I mean GNR is already competitive with Turin standard iso power, according to AMD. Turin Dense has like a 25% lead.Thats NOT what you said. You said (and I quote) " it will only take 1 good Intel gen to sway everything back."
I did not meant server with thatThats NOT what you said. You said (and I quote) " it will only take 1 good Intel gen to sway everything back."
At same power the regular 128C Zen 5 is almost 20% faster than a 128C Xeon, wich mean that it would consume 35% less at same perf, that s 50% perf/watt advantage at isoperf.I mean GNR is already competitive with Turin standard iso power, according to AMD. Turin Dense has like a 25% lead.
You are messing up the numbers 9755 was consuming 324W and 6980P was 331W also the performance difference was 20% and a 3% power advantage roughly translates to 23% PPW.At same power the regular 128C Zen 5 is almost 20% faster than a 128C Xeon, wich mean that it would consume 35% less at same perf, that s 50% perf/watt advantage at isoperf.
Beside 25% perf lead for Turin D at wich power.?.
At same throughput than the Xeon 128C@322W, and in Phoronix tests, it would be at about 190W since the perf gap is only 20% at stock for their tests suite, that s a massive 70% perf/watt advantage at isoperf.
You are messing up the numbers 9755 was consuming 324W and 6980P was 331W also the performance difference was 20% and a 3% power advantage roughly translates to 23% PPW.
I see you used maths 🙂If it perform 20% better at same power it will perform the same at 0.65x the power, that s a given that you can trade much higher efficency for more perfs, the more you increase the perf the more you decrease efficency.
These are just assumption without data cause the power performance curve is non linear.By the same token you ll have to increase the Xeon power by almost 50% to match the stock 128C Zen 5 perfs wise.
At same power the regular 128C Zen 5 is almost 20% faster than a 128C Xeon, wich mean that it would consume 35% less at same perf, that s 50% perf/watt advantage at isoperf.
Beside 25% perf lead for Turin D at wich power.?.
At same throughput than the Xeon 128C@322W, and in Phoronix tests, it would be at about 190W since the perf gap is only 20% at stock for their tests suite and with 275W power at stock, that would push the perf/watt advantage at 70%@isoperf.
Instead of cherry picking, The total performance that ABWX posted and power show Turin is quite a bit faster, and has more cores available. Why do you keep this up ? This is a Zen 5 thread you know.
That's a single test. You have to look at the aggregate score.
Does it mean Zen5 cannot be criticized in Zen5 thread at all? Should we have specific thread for this?Instead of cherry picking, The total performance that ABWX posted and power show Turin is quite a bit faster, and has more cores available. Why do you keep this up ? This is a Zen 5 thread you know.
AMD's own ISSCC slides. You will find sources on the previous pages, I think the Japanese page might have the slides or pause the techtechpotato video to read them.Where is that even from so I can see other benchmarks? Totally derailing the thread BTW.
The independent tests above are found on Phoronix.Where is that even from so I can see other benchmarks? Totally derailing the thread BTW.
Where is that even from so I can see other benchmarks? Totally derailing the thread BTW.
DDR5-8800 is going to be more power hungry than DDR5-6000 so platform power ends up being higher still.
Aggregate scores are evil, see GB6 aggregate score for MP for instance. And Phoronix ones are even worse, mixing single thread and multi thread tests; are you even able to say how they come up with an aggregated score where for some subtests a lower score is better than a higher one?That's a single test. You have to look at the aggregate score.
This picking server is not easy now like it was for few years just buy AMD for General Purpose or Intel for AI now it's gotten a bit tricky without actually understanding your workload.Aggregate scores are evil, see GB6 aggregate score for MP for instance. And Phoronix ones are even worse, mixing single thread and multi thread tests; are you even able to say how they come up with an aggregated score where for some subtests a lower score is better than a higher one?
It depends, Phoronix has all the subtests score as well, so one can even look at the kind of workload they are most interested about. Better than looking at a single metric, which may be a very relevant metric but not the only one, as well as one should consider i.e. the platform costs, power consumption and so on.Aggregate scores are evil, see GB6 aggregate score for MP for instance. And Phoronix ones are even worse, mixing single thread and multi thread tests; are you even able to say how they come up with an aggregated score where for some subtests a lower score is better than a higher one?
It seems we agree, but you were talking about aggregated score without any further comment in your previous post SPECint rate also is an aggregated score; without looking at individual tests, I find it of little use (especially given how various compilers are cheating on some of the subtests). Basically you were saying to look at Phoronix aggregated score, responding to an aggregated SPECint score, which made me react.It depends, Phoronix has all the subtests score as well, so one can even look at the kind of workload they are most interested about. Better than looking at a single metric, which may be a very relevant metric but not the only one, as well as one should consider i.e. the platform costs, power consumption and so on.
I meant more that if you look only at the SPECInt, you see a picture while the total aggregate score paints a different one. And in server space costs and power consumption are critical as well.It seems we agree, but you were talking about aggregated score without any further comment in your previous post SPECint rate also is an aggregated score; without looking at individual tests, I find it of little use (especially given how various compilers are cheating on some of the subtests). Basically you were saying to look at Phoronix aggregated score, responding to an aggregated SPECint score, which made me react.
Given the kind of workloads I use, I exactly know what to look at for my needs. And there neither AMD or Intel have the lead (no, I'm not talking about SME) no matter what aggregated scores are.
Which picture do you think is more accurate? The one posted by AMD themselves at an actual tech conference, or Phoronix?I meant more that if you look only at the SPECInt, you see a picture while the total aggregate score paints a different one
EMR ended up looking so much closer to AMD than it should have been due to thisAnd Phoronix ones are even worse, mixing single thread and multi thread
TrueDDR5-8800 is going to be more power hungry than DDR5-6000 so platform power ends up being higher still.
Look at who you are quoting lolDoes it mean Zen5 cannot be criticized in Zen5 thread at all? Should we have specific thread for this?
lolInstead of cherry picking
The CPU in question is Turin, and the data is from a paper AMD presented about Zen 5.Why do you keep this up ? This is a Zen 5 thread you know.
Lots of words to say Intel is hopelessly behind in BOM.Which picture do you think is more accurate? The one posted by AMD themselves at an actual tech conference, or Phoronix?
EMR ended up looking so much closer to AMD than it should have been due to this
True
Look at who you are quoting lol
lol
The CPU in question is Turin, and the data is from a paper AMD presented about Zen 5.
To be precise, I think the SPECInt or the Phoronix aggregate score are useful but neither of them has any decisive value, per se. When they differ, especially with non-negligible difference, then better to check a multiple real-world test suite, for having a better picture of the situation, and for this only Phoronix did something.Which picture do you think is more accurate? The one posted by AMD themselves at an actual tech conference, or Phoronix?
Sadly, it's not the complete slide deck. E.g. the end notes are missing. I just looked for them because...Slides are in English:
【福田昭のセミコン業界最前線】 AMD、最新CPUコア「Zen 5」と「Zen 5c」の技術概要をISSCC 2025で発表
AMDは最新のCPUコア「Zen 5」と「Zen 5c」の技術概要を国際学会「ISSCC 2025」で2025年2月17日(米国太平洋標準時)に発表した(講演番号および論文番号2.1)。「Zen 5」と「Zen 5c」はZenアーキテクチャによる第5世代のCPUコアであり、過去の世代と同様にCPUコアの数や種類を変更することで、モバイル(クライアントのノートPC)向け、デスクトップ(クライアントのデスクトップPC)向け、サーバー向けへとプロセッサ製品を展開している。pc.watch.impress.co.jp
...maybe the end notes [9] and [11] could clue us in. Or maybe not, because such endnotes are never going into every last detail.How is it that Z5 does here 1260 while pairing two 128C CPUs get you 1360 per CPU for a total of 2720, that would be overscaling, so isnt this slide erroneous with a typo.?
Edit : if two 128C do 1360/CPU in a 2P configuration i would imagine that a single 128C would do more than 1360 but certainly not 1260.