- Mar 3, 2017
- 1,747
- 6,598
- 136
Excited to see how 8800 MT/s JEDEC kits will fare with Zen 5. Those cores just chew through data and want more of it!Same in terms of nanoseconds, numerically they are different, naturally. Like CL30 at 6400 is equivalent to CL37 at 7800 and so on.
Pretty sure IO die still is limited to 80x multi, so probably they won't fare at allExcited to see how 8800 MT/s JEDEC kits will fare with Zen 5. Those cores just chew through data and want more of it!
I'm afraid I'm missing the point. Didn't you talk about the difference in core t° in the same CCD?Well, if you don't believe me you welcome to do what ppl at i2hard (as well as derbauer) did, they actually have multiple CPUs and delidded them. Same stuff happens to intel cpus, sometimes the difference is even greater, like 20C or so.
Lmao I love this memeWCCFTech have made a "news" post again about results shared in this thread
But one of the comments made me lol atleast 🤣AMD Ryzen 9 9950X CPU Tested With Unlimited PPT Mode: 320W Power, Over 5.5 GHz Clocks Across All Cores, 40% Faster Vs 14900K
AMD's Ryzen 9 9950X CPU has been tested with a 5.5 GHz all core overclock and again, using an unlimited power profile pushing 320W power.wccftech.com
Yes, this difference disappears if CPU is delidded and LM is used instead of whatever AMD puts under the lid or if you DD cool it.I'm afraid I'm missing the point. Didn't you talk about the difference in core t° in the same CCD?
I can only guess what P-cores look like...But one of the comments made me lol atleast
It'd be curious to see screenshots or links at the very least?Yes, this difference disappears if CPU is delidded and LM is used instead of whatever AMD puts under the lid or if you DD cool it.
It's been two years, can't find them quickly, but you can check out Roman's video, this kind of improvement would be impossible if solder was great (as it was with zen3 and below, check his delidding videos for zen3, it was like 5C of improvement in total instead of 20C), now it is intel grade, unfortunately.I'd curious to see screenshots or links at the very least?
Didn't see per core temps there. Too lazy to dig through his videos, sorry, but looking forward of seeing the data.It's been two years, can't find them quickly, but you can check out Roman's video
Unless the low tdp has the core at vmin I find that hard the believe. Very unlikely that you have better perf watt curve overall but not at the low end.View attachment 103000
This graph is not exactly super optimistic for Zen 5 perf/watt...
Edit: sorry, I should give credit... I forgot to link the post I got it from. Here it is.
Wasn't there talk about now that AMD has Dense available that the non-Dense cores can be go further towards 'full fat' rather than being restrained according to AMD's standard Zen design philosophy? Now if you want efficient server cpus you go Dense. If you want high speed server, go non-Dense. Not a good solution for those on the desktop that likes to run 16 cores in 125W eco mode, but it is what it is.Unless the low tdp has the core at vmin I find that hard the believe. Very unlikely that you have better perf watt curve overall but not at the low end.
It would also make zero sense for the main target market....... Server
reminds me a bit of this graph....Very unlikely that you have better perf watt curve overall but not at the low end.
Ye I agree with that, but new archs generally have always had worse perf/watt uplifts at the lower end than the higher end, simply from the fact that there is more stuff to drive. Newer nodes generally followed the opposite pattern- perf/watt uplifts are better at the high end than the low end.It would also make zero sense for the main target market....... Server
View attachment 103000
This graph is not exactly super optimistic for Zen 5 perf/watt...
Edit: sorry, I should give credit... I forgot to link the post I got it from. Here it is.
That graph, if you look at it from the top, and work your way down to lower PPT, implies that the variability between the two CCDs in the 9950X is much larger than it is for the 7950X.View attachment 103000
This graph is not exactly super optimistic for Zen 5 perf/watt...
Edit: sorry, I should give credit... I forgot to link the post I got it from. Here it is.
I was about to criticize you for picking a rather extreme point from the curves. But on the other hand, this very point is the one which AMD chose as default PPT for 7950X. (And for 7900X too…)80% better perf/Watt at isoperf
Lol, using iso watt numbers to get a bigger figure.Dunno what you are seeing, at same core count Zen 5 provide 80% better perf/Watt at isoperf, or 28% better perf/watt at 16% better perf, that s real numbers, not impressions pulled out of randomness.
Hmm?That graph, if you look at it from the top, and work your way down to lower PPT, implies that the variability between the two CCDs in the 9950X is much larger than it is for the 7950X.
Those skus are potentially AMD's least important segment. Actually wait, I forgot about HEDT lol.I was about to criticize you for picking a rather extreme point from the curves. But on the other hand, this very point is the one which AMD chose as default PPT for 7950X. (And for 7900X too…)
I think we still lack data to start extrapolating to Turin. Genoa and Raphael supposedly have differently binned CCDs, yet Turin and Granite Ridge¹ allegedly get different steppings, don't they? Although if the latter is true, the reasons and effects are uncertain.At ~3 watts per core, Zen 5 is only like 0-5% better perf/watt than Zen 4, assuming 30 watts for the IOD. 3 watts is around what I expect each Zen 5 core in a Turin-flagship system to be getting.
I was about to criticize you for picking a rather extreme point from the curves. But on the other hand, this very point is the one which AMD chose as default PPT for 7950X. (And for 7900X too…)
All those numbers of yours are pure non sense.Lol, using iso watt numbers to get a bigger figure.
We all know how much of a mid core SNC/CYPC was, and I can pull esentially that same figure of ~80% better perf/watt iso-perf for that core using the chips and cheese graph, vs skl.
At ~3 watts per core, Zen 5 is only like 0-5% better perf/watt than Zen 4, assuming 30 watts for the IOD. 3 watts is around what I expect each Zen 5 core in a Turin-flagship system to be getting.
We only start getting ~10% better perf/watt past ~6 watts per core.
We don't go past ~15% better perf/watt until ~7.5 watts per core.
It looks like Zen 5 is only able to get better perf/watt when Zen 4 is pretty much done scaling lol.
Those numbers are pulled straight out of the graph lmao.All those numbers of yours are pure non sense.
Efficency delta between a Zen 4 core and Zen 5 core is the same at 3W than at 6W, there s no way that Zen 5 efficency could increase relatively to Zen 4 at the rate you re pretending, so it s clear that something is heavily flawed in your random methodology.
To summarize if Zen 5 is 15% more efficent at 7.5W than Zen 4 then it will be also 15% more efficent at 3W, , or else the laws of physics would mean nothing.
Power scaling is surely not uniform over frontend logic, execution logic, the various buffers and caches, fabrics, and so on, is it?[...] or else the laws of physics would mean nothing.
Those numbers are pulled straight out of the graph lmao.
If you want me to write out the math, here you go:
3 watts per core x 16 cores + 30 watts IOD = ~80 watts power, looking at the graph, the % higher performance Zen 5 has over Zen 4 at that power is 0-5%.
6 watts per core is 6 x 16 + 30 watts IOD = ~130 watts power, looking at the graph, the % higher performance Zen 5 has over Zen 4 at that power is 7-12%.
Power scaling is surely not uniform over frontend logic, execution logic, the various buffers and caches, fabrics, and so on, is it?