[HN Gopher] AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D Linux Performance: Zen 5 With 3D...
___________________________________________________________________
AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D Linux Performance: Zen 5 With 3D V-Cache
Author : mfiguiere
Score : 127 points
Date : 2024-11-06 14:38 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.phoronix.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.phoronix.com)
| antisthenes wrote:
| 9800X3D looks like an all-around winner, so if you don't mind
| spending $500 on just the CPU, I don't see why anyone would get
| anything else.
| ThatMedicIsASpy wrote:
| All-around winner in what? For $500 you can get a lot more
| cores.
|
| All-around winning, $500, 8 cores makes no sense.
|
| This thing has a premium gaming price tag because there is
| nothing close to it other than their own 7800X3D.
| bhouston wrote:
| What would you suggest instead?
|
| It is pretty competitive on the Multi-Core rating:
| https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/8633320 compared to
| other CPUs: https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-
| benchmarks
| jandrese wrote:
| The benchmarks in the article suggest that more cores are
| largely wasted on real world applications.
| ThatMedicIsASpy wrote:
| Yes so buy according to your needs? 8 cores do not cost
| $500.
| behringer wrote:
| They do when those cores are 2 to 4 times faster than the
| rest.
| sliken wrote:
| In theory, yes. But in the real world the bottleneck of the
| same 128 bit wide memory, interface that's been popular way
| back since the time of dual core chips.
|
| Less cache misses (on popular workloads) helps decrease power
| and increase performance enough that few things benefit from
| 12-16 cores.
|
| Thus the M3 max (with a 512 bit wide memory system) has a
| class leading single core and multi-core scores.
| 0xQSL wrote:
| I'm not so sure about memory actually being the bottleneck
| for these 8 core parts. If memory bandwidth is the
| bottleneck this should show up in benchmarks with higher
| dram clocks. I can't find any good application benchmarks,
| but computerbase.de did it for gaming with 7800MHz vs
| 6000MHz and didn't find much of a difference [1]
|
| The apple chips are APUs and need a lot of their memory
| bandwidth for the gpu. Are there any good resources on how
| much of this bandwidth is actually used in common cpu
| workloads? Can the CPU even max out half of the 512bit bus?
|
| [1] https://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozessoren/amd-
| ryzen-7-...
| wmf wrote:
| For AMD I think Infinity Fabric is the bottleneck so
| increasing memory clock without increasing IF clock does
| nothing. And it's also possible that 8 cores with massive
| cache simply don't need more bandwidth.
| sliken wrote:
| My understanding is the single CCD chips (like the
| 9800x3d) have 2 IF links, while the dual CCD chips (like
| the 9950x) have 1. Keep in mind these CCDs are shared
| with turin (12 channel), threadripper pro (8 channel),
| siena (6 channel), threadripper (4 channel).
|
| The higher CCD configurations have 1 IF link per chip,
| the lower have 2 IF links per chip. Presumably AMD would
| bother with the 2 IF link chips unless it helped.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| I can't find anything to back that up.
|
| That said, each link gives a CCD 64GB/s of read speed and
| 32GB/s of write speed. 8000MHz memory at 128 bits would
| get up to 128GB/s. So being stuck with one link would
| bottleneck badly enough to hide the effects of memory
| speed.
| sliken wrote:
| I've been paying close attention, found various hints at
| anandtech (RIP), chips and cheese, and STH.
|
| It doesn't make much difference to most apps, but I
| believe the single CCD (like the 9700x) has better
| bandwidth to IOD then their dual CCD chips, like the
| 9900x and 9950x
|
| Similarly on the server chips you can get 2,4,8, or 16
| CCDs. To get 16 cores you can use 2 CCDs or 16 CCDs! But
| the sweet spot (max bandwidth per CCD) is at 8 CCDs where
| you get a decent number of cores and twice the bandwidth
| per CCD. Keep in mind the genoa/turin EPYC chips have 24
| channels (32 bit x 24) for a 768 bit wide memory
| interface. Not nearly as constrained as their desktops.
|
| Wish I could paste in a diagram, but check out:
|
| https://www.amd.com/content/dam/amd/en/documents/epyc-
| techni...
|
| Page 7 has a diagram of 96 core with one GMI (IF) port
| per CCD and a 32 core chip two GMI ports per CCD.
|
| That's a gen old I believe, the max CCDs is now 16, not
| 12 with turin.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| So "GMI3-wide" and similar terms are the important things
| to search for.
|
| some diagrams: https://www.servethehome.com/amd-epyc-
| genoa-gaps-intel-xeon-...
|
| From another page: _" The most noteworthy aspect is that
| there is a new GMI3-Wide format. With Client Zen 4 and
| previous generations of Zen chiplets, there was 1 GMI
| link between the IOD and CCD. With Genoa, in the lower
| core count, lower CCD SKUs, multiple GMI links can be
| connected to the CCD."_
|
| And it seems like all the chiplets have two links, but
| everything I can find says they just don't hook up both
| on consumer parts.
| sliken wrote:
| Didn't find anything clearly stating one way or another,
| but the CCD is the same between ryzen and epyc, so
| there's certainly the possibility.
|
| I dug around a bit, and it seems Ryzen doesn't get it. I
| guess that makes sense, if the IOD on ryzen gets 2 GMI
| links. On the single CCD parts there's no other CCD to
| talk to. On the dual CCD parts there's not enough GMI
| links to have both with GMI-wide.
|
| Maybe this will be different on the pending Zen 5 part
| (Strix Halo) that will have 256 bits wide (16 x 32 bit) @
| 8533 MHz = 266 GB/sec since there will be 2 CCDs and a
| significant bump to memory bandwidth.
| wmf wrote:
| I'm pretty sure that memory bandwidth is only for the GPU
| just like on Apple silicon.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Yeah, the most relevant diagram I can find shows 32 bytes
| wide per core cluster and 128 bytes to the GPU.
| sliken wrote:
| Apple silicon manages around 50% (giver or take) for the
| CPUs.
| sliken wrote:
| Well there's much more to memory performance than
| bandwidth. Generally applications are relatively cache
| friendly, thus the X3D helps a fair bit, especially with
| more intensive games (ones that barely hit 60 fps, not
| the silly game benchmarks that hit 500 fps).
|
| Generally CPUs have relatively small reorder windows, so
| a cache miss hurts bad, 80ns latency @ 5 GHz is 400 clock
| cycles, and something north of 1600 instructions that
| could have been executed. If one in 20 operations is a
| cache miss that's a serious impediment to getting any
| decent fraction of peak performance. The pain of those
| cache misses is part of why the X3D does so well, even a
| few less cache misses can increase performance a fair
| bit.
|
| With 8c/16 threads having only 2 (DDR4) or 4 (DDR5) cache
| misses pending with a 128 bit wide system means that in
| any given 80-100ns window only 2 or 4 cores can continue
| resume after a cache miss. DDR-6000 vs DDR-7800 doesn't
| change that much, you still wait the 80-100ns, you just
| get the cache line in 8 (16 for ddr5) cycles @ 7800MT/sec
| instead of 8 (16 for DDR5) cycles @ 6000MT/sec. So the
| faster DDR5 means more bandwidth (good for GPUs), but not
| more cache transactions in flight (good for CPUs).
|
| With better memory systems (like the Apple m3 max) you
| could have 32 cache misses per 80-100ns. I believe about
| half of those are reserved for the GPU, but even 16 would
| mean that all of the 9800X3Ds 16 threads could resolve a
| cache miss per 80-100ns instead of just 2 or 4.
|
| That's part of why a M4 max does so well on multithreaded
| code. M4 max does better on geekbench 6 multithread than
| not only the 9800x3d (with 16 threads) but also a 9950x
| (with 16c/32 threads). Pretty impressive for a low TDP
| chip that fits in thin/light laptop with great battery
| life and competes well against Zen 5 chips with a 170
| watt TDP that often use water cooling.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > only 2 (DDR4) or 4 (DDR5) cache misses pending with a
| 128 bit wide system
|
| Isn't that the purpose of banks and bank groups, letting
| a bunch of independent requests work in parallel on the
| same channel?
| sliken wrote:
| Dimms are dumb. Not sure, but maybe rambus helped improve
| this. Dimms are synchronous and each memory channel can
| have a single request pending. So upon a cache miss on
| the last level cache (usually L3) you send a row, column,
| wait 60ns or so, then get a cache line back. Each memory
| channel can only have a single memory transaction (read
| or write) in flight. The memory controller (usually
| sitting between the L3 and ram) can have numerous cache
| misses pending, each waiting for the right memory channel
| to free.
|
| There are minor tweaks, I believe you can send a row,
| column, then on future accesses send only the column.
| There's also slight differences in memory pages (a dimm
| page != kernel page) that decrease latency with locality.
| But the differences are minor and don't really move the
| needle on main memory latency of 60 ns (not including the
| L1/l2/l3 latency which have to miss before getting to the
| memory controller).
|
| There are of course smarter connections, like AMD's
| hypertransport or more recently infinity fabric (IF) that
| are async and can have many memory transactions in
| flight. But sadly the dimms are not connected to HT/IF.
| IBM's OMI is similar, fast async serial interface, with
| an OMI connection to each ram stick.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Cores or "cores"?
| LorenDB wrote:
| As a C++ programmer, I just bought a 9900X for my first PC
| build. Sure, it won't game as well, but I like fast compile
| times, and the 9900X is on sale for $380 right now. That's $100
| cheaper than the 9800X3D launch price.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Yeah, these Zen 5 are killer for that kind of workload. I
| also replaced my workstation with a 9900-series CPU since my
| Intel 14900K fried itself, and I am very pleased with every
| aspect, except idle power consumption which is a minor
| drawback.
|
| It looks like the X3D is no better than the 9900X for non-
| game single-threaded workloads like browsers, and it's much
| worse than the 12 or 16 core parts in terms of overall
| throughput, so for a non-gamer the plain X seems much better
| than the X3D.
| mdre wrote:
| What's your idle power consumption for AMD vs Intel if you
| don't mind me asking? I'm getting avg 125W for my 13900k
| build, measured at the wall and it mildly bugs me when I
| think of it, I thought it'd be closer to 80. And power is
| very expensive where I live now.
| jeffbee wrote:
| If you are getting 125W at the wall on a PC at idle, your
| machine or operating system is extremely broken, or you
| are running atmosphere physics simulations all the time.
| The SoC on my Intel box typically drew < 1W as measured
| by RAPL. The 9950X draws about 18W measured the same way.
| Because of platform overhead the difference in terms of
| ratio is not that large but the Ryzen system is drawing
| about 40W at the wall when it's just sitting there.
| zokier wrote:
| Discrete gpu can easily add 20-40w of idle power draw, so
| that's something to keep in mind. I believe that 60ish
| watts is pretty typical idle consumption for desktop
| system, Ryzens typically having 10w higher idle draw than
| Intel. Some random reviews with whole system idle
| measurements:
|
| https://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-
| ryzen-7-9800x3d-processo...
|
| https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-
| ryzen-7-9800x3d/23.ht...
| jeffbee wrote:
| Those comparisons are using a water cooling rig which
| already blows out the idle power budget. 60W is in no way
| typical of PC idle power. Your basic Intel PC draws no
| more power than a laptop, low single digits of watts at
| the load, low tens of watts at the wall. My NUC12, which
| is no slouch, draws <5W at the wall when the display is
| off and when using Wi-Fi instead of Ethernet.
| mdre wrote:
| Hmm. I'm using an AIO cooler, a 3090 and a 1600W platinum
| psu - might be a bit inefficient. I remember unplugging
| the PSU and 3090 and plugging in a 650W gold PSU -- the
| system drew 70W IIRC. That's a wild difference still!
| jeffbee wrote:
| Yeah, oversized power supplies are also responsible for
| high idle power. "Gold" etc ratings are for their
| efficiency at 50%-100% rated power, not how well they
| scale down to zero, unfortunately. I have never owned a
| real GPU, I use the IGP or a fanless Quadro, so I don't
| have firsthand experience with how that impacts idle
| power.
| zokier wrote:
| Gold rating is down to 20%, Titanium is to 10% https://en
| .wikipedia.org/wiki/80_Plus#Efficiency_level_certi...
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| I'm about to build a new system and am planning on using the
| 9900X. It's primarily for coding, Adobe CC, and Ableton, with
| maybe a rare gaming session here and there. It seems that the
| 9900X is the best bang for the buck right now. It games just
| fine, BTW.
| Wytwwww wrote:
| Intel can still be kind of faster for "productivity" stuff? At
| least if you are willing to pay for the >8000 MHz CUDIMMs
| (which i don't think AMD even supports at full speed?) which
| can result in pretty impressive performance. Of course the
| value/price is probably not great...
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| Nice to actually have a decent release this generation of CPUs.
|
| The rest of Zen5 was maybe a 5% bump on average, and Intel's new
| series actually _regressed_ in performance compared to 14th gen.
|
| Seems like the Zen5X3D's will be the only good parts this time
| around.
| 13hunteo wrote:
| To cut Intel some slack, this latest version overhauls their
| old architecture, and they were fairly upfront about the lack
| of development in performance in this generation.
|
| The idea is the new platform will allow for better development
| in future, while improving efficiency fairly significantly.
| qzw wrote:
| Also nice to be able to boast a bigger uplift in the
| following gen due to regressing this one! But they definitely
| did need to get their efficiency under control since their
| parts were turning into fairly decent personal heating units.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| From a consumer standpoint - this doesn't matter. You can't
| buy that future product that may exist. You can only choose
| whether to buy the current product or not. And right now,
| that product is bad.
|
| I certainly hope the next generation is a massive bump for
| Intel, but we'll see if that's the case.
| fweimer wrote:
| I think the new T-equivalent CPU could be very interesting if
| Intel releases one. Those variants are optimized for 35W TDP,
| and they can be used for building high-performance fanless
| systems that can sustain their performance for quite some
| time. The lower power requirements for Arrow Lake might be a
| really good match there.
| duskwuff wrote:
| > To cut Intel some slack, this latest version overhauls
| their old architecture...
|
| ... and their 13th/14th generation processors had serious
| problems with overvoltage-induced failures - they clearly
| needed to step back and focus on reliability over
| performance.
| 5kg wrote:
| it's scrapped, the new design:
| https://www.pcworld.com/article/2507953/lunar-lakes-
| integrat...
| zeusk wrote:
| Parent is quite possibly talking about arrow lake and not
| lunar lake which is a mobile only part.
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| So why buy this generation and not wait unless your computer
| broke and you NEED Intel?
| notanote wrote:
| Hardware Unboxed has the interesting theory that the I/O die,
| which is unchanged between Zen4 and Zen5, is a significant
| bottleneck especially for the latter. The 3D v-cache would then
| ease the pressure there, and so see the cpu get an extra boost
| beyond that expected from increased cache.
| globnomulous wrote:
| Sharing links from websites with intrusive video advertisements
| should be prohibited. The websites should be banned, and those
| who share links to them should receive a paddling.
| sliken wrote:
| Or maybe you should follow the recommendations of various
| government agencies (including the FBI) and install an ad
| blocker.
| rjsw wrote:
| The last time I viewed this particular website it detected
| the adblocker and complained that I was depriving the owner
| of income.
| beeboop wrote:
| ublock origin and annoyance filters works fine for me
| rjsw wrote:
| I was using uBlock origin.
|
| Had also seen how he had editorialized some of my mailing
| list posts and I felt that I would be guilty of Gell-Mann
| amnesia if I carried on reading the site.
| sliken wrote:
| I do wish I could pay $25 a month for my web content to be
| ad free. Portioned out to websites I actually spent time
| reading.
| pizza234 wrote:
| This is precisely what Scroll (1) used to do. It seems it
| didn't end up well, unfortunately.
|
| (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroll_(web_service)
| nisten wrote:
| I am surprised at how much this thing is just straight up
| crushing it with just 8 cores.
|
| I think it topping the machine learning benchmarks has to do with
| having only 8 cores to share the 96MB of L3 cache, which ends up
| having a ratio of 1core having 1MBL2 + 12MB L3 which is huge,
| that means EACH THREAD has more cache than i.e the entire nvidia
| 3090 (6mb l2 total), and this ends up taking FULL advantage of
| the extra silicon of various avx extensions.
| BeefWellington wrote:
| I'm curious to see if AMD will release a 9950X3D this time
| around. I can foresee that kind of CPU dominating everything
| else across most workloads given how good this 8-core is
| holding up against CPUs with double or more cores.
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| Yes, it's supposedly coming early next year.
| jsheard wrote:
| I think the current rumor is that only one of the chiplets
| will have the extra cache though, so you'll have 8 cores
| with the big cache and 8 cores with the normal cache.
| qzw wrote:
| If they make one with extra cache on both CCDs, it would
| probably get some kind of AI branding and be at a
| significantly higher price point. Current games would
| hardly benefit from 16 cores all with that much cache.
| scheeseman486 wrote:
| The main benefit is that it's a no-compromise product.
| High single thread performance for games and there's more
| of those cores for productivity, it'd be the best
| workstation CPU and the best gaming CPU in one package.
| qzw wrote:
| But you'd get 95+% of the same benefit with the v-cache
| on just one CCD, which is what they did with the 7950X3D.
| didgetmaster wrote:
| I have a 5950x that is now a few years old and I planned to
| upgrade to a 9950x.
|
| I have never had one of the 3D V-Cache processors and am
| curious how it would improve the benchmarks for my multi-
| threaded data management system that does many operations
| against a set of 4K blocks of data.
|
| I heard rumors that a 9950x3D version will be available in
| January. I am trying to figure out if I should wait.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| While true, also keep in mind that the iPad Pro (M4) which has
| _no_ active cooling, and uses only 1 /4th the power ... is
| still faster (single & multicore) than this 9800X3D - and it's
| also been on the market for 1/2 year now already.
| osti wrote:
| Yup I just looked at the clang score in geekbench, for single
| threaded 9800x3d scored about 3200, whilst m4 had 4400... The
| m4 is so far above the rest it's ridiculous. Wish Apple made
| an x86 equivalent so that it can play Windows games lol.
| nightski wrote:
| Just supporting Linux would be adequate imho. Non-existent
| Linux support straight up makes M4 a non-starter for myself
| as much as I can admire the hardware.
| osti wrote:
| For developers yes, but gamers seem to have the loudest
| voice in the desktop PC performance conversation, so I
| think it's important to cater to that market.
| nieve wrote:
| Gamers in general are not looking at Apple's chips.
| hulitu wrote:
| > for single threaded 9800x3d scored about 3200, whilst m4
| had 4400... The m4 is so far above the rest it's
| ridiculous.
|
| Except the fact that your computer runs more than one
| thread. Pity that this "single core" performance cannot be
| utilized at its maximum potential.
| kuschku wrote:
| For an apples to apples comparison, you'll need to compare
| Zen 5 with M3, or whatever Zen 6 is going to be with M4.
|
| Apple is paying for exclusive access to TSMC's next node.
| That improves their final products, but doesn't make their
| architecture inherently better.
| ricketycricket wrote:
| Do you though? M4 is what is on the market now and this
| chip is just coming out. Maybe they are on different
| processes, but you still have to compare things at a given
| point in time.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| Why would a consumer care about what node something is on?
| You should only care about a set of processors that is
| available in the market at the same time. The M4 is
| available now and Zen 6 is not. Once zen 6 is here we
| probably have an M5.
| adrian_b wrote:
| Single core yes, but multi core no.
|
| The Geekbench scores cannot compare laptop CPUs with desktop
| CPUs, because the tasks that are executed are too short and
| they do not demonstrate the steady-state throughput of the
| CPUs. The desktop CPUs are much faster for multithreaded
| tasks in comparison with laptop/tablet CPUs than it appears
| in the GB results.
|
| The Apple CPUs have a much better instructions-per-clock-
| cycle ratio than any other CPUs, and now in M4 they also have
| a relatively high clock frequency, of at least 4.5 GHz. This
| allows them to win most single-threaded benchmarks.
|
| However the performance in multi-threaded benchmarks has a
| very weak dependence on the CPU microarchitecture and it is
| determined mostly by the manufacturing process used for the
| CPU.
|
| If we were able to compare Intel, AMD and Apple CPUs with the
| same number of cores and made with the same TSMC process,
| their multithreaded performance would be very close at a
| given power consumption.
|
| The reason is that executing a given benchmark requires a
| number of logic transitions that is about the same for
| different microarchitectures, unless some of the design teams
| have been incompetent. An Apple CPU does more logic
| transitions per clock cycle, so in single thread it finishes
| the task faster.
|
| However in multithreaded execution, where the power
| consumption of the CPU reaches the power limit, the number of
| logic transitions per second in the same manufacturing
| process is determined by the power consumption. Therefore the
| benchmark will be completed in approximately the same number
| of seconds when the power limits are the same, regardless of
| the differences in the single-threaded performance.
|
| At equal power, an M4 will have a slightly better MT
| performance than an Intel or AMD CPU, due to the better
| manufacturing process, but the difference is too small to
| make it competitive with a desktop CPU.
| wtallis wrote:
| > The Geekbench scores cannot compare laptop CPUs with
| desktop CPUs, because the tasks that are executed are too
| short and they do not demonstrate the steady-state
| throughput of the CPUs. The desktop CPUs are much faster
| for multithreaded tasks in comparison with laptop/tablet
| CPUs than it appears in the GB results.
|
| Bullshit. What you're talking about is the steady-state of
| the _heatsink_ , not the steady state of the _chip_. Intel
| learned the hard way that a fast CPU core in a phone
| _really does_ become a fast CPU core in a laptop or desktop
| when given a better cooling solution.
|
| > However in multithreaded execution, where the power
| consumption of the CPU reaches the power limit, the number
| of logic transitions per second in the same manufacturing
| process is determined by the power consumption. Therefore
| the benchmark will be completed in approximately the same
| number of seconds when the power limits are the same,
| regardless of the differences in the single-threaded
| performance.
|
| No, microarchitecture really does matter. And so does the
| macro architecture of AMD's desktop chips that burn a huge
| amount of power on an inefficient chip to chip interface.
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| And the OS is terrible, so it's practically useless for me.
| ploxiln wrote:
| Hehe ... yeah, single threaded, in some benchmarks. Very
| impressive chip, the M4. Multi-threaded loads that take more
| than 30 seconds, no way, come on. But to see the X3D chips
| really shine above their competitors, you need to slot in a
| high-end graphics card, and load up a ... uh well you can't
| compare to Apple Silicon at that point ...
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| In multi-threaded workloads, the M4 gets 13,380, the 9800X3D
| gets ~19,000 (varies by build), and the 9950X gets
| 22,000-24,000 depending on build.
|
| The M4 Max you can pre-order gets around 26,000 multicore but
| is significantly more expensive than the 9950X ($569) or
| 9800X3D ($479). The M4 Max is a $1,200 premium over the M4 on
| the 14 inch MacBook Pro and a $1,100 premium over the M4 Pro
| on the 16 inch.
|
| The M4 Max is only available in the MacBook Pro at present.
| The Mac Mini and iMac will only get the base M4. The Mac
| Studio is still based on the M2.
|
| This is just a summary of performance and cost. Portability,
| efficiency, and compatibility factors will weigh everyone's
| choices.
| jsheard wrote:
| > I am surprised at how much this thing is just straight up
| crushing it with just 8 cores.
|
| _Cache rules everything around me_
| drumhead wrote:
| Just seen the figures, it's ridiculously good. The gap over it's
| competition is staggering. I hope the Intel hubris doesn't set in
| at Amd, especially with the ARM pack snapping at their heels.
| aurareturn wrote:
| https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d/images/efficie...
|
| Raw gaming performance increase is good but its gaming efficiency
| seems to have taken a dip compared to 7800X3D.
|
| So AMD chose to decrease efficiency to get more performance this
| generation.
|
| Source: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-
| ryzen-7-9800x3d/23.ht...
| Numerlor wrote:
| The efficiency is only worse because the CPU can use the power
| without burning itself up unlike the last generation's X3D. And
| efficiency is always better at lower clocks. You can get this
| generation's efficiency uplift by limiting its power to the
| levels where last generation's CPU started throttling to keep
| its 89C Tjmax, but that will inevitably also limit the
| frequency that's the main performance uplift for the CPU
|
| For comparison on how limited last gen's X3D was wrt power,
| tom's hardware has it on 71W with all core AVX, while my 7600X
| with 2 fewer cores consumes up to 130W
| aurareturn wrote:
| If I can summarize what you wrote: Same IPC gain as normal
| Zen5 but more power can be drawn to increase performance due
| to moving the cache chiplet to the bottom.
| wtallis wrote:
| The previous 3D cache solutions were not just limited
| thermally, but also the cache chiplet could not tolerate
| the high voltages that AMD's CPU cores use at high
| frequencies. Even with excellent cooling, you weren't going
| to get a 7800X3D or 5800X3D to match frequencies with the
| non-3D parts. (This might have been less of a problem if
| AMD could put the extra cache on a different power rail,
| but that's hard to retrofit into an existing CPU socket.)
| This new cache chiplet still has a lower voltage limit than
| the CPU cores, but it's not as big a disparity.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Man Intel is so far behind on that list.
| Already__Taken wrote:
| Bad arch decision are punishing. AMD was absolutely dwarfed
| in the early core iX days and never really came back until
| Ryzen. The whole bulldozer linage was DoA to the point
| Opteron just never factored in.
|
| Hopefully Intel pull something out again but they look asleep
| a the wheel.
| shantara wrote:
| 9800X3D is supposed to have Eco mode with a lower TDP cap,
| similarly to other AMD processors. I don't see it included in
| the initial reviews, but it would be curious to see the
| followup data. If the history is anything to go by, it would
| significantly decrease the power consumption with only a
| marginal performance impact.
| SushiHippie wrote:
| I have the 7950x, and if I set it to 65W eco mode, I still
| have basically the same geekbench score
|
| 65W: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/6126001
|
| 105W: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/5821065
|
| I actually haven't tested it with 170W (which is the default
| for the 7950x) for whatever reason, but the average 7950x
| score on geekbench is basically the same as my geekbench
| scores with lower than normal TDP.
|
| https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/amd-ryzen-9-7950x
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if the same is possible with the
| newer CPUs.
|
| Nice added bonus is that my PC fans barely spin (not at
| audible speeds)
| whalesalad wrote:
| The last Intel machine I will ever build was my 13900K, primarily
| because I liked the fact that I could use cheaper DDR4 memory.
|
| Next rig and everything for the forseeable future will be AMD.
| I've been a fanboy since the Athlon XP days - took a detour for a
| bit - but can't wait to get back.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > I've been a fanboy since the Athlon XP days - took a detour
| for a bit - but can't wait to get back.
|
| Same. But already built a 3700X and then a 7700X.
|
| I've got this feeling the wife she's gonna upgrade her 3700X to
| a 7700X soon, meaning I'll get build a 9000 series AMD!
| moffkalast wrote:
| Even if Intel wasn't chugging so badly right now, their recent
| handling of the overvoltage and oxidation fiasco where they
| only thought about covering their asses instead of working the
| problem would leave me with a pretty disgusting taste in my
| mouth if I bought anything Intel for the foreseeable future.
| Customer relations should mean something, just look at Noctua.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| The results for _decompression_ , but no compression, are all
| surprisingly bad compared to other benchmarks, how comes? For
| example 7-zip decompression performs _worse_ than my 7700X (84 K
| mips vs 93 K mips on my 7700X). Other decompression benchs are
| equally depressing. But compression performs as expected (as much
| as 30% faster than my 7700X).
|
| What can explain those disappointing results but only on
| decompression?
| kevingadd wrote:
| Modern decompression is compute-bound typically (AFAIK), not
| memory-bound. It is in fact common to use compression as a
| workaround for memory-bound workloads to turn them into
| compute-bound ones.
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| King CPU. Time to build a new desktop PC!
| pawelduda wrote:
| Such a gap in these gaming benchmarks.. AMD killing it
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-06 23:02 UTC)