- Mar 3, 2017
- 1,747
- 6,598
- 136
I think the factory programmed v/f curve of the CPU is read by the microcode and maybe preventing mobos from torturing the CPU unless a certain bit is enabled which probably voids warranty. It can also block instructions or entire CPU blocks (e.g. AVX-512). Not sure about other logic present in microcode.I kinda feel like throwing a hard question: what can microcode do? How much can microcode tweak/control in a modern CPU?
Wasn't there rumor in this thread way back claiming the current Zen5 A0 stepping was available already internally in early 2023?Zen 5 clearly has issues. Could be architectural, could be microcode/software, in reality, its probably is both. Tom is claiming this probably could have been avoided with couple month delay, but its very likely that an extra two months would not help. Im thinking it would not, and the reason Im thinking that is if they really believed it would, they would have done it. Anyone expecting miracles from a new AGESA or chipset drivers needs to temper their expectations. I dont believe the CCD to CCD latency issues are fixable. That is a gigantic issue, big enough that if it was something they reasonably thought could be fixed with microcode, they would have pushed back the launch and done it.
Retail GNR is B0.Wasn't there rumor in this thread way back claiming the current Zen5 A0 stepping was available already internally in early 2023?
You do see that the 9900X (dual-CCD part) is topping the PTS charts?Few examples
PTS charts ????You do see that the 9900X (dual-CCD part) is topping the PTS charts?
i am trying to figure connection between 9900x and post traumatic stress as well.PTS charts ????
This is the first time I hear about that. I also though the leapfrogging teams leapfrogged every generationNo, even gens -- leveraged cores -- are done by the same team that created the initial design in the previous gen.
Phoronix Test Suite.PTS charts ????
This is the first time I hear about that. I also though the leapfrogging teams leapfrogged every generation
This just seems, odd... Zen 2 could only be started once Zen 1 was completed, yet Zen 3 was already started in parallel-way before? And how could zen 3 team release zen 4 so quickly after the first (considering it takes 4-5 years for a design). Are you claiming that the teams actually work on two designs in parallel?
It looks like new architecture teams (zen, zen3, zen5, zen?7 etc.) work in parallel it makes sense to give 2 gens to same team as in 1st gen they would target low hanging fruits whereas in next gen they would go for "optimization"This is the first time I hear about that. I also though the leapfrogging teams leapfrogged every generation
This just seems, odd...
Does this mean Zen 2 could only be started once Zen 1 was completed yet Zen 3 was already started in parallel-way before?
Or do the teams actually work on two designs in parallel? As there is no way you design Zen 4 from ground up in less than 2 years, yet take 4-5 years (that's the norm AFAIK) for Zen 5?
Something is clearly wrong. No way the 9900X should have an edge over the 9950X.You do see that the 9900X (dual-CCD part) is topping the PTS charts?
Seems unlikely there would be so much overhead in that hypothetical event as to slow it down to slower than the 7700X. I'd expect it would simply bottleneck it to similar performance, maybe a slight regression from the 9900X.Something is clearly wrong. No way the 9900X should have an edge over the 9950X.
Could be the extra traffic for the extra cores is hitting some internal limit.
That's why I don't treat Phoronix as the ultra-gospel. Michael tests so much he rarely checks for outliers.Something is clearly wrong. No way the 9900X should have an edge over the 9950X.
If you're fully membound like y-cruncher, you saturate the thing with ~4c per CCD.Could be the extra traffic for the extra cores is hitting some internal limit.
What??? I thought AMD was a chip designer's paradise!Having said that, this bitching between zen 1/2/5 & zen 3/4 teams seems to be normal politics that wouldn't have been newsworthy if zen5 had done better in client benchmarks
Yes, that seems reasonable yet that's not happening.I'd expect it would simply bottleneck it to similar performance, maybe a slight regression from the 9900X.
Yes, that seems reasonable yet that's not happening.
It's like the 9950X is throwing some sort of tantrum when reaching a certain level of workload demand.
"Hey, you want me to work that much for this little power???? I refuse to rise up to the occasion! Next time, give me the power I need to really fly!"
I know reading is Very Hard, but we're talking DB loads.I see that the 9950X is topping the charts, about 10% ahead of the 9900X.
Only 12% higher for 33% more threads? Yeah, that's brilliant, ain't it??? I see that the 9950X is topping the charts, about 10% ahead of the 9900X.
Only 12% higher for 33% more threads? Yeah, that's brilliant, ain't it?
7950X is 15.88% faster than 7900X. So Zen 5 regressed. It should have moved the needle up, not down.
AMD shouldn't go around trying to please everyone. There wasn't anything very wrong with Zen 4. They should've improved it further. Right now it looks like a lopsided jumbled mess.AMD seemingly implements a power saving feature.
Case in point: trying to please gamers with the stupid chipset driver/game bar crutch.AMD shouldn't go around trying to please everyone.
well, thats is a complete benchmark suite, not only MTOnly 12% higher for 33% more threads? Yeah, that's brilliant, ain't it?
7950X is 15.88% faster than 7900X. So Zen 5 regressed. It should have moved the needle up, not down.
AMD shouldn't go around trying to please everyone. There wasn't anything very wrong with Zen 4. They should've improved it further. Right now it looks like a lopsided jumbled mess.
I honestly don't see any point in the dual CCD Zen 5 CPUs unless they fix that latency.