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

Page 727 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sl0519

Junior Member
Aug 10, 2024
21
54
51
Zen5 has amazing .1% lows


Efficiency is out of the window for both parts, this is being discussed already. The point is by matching the 7700X with 9700x (105 TDP / 142 PPT), that's where the 10~15% performance gain people are looking for (outside of gaming), so to say Zen 5 is barely an improvement against Zen 4 is plain wrong. Gaming is lackluster for Zen 5 for sure, but we haven't yet seen how the higher end skus is gonna perform in terms of efficiency just yet. A graph plotting efficiency curve at every wattages will give us a best look whether if Zen 5 is good or not before making any conclusive judgement.

*Edit: This is it! Thanks for the graph provided by @Geddagod. No wonder we ain't seeing any improvements at lower wattages.

Video here @ 7:05:
 
Last edited:

Tup3x

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2016
1,086
1,084
136
The computerbase results are skewed by their insistence on using JEDEC memory at "officially supported" speeds. It doesn't invalidate their results, but the gaming results in particular aren't consistent with how most reviewers compare CPU's. It's also not consistent with how most DIY PC builders run their systems. In reality, The gap in gaming between 7700(X) and 9700X is more like 5% (depending on the games tested) with both running @ 6000 MT/s.
Well, you could blame AMD/Intel for only officially supporting up to X MT/s kits. Pretty much all OEM pre-built systems would not use higher than officially supported sticks.

It's just one way of testing. I don't see anything wrong with that. Just cherry pick the reviews that would better represent your situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rigg

majord

Senior member
Jul 26, 2015
493
641
136
Should have released Zen 5 desktop on N3E.

It seems to be an architecture that is a bit big for its boots, or at the very least not optimised for the node. Reading between the lines in various interviews it did seem that's what Engineering would have liked exclusivity on N3E

View attachment 104985

This curve matches some of the data from early 9950X testing.




Seems the knee of the curve for Zen 5/N4X is both higher and less aggressive than Zen 4 on N5(p) It's easy to say N3E won't help much, but doesn't need much. Shifting that curve to the left is all. The fact it's still scaling suggests it really does need to be on a better node.


Still have to wonder why a higher TDP point wasn't selected for the 9700X , Is there voltage limit issues pushing higher TDPs on this node? it would also explain the max ST boost clocks pretty stagnant. Has anyone been able to push these higher yet?
 

Timorous

Golden Member
Oct 27, 2008
1,748
3,240
136
Zen 5 isn't what we had hoped for from the gaming perspective, but to say "Zen 5" is a flop suggested by some journalists (HUB) is a bit of a stretch.

Sure if you compare it directly with the non X 7000, the efficiency claim is no longer the case. But what if AMD decides to put out a non X 9000 version with let's say, 45w? Wouldn't that "reshuffle" the whole lineup and thus making the claim AMD is trying to hide reviewers from making comparisons with the non X 7000 totally invalid?

What if you overclock the 9000 to 105w TDP then compare them again in terms of performance and efficiency? Wouldn't you gain back the 10 ~ 15% performance uplift people were expecting to see? (applications not gaming I know)

Why haven't I seen any reviewers plotting performance graphs from different wattages to really see where the efficiency gains from Zen 5 is really at? Yes efficiency is certainly thrown out of the window the higher the wattages but maybe at higher TDP is where Zen 5 really excels at. We need EFFICIENCY CURVE against zen 4 parts to know for sure if zen 5 is a flop or not. Those clickbait YT thumbnails is too quick of a judgement because we haven't seen how the higher end Zen 5 performs.

For hardware unboxed audience, which is mostly gamers, zen 5 is a flop. Perhaps AMD will pleasantly surprise with the X3D but at best I can see it being 10% (some from the arch and some from holding relatively higher clocks Vs 9700X than 7800X3D manages relative to 7700X) faster than the 7800X3D which will make it uncompetitive in a perf/$.

Only way I see AMD beating that is if they give it more L3 via extra layers or putting cache over the cores but I presume that will only be a benefit in a few titles.
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,557
4,349
136
Bruh....... The 9700X should pull its 88W PPT limit (as indicated by HWI64) in CB 2024. This is entirely consistent with all of the 65W TDP AM5 CPU's. This isn't a mystery that requires autistic levels of investigation.

136607.png


AMD%20Ryzen%207%209700X%20vs%20Ryzen%207%207700%20Power%20analysis_575px.png

Problem is that Computerbase has this for CB 2024, someone said that it could be the cores power wthout the uncore but from the 7950X review it s clear that they measure the whole package power.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2024-08-10 at 11-25-33 AMD Ryzen 5 9600X und Ryzen 7 9700X im Test IPC Caches RAM A...png
    Screenshot 2024-08-10 at 11-25-33 AMD Ryzen 5 9600X und Ryzen 7 9700X im Test IPC Caches RAM A...png
    46.6 KB · Views: 24
  • Screenshot 2024-08-10 at 11-26-14 AMD Ryzen 7000 im Test So schnell sind 7950X und 7700X Leist...png
    Screenshot 2024-08-10 at 11-26-14 AMD Ryzen 7000 im Test So schnell sind 7950X und 7700X Leist...png
    48.2 KB · Views: 22

sl0519

Junior Member
Aug 10, 2024
21
54
51
No link to the review..?

This 9700X curve can be right only if the idle power is much higher than the one of the 7700X, hence the apparent low efficency at low power, as said provide us a link so we can chek what it is about.

I posted it last page but I will post it here again.
His screenshot is taken from 7:04


Zen 5 is basically in parity with Zen 4 going below 75W. There's the answer.

This guy also briefly mentioned the fact that DDR5-6000 is crippling Cyberpunk 2077's performance.
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,557
4,349
136
I posted it last page but I will post it here again.
His screenshot is taken from 7:04


Zen 5 is basically in parity with Zen 4 going below 75W. There's the answer.

This guy also briefly mentioned the fact that DDR5-6000 is crippling Cyberpunk 2077's performance.
Thanks for the link.

There s the run at 88W where each core is at 6-7W, if we round this number to 7W this amount to 56W cores power and about 30W uncore power, wich is very close to Hardwareluxx 27W idle power when PBO is enabled.

Given that the 7700X idle power is 12-14W (depending of the MB) that explain why the 9700X curve at lower power is below the former s one.

 

Hail The Brain Slug

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2005
3,513
2,464
136
Problem is that Computerbase has this for CB 2024, someone said that it could be the cores power wthout the uncore but from the 7950X review it s clear that they measure the whole package power.
PPT limit of the 7950X is 230W and under sustained heavy MT workloads, it tends to sit around 215-225W due to hitting thermal limits (vs. Sitting closer to or hitting 230W PPT limit). The graph appears to show ~200W, which seems like it would be in the neighborhood of core only power.
 

Rheingold

Member
Aug 17, 2022
55
151
76
Problem is that Computerbase has this for CB 2024, someone said that it could be the cores power wthout the uncore but from the 7950X review it s clear that they measure the whole package power.
That someone was me. And yes, they usually measure package power, but for that specific measurement they only measured the cores. It's described in the text. How about just using auto-translate:

Screenshot 2024-08-10 at 13-54-55 AMD Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X in the test IPC caches R...png

And yes, I still need to point out the "four cores" mistake to them. That's 8 cores for all the lines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rigg

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,557
4,349
136
PPT limit of the 7950X is 230W and under sustained heavy MT workloads, it tends to sit around 215-225W due to hitting thermal limits (vs. Sitting closer to or hitting 230W PPT limit). The graph appears to show ~200W, which seems like it would be in the neighborhood of core only power.
No, there s peaks over 200W, beside the CPU use only 189W in Handbrake wich is the app used for this test and 196W in Prime 95, from their measurement at the main power in Cinebench can be estimated accurately at 215W peak at most.
That someone was me. And yes, they usually measure package power, but for that specific measurement they only measured the cores. It's described in the text. How about just using auto-translate:

View attachment 105008

And yes, I still need to point out the "four cores" mistake to them. That's 8 cores for all the lines.

So the uncore use 30W like in the chinese review, wich is a lot for Cinebench, and as i already pointed that s the cause of the perf being mediocre relatively to the 7700 at low powers but eventually also at higher powers albeit to a lesser extent.
 

Geddagod

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2021
1,296
1,368
106
That someone was me. And yes, they usually measure package power, but for that specific measurement they only measured the cores. It's described in the text. How about just using auto-translate:

View attachment 105008

And yes, I still need to point out the "four cores" mistake to them. That's 8 cores for all the lines.
Wow that's mid. Again, I can not wait for that spec2017 int power curve lol.
 

Josh128

Senior member
Oct 14, 2022
392
552
106
It seems to be an architecture that is a bit big for its boots, or at the very least not optimised for the node. Reading between the lines in various interviews it did seem that's what Engineering would have liked exclusivity on N3E

View attachment 104985

This curve matches some of the data from early 9950X testing.




Seems the knee of the curve for Zen 5/N4X is both higher and less aggressive than Zen 4 on N5(p) It's easy to say N3E won't help much, but doesn't need much. Shifting that curve to the left is all. The fact it's still scaling suggests it really does need to be on a better node.


Still have to wonder why a higher TDP point wasn't selected for the 9700X , Is there voltage limit issues pushing higher TDPs on this node? it would also explain the max ST boost clocks pretty stagnant. Has anyone been able to push these higher yet?
This is exactly my thoughts. Zen 5 seems to have been architected to take advantage of N3, while simultaneously being designed to work on N4. Its quite odd, and as a matter of fact, I cant think of any other CPU that was simultaneously designed and released (yes, Turin not out yet released but running in labs and sampling) on two fully different process nodes.

Architectures are designed for certain transistor densities and power characteristics for a good reason. For example, Intel cant just port 10nm Golden Cove to 14nm and use a bigger die to compensate for larger sized process and get the same performance. You will see very undesirable and/or strange power and frequency characteristics and some cut corners on the larger node. We also know that a 16 core CCX design is part of the Zen 5 architecture, but, for reasons described above, will never see the light of day on 4nm.

I dont believe Zen 5 4nm is a "backport" per se, I believe it was done early on because AMD considered that N3 volume and pricing would very likely not be profitable for consumer desktop. Its also very possible that Intel, seeing their own process issues, pre-empted them and bought up the 3nm volume (they bought a LOT) that would have been needed for desktop and mobile Zen 5. Its going to be very interesting to see how Arrow Lake is priced when it releases. Just by looking at all the different process nodes and packaging tech it uses, on paper it should be the most expensive to produce consumer x86 CPU to date.

Its going to be very interesting to see how the 3nm, possibly 16 core CCX, Zen 5c performs on Turin, and also to see how Strix Halo performs, seemingly having completely different packaging and 3nm (?) uncore designs. Maybe it will have a new memory controller as well.
 
Last edited:

Josh128

Senior member
Oct 14, 2022
392
552
106

Not very encouraging. Hopefully the EXPO 8000 MT/s kits will have lower timings than the ones for the kit used by Larabel.

I really want AMD to pull some miracle with an updated IOD that allows the X3D chips to use DDR5-8000 in 1:1 mode.
Not going to happen. Strix Halo might be able to do something like that with its 3nm IOD and new chiplet packaging, but its designed for LPDDR so I dont know if its even technically possible to release on a desktop package and work with DDR5.
 

sl0519

Junior Member
Aug 10, 2024
21
54
51
This is exactly my thoughts. Zen 5 seems to have been architected to take advantage of N3, while simultaneously being designed to work on N4. Its quite odd, and as a matter of fact, I cant think of any other CPU that was simultaneously designed and released (yes, Turin not out yet released but running in labs and sampling) on two fully different process nodes.

Previously it is said that Arrow Lake simultaneously uses TSMC N3B for the higher end and Intel 20A for i5 non K and below. I'm not sure if this is still the case.
 

MS_AT

Senior member
Jul 15, 2024
246
567
96

Not very encouraging. Hopefully the EXPO 8000 MT/s kits will have lower timings than the ones for the kit used by Larabel.

I really want AMD to pull some miracle with an updated IOD that allows the X3D chips to use DDR5-8000 in 1:1 mode.
The reason why 8000MT is doing little to nothing is the number of GMI links. Single link is the bottleneck for throughput. So going with higher kits will make sense only for dual chiplet SKUs. And 1:1 mode is less important for x3D SKUs because they have the 3d cache to insulate from DRAM latency.
 

Asterox

Golden Member
May 15, 2012
1,039
1,823
136

Not very encouraging. Hopefully the EXPO 8000 MT/s kits will have lower timings than the ones for the kit used by Larabel.

I really want AMD to pull some miracle with an updated IOD that allows the X3D chips to use DDR5-8000 in 1:1 mode.
If you want to show off your memory, now or in the future you still have to buy a completely different AMD CPU. Latency or performance aside, a classic Zen4 or Zen5 CPU outside of the G series can't even move with 10600mhz DDR5 memory.

R5 8500G laughs and enjoys the beach!:grinning:

 

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
18,701
5,432
136
A

Not very encouraging. Hopefully the EXPO 8000 MT/s kits will have lower timings than the ones for the kit used by Larabel.

I really want AMD to pull some miracle with an updated IOD that allows the X3D chips to use DDR5-8000 in 1:1 mode.
If the redesigned core lets the 3D cache models run @ full speed 5.5Ghz then it will be ~15% better performance than the 7800X3D.
 
Jul 27, 2020
20,040
13,738
146
Good information, y'all!

@MS_AT , thank you for filling me with hope for the 9950X with DDR5-8000 :) Can't wait to see the Phoronix benchmarks for that!

@Asterox , so DDR5-8000 kits will be more beneficial for Zen 5 desktop APUs!

From http://www.numberworld.org/blogs/2024_8_7_zen5_avx512_teardown/:

In fact, the AVX512 improvement on Zen5 created a memory bottleneck so large that it became the primary reason why I promoted the BBP mini-program from a tool for verifying Pi records to a formal benchmark. The regular benchmarks wouldn't do Zen5 (and future processors) any justice. At least until someone can figure out how to get DDR5-20000 on AM5...

DDR5-20000 would have about 310 GB/s of bandwidth.

Guess which upcoming part has that much bandwidth on tap?

STRIX HALO!!!! :D

Now if AMD doesn't cut the AVX-512 width in that part, we are in for a REAL performance revolution!
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

StefanR5R

Elite Member
Dec 10, 2016
5,926
8,863
136