Ryzen 5000 and beyond

[pax]

Well we saw 30% productivity so if its average over 15% its hard to say how that affects gaming. But ya they could be sandbagging and trying to get intel to segment its next gen differently.

[Nunz]

They showed the Zen3 with mediocre single-rank RAM vs the Ryzen 7000 with 6000CL30 which is pretty solid for DDR5. They did everything they could to make the gap look better.

Ryzen gains quite well with Dual-Rank especially with the lack of tREFI tweaking on Ryzen.

[the_sextein]

All I know is that game was using more than 4 cores ( It recommends 6) and the sustained boost was 5.5Ghz. I seriously doubt that AMD can push more than 5Ghz on all 16 cores. In fact, I'm kind of surprised they managed 5Ghz all core at all but a single core doesn't just run at max boost while the other cores run at 5Ghz. There is clearly something going on in this demonstration and multiple cores are running this game at 5.5Ghz. I'm pretty sure AMD did it like this intentionally. My guess is 6 to 8 cores with max boost.

[Nagorak]

Blender and Cinebench aren't work loads that really benefit from faster memory, so I don't think the memory they paired with each processor should have a substantial impact on how they stack up to one another.

Originally Posted by the_sextein

All I know is that game was using more than 4 cores ( It recommends 6) and the sustained boost was 5.5Ghz. I seriously doubt that AMD can push more than 5Ghz on all 16 cores. In fact, I'm kind of surprised they managed 5Ghz all core at all but a single core doesn't just run at max boost while the other cores run at 5Ghz. There is clearly something going on in this demonstration and multiple cores are running this game at 5.5Ghz. I'm pretty sure AMD did it like this intentionally. My guess is 6 to 8 cores with max boost.

If they can do 5.5 GHz single core I don't think 5 GHz all core is out of the question. Maybe not in a heavy loads, but in gaming I see it being possible. Current Ryzen 5000 CPUs can boost to 5 GHz single core, and can easily sustain 4.6-4.7 GHz in games. A 10% drop off for max single core to multi core seems pretty standard.

Actually hitting 5.5 GHz in game is also better than what the current 5000 series line-up can do with its max boost. A 5950X can hit "5.1 GHz", but the reality is you won't see it in all but the lightest of loads (like a background workload when otherwise idle).

[the_sextein]

I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. They are getting 5Ghz all core that is not in question, nor is a 5.5Ghz core clock in game. The question is how is a single core running at 5.5Ghz in a game that is clearly using 6 to 8 cores unless they have implemented a new software instruction that boosts cores based on how many threads are seeing a certain amount of load? They clearly have independent core clocks going on during this demonstration. Unless you believe they pushed all 16 cores to 5.5Ghz. This game is clearly not just using single core but we are seeing single core clock speeds of5.5Ghz on at least 1 core and it could be more, my guess is 6 to 8.

[pax]

Yea they might be sandbagging a little lol.

https://twitter.com/greymon55/status...17091682996224

Tweet
See new Tweets
Conversation
Greymon55
@greymon55
Can someone explain why the footnote is 46% faster but the slide is 31% faster?🤔

[Munkus]

Originally Posted by pax

Yea they might be sandbagging a little lol.

https://twitter.com/greymon55/status...17091682996224

If you read the tweets, it explains the numbers.

[pax]

Originally Posted by Munkus

If you read the tweets, it explains the numbers.

I know they chose the lower number from amd's perspective. But it did take intel 46% more time to do the task.

[KAC]

As with any ppt slides don’t trust this crap. Real world will be different.
Seems quite underwhelming overall. Will probably need to wait a couple of gens before AMD gets it shite together.

I give this reveal a -5/10. Think Intel might just come out ahead as they are already on the new platform and had one successful round.

[pax]

I think they will have a good part. Intel would have to put out a 46% faster part in MC in their next gen vs ADL just to catch up in this one test. A pretty big hill to climb in one gen. But itll be a mixed bag. Gaming probably mostly intel and productivity amd... fact that AMD didnt produce gaming benches probably means they arent as fast gaming wise this round.

Id bet on a gaming cpu again tho with that added cache.

[Megaman]

Originally Posted by KAC

Seems quite underwhelming overall.

Cue 3D cache.

You heard it first here, by me, on Rage3d

[KAC]

Yes when it comes we will see. I wanted to upgrade at end of the year. Guess this 5900X has still some more to give.

[Nagorak]

Originally Posted by the_sextein

I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. They are getting 5Ghz all core that is not in question, nor is a 5.5Ghz core clock in game. The question is how is a single core running at 5.5Ghz in a game that is clearly using 6 to 8 cores unless they have implemented a new software instruction that boosts cores based on how many threads are seeing a certain amount of load? They clearly have independent core clocks going on during this demonstration. Unless you believe they pushed all 16 cores to 5.5Ghz. This game is clearly not just using single core but we are seeing single core clock speeds of5.5Ghz on at least 1 core and it could be more, my guess is 6 to 8.

Yeah, I misunderstood what you were saying. Good point.

[pax]

Coreteks thinks the sandbagging was more on gaming tho CB20 had a 13% uplift from zen2 to zen3 vs the 31% from zen3 to zen4 so that was impressive as well.



Looking forward to this now also since he says zen 5 is only 2 years later in 2024... I thought it might show up only a year later.

[the_sextein]

AMD's power point slide says 5Ghz+ boost. So it will be able to do 5Ghz at the minimum which would be in 16 core mode. It doesn't specify how much more than 5ghz it will go. That means all 16 cores will hit 5Ghz and from there the boost can go higher. A game that uses 6 to 8 cores was running at 5.5Ghz. What do you think the single core boost is going to be? If AMD hit 6Ghz first I'd sh!t myself. If Intel gets stuck at 5.2Ghz for 8 core mode and AMD can push 5.5Ghz that will give AMD at 300Mhz X 8 boost. Or to put it in other words, a 2400 clock cycle beat down.

We will see 15% or greater single thread performance which probably depends heavily on how high it's boosting. So 15% per thread in all core mode but it could be much higher in single core mode. I think they are just pissing with people when it comes to their wording in this presentation. They don'ts state single core regarding boosts and they specifically call out single THREAD when talking about 15%+ increases. They also mention AI instructions but give no details. They are teasing everyone because they can't let the cat out of the bag right now or Intel would have time to optimize against their chip specifics.

[Nunz]

Damn you're chomping up marketing BS like it's a buffet

Wouldn't be the first time AMD lied on a marketing slide, won't be the last.

[the_sextein]

Nah, if anything I think their marketing it holding back on purpose. It's basically not making any "greater than" claims and is giving vague minimal constraints so people get and idea of worst case scenario. No handpicked game numbers like last time, no talk of specific IPC improvements. I'm just giving AMD the benefit of the doubt. I don't think it's any secret that 5nm vs 10nm is going to give some power and heat benefits. The IPC war is close and it looks like clocks are as well. Intel uses smaller cores to get around their power and heat problems but that locks them into 8 cores in gaming mode where their all core clocks are completely hand tied. With only half of AMD's cores needing to operate at a high level when gaming.... I think we will see AMD's advantage resurface with this generation. It just required a little more sophisticated clock assignment to work around the issue.

[pax]

Wondering if the doubling of L2 cache in Zen 4 will be as good as the increase in L3 in the 5800x3d... then add the core clocks to 5.5 ghz those games that prefer core speed over cache could mean AMD has a lock on gaming.

[the_sextein]

https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7000-...a-2-igpu-more/

Some new info regarding clocks, overclocks and L2 cache. So he is claiming 5.2Ghz to 5.5Ghz on all 32 threads during that game demo without OC. I watched it and it boosted to 5.5 Ghz within seconds and pretty much stayed within 100Mhz the entire time. Of course there will be flux on some of the threads but that's pretty impressive if true. If an app only uses a single thread, chances are it will boost even higher and then we get overclocking on 360mm AIO's. I wouldn't count 6Ghz single core out of the equation just yet.

[pax]

Coreteks said core dependency wasnt high on that game. He measured a max 19% so having high clocks may be easy in this case.

So clocks could vary a lot game to game depending how they use their cpu cores.

[the_sextein]

For sure, they picked a modern title that goes lite on the CPU to make it look impressive but in my opinion it is impressive. I wouldn't be shocked if you could OC one of these to a stable 5.5Ghz in most games based on this info and that was an old sample so the new chips at launch will be even better.

[the_sextein]

For me, moving up from an I9 9900K. This would mean going from 8 cores at 5Ghz to 16 cores at 5.5Ghz. If games use more than 8 cores over the next 5 years it's got me covered and gives a huge advantage over Intel. Even if it doesn't, Intel will struggle to hit similar clock frequencies on half the cores unless they really do something to compete against 5nm. It's got a 50% IPC increase over my 4 year old chip and 4X the L2 and L3 cache while using the same amount of power. Add in PCIE 5.0 on everything and DDR5, this would do nicely as an upgrade this fall.

I'm not counting Intel out of course but this looks really promising to my eyes and I'm optimistic about the launch. It's not like the 3000 series where they had the same IPC and 700Mhz slower clocks a year late. This is coming out early with similar IPC and higher clock speeds on double the cores while obliterating the 12900K's 380watt,100C power and temps. AMD has come a long way over the last 5 years and it's really made me respect them.

[pax]

Itll be fun to see how it benches at release. Im sure with good cooling it could do allcore 5 ghz at the very least. And of course the worst case benching tests from reviewers using such as prime95 are often far above many typical gaming scenarios. Im seeing that with the 5800x3d. Its rarely going above 67c with my uber silent fan curve which only ramps at 70-80c. GB would go above that at 83c.

[the_sextein]

Yeah I'm really looking forward to seeing the reviews. My I9 9900K is similar regarding temps at 5Ghz all core. It plays games at about 65C. Cinebench is about 83C and Prime 95 is about 91C. I really don't care about prime 95 but I would like to see all core loads in cinebench drop about 5C from where they are. I doubt that will happened on a chip as beastly as the 7950X but the fact that it's even capable of keeping similar temps and power with double and quadruple everything is pretty neat in my book. Hopefully they will have designed a interface that is slightly more efficient at cooling the chip this time. You never know.

[Gandalfthewhite]

yeah given that it sounds like raptor lake is just adding E cores.... zen5 and meteor lake look like when things are going to get extra spicy

[acroig]

Originally Posted by Gandalfthewhite

yeah given that it sounds like raptor lake is just adding E cores.... zen5 and meteor lake look like when things are going to get extra spicy

Next two CPU releases promise to be a great fight. Everyone wins..... provided there's plenty of stock.

[Nunz]

Originally Posted by Gandalfthewhite

yeah given that it sounds like raptor lake is just adding E cores....

That's not the case at all.

[the_sextein]

As impressed as I am with what AMD has shared so far I think the 13900K poses a pretty serious threat. Intel isn't dropping down to 5nm but they are improving the 10nm wafers they are working with which should improve power draw and allow a clock boost. They are also increasing their cache and I would assume improvements are probably being made to the IPC of both the large and small E cores. So adding 8 more is going to be pretty harsh competition regarding multi threading. Still, AMD looks like they have made a fine chip that might come out on top. The clock increases that AMD has been able to achieve with 5nm are beyond what I expected.

[Nunz]

We don't know what the actual clocks will be on the AMD chip. Again.. nothing definitive from marketing slides.

[the_sextein]

The slides say 5Ghz+ all core which would be under full load worst case scenario. I don't think you will get a definitive number outside of the that because it will vary based on the chip and cooler and application core usage from there. I would assume 5.5Ghz on all 32 threads was a best case scenario for a modern game in order to make it look as good a possible for the presentation. I wouldn't expect better than that outside of single core mode which no modern apps are even single threaded anymore so it's little more than a pissing match these days. With a good AIO and some overclocking you might be able to achieve that 5.5Ghz clock in more demanding titles but common sense tell me all core under full load will probably stick within 200Mhz of the base clocks.