- Jun 1, 2017
We can expect an official full deep dive fairly soon I think.
Well, then we have another problem, if in fact, IO bottle necks the load/store improvements - that and mem bandwidth didn't change. Like I said, I look forward to Ian's deep dive. Realworld thread on Zen 3 release (not the current thread) should be pretty epic.But if they increased load and store width and queue depths, one of the biggest SMT bottlenecks will be relieved. So i wouldn't be surprised to see SMT yeild increase or stay the same. I also wouldn't be surprised to see memory bandwdith , IO die etc to be a bottleneck when scaling workloads.
The interesting rumors arethat AMD are doing both 12nm and 7nm IOD for EPYC, if so that would be a very interesting comparison and give good insight to what warhol/DDR5 might bring.
Noticeable points: Geekbench is a HORRIFICLY TRASH benchmark, has been for years, I don't really care how unpopular am I going to be with this opinion of mine. They should team up with userbenchmark, since they are both consistent in being confidently representative of everything but real world performance.
Zen 3 on GB5.
Noticable points. Compared to the fastest 1185G7 on Windows here (unfortunately, there are no TGL-U benches with 5.1.1 like the 5900X here, so this will have to do for now):
Benchmark results for a Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. Please change product name with a 11th Gen Intel Core i7-1185G7 processor.browser.geekbench.com
The 5900X falls 5 points below in the averaged out single-threaded score whilst clocking between 4.775GHz and 4.95GHz. looking at the score breakdowns, the 5900X loses heavily in crypto, (2757 vs 4095), the two effecticely tie in the integer workloads (1409 vs 1405) and the 5900X takes a noticable lead in FP workloads (1837 vs 1640).
The 5950X run is using 5.2.3 but overall talking points from me remain the same for the most part. The 5950X loses some points by scoring 2707 in crypto, 1400 in integer and 1764 in floating point, but comparisons vs the 1185g7 otherwise remain the same. Heavy loss in crypto, virtually the same score in Integer with a lead in floating point.
The addition of an ALU might offset that effect. We may end up with a similar or possibly even higher SMT yield.This tends to happen when the mis-predict rate goes down (fewer pipeline flushes). There are fewer stalls and threads must compete more competitively for resource use. Net throughput goes up, but the gains from SMT go down. Reduced memory/cache latency would also reduced thread stalls (mem waits). There could be other reasons, once Ian gets to do a deep dive on Zen3, we'll get a better idea.
Agreed.Noticeable points: Geekbench is a HORRIFICLY TRASH benchmark, has been for years, I don't really care how unpopular am I going to be with this opinion of mine. They should team up with userbenchmark, since they are both consistent in being confidently representative of everything but real world performance.
There is no such things as "primary thread" and "secondary thread". Both threads in an SMT-enabled core are equal. When only one runs it takes almost all of the core resources (some might still be reserved for the other thread, depending on implementation). When both run their throughput is reduced, but if each can run at over 50% rate you will see a net performance gain. E.g. if each runs at 60% then you will see +20% SMT gain (this doesn't take into account scalability of the given workload).SMT likes wide cores. SMT throughout shouldn’t change a whole lot if the core hasn’t changed effective width. The only thing that MIGHT give somewhat of a hit to SMT performance is a deliberate retuning of the dispatch logic to favor the primary thread over the secondary thread. That’s a very general way of saying that tuning can be done to increase single thread throughout at the expense of multithreaded performance. Given AMD’s improvements to the processors as stated, they may have felt that it was worth the trade off given the competition.
Is geekbench trash or are tests simply not conducted in controlled conditions? Since anyone can post their results, you will find weird numbers in the database. Some launch geekbench while other tasks are running, for instance.Noticeable points: Geekbench is a HORRIFICLY TRASH benchmark, has been for years, I don't really care how unpopular am I going to be with this opinion of mine. They should team up with userbenchmark, since they are both consistent in being confidently representative of everything but real world performance.
The same analysis points out correlation between GB and SPEC is not an inherent property and can break under a number of scenarios. It essentially reinforces what many object when it comes to GB performance estimates across platforms - controlled testing is mandatory to ensure correlation between GB and established industry benchmarks. And yet "controlled testing" is essentially the opposite of what GB offers: testing for ALL!
Using SPEC on mobile platforms (has Nuvia wanted to include Apple's and qualcomm's) is significantly harder.If you want to claim absolute performance and perf/wattt supremacy with no working demo in hand, the least you can do is use estimates for industry standard benchmarks. Why reinvent the wheel to sell a new steed?
A minute ago you were willing to submit Nuvia's analysis as proof, now you place the burden of proof on the opposing side.We're not discussing Nuvia's decision, we're discussing whether geekbench is intrinsically flawed. I haven't seen clear evidence that it is.
They're trying to convince the world they're about to shake the entire computing industry. "Significantly harder" should be the norm for them.Using SPEC on mobile platforms (has Nuvia wanted to include Apple's and qualcomm's) is significantly harder.
I questioned the claim about geekbench being trash. Isn't my nor anyone's job to provide proof that geekbench is not trash. No one can, as it is impossible to exclude the existence of some defect, however small. IOW, geekbench being trash is not a workable null hypothesis that can/must be disproven. One should instead provide evidence contradicting the null hypothesis that geekbench is not trash. Individual geekbench results found on the web do not constitute convincing evidence, nor do contradictions with results from particular apps. At best, these may show that some tests are poorly conducted and that geekbench algorithms are not representative of a unique use case. Since primate labs never claimed that geekbench should correct for user errors or be representative of any particular workload, I'm not yet convinced that their tool is trash.A minute ago you were willing to submit Nuvia's analysis as proof, now you place the burden of proof on the opposing side.
From the document itself:Nuvia's analysis and future products are not my main interest. I still find your claim of absence of correlation between the SPEC and geekbench scores outlandish. Again, can you clarify?
While this observation is interesting from a benchmarking standpoint, Geekbench is generally less demanding of the micro-architecture than SPEC CPU is. For a subset of the micro-architectural features, Figure 3 shows the relative metric value for CPU2006 and CPU2017 normalized to a baseline of 1.0 for Geekbench 5. These were generated from detailed performance simulations of a modern CPU. It shows that the branch mispredicts and data cache (D-Cache), data TLB (D-TLB) misses are 1.1x — 2x higher in SPEC CPU compared to that seen in Geekbench 5. For this reason, chip architects tend to study a wide variety of benchmarks including SPEC CPU and Geekbench (among many others) to optimize the architecture for performance.
It is important to note that the observed correlation is not a fundamental property and can break under several scenarios.
One example is thermal effects. Geekbench typically runs quickly (in minutes) and especially so in our testing where the default workload gaps are removed, whereas SPEC CPU typically runs for hours. The net effect of this is that Geekbench 5 may achieve a higher average frequency because it is able to exploit the system’s thermal mass due to its short runtime. However SPEC CPU will be governed by the long term power dissipation capability of the system due to its long run-time. This is something to watch out for when applying such correlation techniques to systems that see significant thermal throttling or power-capping while running these benchmarks.
Another scenario where the correlation can break is non-linear jumps in performance that one benchmark suite sees but not the other. The interplay between the active data foot-print of a test and the CPU caches is a classic source of such non-linearities. For example, a future CPU’s cache may be large enough that many sub-tests of one benchmark suite may fully fit in cache boosting performance many fold. However, the other benchmark suite may not see such a benefit if none of its tests fit in cache. In such cases, the correlation will not hold.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Question AMD Ryzen 3700x vs INTEL Core i7 10700F - Which one do you think?||CPUs and Overclocking||0|
|L||Question Ryzen 3400g Alternative Budget CPU with integrated graphics Please||CPUs and Overclocking||5|
|B||Question What is better, Ryzen 5 3400G or Ryzen 7 Pro 4750G?||CPUs and Overclocking||11|
|D||Discussion AMD Cezanne/Zen 3 APU Speculation and Discussion||CPUs and Overclocking||146|
|L||Question Speculation: XBox series S SoC info...||CPUs and Overclocking||16|
|Question AMD Ryzen 3700x vs INTEL Core i7 10700F - Which one do you think?|
|Question Ryzen 3400g Alternative Budget CPU with integrated graphics Please|
|Question What is better, Ryzen 5 3400G or Ryzen 7 Pro 4750G?|
|Discussion AMD Cezanne/Zen 3 APU Speculation and Discussion|
|Question Speculation: XBox series S SoC info...|