Let me get this straight, does the core parking driver thing turn off the other CCD when gaming, or does it just force the game to run on only the first CCD? Because I typically run lots of stuff, even when gaming, and I want 16 cores for a reason, the first of those alternatives are a big no for me.
Have made a owners thread on a other forum and posted some results and findings thereDet0x save us with your tuned 8200 MT/s 🙏
I'm having a hard time understanding why the performance is next level in Linux while being underwhelming in windows...
From the little I've read, this reminds me of the 2011 Bulldozer release. (Faildozer) BIG hype, little-to-no gain in performance.
I expect AMD will fix the problems...if they can be fixed short of recalling all CPUs sold.
I highly doubt core parking driver is causing those high latencies. My guess is they shipped the core parking driver BECAUSE of the high inter-CCD latency. Why is it so high? I have no idea. I'd love to be wrong and we see the Inter-CCD latency disappear with an AGESA update, but I'm not holding my breath
EDIT: Like, there's no way the core complex would wake up from sleep in 120 nanoseconds, right? That's the delta in inter-CCD latency from Zen4 to Zen5.
No one has tested inter-CCD latency in Linux yet have they?
They can maybe fix it to be as good as Linux in some workloads. But it's never gonna become good at gaming. Maybe even with X3D.From the little I've read, this reminds me of the 2011 Bulldozer release. (Faildozer) BIG hype, little-to-no gain in performance.
I expect AMD will fix the problems...if they can be fixed short of recalling all CPUs sold.
We all know if anything needs to be “fixed“ in software you might as well wait for Zen6.Yeah, to me it really feels like RDNA 3 redux. AMD thinking that they can unlock performance in the drivers and then being unable to.
Hopefully this time they will be manage to get it done with an AGESA update.
Disagree on that. At first thread director didn't work on my 12600K because the antique BSD didn't support it. But the next version did and performance improved.We all know if anything needs to be “fixed“ in software you might as well wait for Zen6.
Basically Zen5 should have launched at current zen4 prices, if they wanted to sell some units. With current pricing there's no reason for most users to choose it over zen4.They can maybe fix it to be as good as Linux in some workloads. But it's never gonna become good at gaming. Maybe even with X3D.
As for Bulldozer, Zen 5 is still showing 11% INT and 23% FP improvements at the same clock in industry standard benchmarks. Bulldozer....was not.
But yes it is more vulnerable to Arrow Lake than I had previously imagined.
This.It can sometimes happen. Probably not for Windows though, Microsoft doesn't care about all 60 Zen 5 DIY users.
This launch shares many parallels with Bulldozer, although the absolute performance and power characteristics of the product are nothing like Bulldozer.From the little I've read, this reminds me of the 2011 Bulldozer release. (Faildozer) BIG hype, little-to-no gain in performance.
I expect AMD will fix the problems...if they can be fixed short of recalling all CPUs sold.
Yep, don't buy things for what they could be but what they are. And Zen 5 on Windows is a nothing burger at a higher price. It's an easy skip if you use Windows.This.
What happens in Linux world I know very little about, but remember how some magical driver was going to fix RDNA 3?
Actually it is worse.But probably the worst part having striking resemblance to Bulldozer are the expectations for future products - "fixing the shortcomings" and "unlocking the true potential". This sounds exactly like all those people talking about the great foundation for the future. It remains to be seen.
Wendel claims that even gaming has cases in which Zen 5 CPUs are faster under Linux in the same game than on Windows which puts 9950X on top of Linux gaming benchmarks, but not on Windows in those specific cases.I'm having a hard time understanding why the performance is next level in Linux while being underwhelming in windows...
The plot thickens, many of the Youtube comments are blaming the Windows kernel being worse than LinuxWendel claims that even gaming has cases in which Zen 5 CPUs are faster under Linux in the same game than on Windows which puts 9950X on top of Linux gaming benchmarks, but not on Windows in those specific cases.
They could use the same hardware and still have added cores, just by renaming SKUs: 8 for R5, 12 for R7, 16 for R9, and drop the higher R9.No new cores counts until IOD resign so Zen 6 this has been known forever.
Watch the JayzTwoCents video. Apparently the problem isn't new, and his fix was for Zen 4. Moves the game to VCache CCD, keeps background stuff on the frequency CCD.Let me get this straight, does the core parking driver thing turn off the other CCD when gaming, or does it just force the game to run on only the first CCD?
This whole situation makes absolutely zero logical sense.The plot thickens, many of the Youtube comments are blaming the Windows kernel being worse than Linux
I really doubt that. I mean I’m not an expert, but it it’s been shown in other reviews it takes on the order of ~ 1 ms to hit boost frequencyI don't think the whole CCD is turned off, the cores are just put to sleep. I'm not sure what the time to wake on modern CPUs is, but it wouldn't shock me if it can be done in around that time if they are just clock gated.
Now that I think of it... that series also had an "over 9000" moment... the FX-9590 with boxed water cooler.iterations of Bulldozer
Is there a detailed description anywhere of what we are seeing in this graph and how it was produced?View attachment 105293
Screenshot from Bilibili in 360p, sorry for the bad clarity.
It seems like performance uplift is there, so why is the avg application performance showing single digit uplift according to Techpowerup?