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

211–220 of 297 posts

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

#211

Post by KingOfCoders »

aurareturn wrote: post #202
KingOfCoders wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like what you're doing! "M4 Pro/Max is likely to arrive in Fall." (no release date) "AMD's Strix Point doesn't seem to have a release date." (no release date)

My point is that Strix Point and M4 Pro/Max will likely release at around the same time based on reports and historical trends. M4 is already out. We know Zen5's performance. Therefore, we can conclude that the gap between M4 vs Zen5 is higher than M3 vs Zen4. You seem to be very sensitive when it comes with AMD.

You seem to be very sensitive when it comes to Apple.

I've used Apple for 20+ years, from Motorola 680X0 CPUs to Motorola PowerPC to Intel CPUs. SGI MIPS, Sun Sparc, DEC Alpha etc.

I don't care what name is written on the CPU I use.

I care how fast my development machine is.

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

#212

Post by ComputerGuru »

hajile wrote: post #200
TacticalCoder wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 b…

I know AMD has joined the “fudging the TDP numbers” game but you should still be able to more or less compare TDP across their own products.

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

#213

Post by tracker1 »

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).

Might be worth considering a Ryzen 9 5900XT (just launched as well) for a drop in upgrade. Been running a 5950X since close to launch and still pretty happy with it.

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

#214

Post by hajile »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #136
aurareturn wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Apple's M3 Max CPU cores peak out at 55w for 16 cores (12p+4e). AMD's 8-core U-series chips peak out at 65-70w on CPU-only workloads and still loses out massively in pretty much every category.

If you downclock that AMD chip, it does get more efficient, but also loses by even larger margins.

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

#215

Post by aurareturn »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #136
aurareturn wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

  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.
Geekbench CPU benchmark does not optimize for accelerators. It optimizes for instruction sets only.

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

#216

Post by hajile »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #48
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.

"But the vast majority will use GPUs to do rendering for Blender." And the argument is, you can't use Blender to compare CPU performance because of that? "Even my multithread Go apps seem to run better on Apple Silicon." As a Go developer, I'd love to hear your story: How much faster does your Apple Silicon compile compare to a Zen4 (e.g. the 7950x?)? For example 100k lines of Go code. I might switch back to Apple ag…

M4 is looking pretty interesting. Near 10% IPC uplift and they bumped the e-core on the base M4, so we're probably looking at the same 12 p-cores for the M4 max, but likely going from 4 to 12 e-cores (two of the 6-core complexes).

In multithreaded workloads, 2 of their current e-cores are roughly equivalent to 1 p-core, so that would represent the equivalent of 4 extra p-cores.

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

#217

Post by aurareturn »

zigzag312 wrote: post #152
aurareturn wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Some Geekbench 6 workloads and libraries: - Dijkstra's algorithm: not used by vast majority of applications. - Google Gumbo: unmaintained since 2016. - litehtml: not used by any major browser. - Clang: common on HN, but niche for general population. - 3D texture encoding: very niche. - Ray Tracer: a custom ray tracer using Intel Embree lib. That's worse than Cinebench. - Structure from Motion: generates 3D geometry f…

Cinebench R23 was built on Intel Embree. ;)

You can cherry pick libraries that Geekbench 6 uses that are old or niche but do they do a good job as proxies?

The point of a general CPU benchmark is to predict CPU performance. For that, Geekbench does an outstanding job. [0]

[0]https://medium.com/silicon-reimagined/performance-delivered-...

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

#218

Post by jeffbee »

MenhirMike wrote: post #148
IamFr0ssT wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4 DIMMs does not equal Quad-channel. I see in AMD's presentation Quad-channel is supported by chipsets, but I am not aware of a current AMD consumer/hedt chip with 4 memory channels.

Non-Pro Threadripper 7960X/7970X/7980X are Quad Channel. (The Threadripper Pro's are Octa-Channel) But yeah, Desktop Ryzen's are all Dual Channel.

True, but the Threadripper requires the TRX50 platform, so I still don't understand what is operative about the statement that the X870E chipset supports quad channel memory.

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

#219

Post by aurareturn »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #211
aurareturn wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that Strix Point and M4 Pro/Max will likely release at around the same time based on reports and historical trends. M4 is already out. We know Zen5's performance. Therefore, we can conclude that the gap between M4 vs Zen5 is higher than M3 vs Zen4. You seem to be very sensitive when it comes with AMD.

You seem to be very sensitive when it comes to Apple. I've used Apple for 20+ years, from Motorola 680X0 CPUs to Motorola PowerPC to Intel CPUs. SGI MIPS, Sun Sparc, DEC Alpha etc. I don't care what name is written on the CPU I use. I care how fast my development machine is.

  I've used Apple for 20+ years, from Motorola 680X0 CPUs to Motorola PowerPC to Intel CPUs. SGI MIPS, Sun Sparc, DEC Alpha etc.
I'm not sure why this is relevant to M4 vs Zen5 or M3 vs Zen4.

  I care how fast my development machine is.
Great. I hope you get the fastest development machine for yourself. But this conversation isn't about your development machine.

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

#220

Post by hajile »

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 think there's a market for a 7950E with a specific binning for lower power rather than highest possible clocks.
Post reply on HN