All things being equal I don't care about area cost. Increasing resources in a core isn't linear in cost, so once you have spent that powder it's gone. Zen5 spent a lot of powder.Intel did 18% from SNC to GLC by blasting the core area (with L2) from 4.36mm^2 for SNC to 7.53mm^2 for GLC, that's a seventy-fricking-two percent increase in area. And don't get me started on power.
We don't have a precise measurement for Zen 5 yet, but without taking into account the L2, Zen 5 STX is only 3.46mm^2 compared to Zen 4's 2.73mm^2. (a 27% increase in area) GNR core is likely a bit bigger, but accounting for L2 I'd be surprised if it was any more than 35% bigger.
And as David Huang discovered, Zen 5 isn't even a straight up increase in some areas compared to Zen 4, the uop cache looks outright smaller for example.
I'm all for being disappointed by mediocre increase, but bringing up Golden Cove of all things as an example is just lol.
That only solves the clock speed problem what about traffic between the CCD's.Alternatively, if AMD was able to clock the Vcache CCD the same as the non Vcache, you wouldn’t have to fiddle with any software or tweaks either.
That only solves the clock speed problem what about traffic between the CCD's.
The 8004 (siena) processors seem a bit weird. I was trying to determine the chiplet and IO die organization. I had a similar issue with the 9124 and 9224. The epyc wikipedia article initially listed the 9124 as a 2 CCD device and the 9224 as a 3 CCD device. That seemed very unlikely to me. The wiki also had the caches listed as 64 and 96 MB, which is wrong. Both are 64 MB L3. I ended up changing the wiki page myself, so hopefully I am correct in assuming that both 9124 and 9224 are 4 CCD devices with 16 MB L3 enabled rather than 32 MB per CCD. It makes sense that if you have a 4 quadrant IO die, then using 4, 8, or 12 chiplets would be optimal.I'm looking forward to the SP6 Zen5 products. I wonder if, for this generation, AMD will bless us with a 4 CCD full fat Zen5 product with 32 Zen5 cores running at decent speeds? It would be a nice replacement for older Threadrippers out there. Even the 64 core Zen5c parts would provide a lot of grunt for workstations that use AVX-512 heavily. There are some nice SP6 workstation ATX boards out there...
7k TR's are SP6 for both platforms and they're 350W just fine.SP6 is meant to be a low power socket.
Oops. I don't follow threadripper much. The company I am working for is spec'ing new systems now, so I am mostly interested in epyc. It looks like turin will not come out in time though, so I will be working with genoa for the next few years. The chassis are power limitied on the cpu, so turin may have been very good.7k TR's are SP6 for both platforms and they're 350W just fine.
Just wondering if his CO setting actually improved the core clocks?60W:
9950X at GB.
ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench
Benchmark results for an ASUS System Product Name with an AMD Ryzen 9 9950X processor.browser.geekbench.com
Need to see this with 4 memory channels and not 2 this benchmark sensitive to memory bandwidth?9950X at GB.
ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench
Benchmark results for an ASUS System Product Name with an AMD Ryzen 9 9950X processor.browser.geekbench.com
This is how GB6.3 reports 2 dimms being populated on a dual channel memory system. This is full memory bandwidth results.Need to see this with 4 memory channels and not 2 this benchmark sensitive to memory bandwidth?
The MT score is almst the same as 9900X. Does GB scale past 12 cores? If it does, there's some other limitation it seems. View attachment 102713
Pretty mediocreany real temps comparison at same clocks? this should be the real benchmark
Goes to show how relatively useless the Geekbench multi core score is9950X at GB.
ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench
Benchmark results for an ASUS System Product Name with an AMD Ryzen 9 9950X processor.browser.geekbench.com
34 points of IPCSeems the score tops out at 3400 with the "American Megatrends Inc. 2007" -- AGESA 1.1.7.0 patch A / GB BIOS 2007
Will see if this new AGESA improves, this should be the launch version
View attachment 102714
i trust ya, you are my go to for all things Zen and as well as @DisEnchantment.Just my 2cent
The only test that scales well in GB6 is the ray tracing one. If you're only interested in that property, you should only look at that test. Thing is that in real life most applications alas don't scale as rendering ones.The MT score is almst the same as 9900X. Does GB scale past 12 cores? If it does, there's some other limitation it seems. View attachment 102713
Edit: 7950X and 7900X also have similar issues, so it seems that GB doesn't scale past 12
As I wrote above, if you look at the ray tracing score, you get more or less what you expected.GB6 scale at 18% from 6 to 8 cores, that is 33% more cores, and only by 8% when adding 50% more cores from 8 to 12, even ST subscores that are known to be vastly parralel on real world have limited scalability on the MT subscores, so that s an irrelevant bench when it comes to MT.