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

41–50 of 297 posts

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

#41

Post by ZiiS »

esskay wrote: post #31
bitwize wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like I keep saying: the first Chinese manufacturer to churn out cheap SBCs with ServerReady support will make a killing as a true Pi killer. Anyone? Anyone? Pine64? Pine64?

We dont really need a Pi killer anymore. They've done a fine job of killing it themselves. Their community has shrunk massively due to low cost mini pc's being leaps and bounds better value than a Pi now. Their two fingers being put up at the hacker/tinkerer hobbyist market over the last few years combined with the IPO and shift to B2B has made it very clear where their priorities lie. Unless you need the GPIO theres…

Try matching the size, power draw, and price of the Zero.

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

#42

Post by aurareturn »

arp242 wrote: post #38
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.

Now you're just asserting things unencumbered by even the slightest evidence. On Passmark Apple CPUs are pretty far down the list. On Geekbench I gave up after scrolling a few pages. And "run faster on Apple Silicon than Zen4" means nothing. On the low end you have fairly cheap Ryzen 3 laptop chips, and on the high end you have Threadripper behemoths.

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.

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

#43

Post by viraptor »

esskay wrote: post #31
bitwize wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like I keep saying: the first Chinese manufacturer to churn out cheap SBCs with ServerReady support will make a killing as a true Pi killer. Anyone? Anyone? Pine64? Pine64?

We dont really need a Pi killer anymore. They've done a fine job of killing it themselves. Their community has shrunk massively due to low cost mini pc's being leaps and bounds better value than a Pi now. Their two fingers being put up at the hacker/tinkerer hobbyist market over the last few years combined with the IPO and shift to B2B has made it very clear where their priorities lie. Unless you need the GPIO theres…

> Unless you need the GPIO theres zero reason to overpay for a Pi 5

Even then, both usb-to-gpio and mini PCs with gpio exist. Unless you want something really small, then there's still pi zero and Arduino

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

#44

Post by KingOfCoders »

wtallis wrote: post #29
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…

> 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.

I would love to quote a compiler comparison, but I don't know a good and accepted compiler benchmark. What would you use as a compiler benchmark? (Preferably Go, but I assume Rust would be better, as it is much slower, so the differences are bigger)

(corrected my c&p mistake with the mini, thanks)

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

#45

Post by camel-cdr »

buildbot wrote: post #26

AVX512 in a single cycle vs 2 cycles is big if the clock speed can be maintained at all near 5GHz. Also doubling of L1 cache bandwidth is interesting! Possibly, needed to actually feed an AVX512 rich instruction stream I guess.

AVX512 was never over 2 cycles. In Zen4 it used the 256 wide execution units of avx2 (except for shuffle), but there are more then one 256-bit wide execution units, so you still got your one cycle throughput.

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

#46

Post by gautamcgoel »

AlfeG wrote: post #35
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.

> DDR5 speeds up to 56000MHz (yes, I know that you can use faster RAM) Not sure that I actually CAN. 56 GHz is already a lot.

Fixed, thanks :)

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

#47

Post by tsimionescu »

aurareturn wrote: post #30
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…

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.

On Geekbench, though they are segregated in separate pages so I'm not sure if the comparison is fully correct, the M2Ultra is behind the top 3 PC processors (2 Intel and 1 AMD) for multi-core, and it is indeed the best at single core.

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

#48

Post by KingOfCoders »

aurareturn wrote: post #30
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…

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 again (used Apple for 20+ years), if it's faster at compilation speed.

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

#49

Post by arp242 »

aurareturn wrote: post #42
arp242 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you're just asserting things unencumbered by even the slightest evidence. On Passmark Apple CPUs are pretty far down the list. On Geekbench I gave up after scrolling a few pages. And "run faster on Apple Silicon than Zen4" means nothing. On the low end you have fairly cheap Ryzen 3 laptop chips, and on the high end you have Threadripper behemoths.

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.

> I would stick to SPEC and Geekbench.

I will repeat:

"On Geekbench I gave up after scrolling a few pages."

SPEC doesn't seem to have easily browsable results, but we can find the Cinebench 2024 ones easy and guess what? Apple isn't at the top. Not even close: https://www.cgdirector.com/cinebench-2024-scores/

Post reply on HN