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

111–120 of 297 posts

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

#111

Post by mmaniac »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #110
vegabook wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Even including M2 Ultra in that comparison is a bit unfair. That's a HEDT workstation CPU. The competition for this is a Threadripper.

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

#112

Post by erinnh »

DEADMINCE wrote: post #93
erinnh wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just had a look and the comparison website I use says there are 113 motherboards that support 128GB or more memory for AM5. (in my local market. so the US probably has even more) 128GB isn't exactly a lot, so that would surprise me if it wasnt supported.

> I just had a look and the comparison website I use Which website is that?

geizhals.de

Very good website to compare gadgets/electronics and look for good prices.

Its for the German market though (and some small amount of Austrian shops)

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

#113

Post by pquki4 »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #62
codewithcheese wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think chromium compile is widely used

Can you point me to a comparison site? Didn't find a M3/M2/7950/... comparison site for chromium compile times :-( (Even phoronix is scares and mostly focuses on laptops - I have no laptop)

There probably isn't a site that just comparess chromium compilation time, but you can find the number in many YouTube and text reviews.

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

#114

Post by pquki4 »

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…

I doubt that's ever going to happen -- people build their own PCs exactly because they want the opposite of everything in a MacBook: they want modularity, upgradeability and repairability to the point that they are willing to sacrifice power efficiency.

"AI will need to run..."

Let's wait and see what actually happens to AI before being too eager to change the design of computers. I'm also pretty sure there will be a better solution than what you described.

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

#115

Post by KingOfCoders »

mmaniac wrote: post #111
KingOfCoders wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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

Even including M2 Ultra in that comparison is a bit unfair. That's a HEDT workstation CPU. The competition for this is a Threadripper.

If you include a Threadripper:

      376.6 Klines/sec Threadripper 7970X (32 cores)

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

#116

Post by adrian_b »

xattt wrote: post #107
adrian_b wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

A clock speed drop must always occur whenever a CPU does more work per clock cycle, e.g. when more CPU cores are active or when wider SIMD instructions are used.

However the early generations of Intel CPUs that have implemented AVX-512 had bad clock management, which was not agile enough to lower quickly the clock frequency, i.e. the power consumption, when the temperature was too high due to higher power consumption, in order to protect the CPU. Because of that and because there are no instructions that the programmers could use to announce their intentions of using intensively wide SIMD instructions in a sequence of code, the Intel CPUs lowered the clock frequency preemptively and a lot, whenever they feared that the future instruction stream might contain 512-bit instructions that could lead to an overtemperature. The clock frequency was restored only after delays not much lower than a second. When AVX-512 instructions were executed sporadically, that could slow down any application very much.

The AMD CPUs and the newer Intel CPUs have better clock management, which reacts more quickly, so the low clock frequency during AVX-512 instruction execution is no longer a problem. A few AVX-512 instructions will not lower measurably the clock frequency, while the low clock frequency when AVX-512 instructions are executed frequently is compensated by the greater work done per clock cycle.

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

#117

Post by andy_ppp »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #110
vegabook wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

M4 Ultra is going to be interesting, it could be approaching 300?

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

#118

Post by smolder »

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…

I would prefer that we figure out how to make the massive vector blobs called AI work more efficiently, versus throwing tons of hardware at what we can barely understand in perpetuity. It doesn't sit right with me that putting lots of floating point ability in edge devices for running these approximate-at-best models is considered the way forward for computing.

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

#119

Post by adrian_b »

Aardwolf wrote: post #84
adrian_b wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> There is no difference between Intel and AMD Zen 4 for most 512-bit AVX-512 instructions. Except for the fact that Intel hasn't had any AVX-512 for years already in consumer CPUs, so there's nothing to compare against really in this target market

The comparison done by the AMD announcement and by everyone else compares the Zen 5 cores, which will be used both in their laptop/desktop products and in their Turin server CPUs, with the Intel Emerald Rapids and the future Granite Rapids server CPUs.

As you say, Intel has abandoned the use of the full AVX-512 instruction set in their laptop/desktop products and in some of their server products.

At the end of 2025, Intel is expected to introduce laptop/desktop CPUs that will implement a 256-bit subset of the AVX-512 instruction set.

While that will bring many advantages of AVX-512 that are not related to register and instruction widths, it will lose the simplification of the high-performance programs that is possible in 512-bit AVX-512 due to the equality between register size and cache line size, so the consumer Intel CPUs will remain a worse target for the implementation of high-performance algorithms.

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

#120

Post by fourfour3 »

aaomidi wrote: post #96
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…

I can’t wait for my games to start hallucinating narration.

Exactly this.

I want plot/character driven games like RPGs to be a curated & carefully designed, plotted, and paced experience.

I want speech & narrative to be scripted! It means someone sat down and thought about the experience it produces for the player. It means a real voice actor has performed it, putting the right emotion and pacing into the line.

I don't want AI generated stilted dialogue, uncanny valley speech, etc.

And I also don't want an extra few hundred watts of power draw on gaming PCs - they're already high and in modern games the CPU is under pretty substantial load, the GPU is maxed out, and the GPU's AI/NPU style cores are being used for things like DLSS too.

Bringing in more compute resource for running speech to text, LLMs, text to speech, etc fast enough to not feel horrible is going to come at substantial power and financial cost.

Post reply on HN