Got ya. Again going simply on memory I think TSMC/AMD said they could go up to 4 layers. I don't think that is realistic for a gaming SKU but there may come a time when we see perhaps 2 layers. There will almost certainly be diminishing results.
As for one layer, SRAM scaling isn't great anymore. Could they put more? Probably, but I don't think it would be much.
Someone cracked 3500 ST in GB6 Windows with a 9700X. 5.7GHz ST perf. Not bad.
ASRock B650M-HDV/M.2 - Geekbench
Benchmark results for an ASRock B650M-HDV/M.2 with an AMD Ryzen 7 9700X processor.browser.geekbench.com
guesses on 5.7GHz power consumption?Someone cracked 3500 ST in GB6 Windows with a 9700X. 5.7GHz ST perf. Not bad.
ASRock B650M-HDV/M.2 - Geekbench
Benchmark results for an ASRock B650M-HDV/M.2 with an AMD Ryzen 7 9700X processor.browser.geekbench.com
I have a wild hypothesis for this behavior, hear me out - what if this is a feature?Did you miss the following quote ?
This is not how SMT scheduling have worked in the past, nor how it should work
(for reference, check the numbers for 7700X how it behaves with SMT ON/OFF as a comparison)
Kinda seems more like its someone else that's "coping and grasping at straws" as you put it.. Why is that ?
Personally, I think that's valid for some people. If a part doesn't offer them more gaming performance and that's what they care about then it is fine for them to disregard Zen 5 (for now).But it doesn't do awesome in games so its a complete dumpster fire release like all the techtubers told me. /s
Personally, I think that's valid for some people. If a part doesn't offer them more gaming performance and that's what they care about then it is fine for them to disregard Zen 5 (for now).
For example, I don't quite care about overclocked results but I do appreciate that other people will like to play around with it.
Its probably more of a feature than a bug.I have a wild hypothesis for this behavior, hear me out - what if this is a feature?
What other related processor just came out where slamming as many threads of a process onto the first cores would actually be a performance benefit? Strix Point. Due to only having 4 high clocking cores in the primary CCX, if you had say, 8 demanding threads in a process, on Strix Point you would want them to be slapped onto the first 4 cores to get highest clockspeeds, more cache, and avoid cross-CCX penalty. It would most likely be faster than scheduling 4 on the first 4 cores and 4 onto 4 of the Zen 5C cores.
In addition, it may even be desirable to intentionally aggregate threads onto fewer cores for power efficiency reasons.
What if there's a bug somewhere and the scheduling behavior is treating Granite Ridge like Strix Point?
According to TPU, the 9700x is 10% faster than the 7700 (non x) in non-gaming, while being 10% more power efficient while costing much more. Am I supposed to be amazed by this achievement? You can toss the TDP limit aside, and gain ~5% more performance, at the cost of efficiency. I'm OK with that tradeoff, but even then the 9700x is basically just ~10% faster than the 7700x.But it doesn't do awesome in games so its a complete dumpster fire release like all the techtubers told me. /s
That could be true. But on Personal Computers (mainly doing interactive work), per-thread performance in lightly threaded workloads is still typically of higher importance than performance/Watt (or task energy) when not running on battery and not in a cooling constrained form factor. That is, on generic PCs with Granite Ridge, utilizing only one hardware thread per core if possible should still be the preferred scheduling policy in most use cases.Its probably more of a feature than a bug.
AMD has probably optimized their resource layout assuming SMT is enabled. Disabling SMT could make the processor inefficient
The latter may have been true traditionally, but is it still true with Zen 5?Issues like this *might* be caused by a power-saver or bugged power plan/scheduling scheme. "Filling" all physical cores first should be the energy efficient strategy.
I tend to agree with Coreteks (youtube) on that AMD doesn't care much about DYI consumers or what reviewer's verdicts are. With this in mind, the Zen 5 chips look quite impressive.At $360, the 9700x is just priced too high, even ignoring Intel. For gaming, you can get a 7800x3D for $366. For non-gaming you can get a 7900X for $358. It's in a tough spot, and AMD hasn't done enough to make it a winner.
So what do they care about then?I tend to agree with Coreteks (youtube) on that AMD doesn't care much about DYI consumers or what reviewer's verdicts are.
I watched the video. Servers/HPC pretty much. He shows bunch of benchmark tables, like Apache server performance, where Zen5 performs extremely well compared to older CPUs/intel…. Maybe cause of avx512? I would not know.So what do they care about then?
Well, X3D's fits that claim nice, aren't they (according to the supposed strategy) ? )And they desire gamer $ enough to try to market them as "gaming leadership" parts.
Well both client and server/DC are up substantially, if that’s what you mean.View attachment 105077
There's an answer in there somewhere.
It shreds in PHP, Node, Python, databases and Apache (the last one is seeing especially absurd gains).Also, what in Zen5 compared to Zen4 that we seen so far makes it a success for server/DC?
Client is mostly laptops running javascript which STX is pretty good at.Well both client and server/DC are up substantially, if that’s what you mean.
Well both client and server/DC are up substantially, if that’s what you mean.
So they ought to care about client too?
@CouncilorIrissa beat me to it so props there. Though it isn't just "pretty good" at js, it's flipping the script there and blowing everything the competition has out of the water.Also, what in Zen5 compared to Zen4 that we seen so far makes it a success for server/DC? AVX512?
Absolutely. Zen 5C would have best been kept for Turin Dense, the hybrid config in STX is unnecessary and mostly good for Cinebench bragging rights.Every time I look more closely at STX results, all I can think of is that I would much rather have a single-CCX 8-core with a larger L3.
It would lose on, like, cinebench, but do better on nearly everything people actually care about.
Yeah.Every time I look more closely at STX results, all I can think of is that I would much rather have a single-CCX 8-core with a larger L3.
It would lose on, like, cinebench, but do better on nearly everything people actually care about.
So you hobble the platform for the hope that people buy it for those workloads. How many people that want that do you think there are? Hardly anyone buys the highest core count CPUs as it is. If you really want higher core counts you get threadripper.There are many MT workloads that don’t require that much memory bandwidth.
You'd be surprised how many people buy based on some irrelevant benchmark.So you hobble the platform for the hope that people buy it for those workloads. How many people that want that do you think there are? Hardly anyone buys the highest core count CPUs as it is. If you really want higher core counts you get threadripper.