No, it historically has actually hurt ST perf on previous gen Ryzens.Excuse me? What are you talking about? Pbo will not improve st and mt?
Did I say MT?Excuse me? What are you talking about? Pbo will not improve st and mt?
I mean who give a f about IPC increase, TDP or whatever?I mean it showed 1% IPC increase for Zen4..
PBO per se didn't lower the ST performance, high EDC did. Looks like it does not really affect it for Zen4, at least I haven't noticed as big of a drop as with Zen2 or Zen3 (3900x and 5900x).No, it historically has actually hurt ST perf on previous gen Ryzens.
my 78x3d pbo improved both st and mt. I’m only talking about pbo, not even curve optimize. The 9700x 2280 21xxx is pbo -200Did I say MT?
I mean who give a f about IPC increase, TDP or whatever?
We had a +27% MT and +20% ST increase in this benchmark for Zen3 > Zen4. While I agree that it's not completely representative, but it's still concerning.
Did you miss this article about why CPU-Z benchmark shouldn't be taken serious ?I mean who give a f about IPC increase, TDP or whatever?
We had a +27% MT and +20% ST increase in this benchmark for Zen3 > Zen4. While I agree that it's not completely representative, but it's still concerning.
That’s not just Jim Keller’s opinion. I’ve watched CPU performance counters across my day-to-day workloads. Across code compilation, image editing, video encoding, and gaming, I can’t think of anything that fits within the L1 cache and barely challenges the branch predictor. CPU-Z’s benchmark is an exception. The factors that limit performance in CPU-Z are very different from those in typical real-life workloads.What limits computer performance today is predictability, and the two big ones are instruction/branch predictability, and data locality.
Jim Keller, during an Interview with Dr. Ian Cutress
Right, but either way (lowering or not lowering), it has never equated to +5% or better gains in ST is all Im saying. If thats the case, a lot of things have definitely changed from the status quo. Also, unless that 9600X is really tanking on its max boost in the ST run, its still way lower than AMDs +17% IPC claim. Strictly based on numbers AMD provided to the public, this should be hitting 2330+ in ST with no PBO. 5.7GHz 9950X should be knocking on 2400.PBO per se didn't lower the ST performance, high EDC did. Looks like it does not really affect it for Zen4, at least I haven't noticed as big of a drop as with Zen2 or Zen3 (3900x and 5900x).
You can read here what happened to CPU Z when the 1700X was released, they "updated" the "bench" because AMD scores were too good comparatively to Intel, there s also a comparison between CPU Z 1.78 and 1.79 scores on the link.Did you miss this article about why CPU-Z benchmark shouldn't be taken serious ?
Let me quote the conclusion:CPU-Z’s Inadequate Benchmark
CPU-Z is a hardware information tool from a company called CPUID, not to be confused with the CPUID instruction. Besides showing basic CPU, motherboard, and memory information, CPU-Z features a bui…chipsandcheese.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmarking is tough. No benchmark can represent the broad range of applications that users will run. For example, Cinebench can’t exactly mirror a gaming workload. However, the primary challenges facing modern workloads are branch prediction and memory accesses, and a lot of benchmarks do present these challenges.
That’s not just Jim Keller’s opinion. I’ve watched CPU performance counters across my day-to-day workloads. Across code compilation, image editing, video encoding, and gaming, I can’t think of anything that fits within the L1 cache and barely challenges the branch predictor. CPU-Z’s benchmark is an exception. The factors that limit performance in CPU-Z are very different from those in typical real-life workloads.
From AMD’s slides, Zen 4 barely improves over Zen 3 for CPU-Z. AMD’s architects likely saw changes that could benefit CPU-Z wouldn’t pay off in other applications. Zen 4 received improvements like a larger micro-op cache, better branch prediction, and doubled L2 cache capacity. Those would help a lot of applications, but not CPU-Z. Thus, CPU-Z’s benchmark ends up being useless to both CPU designers and end users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would actually lump CPU-Z bench together with userbenchmark as the IDL bastions last hope at this point
You didn't have to, I've enjoyed the reading myself.Let me quote the conclusion:
Reviewers usually just enable the PBO "Lazy Mode", not touching the curve or boost override, and that's mostly what people here mean referring to the PBO.The 9700x 2280 21xxx is pbo -200
Whoa, I thought I discovered it fast, but you literally posted it the moment C&C own tw(x)itter account tweeted about it.,C&C posted some musings on Zen 5's decoder. I'll post it in the Zen 5 Architecture thread as well.
Zen 5’s 2-Ahead Branch Predictor Unit: How a 30 Year Old Idea Allows for New Tricks
When I recently interviewed Mike Clark, he told me, “…you’ll see the actual foundational lift play out in the future on Zen 6, even though it was really Zen 5 that set the table for tha…chipsandcheese.com
It helps to be subscribed via email.Whoa, I thought I discovered it fast, but you literally posted it the moment C&C own tw(x)itter account tweeted about it.,
I think it was a conscious decision. AMD saw that People are buying the X3D models not just because of good performance in games, but also because of being so efficient. This is all over the forums, at least in the EU. Ryzen 9000 brings higher performance at lower power consumption. Freeing up PBO headroom is a welcome side effect to please enthusiasts.they are really sure of themselves to reduce perf that much, they could had created an intermediary TDP between 65W/88W PPT and 105W/142W PPT for this SKU.
It just goes to show you can't please everyone. I remember reading nothing but "AMD shouldn't ship these chips so far out of their efficiency range!" and now it seems the majority of the sentiment is "Why would they use such a low TDP if it's only XX% faster than Zen4?! They're leaving so much performance on the table!"I think it was a conscious decision. AMD saw that People are buying the X3D models not just because of good performance in games, but also because of being so efficient. This is all over the forums, at least in the EU. Ryzen 9000 brings higher performance at lower power consumption. Freeing up PBO headroom is a welcome side effect to please enthusiasts.
Also, not going to the absolute limit serves as a reserve for out-of-box performance gains in future generations should they need it.
That's just exaggeration, they just couldn't install Nvidia drivers on the 14900K machine(s), install always failed towards the end.
Yup, I've said exactly the same thing.It just goes to show you can't please everyone. I remember reading nothing but "AMD shouldn't ship these chips so far out of their efficiency range!" and now it seems the majority of the sentiment is "Why would they use such a low TDP if it's only XX% faster than Zen4?! They're leaving so much performance on the table!"
The first picture is the clearest evidence yet of the Zen 5 front-end cvcking AMD's SMT yield.9700X 9900X CB R23
Looks like we can kiss +17% R23 ST goodbye.
Not the TDP?The first picture is the clearest evidence yet of the Zen 5 front-end cvcking AMD's SMT yield.
No, because there would be marginal difference between the MP ratio of the 65 W 7700 vs the 65 W 9700X:Not the TDP?
Isn't it hard to say without normalizing for clock rates?No, because there would be marginal difference between the MP ratio of the 65 W 7700 vs the 65 W 9700X:
AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Ryzen 7 7700 and Ryzen 9 7900 Review
Ryzen 7000 CPUs have not been a slam dunk for AMD so far. Even though they are quite speedy, the move to the AM5 platform has proved...www.techspot.com
7700 MT ratio = 9.58
9700X MT ratio = 9.44
Granted it is small, but the theory is supported by the data.