So it’s pretty much the “intel” moment for AMD right now; might be able to overcome it with future updates.
It’s here!
Edit: Pictures
View attachment 104146
It’s 9% Specint increase over Zen 4.
View attachment 104148
Comparison with M3/M4.
Steel Nomad is more demanding and 890M needs faster memory and more cache for that benchmark I suppose.SteelNomad wasn’t able to demonstrate any difference at all, although there was significant uplift in TimeSpy
Interesting that below 9W Zen 4 has better integer performance. I suppose that's a good demonstration to the cost of going wider.
And at ~6W Zen5 has identical int perf to Redwood Cove.Interesting that below 9W Zen 4 has better integer performance. I suppose that's a good demonstration to the cost of going wider.
I heard a rumour that AMD's working in validating 8533 MT/s for Strix Point's memory controller.AMD should pay someone for better memory controllers. Strix is way behind MediaTek, Intel, Qualcomm SOCs. 1000MT/s less can't be helpful for that GPU.
Well, Intel isn't the only mobile CPU maker outside of Apple. Now we also have Qualcomm.So this means H370x is more than double the performance of the 155H at 15W, probably almost double the 185H too. Good luck to to Lunar Lake to catch up with advertised 50% improvement.
Really funny people here are acting like these aren't the best mobile CPUs outside of Apple.
It's a platform thing.AMD should pay someone for better memory controllers. Strix is way behind MediaTek, Intel, Qualcomm SOCs. 1000MT/s less can't be helpful for that GPU.
So Apple Silicon roughly 50-59% faster while using 50% - 60% of the power.
Try running your precious silicon at 5.5 GHz.So Apple Silicon roughly 50-59% faster while using 50% - 60% of the power.
It doesn't need to. They reach their perf goal with less frequency.Try running your precious silicon at 5.5 GHz.
On a node better than AMD, with ram in the soc, with an arguably simpler instruction set, and can add instructions as needed since it owns the entire platform.So Apple Silicon roughly 50-59% faster while using 50% - 60% of the power.
Yet both on the market now.On a node better than AMD, with ram in the soc, with an arguably simpler instruction set, and can add instructions as needed since it owns the entire platform.
AMD's node advantage wasn't mentioned when Intel got an inferior node. Also AMD deliberately chose not to pick 3nm for the APU.On a node better than AMD, with ram in the soc, with an arguably simpler instruction set, and can add instructions as needed since it owns the entire platform.
Oranges and apples mate
Thats Lunar Lake goal. Its the x86 version of M3.I think it's obvious that there is a large market for someone to do Mx for Windows, but for some reason it can't be done. Qualcomm seems most likely to get there though, if they stick to it.
Thought the ISA didn't matterarguably simpler instruction set
That doesn't affect SPEC results. AMD has the lead here with AVX-512 which will affect some of the tests (mostly the x264 one).and can add instructions as needed since it owns the entire platform.
Isn't Strix Point supposed to run at a lower frequency of 5.1GHz?Try running your precious silicon at 5.5 GHz.
The point is that 4.0GHz was not the target frequency of this architecture. That of course doesn't change the fact overall Apple will take the lead, but lowering the frequency might undersell the core a bit. For example if compared Zen4 vs Zen 5 at 1.5GHz then I think Zen 4 would be ahead in Int at least based on the graphs shown.It doesn't need to. They reach their perf goal with less frequency.
That depends on who is running SPEC, since some people compile the test with default x86 baseline that depending on compiler version and might not even allow for AVX2, others are using march native that would allow AVX512 usage if compiler knew about the core but would fall back to default if it was not recognized, and some are ensuring specific sets are enabled (like AT with avx2+fma).That doesn't affect SPEC results. AMD has the lead here with AVX-512 which will affect some of the tests (mostly the x264 one).
Yes but if Apple silicon is so great, why can't it scale all the way to 5.5 GHz and solve all the world's problems? Strix Point can be pushed further. AMD chose not to, to keep it within the efficient part of the v/f curve. We also don't know what Apple's design choices cost them. Using huge caches must not be good for their yields. They are not doing anything like V-cache so cache defects lead to discarding the entire die. They have some ways to go before they can be compared to "real world" CPUs that the majority of the world uses. Not select few with oversized pockets or tendency to get themselves into cc debt.Isn't Strix Point supposed to run at a lower frequency of 5.1GHz?
I like how you answered your own question. Let me help: M4 can be pushed further. Apple chose not to, to keep it within the efficient part of the v/f curve.Yes but if Apple silicon is so great, why can't it scale all the way to 5.5 GHz and solve all the world's problems? Strix Point can be pushed further. AMD chose not to, to keep it within the efficient part of the v/f curve.