- Mar 3, 2017
- 1,747
- 6,598
- 136
It depends on the game and how CPU limited you are, in most of the cases even the top CPUs (7800X3D excluded) are not much better. In any case I said "gains" and not "trampling over".You consider ~5% to be "gains". For any practical purpose that's essentially identical.
Phoronix review shows the thing is actually very good, just not in the ways we hoped.Read Phoronix review.
AT posted surprisingly high gain on gcc subtest of SPEC, tough compared to 7700, but it's 17 %
Edit:
They have also significantly updated details about the test environment for SPEC, newest CLANG, enabling AVX512 and specifying the WSL version used. Nice![]()
That is exactly the point I was making here: https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...dge-ryzen-9000.2607350/page-722#post-41270664Phoronix review shows the thing is actually very good, just not in the ways we hoped.
Geomean score is similar to a 13900K with half the power consumption.
As it turns out, FP gains are significantly higher than INT, something I guessed ages ago just from reading the uArch changes.
Oh, and the biggest takeaway is the most significant gains are in traditionally Intel dominated workloads.Phoronix review shows the thing is actually very good, just not in the ways we hoped.
Geomean score is similar to a 13900K with half the power consumption.
As it turns out, FP gains are significantly higher than INT, something I guessed ages ago just from reading the uArch changes.
This was exactly the same case with Bulldozer.And Linux results in general just look way better than Windows, why exactly is a question for AMD software engineers and whichever intern Microsoft sends as a sacrifice.
As in the performance? :-DPhoronix review shows the thing is actually very good, just not in the ways we hoped.
Hwupgrade review found a substantial clock difference between the 7700X-7600X and 9700X-9600X, because the TDP holds back the performance for these SKUs. In Cinebench they foung 500MHz all-core clock difference between the 7700X and 9700X, with the 7700X consuming 40W more, and the 9700X was slightly faster.AT SPECint showing 13% improvement overall. The 9700x has a slight clock speed advantage according to boost specs, but without knowing actual running clock speeds, we can't calculate IPC. It is 9% improvement if we assume spec boost speeds, but With Zen 4/5, that's not a safe assumption (could be higher than spec). SPECfp showed significantly higher improvement at 26% overall. For consumer purposes, too many resources were used to improve FP versus INT. For some server customers, maybe AI (?), this will be really good.
![]()
BPU is great if you look at the tests done by Huang.Reality: Zen 10% at greater efficiency.
Harsh Reality: Lowered TDP requires PBO on to see performance improvements in many cases.
The browser benchmarks from Phoronix are so interesting. I don't know what sets these tests a part so much. From what I understand, browsing can be very branchy and hard to predict, but I don't know if that holds true for these scripted benchmarks. Maybe the improved branch predictor and dual decoder front end shines here?
View attachment 104651
View attachment 104652
Hwupgrade review found a substantial clock difference between the 7700X-7600X and 9700X-9600X, because the TDP holds back the performance for these SKUs. In Cinebench they foung 500MHz all-core clock difference between the 7700X and 9700X, with the 7700X consuming 40W more, and the 9700X was slightly faster.
Z6 is by the Z4/Z2 team, they know how to iterate on an existing core, just hope they get a nice bump in area to play with.The worst part is that we’ll be stuck with this total dud of a core for years and Zen6 will only bring iterative improvements over it. At least improvements to the uncore will be something to look forward to.
BPU is great if you look at the tests done by Huang.
It's something else that holds everything back.
4/3 were the same team, 5 is from the 1/2 teamZ6 is by the Z4/Z2 team
I'll stick my head out and say the primary bottleneck once things settle is the ROB being the smallest in class.BPU is great if you look at the tests done by Huang.
It's something else that holds everything back.

Perfect laptop cores.Yeah, this is a weird release. I guess these would make good office/productivity chips with lower power consumption, but for gaming, they suck!!!
I think the TSVs are in different locations so it is probably not the exact same cache die. Whether it ends up with more capacity or not is an interesting question.What I'm really wondering is if the X3D cache uplift will be as much as the previous generation, it might be somewhat less if its the exact same cache.
Nope, the high FP throughput is a bit wasted. They had to do another variant of it because of that. Not a great laptop core IMO if you have to do special work.Perfect laptop cores.
Au contraire, it should clock higher than previous versions and I think the core will like the extra L3 a lot.Overall bodes well for Turin but not so for 9800X3D.
