adroc_thurston and the order of 32% amirite?
I'll show myself out.
Intel did 18% from SNC to GLC by blasting the core area (with L2) from 4.36mm^2 for SNC to 7.53mm^2 for GLC, that's a seventy-fricking-two percent increase in area. And don't get me started on power.
We don't have a precise measurement for Zen 5 yet, but without taking into account the L2, Zen 5 STX is only 3.46mm^2 compared to Zen 4's 2.73mm^2. (a 27% increase in area) GNR core is likely a bit bigger, but accounting for L2 I'd be surprised if it was any more than 35% bigger.
And as David Huang discovered, Zen 5 isn't even a straight up increase in some areas compared to Zen 4, the uop cache looks outright smaller for example.
I'm all for being disappointed by mediocre increase, but bringing up Golden Cove of all things as an example is just lol.
Yes and it will surely impact games.Zen4 has AVX-512 so it is fair game.
Zen5 does have more instructions but I don't think GB uses them.
I'm not disappointed. Even 10% IPC increase in 2 years looks good given the starting point already was good. I think some people underestimate what's needed to get higher and higher (as your post about Intel going crazy with GNC demonstrates).That's enough for me to replace my HaswellEven if it's 10%, which I think is probably on the low end of what we'll see across tests, that's a solid inter-generational win in the context of what new generations of high-end microarchitectures (Arm, Apple, Intel, AMD - not IBM because their release cycles are multiple years) have been doing lately.
I guess I'm just not seeing where the disappointment is coming from. Golden Cove (specifically 12900K), gen to gen, did a perf increase on 502.gcc of under 20% iso clock, and regressed clock by 100MHz against the 11900K. And that was on a new node - the first in what, seven years? - with a far more aggressive microarchitecture than its predecessor!
You should wait for X3D regardless. It's the X3D to have due to AMD promising it will be different. It HAS to be different then otherwise even AMD loyalists will bring out the pitchforks!A thing that might change my mind is if power is too high, in which case I'll wait for the X3D variant, I'm in no hurry.
So if you game get the 8c version...The problem with X3D is that the 16 core version requires a lot of software fiddling for games etc which many of us can't be bothered with. I was hoping for example the 9900X3D would just have the "3D" cache on all cores, now that would make it a very attractive chip to get. As it stands the 7900X3D is kinda a dead rubber of a cpu
Or people who want cache should stop being cheap and just get a Milan-X with 768MB cacheSo if you game get the 8c version...
That's not how this works. I, as a consumer, have wants and needs. I will not allow a corporation to tell me what I can have or want.Or people who want cache should stop being cheap and just get a Milan-X with 768MB cache
The problem with X3D is that the 16 core version requires a lot of software fiddling for games etc which many of us can't be bothered with. I was hoping for example the 9900X3D would just have the "3D" cache on all cores, now that would make it a very attractive chip to get. As it stands the 7900X3D is kinda a dead rubber of a cpu
AMD can dictate how it works coz Intel has no answer to V-cache yet. If people want to avoid dual CCD X3D coz it lacks the X3D cache on both CCDs, they can choose to do so. That's all they can do. AMD could discontinue dual CCD X3D due to poor sales but trying to increase sales by giving people what they want, well, we haven't seen them do that even two years after 5800X3D launch which is enough time to stockpile on quite a lot of V-cache dies.That's not how this works.
Make the V$ CCD primary/CCD0 and CCD1 will just be a fill-in MT CCD like on the 7950X. That would do it.Alternatively, if AMD was able to clock the Vcache CCD the same as the non Vcache, you wouldn’t have to fiddle with any software or tweaks either.
I'm not saying I can fabricate a product that doesn't exist out of thin air. I will always voice my opinion on a hypothetical product I want and would buy.AMD can dictate how it works coz Intel has no answer to V-cache yet. If people want to avoid dual CCD X3D coz it lacks the X3D cache on both CCDs, they can choose to do so. That's all they can do. AMD could discontinue dual CCD X3D due to poor sales but trying to increase sales by giving people what they want, well, we haven't seen them do that even two years after 5800X3D launch which is enough time to stockpile on quite a lot of V-cache dies.
I would like to see review of this Epyc 4584PX (AM5 socket). I assume this might do well on SQL Server and "MS Flight Simulator" type loads 😁Or people who want cache should stop being cheap and just get a Milan-X with 768MB cache
It only seems to differ by having support for this feature: https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/server/epyc/infinity-guard.html#infinityI would like to see review of this Epyc 4584PX (AM5 socket).
General compiler improvements - ie, to all targets, or to all x86 targets - happen. So do general renderer improvements.
You'd still have to do that because some games can spread their threads over both ccds which will tank FPS because of inter-die trafficAlternatively, if AMD was able to clock the Vcache CCD the same as the non Vcache, you wouldn’t have to fiddle with any software or tweaks either.
You'd still have to do that because some games can spread their threads over both ccds which will tank FPS because of inter-die traffic
Certainly that's 4 lanes sidetracked to a (USB) controller.Curious regression on the PCIe lanes front for the new chipsets.
These are the 4 Lanes used for the separate Asmedia USB4 Chip. And X870 is newly labeled B650E, so it adds up. Still quite a poor chipset line.Curious regression on the PCIe lanes front for the new chipsets.
Curious regression on the PCIe lanes front for the new chipsets.