compiler flags and OS and other stuff makes the result variable as well.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.
The term BOM was never once mentioned in that comment, because no one was talking about it up till now lol.Lots of words to say Intel is hopelessly behind in BOM.
Who ever said GNR was the better product?GNR with fancy DIMMS is far more cost than standard Turin, both to the customer and Intel.
And it is still slower.
Why do you think that would happen?DMR loses ground to Venice,
This prob will end up being true. We will see though.CWF is too late as it gets steamrolled quickly by Venice Dense.
You aren't him, bro.No need to repeat this again.
Could be, honestly, idk, but doesn't change much of my take away at least.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.?
The Zen 5C configuration also had worse than linear scaling.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.
Should be up on IEEE in like 2 weeksSadly, it's not the complete slide deck. E.g. the end notes are missing. I just looked for them because...
Because IDC. Big cores are doomed until Unified Core.Why do you think that would happen?
True, perf difference is whatever either way.Fancy DIMMs are not a requisite you can or can not use them.
If Intel had the platform cost advantage it would be fine.Yes but not generational gap.
DMR is same paradigm as GNR, which is a strictly worse paradigm than Venice.DMR venice CWF is not out yet so you should reserve judgement by than also DMR is not a refreshed arch like RWC it is going to have 3 architectural jump with APX and stuff.
None of the special features will save it.see you in 2026.
And yet GNR is within striking range of Turin classic.Because IDC. Big cores are doomed until Unified Core.
You are seeing ghosts dude. Not a single person here is saying GNR is better than Turin lol.If Intel had the platform cost advantage it would be fine.
They do not.
WdymDMR is same paradigm as GNR, which is a strictly worse paradigm than Venice.
Igh dude lol.None of the special features will save it.
The Zen 5C configuration also had worse than linear scaling.
Two CPUS in a box are unlikely to be better cooled than a single one in a box half the volume, say two 128C in a 4U rack and a single 128C in a 2U.It could have been something as simple and arbitrary as the 2P system having better cooling than the 1P system. Besides, there is always some chip-to-chip variance.
I'm saying the Zen 5C variant also exhibits that same trait. Each CPU is supposed to do 1510 while two CPUs manage to miraculously do 1550 per CPU.We re talking of the regular 128C, one CPU is supposed to do 1260 while two CPUs manage to do miraculously 1360 per CPU.
Pretty sure Zen 5 is ahead of GNR in a similar category of spec2017 of as 7zip.Beside if the 6980P was that close in Integer it wouldnt be that lagging in 7Zip, wich according to AT is quite representative of servers perfs in real world.
7Zip score are at the top of the page :
You know my only RANT about AMD PC's...
If your
MOUNTING SYSTEM IS SO BAD THAT MOST AFTERMARKET HEAT SINKS REQUIRE REMOVAL, WHY OH WHY DO YOU NOT CHANGE IT?
EVERY Ryzen cpu system i have built which i put an aftermarket heat sink required me to remove the existing one completely, and put on the custom mount.
Why even have one to begin with then, why not just use pushpins like Intel on OEM heat sinks and not have us remove the non working retention every new build?
OH and That ThreadRipper + EPYC requires a special TORQ tool to secure CPU otherwise u can and probably will run into memory errors.
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?
You know my only RANT about AMD PC's...
If your
MOUNTING SYSTEM IS SO BAD THAT MOST AFTERMARKET HEAT SINKS REQUIRE REMOVAL, WHY OH WHY DO YOU NOT CHANGE IT?
EVERY Ryzen cpu system i have built which i put an aftermarket heat sink required me to remove the existing one completely, and put on the custom mount.
Why even have one to begin with then, why not just use pushpins like Intel on OEM heat sinks and not have us remove the non working retention every new build?
OH and That ThreadRipper + EPYC requires a special TORQ tool to secure CPU otherwise u can and probably will run into memory errors.
In defense of Phoronix, they do a better job with their server/workstation benchmarks than they do their desktop benchmarks. The selections seem more relevant (at least to me), and most (but not all) are aggressively multithreaded.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's still hard to say in their selection what benefits from MT, what benefits from unrealistic parallelization, what is purely ST. OTOH having a large selection helps people looking at the workloads that matter to them; and that's why I was pleading against aggregated score.In defense of Phoronix, they do a better job with their server/workstation benchmarks than they do their desktop benchmarks. The selections seem more relevant (at least to me), and most (but not all) are aggressively multithreaded.
Problems with GB6 are that is more for desktops, not for servers. Also, Phoronics does not count much for avx-512, it does little benchmarks for that, but in servers it is important.It's still hard to say in their selection what benefits from MT, what benefits from unrealistic parallelization, what is purely ST. OTOH having a large selection helps people looking at the workloads that matter to them; and that's why I was pleading against aggregated score.
Something similar applies to GB6, but at least there you clearly know what is supposedly ST or MT. And they don't mix results measured in seconds with results measured with scores. Phoronix aggregated score remains a mystery to me (I quickly searched for that information and couldn't find it).
Since the average difference is 20% and that ST differences are quite lower one canIt's still hard to say in their selection what benefits from MT, what benefits from unrealistic parallelization, what is purely ST.
Well, they do definitely more tests with avx512 enabled software than they do compile tests, not to mention they often have specific avx512 comparison articles, while they completely ignore throughput related nature of compilation workloads for CI/CD servers which is usually the role of 64 core+ servers.Phoronics does not count much for avx-512, it does little benchmarks for that, but in servers it is important.
They made 2 reviews with AVX-512 for Turin:Also, Phoronics does not count much for avx-512, it does little benchmarks for that, but in servers it is important.
What I actually meant, was adding that to their standard comparison reviews.They made 2 reviews with AVX-512 for Turin:
Too bad we don't have results for competing Intel chips in the same runs, but I guess these can be extracted from their DB.
I've just flagged this post as trolling.Phoronics does not count much for avx-512, it does little benchmarks for that, but in servers it is important.
That's quite a rant of things I never heard of. I mean I think TR has that going on but I wouldn't know. Did you have a family member or friend ask you to work on their Ryzen and it gave you trouble recently?
I get severe anxiety just looking at that. Thank God, Markfw was kind enough to ship his Epyc CPU well seated in the mobo. Even then, I was scared as heck installing the giant heatsink and tightening it. They should just bring back the slockets!
I don't know how that converts, but I saw 13-15 inch pounds. If that the same, I apologize.I don't understand where the issue is, AMD ships every Threadripper CPU with a dedicated tool, and if you somehow throw it away before installing CPU, 3 seconds search on internet turns out correct torque spec. which is 1.5Nm. Use any torque wrench you want and set it to 1.5Nm.
I've build 4 TR setups myself and took my own CPU about 10 times out of the socket to change cooler or for maintenance. If you follow instructions telling you in which order to fasten screws, you will not have any problems.
13.3 inch poundsI don't know how that converts, but I saw 13-15 inch pounds. If that the same, I apologize.