Throw arm to the mix as well.But if all the numbers prove accurate, while my AMD fanboi self is heavily disappointed, it is actually an incredibly glorious situation for people. I was genuinely afraid that we'd see Inverted Skylake for 5 years, instead, it seems we've reached a near perfect balance with AMD having high perf server, high perf mobile, and gaming, while Intel has low power mobility and multicore perf.
The competition may prove extreme, and it's all the better for the whole of us. It may be the absolute best result for consumers.
I disagree. I think it's more serious than that. I tried yapping my thoughts on it for like 30 mins over 2 days but couldn't get past just lining up all the oddities with this result.
I don't think it's "just mid", there's a lot of little things that I feel don't make much sense.
Not the least of which is the fact that pricing isn't out and that Lion Cove is just a nudge below, giving maybe 5% more over the RPL vs Zen 4 situation. It's like AMD aimed juuuuuuust slightly above their Z4/RPL situation.
Skymont being a glorious success on paper is great, but I'll be waiting for actual benchmarks on it. That "38% better on workloads" thing isn't reassuring.
More than ever:
But if all the numbers prove accurate, while my AMD fanboi self is heavily disappointed, it is actually an incredibly glorious situation for people. I was genuinely afraid that we'd see Inverted Skylake for 5 years, instead, it seems we've reached a near perfect balance with AMD having high perf server, high perf mobile, and gaming, while Intel has low power mobility and multicore perf.
The competition may prove extreme, and it's all the better for the whole of us. It may be the absolute best result for consumers.
Since he's actually visiting sometimes, maybe I oughta take a cut of Gerard Williams' face and turn him into Ger-Ard Jinn. And John Bruno as John-Bruno Kenobi?Throw arm to the mix as well.
The Core Wars have begun.
Cache: This is Blasphemy! This is madness!So FlameTail's meme is inaccurate. It should be the NPU pushing the LLC off a cliff and the GPU going, NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
I agree on the oddities part. The slides were all over the place. The benchmark selection was downright weird.I disagree. I think it's more serious than that. I tried yapping my thoughts on it for like 30 mins over 2 days but couldn't get past just lining up all the oddities with this result.
I don't think it's "just mid", there's a lot of little things that I feel don't make much sense.
Not the least of which is the fact that pricing isn't out and that Lion Cove is just a nudge below, giving maybe 5% more over the RPL vs Zen 4 situation. It's like AMD aimed juuuuuuust slightly above their Z4/RPL situation.
Skymont being a glorious success on paper is great, but I'll be waiting for actual benchmarks on it. That "38% better on workloads" thing isn't reassuring.
Sounds like a bad idea even if your intentions are good. Don't think they will appreciate that.maybe I oughta take a cut of Gerard Williams' face and turn him into Ger-Ard Jinn. And John Bruno as John-Bruno Kenobi?
You are too goodCache: This is Blasphemy! This is madness!
Leonidas: THIS!
IS!
AIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!
Interesting. Still too early to know for sure I think.Hero is here lol
similar conclusion. FSP too low for FrameGen on, but too high for FG off
13700k@5.6g, avg 181fps
9900x , avg 229fps
Yes yes yes.Sounds like a bad idea even if your intentions are good. Don't think they will appreciate that.
My frustration stemmed from the fact that I wanted to re-use my 32GB DDR3-1600 RAM with Core 6th and 7th gen mobos that supported DDR3 but at the same time, Intel was like, the IMC of the CPU may get damaged so that kept me from wasting money and I stuck with my Sandy/Ivy Bridge/Haswell CPUs in that period. If only AMD had a process advantage with Piledriver in that era, with roughly similar power use and heat output to Intel CPUs, I would've jumped on it coz multicore was always going to be the future.how meh and frustrating everything was when AMD fumbled with FX series and Intel milked us for every last penny in 4c8t land. All that right after the heady days of Athlon X64 and Core2Duo.
Lisa fires off an email to "AMD Performance Labs" to prepare the benchmark slides with instructions to consult with AMD marketing for the performance figures.I agree on the oddities part. The slides were all over the place. The benchmark selection was downright weird.
View attachment 100492
Zen5 is still behind Firestorm level of IPC. I have done the the math, based on estimated Strix Point numbers.
I have a suspicion that they have Ryzen Master telemetry data overwhelmingly suggesting that most Ryzen users are turning on the ECO mode to get their temps down coz most people don't want their CPU hitting 95C so maybe they are doing a favor to the majority? If this is true, Ryzen Master may get an option to run these "ECO" CPUs in performance mode but AMD doesn't have to guarantee anything to such users because that's not the OOB experience they are selling in the first place.Yet they drop the TDP for all but the top-end end SKU? What? One would think that they'd attempt to extract every last digit of performance from what they have, yet they don't seem to care.
What do you mean? AMD has a problem with a wider core?I disagree. I think it's more serious than that. I tried yapping my thoughts on it for like 30 mins over 2 days but couldn't get past just lining up all the oddities with this result.
I don't think it's "just mid", there's a lot of little things that I feel don't make much sense.
Not the least of which is the fact that pricing isn't out and that Lion Cove is just a nudge below, giving maybe 5% more over the RPL vs Zen 4 situation. It's like AMD aimed juuuuuuust slightly above their Z4/RPL situation.
Skymont being a glorious success on paper is great, but I'll be waiting for actual benchmarks on it. That "38% better on workloads" thing isn't reassuring.
More than ever:
But if all the numbers prove accurate, while my AMD fanboi self is heavily disappointed, it is actually an incredibly glorious situation for people. I was genuinely afraid that we'd see Inverted Skylake for 5 years, instead, it seems we've reached a near perfect balance with AMD having high perf server, high perf mobile, and gaming, while Intel has low power mobility and multicore perf.
The competition may prove extreme, and it's all the better for the whole of us. It may be the absolute best result for consumers.
Most Ryzen users don't know that ECO mode exists in the first place.I have a suspicion that they have Ryzen Master telemetry data overwhelmingly suggesting that most Ryzen users are turning on the ECO mode to get their temps down coz most people don't want their CPU hitting 95C so maybe they are doing a favor to the majority? If this is true, Ryzen Master may get an option to run these "ECO" CPUs in performance mode but AMD doesn't have to guarantee anything to such users because that's not the OOB experience they are selling in the first place.
Then this could mean that AMD determined that they don't want to assure people again that 95C is completely safe. This "issue" got headlines at Zen 4 launch.Most Ryzen users don't know that ECO mode exists in the first place.
Most people don't read headlines either.Then this could mean that AMD determined that they don't want to assure people again that 95C is completely safe. This "issue" got headlines at Zen 4 launch.
Completely possible, but that doesn't explain the flip flopping with power draw (shipping manifest clearly noted the 9600X as 105W not 65), or the strangely absent benchmarks. Like decompression or compression have been a staple of Zen since Zen 2 at least, and it's not there. There's just a few too many oddities or missing points in what they've shown.What do you mean? AMD has a problem with a wider core?
It's possible.I understand that the IPC curve is strange in terms of the number and selection of tests, especially the last subtest AES (AVX512). There are few details about the architecture of Zen5, which is the opposite of what AMD showed regarding previous generations of Zen.
What do you mean? AMD is hiding something?
Interesting. Still too early to know for sure I think.
Dropping the power can only be seen as a good thing. Like I've already said in the other thread, it's one of the few things we can use to gauge gains that are independent of benchmarks and testing conditions. If some Zen 5 SKUs drop power by about 40-50W when compared with Zen 4 counterparts, then they have to do so while offering at least the same level of performance. (they would have to offer more, but you get the idea) This means that Zen 5 will be significantly more efficient than Zen 4, which falls in line with the performance figures we've seen for Strix (like 40% higher perf with 50% more cores, this is only possible if core power is lower by about 35%)Completely possible, but that doesn't explain the flip flopping with power draw (shipping manifest clearly noted the 9600X as 105W not 65)
Hm, so it's 26% faster. Nothing too special. We know about 16% average ipc, so this is just a bench in the upper region. Why is everyone acting as if it was super high?!
Are decreases or very slight increases in IPC likely for significant tests?The really weird and concerning part is the benchmark selection they presented us with, especially considering they will be launching these CPUs relatively soon and before the competition (so there's no point in hiding things from them at this stage). Even now, we have no way of evaluating 1T performance of Zen 5. It makes no sense, the opsec part is over.