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

21–30 of 297 posts

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

#21

Post by canucker2016 »

Voultapher wrote: post #5
tripdout wrote: post #2

7900X equivalent 9900X has 120W TDP as opposed to 170W. Is it that much more power efficient?

That 170W TDP was chasing the benchmark crown. The 7950X lost <5% MT perf when run at 120W.

The all-core max clock speed costs a lot of watts for that last 10% - close to 50% of total CPU consumption in some cases.

That's why undervolting has become a thing to do (unless you're an Intel CPU marketer) - give up a few percent of your all-core max clock rate and cut your wattage used by a lot.

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

#23

Post by microtonal »

ArtTimeInvestor wrote: post #15

Do all CPUs and GPUs these days involve components made by TSMC? If so, is this unique - that a whole industry of relies on one company?

Arguably that single company is ASML. There are more fabs (e.g. Intel), but AFAIK cutting-edge nodes all use ASML EUV chip fabrication machines?

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

#24

Post by wtallis »

dhx wrote: post #18

How are the 24x PCIe 5.0 lanes (~90GB/s) of the 9950X allocated? The article makes it appear as: * 16x PCIe 5.0 lanes for "graphics use" connected directly to the 9950X (~63GB/s). * 1x PCIe 5.0 lane for an M.2 port connected directly to the 9950X (~4GB/s). Motherboard manufacturers seemingly could repurpose "graphics use" PCIe 5.0 lanes for additional M.2 ports. * 7x PCIe 5.0 lanes connected to the X870E chipset (~28…

These processors will use the existing AM5 socket, so they fundamentally cannot make major changes to lane counts and allocations, only per-lane speeds. They're also re-using CPU's IO die from last generation and re-using the same chipset silicon, which further constrains them to only minor tweaks.

Typical use cases and motherboards give an x16 slot for graphics, x4 each to at least one or two M.2 slots for SSDs, and x4 to the chipset. Last generation and this generation, AMD's high-end chipset is actually two chipsets daisy-chained, since they're really not much more than PCIe fan-out switches plus USB and SATA HBAs.

Nobody allocates a single PCIe lane to an SSD slot, and the link between the CPU and chipset must have a lane width that is a power of two; a seven-lane link is not possible with standard PCIe.

Also, keep in mind that PCIe is packet-switched, so even though on paper the chipset is over-subscribed with downstream ports that add up to more bandwidth than the uplink to the CPU provides, it won't be a bottleneck unless you have an unusual hardware configuration and workload that actually tries to use too much IO bandwidth with the wrong set of peripherals simultaneously.

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

#25

Post by lmz »

dhx wrote: post #18

How are the 24x PCIe 5.0 lanes (~90GB/s) of the 9950X allocated? The article makes it appear as: * 16x PCIe 5.0 lanes for "graphics use" connected directly to the 9950X (~63GB/s). * 1x PCIe 5.0 lane for an M.2 port connected directly to the 9950X (~4GB/s). Motherboard manufacturers seemingly could repurpose "graphics use" PCIe 5.0 lanes for additional M.2 ports. * 7x PCIe 5.0 lanes connected to the X870E chipset (~28…

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

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

#27

Post by Cu3PO42 »

ArtTimeInvestor wrote: post #15

Do all CPUs and GPUs these days involve components made by TSMC? If so, is this unique - that a whole industry of relies on one company?

Intel still fabs their own CPUs, their dedicated Xe graphics are made by TSMC, though.

Nvidia 30-series was fabbed by Samsung.

So there is some competition in the high-end space, but not much. All of these companies rely on buying lithography machines from ASML, though.

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

#28

Post by doikor »

gautamcgoel wrote: post #3

Surprisingly not that much to be excited about IMO. AMD isn't using TSMC's latest node and the CPUs only officially support DDR5 speeds up to 5600MHz (yes, I know that you can use faster RAM). The CPUs are also using the previous-gen graphics architecture, RDNA2.

> The CPUs are also using the previous-gen graphics architecture, RDNA2.

The GPU on these parts is there mostly for being able to boot into BIOS or OS for debugging. Basically when things go wrong and you want to debug what is broken (remove GPU from machine and see if things work)

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

#29

Post by wtallis »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #14
aurareturn wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because x86 chips are no longer leading in the client. ARM chips are. Specifically, Apple chips. Though Qualcomm has huge potential leapfrog AMD/Intel chips in a few generations too.

[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…

> 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.

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

#30

Post by aurareturn »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #14
aurareturn wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because x86 chips are no longer leading in the client. ARM chips are. Specifically, Apple chips. Though Qualcomm has huge potential leapfrog AMD/Intel chips in a few generations too.

[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.

Post reply on HN