Evidence for a "big iGPU" version, perhaps?
You don't need evidence it's on the roadmaps and have been for a long while.Evidence for a "big iGPU" version, perhaps?
Not publicly it hasn't. Until then, all we have are rumors and leaks, the two of which are often indistinguishable.You don't need evidence it's on the roadmaps and have been for a long while.
Those numbers sound reasonable, if nothing else. Would be in line with other tock architectures from AMD, and 6GHz wouldn't be much of a stretch over Zen 4, especially given another couple percent from the node. 25% IPC as claimed, however, is rather more questionable. Maybe in some particular workload.For this CPU comparison to be accurate something within15-18% would actually be enough if restricted to say CB/POVRAY/7ZIP/GB and a few other such benches/apps, and if we add a 6GHz frequency this would be close to the stated 25%.
yes the chubby bloke who I refer to as that! never can remember his name. would his 25% be a good localized base guess to work around because that is what he is implying, the jump from z2 to z3 was massive and it all but destroyed any inertia intel had going until alder lake came a year later with its many teething pains although quickly addressed by intel and board partners. I don't care to watch these types of videos but does he hint at amd using accelerators on zen 5 or is that for far future products?RGT at it again with some extraordinary number for Zen 5 IPC improvement, obviously this can be corrected since he states 6GHz max frequency and that he use a flawed comparison to guess what is the real number.
He say that he got a "good source" stating 25% better IPC but at the same time he say that it will be better than Zen 2 to Zen 3 IPC improvement.
For this CPU comparison to be accurate something within15-18% would actually be enough if restricted to say CB/POVRAY/7ZIP/GB and a few other such benches/apps, and if we add a 6GHz frequency this would be close to the stated 25%.
not happening.since he states 6GHz max frequency
Not. happening.and 6GHz wouldn't be much of a stretch over Zen 4
Zen5 is nothing unlike Zen1 or Zen3.Would be in line with other tock architectures from AMD
25% ipc is coincidentally the figure I said zen 5 would have over zen 4 when pressured several months ago. Although that is not a figure I myself came up with. The general consensus was 19-21% improvement, but that would lead arrow to be a few percent behind zen 5 at a greater power draw, a failure for intel if you will graciously allow for it. We're at the very least 2 quarters away from gaining solid knowledge on what arrow and zen 5 will be like. at this point it's all a bit much to take in and be set on how it'll turn out.25% IPC as claimed, however, is rather more questionable. Maybe in some particular workload.
If history is any indication, we'll continue to get random guesses and hype mongering disguised as leaks until just before release.25% ipc is coincidentally the figure I said zen 5 would have over zen 4 when pressured several months ago. Although that is not a figure I myself came up with. The general consensus was 19-21% improvement, but that would lead arrow to be a few percent behind zen 5 at a greater power draw, a failure for intel if you will graciously allow for it. We're at the very least 2 quarters away from gaining solid knowledge on what arrow and zen 5 will be like. at this point it's all a bit much to take in and be set on how it'll turn out.
You're about as old as I am. Isn't that the fun part of life at this point in our lives? I'm at the edge of developing early arthritis and that's been the most exciting news in my life outside this scene. get with the flow of the world fellow old man.If history is any indication, we'll continue to get random guesses and hype mongering disguised as leaks until just before release.
Having some non-digital hobbies helps. And for all that I complain about the endless hype trains, I'll take it over the "end of history" rhetoric from a decade ago.You're about as old as I am. Isn't that the fun part of life at this point in our lives? I'm at the edge of developing early arthritis and that's been the most exciting news in my life outside this scene. get with the flow of the world fellow old man.
I do wine and old books. Prior to covid I'd go flea market hunting for unique items I knew of from decades past that most people couldn't figure out and still don't. I pray social media doesn't die out or else these morons will find a way to learn about valuable old things other sell at pittyful rates or exchange it for some modern shiny object like a soil cart. I used to do art collecting many years ago but social media grabbed onto that and made it too easy to find out info about artists and what value their work had.Having some non-digital hobbies helps. And for all that I complain about the endless hype trains, I'll take it over the "end of history" rhetoric from a decade ago.
Those numbers sound reasonable, if nothing else. Would be in line with other tock architectures from AMD, and 6GHz wouldn't be much of a stretch over Zen 4, especially given another couple percent from the node. 25% IPC as claimed, however, is rather more questionable. Maybe in some particular workload.
But it goes without saying, RTG has a "mixed" history to put it gently... Not sure there's any real value here beyond another dart in the board.
I'm not going to give him the views, but if he said specifically IPC, then that has nothing to do with MT or clocks. Zen 3 got a particularly large boost in games because of the uncore changes (more to an 8c CCX/unified L3). There've been some rumors about fabric changes with Zen 5, but nothing that I think would indicate a similar step function improvement for gaming.He didnt specify if it was ST or MT, if he s talking of ST, and of course excluding games, the improvement should be better than 15% since that s the ST IPC difference between Z2 and Z3.
If he s talking MT then better than 12-15% is enough, also excluding games, if games are included then 19% is the basis to best and in this case 25% is possible, methink that without games included in the mix 25% is quite a stretch, but who knows.
Edit : His previous statement some times ago was 19% better IPC, so we re still in the same numbers at this point.
I'm not going to give him the views, but if he said specifically IPC, then that has nothing to do with MT or clocks. Zen 3 got a particularly large boost in games because of the uncore changes (more to an 8c CCX/unified L3). There've been some rumors about fabric changes with Zen 5, but nothing that I think would indicate a similar step function improvement for gaming.
The only time "MT" IPC ever comes it is in the context of SMT yield. It really doesn't make sense for comparing multiple cores. And when AMD gives an IPC number on stage, it's ST 100% of the time.There s ST IPC and MT IPC
That's more about the thread scaling of the particular tests than it is about IPC.In MT, and same clocks, either 6C/12T or 8C/16T provide the same result, it s more mixed depending of the apps, in CB it s about 10-11%, 14% in 7ZIP and an average of 11% for 9 benches.
The only time "MT" IPC ever comes it is in the context of SMT yield. It really doesn't make sense for comparing multiple cores. And when AMD gives an IPC number on stage, it's ST 100% of the time.
That's more about the thread scaling of the particular tests than it is about IPC.
Thanks for pointing that out, but it's more like marketing massaging the numbers than anything else. Certainly it's not how the core architects would measure things. In any case, I think you're giving these "leakers" more benefit of the doubt than they deserve. The scorn is well earned.As for ST being what AMD states 100% of the time that s not true at all, for Zen 3 the 19% figure did include some games, wich are not single threaded, actually that was more of a MT IPC number than anything else for most apps used in the average.
Thanks for pointing that out, but it's more like marketing massaging the numbers than anything else. Certainly it's not how the core architects would measure things. In any case, I think you're giving these "leakers" more benefit of the doubt than they deserve. The scorn is well earned.
That slide is from marketing, not architects. It's just muddying the waters to boost the score a bit. Literally 64% of the datapoints from that slide are games or representative of gaming. In no way would that reflect the tracelists AMD actually uses internally (expect a lot more datacenter workloads...)No, because i stated the numbers as measured by core architects
Certainly I think Zen 5 will be a bigger IPC boost then Zen 4 (though net performance might be a more interesting question). And those numbers are at least within the realm of reason. But the "source" in question has a terrible track record, and there's no indication that this time is any more believable than the past.So the 19% once stated by RTG is within the realm of possibilities for apps, wether that s ST or MT, the most recent 25% number likely include games to boost the first number, methink that it s reasonable given that Zen 5 is supposed to be a massive overhaul of Zen 4 wich itself has a proved 12-13% better IPC in apps.
That slide is from marketing, not architects. It's just muddying the waters to boost the score a bit. Literally 64% of the datapoints from that slide are games or representative of gaming. In no way would that reflect the tracelists AMD actually uses internally (expect a lot more datacenter workloads...)
ComputerBase reported numbers from their own test suite using AMD's methodology, for the sake of comparing against those marketing claims. It's still not how that term is typically used.
Also, it's possible AMD didn't even include MT numbers at all, if those scores were generated on captured single thread traces from the games in question (possibly with a full CCX worth of L3). They don't really provide enough info to say, but it's notable that everything that specifies is tested 1T, not nT.
Certainly I think Zen 5 will be a bigger IPC boost then Zen 4 (though net performance might be a more interesting question). And those numbers are at least within the realm of reason. But the "source" in question has a terrible track record, and there's no indication that this time is any more believable than the past.
Nonetheless, if AMD used the same suite as above, but less games, the number would be lower. They could have just quoted SPEC if they wanted, so I'm not sure why the hoopla. Certainly they're more likely to use SPEC day to day than 2/3 gaming traces.Ian tested SPECrate in the Anandtech Zen 3 review and got 19% single thread uplift and 10% multi thread uplift. For real world they got a 24% uplift in their suite.
Nonetheless, if AMD used the same suite as above, but less games, the number would be lower. They could have just quoted SPEC if they wanted, so I'm not sure why the hoopla. Certainly they're more likely to use SPEC day to day than 2/3 gaming traces.
Well that begs the question then. To what degree does SPEC represent real world use cases today? But yes, my point was that it is marketing, and should not be taken as representative of AMD's internal measurements, or how they measure/use the term "IPC".Because it was a marketing slide and it captures a lot of real world use cases which is far more useful for selling a consumer product than quoting SPEC benchmarks that a lot of people have not even heard of.
You are lying here, dunno why you re acting like this.ComputerBase reported numbers from their own test suite using AMD's methodology, for the sake of comparing against those marketing claims. It's still not how that term is typically used.