- Mar 3, 2017
- 1,747
- 6,598
- 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.If history is any indication, we'll continue to get random guesses and hype mongering disguised as leaks until just before release.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.There s ST IPC and MT IPC
That's more about the thread scaling of the particular tests than it is about IPC.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.
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.
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.
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...)No, because i stated the numbers as measured by core architects
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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".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.
You are lying here, dunno why you re acting like this.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.
How does Zen 3 IPC gain have anything to do with Zen 5 uarch? Can you discuss it somewhere else or do we have this thread blocked again?
They didn't, it's just physdes flexing.
How many times do I have to tell everyone that AMD does a proper tock every other gen (they're odd-numbered) and every even is iterative.
When I said, "same methodology", I mean humoring the idea that "MT IPC" is an actual metric that can be measured in the way AMD marketing presented. They just used a different set of tests for the sake of comparison. That's not some standard part of their reviews, is the point.You are lying here, dunno why you re acting like this.
When I said, "same methodology", I mean humoring the idea that "MT IPC" is an actual metric that can be measured in the way AMD marketing presented. They just used a different set of tests for the sake of comparison. That's not some standard part of their reviews, is the point.
Anyway, going back to the original purpose of assessing rumor mongers, there's any number of things from their history you can point to to know they're making it all up. They take advantage of you giving them this benefit of the doubt for views (money), even if they have to lie to your face to do so. It's just not worth anyone's time to take such claims seriously.
Again, copying the methodology, but different test suite, hence different results.I thought that you noticed that Computerbase metrics ,separating ST and MT numbers as well as not using games, are completely different from AMD
Yes, Zen 5 in all likelihood will be a bigger IPC jump than Zen 4. Overall performance, however, might not be, if they don't get a meaningful frequency boost as some are alleging. Would fit better into the pattern of Zen 3, which makes sense given that that was also a new architecture, though by a different team, iirc. Clearly they originally wanted to use N3.So they are reworking parts that are instrumental to extract more IPC, wich tell us that a significantly bigger improvement than what was brought by Zen 4 is more than likely.
Again, copying the methodology, but different test suite, hence different results.
Yes, Zen 5 in all likelihood will be a bigger IPC jump than Zen 4. Overall performance, however, might not be, if they don't get a meaningful frequency boost as some are alleging. Would fit better into the pattern of Zen 3, which makes sense given that that was also a new architecture, though by a different team, iirc. Clearly they originally wanted to use N3.
Regarding tick-tock, This is simply not true.
Zen1, Zen+, Zen 2, and all variants = family 17h
Zen 3, Zen3+, Zen 4, and all variants are 19h
Zen 5 is 1Ah.
You should reread my comments, because I addressed all of that several times now. I'll ignore the rest of your attempted provocation.Rather than aknowledging that you were wrong you keep being in denial, different methodologies hence different results, theres s no separation of ST, MT and games in AMD s slide
4nm does not give a significant improvement vs 5nm, and that's even assuming all these design/architecture changes have no impact on the critical path, which is unlikely.There will be a significant uplift because they ll use 4nm instead of 5nm, wich will give a lttle room to improve perf
When originally planning for the core, they most likely assumed a healthy N3 with noticeable improvements over 5nm. But TSMC slipped, and so they had to retarget N4 instead.they know well for ages that they couldnt rely on a vastly better process for this gen
You should reread my comments, because I addressed all of that several times now. I'll ignore the rest of your attempted provocation.
4nm does not give a significant improvement vs 5nm, and that's even assuming all these design/architecture changes have no impact on the critical path, which is unlikely.
When originally planning for the core, they most likely assumed a healthy N3 with noticeable improvements over 5nm. But TSMC slipped, and so they had to retarget N4 instead.
To just point out the most glaring of many inaccuracies here, 6% better perf/watt means ~6% lower power at iso-frequency, not 15%. Fabs would call the other metric performance. But if I have to once again repeat common knowledge, I think this conversation no longer has value.N3, FI N4P has 6% better perf at isowatt than N4, this allow to reduce power by about 15% at isofrequency comparatively to N4.
