Very relevant point that the technically illiterate, but linguistically skilled are oblivious to.Physics disagrees (and it doesn't listen to management).
As a work from home professional, I have an assigned workstation I have to use for everything (slack, video meetings, browsing docs/wiki/etc., compiling, other extremely computational heavy work). I don't get the luxury of "not browsing when my machine is doing critical work". I instead get to deal with it being largely unresponsive and everyone else gets to watch and hear my video stutter.I'd say serious professionals don't browse when their machine is doing critical work. Also, I would like to know how much of performance difference these cases you listed will have, or if it would be noticeable in the practical use.
That's called moving the goalposts. I work with a lot of companies that have full time remote employees and no one gets more than one assigned workstation.That's called lack of budget.
Is there a remote possibility that these benchmarks included workloads which are power-limited?There are benchmarks where the 7950X beats the 7950X3D. That should NOT be happening.
Too little RAM? Bad mass storage performance? Bad scheduling of GPGPU workloads? Wrong scheduling prioritization of interactive processes vs. batch processes? [Edit: Malware scanner needlessly intercepting I/O of the computing application?]I have an assigned workstation I have to use for everything (slack, video meetings, browsing docs/wiki/etc., compiling, other extremely computational heavy work). I don't get the luxury of "not browsing when my machine is doing critical work". I instead get to deal with it being largely unresponsive and everyone else gets to watch and hear my video stutter.
Or maybe we have a different understanding of what "critical work" is and a different evaluation of lost time and work conditions.That's called moving the goalposts. I work with a lot of companies that have full time remote employees and no one gets more than one assigned workstation.
That's called moving the goalposts. I work with a lot of companies that have full time remote employees and no one gets more than one assigned workstation.
While it looks good on paper, there are several notable issues with it in practice.AMD needs to have a shared L4 V-cache for both CCDs.
For comparison , Zen 4 achieved 1% vs Zen 3 and Zen 3 got 12% over Zen 2 ( IPC) in CPUz 1T.Zen 5 CPU-Z single core benchmark is supposedly 910. Will share source soon.
EDIT: Sorry,, I put the twitter link below, had to get to a desktop. I wanted to link the original baidu post, but have had issues.
That is for the engineering sample of Zen 5. For reference I get around 740-750 on my stock 7950X, so about 21% higher. Not bad.
Oh and if this was already posted, apologies. Sometimes this thread moves quite quickly and it can be hard to keep up.
CPU-Z isn’t the best benchmark to begin with, but for what it’s worth…For comparison , Zen 4 achieved 1% vs Zen 3 and Zen 3 got 12% over Zen 2 ( IPC) in CPUz 1T.
Zen 5 getting ~20% in this archaic benchmark bodes well for the average IPC uplift number. Zen 4 was cited to be between 11 and 13% IPC uplift (average) while Zen 3 average was ~19%.
It's a terrible benchmark but AFAIK CPU-Z should be a much bigger uplift on Zen5. Also there are no IF/IMC changes so I'm skeptical of this post.For comparison , Zen 4 achieved 1% vs Zen 3 and Zen 3 got 12% over Zen 2 ( IPC).
Zen 5 getting ~20% in this archaic benchmark bodes well for the average IPC uplift number. Zen 4 was cited to be between 11 and 13% IPC uplift (average) while Zen 3 average was ~19%.
That's Zen4. It's the AM5 EPYC variant:From: https://t.co/wxCQTzn302
View attachment 99839
We need someone to dig out the comparable Zen 4 Epyc results.
Indeed, my fail. Every post online i see I immediately think it's Zen 5. We are too close, damn it.That's Zen4. It's the AM5 EPYC variant:
AFAIK CPU-Z should be a much bigger uplift on Zen5.
CPU-Z benefits from FP latency/throughput and big schedulers/reorder buffers, which are greatly improved with Zen5. Therefore I would expect CPU-Z IPC increase to be quite large.No, because it was modded in 2017 to greatly favour Intel after Zen 1 yielded much better scores than SKL, that s the most possible biaised bench, they alleged that it was due to a bug but that was plain lies, that was just $$ at play.
Edit : Zen 4 gained something like 1-2% in CPU Z comparatively to Zen 3,
that s just impossible since it gained 12% in 7 Zip and as much
in FP tests, so that s just a prove that this bench is not a real one,
just a marketing tool on Intel s behalf.
Un bug boost les scores des Ryzen dans CPU-Z
CPUID, la société derrière le logiciel de diagnostic HWMonitor, vient d'effectuer un ajustement dans le benchmark intégré de CPU-Z. Depuis la version 1.79, qui a été publié il y a deux semaines, vous avez peut être remarqué que les cpu AMD Ryzen obtiennent des scores significativement plus...www.modding.fr
CPU-Z benefits from FP latency/throughput and big schedulers/reorder buffers, which are greatly improved with Zen5. Therefore I would expect CPU-Z IPC increase to be quite large.
It uses SSE in both Intel and AMD.There s no FP bench where RPL has better IPC than Zen 4 excepted in the ICC compiled Cinebench, so why did CPU Z IPC increase only by 1% in Zen 4 ?
This has likely do with some instruction not being used on AMD, same as Povray
that gimp AMD by 16-18% since it use AVX2 only with Intel CPUs.
It uses SSE in both Intel and AMD.
There s no FP bench where RPL has better IPC than Zen 4 excepted in the ICC compiled Cinebench, so why did CPU Z IPC increase only by 1% in Zen 4 when all other FP benches were at least at 10% ?
Beside Zen 4 had even better IPC improvement in INT code than in FP, so this has nothing to do with either FP or INT.
This has likely do with some instructions not being used on AMD, same as Povray
that gimp AMD by 16-18% since it use AVX2 only with Intel CPUs.
I think it's real (because it aligns well with what I guessed lol)Zen 5 CPU-Z single core benchmark is supposedly 910. Will share source soon.
EDIT: Sorry,, I put the twitter link below, had to get to a desktop. I wanted to link the original baidu post, but have had issues.
That is for the engineering sample of Zen 5. For reference I get around 740-750 on my stock 7950X, so about 21% higher. Not bad.
Oh and if this was already posted, apologies. Sometimes this thread moves quite quickly and it can be hard to keep up.
Ah yes, that one subtest explains the 15% difference found by geekerwan lol.There s Povray that is included in Spec_FP, and as said it doesnt use AVX2
for AMD, so much for the clowning, i guess that you didnt even notice that this
bench was in SPEC.
FTR Zen 4 perform 16-18% better in Povray once AVX 2 is enabled for this CPU.
BasedI think it's real (because it aligns well with what I guessed lol)
Part of the reason AMD is disproportionately slower than intel in the CPU-Z ST test is that on AMD Ryzen CPU's, it forces CPU 0 always. Even if you try to change that, it forces it again.CPU-Z isn’t the best benchmark to begin with, but for what it’s worth…
View attachment 99838