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

AMD Unveils Ryzen 9000 CPUs for Desktop, Zen 5

anandtech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 297 posts

Re: AMD Unveils Ryzen 9000 CPUs for Desktop, Zen 5

#101

Post by aurareturn »

zigzag312 wrote: post #82
aurareturn wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's GB6: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/6339005?baselin... Note: M3 Max is a 40w CPU maximum, while 7950x is a 230w CPU maximum. The stated 170w max is usually deceptive from AMD. Source for 7950x power consumption: https://www.anandtech.com/show/17641/lighter-touch-cpu-power... . Note that the M3 Max leads in ST in Cinebench 2024 and 2-3x better in perf/watt. It does lose in MT in Cinebench 2024 but…

It the end, what matters is real-world performance and different workloads have different bottlenecks. For people who use Cinema 4D, Cinebench is the most accurate measurement of hardware capabilities they can get. It's very hard to generalize what will matter for the vast majority of people. I find it's best to look at benchmarks for the same applications or similar workloads to what you'll be doing. Single score be…

Cinebench is being used like a general purpose CPU benchmark when, like you said, it should only be used to judge the performance of Cinema 4D. Cinema 4D is a niche software in a niche. Why is a niche in a niche software application being used to judge overall CPU performance? It doesn't make sense.

Meanwhile, Geekbench does run real world workloads using real world libraries. You can look at subtest scores to to see "real world" results.

Pugetsystem benchmarks are pretty good. It shows how Apple SoCs punch above their weight in real world applications over benchmarks.

Regardless, they are comparing desktop machines using as much as 1500 watts vs a laptop that maxes out at 80 watts and Apple is still competing well. The wins in the PC world are usually due to beefy Nvidia GPUs that are applications have historically optimized for.

That's why I originally said ARM is leading AMD - specifically Apple ARM chips.

Re: AMD Unveils Ryzen 9000 CPUs for Desktop, Zen 5

#102

Post by vegabook »

mmaniac wrote: post #86

AMD seem to be playing it safe this with this desktop generation. Same node, similar frequencies, same core counts, same IOD, X3D chips only arriving later... IPC seems like the only noteworthy improvement here. 15% overall is good but nothing earth shattering. The mobile APUs are way more interesting.

Geekbench Ryzen 9 7950x is 2930 max, so if we're generous and give the 9950x 15% uplift we'll be at 3380, which is still 400 points or so behind apple silicon for a much higher clock speed and a multiplier larger power draw. Also the max memory bandwidth at 70GB/s or so is basically pathetic, trounced by ASi.

Re: AMD Unveils Ryzen 9000 CPUs for Desktop, Zen 5

#103

Post by rubin55 »

aurareturn wrote: post #30
KingOfCoders wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[If you're a laptop user, scroll down the thread for laptop Rust compile times, M3 Pro looks great] You're misguided. Apple has excellent Notebook CPUs. Apple has great IPC. But AMD and Intel have easily faster CPUs. https://opendata.blender.org/benchmarks/query/?compute_type=... Blender Benchmark AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (16 core) 560.8 Apple M2 Ultra (24 cores) 501.82 Apple M3 Max (12 cores) 408.27 Apple M3 Pro 226.46 App…

That seems wrong. Though Blender may have an optimization for avx512 but not for SME or Neon. But the vast majority will use GPUs to do rendering for Blender. Try SPEC or its close consumer counterpart, Geekbench. As an anecdote, all my Python and Node.js applications run faster on Apple Silicon than Zen4. Even my multithread Go apps seem to run better on Apple Silicon.

Would that be comparing to Windows on Zen4 or to Linux on Zen4? On Windows I've noted that especially forking performance takes a big hit which causes many dynamic languages that do stuff with say invoking a runtime binary being 100s of times slower on windows (tried with bash and python).

Re: AMD Unveils Ryzen 9000 CPUs for Desktop, Zen 5

#104

Post by mmaniac »

vegabook wrote: post #102
mmaniac wrote: post #86

AMD seem to be playing it safe this with this desktop generation. Same node, similar frequencies, same core counts, same IOD, X3D chips only arriving later... IPC seems like the only noteworthy improvement here. 15% overall is good but nothing earth shattering. The mobile APUs are way more interesting.

Geekbench Ryzen 9 7950x is 2930 max, so if we're generous and give the 9950x 15% uplift we'll be at 3380, which is still 400 points or so behind apple silicon for a much higher clock speed and a multiplier larger power draw. Also the max memory bandwidth at 70GB/s or so is basically pathetic, trounced by ASi.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Ryzen has never had the lead with 1T performance, but emphasises nT and core counts instead. Memory bandwidth is largely meaningless for desktop CPUs but matters a lot for a SoC with a big GPU.

Strix Halo appears to be AMD's competitor to Apple SoCs which will feature a much bigger iGP and much greater memory bandwidth. When we hear more about that, comparisons will be apt.

Re: AMD Unveils Ryzen 9000 CPUs for Desktop, Zen 5

#105

Post by Hikikomori »

aurareturn wrote: post #37
muxator wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How come is a 15% IPC increase generation for generation a disappointing result? There might be greener pastures, I agree, but a 15% increase year over year for the quality factor of a product is nothing to be disappointed of. It's good execution, even more so in a mature and competitive sector such as microelectronics.

It's not year over year. It's 2 years. It's disappointing because M4 is significantly ahead. I would expect Zen to make a bigger leap to catch up. Also, this small leap opens up for Intel's Arrow Lake to take the lead.

Process node advantage is real.

Re: AMD Unveils Ryzen 9000 CPUs for Desktop, Zen 5

#106

Post by lmz »

wtallis wrote: post #36
lmz wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's usually x16/x4/x4 for GPU/M.2/Chipset. You can check the diagrams from the current x670 boards for info.

AMD's previous socket was usually x16/x4/x4 for GPU/M.2/chipset. For AM5, they added another four lanes, so it's usually x16/x4+x4/x4 for GPU/(2x)M.2/chipset, unless the board is doing something odd with providing lanes for Thunderbolt ports or something like that.

Oh you're right. I didn't read the diagram correctly and the specs say 28 total lanes, 24 usable - probably because 4 go to the chipset.

Re: AMD Unveils Ryzen 9000 CPUs for Desktop, Zen 5

#107

Post by xattt »

adrian_b wrote: post #56
buildbot wrote: post #26

AVX512 in a single cycle vs 2 cycles is big if the clock speed can be maintained at all near 5GHz. Also doubling of L1 cache bandwidth is interesting! Possibly, needed to actually feed an AVX512 rich instruction stream I guess.

For most instructions, both Intel and AMD CPUs with AVX-512 support are able to do two 512-bit instructions per clock cycle. There is no difference between Intel and AMD Zen 4 for most 512-bit AVX-512 instructions. I expect that this will remain true for Zen 5 and the next Intel CPUs. The only important differences in throughput between Intel and AMD were for the 512-bit load and store instructions from the L1 cache…

I see the discussion of instruction fusion for AVX512 in Intel chips. Can someone explain the clock speed drop?

Re: AMD Unveils Ryzen 9000 CPUs for Desktop, Zen 5

#108

Post by treprinum »

jiggawatts wrote: post #91

I wonder when the PC world will transition to unified memory and more monolithic architectures as seen in the Apple M-series chips, but also in the NVIDIA GB200 "superchip", the AMD MI300 accelerator, the X-Box and Playstation consoles, and even in some mobile phone system-on-a-chip designs. It feels like the PC is the "last holdout" of discrete upgradeable components with relatively low bandwidth between them. Soone…

Isn't CAMM2 providing higher bandwidth? MOBOs with CAMM2 for AMD are already popping up.

Re: AMD Unveils Ryzen 9000 CPUs for Desktop, Zen 5

#109

Post by cubefox »

jiggawatts wrote: post #91

I wonder when the PC world will transition to unified memory and more monolithic architectures as seen in the Apple M-series chips, but also in the NVIDIA GB200 "superchip", the AMD MI300 accelerator, the X-Box and Playstation consoles, and even in some mobile phone system-on-a-chip designs. It feels like the PC is the "last holdout" of discrete upgradeable components with relatively low bandwidth between them. Soone…

Problem with unified memory is that software needs to support it, so there is a chicken-egg situation. Another issue is that unified memory is usually not replaceable, just like non-unified VRAM.

Re: AMD Unveils Ryzen 9000 CPUs for Desktop, Zen 5

#110

Post by KingOfCoders »

vegabook wrote: post #102
mmaniac wrote: post #86

AMD seem to be playing it safe this with this desktop generation. Same node, similar frequencies, same core counts, same IOD, X3D chips only arriving later... IPC seems like the only noteworthy improvement here. 15% overall is good but nothing earth shattering. The mobile APUs are way more interesting.

Geekbench Ryzen 9 7950x is 2930 max, so if we're generous and give the 9950x 15% uplift we'll be at 3380, which is still 400 points or so behind apple silicon for a much higher clock speed and a multiplier larger power draw. Also the max memory bandwidth at 70GB/s or so is basically pathetic, trounced by ASi.

(Not a gamer)

For me as a developer Geekbench Clang benchmarks:

    M2 Ultra   233.9 Klines/sec
    7950x      230.3 Klines/sec  
    14900K     215.3 Klines/sec  
    M3 Max     196.5 Klines/sec
Post reply on HN