I don't know if AMD has "a lot" of people making powerpoint slides. Edit: Besides, not everybody who focuses in their work on not getting fired, gets fired.So what you are saying in a nutshell. A lot of people are getting fired at AMD for Zen 5 in September.
One thing which they appear to have done in Zen 5 relative to Zen 3/4, according to Granite Ridge die shots, is to implement the L3 cache within a considerably reduced area. Right now I can't see though how this could affect penalties to cross-CCX traffic.
The other obvious change in Zen 5 is that they co-designed for 8c and 16c CCXs. But again it is not obvious to me how this pertains to traffic outside a CCX.
actually by the numbers you posted there its zen 13%
But what's the point when the fabric bottlenecks everything starting at 6000MT? No wonder 8000 runs snoothly, the CPU doesn't even really notice the difference to 6000MTIn their Zen 5 specific review for games Computerbase use up to 8000MT/s RAM and they say that it run smoothly at this frequency, and that s with a 2 x 24GB kit, even the 7950X3D get up to 7200.
But what's the point when the fabric bottlenecks everything starting at 6000MT? No wonder 8000 runs snoothly, the CPU doesn't even really notice the difference to 6000MT
It will probably dominate in server and workstation space, but for average desktop user it is a complete failure vs Ryzen 7000 series.
The worst part of this launch is the AMD PR/marketing department that looks terrible compared to Zen4 launch or previous launches. I am not sure if they were not able to find good replacement for Robert Hallock or what is the deal but they definitely did terrible presentation of the product. They shouldn't highlight gaming so much if they knew there is no gaming uplift. That wouldn't give them so bad press and I bet the application improvements [and they are application improvements, look at browser benchmarks that is probably the one piece of software that is used more than games on average person PC ] could entice few people to update. I mean based on internal numbers they must have known they would not sway gamers anyway so why bother?The huge inter CCD latencies are a big red flag. If this was just a chiplet swap and IO Die is the same, why would this generation see such a huge regression in the latencies?
Also, AMD not providing the raw performance numbers for Zen 5 and even excluding the 7700X from the reviewer's guide was a tell tell sign something is way off. They wasted such a huge opportunity to make a great leap ahead of intel with this generation. X3D will likely still be the fastest chip after ARL launches and will probably just trade blows in ST and MT (according to current ARL leaks). Still, because of weird design or cost saving decisions they made, this generation looks like a total waste for most desktop users. It will probably dominate in server and workstation space, but for average desktop user it is a complete failure vs Ryzen 7000 series.
The huge inter CCD latencies are a big red flag. If this was just a chiplet swap and IO Die is the same, why would this generation see such a huge regression in the latencies?
Also, AMD not providing the raw performance numbers for Zen 5 and even excluding the 7700X from the reviewer's guide was a tell tell sign something is way off. They wasted such a huge opportunity to make a great leap ahead of intel with this generation. X3D will likely still be the fastest chip after ARL launches and will probably just trade blows in ST and MT (according to current ARL leaks). Still, because of weird design or cost saving decisions they made, this generation looks like a total waste for most desktop users. It will probably dominate in server and workstation space, but for average desktop user it is a complete failure vs Ryzen 7000 series.
@Abwx that is not an answer. My point is that it doesn't matter that ZEN5 can run DDR5-8000 without crashing when the performance is the same because internally the IF is bottlenecking everything to DDR5-6000 speeds.
If it was a conscious decision to make it that way, they should come out and let us know their logic behind it. It all boils down to bad choices they made early in the design process. Zen 4 looks like a juggernaut design when compared to Zen 5, and this is all on AMD.Why? The answer is quite obvious now that it is because it was purposely designed that way. Its not due to cross-CCD, its due to cross CCX--monolithic Strix Point has identical issue.
My post on the previous page seems to have largely been glossed over, but nobody is noticing that cross CCX traffic on monolithic Strix Point is almost equally as bad as cross CCX/CCD traffic on Granite Ridge. Just from that, you can throw out anything to do with chiplets, IF, or IOD. This is somehow related to the new core designs. A conscious decision made by the design team. The question now is, why was it necessary to make that decision.
I'm afraid that this is not going to happen. The bean counters from AMD have already cut Zen 5 to mediocre at best by doing the weird design choices. Adding 2x stacked L3 which would increase cost even more is highly unlikely.I'm beginning to think that the "neat" improvements to the 9xxx series X3D chips will be a larger helping of 3d cache. Likely doubling it to 128MB. Lacking greater frequency and integer throughput, reducing latencies will be paramount to getting additional gains. Since memory throughput is roughly stagnant between Zen4 and 5, unlike Zen3 to 4, they have to get it from somewhere else. It's also going to help AVX-512 throughput as that is also heavily memory bound, at least for modest data sets.
I think it was already rumored (not sure if confirmed), that the X3D die will still be 64MB. I tend to believe this rumor, I doubt it will be increased.I'm beginning to think that the "neat" improvements to the 9xxx series X3D chips will be a larger helping of 3d cache. Likely doubling it to 128MB. Lacking greater frequency and integer throughput, reducing latencies will be paramount to getting additional gains. Since memory throughput is roughly stagnant between Zen4 and 5, unlike Zen3 to 4, they have to get it from somewhere else. It's also going to help AVX-512 throughput as that is also heavily memory bound, at least for modest data sets.
That makes no sense, IF bottlenecking Games is the entire point of 3D performing that good, because the bigger L3 avoid huge parts of traffic through IF.On games IF doesnt matter that much because 8 cores are more than enough and a single CCD will do the job.
So they can fix it with Zen6 and have a selling point for itWhy? The answer is quite obvious now that it is because it was purposely designed that way. Its not due to cross-CCD, its due to cross CCX-- as monolithic Strix Point has the identical issue.
My post on the previous page seems to have largely been glossed over, but nobody is noticing that cross CCX traffic on monolithic Strix Point is almost equally as bad as cross CCX/CCD traffic on Granite Ridge. Just from that, you can throw out anything to do with chiplets, IF, or IOD. This is somehow related to the new core designs. A conscious decision made by the design team. The question now is, why was it necessary to make that decision.
Gary Colomb says that zen5 on strix point is good enough in low power usage to create xbox series S experience on handheld (720p?)From a customer perspective, why would anyone buy Kraken Point over Hawk Point?
Hawk would have better CPU MT performance and better GPU performance. CPU ST performance advantage of Kraken will be tiny. As far as I can see the only reason to buy Kraken insteaf of Hawk, is the 50 TOPS NPU.
The IF bottleneck is the bandwidth bottleneck. Games are memory latency bound not throughput bound most of the time. That is why the IF bottleneck doesn't matter much.That makes no sense, IF bottlenecking Games is the entire point of 3D performing that good, because the bigger L3 avoid huge parts of traffic through IF.
That is the only silver lining I can see post this launch. Zen 6 has a huge opportunity to fix everything that is wrong with Zen 5 and then add some more. Only caveat is that this is AMD we are talking about, so nobody knows if the real slim shady will stand up (or not)So they can fix it with Zen6 and have a selling point for it
That's actually the now traditional approach of Linux schedulers, whereas the Windows scheduler prefers the process of the current active window. And that QoS approach actually turned out to be great for multitasking but bad for GUI responsiveness. It took Linux schedulers quite some time to get to a point of offering both a bottleneck free fair sharing of cycles that doesn't significantly increase the latency which actually decreases GUI responsiveness. The Windows scheduler never tried to be completely fair sharing cycles which is why Linux commonly is able to achieve much higher throughput in heavy load situations.It could also be the scheduler never giving a single process maximum cycles available, so that QoS is better for multitasking/GUI responsiveness.
If zen 6 is on ddr6 then will there be a zen 5+ on ddr5 & 3nm ?That is the only silver lining I can see post this launch. Zen 6 has a huge opportunity to fix everything that is wrong with Zen 5 and then add some more. Only caveat is that this is AMD we are talking about, so nobody knows if the real slim shady will stand up (or not)
To be honest, on CPU front they were executing perfectly, especially with Zen 3 and Zen 4 (which brought HUGE performance uplifts). We got spoiled.
Something is definitely wrong with Zen 5 and Windows. Latest video from HU:
The huge inter CCD latencies are a big red flag. If this was just a chiplet swap and IO Die is the same, why would this generation see such a huge regression in the latencies?
Also, AMD not providing the raw performance numbers for Zen 5 and even excluding the 7700X from the reviewer's guide was a tell tell sign something is way off. They wasted such a huge opportunity to make a great leap ahead of intel with this generation. X3D will likely still be the fastest chip after ARL launches and will probably just trade blows in ST and MT (according to current ARL leaks). Still, because of weird design or cost saving decisions they made, this generation looks like a total waste for most desktop users. It will probably dominate in server and workstation space, but for average desktop user it is a complete failure vs Ryzen 7000 series.