Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Ryzen 9 7900X / Ryzen 9 7950X Benchmarks Show Impressive Zen 4 Linux Performance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    LOL, wut?

    AMD sure did do significant redesign and achieve a respectable IPC increase.





    Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/17552...coming-sept-27
    read, i didn't say none, i said not too creative. enough to catch up with alder lake but nothing like zen 3 did back in the day.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by rclark View Post
      I doubt I'd notice much if any difference in day to day usage, between the 5900X and the 7900X. So other than 'bragging rights', I don't see why I should 'upgrade' .
      Who said you should upgrade? My machines range between 6-11 years old. I don't have anything newer than a Skylake laptop.

      Originally posted by rclark View Post
      As for more power, most anytime you get more performance, you usually pay for that by using more power. Just the nature of the game.
      Not true. Comparable chips made on a smaller process node are almost always more power-efficient. However, Zen 3 is more power-efficient than Zen 2, while still being on the same process node.

      AMD increased the power consumption of their platform to compete with Intel, but it wasn't strictly necessary just to deliver a performance improvement. And in spite of that, look closely at the power consumption graphs on the article's last page: the averages are the same since the previous gen!

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
        read, i didn't say none, i said not too creative. enough to catch up with alder lake but nothing like zen 3 did back in the day.
        Maybe you can visit AMD and tell them how to design a CPU, then.

        I can't believe how many people seem to think IPC is just a knob that you can trivially dial up or down. Increasing IPC is hard, and what they did with Zen 3 was pretty amazing. You can't just expect that to be the norm, from now on.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by coder View Post
          No, AMD says Zen 4 offers better perf/W.





          Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/17552...coming-sept-27


          Cost-wise, sure. AM4+DDR4 is the better deal, if you don't need a lot of performance.
          what i meant is sure, you can have a 1000w cpu that is more efficient than 65w cpu but that doesn't mean i'm comfortable with that power draw.

          Unless the laws of physics changed, regardless of efficiency more draw mean more amperage and that means more stress on all the components and their prices because they have to be more robust due to the extra heat.

          those slide are marketing slides for "Efficiency, plz plz plz don't look at our power draw, shiny numbers, more shiny number, magic"

          yeah because a 5950x became a celeron and offer barely any performance ...

          Note, i have the same thoughts on alder lake and expect even bigger numbers with raptor lake with the customary marketing slide of "Efficiency"

          Comment


          • #45
            As expected Zen 4's IPC is only 3.85% faster than Alder Lake. Raptor Lake will definitely be the go to for performance. They already confirmed a 40% increase in multi-core workloads compared to Alder lake. While rumors for single-core workloads will be between 8-15%.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
              what i meant is sure, you can have a 1000w cpu that is more efficient than 65w cpu but that doesn't mean i'm comfortable with that power draw.
              As you increase power, efficiency typically decreases quite rapidly. It would be extremely surprising to see a 1 kW CPU that's more efficient than a 65 W model. I think it's quite impossible (on a similar manufacturing process), as long as we're staying in the realm of classical computing.

              Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
              those slide are marketing slides for "Efficiency, plz plz plz don't look at our power draw, shiny numbers, more shiny number, magic"
              No, they're comparing performance at the same power, as the slides say. It's not smoke & mirrors.

              And if you read other reviews of AM5, they provide BIOS options to restrict power, which you can do without much loss in performance.

              Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
              Note, i have the same thoughts on alder lake and expect even bigger numbers with raptor lake with the customary marketing slide of "Efficiency"
              No, they cannot. It's basically the same design, on the same manufacturing node. Sure, they tweaked a few things, but it can't meaningfully move the bar on efficiency from Alder Lake.
              Last edited by coder; 26 September 2022, 03:13 PM.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by coder View Post
                Maybe you can visit AMD and tell them how to design a CPU, then.

                I can't believe how many people seem to think IPC is just a knob that you can trivially dial up or down. Increasing IPC is hard, and what they did with Zen 3 was pretty amazing. You can't just expect that to be the norm, from now on.
                That is not what im saying, what im saying is after the IPC adjustment to match alder lake like intel did frequency brute force was the name of the game hence the extra power draw. im not comfortable with the power draw of either vendor atm hence i will wait another node shrink/redesign(it should come with zen5) for something more to my taste but in the meantime an used 5950x will do just dandy if i need to upgrade.

                same reason i will forget RTX 40 even existed

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  Increasing IPC is hard, and what they did with Zen 3 was pretty amazing.
                  Increasing IPC is not so hard if the CPU will run at a lower frequency (such as: 1 GHz). It is hard if the goal is to increase IPC as well as increase frequency.

                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  You can't just expect that to be the norm, from now on.
                  In my opinion, you are mistaken. There will be large single-thread IPC increases in the future. According to AMD's hints about their next CPU: Zen 5 (Ryzen 8000?) underwent a "complete" redesign of the core which increases the probability that Zen 5 will have ~20% higher IPC than today's Ryzen 7000. Intel Raptor Lake CPUs are expected to increase single-threaded IPC by ~10%.

                  The ultimate goal of these gradual IPC increases is, of course, to achieve the milestone of being able to execute multiple iterations of a small loop in a single clock cycle. I predict that this milestone will be achieved sometime before year 2040.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    I'm very confused. How do we go from a TSMC 7nm drawing between 65W-150W to a TSMC 5nm drawing 105W-250W, two years of work from AMD on IPC, a whopping 1Ghz improvement across all processors, and we end up with a broad 15-20% increase in most benchmarks? Yes some are stellar (compilation and some AVX-512 related things), but if my poor brain can math for once in my life:

                    7nm to 5nm: expected roughly 30% performance increase or lower consumption
                    150W top to 250W top: 66% wattage increase
                    2 years of work and a promised ~8% IPC increase
                    1Ghz on top of a broadly 4Ghz lineup: 20-25% increase

                    So I count 8% IPC + 20% speed + 30% lower consumption + 66% wattage increase. Even if you know that more watts != more speed, I'm still baffled here. How are we seeing such a massive power draw and such a "good" growth of speed? Since some benchmarks are incredibly faster, I'm thinking it could be a microcode question, that AM5 and Zen4 are entirely new and that AMD will have months of optimisation in the coming months/years to fully exploit them, but otherwise, I really really do not understand how these numbers add up.

                    In any case, my little 5600x is doing amazing in perf/watts, so I'm very very happy I bought it.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
                      In this iteration, sure AMD didn't get too creative with IPC uplift or core redesigns and since 12th gen had a nice uplift ...
                      Zen 4 can predict 2 taken branches per clock cycle. Whether it can also execute 2 taken branches per cycle is unclear. (Zen 3 has throughput of 1 taken branch per cycle.)

                      Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
                      ... they just went full brute force ahead like Intel hence i agree for that reason they need similar power budget.
                      The temperature limit of 95℃ is to some extent artificial, because a CPU core can run at temperatures higher than 100℃. ---- For example, my Ryzen 3700X is able to run at 110℃ if I remove the CPU cooler, albeit it runs at a very small frequency because of heat dissipation problems. ---- For safe use at home (that is: not a supercomputer in a supercomputer center) the base limitation is the boiling point of water (100℃). Allowing CPU temperatures higher than 100℃ might require changing the materials used in CPU coolers, which implies that the coolers would be much more expensive than today.
                      Last edited by atomsymbol; 26 September 2022, 03:47 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X