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

Page 711 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
8,114
6,770
136
Consolation prize is that overclocking becomes a thing again with these reduced TDP parts.

AMD chips have never done particularly well with obscene amounts of power being thrown at them. They've tended to fall off pretty hard once you go past their stock levels.

It's not that surprising either given that AMD is designing their core with server in mind and likely as their primary target.

I think they're much better off not chasing higher and higher power. The extra few percentage points aren't worth it and we can see where it has led Intel.


Not surprising. It's ~14% better than the 7700X while using significantly less power in their testing.

In another note, maybe someone should start pasting Intel stock charts in here to ward off the smug doomposters who wouldn't even consider buying a Ryzen, even after their 4th RMA.

Is Zen 5 earth shattering? No, not really, but it's hardly the disappointment that some wish to paint it as either. For some particular niches it does look to be a must buy. Anyone who can make heavy AVX-512 use should probably consider calling their doctor because it has been about 4 hours since reviews started dropping.
 

gdansk

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2011
2,966
4,498
136
Do we know how many games/apps benefit from AVX-512.
Games, none.
Applications? Not many unless you mean a few HPC things. But that has been because AVX512 had downsides to its use. Which Zen 5 finally frees up but since Intel hasn't it'll be a long time before people start using AVX512 optimized string libraries, memcpy, etc
 

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
14,441
5,434
136

Per Phoronix:

When taking the geometric mean of those nearly 400 raw benchmark results, it sums up the greatness of Zen 5 with the Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X processors. The Ryzen 7 9700X delivered 1.195x the performance of the Core i5 14600K competition or 1.15x the performance of the prior generation Ryzen 7 7700X. The Ryzen 5 9600X came in at 1.35x the performance of the Core i5 14500 and 1.25x the performance of the Ryzen 5 7600X. Or if still on Zen 3 for comparison, the Ryzen 5 9600X was 1.82x the performance of the Ryzen 5 5600X.

Those are some impressive numbers and suggest Zen 5 server parts are going to be beastly. Since the architectural changes seem to favor work more so than gaming.
9700x is 15% better than the 7700X despite 65W TDP (88W PPT).
9600x is 25% better than the 7600X. And a full 82% better than the 5600X.
 

carancho

Member
Feb 24, 2013
54
44
91
The parts are also considerably cheaper, at MSRP and adjusting for inflation. (MSRP is the better way to measure this, as all tech products are gradually discounted with time.) You pay about 20% less for 5-15% more performance and ¿40%? less energy consumption. It's not nothing, considering how the true enabler of improvements, semiconductor manufacturing, has stalled.
 

carancho

Member
Feb 24, 2013
54
44
91
The parts are also considerably cheaper, at MSRP and adjusting for inflation. (MSRP is the better way to measure this, as all tech products are gradually discounted with time.) You pay about 20% less for 5-15% more performance and ¿40%? less energy consumption. It's not nothing, considering how the true enabler of improvements, semiconductor manufacturing, has stalled.
Using the Phoronix result, this is a ~20% CAGR on performance per inflation adjusted dollar, which is actually good in this late stage Moore's law era.
 

Det0x

Golden Member
Sep 11, 2014
1,299
4,235
136
Unlike Zen 4 which benefited from DDR4-->DDR5 jump, Zen 5 is still stuck on similar DDR5 speeds. And we already knew Zen 4 was memory constrained in a lot of workloads which is why the 3D vCache variant does so well in some instances. Looks like same still applies to Zen 5 but it's likely to hit the bottleneck even harder due to mArch differences.

Running JEDEC speeds seems like it gimps performance even more vs Zen 4.

View attachment 104670
Lets just say there is more left in the tank
His latency numbers seem pretty medicore

But i agree that you can get much more out of Zen5 with a overclock, compared to Zen4.
These cpus are powerlimited at default settings
1723060416460.png
 
Last edited:

CakeMonster

Golden Member
Nov 22, 2012
1,502
659
136
The parts are also considerably cheaper, at MSRP and adjusting for inflation. (MSRP is the better way to measure this, as all tech products are gradually discounted with time.) You pay about 20% less for 5-15% more performance and ¿40%? less energy consumption. It's not nothing, considering how the true enabler of improvements, semiconductor manufacturing, has stalled.
Agreed, this release has highlighted some trends in the industry

NV and AMD foregoing N3*, choosing N4 for their 2024 lineup with no expectation of another generation before 2026 (NV might actually not even make 2024). This is probably mostly because of cost.

NV shrinking die sizes with each generation for most of the SKU's to save money. AMD reducing power usage on 1-CCX parts partly to make it easier for themselves to get good yields initially.

I think its obviously about cost. There could be some bigger performance gains in 2026 with the next generation, but the market by then will decide where they put their priorities. N3* sure will help, but they might further try to improve margin based on the situation then.
 

eek2121

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2005
3,100
4,398
136
No he wasn't. He said SPEC rate. And neither FP nor int show that.
It is quite possible that is affected as well. Zen 4 is starved for bandwidth as well.

We can actually determine this pretty easily by simply waiting for Turin benchmarks.

If non-SPEC INT “INT” tests are showing a 30-35% improvement, that suggests the problem is SPEC being limited in some way.

Note that I am it is the current chiplet design (especially 1 CCD parts!) that is limiting bandwidth, NOT DDR5. It also means Zen 6 should rectify the situation. 😈

🚂 ( hype train)
 

csbin

Senior member
Feb 4, 2013
886
542
136
It is quite possible that is affected as well. Zen 4 is starved for bandwidth as well.

We can actually determine this pretty easily by simply waiting for Turin benchmarks.

If non-SPEC INT “INT” tests are showing a 30-35% improvement, that suggests the problem is SPEC being limited in some way.

Note that I am it is the current chiplet design (especially 1 CCD parts!) that is limiting bandwidth, NOT DDR5. It also means Zen 6 should rectify the situation. 😈

🚂 ( hype train)

GMI3-Wide

AMD-EPYC-9004-Genoa-Chiplet-Architecture-GMI3-Narrow-and-GMI3-Wide.jpg
 
Jun 1, 2024
171
230
76
Where Zen 5 actually shines is temperature:
View attachment 104662
That's -35°C from 7700X to 9700X and still -15°C when both are running at 142W PPT. Thank god, this will hopefully end the thousands of "my CPU is running too hot" posts in German forums that I had to endure for Ryzen 7000 during the last two years.


Bingo, lots of OC headroom and proper mobile (Halo / Fire range) will really shine

zen5 is a perfect specimen to have perma-OC
 
  • Haha
Reactions: reb0rn

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
18,700
5,434
136
Per Phoronix:



Those are some impressive numbers and suggest Zen 5 server parts are going to be beastly. Since the architectural changes seem to favor work more so than gaming.
9700x is 15% better than the 7700X despite 65W TDP (88W PPT).
9600x is 25% better than the 7600X. And a full 82% better than the 5600X.
It does seem like the improvements primarily is workstation/HPC/power related. On the other hand if they can keep the high clocks then the 3D cache models might be interesting.
 

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
6,187
10,694
136
As a small note, guru3d also ran browser benchmarks on Windows and confirm the same (if not better improvement) that Phoronix saw in Linux. I find this result very interesting in light of all the other results. This is a near 40% improvement in performance per clock.

1723054592943.png
 

Attachments

  • 1723054407549.png
    1723054407549.png
    453.6 KB · Views: 25

gaav87

Member
Apr 27, 2024
124
173
76
What I don’t get is how / why Tom’s is showing a significant uplift in gaming with PBO on? Basically conflicting with every other source.

Just leaves me puzzled
  • Ryzen 7 9700X: Default power limits, DDR5-5600
  • Ryzen 7 9700X PBO: Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO) — advanced motherboard, 10X scalar, +200 MHz CPU clock, -20 Curve Optimizer, DDR5-6000 EXPO profile (fabric 2000 MHz, mclk/uclk 1:1)

    stock 5600mt/s vs expo, pbo +200mhz -20curve manualy tuned xD you answer
 

CakeMonster

Golden Member
Nov 22, 2012
1,502
659
136
Some speculation: If Zen6 arrives in ~18 months or less, like very late 2025, I could imagine this looking better with hindsight. The IOD/memory issues could see a lot of improvement, keeping 8c CCX with N3* node improving transistor budget, as well as 'sweet spot' memory/sync being raised significantly above 6000.
 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
26,171
15,326
136
He claims "40% IPC improvement in SpecInt" which turned out to be totally false. The picture shows the same thing. Geekerwan tests of both laptop and desktop parts show 9% gain in guess what? SpecInt.
maybe not He was comparing either 9950x vs 7950x or Turin vs Genoa. I am guessing Turin. Until those come out, I will not contest that number.