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

51–60 of 297 posts

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

#51

Post by ffsm8 »

doikor wrote: post #28
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.

> The CPUs are also using the previous-gen graphics architecture, RDNA2. The GPU on these parts is there mostly for being able to boot into BIOS or OS for debugging. Basically when things go wrong and you want to debug what is broken (remove GPU from machine and see if things work)

I have to disagree. They work great for video playback and office work. So media server, and workstations are fine without a dedicated gpu

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

#52

Post by KingOfCoders »

arp242 wrote: post #49
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.

> 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/

Geekbench has a seperate page for each "instruction set".

For Apple you need to go to https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks

Then compare numbers by hand I assume.

Though what I would love is compile-time vs. $ (as mentioned, I'm a software developer). The 7950x is $500 and a very fast SSD is $400, fast 64gb is $200, very good board is $400 so I get a very fast dev machine for ~$1700.

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

#53

Post by codewithcheese »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #44
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.

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)

Think chromium compile is widely used

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

#54

Post by matharmin »

doikor wrote: post #28
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.

> The CPUs are also using the previous-gen graphics architecture, RDNA2. The GPU on these parts is there mostly for being able to boot into BIOS or OS for debugging. Basically when things go wrong and you want to debug what is broken (remove GPU from machine and see if things work)

These are decent GPUs for anything other than heavy gaming. I'm driving two 4k screens with it, and even for some light gaming (such as factorio) it's completely fine.

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

#56

Post by adrian_b »

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.

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 and for the 512-bit fused multiply-add instructions, where Intel had double throughput in its more expensive models of server CPUs.

I interpret AMD's announcement that now Zen 5 has a double transfer throughput between the 512-bit registers and the L1 cache and also a double 512-bit FP multiplier, so now it matches the Intel AVX-512 throughput per clock cycle in all important instructions.

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

#57

Post by phonon »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #44
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.

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)

You can look at the Geekbench 6 component.

https://www.geekbench.com/doc/geekbench6-benchmark-internals... (page 18)

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

#58

Post by SomeoneFromCA »

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.

I wish it had AVX512 Fp16.

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

#59

Post by aurareturn »

arp242 wrote: post #49
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.

> 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/

Here's GB6: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/6339005?baselin...

Note: M3 Max is a 40w CPU maximum, while 7950x is a 230w CPU maximum. The stated 170w max is usually deceptive from AMD.

Source for 7950x power consumption: https://www.anandtech.com/show/17641/lighter-touch-cpu-power....

Note that the M3 Max leads in ST in Cinebench 2024 and 2-3x better in perf/watt. It does lose in MT in Cinebench 2024 but wins in GB6 MT.

Cinebench is usually x86 favored as it favors AVX over NEON as well as having extremely long dependency chains, bottlenecked by caches and partly memory. This is why you get a huge SMT yield from it and why it scales very highly if you throw lots of "weak" cores at it.

This is why Cinebench is a poor CPU benchmark in general as the vast majority of applications do not behave like Cinebench.

Geekbench and SPEC are more predictive of CPU speed.

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

#60

Post by aurareturn »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #52
arp242 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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/

Geekbench has a seperate page for each "instruction set". For Apple you need to go to https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks Then compare numbers by hand I assume. Though what I would love is compile-time vs. $ (as mentioned, I'm a software developer). The 7950x is $500 and a very fast SSD is $400, fast 64gb is $200, very good board is $400 so I get a very fast dev machine for ~$1700.

I compiled a few previously. Sorry for the formatting:

ASUS ROG Zephyrus G16 (2024)

Processor: Intel Core Ultra 9 185

Memory: 32GB

Cargo Build: 31.85 seconds

Cargo Build --Release: 1 minute 4 seconds

ASUS ROG Zephyrus G14 (2024)

Processor: AMD Ryzen 8945HS / Radeon 780M

Memory: 32GB

Cargo Build: 29.48 seconds

Cargo Build --Release: 34.78 seconds

ASUS ROG Strix Scar 18 (2024)

Processor: Intel Core i9 14900HX

Memory: 64GB

Cargo Build: 21.27 seconds

Cargo Build --Release: 28.69 seconds

Apple MacBook Pro (M3 Pro 11 core)

Processor: M3 Pro 11 core

Cargo Build: 13.70 seconds

Cargo Build --Release: 21.65 seconds

Apple MacBook Pro 16 (M3 Max)

Processor: M3 Max

Cargo Build: 12.70 seconds

Cargo Build --Release: 15.90 seconds

Firefox Mobile build:

M1 Air: 95 seconds AMD 5900hx: 138 seconds Source: https://youtu.be/QSPFx9R99-o?si=oG_nuV4oiMxjv4F-&t=505

Javascript builds

Here, Alex compares the M1 Air running Parallels emulating Linux vs native Linux on AMD Zen2 mobile. The M1 is still significantly faster. https://youtu.be/tgS1P5bP7dA?si=Xz2JQmgoYp3IQGCX&t=183

Docker builds

Here, Alex runs Docker ARM64 vs AMD x86 images and the M1 Air built the image 2x faster than an AMD Zen2 mobile. https://youtu.be/sWav0WuNMNs?si=IgxeMoJqpQaZv2nc&t=366

Anyways, Alex has a ton more videos on coding performance between Apple, Intel and AMD.

Lastly, this is not M1 vs Zen2 but it's M2 vs Zen4.

LLVM build test

M2 Max: 377 seconds Ryzen 9 7940S: 826 seconds

Post reply on HN