- Jul 28, 2019
Simply because AMD's Zen technology leap comes from Jim Keller. Interesting thing about Keller is that he created in AMD an available technology table (IMHO something like what performance can bring at what cost/devtime). The same he did in Intel. I'm wonder if Apple have same tech map. Probably yes. And because first 6xALU CPU (Apple A11 Monsoon core) development was started around 2012 (entered market in 2017) and Keller moved to AMD at 2012 this means Keller saw Apple's technology map and CPU road map too. In other words he knew about 6xALU CPU will be developed in Apple soon and what tech it consists of. So I suppose his AMD K12 project, two CPUs (x86 and ARM) based on common back-end, contained also 6xALUs and similar advanced tech inside. And because Zen 3 is probably the x86 version of K12 (must be because AMD didn't had a resources for development 3 different uarchs at the same time: Zen2, Zen3 and K12. There were just Zen2 and K12 which ARM branch was killed and K12 x86 become Zen 3) this means Zen 3 will have 6xALU core too. Apple is known for being the infinite game player (I like famous Simon Sinek explanation here) and Keller tried AMD to be transformed into infinite game player too.Why are we talking about Apple on a Ryzen 4000 thread ?
How much time did it take for TESLA to change automotive market? 14 years including building two gigafactories on two continents? IT is much faster, especially when you do not need any fabs, just to make an order at TSMC. 500% faster CPU would take major server market share in two years. No company will move his hundreds of servers when Zen 2 is a bit faster than old Intel but still slower than Ice Lake. For 5% IPC you don't want to change supplier, service and continuity (it's not economical at short term, IPC advantage is uncertain in long term). Same parformance for EPYC's half price? That's strong argument definitely but can be eliminated by Intel's discount. But Nuvia with such a huge +80% IPC advantage will make all x86 servers technologically obsolete in just one day (and every other ISAs too). Economically not even worth to be plugged into electricity.The answer has nothing to do with hardware. And everything to do with software installed base. If you came up with a magic CPU that was %500 percent faster clock for clock it would still take 15 or 20 years to make x86 irrelevant. Maybe longer. So, for now and the foreseeable future x86 is where the money is.
I never talked about Geekbench. I'm using SPEC2006 benchmark results provided by AnandTech. It consists of several sub tests based on some typical algorithms so you can analyze where the performance come from. Definitely the +80% IPC advantage doesn't come from L1 and L2 cache. You can see that machine is fast just everywhere:You really going to Geekbench* the number eh?
In the real world it doesn't scale 100%, otherwise there wouldn't be any focus on improving the memory subsystem or the I/O.
Some like HPC, scale even less than that. SpecFP is representative, and the scaling factor is often 60-70%.
(Geekbench scales pretty much 100% with clocks, so do many less realistic benchmarks and also synthetics)
Stop with the thread derailing. This is a Ryzen 4000 speculation thread, not an Apple thread, keep your posts about Ryzen or start your own thread
Anandtech Forum Director
Last edited by a moderator: