I dont know why, but it is only in handbrake ZEN acts in this way you describe.. In everything else i've found it to boost normally (4.5ghz+ average effective clocks with 100% usage)
Normal boosting in IBT high, prime and cinebench etc
Low effective clock in handbrake
Same settings and same run on everything
Last edited:
Heh, and that tells you what exactly about power efficiency? Are you accusing someone of denying your opinion which is in turn is based on rumors? LOL.
There are so many red siren warning signs on this product that any positive rumor regarding it should be treated with extreme caution.
Yeah, I know right? And yet, somehow... well... watch it happen.
Clocks, IPC, and power consumption can tell you efficiency. I shouldn't have to explain something so basic.
While your position seems to be based on literally nothing. I'll take rumors (many of which have proven to be accurate) over that.
Now you're either handwaving, or citing your own denial as its own cause.
Yes, please explain these basic matters. Tell me how you extrapolate power efficiency from IPC. I'd love to hear it.
Yeah I know... so many years wasted working at Intel on CPU design and micro-architecture... not worth anything at all.
Well, it is not my fault you don't recognize the warning signs. I'll give you one to chew on... ever wonder what the power/perf cost would be cranking the skylake core up to 5 wide decode without the benefit of a gate delay reduction from process? Then you look at the planned frequencies on this thing... and the PL2 power numbers from the spec... doesn't take much to put that together. OK well, it might take a EE degree. Hah. But you know what, enjoy your rumors, if they make you feel better.
Efficiency = perf/power = IPC * frequency / TDP.
As I said, very basic.
You have all the reputability of Piednoel at this point. You certainly have not written anything that demonstrates the least bit of architectural knowledge. On the other hand, you've consistently shown that your sole goal on this forum seems to be trash talking Intel. It's trolling, not technical discussion.
Already taken into account. You're just ignoring the IPC benefit that provides, and thus the ability to hit the same performance at lower clocks and voltage, assuming roughly equal critical path vs CML.
Let's see... IPC moves around and is highly workload dependent, frequency moves around based on the whims of a PCU, and TDP has been rendered utterly meaningless about a decade ago. Nice try though. Pro-tip: all the variables of your "equation" on the right are intertwined. For you to claim to be able to extract efficiency as a function of any of them in isolation is pure fantasy.
Ooooof, low blow. FWIW, I did see that guy's resume... let's just say that mine is a bit less.... verbose.
Hope you realize the critical gate depth increase is one of the hardest problems to solve when growing the width of the machine. Put it another way: your assumption is absolutely ridiculous.
Last edited:
shady28
Platinum Member
- Apr 11, 2004
- 2,381
- 199
- 106
No, that isn't what they found.
They did a later test with high speed RAM that showed that if you used overclocked RAM, the tables turned. However, their results for their standard test bed of a 2080 Ti + DDR4-3200 remain intact.
Big criticism here is that they could have run even higher speed RAM on the Intel platform.
They stuck with DDR4-3800 to keep things 'even', however that just so happens to be the best performing speed *for AMD* due to AMD's Infinity Fabric on their test box maxing at 1900Mhz X2 = 3800Mhz RAM. Zen could use higher speed RAM, but it would be out of sync with the Inifinity fabric and hence suffer a performance penalty.
*It is not the best performing speed for Intel. * Intel will continue to get a performance boost to 4600 and beyond.
It would have been much more interesting if they had run the Intel rig with the fastest RAM that it would support, rather than artificially limiting it to the max speed the Zen 3 could effectively use.
Here's an example of the results they got.
Note again, they are using 3800 because that is the most effective speed for AMD.
Intel platforms do better with speed, AMD with lower CL, at least on Zen 2. This particular kit is optimized for AMD.
It's Sunny Cove uarch. We know how it behaves.
Intel's used base clock all-core non-AVX (high) frequency to define TDP for years now. If you claim they've changed that with Rocket Lake, you'll need to offer evidence.
I literally defined efficiency. If you're just going to ignore the very definition, then you've abandoned even the pretense of honest discussion.
Except all available evidence suggests roughly equal max frequency to Comet Lake on effectively the same process. It can't have changed much.
Unless you insist that every rumor/leak we've seen are wrong, in which case it's as I said - denial.
Thunder 57
Golden Member
- Aug 19, 2007
- 1,637
- 1,667
- 136
Show me a link to some benchmarks. You might get a few fps, but I doubt it would be anything significant.
RAM is RAM. This is nothing more than marketing. It's not like there is RGB "designed" for any certain motherboard brand.Intel platforms do better with speed, AMD with lower CL, at least on Zen 2. This particular kit is optimized for AMD. (citation needed)
Really? Do you know how it behaves when backported to a different, older process?
That is not remotely close to how it is defined. The base clock is what the part is guaranteed to deliver with all its cores without any turbo gimmicks, and as such, due to die variation, is heavily guard-banded such that normally, running at base clock should get nowhere close to the TDP.
This is because TDP is wattage limit *recommendation* given to OEM’s. As such, it is a loose number that Intel/AMD can and will play games with depending on how much thermal margin they feel like having and still sell the most parts they can. Feeling desperate? Cut the margin and bin out the parts that don’t match up.
Yeah well, your definition is flawed to the point of being totally useless, so that is your own fault.
LOL. Here’s one way you can converge a design with a higher gate depth to the same frequency: you increase the voltage. Guess what happens to power when you do that?
Yes yes, I am denying the veracity of your preferred rumors. Guilty as charged. Happy?
Process doesn't change uarch, and IPC is solely a factor of uarch.
Lol, post your definition then. Fairies per unicorn?
They can't increase voltage. It goes up to nearly 1.4V on Comet Lake. Not even recommended for sustained overclocks. They've pushed it as far as they can.
Well then what do you think clocks and TDP will be? If you're so insistent that everyone else is wrong, put a stake in the ground.
shady28
Platinum Member
- Apr 11, 2004
- 2,381
- 199
- 106
It's the timings that are set for a particular brand, for one. There are many people who have not been able to effectively use RAM setup for Intel on AMD rigs, this used to be a big issue.
As for the benchmarks, you can find them all over.
You could watch this guy as he slowly gimps his 10900K down to the level of most of these benchmark review sites (DDR4-3200 CL 14 / Ring 4Ghz) - and loses 21% of this FPS in SOTR.
Or here - this is the effect of just going from DDR4-3800 to 4000 without changing any timings.
Red bar is DDR4-4000 :
This is interesting. Too bad we don't have more data but let's try to analyze this.
We have two 16 core Zen 3 parts, which both have average effective CPU of about 82%.
12 core Zen 3 at 86% and 12 core Zen 2 at 80%.
10 core Comet Lake at 97%
The rest of the scores are from 8 or less core parts and except for 1 result they all are 95% or greater.
The most obvious conclusion is that Handbrake isn't able to use 16 cores/32 threads very effectively. But then we have the 80% usage for the 12 core Zen 3 and the 90% for the 10 core Comet Lake.
Without more scores to analyze I'm stumped?
I noticed that the three results you provided with nearly 100% CPU usage were benchmarks, which are specifically designed to stress all available cores.
Do you have any programs that you use day-to-day that stress the CPU higher than Handbrake?
Too bad for you, power efficiency is dependent on far more than just uarch.
It's been fun but I have better things to do than to educate dilettantes.
DrMrLordX
Lifer
- Apr 27, 2000
- 17,269
- 6,269
- 136
No, it's Cypress Cove. It doesn't seem to behave the same per clock as Sunny Cove (nor Willow Cove), at least comparing GB5 results from IceLake-U to the few Rocket Lake-S leaks we have thus far. We need more data to fully understand what has changed. I think it's safe to say that we will not be seeing a +18% IPC uplift.
No matter what they call it, it's a Sunny Cove backport. There may be some fudge factor in the numbers from the uncore, but by and large its measured IPC should be in line with any other Sunny Cove implementation.
It's a totally new core, backporting as whole core isn't possible. In silicon processes everything goes to one direction, you could take your old design from older process and simply shrink it to to new process with little effort, but taking new design back to older process is something totally different. And as "backporting" to old process means that they have to design new cpu arch to older process, which is just as expensive as to design new arch to new process even Intel didn't even consider that until new processes failed totally.
Rocketlake is totally desperate move from Intel. But as their Skylake-arch is clocked way over it's efficiency point new bigger cpu-arch for 14nm could be more efficient at some point at high frequency making at least some sense with some products.
This is complete nonsense. For most cores, you just take your same RTL (which includes uarch) and redo the backend work to harden it on the new process. Assuming it's not 100% synthesizable, which some are. This works the same for a shrink or a backport.
Intel's difficulty is that they have custom circuits for each process, so they have to replicate them or find replacements when they port. This doesn't change the uarch, however.
Hardest part to do is critical path optimization and wire delay - if they design their uarch to given process backporting it to older process means that structures will become bigger and too slow to meet timing targets - it will work but only at much lower frequencies that it was designed originally.
So what is needed is complete redesign of all structures for older process - full redesign. And if design was optimized for smaller process there are structures that simply aren't physically possible to replicate in older process.
For AMD their designs are fully synthesizable but there won't be any backports as their design for 14nm is much better than direct backport from 7nm design to 14nm. Even their 7nm design need some tweaks like cutting L1i-cache to half to make physical implementation possible - think about what they need to cut out if they want to bakcport that to twice as big transistors.
DrMrLordX
Lifer
- Apr 27, 2000
- 17,269
- 6,269
- 136
There is no evidence to indicate that is the case. There is scant evidence it indicate that is not the case. Backporting is not the same as a die shrink.
SAAA
Senior member
- May 14, 2014
- 510
- 106
- 116
Beside some changes to make it work on 14 nm I too don't think there's any architectural difference between Sunny and Cypress Cove cores.
They named it differently as it's a new product mixing gen 12 graphics (from Tiger) and gen 11 cores (from Ice), but there's little indication they would suddenly come up with a new architecture when they didn't bother touching Skylake for over, uh, 6 years.
I mean, surely they could have included some tiny small changes in late Coffee and Comet Lakes rather than doing a new one for a single product, that will last maybe 9 months, right?
Intel itself officially admitted that the part with x86 cores of the Rocketlake chip is exactly the same as Iceland. They didn't want to call the same microarchitecture the same because Rocketlake has a different iGP and CypressCove is 14nm, not 10nm.
You're basically just saying that difference processes have different performance characteristics, which is true to an extent, but does not justify repipelining or any other dramatic change. Again, it's the same with a shrink. You don't redesign for the new process; you just pocket the gains as they come.
Besides, looking at Ice Lake, 10+ doesn't seem to have any performance advantage vs 14+++ to begin with.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question New Apple SoC - M1 - For lower end Macs - Geekbench 5 single-core >1700- Started by Eug
- Replies: 2K
-
Question Speculation: RDNA2 + CDNA Architectures thread- Started by uzzi38
- Replies: 6K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 12K
-
Info 64MB V-Cache on 59XX Zen3 Average +15% in Games
- Started by Kedas
- Replies: 117
-
Facebook
Twitter