AMD Announces Ryzen 7000 Series "Zen 4" Desktop CPUs - Linux Benchmarks To Come

[Dukenukemx]

this makes no sense and you still did not do your homework about WebGPU if WebGPU becomes the defacto standard inside the browser and outside the browser on any platform and on any system then your words are complete bullshit.

You talk about WebGPU like everyone uses it, but nobody uses it. It's not worth talking about WebGPU until someone, including Apple, uses it, which they don't.

the fight between metal and vulkan is already be obsolete because WebGPU is the standard,

I'm sure that's why Valve keeps wasting time working on better Vulkan drivers.

if only the engine of the game is opensource then the games can be ported. also you can run 32bit on 64bit ARM cpus no problem.

I'd like to see this too but not every company has John Carmack working for them, insisting to release the source code to their game engine. It doesn't happen.

I told you 1000 times that Apple has not a single monopole. they do not have any relevant marketshare in any field to have any monopole.
i unterstand you hate apple for what they do and you hate apple for what kind of people they attract ... ok fine don't buy any apple product like i do...

but stop lie and tell people apple has a monopole ... this is insanity they have ZERO monopoles

I explained to you that Apple is not only a monopoly but the worst kind. Nobody can make computers with Mac OSX. Nobody can make computers with Apple silicon. Nobody can make ARM or x86 chips for running Mac OSX. Why? Cause Apple said so. If you try then legally Apple will sue you and your boss.

For contrast Intel sells their CPU's to HP, Dell, Asus, and etc, while AMD does the same thing. Microsoft sells their OS to anyone and everyone willing to pay them money, while those machines do in fact have the ability to install Linux. These guys are not monopolies, as they do in fact compete with each other. Not only that but Qualcomm even supplies chips for some Windows ARM laptops. They all fight for you money.

they also do not have your creative word creation: Isolated monopole... LOL they do not even have this.
you just don't buy apple product or buy m1/m2 and run linux on it and then magic magic apple can not lock you into their walled garden ...

Apple isn't even supplying code for Linux to help developers port it to M1/M2. Intel, AMD, and fucking Nvidia is now doing this. By the time GNU/Linux is working on the M1/M2, Apple would have the M4 or M5. Apple doesn't want Linux working 100%.

they do not want vulkan because they want WebGPU

Show me which Apple application uses WebGPU? They don't exist? Then shutup about it.

they do not want 32bit in their hardware because their 64bit execution units can perform 32bit operations.

Then Apple isn't working with game developers then. Even Microsoft ported DX12 to Windows 7 for World of Warcraft. Microsoft works with game developers. Apple tells game developers to fuck off and rewrite their code.

Well then lets wait and see... and you should get the point that apple does not even want to be "faster"

apple instead try to be "faster per watt" what is a different metric than just "faster"

They already lose because their GPU is not as good as AMD's RDNA in efficiency.

just to make an example in 14nm IBM Power9 has a higher single-threat performance than the fastest intel cpu at 14nm...

Benchmarks or it didn't happen.

but the market does not buy IBM power9 even not if the cpus are cheaper because many people like you want to play x86 legacy closed source apps.

This is why x86 is still around, because people care about backwards compatibility. This is not a mistake of the people but of companies like IBM who thought people would jump onto power.

We do not even need ARM we will have RISC-V and OpenPOWER no problem ARM can fill bankruptcy i dont care.

Because RISC-V is junk as without a huge company to put R&D into it you'll see it fall behind in performance. Same goes for the power ISA.

"any real ARM improvements will probably come from Apple and Qualcomm."
i have no problem with that. do you have a problem with that ?

Because Apple isn't a hardware manufacturer and they'll fall behind unless they somehow gain market share. It's a waste of time. Qualcomm though has reasons to improve their SoC's, but again they don't have a direct competitor. Nobody is fighting Qualcomm for market share, and Apple isn't a direct competitor.

"Nobody can make CPU's for Mac OSX."

who cares ? do you want MacOSX with another cpu ?

That's not the point, as Linux isn't mainstream to see computers sold with Linux preinstalled. We will be erasing Windows and Mac OSX to put Linux for a very long time. We can barely climb past 1% on Steam. Linux needs a lot of work before people are comfortable enough to remove Windows for it. As it stands right now Mac OSX is the way to go on Apple Silicon.

Intel is the _King of faking benchmarks... and paid a lot of money in court because of this.

They went to court because they forced computer manufacturers to use their CPU's, otherwise no discounts. I don't remember them faking benchmarks. AMD/ATI and Nvidia though have a history of faking GPU benchmarks. I'm old enough to remember Quake Quack benchmark cheating from ATI.

also you claim Bulldozer was a failed design and intel was superior but why did intel sapotage AMD so hard ?

By the time Bulldozer was out Intel didn't need to sabotage AMD.

why did intel sapotage SSE4.0 ? you do not need to answer this we all know it because intel is EVIL,,,

The secret is they're all evil. If they're a company then they're evil. Especially Apple.

Software and Games who used the intel compiler did detect non-intel cpu and forced SSE3 as highest standard.
without utilize 4FMA without utilize SSE4.0 and so one and so one.
only if the intel compiler did detect intel cpu it did enable SSE4.1 and 3FMA.

Then don't use an Intel compiler, which nobody does today. Just like don't use Clear Linux as Intel is behind that too.

you think Apple will not evolve? i am sure they will evolve you will have 3/4nm apple M3 in like 6-8 months.

Apple will evolve but AMD and Intel will out evolve Apple, just like they did with PowerPC. Simple math shows that Apple can't afford to pump the same amount of R&D into their silicon without losing money. Apple is a very profitable company, but they didn't get there by spending money. Even if Apple were to keep up with AMD and Intel, they shit the bed by going ARM. Nobody is going to lose x86 compatibility because ARM. The few idiots that did will eventually realize the mistake they made.

[NM64]

Oct. 2022 UPDATE: Welp, if Anandtech's Ryzen 7950X review is to be believed, then desktop Zen4 / Ryzen 7000 does indeed have Pluton:

• https://www.anandtech.com/show/17585...the-high-end/6

————————————————————————————————

ORIGINAL POST

Forgive me for being late to this thread...

Let's not forget it's their first desktop gen with that Microsoft "security" Pluton chip in it. 5000s didn't have it, 6000s were laptop only.

I expect it won't change much from TPM but I really dislike MS being in the same sentence as "security". Might as well offer the bank keys to the thieves for safekeeping.

I've been keeping tabs on this subject every once in a while for the last couple of months now (I did an OCD-level search on subject just two night ago) and, even now, there's been literally (not figuratively!) nothing stated anywhere that Ryzen 7000 / Zen4 actually has Pluton outside of some random internet commentors on places like Reddit proclaiming it does simply based on the fact that Ryzen 6000 / Zen3+ has it, or because places like TomsHardware keep stating things like "nothing has been confirmed but Pluton is expected."

The problem with all of these assumptions is that Ryzen 6000 / Zen3+ also has integrated USB4 right on the SOC and yet Ryzen 7000 / Zen4 does not and requires the motherboard manufacturer to include a separate additional chip on the motherboard for USB4 support - this was confirmed back at Computex. Therefore, something being implemented into Ryzen 6000 / Zen3+ very much does not mean that it's implemented into Ryzen 7000 / Zen4 - and something like USB4 would be much more of a "marketable bullet point", yet even that is not included.

So let's not get ahead of ourselves when literally (not figuratively!) nothing has been stated regarding Pluton considering that, in terms of how companies tend to advertise product feature-set (e.g. AMD did not advertise on previous generations of Ryzen/Zen that they did not support AVX-512 and basically just straight-up pretended that such a function didn't exist), it's looking more and more likely that Ryzen 7000 / Zen4 doesn't have Pluton.

[qarium]

You talk about WebGPU like everyone uses it, but nobody uses it. It's not worth talking about WebGPU until someone, including Apple, uses it, which they don't.

https://webkit.org/demos/webgpu/

if i click on it with firefox this pops up:

" WebGPU not available
Make sure you are on a system with WebGPU enabled. In Safari, first make sure the Developer Menu is visible (Preferences > Advanced), then Develop > Experimental Features > WebGPU.
In addition, you must be using Safari Technology Preview 92 or above. You can get the latest STP here."

firefox on linux is not ready yet.

but it is still very interesting you claim apple does not use it but this website proof that apple use it.

Safari for your information is the apple macosx browser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safari_(web_browser)

I'm sure that's why Valve keeps wasting time working on better Vulkan drivers.

man you don't get the point... it is something like out of your universe
but be sure valve will support webgpu.

I'd like to see this too but not every company has John Carmack working for them, insisting to release the source code to their game engine. It doesn't happen.

it is already happening on google you can find opensource game engines for all kind of games ...

I explained to you that Apple is not only a monopoly but the worst kind.

if you check the the definition of the word monopole:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monopoly

noting what you said makes apple a monopole because they did not get the exclusive right from the government to sell you a computer. only if the government grant them this right or else if the government allows a defacto monopole by high marketshare without taking government action to split this company into tiny parts.

all the evils you explained what apple does this all does not make apple a monopole.

it maybe makes apple an "evil guy" but still not a monopole.

[QUOTE=Dukenukemx;n1343921]
Nobody can make computers with Mac OSX.

wrong nobody want a computer with MACOSX... the people want linux. we are on phoronix.com you know.

Nobody can make computers with Apple silicon.

thats true but it depent on how close or how faar away you look at this problem
if i open up a linux company reselling apple M1/M2 then this is perfectly inside the law.
but of course nobody as you said can build hardware with apple chips.
but in the future of linux support is in good shape apple maybe change this behaviour.

Nobody can make ARM or x86 chips for running Mac OSX.

do you want MACOSX ? because: nobody want MACOSX...

Why? Cause Apple said so. If you try then legally Apple will sue you and your boss.

thats funny you claim apple can sue me for pirating macosX even if i run linux and never touched macosx... right ?

For contrast Intel sells their CPU's to HP, Dell, Asus, and etc, while AMD does the same thing. Microsoft sells their OS to anyone and everyone willing to pay them money, while those machines do in fact have the ability to install Linux. These guys are not monopolies, as they do in fact compete with each other. Not only that but Qualcomm even supplies chips for some Windows ARM laptops. They all fight for you money.

Intel and Microsoft are convicted criminals and the court declared them to be defacto monopolies.

"as they do in fact compete with each other"

this my friend does nothing about the fact that courts declared them to be defacto monopolies.

"They all fight for you money"

apple fight to get my money to. because of this they make apple M2 as good as they can.

Apple isn't even supplying code for Linux to help developers port it to M1/M2. Intel, AMD, and fucking Nvidia is now doing this. By the time GNU/Linux is working on the M1/M2, Apple would have the M4 or M5. Apple doesn't want Linux working 100%.

if apple supply code to linux is irrelevant Red-Hat does in fact supply code for many different hardware to linux also for many hardware who does not have official linux support. this means we do not even need apple to pay Red-Hat money to supply code for linux.

the second part is speculation you do not know what apple internally wants.

Show me which Apple application uses WebGPU? They don't exist? Then shutup about it.

https://webkit.org/demos/webgpu/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safari_(web_browser)

looks like you are a fool man... you did claim apple only target metal... now you see they target WebGPU..

Then Apple isn't working with game developers then. Even Microsoft ported DX12 to Windows 7 for World of Warcraft. Microsoft works with game developers. Apple tells game developers to fuck off and rewrite their code.

the same reason why apple is not an monopole is the same reason why apple can not afford it to "working with game developers" to make everything run on apple M1/M2 hardware. and the reason is marketshare if you have low marketshare then you can not have monopole and you can not have the power to do something like this. only monopoles like microsoft,intel and nvidia can support the game developers ....

They already lose because their GPU is not as good as AMD's RDNA in efficiency.

well i believe this because RDNA2+ is awesome but tell me what is your source what back up your opinion here ?

Benchmarks or it didn't happen.

its here on phoronix.com michael did benchmark it multible times

https://www.phoronix.com/review/power9-talos-2

just google phoronix.com power 9 benchmarks you find many.

but you know something like this does not care for most of the people because as soon as power9 runs x86 emulation it is much slower than intel. and most people are trapped in the x86 closed source legacy world.

This is why x86 is still around, because people care about backwards compatibility. This is not a mistake of the people but of companies like IBM who thought people would jump onto power.

right but then you have to admit the point that the people do not buy intel because of the fact that it is the best technology but instead they buy intel because they are trapped in the x86 closed source legacy hell...

if you want to buy the best technology you do not buy intel instead you buy (DEC Alph only historic example) or apple M1/2 or IBM power10 and so one and so one.

intel does not give you the best technology. thats the point. and you are supporting inferior technology.

Because RISC-V is junk as without a huge company to put R&D into it you'll see it fall behind in performance. Same goes for the power ISA.

RISC-V is to young to have any product on the market what is "fast".

well right now and for many years the power isa was and is the fastest around.. just watch power 10 benchmarks.

Because Apple isn't a hardware manufacturer and they'll fall behind unless they somehow gain market share. It's a waste of time. Qualcomm though has reasons to improve their SoC's, but again they don't have a direct competitor. Nobody is fighting Qualcomm for market share, and Apple isn't a direct competitor.

what you describe fits perfectly to Intel... "they'll fall behind unless they somehow gain market share."

intel fooled the market to buy their inferior 14nm cpus for a decade in time.

That's not the point, as Linux isn't mainstream to see computers sold with Linux preinstalled. We will be erasing Windows and Mac OSX to put Linux for a very long time. We can barely climb past 1% on Steam. Linux needs a lot of work before people are comfortable enough to remove Windows for it. As it stands right now Mac OSX is the way to go on Apple Silicon.

yes thats is the point not even YOU want macosx but you claim everyone want macosx...
i think that no one wants macosx. people want linux and not macosx..

"Linux isn't mainstream to see computers sold with Linux preinstalled"

this was only relevant at a time before the internet happened. today with internet you google hardware with pre-installed linux on it. and this fix that problem.

"We will be erasing Windows and Mac OSX to put Linux for a very long time"

i do not do this for a long time now... you can go to the internet search hardware with pre installed linux and you buy it.

"We can barely climb past 1% on Steam"

even at 1% marketshare you can google steam deck and then buy it with linux inside.

They went to court because they forced computer manufacturers to use their CPU's, otherwise no discounts. I don't remember them faking benchmarks. AMD/ATI and Nvidia though have a history of faking GPU benchmarks. I'm old enough to remember Quake Quack benchmark cheating from ATI.

in fact in the old-offline world intel did not force computer manufacturers to buy intel cpus because if no customer would buy it then the computer manufaturers would not buy it from intel instead intel did force the consumer to buy intel products by fraud.

they did fake benchmarks of course they did it by the intel compiler it was known that even if AMD supports a feature the intel compiler will detect a amd cpu and only allows slow pathes on the amd hardware then people cracked it and did proof that the more performant intel path did in fact work on amd hardware.

https://www.agner.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6

https://medium.com/codex/fixing-intel-compilers-unfair-cpu-dispatcher-part-1-2-4a4a367c8919

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/e53g1o/clarification_for_intel_is_still_sneakily/

By the time Bulldozer was out Intel didn't need to sabotage AMD.

intel did sapotage bulldozer not 1 times they did it 100 of times ,,,
the intel compiler never implemented CMT and the intel compiler never implemented SSE4.0(not even to the point it becomes a joke that it was an intel standard and not an AMD standard.)

just for your information at the time of bulldozer amd was on 34nm and intel was on 45nm...

now you claim no intel was on a smaller node but this is an lie.... intel was on 45nm and did 3D structued tranistors but the tranistor itself was 45nm in size... this "cheat" only did increase the "density" ... at that time amd had the smaller tranistors.

amd only lost because they had the same problem than apple m1/m2 today with x86 closed source legacy games and application you lose if your design need an recompile to get the full performance also if you only need a recompile with a non-intel compiler because intel does not implement the technology in their intel compiler.

The secret is they're all evil. If they're a company then they're evil. Especially Apple.

this generalisation is plain and simple wrong there are some family companies 400 years old who never did any evil.
but these people are family owned and not stock market companies.

Then don't use an Intel compiler, which nobody does today. Just like don't use Clear Linux as Intel is behind that too.

yes right today all use GCC or LLVM ... but you have to unterstand i do historic arguments.
and in an closed source x86 world this is very relevant because this old games are compiled with exactly this intel compiler.

Apple will evolve but AMD and Intel will out evolve Apple, just like they did with PowerPC. Simple math shows that Apple can't afford to pump the same amount of R&D into their silicon without losing money. Apple is a very profitable company, but they didn't get there by spending money. Even if Apple were to keep up with AMD and Intel, they shit the bed by going ARM. Nobody is going to lose x86 compatibility because ARM. The few idiots that did will eventually realize the mistake they made.

"Apple will evolve but AMD and Intel will out evolve Apple"

i am 100% sure this will not be the case. intel did already so much damange to x86 with their ISA war (for example 4FMA)
that any sane person will quit intel ISA as soon as possible.

"PowerPC."

just watch power10 benchmarks vs xeon and AMD EPIC... IBM power10 is super fast.

and i think as soon as there is software support apple will sell their hardware with linux to.
and of course they can also sell their chips to linux server manufacturers in the future.

"Even if Apple were to keep up with AMD and Intel, they shit the bed by going ARM."

i see intel x86 ISA as not a sane ISA because of the ISA WAR.. (3FMA vs 4FMA... and many more examples...)

jointing IBM with their power would be the other sane option...

but on desktop and gaming ARM is a better option right now because of the 4-level-Hyperthreading in power10..

Games do not like hyperthreading at all.

"Nobody is going to lose x86 compatibility because ARM. The few idiots that did will eventually realize the mistake they made"

the movement is already in march you can find opensource game engines for like very game on google

like engine for sims1 or The Elder Scrolls Morrowind ...

these people: "The few idiots" are going to make history of breaking these monopolies of microsoft and intel and nvidia.

[Dukenukemx]

you can not say that ryzen 7000 is on 5nm... because the IO-chip+GPU die is in 7/6nm

so if you make a comparison between ryzen 7000 and apple m2 you can still claim it is not true 5nm...

The important parts are 5nm. For practical reasons, it's 5nm.

[msroadkill612]

Splitting is unlikely, because it would require a separate chip on the motherboard.

which the chipset does do tho - & the chipset now has far more bandwidth (4x pcie 5 lanes fr cpu (16GB/s)) to split into usable lanes.

so ur answer is ~yes - 4 new lanes & plenty of chipset lanes/ports...

NOT TO MENTION... for those who dont need a lane hungry dgpu, am5 includes an IGP

even cheap am5 mobos can offer up to 20 more usable native cpu linked lanes (12 if an 8 lane dgpu were used), & a huge bump in various IO on the chipset.

[coder]

Is there any OS game supporting metal? My bet is that OS games use OS APIs.

Not sure what you mean by "OS APIs".

There are only a hand full of games that support metal and they all have either 2D graphics or 3D graphics on the level of early 2000s games.

I think Metal is what most iOS games use.

The only exception beeing Baldurs Gate 3 which runs slower in native mode than over rosetta emulation.

It'd be interesting to see a perf/W comparison.

[coder]

Intel won because Intel didn't do a 360 and walk away from a CPU architecture like Apple has done at least once a decade.

Uh, we could play this game.

ISAs Intel ditched since the 1990's:

• i860
• i960
• StrongARM
• Quark
• IA64

Some other notable cancellations:

• i740
• Larrabee & Xeon Phi

On top of that, Intel had to fight AMD for x86 supremacy while every historically failed CPU architecture didn't. I'm talking MIPS, Motorola 6800, PowerPC, and even ARM

Not sure where you got that idea. They all had clones, as did SPARC.

And ARM definitely competes with its licensees.

No matter how awfully outdated x86 is, the dynamic of AMD vs Intel will always push the CPU architecture beyond even the most well thought out CPU designs.

LOL, No, AMD wasn't competitive from about 2006-2017.

The reason x86 won is simply that it had the biggest market and Intel had an incentive and the resources to sell ever-faster CPUs, year after year. The market was big enough for them to overcome most of the disadvantages of x86, at least for use in applications in laptops and above. Below that, the inherent deficiency of x86 hurt them too badly on perf/W and perf/area.

It's basically the same story with Apple and iPhone SoCs. The iPhone market was big enough and had high enough margins for them to have the means to do it. And Steve Jobs supplied the vision and ambition at a stage most others probably wouldn't have.

ARM already failed as they filed for bankruptcy and Nvidia almost bought them. That means any real ARM improvements will probably come from Apple and Qualcomm.

LOL, when did ARM file for bankruptcy?

The more you write, the more you expose your complete ignorance. ARM is continuing to develop and refine their designs in many key markets. I could post links, but I take it you're not one of these "evidence-based" types. You see what you want, regardless of where the facts lead.

Apple has no real competitor. Nobody can make CPU's for Mac OSX.

They sort of compete in the PC market, since you can run Windows and Linux VMs on their computers and some people indeed buy them for that.

In the phone market, I'd agree that most iPhone users are going to buy an iPhone pretty much no matter what. Mac has a lot of users like that, but Apple is clearly looking to grow beyond its core userbase, because when you're a $Trillion company, investors want to see you sustaining growth and they can't continue to do that on the backs of the same users.

Apple will do it again once AMD and Intel continue to push ahead of Apple's ARM silicon.

The main thing holding back Apple is their focus on phones and laptops. When you remove power limits, they can't scale up single-thread performance quite as high, and they have yet to do a multi-core CPU as big as AMD or Intel.

As it stands right now, AMD has pushed Intel to create their own graphics

I've heard the opposite. Intel's threat of iGPUs forced AMD to buy ATI.

and seek manufacturers like TSMC and IBM to make their CPU's.

LOL what?

but because Intel can lose market share to AMD, they are incentivized to push for better designs.

Intel can & is losing market share to ARM. You think that's not an incentive?

This goes the other way as AMD screwed up with Bulldozer and they were forced to make Ryzen.

If anybody makes a Bulldozer, they're in trouble. Whether they have a major competitor on the same ISA or not.

Intel was sort of in a similar boat, being stuck on 14 nm forever. They were only kept afloat by virtue of unprecedented demand that nobody else had the fab capacity to fulfill.

Apple and ARM in general doesn't have competition, and therefore will regress in performance and power consumption.

Okay, I'll stop trying to confuse you with facts, as you clearly already know what you want to believe. I guess when ARM finally surpasses x86, you will simply reach for conspiracy theories to explain why.

[coder]

The 7000 chips will clock high, which you don't want to do on mobile chips due to power efficiency.

The efficiency is limited by the microarchitecture as much as the process node, and AMD showed that Zen 4 is more efficient across the range.

AMD now manufactures their mobile chips with better manufacturing. The 5000 series is 7nm while the 6000 mobile series is on 6nm.

They planned to do a 6 nm refresh of their desktop CPUs, but they cancelled it for reasons we can only speculate about.

However, the 6000-series are still Zen 3. TSMC N6 is portable from N7, meaning you can port to it without having to redesign. Ryzen 6000 is still the Zen 3 microarchitecture, just like how the 12 nm Ryzen 2000 series were still Zen 1.

You'll see this with Zen4 as the desktop chips will be 5nm and the laptop chips will be 4nm.

Yes, and that's because TSMC N4 is still a N5-family node. It works with the same cell libraries. If AMD's laptop products weren't lagging their desktop/server CPUs, they'd be on the same node.

However, given that they're staggered AMD can take advantage of refinements like N6 and N4 and would be foolish not to. That doesn't mean that Ryzen 5000 laptop SoCs were uncompetitive at N7 or that Ryzen 7000 wouldn't be competitive in laptops at N5.

You are misattributing causality, but that's not a surprise.

Willing to bet Intel will do this too with their 7nm for desktops and TSMC's 3nm for their laptops.

I don't know what you mean by that. Intel has what they call "Intel 7" and they use it to make both Alder Lake desktop and laptop CPUs.

It's pretty hilarious to me that you think Intel can just port their IP to TSMC like that. You clearly don't have the first clue about CPU design or production. For Intel to backport Ice Lake to their 14 nm node was a major, multi-year effort for them. And that was porting from an Intel node to another Intel node.

[coder]

Simple math shows that Apple can't afford to pump the same amount of R&D into their silicon without losing money.

Please show your work.

Apple is a very profitable company, but they didn't get there by spending money.

Not only are they extremely profitable, their 2021 revenues were 4.6 times Intel's and 22.3 times AMD's. You have no concept of just how much money Apple has, and they need to invest some of it somewhere. As long as they deem their CPUs to be a strategic asset, they're going to continue pouring money into their development.

And if AMD can compete with Intel having revenues just 1/5th as large (and I'm sure a significant part of that is Xylinx), why do you think Apple can't?

Your logic is just fundamentally flawed, but that's been shown time and again.

[qarium]

The important parts are 5nm. For practical reasons, it's 5nm.

it is 5nm if AMD wins the benchmark but it is not true 5nm if apple wins the benchmark...

we know you know we all know.