Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AMD's Strix Point: Zen 5 Hits Mobile

chipsandcheese.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 241 posts

Re: AMD's Strix Point: Zen 5 Hits Mobile

#231

Post by Dwedit »

mkhalil wrote: post #154
automatic6131 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I sit firm in my belief that the best thing Microsoft could do for their laptop ecosystem is to add support for a "max fan speed" slider somewhere prominent in the Windows UI Until then, there's https://github.com/Rem0o/FanControl.Releases

A closed source application for controlling one's fan...umm no thank you. I never will understand the reasoning behind why people are so afraid of releasing their source code. Looks like a weekend project; does he expect to make a living out of a weekend project?

It's a .NET program without any obfuscation. You can read the source code using any .NET decompiler, such as ILSPY.

Re: AMD's Strix Point: Zen 5 Hits Mobile

#232

Post by adam_arthur »

aurareturn wrote: post #219
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

7730U (7nm) vs. M1 (5nm) for MT: https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu-compare/apple-m1-vs-amd-ryzen-... Faster in Passmark MT, basically tied in Geekbench MT, faster in average MT score. HX 370 vs. M1: https://nanoreview.net/en/cpu-compare/apple-m1-vs-amd-ryzen-... Faster in everything, ST and MT. ST difference is significant, MT difference is huge. Obviously this is expected because in this comparison AMD has the process a…

Let's not use Passmark MT. Stick to the better benchmarks that are optimized for both ARM and x86. GB5 and GB6, M1 is faster in MT despite having 4 fewer cores. If you can find SPEC scores, that'd be great too. HX 370 vs M1, what's the perf/watt for SPEC and GB5/6 and Cinebench 2024? HX370 consumes a lot more power. Hence, there aren't any fanless laptops available for it. 4 years later, AMD's chips still can't work…

OP has already cited sufficient stats to prove his point, and you're looping on reply for different sources.

Why don't you supply your own sources? You're making a claim just the same as the OP, without providing any evidence in your favor. A good faith responder would do the legwork to provide a researched counterpoint.

To anybody that has actually been paying attention to CPU evolution over the years, the process node has clearly been the main differentiator between CPU performance. Intel had the process advantage and thus the CPU advantage, and now they don't.

Architecture matters too, but does not result anywhere near an order of magnitude difference, conventionally.

Re: AMD's Strix Point: Zen 5 Hits Mobile

#233

Post by StillBored »

NobodyNada wrote: post #78
hajile wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clam makes some serious technical mistakes in that article and some info is outdated. 1. His claim that "ARM decoder is complex too" was wrong at the time (M1 being an obvious example) and has been proven more wrong since publication. ARM dropped the uop cache as soon as they dropped support for their very CISC-y 32-bit catastrophe. They bragged that this coincided with a whopping 75% reduction in decoder size for th…

One more: there's more to an ISA than just the instructions; there's semantic differences as well. x86 dates to a time before out-of-order execution, caches, and multi-core systems, so it has an extremely strict memory model that does not reflect modern hardware -- the only memory-reordering optimization permitted by the ISA is store buffering. Modern x86 processors will actually perform speculative weak memory acces…

"the only memory-reordering optimization permitted by the ISA is store buffering."

I think this is a mischaracterization of TSO. TSO only dictates the store ordering to other entities in the system, the individual cores are fully capable of using the results of stores that are not yet visible for their own OoO purposes as long as the dataflow dependencies are correctly solved. The complexities of the read/write bypassing is simply to clarify correct program order.

And this is why the TSO/non TSO mode on something like the apple cores doesn't seem to make a huge difference, particularly if one assumes that the core is aggressively optimized for the arm memory model, and the TSO buffering/ordering is not a critical optimization point.

Put another way, a core designed to track store ordering utilizing some kind of writeback merging is going to be fully capable of executing just as aggressively OoO and holding back or buffering the visibility of completed stores until earlier stores complete. In fact for multithreaded lock-free code the lack of explicit write fencing is likely a performance gain for very carefully optimized code in most cases. A core which can pipeline and execute multiple outstanding store fences is going to look very similar to one that implements TSO.

Re: AMD's Strix Point: Zen 5 Hits Mobile

#234

Post by aurareturn »

kllrnohj wrote: post #193
aurareturn wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The HX370 should win in SPECINT MT. It has 12 cores to the M3's 8 cores and it runs at significantly higher power. Compare HX370 SPECINT MT To an M3 Pro and let's see the results.

> [HX370] runs at significantly higher power. It used 33w. Meanwhile the M3 result came from a 2023 MacBook Pro 14-Inch, which certainly has the potential for a TDP of around that. If you can find SPECINT MT numbers w/ power data for an M3 Pro lets see it. Or even just power data for an M3 non-pro in the 14" MBP. A quick search isn't turning up any.

M3's CPU uses around ~10w while running ST tasks.

The ~30w TDP of an M3 Pro is if it's running CPU and GPU tasks at max load.

Re: AMD's Strix Point: Zen 5 Hits Mobile

#235

Post by aurareturn »

adam_arthur wrote: post #232
aurareturn wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not use Passmark MT. Stick to the better benchmarks that are optimized for both ARM and x86. GB5 and GB6, M1 is faster in MT despite having 4 fewer cores. If you can find SPEC scores, that'd be great too. HX 370 vs M1, what's the perf/watt for SPEC and GB5/6 and Cinebench 2024? HX370 consumes a lot more power. Hence, there aren't any fanless laptops available for it. 4 years later, AMD's chips still can't work…

OP has already cited sufficient stats to prove his point, and you're looping on reply for different sources. Why don't you supply your own sources? You're making a claim just the same as the OP, without providing any evidence in your favor. A good faith responder would do the legwork to provide a researched counterpoint. To anybody that has actually been paying attention to CPU evolution over the years, the process n…

OP has been using outdated benchmarks not optimized for ARM to prove his point.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/7292282?baselin...

Look at GB instead. GB is highly correlated to SPEC.

M1 is significantly faster in ST and MT while using a lot less power.

Re: AMD's Strix Point: Zen 5 Hits Mobile

#236

Post by fulafel »

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #223

Do all new processors include NPUs now? What if I don't need AI, should I still pay for the unneeded transistors? If only things could be made modular/reconfigurable.

You still pay for unused hw when you do need AI since it's incredibly unlikely your software can use it.

Re: AMD's Strix Point: Zen 5 Hits Mobile

#237

Post by adam_arthur »

aurareturn wrote: post #235
adam_arthur wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP has already cited sufficient stats to prove his point, and you're looping on reply for different sources. Why don't you supply your own sources? You're making a claim just the same as the OP, without providing any evidence in your favor. A good faith responder would do the legwork to provide a researched counterpoint. To anybody that has actually been paying attention to CPU evolution over the years, the process n…

OP has been using outdated benchmarks not optimized for ARM to prove his point. https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/7292282?baselin... Look at GB instead. GB is highly correlated to SPEC. M1 is significantly faster in ST and MT while using a lot less power.

And this AMD processor is not the one specified in the OP (Ryzen HX 370) and is not on the same process node as the m1, thus not valid to prove your counterpoint.

You are comparing a 7nm processor to a 5nm one, and yet the gap isn't even very large. Which was entirely the OPs point.

Does a 5nm AMD chip perform similarly to the 5nm Apple chip at the same wattage? (Again, performance does not increase linearly with wattage, as you're likely to cite something violating this logic in the next response)

You seem to not understand the point being discussed though, so no reason to discuss further

Re: AMD's Strix Point: Zen 5 Hits Mobile

#238

Post by aurareturn »

adam_arthur wrote: post #237
aurareturn wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP has been using outdated benchmarks not optimized for ARM to prove his point. https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/7292282?baselin... Look at GB instead. GB is highly correlated to SPEC. M1 is significantly faster in ST and MT while using a lot less power.

And this AMD processor is not the one specified in the OP (Ryzen HX 370) and is not on the same process node as the m1, thus not valid to prove your counterpoint. You are comparing a 7nm processor to a 5nm one, and yet the gap isn't even very large. Which was entirely the OPs point. Does a 5nm AMD chip perform similarly to the 5nm Apple chip at the same wattage? (Again, performance does not increase linearly with wat…

>You are comparing a 7nm processor to a 5nm one, and yet the gap isn't even very large. Which was entirely the OPs point.

The gap is huge. AMD's 7nm chip typically uses ~5x more power than the M1 and is still slower.

>Does a 5nm AMD chip perform similarly to the 5nm Apple chip at the same wattage? (Again, performance does not increase linearly with wattage, as you're likely to cite something violating this logic in the next response)

No it does not. Apple's chips are significantly more efficient.

>You seem to not understand the point being discussed though, so no reason to discuss further

What is your point?

Re: AMD's Strix Point: Zen 5 Hits Mobile

#239

Post by merb »

jeswin wrote: post #77
hajile wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's do the math on M1 Pro (10-core, N5, 2021) vs HX370 (12-core, N4P, 2024). Firestorm without L3 is 2.281mm2. Icestorm is 0.59mm2. M1 Pro has 8P+2E for a total of 19.428mm2 of cores included. Zen4 without L3 is 3.84mm2. Zen4c reduces that down to 2.48mm2. Zen5 CCD is pretty much the same size as Zen4 (though with 27% more transistors), so core size should be similar. AMD has also stated that Zen5c has a similar sh…

Even with the M3 the difference is marginal in multi-threaded benchmarks, from the Cinebench link [1] someone posted earlier on the thread. Apple M3 Pro 11-Core - 394 Points per Watt AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 - 354 Points per Watt Apple M3 Max 16-Core - 306 Points per Watt And the Ryzen in on TSMC 4nm while the M3 is on 3nm. As parent is saying, a lot of the Apple Silicon hype was due to the massive upgrade it was over t…

That the max should be worse than the m3 pro is a little bit shady.

Re: AMD's Strix Point: Zen 5 Hits Mobile

#240

Post by merb »

aurareturn wrote: post #97
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. ARM is inherently more efficient than x86 CPUs in most tasks > 2. Nuvia and Apple are better CPU designers than AMD and Intel The third possibility is that they just pick a different point on the efficiency curve. You can double power consumption in exchange for a few percent higher performance, double it again for an even smaller increase. The max turbo on the i9 14900KS is 253 W. The power efficiency is bad .…

>The third possibility is that they just pick a different point on the efficiency curve. You can double power consumption in exchange for a few percent higher performance, double it again for an even smaller increase. This only makes sense if the Zen5 is actually faster in ST than the M3. In this case, the M3 is 1.24x faster and 3.4x more efficient in ST than Zen5. AMD's Zen5 chip is just straight up slower in any cu…

The 14900ks and ryzen 7950 can basically turbo way over 253w as long as the chip stays cool. Both chips have two (or more?) eco modes. It’s actually super silly. Because the 125w mode is actually most often good enough
Post reply on HN