I do not think it is operating system related. It's mainly the tested workloads.Bulldozer was a departure from Intel-like cores and it suffered on Windows way more than on Linux. For some reason Zen 5 seems to behave similarly.
Yeah. They will get mocked about it more.Maybe shut up about gaming until X3D parts show up next time.
AFAIK the cache increase only actually helps if the game is moving data resources around significantly in flight.
Some game engines are better than others at managing data movement, so it's completely within reason that some games will benefit far less from cache increases like X3D.
Basically V cache is highlighting lazy programmers as much as anything else.
I'd be interested to see V$ benefits on day 1 games vs after a couple years of patches to refine perf.
Do they not just fix clock frequency on both to get an accurate reading on the perf delta?I can't remember seeing any tests where the V-cache didn't provide a gaming benefit. There are tests where it wasn't enough benefit to overcome the frequency advantage of the non-Vcache parts. I'm sure there are outliers though.
Do they not just fix clock frequency on both to get an accurate reading on the perf delta?
Also I was under the impression that while the 5800X3D clock regression issue was very significant that the 7x00X3D SKUs were much better for this?
Consolation prize is that overclocking becomes a thing again with these reduced TDP parts.
Phoronix.com seems to like them:
Games? None. Unless you use RPCS3 exclusively .Do we know how many games/apps benefit from AVX-512.
Games, none.Do we know how many games/apps benefit from AVX-512.
Phoronix.com seems to like them:
When taking the geometric mean of those nearly 400 raw benchmark results, it sums up the greatness of Zen 5 with the Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X processors. The Ryzen 7 9700X delivered 1.195x the performance of the Core i5 14600K competition or 1.15x the performance of the prior generation Ryzen 7 7700X. The Ryzen 5 9600X came in at 1.35x the performance of the Core i5 14500 and 1.25x the performance of the Ryzen 5 7600X. Or if still on Zen 3 for comparison, the Ryzen 5 9600X was 1.82x the performance of the Ryzen 5 5600X.
No he wasn't. He said SPEC rate. And neither FP nor int show that.
memory-bound.No he wasn't. He said SPEC rate. And neither FP nor int show that.
Maybe? But we still told him not to extrapolate from Turin and yet he did.memory-bound.
Using the Phoronix result, this is a ~20% CAGR on performance per inflation adjusted dollar, which is actually good in this late stage Moore's law era.The parts are also considerably cheaper, at MSRP and adjusting for inflation. (MSRP is the better way to measure this, as all tech products are gradually discounted with time.) You pay about 20% less for 5-15% more performance and ¿40%? less energy consumption. It's not nothing, considering how the true enabler of improvements, semiconductor manufacturing, has stalled.
Lets just say there is more left in the tankUnlike Zen 4 which benefited from DDR4-->DDR5 jump, Zen 5 is still stuck on similar DDR5 speeds. And we already knew Zen 4 was memory constrained in a lot of workloads which is why the 3D vCache variant does so well in some instances. Looks like same still applies to Zen 5 but it's likely to hit the bottleneck even harder due to mArch differences.
Running JEDEC speeds seems like it gimps performance even more vs Zen 4.
View attachment 104670
Agreed, this release has highlighted some trends in the industryThe parts are also considerably cheaper, at MSRP and adjusting for inflation. (MSRP is the better way to measure this, as all tech products are gradually discounted with time.) You pay about 20% less for 5-15% more performance and ¿40%? less energy consumption. It's not nothing, considering how the true enabler of improvements, semiconductor manufacturing, has stalled.