Live data from Hacker News

AMD Unveils Ryzen 9000 CPUs for Desktop, Zen 5

anandtech.com

231–240 of 297 posts

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

#231

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.

Given that there are only 2 CUs in the GPU (and fairly low clock speeds), does the architecture matter much? Benchmarks were kinda terrible, and it looks to me that the intent of the built-in GPU is for hardware video encoding or to run it in a home server system, or emergency BIOS and the like. Compared to the desktop CPUs, even the lowest end mobile 8440U has 4 CUs, going up to 12 CUs on the higher end. Or go with…

Yeah, I'm glad they started including built in gpu so there's something there, but beyond booting to a desktop I wouldn't use this graphics for anything else. But if you're just running a screen and compiling rust, that's all you need. Or in my case, running a home server / NAS.

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

#232
post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Assuming they don't tweak the TDP formula, which they can and have iirc.

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

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This question is almost rhetorical. Yes, competition drives innovation. When Ryzen APUs only had Intel to worry about, they rested on their laurels with stagnating but still superior performance. Intel did the same thing with 4c/8t desktop CPUs during the Bulldozer dark age. SoCs are good for the segments they target but they're by no means the be-all-end-all of personal computing. The performance of discrete graphic…

as soon as someone puts 16GB of VRAM next to an SoC (Nvidia, soon), the gaming pc is dead. These hot 'n slow discrete components are fun to decorate with RGB but they're yesterday for _all_ segments.

Show me an SoC that can play Cyberpunk max settings at 4K with RTX features enabled, let alone 8K. dGPU aren't going anywhere for a long while.

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

#234

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…

The difference is intel chips that support AVX-512 run $1,300 - $11,000 with MUCH higher total system costs whereas AMD actually DOES support AVX-512 on all it's chips and you can get AVX-512 for dirt cheap. The whole intel instruction support story feels garbage here. Weren't they the ones to introduce this whole 512 thing in the first place?

My view is that Intel is trying to do market segmentation. Want AVX512? You need to buy the "pro" lineup of CPUs...

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

#235
post #205
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Zen5 do FP math in a single cycle?

Almost certainly Zen 5 won't have single-cycle FP latency (I haven't heard of anything doing such even for scalar at modern clock rates (though maybe that does exist somewhere); AMD, Intel, and Apple all currently have 3- or 4-cycle latency). And Zen 4 already has a throughput of 2 FP ops/cycle for up to 256-bit arguments. The thing discussed is that Zen 4 does 512-bit SIMD ops via splitting them into two 256-bit one…

Even if Lisa Su said this at the Zen 4 launch, it is not likely that 512-bit operations are split into a pair of 256-bit operantions that are executed sequentially in the same 256-bit execution unit.

Both Zen 3 and Zen 4 have four 256-bit execution units.

Two 512-bit instructions can be initiated per clock cycle. It is likely that the four corresponding 256-bit micro-operations are executed simultaneously in all the 4 execution units, because otherwise there would be an increased likelihood that the dispatcher would not be able to find enough micro-operations ready for execution so that no execution unit remains idle, resulting in reduced performance.

The main limitation of the Zen 4 execution units is that only 2 of them include FP multipliers, so the maximum 512-bit throughput is one fused multiply-add plus one FP addition per clock cycle, while the Intel CPUs have an extra 512-bit FMA unit, which stays idle and useless when AVX-512 instructions are not used, but which allows two 512-bit FMA per cycle.

Without also doubling the transfer path between the L1 cache and the registers, a double FMA throughput would not have been beneficial for Zen 4, because many algorithms would have become limited by the memory transfer throughput.

Zen 5 doubles the width of the transfer path to the L1 and L2 cache memories and it presumably now includes FP multipliers in all the 4 execution units, thus matching the performance of Intel for 512-bit FMA operations, while also doubling the throughput of the 256-bit FMA operations, where in Intel CPUs the second FMA unit stays unused, halving the throughput.

No well-designed CPU has a FP addition or multiplication latency of 1. All modern CPUs are designed for the maximum clock frequency which ensures that the latency of operations similar in complexity with 64-bit integer additions between registers is 1. (CPUs with a higher clock frequency than this are called "superpipelined", but they have went out of fashion a few decades ago.)

For such a clock frequency, the latency of floating-point execution units of acceptable complexity is between 3 and 5, while the latency of loads from the L1 cache memory is about the same.

The next class of operations with a longer latency includes division, square root and loads from the L2 cache memory, which usually have latencies between 10 and 20. The longest latencies are for loads from the L3 cache memory or from the main memory.

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

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is intel chips that support AVX-512 run $1,300 - $11,000 with MUCH higher total system costs whereas AMD actually DOES support AVX-512 on all it's chips and you can get AVX-512 for dirt cheap. The whole intel instruction support story feels garbage here. Weren't they the ones to introduce this whole 512 thing in the first place?

My view is that Intel is trying to do market segmentation. Want AVX512? You need to buy the "pro" lineup of CPUs...

Which doesn't work when your competitor isn't bought in and puts it in every product.

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

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I consider it relevant to

"You seem to be very sensitive when it comes with AMD."

"But this conversation isn't about your development machine."

It is when your point is

"You seem to be very sensitive when it comes with AMD."

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

#238
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.

Would it really be smart to build an AM4 desktop at this point though?

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

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Would it really be smart to build an AM4 desktop at this point though?

I said as a "drop in upgrade"... Not sure that I'd build AM4 today, unless I had some parts used and cheap/free.

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

#240
post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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…

There's something wrong with your M3 Max stuff. I believe it comes in 14 and 16-core variants while the M3 Pro comes in 11 and 12-core variants. In any case, M3 Max uses less than 55w of power in CPU-only workloads while a desktop 7950x peaked out at 332w of power according to Guru3D (without an OC). The fact that M2 Ultra hits so close while peaking out at only around 100w of CPU power is pretty crazy (M2 Ultra does…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN