[HN Gopher] AMD Ryzen 7040 Series Shows Great AVX-512 Performanc...
___________________________________________________________________
AMD Ryzen 7040 Series Shows Great AVX-512 Performance for Laptops /
Mobile
Author : mfiguiere
Score : 80 points
Date : 2023-07-13 15:42 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.phoronix.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.phoronix.com)
| whalesalad wrote:
| I am torn on i9-13900k vs 7900X. Anyone have linux workstation
| experience with one of these? Missed a big discount on the 7900
| yesterday (prime day) but been leaning towards Intel. Just
| wondering how Linux does with the perf vs. efficiency cores.
| sounds wrote:
| Phoronix test suite should have the data.
| whalesalad wrote:
| i9 wins in most workloads, and it supports DDR4 which is a
| perk since I don't particularly see a need for DDR5 and the
| former is a lot cheaper.
| dhruvdh wrote:
| You may also want to consider power and heat; I don't have
| numbers to share but I think 13900k is understood to be hot
| and power hungry.
| pm2222 wrote:
| 7945hx I like
| tiffanyh wrote:
| The GP is asking about desktop cpu's, the 7945hx is a laptop
| cpu.
| pm2222 wrote:
| 7945hx is very powerful and worth looking into based on
| cpubenchmark. Frankly I don't know much about avx512
| performance though.
| jeffbee wrote:
| The 13900K has more cores and depending on your use case that
| might be nice. As a software developer, I find the "efficiency
| cores" of the 13900K to be similar in steady-state throughput
| to the "performance cores" for embarrassingly parallel
| workloads like C++ builds or ETL from JSON. An analogy I have
| made before is the e-cores are like having a Xeon Gold 6130 as
| a coprocessor. If your use-case is different than mine, you
| might have a different experience.
|
| I also find it amusing, although not professionally relevant,
| to experiment with the unusual abilities of the 13900K that
| descend from its Atom lineage: clusters of 4 e-cores that share
| L2, and the WAITPKG ISA extension that makes switching threads
| extremely fast. On the other hand the 7900X has AVX-512 and I
| would rather have that instead.
| rlupi wrote:
| I haven't touched a 7900X, but AMD Rome and Milan have core
| complex (CCX) that share 16MB L3 cache. AMD Rome has
| significantly faster L3 cache than Intel
| (https://www.anandtech.com/show/14694/amd-rome-epyc-2nd-
| gen/7) and generally more of it overall, but it is split
| among many CCX. This fragmentation can be a problem. ---
|
| On the 13900K...
|
| At home, I have a 13900K (128G 4090 8T+8TSSD) and use
| Mathematica often for personal use. I installed it intially
| in Windows 11 Pro and got abysmal performance in benchmarks
| (worse than 12900 equivalent processor). With help from
| Wolfram customer support, I switched to Linux (Ubuntu): the
| performance is on par with what I'd expect.
|
| My hypothesis is that either the Windows scheduler for
| Windows 11 Pro optimizes for a different performance point
| than Linux, or that it was oblivious of performance vs.
| efficiency core (13900K has double the efficiency cores of
| the previous generation, so if you pick randomly you have a
| lot more chances to end up in a slow core).
|
| This was in the previous minor release of Mathematica, I hope
| they implemented a workaround in the latest version. I don't
| think it was a Mathematica bug, but an OS-level problem (I
| haven't tried, but I can it would be easy to check): many
| report that stable diffusion works better on Linux than
| Windows.
|
| My personal toy project was a reinforcement learning thing,
| for which the CPU was the bottleneck on Windows (performance
| on par with MacStudio M1 Max) and I saw nearly 2x improvement
| switching to Linux.
| whalesalad wrote:
| I will need to do some digging on AVX-512. This is my current
| dev box, which is pretty old by todays standards.
| https://i.imgur.com/ebwJlBi.png
| jeffbee wrote:
| Coming off that machine, I guess I would consider a Xeon
| w7-3455 even though it costs a lot more. Definitely more
| comparable to that league of machine.
| whalesalad wrote:
| mama mia https://www.cdw.com/product/lenovo-
| thinkstation-p7-tower-xeo...
| Aurornis wrote:
| AVX-512 is one of those technologies I thought I'd use all the
| time, but in practice all of the compute heavy workloads I use
| just moved to the GPU.
|
| The real benefit of having AVX-512 client side is that I can test
| hyper-optimized server side code for unique operations.
|
| The problem is that AVX-512 isn't a singular instruction set.
| Different CPUs support different sets of AVX-512 instructions,
| meaning the instruction set on this AMD CPU might not match what
| our servers support anyway. Fortunately the common instructions
| are still useful.
| reocha wrote:
| > The problem is that AVX-512 isn't a singular instruction set.
| Different CPUs support different sets of AVX-512 instructions
|
| CPUs supporting similar but different enough extensions is a
| real pain in the ass, this is why everyone should use Gentoo
| with custom compiler flags.
| sebow wrote:
| >The problem is that AVX-512 isn't a singular instruction set.
|
| Sure, but the bigger and (imo) the actual problem is that
| avx-512 was never popular enough(until now i guess), adopted in
| the eyes of the consumers buying hardware. Intel pioneered it
| somewhat prematurely: just like their octane they tried to make
| it work (so fast) they forgot people actually need some time to
| adopt.[Key point: adoption based on needs, which was lower
| because virtually no dev adopted avx-512 for the masses to
| 'need' it]
|
| In this case avx-512 is a thing that can benefit way more
| people than the "octane" audience(I'm giving this example
| because octane died somewhat similarly to how intel abandoned
| avx-512). Right now AMD ironically steers the avx-512 ship:
| because what matters most is if many people can get their hands
| on it: that drives software adoption and importance to devs.
| Intel should humbly come back to avx-512 now that AMD seems to
| (hopefully) steadily but surely put avx-512 in all their chips.
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| Intel and AMD seem to have settled on a large subset of
| mutually supported AVX-512 instructions (since Ice Lake and Zen
| 4).
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVX-512#CPUs_with_AVX-512
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Zen 4 is still lacking FP16 instructions Sapphire Rapids has.
|
| Someone in the Clear Linux IRC told me that the distro will
| settle on a new x86 level sometime after Sapphire Rapids,
| once AVX512 is sufficiently differentionated from the
| x86-64-v4 AVX512 "baseline." I wonder if this means AMD will
| follow suit?
| SomeRndName11 wrote:
| Oh yes. FP16 is awesome for machine learning inference-only
| tasks. No need to fire up GPU, and so much easier to use.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Yeah I didn't mean FP16 specifically, but just that
| AMD/Intel hopefully won't go out on a limb and try to
| seriously bifurcate AVX512
| paulmd wrote:
| > The problem is that AVX-512 isn't a singular instruction set.
| Different CPUs support different sets of AVX-512 instructions,
| meaning the instruction set on this AMD CPU might not match
| what our servers support anyway. Fortunately the common
| instructions are still useful.
|
| People tend to overstate the complexity of AVX-512 though.
| Chronological order of feature introduction isn't how the
| product was actually introduced, since client, server, and Xeon
| Phi have all followed their own independent development
| process.
|
| No product segment has ever regressed AVX feature support under
| Intel (other than the obvious rugpull at the end with Alder
| Lake).
|
| Alder Lake is a strict superset of Tiger Lake, Tiger Lake is a
| strict superset of Ice Lake, Ice Lake is a strict superset of
| Cannon Lake, Cannon Lake is a strict superset of Skylake-X.
|
| (Rocket Lake is technically Ice Lake/Sunny Cove backported to
| 14nm, and its direct product predecessor is Skylake-X not Tiger
| Lake, which never was officially released on desktop.)
|
| Sapphire Rapids is a strict superset of Cooper Lake, Cooper
| Lake is a strict superset of Cascade Lake, Cascade Lake is a
| strict superset of Skylake-X/Skylake-SP.
|
| For Xeon Phi, Knights Mill is a strict superset of Knights
| Landing. And you completely don't need to care about it unless
| your employer ends in "national labs".
|
| Again, the thing to remember is that dev teams at Intel have
| been very siloed for a long time, and between 10nm delays, 14nm
| capacity shortages, server delays, etc, it has been a long time
| since any of the product teams hit their _chronological_
| roadmaps. So the point in time when any product segment rolls
| out a uarch generation is very hit-or-miss (Golden Cove was
| 12th-gen /Alder Lake on desktop but is only releasing in
| Sapphire Rapids servers this year), and client and server are
| also diverging somewhat in featureset.
|
| (early 14nm didn't go well for Intel either - it's really been
| a rough _decade_ for them, they have absolutely spun their
| wheels and barely managed to get product out the door for a
| _long_ time now.)
|
| But there is never a case where you take a given server/client
| product segment and drop in the newer thing and _regress_ a
| feature (up until the final rugpull with Alder Lake). It 's
| just different progression levels of the "common core" as you
| advance through uarch generations/Coves, and then server/client
| having a few different things bolted on the sides (but they've
| never regressed these things).
|
| It's true though that AMD didn't quite do the same extensions
| as Intel either. But they're a lot closer to Alder Lake
| ("supports everything", until it didn't) than not. And this is
| simply part of developing a new standard - AMD had some with
| SSE4.x and 3DNow! that didn't pan out either.
|
| I did this chart a while ago based on taking the chronological
| ordering of the features and rearranging them based on the
| series they were introduced. Sapphire Rapids isn't quite right,
| it wasn't on the chart at the time so I added it, and it
| doesn't support VAES/VP2INTERSECT after all but you can see the
| monotonic capability progression pretty clearly. If you order
| it by product generation, it's way less intimidating than
| people make it.
|
| https://i.imgur.com/2HLrIjr.png
| jcranmer wrote:
| > No product segment has ever regressed AVX feature support
| under Intel (other than the obvious rugpull at the end with
| Alder Lake).
|
| You can really extend this a bit further: very few x86 ISA
| features have been dropped by newer processors. The complete
| list of such features as of Raptor Lake is MPX, TSX
| (including hardware lock elision), SGX, Branch Monitoring
| Counters, and Power Aware Interrupt Routing, with an
| additional asterisk on AVX-512. There is also talk of a
| future processor dropping support for 16-bit stuff so that
| you can no longer run Windows 3.1 on your machine without
| full-on emulation.
|
| The asterisk with AVX-512 is that processors with P cores and
| E cores don't support AVX-512, whereas the P core lineage
| _did_ support AVX-512 (and in early Alder Lake steppings, you
| could enable support for AVX-512 if you disabled all the E
| cores).
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| The things I want AVX512 for in a laptop:
|
| - AV1 encoders
|
| - VapourSynth
|
| - llama.cpp
|
| - whisper.cpp
|
| - numpy
|
| ...That's about it. Autovectorized AVX512 system packages from
| CachyOS, Clear Linux and such would be cool, but I can live
| without that.
|
| AV1/VapourSynth are branchy, and actually a reasonable fit for
| CPUs. Everything else seems like it would work well on IGPs,
| but alas it has not been done yet. _shrug_
| vnorilo wrote:
| AVX is very useful for audio DSP when you care about latency.
| Which is mostly in the pro audio niche.
| ROTMetro wrote:
| Would love to get my Acustica Audio plugins to use less
| CPU. I've heard good things about the 7XXX processors for
| this.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Linux has this "pulseeffects" package with some nice
| features (eq, left-right balance), but it is a real CPU hog
| (especially for something that sits in the background all
| the time). Kinda wonder if it is worth re-compiling for
| avx-512...
| phkahler wrote:
| >> Linux has this "pulseeffects" package with some nice
| features (eq, left-right balance), but it is a real CPU
| hog
|
| Yeah, but one or two cores should handle it just fine. If
| it really is a hog, it probably needs some optimization.
| Real-time audio DSP has been a thing for decades and
| should not be a hog.
| bee_rider wrote:
| It is running on my laptop so I'm probably being
| unusually picky.
| Remnant44 wrote:
| Out of curiosity, do you have any examples of workloads that
| you have shifted wholesale to the GPU instead of AVX?
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Rendering is a transition in progress.
|
| Some configs (like AMD Radeon + Windows on Cycles) are not
| yet supported, but looking in from the outside, CPU rendering
| looks like its quickly becoming obsolete.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Intel loves creating product segmentation looking for reasons
| to charge some users more, but doing so in the instruction set
| is stupid as other than a few highly optimized applications,
| developers tend to target what the majority has. This leads to
| failure of uptake and removal in the future. Not sure how Intel
| has not learned this after having it happen many times.
| packetlost wrote:
| Because it's presumably still profitable for them. A very
| small subset of users with very deep pockets finds value in
| those higher-tiered products and pays for them anyways. They
| don't _care_ that adoption isn 't high because it stops being
| a selling point once they have "something better" to replace
| it.
| SomeRndName11 wrote:
| The real benefit of AVX-512 is not even "512" part, even when
| used with 256 bit width registers the ability to use masking and
| orthogonality makes life so much easier for the compiler writers
| and those who deploy intrinsics manually.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Are these benchmarks applicable to any of ya'll on HN?
|
| I was excited to read this looking for media encoding/decoding
| and GenAI inference benchmarks... Only to find nothing really
| applicable. Stuff like CPU raytracing, CPU resnet, and gender
| detection seems far removed from what I would actually do on a
| 7000 series APU.
| binkHN wrote:
| Yet another AMD performance evaluation where the author is
| comparing against Intel CPUs from years ago. I get that that
| author might have only had access to these older Intel chips, but
| why go through the process of doing a lengthy comparison that
| really isn't worthwhile?
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| In addition to the linked articles from the start of this
| article (including Milan performance), they've previously
| compared Ice Lake vs Sapphire Rapids vs Genoa
| (https://www.phoronix.com/review/intel-sapphirerapids-avx512)
| tarnith wrote:
| Intel removed AVX512 from their recent consumer chips, no?
| binkHN wrote:
| Yes, but wouldn't you have found this review more valuable if
| the comparison was made with a recently available Intel CPU
| that supported AVX-512 versus one from 2019?
| scns wrote:
| Michael buys all these machines with his own money. You can
| buy him one, snark semi intended.
| michaellarabel wrote:
| Yep sadly most laptop vendors don't care much about
| Linux... Or the Linux laptop vendors and others that do
| offer review samples, want them back in 30 days. So
| really doesn't work for long-term comparisons like
| this... But as mentioned by other commenters, the older
| Ice Lake and Tigerlake were explicitly used because they
| have AVX-512 support. For those just wanting to see newer
| AMD vs. newer Intel, that has already been covered in a
| separate article but this article here is specifically
| around "AVX-512".
| michaellarabel wrote:
| Tigerlake is the most recent Intel laptop CPUs to
| officially support AVX-512... Thus can't do an Intel
| AVX-512 on/off comparison with any newer Intel laptop.
|
| If you just want to see how the new AMD 7840U compares to a
| recent Intel Alder Lake, that's already been covered
| separately in: https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-
| ryzen7-7840u
| chmod775 wrote:
| Intel's later mobile processors don't have AVX-512, so this
| comparison is fair.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Newer Intel CPUs do not support AVX512. Tiger Lake is the most
| recent laptop CPU that does.
| suumcuique wrote:
| Didn't Intel kill AVX512 support on their 12th gen CPUs?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-13 23:02 UTC)