[HN Gopher] AMD Ryzen 9 7900X / Ryzen 9 7950X Benchmarks Show Im...
___________________________________________________________________
AMD Ryzen 9 7900X / Ryzen 9 7950X Benchmarks Show Impressive Linux
Performance
Author : nicolaslem
Score : 134 points
Date : 2022-09-26 13:39 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.phoronix.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.phoronix.com)
| INTPenis wrote:
| I'm a life long Linux user, it's not even a thing for me it's
| just what I've used since my teens. But phoronix saying something
| has good benchmarks in Linux means absolutely squat to me. That
| site _always_ has good performance metrics on Linux.
|
| I do some gaming and I can tell you their posts never reflect my
| reality.
| m463 wrote:
| Isn't this so you as a linux user can decide if purchasing a
| specific cpu will make a difference?
| djha-skin wrote:
| Fun seeing performance reviews of new chips coming out. It's a
| sign to me that the market is recovering after the pandemic.
| Imagine someone promoting a chip during the pandemic, when you
| couldn't get them for love or money.
|
| Still, I would have liked to see a graph or other pretty chart
| showing the results of the benchmark off better so that I could
| internalize them easier.
| Bilal_io wrote:
| The embargo is going to be lifted later today on reviewers
| pedrocr wrote:
| These reviews came out normally during the pandemic. Here's the
| same review for the previous generation, released in November
| 2020:
|
| https://www.phoronix.com/review/ryzen-5900x-5950x
| est wrote:
| Still waiting for the rumored 6700G with 12 RDNA2 CUs.
| hassanahmad wrote:
| 95c and that power draw are a skip 7000 series for me. I think a
| used 5950x will be the sweet spot soon.
| bearjaws wrote:
| Ryzen scales up exponentially in power draw as you try to hit
| peak frequency numbers.
|
| You can run it at 95% speed and usually something like 70%
| voltage.
|
| My 3900x can do around 4.5ghz at 1.4v or 4.3ghz at 1.05v all
| core. I imagine Zen 4 will be exactly the same. Don't have the
| power draw off the top of my head, but that is essentially 125w
| for 4.5ghz and 90w for 4.3ghz.
| blibble wrote:
| for FETs the power draw on voltage is quadratic (not
| exponential)
| mhh__ wrote:
| It's not going to get any better, you can thermal throttle it
| if needs be.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| According to other reviews, the 7000 series destroys the
| competition (both Intel and 5000 series) at 65W.
|
| Also, 7000 series is designed for 95C. It'll run forever at
| 95C, and will always run at 95C if it has the workload and
| power budget. IOW, giving it more cooling will cause it to run
| faster rather than making it cooler.
|
| On other chips 95C might indicate it's on the edge of failure,
| but AMD asserts that 95C won't shorten the 7000's life.
| dis-sys wrote:
| based on what I heard from insiders, two batches of reviews for
| AMD's new chips, those released now are the ones from sites
| traditionally happy to provide overwhelmingly positive reviews,
| those going to be released tomorrow are the ones which usually
| provide more balanced reviews.
|
| good PR tricks - they just sign NDA agreements with different
| reviewers with slightly different embargo lift dates.
| Teifion wrote:
| Can you suggest some of these less positive reviewers please? I
| like to have a broad range of reviews before deciding and all
| the ones I normally look at came out today (though were not
| overwhelmingly positive in every area).
| dis-sys wrote:
| No, I don't have such list.
|
| The source of the claim is from here (in Chinese) -
|
| https://www.chiphell.com/thread-2445527-1-4.html
|
| chiphell is the largest computer parts review site in China,
| and that nApoleon guy posting this two batches of review
| story is the owner of the site.
|
| In a more recent thread, he confirmed again that his site has
| completed their own review and he had read it, yet they are
| not allowed to post it until tomorrow.
|
| https://www.chiphell.com/thread-2446331-1-1.html
|
| In a separate thread he posted today, he mentioned that based
| on their tests, the temp of the zen4 chip is always 95
| degrees celsius - no matter whether you use a shitty cheap
| cooler or a fancy kick ass one.
|
| https://www.chiphell.com/thread-2446302-1-1.html
| sliken wrote:
| Not sure why the 95C thing is bad. If a chip has work to do
| and can control it's overclocking, why not have it stick to
| whatever safe temperature it wants?
| rjsw wrote:
| Would be interesting to know if benchmarks run faster with
| a better cooler. It could be at the thermal limit in both
| cases, just at different clock speeds.
| wmf wrote:
| It will run faster with more cooling. We'll probably see
| some air vs. water benchmarks in the coming weeks.
| fomine3 wrote:
| Interesting but is delaying negative reviews works? It
| seems that GN posts review with temperature criticism today
| (see also thumbnail).
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRaJXZMOMPU
| halotrope wrote:
| What are you talking about? E.g Anandtech and GamersNexus
| (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRaJXZMOMPU) are hardly
| examples of being "overwhelmingly positive" towards anyone.
| Tepix wrote:
| Heise Online has released their review (alas, behind a paywall)
| and it starts very positive. I'm pretty sure they are the most
| trusted reviewers in the german language.
| pedrocr wrote:
| The Anandtech review is also out. I had them as pretty balanced
| at least in the past.
| dis-sys wrote:
| surely Anandtech is in a different category - why would the
| PR dept of AMD or Intel mess with Anandtech.
|
| sadly, the same can't be said for hundreds/thousands other
| much smaller reviewers.
| hipnoizz wrote:
| As this specific review is from Phoronix - do you have some
| proof that their reviews are (heavily) biased? I'm looking
| at reviews in more details only when I want to buy
| something, other than that I skip them or just have a quick
| look. I haven't did any serious comparison either, but I
| remember Michael Larabel from Phoronix criticising various
| parties. Many of his reviews are basically
| measures/benchmarks with some summary on top of that - his
| benchmarking methodology may be or may be not flawed, I
| don't remember him shilling for AMD. AMD has probably some
| goodwill from the Linux community since they open source or
| provide various specs for their graphics card. At least
| that used to be the case.
| dis-sys wrote:
| I was just passing on something claimed by the largest
| computer parts review site in China. They claimed that
| their site has been required not to release their review
| until tomorrow, the owner of the site further claimed
| that there are two batches of reviews and his site is in
| the second batch for obvious reasons.
|
| See the url in my replies.
| michaellarabel wrote:
| FWIW, at the AMD event in Texas last month where the
| Ryzen 7000 series was announced, everyone was given the
| same embargo date... Mostly all the US and EU reviewers
| there.
|
| Maybe the China/Asia review briefings or so are going
| with a different date based on different retail
| availability or so? Hadn't heard of some reviewers
| getting a different embargo date, typically see that
| usually only for different geo availability or if getting
| a sample from a motherboard OEM / other partner and not
| the CPU company review embargo.
| yxhuvud wrote:
| Could also be a TZ issue, where they have a clock time,
| and that clock time ends up ending up at different dates
| in practice.
| MikusR wrote:
| Their Desktop and Mobile CPU reviewers both quit.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Everybody is doing dirty PR tricks these days, cash flow is
| above morals for a long time. People overall don't mind so
| don't expect change for the better.
|
| Anyway, enough ranting, nobody sane decides on these 0day
| benchmarks but waits at least few weeks for overall
| conclusions, quirks, not so common issues etc. And even better
| is to wait few months for more stable motherboards and drivers,
| better availability of compatible RAM etc.
| Tepix wrote:
| Can't wait for the 65W, 45W and 35W Ryzen 7000 CPUs/APUs. These
| 100+W CPUs are a step backwards.
| sliken wrote:
| I was impressed the 7950 did so well at 65 watts, 81% of the
| perf at 38% of the power. I'd expect the lower end chips with
| less cores to have even less of a compromise to get to 65
| watts.
| doikor wrote:
| You can run it in 65W or 105W Eco mode. It will get the power
| consumption down a lot. Single thread performance will be the
| same and in multi thread it will still beat 12900K even in 65W
| Eco mode.
|
| https://youtu.be/uks4qQ2MXrM?t=1087
|
| https://www.anandtech.com/show/17585/amd-zen-4-ryzen-9-7950x...
| mhh__ wrote:
| Not as much better than alder lake than I was expecting
| AshamedCaptain wrote:
| I really wish that someone would review CPUs at similar power
| levels, rather than TDP when there is a big difference between
| the two models.
|
| Also, there is no idle power comparison, something that may also
| differ significantly and affect Linux.
| rndmize wrote:
| The anandtech review has some of that, they have one chart on
| the 7950X running in eco mode
| https://www.anandtech.com/show/17585/amd-zen-4-ryzen-9-7950x...
| .
| neogodless wrote:
| Yes scroll down to see the Cinebench R23 results at 65W.
| fomine3 wrote:
| This is my request for CPU review. It's good way to know core
| efficiency. TDP or turbo watts is now artificially set very
| high by manufacturer but not efficient. Maybe reviewers are too
| busy to take many benchmarks before embargo.
| devwastaken wrote:
| What would be the purpose? If you want to purposefully limit
| power you're forcing the chip to underperform. You can just get
| the lower cost chip that does run at that power. For example
| the 5600x being 76W versus the higher chips.
| nine_k wrote:
| (1) Battery life on laptops.
|
| (2) Cooling budget on servers.
|
| Both are very significant limiting factors for non-gaming
| applications.
|
| Top gaming rigs are the dragsters of computing: no power
| consumption is too high, no hardware contraption is too
| large. But most people, and most businesses, don't drive
| dragsters.
| fomine3 wrote:
| It's not the same. Many core on lower frequency is efficient
| than fewer core on high frequency, even if TDP is same.
| AshamedCaptain wrote:
| As shown in the anandtech review above, the 7950x limited to
| 65W (ECO Mode) handily beats the 7600x at (uncapped) 105W,
| and anecdotally everything that Intel has to offer as of
| today...
|
| https://www.anandtech.com/show/17585/amd-
| zen-4-ryzen-9-7950x...
| pizza234 wrote:
| > What would be the purpose? If you want to purposefully
| limit power you're forcing the chip to underperform
|
| The rationale is that each architecture has a sweet spot
| consumption/performance, and increasing performance over a
| certain threshold has increasing costs (AFAIK, one
| significant factor is the increase of voltage in order to
| push frequencies higher).
|
| I don't know the numbers, but AMD has been offering the 65W
| threshold for a while, so it can be reasonably assumed that
| 65W is the sweet spot performance/consumption.
|
| The reason for not buying directly a cheaper model is the
| number of cores - one may choose, say, a 65W-throttled CPU
| with 16 cores over an unthrottled 8-cores (in some scenarios,
| this can make sense).
| Kerrick wrote:
| In addition to this, you can choose to run your top-of-the-
| line multi-core processor in eco mode most of the time, and
| then consciously turn it back to stock settings when you
| know you'll need the extra speed/throughput, only bearing
| the extra heat and cost of that performance when you really
| need it.
| BaculumMeumEst wrote:
| i like longer lasting hardware and not having a furnace in my
| office
| doikor wrote:
| Gamers nexus kind of does that
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRaJXZMOMPU&t=704s
|
| Basically how many watts required to do some fix unit of work
| (to render 1 frame using Blender CPU rendering)
| Bolkan wrote:
| Your cpu can simulate the universe at 1W. Although it will
| take a long time.
| ncmncm wrote:
| My CPU can't, but it is theoretically possible to make a
| CPU that could.
| plasticchris wrote:
| do you mean that a turing machine can't simulate the
| universe but some other kind of cpu (i.e. quantum) could?
| jhoechtl wrote:
| This is all very theoretical so ... a turing machine can
| simulate a universe as it assumes infinite memory
| mastax wrote:
| That is a useful measurement, but it's not quite what I'd
| want.
|
| In that test, the CPUs are running on an open-air test bench
| with a 360mm AIO liquid cooler with the fans running at 100%.
| I don't think any of us are going to be running the CPUs like
| that, and that type of cooling encourages the CPUs to draw
| way more power - because they can draw much more power
| without overheating.
|
| What I'd want in a test is to take some reasonable cooling
| solution (reasonable varies from person to person, of course)
| like a high-quality 140mm tower cooler or a 240mm AIO, in a
| _computer case_ with the fans running at a silent or slightly
| above silent level. Then see what type of power and
| performance you get out of it.
| nwmcsween wrote:
| I just want a CPU freq to power chart, so I know how Intel/AMD
| are pushing TDP and at what freq things start getting
| exponential. It would be interesting to see what is considered
| "normal".
| arianvanp wrote:
| But a 7950x is just a 7900x (They have identical silicon) that
| is just "lucky" enough to survive more power draw. If you make
| the TDP the same you just end up with the same CPU
| Ygg2 wrote:
| Pretty sure 7900x has fewer cores/threads.
| ncmncm wrote:
| Anyway fewer turned on? They need something to sell when
| one or more of the cores don't work. Would be nice to let
| you have 15 cores when that many of them work.
| pizza234 wrote:
| Are you sure? The 7900x has 12 cores, while the 7950x has 16.
| Bolkan wrote:
| They disable some cores? How else would you explain the
| lower single core performance?
| Scene_Cast2 wrote:
| I did read that the silicon that can take higher voltages is
| worse in lower power (i.e. lower voltage) situations.
| didgetmaster wrote:
| Does anyone know how to apply to be a 'reviewer' for pre-released
| CPUs from AMD or Intel? I am building a new kind of data
| management platform that is highly threaded so it can do DB
| queries or other data manipulation functions in parallel. I will
| benchmark it against other common systems like Postgres
| (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVICKCkWMZE) but I only do that
| when I upgrade my own personal desktop or laptop. I would love to
| get my hands on loaner hardware to run benchmarks and publish
| them.
| pella wrote:
| You should add your benchmark to the
| https://openbenchmarking.org/
|
| And then there is a greater chance that phoronix will include
| it in its tests; or others will run it and publish the results.
| didgetmaster wrote:
| That would only really work if I already had the hardware for
| a meaningful benchmark. Right now my desktop has a 5950x and
| my laptop has a 6700hq. Showing a benchmark between those two
| systems would not be that interesting. I would like to show
| how my system performs on a 7950x vs my 5950x but I don't
| want to go out and buy another $2000+ computer just to get
| those numbers.
| pella wrote:
| This is a Clickhouse aggregated benchmarks :
| https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/clickhouse
|
| so everybody can verify and compare the results.
|
| If you create a benchmark; everybody can run .. and you can
| ask your networks for run this public test and upload the
| results.
|
| On the other hand you can wait for ZEN4 Epyc ... and rent
| for 1-2 hour in a cloud.
| nwmcsween wrote:
| Please give me a Frequency/Power chart so I can tell what if
| there is any wackiness WRT TDP.
| alkonaut wrote:
| It's annoying when hardware sites compare new CPUs to a big list
| of older or less capable ones, but precisely all of them are
| basically so new that if you have one of them you probably aren't
| upgrading now. If you have Ryzen 2/3/4 or 9/10th gen Intel you
| have to guess what kind of performance leap you'd get with this.
| dschuetz wrote:
| Does the 7000 series have Pluton? Can't find specifics anywhere.
| nicolaslem wrote:
| I don't know but for what it's worth my main machine is a 6000
| series laptop (with Pluton) running Linux and I did not have
| any compatibility issues. Sure, it sucks to have some Microsoft
| designed hardware in my CPU but at least it not causing issues
| (for now).
| anonym29 wrote:
| You have two ring -3 coprocessors with unrestricted DMA,
| unrestricted disk I/O, and unrestricted access to your
| network interface. One belongs to the NSA, the other to
| Microsoft.
|
| Do some traffic analysis on the upstream end of an ethernet
| cable plugged into that computer while it is hibernating or
| sleeping some time, you might not like what you what you
| find.
| gruez wrote:
| >Do some traffic analysis on the upstream end of an
| ethernet cable plugged into that computer while it is
| hibernating or sleeping some time, you might not like what
| you what you find.
|
| Is this something you know for a fact, or are you
| extrapolating from intel ME?
| anonym29 wrote:
| It's behavior I've witnessed on my own system w/ AMD PSP.
| I can't definitively attribute it to PSP, but I can't
| attribute it definitively to anything else either.
| YakBizzarro wrote:
| any reference to that? I would like to read more
| anonym29 wrote:
| Reference: I've done it on my own system. I'd encourage
| you to do it on your own system if you're curious.
| bruce343434 wrote:
| I don't have the hardware for it; what did you find?
| anonym29 wrote:
| Without divulging too much information about the
| specifics, a LOT more traffic than I was expecting or
| willing to tolerate.
| bruce343434 wrote:
| Such as?
| kyriakos wrote:
| Is this something that can be blocked at router/firewall
| level?
| anonym29 wrote:
| Allowlisting, yes. Keep in mind that even fairly
| unsophisticated malware has been observed using channels
| like pastebin and Twitter for exfil/c2.
|
| Blocklisting, that's a cat and mouse game. Go look at how
| many different URLs and IPs are utilized for commercial
| telemetry in the likes of Adobe and Microsoft software if
| you aren't familiar.
| anonym29 wrote:
| Zen 4 (Raphael) desktop CPUs will have it. Right now, Zen 3
| (Chagall) and Zen 4 Threadripper (Storm Peak) don't currently
| have plans for integrating it, but that may be subject to
| change. I cannot provide proof, but I sure as hell am never
| buying Zen 4 or later AMD Desktop CPUs ever again for a system
| that will be connected to the internet.
| dschuetz wrote:
| I would not go that far saying I won't buy AMD ever again,
| but if Microsoft has a foot in the door inside my systems in
| form of creepware like Pluton it is there for keeping the
| door open.
| anonym29 wrote:
| I edited to clarify. I would consider using them on a
| system that never gets connected to the internet.
| adrian_b wrote:
| I am also paranoiac about such things, but the part with
| avoiding the connection to the Internet is easy for a
| desktop computer, if it also does not run Windows, where
| you never know what services might be active and with
| which external servers they might try to communicate.
|
| I have a small computer that is used as the router for
| the Internet connection and on which I have complete
| control over the firewall and over the proxies used for
| connecting to the Internet, so there are no chances for
| an unwanted connection to the Internet.
|
| For additional protection, one could run the Internet
| browsers in a Virtual Machine, to be absolutely certain
| that there is no way for a script run by the browser to
| access the physical hardware, assuming that you do not
| trust the sandboxing capabilities of the browser.
| anonym29 wrote:
| VMs are an imperfect solution to preventing programs
| running in the guest OS from affecting the host OS
| (imperfect, as VM escapes are a thing).
|
| VMs do not provide protection to the guest OS (or it's
| processes) from inspection and snooping by the host OS,
| or from inspection / snooping by the hardware the host OS
| is running on.
|
| If using a bare metal hypervisor, sed 's/host
| OS/hypervisor/g'
| gruez wrote:
| FWIW it's already present on Zen 3+ (Rembrandt) CPUs.
| However, at least on lenovo you can disable it (there's an
| option in the BIOS that allows you to toggle between TPM 2.0
| and pluton).
| nine_k wrote:
| What remains for a desktop system then? Is Intel in a
| drastically better shape?
|
| (I know about Talos.)
| anonym29 wrote:
| No, Intel's 13th generation (Raptor Lake) chips are slated
| to have it too.
|
| I suspect that like with Threadrippers, some Xeons will not
| ship with it, but I am not as confident about this as I am
| for Threadrippers, for reasons I cannot divulge.
| xxpor wrote:
| Maybe I'm interpreting this comment incorrectly but I'm
| begging people to realize if they're a normal person and they
| have the NSA at the top of their threat model they're bad at
| internalizing relative risk.
| anonym29 wrote:
| You do appear to be interpreting it incorrectly. This is
| about Pluton, for which the threat actor is Microsoft.
| People concerned about the NSA would need to be worried
| going all the way back to the introduction of AMD PSP back
| in 2011.
|
| Now, with regards to the important part of your message,
| I'm begging people to realize that if they're blindly
| trusting all code running on all firmware in their personal
| machine, they are even worse at accurately internalizing
| risk than those who are proactively paranoid.
| xxpor wrote:
| I would argue not trusting MS is even sillier. Like it or
| not, they run most desktops around the world. Even if you
| only run the purest NetBSD at home, nearly everything
| someone knows about you will touch Windows at some point.
| In terms of secureboot et al, MS hasn't done any of the
| shenanigans people were worried about. You can still turn
| off SB on every x86 desktop. What is the actual risk
| here? At the end of the day, MS isn't the government.
|
| Raptor Systems is right there for the truly paranoid.
| cesarb wrote:
| I recall that back in the 90s, besides higher clock speeds, one
| of the greatest reasons for excitement about a new CPU was
| instruction set extensions (MMX, 3DNow, etc), which could give
| outsized performance gains when software was updated to work with
| them. This latest release from AMD has similar cause for
| excitement: AVX-512 is more than just larger vectors, it also
| doubles the number of registers, adds per-lane mask registers,
| and other enhancements; unlike with Intel processors, there
| should be no worry of slowing down the clock for the whole
| processor when using these instructions with larger vectors, and
| unlike with Intel, we can reasonably expect that every AMD
| processor from now on will always have these instructions
| enabled.
| fomine3 wrote:
| > unlike with Intel processors, there should be no worry of
| slowing down the clock for the whole processor when using these
| instructions with larger vectors
|
| because they don't implement "true" 512bit registers for
| AVX-512. This is basically to support instruction set rather
| than SIMD performance boost.
| adrian_b wrote:
| Actually, Zen 4 implements true 512-bit registers.
|
| See the other thread on HN, which points to
| https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=614191
|
| It appears that Zen 4 implements around 192 registers of 512
| bits. However, the latest Intel model (Sapphire Rapids)
| implements more 512-bit registers, around 332 such registers.
|
| For most operations, Zen 4 has the same execution units as
| Zen 3, it has not expanded them to 512 bits, but the
| execution units of Zen 3 are enough to match the 512-bit
| throughput of the Intel CPUs. The only exception is that Zen
| 4 can do one 512-bit FMA and one 512-bit FADD per cycle,
| while the most expensive of the server and workstation Intel
| CPUs have a second 512-bit FMA unit, so they can do 1 FMA + 1
| FMA, instead of 1 FMA + 1 FADD. The cheaper Intel CPUs with
| AVX-512 are worse than Zen 4, because they can do only 1 FMA,
| not also an FADD, like Zen 4.
|
| On the other hand Zen 4 implements a true 512-bit shuffle
| unit, while the current Intel CPUs have only 256-bit shuffle
| units, slowing down the shuffles that must cross the register
| halves.
|
| As tested at that link, while there are a few cases when Zen
| 4 has slower implementations for some 512-bit instructions,
| in many cases the AVX-512 implementation in Zen 4 is better
| than in the current Intel CPUs.
| doikor wrote:
| They do still get around 60% speedup up according to phoronix
| https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-zen4-avx512/6
|
| > On average for the tested AVX-512 workloads, making use of
| the AVX-512 instructions led to around 59% higher performance
| compared to when artificially limiting the Ryzen 9 7950X to
| AVX2 / no-AVX512.
| fomine3 wrote:
| Wow it looks great than expected.
| Scene_Cast2 wrote:
| I'm personally curious about AVX512 support in pyTorch and
| numpy. Numpy depends on BLAS libraries for performance, and I
| don't know how much dev resources are behind openBLAS (i.e. how
| soon I can expect performance increases), especially given that
| AMD is a much smaller company and doesn't spend as much as
| Intel on software.
| timeu wrote:
| Interestingly even software (oneDNN) that is using Intel's
| brand new OneAPI is running excellent one Zen 4 CPUs, often
| faster than on Intel's own CPUs:
|
| https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-
| ryzen-7900x-7950x-linux/...
| michaellarabel wrote:
| Many AVX-512 Zen 4 benchmarks here -
| https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-zen4-avx512
| devwastaken wrote:
| Cache sizes are also significant in these gens. The 5800x3D
| outperforms the 12900KS in many games. They just stuck a bunch
| of cache onto the 5800.
| AshamedCaptain wrote:
| There was an article about the positive impact large
| integrated caches had back when Intel was doing it:
| https://www.anandtech.com/show/16195/a-broadwell-
| retrospecti...
|
| I'm surprised Intel has basically abandoned the idea, and AMD
| just markets it for "gaming".
| didgetmaster wrote:
| Any rumors that any of the Zen4 chips will get a 3D cache
| version?
| cestith wrote:
| There are those rumors. In fact, there's no announced 7800X
| yet. The speculation is they launch a 7800X3D a few weeks
| to a few months from now with 3D cache from the beginning
| in that 7800 name space. To me that seems likely. There's a
| rather more optimistic rumor that all the 7000 series will
| eventually have 3D cache versions, which I find maybe too
| optimistic.
| ac29 wrote:
| No need for rumours, AMD already said they will be bringing
| out 7000 series chips with V-cache. This was during a
| investor presentation, the specific products haven't been
| announced yet.
| beebeepka wrote:
| Unspecified 3d cache models have been confirmed. Coming end
| of this year, Q1 2023 at the latest.
|
| Checking out the numbers for these non-3d models, the large
| cache SKUs are going to be pretty amazing. Likely expensive
| too
| doikor wrote:
| > Unspecified 3d cache models have been confirmed. Coming
| end of this year, Q1 2023 at the latest.
|
| Most speculation/leaks point to CES (early January) would
| be the announcement so not this year.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-26 23:02 UTC)