Info 64MB V-Cache on 5XXX Zen3 Average +15% in Games

[Kedas]

Well we know now how they will bridge the long wait to Zen4 on AM5 Q4 2022.
Production start for V-cache is end this year so too early for Zen4 so this is certainly coming to AM4.
+15% Lisa said is "like an entire architectural generation"

 

[Hans Gruber]

You didn't, but since he actually is delusional he misread what you wrote and thought you said he was delusional even though you did't.

No, Mr. Mark called me delusional in this thread a few weeks ago. I didn't respond then. But thanks for chiming in with your inaccurate opinion of what I was thinking.

Yes, in server, so far behind its not funny.

Also, HEDT for Intel does not exist.

And mobile ? Not an expert there, but I know there are some pretty good chips out there for AMD.

Even ahead in desktop ? Maybe if you use Intel default power settings and smoke the PSU's, and don't count multi-threaded.

Hans is delusional.

 

[Markfw]

Regardless of what people think about V-cache (probably a letdown). AMD is now behind Intel in every aspect with power consumption being the only AMD advantage. This doesn't include the 5950x. Considering the clock regression and the 3-4 month time table before launch. Intel already has more CPU's slated for release before the 5800x3d.

I can see it now, 15% gaming gains in 1080p but lower computing power in every other aspect compared to a 5800x. This is another Zen 2 XT end of life release. The XT had lower operating voltage and a higher single core clock vs other Zen 2 parts but no real performance gains to justify the price premium.

Significant price reductions in Zen 3 is their best option before Zen 4. With Zen 4 they will have a double boost in performance (IPC gains and 5nm silicon).

I found it... Yes, saying AMD is behind Intel in every respect is delusional. As I said before, (to surmise)

Server: AMD way out front
HEDT: way out front
Desktop: contested, depends on the application, but Intel has a power problem.
Laptop: This is contested, and AMD in in the fight, with new stuff coming shortly.

Your response ???

 

[Mopetar]

No, Mr. Mark called me delusional in this thread a few weeks ago. I didn't respond then. But thanks for chiming in with your inaccurate opinion of what I was thinking.

I was making a joke, but I went back and read the post he seemed to be referencing (which I've quoted below) and frankly it's a bad take. You basically claim that AMD is behind Intel in every way except for efficiency. Then you specifically mention that this doesn't include the 5950X for some reason. It obviously doesn't consider the server space since Sapphire Rapids isn't out yet and until then Intel doesn't even have a presence in HEDT where Threadripper has been so dominant that AMD hasn't even bothered to release a Zen 3 variant. We don't have the full picture on Rembrandt yet, but we know enough about the iGPU to know it blows Intel out of the water there. You could at least claim that it technically isn't out yet so it doesn't count, but it'll be out soon enough. I don't know if all of this qualifies as delusion, but it's certainly misinformed.

I mean sure if you ignore two whole market segments, the 5950X, power use for the other desktop CPUs, and jump through enough hoops for your 5800X3D analysis to qualify it as a circus performance then I suppose AMD is now behind Intel. But with that many caveats the argument is basically meaningless.

Regardless of what people think about V-cache (probably a letdown). AMD is now behind Intel in every aspect with power consumption being the only AMD advantage. This doesn't include the 5950x. Considering the clock regression and the 3-4 month time table before launch. Intel already has more CPU's slated for release before the 5800x3d.

I can see it now, 15% gaming gains in 1080p but lower computing power in every other aspect compared to a 5800x. This is another Zen 2 XT end of life release. The XT had lower operating voltage and a higher single core clock vs other Zen 2 parts but no real performance gains to justify the price premium.

Significant price reductions in Zen 3 is their best option before Zen 4. With Zen 4 they will have a double boost in performance (IPC gains and 5nm silicon).

 

[Hans Gruber]

I found it... Yes, saying AMD is behind Intel in every respect is delusional. As I said before, (to surmise)

Server: AMD way out front
HEDT: way out front
Desktop: contested, depends on the application, but Intel has a power problem.
Deskptop: This is contested, and AMD in in the fight, with new stuff coming shortly.

Your response ???

My comment was based only on the desktop market. Look at the title of this thread. There is no mention of epyc server chips or threadripper in my post. That is why I mentioned the 5950x as being the last strong hold AMD has in Zen 3. Alder Lake couldn't defeat the 5950x. I said power consumption is where AMD is well ahead of Intel.

 

[Markfw]

My comment was based only on the desktop market. Look at the title of this thread. There is no mention of epyc server chips or threadripper in my post. That is why I mentioned the 5950x as being the last strong hold AMD has in Zen 3. Alder Lake couldn't defeat the 5950x. I said power consumption is where AMD is well ahead of Intel.

Well, saying AMD is behind Intel in every respect CERTAINLY applies to everything. I still disagree that they are in desktop, but at least now I understand better..

 

[eek2121]

How long before MS buys AMD, at this rate? Risky, I know, with Intel looming large in the background but this doubling down is quite the novelty. Plus, AMD produces other custom chips for MS as well.

Outside of what has already been said (they will lose the x86 license supposedly, though I'm not sure that would actually happen), such a deal would never go through. Many of these larger companies are under threat of getting broken up. While Microsoft is certainly toward the bottom of the list, they are, in fact, on the list.

Here is what Intel had to say about AMD.

"Alder Lake. All of a sudden...Boom! We are back in the game," exclaims the impish tech CEO. "AMD in the rearview mirror in clients [consumer market]," he adds, "and never again will they be in the windshield; we are just leading the market."

So, I take it you think unicorns are real as well?

Well, saying AMD is behind Intel in every respect CERTAINLY applies to everything. I still disagree that they are in desktop, but at least now I understand better..

I disagree with ANY assessment that claims Intel beats AMD in perf/watt. If that were the case, the 12700k would beat the 5900x @ 105W, and the 12900k would beat the 5950x @ 105w. Not only that, but AMD's current architecture is a year old. Yet their server SKUs are WAY ahead, desktop SKUs are mostly ahead, and laptop? that market right now has AMD ahead, with Alder Lake MAYBE catching up or possibly beating Cezanne. Rembrandt and ADL should go head-to-head soon, and we'll find out...

Some of you guys (not Mark, I actually agree with most of his viewpoints, but rather, you Intel folks) that are trolling these threads need to take a chill pill. Intel IS trying to execute better, but they haven't yet reached the point where they can declare the win over AMD. If you think otherwise, I'd like for you to find me an Intel CPU that beats my 5950x in the majority of benchmarks at 105W + another 37W or so for the complete SoC. I'm not making excuses for either vendor (lol, I own stocks in both along with TSMC, etc. those stocks just all go up don't they? ) but currently the winds continue to blow in AMD's direction, hence why they don't care about the gimped rooster crowing over at Intel.

 

[Saylick]

You know what, Pat. I think you're right about AMD never again being in the windshield.

And that's because you're driving the car in the opposite direction. The wrong direction.

 

[positivedoppler]

Pretty obvious Intel's lead in a few benchmarks will be short lived. 5800X 3D is a nice release and boost for people who wish to upgrade gaming performance on their old AM4 sockets that's been around since Feb 2017! it's been a really nice long run for that socket. Zen 4 should be coming later this year. It's been since Nov 2020 when 5900X and 5950X was release so a successor should be released soon since we know 5800X 3D is not that..

 

[Markfw]

Outside of what has already been said (they will lose the x86 license supposedly, though I'm not sure that would actually happen), such a deal would never go through. Many of these larger companies are under threat of getting broken up. While Microsoft is certainly toward the bottom of the list, they are, in fact, on the list.

So, I take it you think unicorns are real as well?


I disagree with ANY assessment that claims Intel beats AMD in perf/watt. If that were the case, the 12700k would beat the 5900x @ 105W, and the 12900k would beat the 5950x @ 105w. Not only that, but AMD's current architecture is a year old. Yet their server SKUs are WAY ahead, desktop SKUs are mostly ahead, and laptop? that market right now has AMD ahead, with Alder Lake MAYBE catching up or possibly beating Cezanne. Rembrandt and ADL should go head-to-head soon, and we'll find out...

Some of you guys (not Mark, I actually agree with most of his viewpoints, but rather, you Intel folks) that are trolling these threads need to take a chill pill. Intel IS trying to execute better, but they haven't yet reached the point where they can declare the win over AMD. If you think otherwise, I'd like for you to find me an Intel CPU that beats my 5950x in the majority of benchmarks at 105W + another 37W or so for the complete SoC. I'm not making excuses for either vendor (lol, I own stocks in both along with TSMC, etc. those stocks just all go up don't they? ) but currently the winds continue to blow in AMD's direction, hence why they don't care about the gimped rooster crowing over at Intel.

@eek2121 , yes, I totally agree. I have 3 5950x's (will be 4 this friday) and they absolutely kick hiney ! They even give my Rome CPUs a run for the money, and they kill the Naples ones. Maybe Alder lake can win a few single core benchmarks, but thats about it. (and gaming for now). Its hard to believe it, but they destroy my 1950x threadripper that was king for so long.

 

[Joe NYC]

They won't because they'd lose the x86 license deals if AMD were acquired by another company. Past behavior on the part of Microsoft would also make it difficult for that kind of deal to get past various regulatory bodies. It would also be fairly expensive since AMD has been doing well. Right now their market cap is about $160 billion, so a buyout would cost Microsoft at least $200 billion. Never mind that it would also damage their reputations with other CPU manufacturers.

Wouldn't Intel then also lose x86-64 license? Which is AMD's and what everybody is using anyway...

 

[CHADBOGA]

Wouldn't Intel then also lose x86-64 license? Which is AMD's and what everybody is using anyway...

Intel won't lose any rights they have if another party breaks the agreement.

What kind of backwards logic is that?

 

[Insert_Nickname]

"Alder Lake. All of a sudden...Boom! We are back in the game," exclaims the impish tech CEO. "AMD in the rearview mirror in clients [consumer market]," he adds, "and never again will they be in the windshield; we are just leading the market."

I think you mean ON the windshield...

 

[moinmoin]

Intel won't lose any rights they have if another party breaks the agreement.

What kind of backwards logic is that?

It's an exchange of rights going both ways. If that agreement is severed, both sides lose the access to the rights that agreement gave them.

Makes me ponder whether Jensen after trying to get Arm would be interested to try to get AMD just to kill x86. 🤪

 

[Tuna-Fish]

Wouldn't Intel then also lose x86-64 license?

It's an exchange of rights going both ways. If that agreement is severed, both sides lose the access to the rights that agreement gave them.

No. Back when AMD was still doing very badly they re-negotiated their crosslicensing agreements. AMD got a good chunk of money, and made sure to get licenses to all the new extensions from Intel basically in perpetuity. What Intel got in exchange was a setup where if AMD fails or gets acquired, Intel can also keep using all of AMD's stuff in perpetuity regardless of what the new owners of the AMD assets feel like, and the new owners also lose the x86 license.

This deal basically added a poison pill to AMD, making their assets much less valuable if they go under or get acquired. The reason why this is a good deal to Intel is fairly obvious, it protects them in the case of AMD going under (which, at the time, was still a realistic problem!) and their assets being acquired by some patent troll who just wants to extract maximum concessions from Intel. The reason this was valuable to AMD, other than the direct cash payment, was that by making their assets much less valuable in a bankruptcy they made the risk of that lower, by making sure the best possible outcome for any creditors who are losing their faith in them is still AMD surviving.

Which is AMD's and what everybody is using anyway...

In order to make a modern x86-64 CPU, you need access to a bunch of licensed stuff from both AMD and Intel. The stuff AMD added were extensions to what was owned by Intel, so you need licenses to both. And also, all the modern SIMD extensions are also Intel IP.

 

[moinmoin]

Excellent summary, thanks @Tuna-Fish. Didn't think of that renegotiation anymore. Very good point that it also made bankruptcy less of an interest for creditors indeed.

 

[Joe NYC]

Intel won't lose any rights they have if another party breaks the agreement.

What kind of backwards logic is that?

It was a question. I don't know the answer.

 

[Joe NYC]

No. Back when AMD was still doing very badly they re-negotiated their crosslicensing agreements. AMD got a good chunk of money, and made sure to get licenses to all the new extensions from Intel basically in perpetuity. What Intel got in exchange was a setup where if AMD fails or gets acquired, Intel can also keep using all of AMD's stuff in perpetuity regardless of what the new owners of the AMD assets feel like, and the new owners also lose the x86 license.

This deal basically added a poison pill to AMD, making their assets much less valuable if they go under or get acquired. The reason why this is a good deal to Intel is fairly obvious, it protects them in the case of AMD going under (which, at the time, was still a realistic problem!) and their assets being acquired by some patent troll who just wants to extract maximum concessions from Intel. The reason this was valuable to AMD, other than the direct cash payment, was that by making their assets much less valuable in a bankruptcy they made the risk of that lower, by making sure the best possible outcome for any creditors who are losing their faith in them is still AMD surviving.



In order to make a modern x86-64 CPU, you need access to a bunch of licensed stuff from both AMD and Intel. The stuff AMD added were extensions to what was owned by Intel, so you need licenses to both. And also, all the modern SIMD extensions are also Intel IP.

Thanks for the explanation. Very informative.

 

[nicalandia]

This is the most recent info we have on that(not that old and with Zen right around the corner)

"Advanced Micro Devices has clarified terms of the cross-license agreement with Intel Corp. on Thursday. As it appears, if either AMD or Intel change their control (i.e., gets acquired), the cross-license agreement between the two companies is automatically terminated for both parties. "

AMD clarifies cross-license with Intel: change of control terminates agreement for both - KitGuru

Advanced Micro Devices has clarified terms of the cross-license agreement with Intel Corp. on Thursd

www.kitguru.net

 

[moinmoin]

Thanks @nicalandia, relevant quote from that article:
"Many analysts believe that multiple companies and strategic investors hold off from acquiring AMD because without a cross-license agreement with Intel, the company can be sued by Intel for patent infringement, which could ultimately result in inability to sell x86-compatible processors . Moreover, without the cross-license agreement, AMD can sue Intel for patent infringement too. If AMD gets acquired and the agreement is terminated, Intel will have to either find a way to not use AMD’s IP (which is a rather hard thing to do) or ink a new deal.

The only scenario under which the cross-license agreement is terminated for only one party is upon a breach of contract.

All-in-all, while possible complications with cross-license agreement between AMD and Intel might be a problem for potential AMD investors, Intel is not immune from similar complications."

 

[Mopetar]

As good of a deal as it seems like for Intel, it's probably a lot better for AMD. If something like that weren't in place it's hard to imagine that some vultures wouldn't have tried to buy them up and sell the company off in pieces during the Bulldozer era when they were barely scraping by.

It is kind of funny that the deal was renegotiated right before Zen released so that Intel couldn't be sold off either. It's reading into it a bit much to imagine AMD playing some kind of long game, but it is rather funny given how much of a turnaround Zen has been for the company and how much the valuation for their company has changed since then.

 

[Doug S]

How old is AMD64? Given when the first 64 bit AMD CPUs were released, the patents would have to date to around 20 years ago - which means they would be expired now. Intel may not have too many worries as the most important part of the cross licensing from AMD is about to lose its patent protection.

 

[scannall]

How old is AMD64? Given when the first 64 bit AMD CPUs were released, the patents would have to date to around 20 years ago - which means they would be expired now. Intel may not have too many worries as the most important part of the cross licensing from AMD is about to lose its patent protection.

The original x86 patents are long expired. The x86_64 patents started in 1999 and should be expiring soon if they already aren't. Assorted extensions have come since then, but are becoming more and more irrelevant with better compiler technology. AVX for instance being compiled into SVE instead? However if another company say nVidia tried to make an x86 CPU there would still be a legal bloodbath, I can see AMD and Intel teaming the wagons and trying to assert copyright instead of patents.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Even the first AVX CPUs are getting a little long in the tooth. "Proper" AVX256 was available in IvyBridge which is now 10 years old, and AVX2 has been around since Haswell from nine years ago. About the only meaningful change to AVX/AVX2 that has happened since then of which I am aware is adding VNNI to AVX.

In any case, some of those patents are older than the CPUs themselves, and they all should be expiring pretty soon . . .

 

[Ranulf]

Well, saying AMD is behind Intel in every respect CERTAINLY applies to everything. I still disagree that they are in desktop, but at least now I understand better..

They're certainly winning the low end and mid range since AMD is afk for anything below the 5600g.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

However if another company say nVidia tried to make an x86 CPU there would still be a legal bloodbath, I can see AMD and Intel teaming the wagons and trying to assert copyright instead of patents.

Only one who wins on that fight is the lawyers. I'd certainly be making popcorn.

They're certainly winning the low end and mid range since AMD is afk for anything below the 5600g.

They really need something to replace the 3200G/3400G. Wonder what's in store with all those Renoir rumours going round.

Question is if they'll do it. They're already selling everything like hot cakes, so why compete in the budget segment?