- Mar 3, 2017
- 1,747
- 6,598
- 136
It has been proven by measuring directly from the pin of the SoC that the error between the “real power” and the estimated one is less than 5%.
According to my personal tests, x3d at relative minus 200 mhz is roughly equal to non-extra-cache cores in 100% membw sparse matrix multi algo, so it's not that much to be honest.. I’d love dual CCD VCache for certain productivity workloads. It would help compensate for the 16 cores being membw constrained by dual channel memory.
You don't really need the game bar, just set the driver (or bios) to 'prefer cache', it basically emulates one-ccd design in this case. What you actually need (and what driver/gamebar etc not always (almost not ever, really, at least on W10) provide) is to keep certain games / apps on cache-only ccd (cs2 for example), as spreading threads between ccds essentially limits the performance to non-x3d level (or even worse).More importantly than us talking about a very fast X3D part: it nullifies the weird scheduling business needed for Zen 4 parts on X3D parts. If both CCDs can hit the same frequency, then the V-Cache CCD (aside from some extreme niche cases) will always be the faster CCD. Which means AMD just needs to rely on regular old CPPC to handle allocating workloads to cores, no need for the Game Bar nonsense we had last time.
X3D chiplet is already a higher quality one (especially if you have post-release 7950x3d), it's just ACPI table configured by default in such a way that inferior-quality CCD1 takes precedence. As I said above, just swap it to 'prefer cache'.If both CCDs can hit the same frequency, then the V-Cache CCD (aside from some extreme niche cases) will always be the faster CCD
Feels to me the opposite, they're talking about it boosting all core for longer, this is more reassuring to me..All this talk about frequency residency is kinda alarming, reminding me of the Zen 2 era, when some parts could not even reach the stated Fboost max.
Have you ever had any Zen 2 CPU ?Feels to me the opposite, they're talking about it boosting all core for longer, this is more reassuring to me..
They comparing the boost behaviour being higher all core than zen 4. So you're saying zen 2 had some issues getting to top boost speed on your CPU. Is that relevant here? Not trying to be salty, just really not seeing the relevance so need some help.Have you ever had any Zen 2 CPU ?
I doubt that.
TIL. Geekerwan found that?
Interesting, but doesn’t address the other points about total power.
It was about measuring power use in given workloads. (Think of measuring Joule per task. Or Watt per task speed. At core level or socket level.) I.e. measurements unrelated to thermal design, related to power efficiency.I'm not sure what the debate even is.
1. There were talks from amd reps about why boost clocks are not reached and all that residency BS after people and tech media started to complain that Zen2 is unable to do that.just really not seeing the relevance so need some help.
So what prevents them from changing it again if they wanted to?I think zen 3 might have been the generation where they changed how they advertised boost clocks, leaving some MHz in the tank
End of July. I think both GNR and STX NDAs lift then, if I'm remembering correctly.When are the reviews for Zen5 coming out. Waited, what felt like forever for the reveal - now impatient to see what the real world performance of this new CPU will be.
Yeah ok, thanks for clarifying, I still don't see how it's relevant. Some lingering skepticism based on some real world lived experience but contradictory to what's been said directly.1. There were talks from amd reps about why boost clocks are not reached and all that residency BS after people and tech media started to complain that Zen2 is unable to do that.
2. Now there are again talks of frequency residency.
It's as simple as this.
So what prevents them from changing it again if they wanted to?
What he's doing is hearing/reading the word "residency" and ignoring all context.Yeah ok, thanks for clarifying, I still don't see how it's relevant. Some lingering skepticism based on some real world lived experience but contradictory to what's been said directly.
For Zen 2 the core only reached the boost clocks for small few portion of time, so for zen 3 onwards they changed how they communicate boost clocks. And in some conditions zen 3 and 4 achieve higher single thread boost beyond what is stated on the specs.
On your second point, on what prevents them changing again... Firstly, learning from the previous mistake. Secondly they've just communicated that all core is better. You're proposing both are incorrect, or at least that you have no trust because of a prior mistake. Seems a reach.
That was just early chiplet binning.All this talk about frequency residency is kinda alarming, reminding me of the Zen 2 era, when some parts could not even reach the stated Fboost max.
I'm not sure what "communicate" means in that context, but with regards to boost behavior they have changed nothingFor Zen 2 the core only reached the boost clocks for small few portion of time, so for zen 3 onwards they changed how they communicate boost clocks. And in some conditions zen 3 and 4 achieve higher single thread boost beyond what is stated on the specs.
Yes, that's it. Although I'd not take it as a mistake.You're proposing both are incorrect, or at least that you have no trust because of a prior mistake.
Very well may be.What has been speculated is that the v/f curve may have been improved enough to eliminate that difference. A hypothetical AMD 9950X3D could, for example, have 3D V-Cache on both chiplets while still boosting to 5.75ghz. IIRC The 7950X3D only boosted to 5.25ghz. A boost to 5.75 GHz would an additional ~10% uplift on top of Zen5 IPC gains and X3D gains.
Apparently you've never been told that speaking in the third person is bad mannersWhat he's doing is hearing/reading the word "residency" and ignoring all context.
Lower 9000X MSRP makes sense, as X3D is now the premium version that wil costs ~100 dollars more. And since there won't be much time between X3D and regular chips, regular ones won't have time to drop prices before X3D release.
Communicate in this context means that the SKUs used to have no fat whatsoever in the boost, now there is some fat. They tell us a different (lower) max single core boost for the same silicon before and after the change. So a processor that can do 5 GHz single core in some limited timeframes would have been labelled as 5 GHz but now that same silicon is labelled as 4.85 GHz or something.I'm not sure what "communicate" means in that context, but with regards to boost behavior they have changed nothing
Yes, that's it. Although I'd not take it as a mistake.
Very well may be.
Apparently you've never been told that speaking in the third person is bad manners