higher than the game expects causes many issues, mainly the other threads not being able to keep up (missing textures/parts of the game not even loading in)
    Reply
  • King_V
    TerryLaze said:
    remember that all games are made for consoles
    No.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    King_V said:
    No.
    Unless it's a company with an in house game engine that makes exclusive PC games...YES!
    Reply