Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)

Page 70 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,591
4,408
136
RGT at it again with some extraordinary number for Zen 5 IPC improvement, obviously this can be corrected since he states 6GHz max frequency and that he use a flawed comparison to guess what is the real number.

He say that he got a "good source" stating 25% better IPC but at the same time he say that it will be better than Zen 2 to Zen 3 IPC improvement.

For this CPU comparison to be accurate something within15-18% would actually be enough if restricted to say CB/POVRAY/7ZIP/GB and a few other such benches/apps, and if we add a 6GHz frequency this would be close to the stated 25%.

 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Exist50

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2016
2,452
3,103
136
For this CPU comparison to be accurate something within15-18% would actually be enough if restricted to say CB/POVRAY/7ZIP/GB and a few other such benches/apps, and if we add a 6GHz frequency this would be close to the stated 25%.
Those numbers sound reasonable, if nothing else. Would be in line with other tock architectures from AMD, and 6GHz wouldn't be much of a stretch over Zen 4, especially given another couple percent from the node. 25% IPC as claimed, however, is rather more questionable. Maybe in some particular workload.

But it goes without saying, RTG has a "mixed" history to put it gently... Not sure there's any real value here beyond another dart in the board.
 

A///

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2017
4,351
3,159
136
RGT at it again with some extraordinary number for Zen 5 IPC improvement, obviously this can be corrected since he states 6GHz max frequency and that he use a flawed comparison to guess what is the real number.

He say that he got a "good source" stating 25% better IPC but at the same time he say that it will be better than Zen 2 to Zen 3 IPC improvement.

For this CPU comparison to be accurate something within15-18% would actually be enough if restricted to say CB/POVRAY/7ZIP/GB and a few other such benches/apps, and if we add a 6GHz frequency this would be close to the stated 25%.

yes the chubby bloke who I refer to as that! never can remember his name. would his 25% be a good localized base guess to work around because that is what he is implying, the jump from z2 to z3 was massive and it all but destroyed any inertia intel had going until alder lake came a year later with its many teething pains although quickly addressed by intel and board partners. I don't care to watch these types of videos but does he hint at amd using accelerators on zen 5 or is that for far future products?
 

A///

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2017
4,351
3,159
136
25% IPC as claimed, however, is rather more questionable. Maybe in some particular workload.
25% ipc is coincidentally the figure I said zen 5 would have over zen 4 when pressured several months ago. Although that is not a figure I myself came up with. The general consensus was 19-21% improvement, but that would lead arrow to be a few percent behind zen 5 at a greater power draw, a failure for intel if you will graciously allow for it. We're at the very least 2 quarters away from gaining solid knowledge on what arrow and zen 5 will be like. at this point it's all a bit much to take in and be set on how it'll turn out.
 

Exist50

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2016
2,452
3,103
136
25% ipc is coincidentally the figure I said zen 5 would have over zen 4 when pressured several months ago. Although that is not a figure I myself came up with. The general consensus was 19-21% improvement, but that would lead arrow to be a few percent behind zen 5 at a greater power draw, a failure for intel if you will graciously allow for it. We're at the very least 2 quarters away from gaining solid knowledge on what arrow and zen 5 will be like. at this point it's all a bit much to take in and be set on how it'll turn out.
If history is any indication, we'll continue to get random guesses and hype mongering disguised as leaks until just before release.
 

A///

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2017
4,351
3,159
136
If history is any indication, we'll continue to get random guesses and hype mongering disguised as leaks until just before release.
You're about as old as I am. Isn't that the fun part of life at this point in our lives? I'm at the edge of developing early arthritis and that's been the most exciting news in my life outside this scene. get with the flow of the world fellow old man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and MadRat

Exist50

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2016
2,452
3,103
136
You're about as old as I am. Isn't that the fun part of life at this point in our lives? I'm at the edge of developing early arthritis and that's been the most exciting news in my life outside this scene. get with the flow of the world fellow old man.
Having some non-digital hobbies helps. And for all that I complain about the endless hype trains, I'll take it over the "end of history" rhetoric from a decade ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moinmoin

A///

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2017
4,351
3,159
136
Having some non-digital hobbies helps. And for all that I complain about the endless hype trains, I'll take it over the "end of history" rhetoric from a decade ago.
I do wine and old books. Prior to covid I'd go flea market hunting for unique items I knew of from decades past that most people couldn't figure out and still don't. I pray social media doesn't die out or else these morons will find a way to learn about valuable old things other sell at pittyful rates or exchange it for some modern shiny object like a soil cart. I used to do art collecting many years ago but social media grabbed onto that and made it too easy to find out info about artists and what value their work had.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,591
4,408
136
Those numbers sound reasonable, if nothing else. Would be in line with other tock architectures from AMD, and 6GHz wouldn't be much of a stretch over Zen 4, especially given another couple percent from the node. 25% IPC as claimed, however, is rather more questionable. Maybe in some particular workload.

But it goes without saying, RTG has a "mixed" history to put it gently... Not sure there's any real value here beyond another dart in the board.

He didnt specify if it was ST or MT, if he s talking of ST, and of course excluding games, the improvement should be better than 15% since that s the ST IPC difference between Z2 and Z3.

If he s talking MT then better than 12-15% is enough, also excluding games, if games are included then 19% is the basis to best and in this case 25% is possible, methink that without games included in the mix 25% is quite a stretch, but who knows.

Edit : His previous statement some times ago was 19% better IPC, so we re still in the same numbers at this point.
 
Last edited:

Exist50

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2016
2,452
3,103
136
He didnt specify if it was ST or MT, if he s talking of ST, and of course excluding games, the improvement should be better than 15% since that s the ST IPC difference between Z2 and Z3.

If he s talking MT then better than 12-15% is enough, also excluding games, if games are included then 19% is the basis to best and in this case 25% is possible, methink that without games included in the mix 25% is quite a stretch, but who knows.

Edit : His previous statement some times ago was 19% better IPC, so we re still in the same numbers at this point.
I'm not going to give him the views, but if he said specifically IPC, then that has nothing to do with MT or clocks. Zen 3 got a particularly large boost in games because of the uncore changes (more to an 8c CCX/unified L3). There've been some rumors about fabric changes with Zen 5, but nothing that I think would indicate a similar step function improvement for gaming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Thibsie

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,591
4,408
136
I'm not going to give him the views, but if he said specifically IPC, then that has nothing to do with MT or clocks. Zen 3 got a particularly large boost in games because of the uncore changes (more to an 8c CCX/unified L3). There've been some rumors about fabric changes with Zen 5, but nothing that I think would indicate a similar step function improvement for gaming.

There s ST IPC and MT IPC, that s two different things (since in MT SMT efficency has a say), at same clocks and only looking at apps Zen 3 provided 15% better perf in ST although Computerbase use only 3 benches for this test.

In MT, and same clocks, either 6C/12T or 8C/16T provide the same result, it s more mixed depending of the apps, in CB it s about 10-11%, 14% in 7ZIP and an average of 11% for 9 benches.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Thibsie

Exist50

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2016
2,452
3,103
136
There s ST IPC and MT IPC
The only time "MT" IPC ever comes it is in the context of SMT yield. It really doesn't make sense for comparing multiple cores. And when AMD gives an IPC number on stage, it's ST 100% of the time.
In MT, and same clocks, either 6C/12T or 8C/16T provide the same result, it s more mixed depending of the apps, in CB it s about 10-11%, 14% in 7ZIP and an average of 11% for 9 benches.
That's more about the thread scaling of the particular tests than it is about IPC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lodix

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,591
4,408
136
The only time "MT" IPC ever comes it is in the context of SMT yield. It really doesn't make sense for comparing multiple cores. And when AMD gives an IPC number on stage, it's ST 100% of the time.

That's more about the thread scaling of the particular tests than it is about IPC.

I edited my post when you did this post and pointed SMT efficency, AMD used to have better SMT efficency than Intel, so the MT score was upped by this better behaviour, it cant be downplayed.

As for ST being what AMD states 100% of the time that s not true at all, for Zen 3 the 19% figure did include some games, wich are not single threaded, actually that was more of a MT IPC number than anything else for most apps used in the average.


26-1080.0e92feb1.png


 

Exist50

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2016
2,452
3,103
136
As for ST being what AMD states 100% of the time that s not true at all, for Zen 3 the 19% figure did include some games, wich are not single threaded, actually that was more of a MT IPC number than anything else for most apps used in the average.
Thanks for pointing that out, but it's more like marketing massaging the numbers than anything else. Certainly it's not how the core architects would measure things. In any case, I think you're giving these "leakers" more benefit of the doubt than they deserve. The scorn is well earned.
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,591
4,408
136
Thanks for pointing that out, but it's more like marketing massaging the numbers than anything else. Certainly it's not how the core architects would measure things. In any case, I think you're giving these "leakers" more benefit of the doubt than they deserve. The scorn is well earned.

No, because i stated the numbers as measured by core architects, they are available at Computerbase and do not include games, also ST and MT are measured separately.

At the risk of repeating things from Z2 to Z3 apps ST IPC was improved by 15% and apps MT IPC by 11% according to Computerbase.

So the 19% once stated by RTG is within the realm of possibilities for apps, wether that s ST or MT, the most recent 25% number likely include games to boost the first number, methink that it s reasonable given that Zen 5 is supposed to be a massive overhaul of Zen 4 wich itself has a proved 12-13% better IPC in apps.
 

Exist50

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2016
2,452
3,103
136
No, because i stated the numbers as measured by core architects
That slide is from marketing, not architects. It's just muddying the waters to boost the score a bit. Literally 64% of the datapoints from that slide are games or representative of gaming. In no way would that reflect the tracelists AMD actually uses internally (expect a lot more datacenter workloads...)

ComputerBase reported numbers from their own test suite using AMD's methodology, for the sake of comparing against those marketing claims. It's still not how that term is typically used.

Also, it's possible AMD didn't even include MT numbers at all, if those scores were generated on captured single thread traces from the games in question (possibly with a full CCX worth of L3). They don't really provide enough info to say, but it's notable that everything that specifies is tested 1T, not nT.
So the 19% once stated by RTG is within the realm of possibilities for apps, wether that s ST or MT, the most recent 25% number likely include games to boost the first number, methink that it s reasonable given that Zen 5 is supposed to be a massive overhaul of Zen 4 wich itself has a proved 12-13% better IPC in apps.
Certainly I think Zen 5 will be a bigger IPC boost then Zen 4 (though net performance might be a more interesting question). And those numbers are at least within the realm of reason. But the "source" in question has a terrible track record, and there's no indication that this time is any more believable than the past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lodix

Timorous

Golden Member
Oct 27, 2008
1,759
3,275
136
That slide is from marketing, not architects. It's just muddying the waters to boost the score a bit. Literally 64% of the datapoints from that slide are games or representative of gaming. In no way would that reflect the tracelists AMD actually uses internally (expect a lot more datacenter workloads...)

ComputerBase reported numbers from their own test suite using AMD's methodology, for the sake of comparing against those marketing claims. It's still not how that term is typically used.

Also, it's possible AMD didn't even include MT numbers at all, if those scores were generated on captured single thread traces from the games in question (possibly with a full CCX worth of L3). They don't really provide enough info to say, but it's notable that everything that specifies is tested 1T, not nT.

Certainly I think Zen 5 will be a bigger IPC boost then Zen 4 (though net performance might be a more interesting question). And those numbers are at least within the realm of reason. But the "source" in question has a terrible track record, and there's no indication that this time is any more believable than the past.

Ian tested SPECrate in the Anandtech Zen 3 review and got 19% single thread uplift and 10% multi thread uplift. For real world they got a 24% uplift in their suite.
 

Exist50

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2016
2,452
3,103
136
Ian tested SPECrate in the Anandtech Zen 3 review and got 19% single thread uplift and 10% multi thread uplift. For real world they got a 24% uplift in their suite.
Nonetheless, if AMD used the same suite as above, but less games, the number would be lower. They could have just quoted SPEC if they wanted, so I'm not sure why the hoopla. Certainly they're more likely to use SPEC day to day than 2/3 gaming traces.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lodix

Timorous

Golden Member
Oct 27, 2008
1,759
3,275
136
Nonetheless, if AMD used the same suite as above, but less games, the number would be lower. They could have just quoted SPEC if they wanted, so I'm not sure why the hoopla. Certainly they're more likely to use SPEC day to day than 2/3 gaming traces.

Because it was a marketing slide and it captures a lot of real world use cases which is far more useful for selling a consumer product than quoting SPEC benchmarks that a lot of people have not even heard of.
 

Exist50

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2016
2,452
3,103
136
Because it was a marketing slide and it captures a lot of real world use cases which is far more useful for selling a consumer product than quoting SPEC benchmarks that a lot of people have not even heard of.
Well that begs the question then. To what degree does SPEC represent real world use cases today? But yes, my point was that it is marketing, and should not be taken as representative of AMD's internal measurements, or how they measure/use the term "IPC".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lodix

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,591
4,408
136
ComputerBase reported numbers from their own test suite using AMD's methodology, for the sake of comparing against those marketing claims. It's still not how that term is typically used.
You are lying here, dunno why you re acting like this.

Computerbase use two versions of CB and Pov RAY for ST IPC.

For MT IPC they use 7 ZIP, AgitSoft, Blender, CB R15, CB R20, Corona 1.3, Digicortex, Handbrake and PovRAY.

As you can see there s no games here and ST and MT scores are not mixed, there s separate averages.

Obviously you didnt even look at the link i posted and are completely wrong, but nevermind...