Originally posted by sophisticles
View Post
AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370: 100+ Benchmarks Validate Zen 5's Captivating Power Efficiency & Performance
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by sophisticles View PostYawn!
As already pointed out, the performance is not that great when you consider 12C/24T for the new chips vs 8C/16T for the older chips, gee, I wonder which one is going to be faster?
The power consumption is a nice improvement, very impressive, though I expect Lunar Lake to take these chips to school in that department.
Overall, it looks like a hard pass is in order for these chips from Linux users perspective, at least until Linux support is up to snuff.
Amd wipes the floor with intel
Intel announced firing of almost 18000 people
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
To save people having to manually look up the scores to compare:
7zip compression:
qualcomm x1e-78: 86,318
amd 365: 86,059
amd 370: 90,275
amd 7840HS: 81,522
quantlib size xxs:
qualcomm x1e-78: 6.28025
amd 365: 5.38639
amd 370: 6.01127
amd 7840HS: 6.25762
I suspect this result might be power limited on the new chips, given the higher zen 4 score. I believe Qualcomm allows their chips to use quite a bit of power on multi-threaded code.
Code:GraphicsMagick 1.3.43: pts/graphics-magick-2.2.0 [Operation: HWB Color Space] Test 2 of 4 Estimated Trial Run Count: 3 Estimated Test Run-Time: 4 Minutes Estimated Time To Completion: 1 Hour, 14 Minutes [04:00 UTC] Started Run 1 @ 02:47:26 Started Run 2 @ 02:48:30 Started Run 3 @ 02:49:35 Operation: HWB Color Space: 196 202 200 Average: 199 Iterations Per Minute Deviation: 1.53% Comparison of 524 OpenBenchmarking.org samples since 27 March; median result: 245 Iterations Per Minute. Box plot of samples: [ |-------------------------------------*########*!##*#*#---*-------------------------------------------------------------------*-----| ] ^ This Result (22nd Percentile): 199 INTEL XEON PLATINUM 8592: 294 ^ AMD Ryzen 9 5950X: 609 ^ Intel Xeon Platinum 8490H: 269 ^ 2 x INTEL XEON PLATINUM 8592: 262 ^ 2 x Intel Xeon Platinum 8468: 244 ^ Timed LLVM Compilation 16.0: pts/build-llvm-1.5.0 [Build System: Ninja] Test 3 of 4 Estimated Trial Run Count: 3 Estimated Test Run-Time: 58 Minutes Estimated Time To Completion: 1 Hour, 11 Minutes [04:01 UTC] Running Pre-Test Script @ 02:50:45 Started Run 1 @ 02:51:02 Running Interim Test Script @ 03:02:06 Started Run 2 @ 03:02:28 Running Interim Test Script @ 03:13:50 Started Run 3 @ 03:14:11 Running Post-Test Script @ 03:25:29 Build System: Ninja: 661.87 680.207 675.523 Average: 672.533 Seconds Deviation: 1.42% Comparison of 1,518 OpenBenchmarking.org samples since 22 March 2023; median result: 326 Seconds. Box plot of samples: [ * |----------------------------*--*---------------*-----------------*--*-###*#####!##*|*] This Result (27th Percentile): 673 ^ Intel Core i5-6260U: 5340 ^ Intel Core i7-8565U: 2966 ^ 2 x INTEL XEON PLATINUM 8592: 101 ^ Intel Core i7-1185G7: 2093 ^ Intel Xeon Platinum 8471N: 209 ^ Intel Core i7-1065G7: 3077 ^ AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 7840U: 940 ^ AMD Ryzen 7 6800U: 1098 ^
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by robclark View Post
I figured out how to upload the other couple benchmark runs I did:
7zip compression:
qualcomm x1e-78: 86,318
amd 365: 86,059
amd 370: 90,275
amd 7840HS: 81,522
quantlib size xxs:
qualcomm x1e-78: 6.28025
amd 365: 5.38639
amd 370: 6.01127
amd 7840HS: 6.25762
I suspect this result might be power limited on the new chips, given the higher zen 4 score. I believe Qualcomm allows their chips to use quite a bit of power on multi-threaded code.Last edited by smitty3268; 30 July 2024, 03:29 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by AdrianBc View Post
For a personal computer that you use for reading and writing documents, for Internet browsing, for watching movies and other similar activities, it makes perfect sense to use a monolithic CPU with integrated GPU, e.g. by using a NUC-like small computer, which may have an idle power consumption of 5 W or even less.
On the other hand, if you use a computer for solving any problem that requires a lot of computations, a non-monolithic CPU, like a desktop Ryzen, will provide a speed several times higher than any low-power CPU and even its energy efficiency can be greater, despite the higher idle power consumption, because when all cores are 100% busy for a long time, the idle power consumption will form only a small part of the total power consumption and the desktop CPUs can have better energy efficiency than the laptop CPUs for the part that exceeds the idle power consumption, e.g. due to bigger cache memories or due to wider SIMD execution units.
This is actually how I work. I use an Intel NUC as my PC, but I also have a few servers, including with Ryzen CPUs. Whenever I need to execute a program for which my PC would be too weak, I launch it on one or more servers, by using Wake-on-LAN. When the task is completed, the servers are shut down. Thus the average electrical power consumption is much smaller than that of a big desktop, while the peak performance is much greater than that of a laptop or SFF computer.
There is a reason for the existence of many kinds of CPUs, because each of them is the best for certain applications.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Maybe Tuxedo will start selling their 14" laptops with this CPU instead Ryzen 7 8845HS? It'd be a nice improvement (also for GPU).
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by Firnefex View Post
I don't know the details, but if your description is exactly how 7000 behaves, then my explanation might be off, but the reason against it stays the same. Therefore I never want to buy nonmonolithic CPUs.
For a personal computer that you use for reading and writing documents, for Internet browsing, for watching movies and other similar activities, it makes perfect sense to use a monolithic CPU with integrated GPU, e.g. by using a NUC-like small computer, which may have an idle power consumption of 5 W or even less.
On the other hand, if you use a computer for solving any problem that requires a lot of computations, a non-monolithic CPU, like a desktop Ryzen, will provide a speed several times higher than any low-power CPU and even its energy efficiency can be greater, despite the higher idle power consumption, because when all cores are 100% busy for a long time, the idle power consumption will form only a small part of the total power consumption and the desktop CPUs can have better energy efficiency than the laptop CPUs for the part that exceeds the idle power consumption, e.g. due to bigger cache memories or due to wider SIMD execution units.
This is actually how I work. I use an Intel NUC as my PC, but I also have a few servers, including with Ryzen CPUs. Whenever I need to execute a program for which my PC would be too weak, I launch it on one or more servers, by using Wake-on-LAN. When the task is completed, the servers are shut down. Thus the average electrical power consumption is much smaller than that of a big desktop, while the peak performance is much greater than that of a laptop or SFF computer.
There is a reason for the existence of many kinds of CPUs, because each of them is the best for certain applications.
Last edited by AdrianBc; 29 July 2024, 12:16 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by Firnefex View Postbut the reason against it stays the same. Therefore I never want to buy nonmonolithic CPUs.
My 5700g idles at ~ 23W on the wall. I prefer silent and efficient PCs.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by Coreyfro View PostIt seems you have all the information necessary for performance per watt but didn't take the necessary step to calculate it per benchmark. I think that is the most useful information given this is a laptop CPU. Would have loved to have seen Apple CPU's where possible, too. Last generation, AMD Flagship CPU's just beat out Apples Flagship's by a hair in power/performance in some benchmarks. This is where the action is!
Also. Your popups are.making it impossible to write comments. Please consider making it so they don't pop up over text forms. I blame any typos on this! ;-)
Unfortunately no review samples / budget for always testing Apple.
Leave a comment:
-
-
It seems you have all the information necessary for performance per watt but didn't take the necessary step to calculate it per benchmark. I think that is the most useful information given this is a laptop CPU. Would have loved to have seen Apple CPU's where possible, too. Last generation, AMD Flagship CPU's just beat out Apples Flagship's by a hair in power/performance in some benchmarks. This is where the action is!
Also. Your popups are.making it impossible to write comments. Please consider making it so they don't pop up over text forms. I blame any typos on this! ;-)
Leave a comment:
-
Leave a comment: