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

131–140 of 297 posts

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

#131

Post by JonChesterfield »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #44
wtallis wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Blender Benchmark Maybe use a benchmark that actually makes sense for CPUs, rather than something that's always much faster on a GPU (eg. M3 Pro as any sane user would use it for Blender is 2.7x the performance of a Ryzen 7950X, not 0.4x). > Apple Mac mini, 32gb, M2 Ultra, 2TB SSD, $2600 Not a real thing. You meant M2 Pro, because the Max and Ultra chips aren't available in the Mac mini.

I would love to quote a compiler comparison, but I don't know a good and accepted compiler benchmark. What would you use as a compiler benchmark? (Preferably Go, but I assume Rust would be better, as it is much slower, so the differences are bigger) (corrected my c&p mistake with the mini, thanks)

Building clang using itself is a reasonable approximation to a compiler benchmark, speaking as someone who spends a depressing fraction of his life doing that over and over for permutations of the source code. That's somewhere in the five to ten minutes range on a decent single socket system.

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

#132

Post by daemin »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #115
mmaniac wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Wouldn't you want to go all the way with a 7990X (64 cores) ?

I know the 7970X is more affordable but this is for a benchmark!

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

#133

Post by fh9302 »

re-thc wrote: post #128
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.

> which is still 400 points or so behind apple silicon for a much higher clock speed and a multiplier larger power draw Not a fair comparison. If we're on about Geekbench as per the announcement, it's +35%. The 15% is a geomean. It might not be better but definitely not far off Apple. In a similar manner, except Geekbench the geomean of M3 vs M4 isn't that great either.

+35% is for a single cherry-picked Geekbench AES subtest. AMD did not show the overall Geekbench improvement.

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

#134

Post by JonChesterfield »

nubinetwork wrote: post #67

I'd love to replace my 2950x, but most desktop motherboards still don't support 128gb of memory.

Give the server ones a look. 448GB here (one stick out of eight died and I have not been proactive at replacing it). Epyc comes in some SKUs that make a lot of sense for a desktop, or the seriously high spec ones from a previous generation are going cheap.

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

#135

Post by JonChesterfield »

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.

I wonder how much of the performance delta there is the OS. The performance benchmarks for Zen won't be running on OSX, credible risk they're running through the overhead of Windows.

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

#136

Post by AnthonyMouse »

aurareturn wrote: post #42
arp242 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you're just asserting things unencumbered by even the slightest evidence. On Passmark Apple CPUs are pretty far down the list. On Geekbench I gave up after scrolling a few pages. And "run faster on Apple Silicon than Zen4" means nothing. On the low end you have fairly cheap Ryzen 3 laptop chips, and on the high end you have Threadripper behemoths.

Passmark is a pretty bad CPU benchmark. It generally has poor correlation. I would stick to SPEC and Geekbench. Even Cinebench 2024 isn't too bad nowadays though R23 was quite poor in correlation. In general, not only are Apple Silicon CPUs faster than AMD consumer CPUs, but they're 2-4x more power efficient as well.

The problem with Geekbench is it's trying to average the scores from many different benchmarks, but then if some of them are outliers (e.g. one CPU has hardware acceleration or some other unusual aptitude for that specific workload), it gets an outsized score which is then averaged in and skews the result even if it doesn't generalize.

What you want to do is look at the benchmarks for the thing you're actually using it for.

> they're 2-4x more power efficient as well.

This is generally untrue, people come to this conclusion by comparing mobile CPUs with desktop CPUs. CPU power consumption is non-linear with performance, so a large power budget lets you eek out a tiny bit more margin. For example, compare the 65W 5700X with the 105W 5800X. The 40 extra watts buys you around 2% more single thread performance, not because the 5700X has a more efficient design -- they're the exact same CPU with a different power cap. It's because turning up the clock speed a tiny bit uses a lot more power, but desktop CPUs do it anyway, because they don't have any such thing as battery life and people want the extra tiny bit more. Or the CPU simply won't clock any higher and doesn't even hit the rated TDP on single-threaded workloads.

The extra power will buy you a lot more on multi-threaded workloads, because then you get linear performance improvement with more power by adding more cores. But that's where the high core count CPUs will mop the floor with everything else -- while achieving higher performance per watt, because the individual cores are clocked lower and use less power.

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

#137

Post by JonChesterfield »

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…

CPU and GPU cores have been on the same package for approximately forever. I'd really like on package memory at this point, nice though upgradable memory is the performance gap it induces would be good to see gone. AMD clearly knows how to build that and Apple has thrown down the gauntlet, I just don't know when it'll happen.

Anyone know if the 'strix' apu thing is expected to be a ddr-on-package or still using with separate sticks? Search engine is not going well for me.

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

#138

Post by KingOfCoders »

daemin wrote: post #132
KingOfCoders wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you include a Threadripper: 376.6 Klines/sec Threadripper 7970X (32 cores)

Wouldn't you want to go all the way with a 7990X (64 cores) ? I know the 7970X is more affordable but this is for a benchmark!

I do think the compilation benchmark breaks down, as seen with the 96-core CPU:

    406.2 Klines/sec 7995WX
3x the cores but only slightly faster (8%).

Also 32-core threadripper machines seem to be in the price range of M2 Ultra machines.

[Edit] I found a 491.5 klines/sec result for the 7985WX

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

#140

Post by KingOfCoders »

tsimionescu wrote: post #47
aurareturn wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On Geekbench, though they are segregated in separate pages so I'm not sure if the comparison is fully correct, the M2Ultra is behind the top 3 PC processors (2 Intel and 1 AMD) for multi-core, and it is indeed the best at single core.

Yes see the GB6 benchmarks for compilation

    M2 Ultra   233.9 Klines/sec
    7950x      230.3 Klines/sec  
    14900K     215.3 Klines/sec  
    M3 Max     196.5 Klines/sec
are nearly the same.
Post reply on HN