There are many MT workloads that don’t require that much memory bandwidth.
I am not familiar with video transcoding. Are there transcoders which scale to very high core counts?Video transcoding, source code compilation, ...
I'd say +2.6% and +3.3% for the 1080p and 1440p gaming respectively is not that small.That graph shows improvement of only 1.5% with SMT disabled... Which isn't exactly massive.
I don't get, is this behavior W11 specific or is W10 also affected?Seems like either windows 11 or nvidia drivers needs to update the thread scheduling for Zen5
All you armchair experts saying Zen5 stinks at gaming, explain the .1% lows away
I am not interested in video games myself, hence never pay attention to that part of CPU reviews. What strikes me as odd is that most reviewers still focus on average FPS a lot. If average FPS were the most important thing to immersion into a game, then the conclusion of all of these reviews should be that all desktop CPUs perform alike: Average FPS are always good enough if screen resolution and game details are chosen according to GPU performance. — From what I understand, what matters additionally, and very much, to the experience of playing a video game are things like low percentiles of FPS, and frame time variance. Yet hardly any reviewer seems to put these prominently into the center of the video game part of CPU reviews.superb .1% lows, sign of a superior CPU
New dual decoder in action? Maybe if SMT is disabled, single core gets both decoders ? Not just decodes, I think dual OP cache also behave the same.Updated screenshots
Its 1.5% at 4k res, higher at lower res
Some more screens
I really want AMD to pull some miracle with an updated IOD that allows the X3D chips to use DDR5-8000 in 1:1 mode.
This is the very thing I've been railing against chatting with others. Your opinion of the launch doesn't matter if you never intended to buy.
Regarding video transcoding, just check out the Handbrake perf tests, which are quite common in CPU reviews.I am not familiar with video transcoding. Are there transcoders which scale to very high core counts?
Source code compilation however: Software build jobs are not scaling well with core count. There are significant single- and lowly threaded sections during a build. The compilation stage scales well if there are respectively many files. But most of the time, developers build incrementally, so there is no good scaling there either.
I added obvious context just to avoid responses like this, and you left that out of the quote.Does this also apply to people parroting negative reviews of Granite Ridge? Nobody said this until people started praising Zen5.
I added obvious context just to avoid responses like this, and you left that out of the quote.
Starting to think that SMT causes more issues in normal use than improvements.
I am not familiar with video transcoding. Are there transcoders which scale to very high core counts?
Well, Handbrake does not scale with core count. This is well known.Regarding video transcoding, just check out the Handbrake perf tests, which are quite common in CPU reviews.
Source code compilation however: Software build jobs are not scaling well with core count. There are significant single- and lowly threaded sections during a build. The compilation stage scales well if there are respectively many files. But most of the time, developers build incrementally, so there is no good scaling there either.
I said there is no high parallelism in common software build jobs.Regarding source code compilation, do you have any reviews / perf tests showing that Zen5 would be bottle necked due to memory bandwidth beyond 16C?
DDR4. And not Zen5.Well, Handbrake does not scale with core count. This is well known.
Example: AnandTech's Threadripper 3000 review
You said. I asked for reviews / tests showing this for Zen5 beyond 16C. Still waiting.I said there is no high parallelism in common software build jobs.
The pure compilation stage scales well if an entire source tree has to be rebuilt, but that's a rare task in practice.
Yesn't. Speaking as a formerly more active gheymer myself, there's really 3 metrics:I am not interested in video games myself, hence never pay attention to that part of CPU reviews. What strikes me as odd is that most reviewers still focus on average FPS a lot. If average FPS were the most important thing to immersion into a game, then the conclusion of all of these reviews should be that all desktop CPUs perform alike: Average FPS are always good enough if screen resolution and game details are chosen according to GPU performance. — From what I understand, what matters additionally, and very much, to the experience of playing a video game are things like low percentiles of FPS, and frame time variance. Yet hardly any reviewer seems to put these prominently into the center of the video game part of CPU reviews.
(Especially ridiculous is when reviewers produce huge diagrams with a dozen of CPUs all giving absurdly high FPS. They should shrink those graphs into a one-line summary that all tested CPUs were good for more FPS than necessary.)
It's 5-10% in most benchmarks, besides AMD's cherry-picked tests. And 5.1 is far closer to what these chips will actually run at in real-world conditions than people's delirious 6 GHz fantasies.
I was right, by the way. Actually, 5.1 was optimistic, looks like it's closer to 4.8 for real-world workloads.
You put it in the fmax column, you absolute clown.I was right, by the way. Actually, 5.1 was optimistic, looks like it's closer to 4.8 for real-world workloads.
Already decided that without official reviews? Im still on the fence. I had previously said that if Zen 5s perf claims at Computex held up, I was getting one. Either 9700X or 9950X. Reviews of 9700X DID NOT hold up AMDs Computex claims at all, but Im waiting on 9950X reviews. Pricing matters more than ever now, and they are not priced correctly, IMO.I added obvious context just to avoid responses like this, and you left that out of the quote.
It's like piracy. The company didn't lose money from someone pirating the game if the person would have never otherwise paid for it.
It doesn't matter to AMD's bottom line what your opinion is of the product or release if you were never going to buy it no matter how well it was received.
Yes, I was 100% set on buying a 9950X until release rolled around and the reality set in. Now I am not buying one. It doesn't make my opinion more valid, but the fact that AMD lost a sale is what matters, not my opinion of the release.
Already decided that without official reviews? Im still on the fence. I had previously said that if Zen 5s perf claims at Computex held up, I was getting one. Either 9700X or 9950X. Reviews of 9700X DID NOT hold up AMDs Computex claims at all, but Im waiting on 9950X reviews. Pricing matters more than ever now, and they are not priced correctly, IMO.
9950x won't save Zen5. I think the 7950x3d will look like the best option after the 9950x releases.Already decided that without official reviews? Im still on the fence. I had previously said that if Zen 5s perf claims at Computex held up, I was getting one. Either 9700X or 9950X. Reviews of 9700X DID NOT hold up AMDs Computex claims at all, but Im waiting on 9950X reviews. Pricing matters more than ever now, and they are not priced correctly, IMO.
Consumers won't upgrade to a newer CPU in-order to save a few watts. We're not talking about laptops here. IMO If you can get almost identical performance, and pay less, but at the cost of somewhat more power and more noise, and you already have fan noise and power - it doesn't matter really. If you want to compare with lower power usage, compare the 9700x to the lower TDP 7700... The 9700x is ~10% faster, but also ~10% more power efficient at best.This "word of mouth" thing about 9700X/9600X not being that much faster than their Zen 4 counterparts is what's killing their sales mojo.
I really think that nobody cares, as long as Zen4 isn't melting any houses. Let's face it, As a consumer, I want to buy the best value, I don't care about this amazing accomplishment. It reminds me of people saying how RDNA3 is a great accomplishment because it's the first consumer GPU to use chiplets, or buying Fury or Vega because the have HBM. Who cares? I care about performance. Comparing temps with the 7700... I don't see how Zen4 isn't great as well and also an amazing accomplishment.Remaining under 70C while going full tilt with just an air cooler is an amazing accomplishment.
Zen4 non-X parts were already under 70C on air cooling.Remaining under 70C while going full tilt with just an air cooler is an amazing accomplishment.