[HN Gopher] AMD releases a new flagship CPU for consumer market ...
___________________________________________________________________
AMD releases a new flagship CPU for consumer market with 128M of L3
Cache
Author : treesciencebot
Score : 193 points
Date : 2023-02-27 15:10 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.techpowerup.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.techpowerup.com)
| Salgat wrote:
| I'm not a fan of how they park the slower CCD, since it means
| that the scheduler will try to force all processes onto the same
| CCD (regardless of whether it's for the game), instead of
| offloading the non-game workloads onto the other CCD. This is an
| issue if you run background tasks (such as streaming) or have
| multiple monitors setup for other things like browser etc.
| bick_nyers wrote:
| In addition, different game threads for the same game (or even
| functions within the game threads!) may benefit differently.
| Physics calculations may benefit from cache in a different way
| from other game calculations. Even if you zoom into the
| different type of physics calculations, there are ballistics,
| soft-body physics, hair, clothing, foliage, water, etc.
|
| It would be interesting to see what kind of performance could
| be achieved with PERFECT scheduling. That would probably
| require the CPU to do process scheduling via specialized
| circuitry though as opposed to (or in conjunction with) the OS.
| mmis1000 wrote:
| I think I already have similar troubles with that about Radeon
| gpu. Their driver (or window11 itself) directs all GPU resource
| into the foreground app aggressively and basically stop the
| background app from using it. But I am trying to recording the
| game using obs. This basically make obs unusable if the gpu is
| near 100% usage. And sometimes it went even wrong, It decides
| to direct all gpu resource to the browser on my second screen,
| and I got 30fps on the game. I usually need a reboot to make it
| work correctly again.
|
| I'd like them just add a toggle to let me select who use the
| gpu first or evenly instead. And their guesses never went
| right.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Can I have a mode where some of that 128M is never flushed to
| RAM?
|
| For example, I'd quite like my disk encryption key to never end
| up in RAM - it's much harder to steal from inside a running
| CPU...
| imiric wrote:
| Isn't the TPM meant for precisely that use case?
| londons_explore wrote:
| The TPM is good for _storing_ keys, but can 't actually
| decrypt/encrypt large amounts of data fast as required for
| disk encryption. So the key ends up temporarily stored in
| RAM.
|
| The fact that most people leave their computers in sleep mode
| means that to a determined attacker, disk encryption is
| bypass able by reading the key from RAM.
| smileybarry wrote:
| I _think_ the current sleep implementation in Windows
| flushes the key from memory before entering sleep, and re-
| fetches it on-wake. That 's one reason for those "BitLocker
| PC doesn't wake from sleep" bugs in quirky setups.
| mmis1000 wrote:
| AMD has a cpu extension (something called SME) that make vm ram
| data never appears as cleartext in actual ram. It is done by
| encrypt the ram data before going out from cpu using a key that
| is only available to cpu itself. But I remembered that it is a
| ryzen pro only feature.
| IAmNotACellist wrote:
| I just need to know one thing: how does it compare to the
| i9-13900K in VRChat?
| pshirshov wrote:
| That's awesome but I'm still looking for new Threadrippers.
|
| I hope that HEDT isn't dead and it might be at least barely
| affordable (e.g. 32 cores for less than $2K as it was with 39xx
| lineup)
| [deleted]
| Semaphor wrote:
| Related and also interesting: Ryzen 7950X3D with One CCD Disabled
| - The 7800X3D Preview
|
| https://www.techpowerup.com/review/ryzen-7800x3d-performance...
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| > Where AMD X3D is taking the wrecking ball to Intel is power
| consumption. Our simulated Ryzen 7 7800X3D is one of the most
| energy-efficient CPUs we ever tested. In gaming it consumes 44
| W on average, while the competition is wasting a ton of energy
| to achieve the same FPS: 13900K (143 W), 13700K (107 W), 13600K
| (89 W)--all more than twice the power usage than AMD's new
| gaming gem.
|
| Wow. I don't needed such CPU now, but if I needed a low-
| noise/silent _but performant_ PC I would definitely look at
| this one.
| Semaphor wrote:
| Yeah, I'm pretty happy with my older and slower 3600, but
| after the preview I thought this might be an interesting
| upgrade in the future after prices for AM5 boards, DDR5, and
| the CPUs fall.
| WeylandYutani wrote:
| I often game at night and less noise is definitely a point in
| favour to AMD!
| Macha wrote:
| The one caveat here is that actual 7800X3Ds might not be binned
| as well as the top end model, so I'd wait for real 7800X3D
| reviews if you're thinking about pre-ordering one based on this
| experiment.
| doikor wrote:
| Based on tech powerup tests the cores with the v-cache do not
| clock that high. The advertised 700MHz higher clockrate is
| for the non v-cache cores. I highly doubt AMD would release a
| part that does not hit the advertised numbers (which on the
| 7800X3D apply to the v-cache cores as that is all it has)
|
| > A 700 MHz frequency difference may sound like lot first,
| but as the data in our full Ryzen 9 7950X3D review shows
| today, the frequencies significantly above 5 GHz are only
| reachable on the second CCD, the one that does not have the
| cache, so it can run higher voltages, which lets it achieve
| those clock speeds.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| Does this 7950X3D have an iGPU?
|
| P.S: the table in TFA lists the 7700 as having the same 105W as
| the 7700X. I think that's a slight mistake and the 7700 is 65W
| max listed TDP instead. FWIW I'm considering a 7700 for I'm not
| ultra happy with my 3700X (one of the reason being it has no iGPU
| and I could find a passive GPU with a NVidia chipset, forcing me
| to use proprietary drivers in Linux and it's a major PITA for if
| I hack on ther kernel I then need to apply the NVidia patches
| every time)
| arprocter wrote:
| If you're on a 3700X you'll need a new board and RAM for AM5
|
| Assuming your motherboard has video outputs it'll be much
| cheaper to stay on AM4 and throw in a 5700G
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| I think I'll just get rid of it (give it to the wife or
| something): there are several things I don't like about it.
| No USB-C port (sure I could add an adapter), only 1 Gb/s
| ethernet on the mobo, etc. I'm not even sure I can just put a
| 5700G in it without having the flashing mobo.
|
| I'll probably build something around an Asus B650-Plus mobo:
| it's got USB-C stock, 2.5 Gbit/s ethernet, DDR5 (I know it's
| pricier and boots slower, but it's faster too), etc.
|
| I'll reuse one of the NVMe .2 SSD I've got laying around so
| the whole build should set me back 1 K EUR (with 32 GB of
| DDR5), which is quite okay.
| carom wrote:
| I just fell into this hole. Started a rebuild and the only
| thing moving to the new computer is my 3090.
| arprocter wrote:
| Yeah - I was debating switching from 5600X to 5800X3D, but
| it probably makes more sense to wait for the AM5 dust to
| settle and redo the whole thing
| mastax wrote:
| I vaguely remember that the iGPUs in the 7000 series had some
| trouble with Linux support. May be wrong, but do look into
| that. Might need a bleeding-edge kernel and mesa.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| There was a blog post posted here a few weeks/months(?) ago
| but basically the person was using an old kernel. I'll look
| more into it.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| This is a recurring theme with AMD, going back to (at
| least?) the Zen 1 APUs.
|
| Initial linux support is buggy, and you basically have to
| run a bleeding edge kernel.
| alanfranz wrote:
| You can find some passive rx550 and rx560 which work great on
| Linux with OSS drivers.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| Ah nice, I'll try to see if I can find one that can do 4K @
| 75 Hz (well 3840x1600 really, not 4K but if it does 4K it's
| good for me).
| treesciencebot wrote:
| Yes [1]! IIRC the iGPU is located in the I/O die [2] which is
| pretty much the same in all their consumer SKUs (so I don't
| expect any changes in either memory controller or the iGPU for
| their X3D models).
|
| [1]: https://www.amd.com/en/products/apu/amd-ryzen-9-7950x3d
| [2]: https://chipsandcheese.com/2023/01/05/amds-
| zen-4-part-3-syst...
| W1zzardTPU wrote:
| Thanks for pointing out the error in the specs table, I failed
| at copy paste, fixed now ;)
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| My pleasure and thanks for fixing it!
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Yes, its very minimal though, and AMD makes more "balanced"
| CPUs with an IGP that might work with your existing
| motherboard.
|
| The 3 die chips like this are probably not the best choice for
| passive cooling, as they burn a lot of power on interchip
| communication.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| Oh I don't necessarily want to passive cool the whole box...
| I typically stuff a Be Quiet! CPU cooler and a BeQuiet! PSU
| and I'm happy like that.
| zekica wrote:
| Yes, it has an iGPU like all 7xxx desktop Ryzen CPUs. But the
| GPU has only 2 RDNA2 CUs compared to 96 RDNA3 CUs in Radeon
| RX7900XTX, or 80 RDNA2 CUs in RX6900XT. For example, mobile
| Ryzen 6800H has 12 RDNA2 CUs. So it is fine for desktop use
| like the Intel (non XE) iGPUs.
| Macha wrote:
| What do you need the iGPU to render?
|
| A desktop or IPMI? Sure, it has one.
|
| An actual game? It may as well not. It won't compete with the
| iGPUs on Intel CPUs or even AMD's APUs.
| brundolf wrote:
| Silly question: what constrains cache sizes? What prevents just
| making them bigger and bigger?
| hajile wrote:
| Cache size is constrained by different things at different
| levels.
|
| Cache uses 6 transistors per bit while normal RAM uses 1
| transistor and 1 capacitor. You can buy a LOT more RAM per
| dollar than you could buy cache. This has been further
| exacerbated by poor SRAM scaling with each new fabrication
| node. It's usually 20-30% instead of 60-80% for other
| transistors and is actually 0% for TSMC's upcoming N3 node. AMD
| chose to fab their RDNA 3 GPU die on 5nm, but their SRAM dies
| on 6nm because the cost savings were much bigger than the
| effect of a slightly larger die.
|
| DRAM typically has a maximum cycle speed of around 300-500MHz
| due to the capacitors having more restrictive charge/discharge
| rates (when you see something like 6400MT/s, that's not random
| access speed, but is instead the aggregate speed of _slowly_
| reading thousands of cells in parallel at one time into a cache
| then quickly sending the results over the wire).
|
| Once you move away from bulk storage into high-performance
| caches, you have to discuss speed, latency, and associativity.
| As cache gets bigger, keeping lookup times low requires more
| and more transistors to control the cache and keep it coherent
| with both the CPU/threads and main memory. If you want to make
| that controller smaller, it will mean lowering clockspeeds,
| altering latencies, changing associativity, etc. At a physical
| level, faster caches will require higher-performance
| transistors which require more die space and power per
| transistor too.
|
| Sometimes, the tradeoffs aren't what you might expect. A great
| example is AMD moving from 64kb of I-cache in Zen1 to 32kb
| I-cache in Zen 2, 3, and 4 because they found the tighter
| latencies were more important in their uarch than the higher
| hit rate.
|
| There's a further constraint for AMD's 3D chip where the cache
| reduces heat transfer forcing lower CPU clockspeeds.
| Unfortunately there's not much room on the substrate to add the
| cache _beside_ the CPU. Infinity Cache on RDNA3 also uses a
| significant portion of it 's die space for the super-fast
| interconnect with the GPU die. I suspect a similar thing
| happens here too.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Die space. There's a maximum reticle size. You can't make chips
| bigger than that without using multi-chip techniques like wafer
| scale integration, chiplets and so on.
|
| If you do a full reticle chip and use most of it for memory you
| can get about 1GB of SRAM. But that would also be extremely
| expensive.
| hajile wrote:
| It's not quite as bad as you might think (though it is bad).
|
| TSMC N5 is 0.021um per SRAM cell in high-density
| configuration (still going to be 5-10x faster switching than
| DRAM). That's about 47.62 bits/um. With 1,000,000 um2 per
| mm2. EUV reticle limit is 858mm2.
|
| That amounts to 40,857,142,857 bits or about 4.756GB. That's
| almost exactly 250 dies per wafer. TSMC N5 wafers cost
| $17,000 or roughly $68 per chip (you can get very close to
| 100% yields on this kind of very basic chip). If we use part
| of the chip for internal controllers and interconnects, it
| would be about $70 per 2-4GB.
|
| The highest-clocked DDR5 RAM I could find with minimal
| searching was $360 for 32GB.
|
| The SRAM version would cost $560 at the cheapest for just the
| 32GB RAM not counting the RAM controller chips and all the
| packaging costs. With profits and everything included, your
| final price tag would likely be around $750 if you could
| produce in bulk and $1000 if you could not.
|
| On the plus side, worrying about stuff like CAS latency would
| basically be a thing of the past with the bottleneck once
| again becoming the speed over the wire. Power consumption
| would also be lower without the need to constantly refresh. I
| doubt that anyone wants to pay that much money for
| disproportionally marginal increase in performance, but
| looking at all the people forking over thousands to scalpers
| for GPUs, maybe I'm wrong.
| pizza234 wrote:
| AFAIK, power and speed. There's an interesting paper on this
| topic: [Cache Design Trade-offs for Power and Performance
| Optimization: A Case
| Study](http://iacoma.cs.uiuc.edu/CS497/LP5a.pdf).
| moffkalast wrote:
| "With power and speed one can achieve many things."
|
| - Jeremy Clarkson
| pyrolistical wrote:
| Distance (hence latency) to compute cores? This is why stacking
| works. The z distance wasn't previously utilized
| cma wrote:
| SRAM burns more power and uses more die space than DRAM
|
| Some do make them bigger and bigger, like the whole-die
| cerebras AI chip.
| hajile wrote:
| That's only partially true.
|
| SRAM doesn't need to be refreshed constantly like DRAM, so
| SRAM will use LESS power when not switching. We think it's
| different because something like L1 cache is CONSTANTLY
| switching. It should be noted that the power cost per GB
| still isn't worse than DRAM, but there's way more data being
| transferred.
|
| Once you reach L3/L4 cache, it's not switching nearly as
| often and the actual total power becomes way less than
| sending data over from RAM. This is one reason why AMD (and
| now Nvidia) saved so much power with Infinity Cache on RDNA
| 2.
|
| The big issue with SRAM is that it requires 6 transistors per
| bit while DRAM requires 1 bit plus 1 capacitor, so capacity
| per mm2 of die area is much worse. That capacitor keeps thing
| cheap, but is also the reason why individual DRAM cells can
| only operate at 300-500MHz while SRAM can easily operate into
| the many GHz range.
| stracer wrote:
| More cache means slower read/write operations to it, and less
| transistors for other things.
| convolvatron wrote:
| suprised there are three answers that dont mention area. the
| larger a die is the more expensive it is to produce, since the
| chance of getting a defect goes up. wafer-scale integration
| works by providing sufficient redundancy and/or routing to
| avoid damaged areas, but that too has a cost.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Do we have an easy to find brand/line with ECC memory at
| reasonable prices yet?
| oynqr wrote:
| Nope
| runjake wrote:
| I don't know what reasonable prices are to you, but
| PCPartPicker can answer your question:
|
| https://pcpartpicker.com/products/memory/#E=1,11
|
| Filter for the memory amount and prices that work for you.
| wtallis wrote:
| You could have at least chosen a set of filters restricted to
| memory that's actually compatible with the CPUs under
| discussion: requiring DDR5, and only supporting unbuffered
| DIMMS. The correct filters are:
| https://pcpartpicker.com/products/memory/#E=1&b=ddr5
| lavezzi wrote:
| At least the DDR5 memory I have been tracking in recent months
| has come down like ~40%
| treesciencebot wrote:
| 2 x 32GB ECC UDIMM DDR5-4800 RAM is going around for ~280$ here
| (including a %20 VAT, so I'd assume it would be a little bit
| cheaper in the states). Not really unreasonable considering
| regular DIMMs (albeit with higher speeds like 6000) going for
| 400$ for the same configuration.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Not merely the modules but chipset and firmware support are
| required as well. Sometimes they are even incompatible so
| certification comes up. Put together a few cheap things and
| the price jumps to business levels.
| xeromal wrote:
| Why do people use M for Megabytes?
| zamadatix wrote:
| The way I understand it JEDEC had standardized KB/MB/GB being
| multiple-of-2-based in memory specs prior to the IEC
| standardising KiB/MiB/GiB for the same. As a result it kind of
| just stuck in the space since the idea of multiple-of-10 cache
| is a bit silly anyways so there is no risk for confusion.
| sp332 wrote:
| That doesn't answer why people use M instead of MB let alone
| MiB.
| [deleted]
| Razengan wrote:
| Right they should use for Biggabytes (the hierarchy being byte
| < bigbyte < biggabyte < biggestbytes)
| alex_duf wrote:
| I think OP meant, why not using the standardised MiB, and the
| answer is: because it's not that well known.
| perihelions wrote:
| AnandTech sees some intriguing regressions on certain benchmarks,
|
| https://www.anandtech.com/show/18747/the-amd-ryzen-9-7950x3d... (
| _" CPU Benchmark Performance: Simulation"_)
|
| Worst is Factorio, which is down -47% against the 5800X3D (a
| previous-generation CPU that also uses stacked L3 cache), on the
| benchmark "10K trains". Wonder what's going on there?
|
| - _" We would have expected higher performance in our Factorio
| benchmark, as the Ryzen 7 5800X3D and its 3D V-Cache did yield
| some impressive gains. This is likely due to the AMD PPM
| Provisioning and 3D V-Cache driver opting for frequency over
| cache when running this benchmark."_
| shock-value wrote:
| Typical AMD self-defeating negligence -- leave one of the games
| most likely to benefit from the v-cache off the whitelist of
| titles set to preferentially use it until after the initial
| review window.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Factorio (unfortunately) isn't a very typical benchmark.
|
| The "run AAAs at low graphics at 1080p" trend among review
| sites is kinda stupid though.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| jrmg wrote:
| Is there a point to going beyond 60 updates/s in Factorio?
| Because if not the system seems to be doing the correct thing
| and using less power. I hope AMD isn't causing higher power
| usage for all users just to game some benchmarks!
| Filligree wrote:
| 60 updates/second only happens while you're still running a
| small base.
| FeepingCreature wrote:
| It's not like the CPU looks at the FPS to decide how to
| clock. Factorio has extremely variable CPU demand as your
| base grows.
| jrmg wrote:
| Modern CPU and scheduler combos will in fact try to do
| that or, at least, do something that has that as a second
| order effect. They'll try to run the CPU at a speed that
| evens out regular bursts into steady loads, on the lowest
| power core on which that's possible to do.
|
| Edit: although, for that to work for this workload
| Factorio itself would need to be updating at a steady 60
| updates/s, which I guess is not actually the case here...
| likeclockwork wrote:
| What driver is responsible for assigning specific games to
| specific CPU CCDs?
|
| Is this a real thing? Is it available on Linux? Or am I
| sticking with Intel?
| goosedragons wrote:
| It's the CPU scheduler. You can easily avoid this by just
| not buying an X3D variant. Recent Intel CPUs can have the
| same problem where processes get assigned to the efficiency
| cores instead of performance cores if the right scheduler
| isn't used (like by using Windows 10 or an old Linux distro
| without explicit support)
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Or buy an X3D that's homogeneous, like the 5800X3D or
| upcoming 7800X3D.
|
| I have no idea why AMD made the 7950X3D be this weird
| 50/50 split. Why not make both CCDs have 3D V-cache and
| make it the true halo part it should be? Then cut costs
| with the 7900X3D?
| mort96 wrote:
| The added cache isn't free; the CCD with vcache runs at a
| significantly lower clock speed. If every task was always
| put on the most appropriate CCD, the heterogeneous
| approach is pretty much a direct advantage, as frequency-
| sensitive workloads get high frequencies and cache-
| sensitive workloads get lots of cache.
|
| Whether it will ever get good enough at picking CCD
| remains to be seen though.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Perhaps but I have no idea how any scheduler can possibly
| figure out if a workload is frequency or cache sensitive.
| The current strategy seems to be "if game, use cache,
| else use frequency" and it sorta works OK-ish? Although
| then there's games that aren't detected right (like
| Factorio) and it's then a terrible result.
|
| But if you look at single threaded results with it set to
| "prefer cache" it's not really _that_ much slower. Yes
| you 'd have a flagship with lower single-threaded
| Cinebench results, but I mean that also happens with
| pretty much every HEDT platform and nobody bats an eye at
| that. The results are still a _significant_ step beyond
| the 5000 series single core results.
| BackBlast wrote:
| There was some outcry about 5800X3D having lower clocks.
| This was there "we solved the clock speed problem with a
| v-cache SKU" move, which was promised somewhere... And I
| guess, if you use games as a primary load and they fix
| their scheduler, then it seems to work for both cases.
|
| But I don't like this franken chip. I would much rather
| 7800X3D. But then, I don't play games, so the scheduler
| would just be terrible.
| doikor wrote:
| So they can sell us a 7990X3D 6 months down the line for
| $1000
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Does AMD have a history of this blatant of a move? That
| would be an Nvidia level of arrogance.
| doikor wrote:
| In this case it more depends on what Intel does. If Intel
| somehow beats this before Zen 5 is ready I don't see why
| not. AMD has these all cores with v-cache parts available
| on its EPYC lineup so it is technically possible. (not
| yet with Zen 4 but Zen 3 parts do exist)
| sitkack wrote:
| They are no longer the underdog, I would expect behavior
| parity with the other semiconductor vendors.
| goosedragons wrote:
| Because the added 3D V-cache increases heat. That's also
| why the X3D variants have lower clocks than the non-X3D
| versions. Two CCDs with V-cache is apparently too hot.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| That doesn't pass a sniff test at all. The 7950X3D TDP is
| 120W vs. the 7950X's 170W, even ignoring that modern TDP
| is a dumb metric actual power consumption also backs that
| up - the 7950X3D uses signiifcantly less power than a
| 7950X. And, as an expected result of that, the 7950X3D
| also runs cooler as a result than the 7950X does. There's
| no evidence to support a thermal or power limit here.
|
| And it wasn't that different for the 5800X vs. 5800X3D,
| either. The extra cache at the same TDP seems to
| translate to around a 200mhz clock speed loss,
| temperatures otherwise the ~same.
|
| Cache is also not very power hungry in general. Perhaps
| you meant it was a thermal _barrier_ but again see above
| - all evidence points to AMD having figured that part
| out, there 's no hint of thermal constraints on either
| the previous nor current 3d v-cache parts.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Previously that wasn't the issue, the issue (according to
| AMD) was that there was a huge interchip communication
| bottleneck with the extra L3 on both chips.
|
| If thats fixed, then AMD is just being cheap :P
| paulmd wrote:
| epyc has v-cache on every die on -X skus, doesn't it?
| it's fine
|
| https://www.anandtech.com/show/17323/amd-releases-milan-
| x-cp...
|
| > Critically, AMD has opted to equip all of their new
| V-cache EPYC chips with the maximum 768 MB of L3 cache,
| which in turn means all 8 CCDs must be present, from the
| top SKU (EPYC 7773X) to the bottom SKU (EPYC 7373X).
| Instead, AMD will be varying the number of CPU cores
| enabled in each CCD.
|
| (unff 768MB of cache)
|
| afaik AMD has said the _voltage_ is one limit because
| they share a voltage rail, so, you can 't go outside the
| operating limits of the v-cache die. But thermals are
| another because the cache die does limit thermal transfer
| out of the CCD as well. They did shave it down (to
| maintain package height) which helps somewhat but I think
| it does run at least a bit hotter due to the separation
| between dies. But voltage is, afaik, the primary
| limitation, and I've never heard of cache coherency as
| being the problem.
|
| I don't think they're lying about the cache die hurting
| clocks, that's obviously true from 5800X vs 5800X3D and
| lower clocks hurts performance in some applications, so
| they're legitimately trying to offer the best all-around-
| performer they can as a general-purpose CPU. But I also
| think they're being very careful about how much they let
| Ryzen cannibalize their Epyc X3D lineup too, and doing
| their best to salami-slice this into multiple releases.
|
| There's no reason they couldn't have done 5900X3D last
| gen, and I bet eventually we will see a dual-cache-die
| release too. There is (based on Epyc) pretty obviously no
| technical limitation here, they just don't want to sell
| it to you right now. You can make excuses like "oh the
| market just isn't there" but... I think they will do it
| eventually. For now they are just using it to distinguish
| between Ryzen and Epyc, previously it was if you wanted
| >8 cores, now it is 12C and 16C but only one cache die,
| in a gen or three they will throw in the towel and let
| you buy all-cache-die configs if that's what you want.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| They very specifically said it was an interconnect issue.
| With the extra L3, adjacent dies made so many requests to
| each other's cache that it turned into a bottleneck, and
| this wasnt an issue on Milan X because its IO die is
| apparently beefier.
|
| I cant find the source because I am on mobile and now
| google search is flooded with X3D chatter :/
| MrFoof wrote:
| This is a very short-sighted approach. MCM is coming to
| Intel too. Moreover, hybrid architectures are coming to
| AMD with Zen 5. I've historically argued that Zen 4 X3D
| is a bit of a "beta test" prior to Zen 5, where scheduler
| improvements are going to be far more impactful when AMD
| moves to a hybrid architecture like Intel did with their
| 12th gen. Zen 4 X3D is the time to learn things and fix
| initial mistakes, before Zen 5 is much more of a prime
| time, especially in the data center.
|
| This is going to require scheduler improvements not only
| from the microprocessor manufacturers, but the Windows,
| BSD and Linux kernels. There is going to be non-stop
| improvements to maximize the architectures.
|
| Heck, Linux has an _entirely new scheduler_
| (https://www.phoronix.com/news/Nest-Linux-Scheduling-
| Warm-Cor...) being proposed that not only improves
| performance, but power efficiency, simply by keeping "hot
| cores hot", because the impact is far more relevant today
| than the last time the kernel's scheduler was seriously
| revisited. It's not like multi-core architecture is new
| either, it's just that the core count increase is going
| up so fast the impact keeps getting larger.
|
| -- -----
|
| Although I'd generally agree with a sentiment "don't bet
| on future things you don't have today" the reality is
| software is always catching up to hardware. Moreover, for
| major changes to CPU design, they don't YOLO out
| perfection in one pass -- it takes a while, by many large
| groups, over years, to eke every scrap of performance out
| of it.
|
| NAND is a great example of this. The vast increase in IO
| has hamstrung a lot of stuff. Linux is straight up
| slamming into IO scheduler limits _(NT kernel even more
| so)_ at a level that can be achieved by normal human
| beings, not big companies. That isn 't because NAND is
| bad or flawed. It's because a near future where that kind
| of performance was possible wasn't considered in the IO
| scheduler's design.
|
| In the case of Factorio, I'd bet good money that of ALL
| the game devs out there, the Factorio devs will be
| jumping all over this one to ensure it's resolved
| quickly.
| likeclockwork wrote:
| And there's actually a list of blessed processes in the
| scheduler?!
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Kinda. It's more like "if windows game bar shows up ->
| restrict to cores 0-7"
| W1zzardTPU wrote:
| https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-
| ryzen-9-7950x3d/5.htm...
| BackBlast wrote:
| Depends on good scheduling choices since some threads benefit
| from the higher clocked CCD and others benefit from the higher
| cache CCD. Sounds like AMD is using a lookup table style
| scheduler on windows. I believe the system mostly schedules the
| higher clock CCD by default.
|
| Similar problem to big.little but less differentiation between
| the cores. It's big.big. Kind of a mess outside of the primary
| use case that is games on windows with a static tuned
| scheduler.
| amrb wrote:
| Its worth say that the 3D V-Cache is only on the left of the
| two dies, while the other is frequency unlocked.
|
| Also linking my favorite tech reviewers benchmark they do some
| great Linux/tech videos also!
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNMcdIkef_c
| drewg123 wrote:
| When they manually forced it onto the CCD with 3D-Vcache, they
| saw a 100% speedup:
|
| " _As we can see in our Factorio benchmark, we saw massive
| gains of over 100% when forcing the Ryzen 9 7950X3D to use the
| CCD with the 3D V-Cache as opposed to letting AMD 's PPM
| Provisioning and 3D V-Cache Optimizer drivers do their thing
| automatically._"
| perihelions wrote:
| Oh good catch! I didn't read that far. It's on page 11:
|
| https://www.anandtech.com/show/18747/the-amd-
| ryzen-9-7950x3d... ( _" Conclusion_")
| guilamu wrote:
| 5800x3D has a single CCD so no need to choose which CCD to
| use.
|
| The interesting one will be the 7800X3D.
| HelixEndeavor wrote:
| So presumably a bug that can be fixed by either AMD updating
| their optimizer, Factorio updating to work better with it, or
| both?
| sliken wrote:
| Or just buy the X3D that have cache on each CCD instead of
| half of them.
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| More precisely, buy the X3D that has only one CCD.
|
| There is currently no consumer model with 2 CCDs and X3D
| on both of them.
| tracker1 wrote:
| Yeah... if you're going to see bigger gains from the
| cache, fewer cores in 7800X3D in early April is probably
| a better option (same for gamers).
| bitL wrote:
| Can't you disable the CCD without the 3D cache? I
| remember being able to disable 3 CCDs on my Threadripper
| using Ryzen Master for gaming.
| sliken wrote:
| Right, so the 7800X3D (due in April), the old 5800X3D, or
| any future threadripper or Epycs with the X3D.
|
| Best L3 per core outside of the X3Ds it the 7600 or or
| 7900 CPUs that come with the full size L3 (32mb PER ccd)
| but only 6 cores per CCD (instead of 8).
| [deleted]
| moffkalast wrote:
| If it's a problem for Factorio it's also a problem for
| others, so definitely something to fix on the AMD side.
| rektide wrote:
| Factorio is infamous for being radically memory bandwidth
| limited. Which yes is a problem others will have... but
| not many in gaming afaik.
| Macha wrote:
| Given the primary selling point of these CPUs vs their
| non-X3D version is having more cache for memory access
| heavy workloads, if this is not a problem for your
| workload you're likely not in a position to gain much
| from the X3D variant anyway.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Its more of a fundamental scheduling issue. The unlike
| big/little cores OS has no idea what apps "prefer" cache
| or frequency.
| londons_explore wrote:
| An OS can easily run an app on each for a few
| milliseconds, look at the performance counters to see
| which ends up with more instructions executed, and then
| move the task to where it performs best.
|
| From time to time, it can retry the test, because
| software frequently changes what it spends time doing.
| highwaylights wrote:
| Affinity in the O/S?
|
| A properties page for the executable with a checkbox for
| "favour stacked cache cores" or some such.
| ecnahc515 wrote:
| I'm pretty sure this is how Nvidia's game ready drivers
| work. They come with a bunch of pre-made profiles for
| popular video games, so the optimal settings are
| configured based on what applications are being executed,
| which is also why you have to let it scan for your games,
| so it knows what executables to watch for, so it can
| properly select the right profile to use.
| therein wrote:
| And that's why we have the "Game Ready" driver mess.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| But apps like factorio are extremely dynamic, so thats
| either going to be flakey or its going to spend a lot of
| time/energy bouncing the process between cores.
|
| I wouldn't be too worried about this personally, as
| configuring the few really sensitive apps with
| ProcessLasso or Aniancy is pretty easy.
| somebodythere wrote:
| I don't think the average Factorio gamer is going to know
| that they should do this or how. They will just know that
| their new CPU which was supposed to have better gaming
| performance is doing very, very poorly.
| hnuser123456 wrote:
| You are talking about Factorio players who specifically
| bought an 3D-L3 CPU, I would guess awareness would pretty
| high, personally...
| LoganDark wrote:
| > You are talking about Factorio players who specifically
| bought an 3D-L3 CPU
|
| Factorio players don't necessarily know anything about
| computers. And you don't know if they bought this CPU or
| if it came with their fancy prebuilt.
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| I feel that with good statistics this could be done in
| the OS scheduler successfully. But it's not my area of
| expertise.
| bick_nyers wrote:
| I didn't read the article but according to Gamers Nexus latest
| video you REALLY need the latest BIOS and Chipset drivers for
| this part because it is what tells Windows which CCD the game
| threads should be parked on.
| sct202 wrote:
| I saw on Hardware Unboxed that the non-X3D cores were being
| used for Factorio and that reviewer manually disabled it to
| test correctly.
| sylware wrote:
| One word:
|
| oooooof!
| cronix wrote:
| Gamers Nexus review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gCzXdLmjPY
| varispeed wrote:
| Have you noticed how AMD and Intel just do tiny steps, sometimes
| even not worth writing about when it comes to innovation? It's
| always either AMD matching the new Intel CPU of other way around
| - it's never about eg. completely crushing Intel.
|
| This is the problem of late stage capitalism, where both
| companies are owned by the same large investment funds and they
| use their power to ensure neither company could eat too much
| profits of another.
|
| When AMD was falling behind, they seem to have been "allowed" to
| do the Ryzen and it's back again to "elephant race".
| mjh2539 wrote:
| I mean...it's not in anyone's best interests for the only two
| companies in a given market to completely crush the other,
| right? It would be bad for consumers (increase in prices), bad
| for B2B (increase in prices), bad for workers (wage
| suppression), bad for for the market (monopolies eventually
| focus more of their efforts on rent-seeking than what made them
| profitable in the first place).
| varispeed wrote:
| That is only your assumption. How is Apple crushing the
| laptop market bad for the consumers?
|
| Currently there is a paradox, that if you want to buy high
| quality and performant laptop and affordable laptop, Apple is
| very much the only option. No competition can come close.
| Sort of they got caught with their pants down as they stopped
| innovating just like AMD and Intel.
| [deleted]
| thfuran wrote:
| No, it's the problem of cpu design being really fucking hard.
| varispeed wrote:
| These two things are not mutually exclusive.
| Scandiravian wrote:
| I wish they'd included the results of the undervolted 7950x in
| the graphs (aka ECO mode)
|
| It's sad that performance benchmarks have made market conditions
| where the gain of 5% performance is somehow worth 20%-30% extra
| power consumption (and the noise that follows from that)
| alyandon wrote:
| I just disable PBO on my 3900X - you are 100% correct that an
| extra 5% performance is not worth the extra 30% power
| draw/heat.
| CharlesW wrote:
| For anyone else not familiar with "PBO", it's AMD's
| "Precision Boost Overdrive", which is apparently completely
| different than Precision Boost and Precision Boost 2:
| https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3491-explaining-
| precision...
| anticensor wrote:
| PBO also allows undervolting though: I just applied -30 all
| core offset on my 5950X.
| caycep wrote:
| This is the same as AMD "Eco Mode"?
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| I just turned on Eco Mode last night and was pleasantly
| surprised. In a non rigorous test on my 5600x, Eco Mode had
| zero change to single core performance, unchanged CPU temp.
| Multicore saw a 3% performance drop, but temps were ~12C
| cooler.
|
| Test yourself, but I am definitely going to leave it
| enabled.
| merb wrote:
| a 5600x runs at only 65w or so and can be cooled down to
| 40C like all the time. I'm not sure if I would prefer to
| run it at 16w lower, because I bareley even reach the tdp
| or even tjmax.
| mastax wrote:
| The X3D chips do at least have a reduced TDP of 120W vs 170W
| (except for the 7800X3D vs the confusingly comparable 7700X's
| 105W). The other thing is that, at least in DIY PC (and botique
| builders like CyberPower) the "gaming" motherboards universally
| increase the maximum peak power target and also commonly enable
| things like all core turbo and precision boost overdrive by
| default. So unless they specify otherwise, like AnandTech I
| think, you can assume most reviewers will be running the CPU
| with more power than the spec but that's a common situation for
| their audience.
| shmerl wrote:
| _> To make sure gaming workloads find the right CCD, AMD has
| implemented a high degree of software-level control, in the form
| of its 3D Vertical Cache Optimizer Driver, which is included with
| the latest version of AMD Chipset Software. This driver ensures
| that workload from games are directed to the CCD with the 3D
| Vertical Cache using dynamic "preferred cores" flagging for the
| Windows OS scheduler._
|
| Yeah, what about games on Linux? I'm pretty sure it will be
| scheduled all over the place.
|
| Also I doubt that scheduler is smart enough to detect it
| dynamically. Do they just use a list of known applications for
| that?
| thanatos519 wrote:
| I already do this by hand with `taskset` when it's important. I
| would totally exploit this asymmetry.
| shmerl wrote:
| Yeah, manually is one method, if you figure out some workload
| benefits from cache more.
| mastax wrote:
| Generally "game detection" is done by finding apps that use
| full-screen exclusive presentation. Could also look for windows
| that are doing the "borderless windowed" thing. That should be
| pretty simple and accurate on its own.
| treesciencebot wrote:
| I was also really curious about Linux benchmarks; and seems
| like Phoronix, a Linux-centric tech review outlet, also
| released their own reviews with tons of game and productivity
| benchmarks running on the latest kernel.
| https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-ryzen9-7950x3d-linux
| shmerl wrote:
| Thanks, just saw it. Looks like it fares well in tested games
| without special scheduler, which is interesting. It falls
| behind 7950X in video encoding.
|
| Code compilation tests are tied with 7950X.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| They probably do use a list of known applications + some
| heuristics around graphics APIs? "List of known games" is
| pretty much what their graphics driver team handles as their
| bread and butter, so doesn't seem like a significant stretch.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Almost certainly not, but you can use custom Aniancy-CPP rules
| to do this yourself on linux.
| ginko wrote:
| I used to be quite proud of the 128MB RAM my first PC came with
| around 2000.
| pella wrote:
| "AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D Linux Performance"
|
| https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-ryzen9-7950x3d-linux
|
| "AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D Desktop CPU Review Roundup"
|
| https://videocardz.com/150677/amd-ryzen-9-7950x3d-desktop-cp...
| Prunkton wrote:
| the Linux test leaves me quiet confused how to pick my next
| linux gaming cpu.
|
| On the one hand side Gamers Nexus is making a point [0] (there
| are on/off performance charts later in the video) why it is
| super important to install the latest windows drivers + special
| windows gaming software to make use of the heterogeneous
| architecture. On the other hand side the linux tests are much
| better then I would expected since it can not know out of the
| box what core to pick. Maybe the 50/50 pick is good enough for
| how the charts look...
|
| [0]: https://youtu.be/9gCzXdLmjPY?t=350
| Firther wrote:
| It's not quite the same out of the box experience (after
| making sure you have the latest chipset drivers, use the
| balanced power plan and NOT the performance plan, and have
| Xbox Game Bar..), but it's possible to force certain
| processes and executables to run on specific CPU cores in
| Linux using taskset and verify that they're running on the
| correct cores. It will be a little tedious if you play a lot
| of games on Steam as you'll inevitably run into games that
| use proton and others that use native binaries, but there's
| nothing that should prevent you from being able to manually
| schedule games/programs that need the extra cache onto the
| cores that have the extra cache.
| Prunkton wrote:
| good point, so a low budget solution that whitelist games
| for specific cores shouldn't be to hard to assemble
| mosquitobiten wrote:
| What about a VM with GPU pass-trough? Let's say I have
| plenty of storage and just create different VMs with
| selected distro or winXI that have certain games. Could
| that also be an option? Just drag and drop the appropriate
| game in the VM storage?
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| TBH if you are CPU bottlenecked in your linux games (hence
| you need a new CPU), you are probably playing simulation
| games, and these tests are kinda useless anyway.
| xwolfi wrote:
| Keep the one you have now and pick a better GPU?
| Prunkton wrote:
| in like 2 weeks it will be the 10th anniversary of the PC.
| The GPU is a nvidia GTX(?) 1060 aka already oversized for
| the 3. Gen i7 setup, so: nope :D
| mosquitobiten wrote:
| https://youtu.be/jNMcdIkef_c?t=106
| sylware wrote:
| When do I get my 8GB or 16GB system, no DRAM, only cache memory?
| Will probably need a bigger die though.
| avereveard wrote:
| ok but can it run ksp 2?
| satvikpendem wrote:
| I wish the 64 core Threadrippers were still available for a
| decent price for HEDT, it's all Epyc or Threadripper Pro which
| are much more expensive for minimal increase in power over the
| 3990x.
| sixothree wrote:
| RIP threadripper workstations support.
| mosquitobiten wrote:
| I think they scaled it down to the actual size of the market
| which is pretty small and that might look like what you're
| saying.
| Ekaros wrote:
| The inflation has really hit the consumer market... 700$ for CPU
| and over thousand for GPU... Memory is not cheap either...
|
| Not that it won't sell, but still these price points for
| something still called consumer start to be high. You could get a
| whole portable PC for same money.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| Flagship CPUs/GPUs have always be considered
| enthusiast/prosumer level with relatively dubious
| performance/value propositions.
|
| The first Core i7 extremes (which fill roughly the same product
| niche) were ~$1000 like over 10 years ago
| (https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-990x-extreme-
| ed...)
| mabbo wrote:
| Is it? Have a look at this article from 2002:
|
| > With the cuts, the wholesale cost of a 733-MHz Pentium III
| drops 3 percent, from $776 to $754, while the 700-MHz version
| drops 3 percent from $754 to $733 in volume.
|
| https://www.cnet.com/culture/intel-cuts-pentium-iii-prices-1...
|
| $754 in today's dollars is over $1250.
|
| Cutting edge processors are cheaper than they were 20 years
| ago.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Indeed. People forget that flagship Intel Extreme Edition or
| AMD Athlon FX chips from ~17 years ago were retailing for
| over 1000$ in the money of that time. In today's roubles they
| would be around 1500$ adjusted for inflation. Ouch!
|
| Today 750$ for a flagship CPU that buys you the best possible
| compute in the consumer space is not a bad deal at all. It's
| never been a better time for X86 CPU shopping. You most
| likely don't need to buy the most expensive flagship CPU.
| There's great options for every budget.
|
| The GPU market on the other hand is completely fucked. In
| 2007 you could get a 8800 GTS for 360$ (520$ today) giving
| you near flagship performance.
|
| I feel like AMD and Intel are competing in the CPU space
| while AMD and Nvidia entered in a gentlemen's agreement to
| control the GPU market.
| bombcar wrote:
| Yeah, the "top of the line" processors were often insanely
| priced (and some were not available for love or money,
| basically paper launches only available to those with
| connections).
|
| https://www.redhill.net.au/iu.php is a good read down
| memory lane about those things, even as far back as the 286
| you had it. Sometimes very rarely and almost as a mistake
| the "best bang for the buck" processor AND the "fastest in
| the world" would overlap.
| kolbe wrote:
| I see much more affordable CPUs on that list. You can buy those
| instead of the best of the best.
| skullone wrote:
| I mean, this is a flagship CPU, up around Xeon Gold
| capabilities. Plenty of Ryzen3/5 for a deal out there for a
| good computer otherwise
| sixothree wrote:
| I think the worst part is not the high flagship price. It's
| that prices don't fall for generations the same way they used
| to.
| V__ wrote:
| This is true for the high-end, but at the same time, for about
| 180EUR you can get a last gen 5700G which has nice performance
| and can play most games. Or you get the normal but more
| powerful CPU for that price and combine it with an ARC GPU.
| It's not as cheap as it once was, but it's not that bad.
| bob1029 wrote:
| > 700$ for CPU
|
| This is a _flagship_ CPU part. Consumer is a broad segment.
| Even the peasants like shiny things every now and again.
|
| You could get something that would be imperceptibly-slower for
| most workloads and fits into the same socket for less than
| $300.
| briffle wrote:
| my 350Mhz Pentium 2 cost about $700. So did my 19" CRT
| monitor..
| [deleted]
| reisse wrote:
| You're wrong here. This is top-of-the line enthusiast CPU. They
| always have costed around 1k$, see e. g. Intel Core i9 Xtreme
| lineup (the chips with 'X' designation here: https://en.wikiped
| ia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i9_processo...).
|
| You can have absolutely fine 8c16t CPU which will handle
| anything you can possibly throw at it for 230$ from Amazon
| (https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-5800X-16-Thread-
| Processor/d...).
| robin_reala wrote:
| I was actually wondering what the original Extreme Edition
| P4s retailed for a couple of decades ago, and it turns out to
| be $999. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
| matja wrote:
| The big cache version of the Pentium Pro (512kB) was 1,217
| USD (1996) - 2320 USD (2023) with inflation.
| tracker1 wrote:
| I paid a bit more than that for my current 5950X a couple years
| ago now. Top of the stack CPUs have always had a pretty big
| price jump. Though, I would class the 7950X(3D) as similar to
| HEDT even if it's the top of the consumer models... if you
| don't need a ton of i/o, there's a lot of value there depending
| on what you're doing.
|
| GPU pricing seems a bit more insane, given a lot of the demand
| has actually died down at this point, and the mfgs are
| definitely restricting production to keep prices (and margins)
| up. It's kind of sad there really isn't anything comparatively
| good on the lower pricing end ($100-300) where historically
| you'd see around 60-70% the performance well under half the
| price.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >>You could get a whole portable PC for same money.
|
| Not with the same performance you cant...
|
| Not even close
|
| >>The inflation has really hit the consumer market... 700$ for
| CPU and over thousand for GPU...
|
| $700 for the Top of the line CPU is actually low, at the
| highest of intel monopoly period they were charging well in
| excess of $1000 (closer to $1700 if I remember) for their I7 K
| line enthusiast PC's.. Even today $700 is cheap compared to the
| Threadripper line AMD seems to have given up on.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| The challenge is compounded by the fact that you need to buy a
| whole host of new parts at the same time. A new motherboard to
| handle AM5, DDR5 memory, and most likely a new PSU given how
| power hungry CPUs and graphics cards have become.
| jacooper wrote:
| A better example would be the 4070ti really, 700$ for a
| 70-class GPU.
| Johanx64 wrote:
| Nope. Ryzen 5 5600 6c/12t is 135eur.
|
| i5 12400f 6c/12t is 155 eur.
|
| You can get 8c/16c for a bit more, 5700x for 190eur.
|
| Value DDR4 16/32gb kit and a reasonable basic mobo will give
| you an amazing system.
|
| The only thing which still is kind of pricey is GPUs.
|
| This 700eur cpu is the very upper end of consumer market.
|
| 5800x3D 8c/16c for 300eur is the most I would spend personally.
| goosedragons wrote:
| $700 topish tier CPUs are nothing new. The Pentium 4 Extreme
| Edition had a $1000 MSRP for instance. Even in 2004 you could
| get an entire laptop for the money, even an Apple laptop with
| the base model iBook G4 selling for $1000. There is still good
| CPUs in the $100-$300 range.
|
| GPU prices have gone insane though with mid-range having
| somehow moved up to $400-$500 where high-end was a decade ago.
| qzw wrote:
| The GPU market is definitely suffering from having only one
| dominant player. I'm hoping that AMD is able to invest some
| of the extra cash flow since the introduction of Ryzen toward
| making their GPUs fully competitive with NVIDIA rather than
| having to play catch up all the time. Also, NVIDIA kind of
| has to price gouge on this generation because they made so
| much money during COVID and the crypto boom. Unless they want
| to be like Zoom or Peloton and lose 75+% of their market cap,
| they have to keep the profit curve from plunging. And they
| know there's latent demand from gamers who were priced out of
| the market before, plus pretty strong interest from the AI
| side, so why not keep the prices high to maximize profit?
|
| I also think another factor in the rise of GPU prices is how
| quickly things have been moving on the display front. Not
| only did we go more or less directly from 1080p to 4K,
| thereby quadrupling resolution, now we're not shooting for 30
| or even 60 fps minimums anymore. We want 1% lows to be above
| 120, 144, or even 240fps so that our high refresh rate
| monitors are properly fed. Oh, and we don't want to turn down
| image quality while doing it. Now throw in VR, where high-end
| headsets can be 4K or more _per eye_ , and you've got a lot
| of pixels to push. So top-end GPUs have to be these behemoths
| with several kg of cooling hanging off of them, because they
| are now the biggest power consumer in the system. Yet they
| still have to fit into the real estate allotted to just a few
| peripheral slots, usually in an orientation that's not
| optimal for airflow. It's quite the engineering challenge,
| and I kind of see why GPUs at every level have gotten so
| expensive, since they're all priced relative to the top
| range.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Lots of software could run in just 128MiB, especially if it could
| page stuff out to ssd.
|
| CPU's usually have a cache-as-ram mode that can enable this.
|
| Does this mean that systems where you can hot swap _all_ the ram
| at once will be possible?
| bee_rider wrote:
| It doesn't feel that long ago, that computers would have
| hundreds of megabytes of RAM. I remember it -- my back is a
| little sore, but I've still got all my hair.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Yeah, it's crazy that this thing could run Windows 95 from
| cache only.
|
| I used to see SQL Server 7 databases running on NT4 servers
| with 64 MB of memory! This cache is _double_ that.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Lots of software? Like linux, webbrowsers, etc? Arguably all
| software could run in 128 megs, especially if RAM was "swap"
| and people stopped obsessing over their javascript UIs.
|
| It still seems a bit far off now, but come on, in 5 years or
| less we'll see 1GB, that gigabyte level is a huge implicit
| marketing number.
|
| Might be a harbinger of a new movement in computing: all-cache
| computing, and reworking OSs and slimming down libraries and
| other things to fit into cache. It might be the only shot at
| getting a slimdown revolution going before moore's law really
| stalls in a couple decades.
| noobermin wrote:
| Let's be real, this just means now web developers can ship
| their own browser written in electron with the javascript
| interpreter written in nodejs, and that is literally what they
| will do with this.
| baq wrote:
| still waiting for ie10 compiled to wasm so i can run my
| favorite activex in chrome
| [deleted]
| jiggawatts wrote:
| You joke, but I can imagine a scenario where someone ports a
| complex GUI app to the web using something like Blazor and
| accidentally ends up with a full web browser running in WASM,
| on top of an actual browser.
|
| I can also foresee an entire _industry_ popping up to do this
| on purpose in the name of "compatibility". I'm sure the
| marketing will talk about the efficiency of being able to run
| "true" IE6 on top of Chrome in 2030.
|
| It's also just a matter of time until we see Docker images
| for running Windows 95 apps in the browser via WINE on top of
| a user-mode Linux kernel emulator.
|
| Check back here in 7 years to see which of the above
| prophecies materialised.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| moremetadata wrote:
| I've always found L2 cache delivered better performance for the
| work I do.
| eklitzke wrote:
| I don't think there are many applications where you can run the
| whole stack (including OS) in 128 MB of RAM, but where you also
| need a $700 CPU.
| undersuit wrote:
| Cache-as-Ram has been apparently been removed from AMD Zen
| processors.
|
| https://git.furworks.de/coreboot-mirror/coreboot/commit/a245...
| sct202 wrote:
| Wow basically the same pref as a 13900k but so much less power
| usage in the aggregated tests.
|
| Apps : 79w vs 169w
|
| Games : 56w vs 143w
| jeffbee wrote:
| In my experience you can tune the i9-13900K way down on power
| and barely notice or not at all. I wouldn't be surprised if
| these benchmarks came out the same way on the Intel side with
| power caps set at 125W.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I feel like I must be asking a dumb question, because it is a
| pretty obvious one. But would it be better to just buy a
| lower-performing, lower-cost chip in that case? Does the
| silicon lottery they results in an i9 also result in better
| performance per watt?
| RetpolineDrama wrote:
| > But would it be better to just buy a lower-performing,
| lower-cost chip in that case?
|
| No, because the best silicon is reserved for the highest
| performance parts.
| nfriedly wrote:
| I haven't done this recently, and it was in a laptop CPU,
| but in the past I was able to get a combination of lower
| power/temps and better performance by undervolting an Intel
| CPU. Presumably something similar can be done with current-
| gen desktop CPUs, although perhaps they're running closer
| to the limits these days.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Yeah, it definitely depends on your use case. In my opinion
| the only reason to get the K or KS SKU is that you want,
| and are sensitive to, the extra speed bins you get on the 2
| magic P-cores. The KS is a full 10% faster on single-
| threaded, compute-bound workloads. That's like importing
| the next generation CPU from the future and it is worth it
| for some use cases. Even with 1 core running at 6GHz you
| won't blow out a 125W power cap.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-27 23:03 UTC)