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

241–250 of 297 posts

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

#241

Post by KingOfCoders »

hajile wrote: post #208
KingOfCoders wrote: post #14

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…

Yes you're right the M3 Max has 14/16 and the M3 Pro 11/12 cores.

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

#242

Post by KingOfCoders »

hajile wrote: post #210
KingOfCoders wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and is great if you are a gamer / have software that doesn't multi-core.

Or if you don't want to blow out the power bill. A 7950x system at IDLE uses 50% more power than an M3 Max going all-out on a CPU workload. https://www.guru3d.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-7950x-review/page-...

Yes, if you have very expensive power, then this is a consideration.

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

#243

Post by tempnow987 »

shrubble wrote: post #234
tempnow987 wrote: post #206

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...

No question - but these kind of games lead to poor adoption.

They made a big todo about how much better than AMD they are with things like AVX512.

Then they play these games for market purposes.

Then they have stupid clock speed pauses, so when you try it your stuff goes slower.

Meanwhile - AMD is putting it on all their chips and it works reasonably there.

So I've just found the whole Intel style here kind of annoying. I really remember them doing bogus comparisons to non AVX-512 AMD parts (and projecting when their chips would be out). Reality is you are writing software that depends on AVX512 - tell clients to buy AMD to run it. Does AVX512 even work on efficiency cores and things like that? It's a mess.

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

#244

Post by wtallis »

shrubble wrote: post #234
tempnow987 wrote: post #206

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...

That's being very generous to Intel. It's much more believable that the strategy of mixing performance and efficiency cores in mainstream consumer processors starting with Alder Lake was a relatively last-minute decision, too late to re-work the Atom core design to add AVX512, so they sacrificed it from the performance cores instead.

The Intel consumer processors due out later this year are expected to include the first major update to their efficiency cores since they introduced Alder Lake. Only after that ships without AVX512 will it be plausible to attribute product segmentation as a major cause rather than just engineering factors.

(Intel's AVX10 proposal indicates their long-term plan may be to never support 512-bit SIMD on the efficiency cores, but to eventually make it possible for full 512-bit SIMD to make a return to their consumer processors.)

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

#245

Post by eviks »

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…

> Sure, a lot of people see LLMs as "useless toys" or "overhyped" now, but people said that about the Internet too.

Sure, you can always find naysayers about any tech, but we've also seen plenty of useless toys, so that internet fact doesn't help your argument that AI will come to the edge in any way (and no, email was not a fad even at dial-up speeds, so you don't even have the internet fact)

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

#246

Post by dzaima »

adrian_b wrote: post #235
dzaima wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah, it's certainly possible that it's not double-pumping. Should be roughly possible to test via comparing latency upon inserting a vandpd between two vpermd's (though then there are questions about bypass networks; and of course if we can't measure which method is used it doesn't matter for us anyway); don't have a Zen 4 to test on though.

But of note is that, at least in uops.info's data[0], there's one perf counter increment per instruction, and all four pipes get non-zero equally-distributed totals, which seems to me much simpler to achieve with double-pumping (though not impossible with splitting across ports; something like incrementing a random one. I'd expect biased results though).

Then again, Agner says "512-bit vector instructions are executed with a single μop using two 256-bit pipes simultaneously".

[0]: https://uops.info/html-tp/ZEN4/VPADDB_ZMM_ZMM_ZMM-Measuremen...

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

#247

Post by eviks »

fourfour3 wrote: post #201
mavhc wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want your NPCs to be limited in their conversations, to only follow a set few paths, if you think of a way to play the game that's not been anticipated years ago, you don't want that to be possible

Yes - I want to maintain quality, even at the expense of flexibility. I would rather there were 1, 2 or 3 high quality paths through a RPG style game or quest than hundreds, thousands, or infinite ones that are 'meh'. (edited to expand)

You can still have 3 high quality ones, it's just that maintaining quality at all the side chars is too expensive, so maybe the generated experience can reach the already "meh" level for those, thus freeing resources to be invested in the bigger paths?

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

#248

Post by crest »

tempnow987 wrote: post #243
shrubble wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No question - but these kind of games lead to poor adoption. They made a big todo about how much better than AMD they are with things like AVX512. Then they play these games for market purposes. Then they have stupid clock speed pauses, so when you try it your stuff goes slower. Meanwhile - AMD is putting it on all their chips and it works reasonably there. So I've just found the whole Intel style here kind of annoyi…

Or Intel's repeated failures to roll out a working <14nm processes forced them to cripple even the P-core AVX-512 implementation (one less ALU port compared to Xeon Gold), rip out whatever compatibility feature they wanted to put in the E-cores and Microsoft refused to implement workarounds in Windows (e.g. make AVX-512 opt-in and restrict threads that enabled it to P-cores, reschedule threads faulting on AVX-512 instructions from E-core to P-cores).

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

#249

Post by faeriechangling »

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…

I honestly think that given the demands of 4K video specifically using potentially a few gigs of memory just for decoding, 8gb made a world of sense, but little has come out since that really needs all that much memory for the average person.

When the industry moves to lpddr6/ddr6 I wouldn’t be shocked to see an increase to 6gb per module standard although maybe some binned 4gb modules will still be sold.

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

#250

Post by faeriechangling »

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…

Tons of gamers are on 8gb because of mobile GPUs and becuase the only affordable 12gb GPU Nvidia has ever released is the 3060 which is a desktop GPU. I don’t honestly expect 12gb+ to become mainstream until 6000 series.
Post reply on HN