Question Why are AMD's cpu naming conventions so inaccurate??

[GunsMadeAmericaFree]

I was looking at the performance of an AMD Ryzen 3200G processor, because an article compared the recent Z1 processor to it, saying that the Z1 had about 50% better performance. When I looked up the 3200G's cpu marks rating, it showed a score of 7,181.

I also recently built a tower PC at home with a Ryzen 5600G, and I found myself wondering how it compares. Based on the 3200G's naming and performance, the 5600G SHOULD have a performance that is 75% better, or roughly 12,566 cpu marks.

Instead, it has a performance of 19,911 - which is an additional 59% higher performance than would be expected from the name/numbering on the cpu. I mean, I'm not complaining with performance on the cpu I got being a lot higher than one would expect. However, why aren't they giving it a name that is closer to what would give a true performance rating?

Clearly, when you compare 7,181 to 19,911, you see that the newer processor has about 2.77X performance of the lower processor. If numbering was continuous and relative, shuldn't the newer procesor have a name that is something like 8864G ??

Maybe I'm doing the math wrong???

 

[VirtualLarry]

A

Maybe I'm doing the math wrong???

AMD hasn't used PR- (Performance Rating) since Athon XP days.

Model numbers are arbitrary, and have been in use since AM2 days.

Where have you been all these years, Rip Van Winkle?

 

[moinmoin]

Maybe I'm doing the math wrong???

What you are doing wrong is applying math to model numbers.

 

[mikeymikec]

AMD hasn't used PR- (Performance Rating) since Athon XP days.

Model numbers are arbitrary, and have been in use since AM2 days.

Where have you been all these years, Rip Van Winkle?

However, AMD apparently do a Z1 Exxxxxxtreme CPU, which could make people wax nostalgic for the days of C2DE

 

[zir_blazer]

Maybe I'm doing the math wrong???

Yes. Because this is not math. Numbers have a sort of meaning, here is an example for EPYCs: https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-3rd-gen-epyc-milan-full-specifications-confirmed

A

AMD hasn't used PR- (Performance Rating) since Athon XP days.

Model numbers are arbitrary, and have been in use since AM2 days.

Where have you been all these years, Rip Van Winkle?

PR has been used by Athlons 64, Athlons 64 X2, and it lasted until the first generation AM2 Processors: https://www.cpu-world.com/Sockets/Socket AM2.html
They began to experiment with arbitrary model numbers and did the full transition by the time of Phenom.

 

[mikeymikec]

To be more helpful to the OP, AMD's naming convention these days is mostly to denote series number and number of cores, e.g:

Ryzen X <- X denotes where in the current line-up this group of CPUs goes (3, 5, 7, 9, lowest to highest performance)
Ryzen 3s are usually quad-cores (with or without SMT)
Ryzen 5s are usually hex-cores (with SMT entirely I think)
Ryzen 7s are usually octa-cores (ditto)
Ryzen 9s are either 12 or 16 cores (ditto)

Yxxx <- Y denotes the generation number (1st / 2nd / 3rd / 4th / 5th / yolo 7th gen)

the 'xxx' doesn't denote very much at all AFAIK. the Ryzen 9s I think will have '50' as the last two digits to note 16 cores.

then there's often a letter on the end:

G - on-die graphics included
X - unlocked multiplier (*nod to @aigomorla )

There's a few other 'letters on the end' for mobile CPUs, the U class is the lowest end, I can't remember the rest.

Lots more info:

List of AMD Ryzen processors - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[GunsMadeAmericaFree]

Thank You. I mean, I guess I understand why they do it, for marketing purposes, but I find it kind of misleading. Wish they could just base the # off of some widely used benchmark score, or something like that. Then people could see exactly what they are getting at a glance....

 

[VirtualLarry]

Thank You. I mean, I guess I understand why they do it, for marketing purposes, but I find it kind of misleading. Wish they could just base the # off of some widely used benchmark score, or something like that. Then people could see exactly what they are getting at a glance....

Because different CPUs perform differently in different workloads. There's no "universal" benchmark.

 

[GunsMadeAmericaFree]

Because different CPUs perform differently in different workloads. There's no "universal" benchmark.

Because different CPUs perform differently in different workloads. There's no "universal" benchmark.

Ah. Perhaps we could use 3 different bencharks, and give it a name from the results of all 3? Then a person could glance at the part of the name that applied to their situation the most?

 

[moinmoin]

I'd suggest GB6's "MT" score as new model number for all future Intel and AMD chips, just for the fun of it.

 

[Schmide]

Lets not reinvent the wheel. It's now generation and segment.

But technically cyrix, which merged with national simiconductor to be gobbled up by AMD, rated its processors with a P166 (rating relative to a pentium) but their mathco was lacking so in many games they did not live up to their hype.

 

[itsmydamnation]

Ah. Perhaps we could use 3 different bencharks, and give it a name from the results of all 3? Then a person could glance at the part of the name that applied to their situation the most?

that is a terrible , terrible plan. How is that going to last any length of time. The funny part is the people will still have no idea about actual performance only its relative position in 3 random arse workloads. On Top of this the same people who cant be bothered to google the model number of a cpu plus the word benchmark are also the ones who are going to have no idea that the numbering is also relative.

 

[IEC]

Ah. Perhaps we could use 3 different bencharks, and give it a name from the results of all 3? Then a person could glance at the part of the name that applied to their situation the most?

That would just result in the CPU makers and mobo makers making "optimizations" (read: cheats) to outperform on those benchmarks.

 

[GunsMadeAmericaFree]

That would just result in the CPU makers and mobo makers making "optimizations" (read: cheats) to outperform on those benchmarks.

Ha, I hadn't thought of that, but I should have expected it. For some reason it makes me think of Dieselgate.

 

[aigomorla]

What you are doing wrong is applying math to model numbers.

i thought they were named like cars no?
So if i am getting a Benz S500 it should be a 5.0L engine...
If im getting a Ryzen 7950 it better be 7th gen 95 working threads...
If its an intel 13900f, its 13th generation 90 thread!

Oh wait... cars no longer do that even anymore.... (sarcasm)

X - overclockable

No... it means more unlocked multiplier, which you can say is overclockable, but all the ryzens even non X's are overclockable.

AMD Ryzen 5 5600 vs. Intel Core i5-12400F

We're comparing the Ryzen 5 5600 and Core i5-12400F mainstream CPUs across a range of games at 1080p and 1440p using four tiers of GPU: RTX 3060,...

www.techspot.com

I believe they stopped locking multi's because you can no longer fraud for higher cpu, due to core count, which separates them now. So you can't really say X is special for AMD, like the original OP states for AMD's naming scheme in general.

All cpu's with X's had unlocked multipliers both AMD and Intel.
That is what X used to mean.

Now we got a few more letters like K which i guess is HALF an X.. because enthusiest intel cpu's still use X and not K.
But AMD i have no clue... as both the X and non X have unlocked multi's.
I guess its more to designate TDP... I think X's have a slightly higher TDP, due to the more aggressive boosting profile.

 

[GunsMadeAmericaFree]

It's been a LONG time since I bothered trying to overclock anything. I did notice that the board I used in my new build seems to have a basic setting that will try to get as much as it can automatically from the memory and processor, so I wonder if it is worth trying that setting out. Of course, I have a Ryzen 5600G, so I doubt that I could get much more out of it anyway...

 

[VirtualLarry]

Of course, I have a Ryzen 5600G, so I doubt that I could get much more out of it anyway...

@DAPUNISHER has posted before that he had a Zen3 APU that he used his (MSI?) mobo's auto-OC function, and saw a nice boost.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

@DAPUNISHER has posted before that he had a Zen3 APU that he used his (MSI?) mobo's auto-OC function, and saw a nice boost.

Yeah man. 5600G in the OG B450 Tomahawk, all I did was go in the UEFI and turn on game mode. It went through some tuning where it turned off and on, and when it was done it was running 4.7GHz all core. iGPU 2300Mhz. Only running the ram at 3466 though. The 4133 I have would've given a nice boost.

Night Raid run - https://www.3dmark.com/nr/616627

 

[GunsMadeAmericaFree]

Yeah man. 5600G in the OG B450 Tomahawk, all I did was go in the UEFI and turn on game mode. It went through some tuning where it turned off and on, and when it was done it was running 4.7GHz all core. iGPU 2300Mhz. Only running the ram at 3466 though. The 4133 I have would've given a nice boost.

Night Raid run - https://www.3dmark.com/nr/616627

Wow, I'll have to look into that on my board this weekend. I'd be truly happy with an overall 5% boost it if was still rock solid!

 

[A///]

I thought your screen name looked familiar. I did say you get more by spending more.