Yeah, should or shouldn't my point is an 8c/8t setup is perfectly in line with what Devs have been using the past generation and doesn't bear any additional baggage for additional optimization steps.
I'd still be shocked if they shipped them without SMT. I can't know for sure of course.Yeah, should or shouldn't my point is an 8c/8t setup is perfectly in line with what Devs have been using the past generation and doesn't bear any additional baggage for additional optimization steps.
I'd still be shocked if they shipped them without SMT. I can't know for sure of course.
I thought we were talking about the new consoles. What I wrote, I meant for the consoles.The final SKU list as announced by AMD does come with SMT disabled skus. The 4300U, 4500U and 4700U all are SMT-less.
Mb, I missed the context.I thought we were talking about the new consoles. What I wrote, I meant for the consoles.
AnandTech: .... Arm has put forward a roadmap for its leading enterprise cores to deliver performance gains of 25% year on year, which goes beyond AMD’s ‘above market’ target of 7%. Is there a time where AMD would look into doing a high-performance Arm design?
LS: .... From a server standpoint, we are not investing in Arm at this point. We think that there’s a huge market out there for x86. I do think Arm has a market and capability, but from our standpoint the focus on x86 is the right thing to do. ....
VentureBeat: Looking at the whole industry, what do you think of RISC-V as a challenger to the way of doing things?
LS: There will be those that use it, and they've seen some good momentum. Our focus is very clear, it’s all about high-performance compute, and for that x86 is the leader.
Ah here we go again... can somebody else please do the usual rounds? I got so much brain fatigue from this guy.This is very interesting part from AMD's CEO interview:
AMD at CES 2020: Q&A with Dr. Lisa Su
www.anandtech.com
Next time Anandtech should ask why AMD's fastest desktop CPU the mighty 16-core RYZEN 9 3950X clocked at 4.7 Ghz (highly selected silicon) is slower in single thread performance than every iPhone 11. In other words why Apple core is 82% faster at same clock speed than AMD high performance chip.
I'm pretty sure that AMD CEO cannot officially say something like this: "Yeah we did big mistake to shut down K12 project and let Mr. Keller leave." At least I hope AMD management know the real IPC numbers and plan future development accordingly. Because Zen2 brought 15% IPC after two years and that's just 7.5% IPC per year. Cortex A77 matched (in SPEC exceeded Zen2) performance however ARMs 25% plan is 3x faster development than AMD's. Hopefully they cancelled K12 ARM branch only (6xALU core+SMT) and its x86 branch will be Zen 3 (both based on same back-end core so Zen 3 is 6xALU core too).
Just put him on ignore.Ah here we go again... can somebody else please do the usual rounds? I got so much brain fatigue from this guy.
Next time Anandtech should ask why AMD's fastest desktop CPU the mighty 16-core RYZEN 9 3950X clocked at 4.7 Ghz (highly selected silicon) is slower in single thread performance than every iPhone 11.
Yeah, IO connections in server vs mobile SOC alone will take a lot of power.And she could certainly answer:
"Ian, are you running AnandTech website on Xeon or iPhone 11s, and why?"
And she could certainly answer:
"Ian, are you running AnandTech website on Xeon or iPhone 11s, and why?"
I agree with you those are separated markets because Apple will never enter server market. However just imagine you would be CEO of AMD and you fight with Intel for every single digit of IPC %. This means when you are slower than Intel more than 10% you will have problem with sales, slower more than 20% means loosing market shares and margins, slower more than 40% (Bulldozer era) means you are going to bankruptcy. Wouldn't you as CEO be a little nervous when somebody has CPU with +80% IPC advantage? More than double what you consider as bankruptcy level. Honestly I would be VERY nervous. At least due to possibility when chief architect would leave Apple to your competitor (and give them instant 4 years of CPU development advantage). Most of the architectural tricks in Apple core could be applied to x86 as well (because x86 CISC is internaly RISC running similar back end as ARM).AMD doesn't really have to care about Apple's SoC performance. AMD doesn't sell CPUs to Apple as is so they can't be replaced with Apple's chips there. Apple doesn't sell to other third parties that AMD does, so they don't compete there either.
No one else in the ARM space is even close to Apple in terms of performance. Also there's no real information about how high Apple can clock their design. Some of the choices they've made no doubt mean that you can't actually get their SoC to 4.7 GHz or perhaps even close to it.
Wouldn't you as CEO be a little nervous when somebody has CPU with +80% IPC advantage?
Yes, frequency is part of the performance of course. The problem is designing 4 GHz CPU is much much simpler than designing CPU with double IPC. Scalar IPC is the holy grale of CPU architecture, the most dificult thing to develop. Big problem is not Apple but company like Nuvia - ex-Apple CPU architects are developing new core with Apple IPC and high clocks around 4Ghz. In 2024 Nuvia will start shipping their new CPU for servers and that's a problem for AMD. They need to uplift IPC by 80% in just 4 years otherwise they will be in big trouble.Is Frequency NOT part of the performance of the chip?
That's true nowadays. But x86 dominates server market due to high-performance with lower price it brought in. Don't forget there was many dominant server ISAs in history (DEC Alpha, Sparc, PowerPC). And x86 killed them all by performance. Do you think x86 will dominate market even though ARM will provide cheaper and more powerfull CPUs?AMD is focusing on x86. The server market is dominated by x86. Zen is x86. In these circumstances the only competitor AMD has to worry about is Intel (and potentially VIA/Centaur).
In micro-benches where all you're testing is if the workload fits in their massive L1 and L2 caches. Most real work is memory bandwidth constrained. And AMD and Intel have between a 70 and 100% frequency advantage. You think frequency scaling is something easy, it isn't. AMD and Intel have spent a great deal of time and money reworking their designs to clock high. Scaling beyond a few high performance cores is another issue, the interconnects sap power and it's part of the reason server-focused designs use L3 cache.Wouldn't you as CEO be a little nervous when somebody has CPU with +80% IPC advantage?
For quite some time, yes. The slow rise of AMD's server market share shows the uphill battle ARM faces double fold.Do you think x86 will dominate market even though ARM will provide cheaper and more powerfull CPUs?
This is very interesting part from AMD's CEO interview:
Next time Anandtech should ask why AMD's fastest desktop CPU the mighty 16-core RYZEN 9 3950X clocked at 4.7 Ghz (highly selected silicon) is slower in single thread performance than every iPhone 11. In other words why Apple core is 82% faster at same clock speed than AMD high performance chip.
In other words why Apple core is 82% faster at same clock speed than AMD high performance chip.
Next time Anandtech should ask why AMD's fastest desktop CPU the mighty 16-core RYZEN 9 3950X clocked at 4.7 Ghz (highly selected silicon) is slower in single thread performance than every iPhone 11.
Simply because AMD's Zen technology leap comes from Jim Keller. Interesting thing about Keller is that he created in AMD an available technology table (IMHO something like what performance can bring at what cost/devtime). The same he did in Intel. I'm wonder if Apple have same tech map. Probably yes. And because first 6xALU CPU (Apple A11 Monsoon core) development was started around 2012 (entered market in 2017) and Keller moved to AMD at 2012 this means Keller saw Apple's technology map and CPU road map too. In other words he knew about 6xALU CPU will be developed in Apple soon and what tech it consists of. So I suppose his AMD K12 project, two CPUs (x86 and ARM) based on common back-end, contained also 6xALUs and similar advanced tech inside. And because Zen 3 is probably the x86 version of K12 (must be because AMD didn't had a resources for development 3 different uarchs at the same time: Zen2, Zen3 and K12. There were just Zen2 and K12 which ARM branch was killed and K12 x86 become Zen 3) this means Zen 3 will have 6xALU core too. Apple is known for being the infinite game player (I like famous Simon Sinek explanation here) and Keller tried AMD to be transformed into infinite game player too.Why are we talking about Apple on a Ryzen 4000 thread ?
How much time did it take for TESLA to change automotive market? 14 years including building two gigafactories on two continents? IT is much faster, especially when you do not need any fabs, just to make an order at TSMC. 500% faster CPU would take major server market share in two years. No company will move his hundreds of servers when Zen 2 is a bit faster than old Intel but still slower than Ice Lake. For 5% IPC you don't want to change supplier, service and continuity (it's not economical at short term, IPC advantage is uncertain in long term). Same parformance for EPYC's half price? That's strong argument definitely but can be eliminated by Intel's discount. But Nuvia with such a huge +80% IPC advantage will make all x86 servers technologically obsolete in just one day (and every other ISAs too). Economically not even worth to be plugged into electricity.The answer has nothing to do with hardware. And everything to do with software installed base. If you came up with a magic CPU that was %500 percent faster clock for clock it would still take 15 or 20 years to make x86 irrelevant. Maybe longer. So, for now and the foreseeable future x86 is where the money is.
I never talked about Geekbench. I'm using SPEC2006 benchmark results provided by AnandTech. It consists of several sub tests based on some typical algorithms so you can analyze where the performance come from. Definitely the +80% IPC advantage doesn't come from L1 and L2 cache. You can see that machine is fast just everywhere:You really going to Geekbench* the number eh?
In the real world it doesn't scale 100%, otherwise there wouldn't be any focus on improving the memory subsystem or the I/O.
Some like HPC, scale even less than that. SpecFP is representative, and the scaling factor is often 60-70%.
(Geekbench scales pretty much 100% with clocks, so do many less realistic benchmarks and also synthetics)
Simply because AMD's Zen technology leap comes from Jim Keller.