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

191–200 of 297 posts

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

#191

Post by ChoGGi »

CivBase wrote: post #175
michaelt wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes - with more and more users moving to laptops and wanting a longer battery life, raw peak performance hasn't moved much in a decade. A decade ago, Steam's hardware survey said 8GB was the most popular amount of RAM [1] and today, the latest $1600 Macbook Pro comes with.... 8GB of RAM. In some ways that's been a good thing - it used to be that software got more and more featureful/bloated and you needed a new compu…

To be fair, a decade ago gaming PCs came with 2GB to 4GB of vRAM. Today's gaming PCs come with 12GB to 20GB of vRAM. Most games don't demand a lot of system memory, so it makes sense that PC gamers would invest in other components. You're also comparing Windows x86 gaming desktops from a decade ago with macOS AppleSilicon base-spec laptops today. Steam's recent hardware survey shows 16GB as the most popular amount of…

> Today's gaming PCs come with 12GB to 20GB of vRAM.

8-20 GB of VRAM

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

#192

Post by gattr »

I normally rebuild my workstation every ~4 years (recently more for fun than out of actual need for more processing power), might finally do it again (preferably a recent 8-/12-core Ryzen). My most recent major upgrade was in 2017 (Core i5 3570K -> Ryzen 7 1700X), with a minor fix in 2019 (Ryzen 7 2700, since 1700X was suffering from the random-segfaults-during-parallel-builds issue).

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

#193

Post by adham-omran »

mmaniac wrote: post #186
Tepix wrote: post #149

It's weird that CPUs tend to use more power every two years now instead of less. Looks like this time, the TDP didn't increase. Yay! i guess. Don't most people think their PCs are fast enough already? It's as if our planet wasn't being destroyed at a frightening speed. We're headed towards a cliff, but instead if braking, we're accelerating.

The people who think PCs are already fast enough don't buy CPUs every year. A 7950X in Eco mode is ridiculously capable for the power it pulls but that's less of a selling point.

I have a 7950X which I run in Eco mode with air cooling and it's amazingly quiet when not under load and rips when it needs to, I don't see a reason to upgrade any time soon.

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

#194

Post by dotnet00 »

Semaphor wrote: post #165
pquki4 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. While I’m totally one of those people, aren’t we some rather small minority, nowadays? I mean, obviously still big enough for companies to produce parts we want, but I always keep reading how more and mo…

These aren't laptop parts though. Maybe they'll do integrated memory for laptops, since many solder that on anyway nowadays.

But, for the desktop parts I don't see that being worthwhile unless it's used as something like with the 'X3D' chips, a large cache layer to the expandable memory.

I feel like this is nicely indicated by how AMD's desktop APUs get a lot less interest, they were fine without it for several generations, and even now it's just an afterthought.

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

#195

Post by Night_Thastus »

gattr wrote: post #192

I normally rebuild my workstation every ~4 years (recently more for fun than out of actual need for more processing power), might finally do it again (preferably a recent 8-/12-core Ryzen). My most recent major upgrade was in 2017 (Core i5 3570K -> Ryzen 7 1700X), with a minor fix in 2019 (Ryzen 7 2700, since 1700X was suffering from the random-segfaults-during-parallel-builds issue).

Same. I'm on a 10700k and thinking on an upgrade. I'll wait for X3D parts to come out (assuming they're doing that this gen, not sure if we've got confirmation), and compare vs 15th gen Intel once it's out in like September-ish.

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

#196

Post by hajile »

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.

Does Zen5 do FP math in a single cycle?

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

#197

Post by irusensei »

isoos wrote: post #183
irusensei wrote: post #160

I'll probably wait one or two years before getting into anything with DDR5. I've blew some money on an AMD laptop in 2021. At the time it was a monster with decent expansion options: RX 6800m, Ryzen 9 5900HX. I've stuck it with maximum 64GB DDR4 and 2x 4TB psi 3.0 nvme. Runs Linux very well. But now I'm seeing lots of things I'm locked out. Faster ethernet standards, the fun that brings with tons of GPU memory (no US…

It sounds like you need a desktop workstation with replaceable extension cards, and not a mostly immutable laptop, which has different strengths.

Agreed but it will need to wait for now.

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

#198

Post by vitus »

michaelt wrote: post #142
arvinsim wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TBH, CPUs nowadays are mostly good enough for the consumer, even at mid or low tiers. It's the GPUs that are just getting increasing inaccessible, price wise.

Yes - with more and more users moving to laptops and wanting a longer battery life, raw peak performance hasn't moved much in a decade. A decade ago, Steam's hardware survey said 8GB was the most popular amount of RAM [1] and today, the latest $1600 Macbook Pro comes with.... 8GB of RAM. In some ways that's been a good thing - it used to be that software got more and more featureful/bloated and you needed a new compu…

> raw peak performance hasn't moved much in a decade.

In general, CPU clock speeds stagnated about 20 years ago because we hit a power wall.

In 1985, the state of the art was maybe 15-20MHz; in 1995, that was 300-500MHz; in 2005, we hit about 3GHz and we've made incremental progress from there.

It turns out that you can only switch voltages across transistors so many times a second before you melt down the physical chip; reducing voltage and current helps but at the expense of stability (quantum tunneling is only becoming a more significant source of leakage as we continue shrinking process sizes).

Most of the advancements over the past 20 years have come from pipelining, increased parallelism, and changes further up the memory hierarchy.

> today, the latest $1600 Macbook Pro comes with.... 8GB of RAM.

That's an unfair comparison. Apple has a history of shipping less RAM with its laptops than comparable PC builds (the Air shipped with 2GB in the early 2010s, eventually climbing up to 8GB by the time the M1 launched).

Further, the latest iteration of the Steam hardware survey shows that 80% of its userbase has at least 16GB of RAM, whereas in 2014 8GB was merely the plurality; not even 40% of users had >= 8GB. A closer comparison point would have been the 4GB mark, which 75% of users met or exceeded.

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

#199

Post by Unfrozen0688 »

michaelt wrote: post #142
arvinsim wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TBH, CPUs nowadays are mostly good enough for the consumer, even at mid or low tiers. It's the GPUs that are just getting increasing inaccessible, price wise.

Yes - with more and more users moving to laptops and wanting a longer battery life, raw peak performance hasn't moved much in a decade. A decade ago, Steam's hardware survey said 8GB was the most popular amount of RAM [1] and today, the latest $1600 Macbook Pro comes with.... 8GB of RAM. In some ways that's been a good thing - it used to be that software got more and more featureful/bloated and you needed a new compu…

[dead]

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

#200

Post by hajile »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #157
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.

> 15% overall is good but nothing earth shattering Interestingly though the 9700X seems to be rated at 65W TDP (compared to a 105 TDP for the 7700X). I run my 7700X in "eco mode" where I lowered the TDP to max 95 W (IIRC, maybe it was 85 W: I should check in the BIOS). So it looks like it's 15% overall more power with less power consumption.

AMD used to give decently accurate TDP, but Intel started giving unrealistically optimistic TDP ratings, so AMD joined the game. Their TDP is more of an aspiration than a reality (ironically, Intel seems to have gotten more accurate with their new base and turbo power ratings).

9700x runs 100MHz higher on the same process as the 7700x. If they are actually running at full speed, I don't see how 9700x could possibly be using less power with more transistors at a higher frequency. They could get lower power for the same performance level though if they were being more aggressive about ramping down the frequency (but it's a desktop chip, so why would they?).

Post reply on HN