If he manually tuned IF without testing for stability, he can get very random results. Also, sync mode is worth it only if frequency difference is very small (compared to desync), otherwise higher fclk will always beat or be on par with sync (7800 in 1:2 mode with fclk=1950 vs 2167 for example, and so on).IF clock of 2400MHz means that IF should run at that speed regardless of the memory speed.
NO retail CPUs, even to respected websites yet, and you are complaining about Zen 5 ? Why don't you wait until at least a respected site comes out with a review using retail chips ?Yeah, your right. I can't really hide that I expected more out of ZEN5. Not the 32% or whatever, but I still thought it would be a leap. I mean it's the first time AMD widened the arch like that since ZEN exists. And now it looks to be straightup worse than ZEN4 from the pure "performance uplift compared to predecessor" side. I mean Vanilla ZEN4 at least managed to be around 5800X3D. If 9700X is really 8-9% behind 7800X3D that is really a big gap, given we are at a point where 5% mean destroying the competition for some people.
I mean AMD showed the Blender generational uplift slides for Multithread and the best one was 9950X with 22%, worst one 9700X with 11%. And Blender was one of the biggest numbers in the IPC Slide, 23% if I remember right. So MT average is like 7-15% at average? ZEN4 had 30+% gaming also seems to be Single digit, at least compared to ZEN4 on same RAM.
How do we know? The point of NDAs is that they can't tell you about everything, that includes the date where they receive the CPUs. Review date should be in 7 Days, 8 days at worst. Reviewers should've already received their CPUs, everything else would be REALLY late.NO retail CPUs, even to respected websites yet,
Vanilla Zen4 had IPC boost, MHz boost and DRAM boost to overcome the 5800x3d. Zen5 has only IPC boost. As a bonus in this particular review it has misconfigured DRAM [and x3d will care less about misconfigured DRAM] and cross CCD penalty in somewhat well threaded games. While I don't expect 9900x will overcome 7800x3d I think the average scores for 9900x from other reviewers will be a tad higher due to those factors. The more interesting comparison from CPU vs CPU point of view would be 7900x vs 9900xYeah, your right. I can't really hide that I expected more out of ZEN5. Not the 32% or whatever, but I still thought it would be a leap. I mean it's the first time AMD widened the arch like that since ZEN exists. And now it looks to be straightup worse than ZEN4 from the pure "performance uplift compared to predecessor" side. I mean Vanilla ZEN4 at least managed to be around 5800X3D. If 9700X is really 8-9% behind 7800X3D that is really a big gap, given we are at a point where 5% mean destroying the competition for some people.
I mean AMD showed the Blender generational uplift slides for Multithread and the best one was 9950X with 22%, worst one 9700X with 11%. And Blender was one of the biggest numbers in the IPC Slide, 23% if I remember right. So MT average is like 7-15% at average? ZEN4 had 30+% gaming also seems to be Single digit, at least compared to ZEN4 on same RAM.
So I think we agree that many reviews are poor on that side.There s rarely reviews of CPU perfs with mainstream cards, you should complain to the reviewers.
I once did adress this point, one more time the fault is on the reviewers who never test realistic set ups, FI they test mainstream CPUs with the most expensive GPU, wich is a case that do not exist in real life, and likewise they test mainstream GPUs with the faster CPU, wich is also a case that barely exist in real set ups of consumers.
I'll just keep on ignoring these parts of the reviews (and complain that reviewers should better spend their time on analyzing results of application benchmarks ).So for the time we ll have to be content with AMD s 7900XTX based numbers wich are surely at 1080p, there s a computerbase review, at 720p, with numbers from this GPU in function of the CPU.
Ryzen 9 7950X3D im Test gegen 5800X3D und 13900K(S)
Zen 4 3D ist da. Im Test erweist sich AMDs Ryzen 9 7950X3D gegen 7950X, 5800X3D und Core i9-13900K(S) als schnell und effizient.www.computerbase.de
Above 5.35ghz fmax (stock) together with 2x L1, ~1.4x L2 and ~1.15x L3 cache bandwidthAbout the Zen 5 X3D, its almost a certainty that it will not hit normal clocks. I did predict that for Zen 4 X3D last go round and was totally wrong. This time, I would bet we'll probably see ~5.2 GHz out of the box, with AMD letting users play at their own risk trying to squeeze out another 100 to 200 MHz. I'd like to be pleasantly surprised, but unless something radically different was done in the design, I think thats what we'll get.
I'm not on fire with predictions like @Josh128 but I think we'll see 12-15% with Z5X3D vs Z4X3D.Above 5.35ghz fmax (stock) together with 2x L1, ~1.4x L2 and ~1.15x L3 cache bandwidth
Ontop of 7ns L3 and the core IPC gains going from Z4 to Z5
What do you think the final gaming performance uplift will be vs the 7800x3d ?
I thought that Turin Dense was using Zen5C cores, not Zen5... not that there's a functional logic difference between them, so that's a only a technicality?Yeah it's called Turin Dense and it's on N3e.
What's that
Well, at least the linked video *is* a review of a retail CPU. Once the SKUs reach the dealers, then in the days before launch some samples always find their way to outlets that didn't sign an NDA.The retail CPUs and reviews are not even out yet
it's just 1/3 of registered memory (buffering clocks, but not data) and it's also coming to the CAMM2 modules. From the article:That will extend existing DDR5 infrastructure for a while longer, but CAMM is just plain superior.
DDR6 has a big baseline cost associated and really is tailored for servers and nothing else.
In any case, CKDs will be coming to all of JEDEC's DDR5 memory form factors. So along with the CUDIMM, we'll have the Clocked SODIMM (CSODIMM), and even DDR5 CAMM2 memory modules will use clock drivers.
Yes, kind of. I'm writing accurate CPU simulators to study ideas to improve the performance of upcoming designs. I'm now more involved in the infrastructure of the simulators and in studying the benefit of new instructions rather than, for instance, studying details of branch prediction or data prefetchers. That's why I'm much more interested in the deep study of results of CPU bound benchmarks rather than the performance of the CPU/GPU couple at 720p.You’re a CPU designer?
I'm not on fire with predictions like @Josh128 but I think we'll see 12-15% with Z5X3D vs Z4X3D.
Yes, kind of. I'm writing accurate CPU simulators to study ideas to improve the performance of upcoming designs. I'm now more involved in the infrastructure of the simulators and in studying the benefit of new instructions rather than, for instance, studying details of branch prediction or data prefetchers. That's why I'm much more interested in the deep study of results of CPU bound benchmarks rather than the performance of the CPU/GPU couple at 720p.
And no, as @igor_kavinski wrote, I won't tell what companies I work or worked for 😀
If Zen5X3D keeps the same clocks as Zen 5, it should be quite a lot faster. Zen3X3D and Zen4X3D both had a pretty big handicap in clockspeeds.I could have a pretty decent guess at which comanies they might be as my good friend most likely works for one of them too doing exactly what you described.
Cool stuff and the product is amazing 👏
Back on topic, Zen5X3D 20% faster in games than Zen4X3D is my shot in the dark.
I don't believe its a retail CPU, or other respected websites would have reviews too. Could be an ES. You can relink for me if you want, I did not see it. If its a youtube, then its not worth even reading.Well, at least the linked video *is* a review of a retail CPU. Once the SKUs reach the dealers, then in the days before launch some samples always find their way to outlets that didn't sign an NDA.
Like @SarahKerrigan , you misattributed someone else's post to me but it's OK, I feel pretty flattered that mine is the first name that pops up in the head of hardcore CPU loversAnd no, as @igor_kavinski wrote, I won't tell what companies I work or worked for 😀
I haven't watched the video either. It might be a retail sample though. Respected reviewers don't have reports out yet because AMD most certainly made them agree to a publication embargo, which ends at or near retail availability of the product. (And respected reviewers require more time anyway. The usual state of affairs has been that there is not much time between reception of review samples, reception of quasi-final BIOS, and end of publication embargo.)I don't believe its a retail CPU, or other respected websites would have reviews too. Could be an ES. You can relink for me if you want, I did not see it.
Like @SarahKerrigan , you misattributed someone else's post to me but it's OK, I feel pretty flattered that mine is the first name that pops up in the head of hardcore CPU lovers
Isn't that a monstrously high clock rate for that many cores?