Except? You are funny. Take away Intel's cache advantage over non V-Cache Ryzens and compare at the same memory specs and AMD still at least trades blow with Intel's offerings on average. In fact we are not far from the Bulldozer situation. It's almost the same, just vice versa. If you want the...
No, definitely not. Netburst was a complete failure. The concept, the implementation, just everything. It was destined to fail. The biggest garbage in the x86 history. Bulldozer is a different story. The concept was actually really good. But it failed because of mainly two factors. First, the...
We don't know for sure yet. There are also rumors that say Intel only disabled it because it wasn't working on the new architecture. And there was no time to fix it without massive delay. It might be fixed on the successor.
My guess would be not before Zen 6.
I don't think that Intel will go >8 p-cores anytime soon. They will likely push e-cores. And I think that even 15th gen won't have more than 8p+32e on the mainstream desktop platform. Which is expected when? Somewhere 2025, about one year after Zen 5? So, I...
It all depends on the overall package. I'd rather take +35% IPC at 5 GHz than +20% IPC at 5.7 GHz. Which usually means better average power efficiency and more improvements by increasing clock speeds in the future. AMD increased clock speeds with Zen 4 quite substantially. But that's not...
Not really. And better than Bulldozer. Which had like 15% IPC reduction and 20% clock speed improvement. Which means it wasn't faster than its predecessor at all in 1T. And for how long was Bulldozer in the development?
Raptor Lake is not the benchmark. Zen is the benchmark. Intel needs a...
Actually there is not much capacity difference between the L3 cache of one Zen 3 CCD and Alder Lake S, 32 vs 30 MB. Zen 3 also can greatly benefit from faster RAM. https://github.com/xxEzri/Vermeer/blob/main/Guide.md
Sure. But that's mainly the strength of the Zen 3/4 V-Cache SKUs, not the...
They are not focusing on frequency in general. Since the first Zen generation the design clearly had some speed path limits. With Zen 4 AMD seems to eliminate most critical speed path limits before focusing on a wider design for more IPC (Zen 5). Which absolutely makes sense. And btw, up to 10%...
That guy from ComputerBase used overclocked 12th gen models with faster memory. 12900K +42% faster DDR5, 12700K +25% faster DDR4, 5800X3D +19% faster DDR4. That comparison doesn't say much about Ryzen 7000. The advantage of the 12900K in that test is clearly based on OC and fast DDR5. Ryzen 7000...
After Intel's disastrous results I thought AMD might be negatively affected as well. But holy redacted, didn't expect that. +70% y/y, impressive numbers!
No profanity in tech allowed.
esquared
Anandtech Forum Director
It depends. If your application is memory bottlenecked then those peasant cores won't offer much less performance than current p-cores. If your application is compute bottlenecked then the difference can be huge. As some reviews showed you will need more than two of those peasant cores to...
In the "good old days" you didn't even need a new CPU to increase performance by 50%. You just needed to press the turbo button on my 286 system, going from 8 to 12 MHz. 😂
Do I see correctly? They compare single core spec2006 and claim they match AMD with half the cores and power consumption / TDP? That's pure clickbait. According to the spec2006 scores such a Zhaoxin core offers less than half the performance of a current AMD or Intel core (w/ SMT). So no, this...
Sunny/Willow Cove and Golden Cove brought some significant IPC improvements in a quite short time. But that was just a coincidence due to Intel's 10nm delays. And they didn't solve Intel's real problems, power and area inefficiency. They actually made it even worse. As long as the competition...
You hear problems about Intel's 7nm process since 2020. Maybe it's not as dramatic as 10nm was. But it's still questionable if they can keep their schedule with MTL. Intel was always good at announcing. But especially in recent years their execution was miserable. Their current neverending story...
Doubt that. You don't get 8 more E-cores for free. THG measured ~50W for 8 ADL E-cores. More cache also needs more energy. Which might negatively affect clock speed. But is often quite useless in highly multi threaded apps. Look at 5800X3D which lost like 3-5% MT performance compared to 5800X...
Intel needs at least two E-cores to equalize one P-core.
Because I expect Zen 4 to be at least similar performant as Golden Cove I don't see much problems here for AMD. They can theoretically counter any Intel configuration.
16P vs 8P+16E
12P vs 8P+8E
10P vs 6P+8E
8P vs 6P+4E
etc.
But that's...
AMD themselves talked about 50% lower power at the same performance or >25% higher frequency at the same power. They don't use regular N5 process but an improved N5 process.
A good architecture with strong core performance and high efficiency doesn't know friends or foes. It works everywhere. ;) The actual challenge is scaling. And Zen scales exceptionally well across multiple markets. AMD has a long history in the consumer market and gaming. And I don't think they...
What? Are you cherry picking? Golden Cove is far from "destroying Zen 3". Zen 3 compared to 10th gen was more impressive than 12th gen compared to Zen 3 considering IPC. The advertised IPC improvements of AMD and Intel are average. But of course not every test suite will show that numbers...
Zen 3 achieved a higher IPC increase than Zen 2 on the same process. So, the process itself doesn't say much about IPC improvements. A smaller node just means more transistors on the same area. Which could be used to implement more logic to increase IPC. But it doesn't have to. We had a rumor...
I think it was 16 cores. Why else would they emphasize it was done on "all cores"? But of course it was just a game. I don't know how that games scales with more cores. But games usually cannot fully utilize all cores, especially 16 cores. So, it's not really comparable with a more CPU intensive...
No. It's not above its category.
5950X <-> 12900K
5900X <-> 12700K
5800X <-> 12600K
5600X <-> 12400/12500
When Intel still needs more die area with every core configuration, ranging from ~15-75%. 5800X and 12600K perform similar at multicore and gaming. 12600K is only faster single core. But...
Here are similar results as TPU.
https://www.overclockers.com/intel-i9-12900k-and-i5-12600k-review/
Whatever. It's just an example. You should get the picture. You can find more apps with similar behavior. Where 12900K gets the best results with disabled E-core. Or where E-cores have only...
Phoronix is a special case. Especially with those outdated compiler optimization settings. Although I'm a big fan of Linux and use it at office it's still not very meaningful for the client market.
I think this chart demonstrates Intel's biggest problem very clearly.
The big.LITTLE...
Either you compare both at stock or both undervolted. Everything else is quite pointless. Undervolting also doesn't mean anything for production. It's still 10nm. Probably with some minor improvements. Don't expect any miracles for desktop Raptor Lake.
Not impressive. When 5 GHz OC falls apart...
You are talking about DLVR. That will only help with partial load. It's a tech for low TDP SKUs where every watt counts. That's why it was announced for mobile only. Desktop Raptor Lake won't benefit from it. I think 5.8 / 5.1 GHz is too much wishful thinking for the P-core. But something like...
People, please stop comparing 6500 XT and 3050. Both are cards for different market segments. 6500 XT is based on a tiny 107 mm² chip. 3050 is based on a much larger chip with 276 mm². It's actually just a crippled 3060. Of course Nvidia and their AIBs can't offer 3050 close to the price of 6500...
I don't know why some people mock about the card. The card is fine as it is. It's an ENTRY card for OEM systems or casual gamers. Why should it have 8 GB VRAM or encoders you actually wouldn't use with such a card anyway? If you want that then go with 6600 series. RX 6500 XT / 6400 are replacing...
"New architecture" and architecture from scratch are still two different things. Zen 3 is not the latter. It's still Zen, just fundamentally revamped. I expect ~20% more IPC than Zen 2 which would be a very good uplift. Don't expect something like the original Zen compared to Bulldozer. The...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.