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

271–280 of 297 posts

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

#271

Post by pezezin »

vegabook wrote: post #163
mmaniac wrote: post #156

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.

I have been hearing about the death of gaming PCs since the launch of the PSX and the N64, yet here we are.

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

#272

Post by snvzz »

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'd make some sense if AVX-512 was not part of x86-64-v4, but it is.

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

#273

Post by arp242 »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #170
arp242 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah right; that's confusing! Seems that the AMD and Intel chips are much faster though, consistent with other benchmarks. Speed vs. $ is of course a different story than pure speed; kinda hard to capture in a number I guess. Most Go projects compile more than fast enough even on my 7 year old i5, although there are exceptions (mostly crummy hyper-overengineered projects).

I think it depends on what you do. If you write a database in Go, there is no problem with 5min compile time. If you write a web app, 10 sec compile times are already annoying.

"go test" compiles your package. Would not want a 5 minute feedback loop!

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

#274

Post by MenhirMike »

MenhirMike wrote: post #266
spixy wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better efficiency with three external 4K 120Hz monitors?

Oh, there's plenty of good uses for it, but I was specifically wondering why the previous poster cared for it being RDNA 2 instead of RDNA 3 since I don't think it makes a difference outside of gaming, and it's a pretty bad gaming GPU because of the low core count. So I was curious if there was anything else that RDNA 3/3.5 would offer over RDNA 2 in such a low end configuration.

(Oh, just realized that "better efficiency" could mean that RDNA 3 can do the office work that RDNA 2 does but with lower power usage. That could be true, though I wonder if that would really be significant savings in any way)

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

#275

Post by AnthonyMouse »

hajile wrote: post #214
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because you're comparing a 16-core CPU to an 8-core CPU on threaded workloads, which as mentioned is where the multi-threaded workloads will favor the one with more cores on both performance and performance per watt. But why not compare it to the Ryzen that also has 16 cores, like the 7945HX3D? Because then the Ryzen is generally faster on threaded workloads, even though the TDP is still 55W -- and even though it's on TSMC 5nm instead of 3nm.

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

#276

Post by AnthonyMouse »

aurareturn wrote: post #215
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 instr…

It's not just about coprocessors. If one CPU has a set of SIMD instructions that double performance on that benchmark or more, that creates a large outlier that significantly changes the average.

Apple Silicon also has more memory bandwidth the primary purpose of which is to feed the GPU because most CPU workloads don't care about that, but if you average in the occasional ones that does then you get more outliers.

Which is why the thing that matters is how it performs on the thing you actually want to run on it, not how it performs in aggregate on a bunch of other applications you don't use.

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

#277

Post by AnthonyMouse »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #169
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 max power on Intel/AMD CPUs is only there to get the CPU "performance crown". As you've said, you spend a large amount of additional power for very minor gains (to be at the top of fancy Youtube review charts). It looks though as if AMD/Intel feel threatened by Snapdragon though - we'll see what AMD Strix / Halo brings for the first meaningful x86 mobile processor in years (or Luna Lake).

> The max power on Intel/AMD CPUs is only there to get the CPU "performance crown".

It's mostly not. Its real purpose is to improve performance on threaded workloads.

Multi-core CPUs work like this: At the max boost a single core might use, say, 50 watts. So if you have 8 cores and wanted to run them all full out, you'd need a 400 watt power budget, which is a little nuts. It's not even worth it. Because you only have to clock them a little lower, say 4GHz instead of 5, to cut the power consumption more than in half, and then you get a TDP of e.g. 100W. Still not nothing but much more reasonable. You can also cut the clock speed even more and get the power consumption all the way down to 15W, but then you're down to 2GHz on threaded workloads and sacrificing quite a bit of multi-thread performance.

So they're not just trying to eek out a couple of percent, even though that's all you get from single thread improvement, because a single core was already near or at its limit. Whereas 8 cores at 4GHz will be legitimately twice as fast as the same cores at 2GHz. But they'll also use more than twice as much power. Which matters in a laptop but not so much in a desktop.

Of course, the thing that works even better is to have 16 cores or more that are clocked a little lower, which improves performance and performance per watt. The performance per watt of the 96-core Threadrippers are astonishingly good -- even though they're 360W. But that also requires more silicon, so those ones are the expensive ones.

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

#278

Post by wtallis »

bee_rider wrote: post #258
wtallis wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Is blender 100% GPU now? Last time I used it, there were multiple renderers available, and it wasn’t a 100% win to switch to GPU. IIRC the cpu did better in ray tracing(?). This was a couple years ago though so things may have changed or I might not be recalling correctly.

I think GPU rendering was always faster as long as you had a supported GPU. Now that the Cycles renderer has support for all the major GPU APIs/vendors, the only reasons to render on the CPU are if you don't have a half-decent GPU, or if your scene doesn't fit in your GPU's memory. Neither of those are a concern on Apple systems.

At least on NVIDIA hardware, Blender can use the GPU's raytracing capabilities rather than just the general-purpose GPU compute capabilities. Which means it doesn't take a very expensive GPU at all to outperform high-end CPUs.

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

#279

Post by aurareturn »

zigzag312 wrote: post #254
aurareturn wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

> Cinebench R23 was built on Intel Embree. ;) Yes, and the renderer is the same as in Cinema 4D which is used by many, while custom ray tracer build for Geekbench is not used outside benchmarking. The blog post you linked just shows that one synthetic benchmark correlates with another synthetic benchmark. Where do SPEC CPU2006/2017 benchmarks guarantee or specify correlation with real-world performance workloads? Cin…

Cinebench is fine if you’re looking for how your cpu performs in cinema4d. The problem is users are using it as a general purpose cpu benchmark. It isn’t. It sucks at it.

SPEC is the industry standard for CPU benchmarking.

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

#280

Post by doublepg23 »

phkahler wrote: post #224
bloaf wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been running some LLMs on my 5600x and 5700g cpus, and the performance is… ok but not great. Token generation is about “reading out loud” pace for the 7&13 B models. I also encounter occasional system crashes that I haven’t diagnosed yet, possibly due to high RAM utilization, but also possibly just power/thermal management issues. A 50% speed boost would probably make the CPU option a lot more viable for home ch…

You could put an 8700G in the same socket. The CPU isn't much faster but it has the new NPU for AI. I'm thinking about this upgrade to my 2400G but might want to wait for the new socket and DDR5.

I think you mixed up your sockets. 8700G is AM5.
Post reply on HN