I recall that back in the 90s, besides higher clock speeds, one of the greatest reasons for excitement about a new CPU was instruction set extensions (MMX, 3DNow, etc), which could give outsized performance gains when software was updated to work with them. This latest release from AMD has similar cause for excitement: AVX-512 is more than just larger vectors, it also doubles the number of registers, adds per-lane mask registers, and other enhancements; unlike with Intel processors, there should be no worry of slowing down the clock for the whole processor when using these instructions with larger vectors, and unlike with Intel, we can reasonably expect that every AMD processor from now on will always have these instructions enabled.
I'm personally curious about AVX512 support in pyTorch and numpy. Numpy depends on BLAS libraries for performance, and I don't know how much dev resources are behind openBLAS (i.e. how soon I can expect performance increases), especially given that AMD is a much smaller company and doesn't spend as much as Intel on software.
> unlike with Intel processors, there should be no worry of slowing down the clock for the whole processor when using these instructions with larger vectors
because they don't implement "true" 512bit registers for AVX-512. This is basically to support instruction set rather than SIMD performance boost.
It’s annoying when hardware sites compare new CPUs to a big list of older or less capable ones, but precisely all of them are basically so new that if you have one of them you probably aren’t upgrading now. If you have Ryzen 2/3/4 or 9/10th gen Intel you have to guess what kind of performance leap you’d get with this.
What would be the purpose? If you want to purposefully limit power you're forcing the chip to underperform. You can just get the lower cost chip that does run at that power. For example the 5600x being 76W versus the higher chips.
This is my request for CPU review. It's good way to know core efficiency. TDP or turbo watts is now artificially set very high by manufacturer but not efficient. Maybe reviewers are too busy to take many benchmarks before embargo.
I just want a CPU freq to power chart, so I know how Intel/AMD are pushing TDP and at what freq things start getting exponential. It would be interesting to see what is considered "normal".
But a 7950x is just a 7900x (They have identical silicon) that is just "lucky" enough to survive more power draw. If you make the TDP the same you just end up with the same CPU
Zen 4 (Raphael) desktop CPUs will have it. Right now, Zen 3 (Chagall) and Zen 4 Threadripper (Storm Peak) don't currently have plans for integrating it, but that may be subject to change. I cannot provide proof, but I sure as hell am never buying Zen 4 or later AMD Desktop CPUs ever again for a system that will be connected to the internet.
I don't know but for what it's worth my main machine is a 6000 series laptop (with Pluton) running Linux and I did not have any compatibility issues. Sure, it sucks to have some Microsoft designed hardware in my CPU but at least it not causing issues (for now).
Does anyone know how to apply to be a 'reviewer' for pre-released CPUs from AMD or Intel? I am building a new kind of data management platform that is highly threaded so it can do DB queries or other data manipulation functions in parallel. I will benchmark it against other common systems like Postgres (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVICKCkWMZE) but I only do that when I upgrade my own personal desktop or laptop. I would love to get my hands on loaner hardware to run benchmarks and publish them.
According to other reviews, the 7000 series destroys the competition (both Intel and 5000 series) at 65W.
Also, 7000 series is designed for 95C. It'll run forever at 95C, and will always run at 95C if it has the workload and power budget. IOW, giving it more cooling will cause it to run faster rather than making it cooler.
On other chips 95C might indicate it's on the edge of failure, but AMD asserts that 95C won't shorten the 7000's life.
Ryzen scales up exponentially in power draw as you try to hit peak frequency numbers.
You can run it at 95% speed and usually something like 70% voltage.
My 3900x can do around 4.5ghz at 1.4v or 4.3ghz at 1.05v all core. I imagine Zen 4 will be exactly the same. Don't have the power draw off the top of my head, but that is essentially 125w for 4.5ghz and 90w for 4.3ghz.
I'm a life long Linux user, it's not even a thing for me it's just what I've used since my teens. But phoronix saying something has good benchmarks in Linux means absolutely squat to me. That site _always_ has good performance metrics on Linux.
I do some gaming and I can tell you their posts never reflect my reality.
Fun seeing performance reviews of new chips coming out. It's a sign to me that the market is recovering after the pandemic. Imagine someone promoting a chip during the pandemic, when you couldn't get them for love or money.
Still, I would have liked to see a graph or other pretty chart showing the results of the benchmark off better so that I could internalize them easier.
based on what I heard from insiders, two batches of reviews for AMD's new chips, those released now are the ones from sites traditionally happy to provide overwhelmingly positive reviews, those going to be released tomorrow are the ones which usually provide more balanced reviews.
good PR tricks - they just sign NDA agreements with different reviewers with slightly different embargo lift dates.
What are you talking about? E.g Anandtech and GamersNexus (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRaJXZMOMPU) are hardly examples of being "overwhelmingly positive" towards anyone.
Everybody is doing dirty PR tricks these days, cash flow is above morals for a long time. People overall don't mind so don't expect change for the better.
Anyway, enough ranting, nobody sane decides on these 0day benchmarks but waits at least few weeks for overall conclusions, quirks, not so common issues etc. And even better is to wait few months for more stable motherboards and drivers, better availability of compatible RAM etc.
Can you suggest some of these less positive reviewers please? I like to have a broad range of reviews before deciding and all the ones I normally look at came out today (though were not overwhelmingly positive in every area).
Heise Online has released their review (alas, behind a paywall) and it starts very positive. I'm pretty sure they are the most trusted reviewers in the german language.
[+] [-] cesarb|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Scene_Cast2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devwastaken|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fomine3|3 years ago|reply
because they don't implement "true" 512bit registers for AVX-512. This is basically to support instruction set rather than SIMD performance boost.
[+] [-] Salgat|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alkonaut|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Arrath|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AshamedCaptain|3 years ago|reply
Also, there is no idle power comparison, something that may also differ significantly and affect Linux.
[+] [-] rndmize|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doikor|3 years ago|reply
Basically how many watts required to do some fix unit of work (to render 1 frame using Blender CPU rendering)
[+] [-] devwastaken|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fomine3|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nwmcsween|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arianvanp|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dschuetz|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anonym29|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nicolaslem|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tepix|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] didgetmaster|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pella|3 years ago|reply
And then there is a greater chance that phoronix will include it in its tests; or others will run it and publish the results.
[+] [-] est|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hassanahmad|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|3 years ago|reply
Also, 7000 series is designed for 95C. It'll run forever at 95C, and will always run at 95C if it has the workload and power budget. IOW, giving it more cooling will cause it to run faster rather than making it cooler.
On other chips 95C might indicate it's on the edge of failure, but AMD asserts that 95C won't shorten the 7000's life.
[+] [-] bearjaws|3 years ago|reply
You can run it at 95% speed and usually something like 70% voltage.
My 3900x can do around 4.5ghz at 1.4v or 4.3ghz at 1.05v all core. I imagine Zen 4 will be exactly the same. Don't have the power draw off the top of my head, but that is essentially 125w for 4.5ghz and 90w for 4.3ghz.
[+] [-] Salgat|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mhh__|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nwmcsween|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mhh__|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] INTPenis|3 years ago|reply
I do some gaming and I can tell you their posts never reflect my reality.
[+] [-] m463|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] djha-skin|3 years ago|reply
Still, I would have liked to see a graph or other pretty chart showing the results of the benchmark off better so that I could internalize them easier.
[+] [-] pedrocr|3 years ago|reply
https://www.phoronix.com/review/ryzen-5900x-5950x
[+] [-] dis-sys|3 years ago|reply
good PR tricks - they just sign NDA agreements with different reviewers with slightly different embargo lift dates.
[+] [-] halotrope|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pedrocr|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saiya-jin|3 years ago|reply
Anyway, enough ranting, nobody sane decides on these 0day benchmarks but waits at least few weeks for overall conclusions, quirks, not so common issues etc. And even better is to wait few months for more stable motherboards and drivers, better availability of compatible RAM etc.
[+] [-] Teifion|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tepix|3 years ago|reply