• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 337 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Kepler_L2 said:
AFAIK AMD has not yet decided if Zen6 will be on AM5 or a new platform.
Click to expand...
AMD has most definitely decided. They are just holding their cards close to their vest. Almost all of these decisions/changes occur internally a year a two b/4 they are leaked. Even board partners are getting specs far later than they did 10 years ago. Such is the state of a very competitive market.
 
Ajay said:
AMD has most definitely decided. They are just holding their cards close to their vest. Almost all of these decisions/changes occur internally a year a two b/4 they are leaked. Even board partners are getting specs far later than they did 10 years ago. Such is the state of a very competitive market.
Click to expand...
You guys are talking about AMD killing off AM5 and AM4 isn’t even dead yet. AMD has unreleased Zen 3 stuff on AM4 still.
 
tamz_msc said:
Middling at best. MTL Arc already does that at elevated power levels.
Click to expand...
CouncilorIrissa said:
Arc's excellence in benchmarks means nothing if certain games outright do not work with it, or require some fiddling to get them to work.
Click to expand...
Doesn't Arc literally cheats in by replacing the programs shader with custom hand optimized shaders in the popular graphics benchmarks? And such results don't reflect the performance in games. So much that Intel had to add a option in their Graphics Panel to disable these?

I remember the MTL GFX IP hype due to TS leaks and people taking those results at face value and thinking it was way ahead of PHX. But in reality, MTL is basically a match or behind PHX, but with worse driver stack, incompatible games and power curve that is biased towards the higher end of the curve.

Don't take me wrong, MTL GFX is a fine piece. But it's amazing that Intel has been talking and pushing integrated graphics for 10+ years now and are still so behind.
 
Ghostsonplanets said:
Doesn't Arc literally cheats in by replacing the programs shader with custom hand optimized shaders in the popular graphics benchmarks? And such results don't reflect the performance in games. So much that Intel had to add a option in their Graphics Panel to disable these?
Click to expand...
That's literally what driver optimizations are. NVIDIA and AMD do it with games - the fact that they are ahead is because they have decades of head start.
 
tamz_msc said:
Yes, even with 33% more CUs Strix Point is still scoring barely enough in TS to beat juiced up MTL. And Xe2 is supposedly twice as fast as MTL (8 Xe2 cores vs 4 Xe-LPG cores).
Click to expand...
LNL is the same perf as MTL but in smaller(lower) thermal envelope on iGPU.

What LNL does is it increases the amount of ALUs per cluster. Thats it. In terms of performance, it will still be 1024 ALUs vs 1024 ALUs between MTL and LNL. Yes, LNL will be more efficient, but will not mean it will be TWICE AS FAST. It means it will be the same perf. at lower power.
 
tamz_msc said:
That's literally what driver optimizations are. NVIDIA and AMD do it with games - the fact that they are ahead is because they have decades of head start.
Click to expand...
Well, yes. What I mean to say is that Arc Alchemist is an uArch that does exceptional well in benchmarks but these results don't reflect into real game performance. Intel literally had to add a "Disable performance optimizations" into their control panel due to Arc benchmark not reflecting real world performance and being called out for it.

videocardz.com

Intel ARC GPUs lose up to 15% performance in 3DMark TimeSpy test with Advanced Performance Optimizations disabled - VideoCardz.com

Intel Arc A380 tested with and without “Advanced Performance Optimizations” Twitter user 0x22h is one of few people with access to Intel Arc A380 desktop GPU. Various feature tests were already published by the same user in the last couple of days (definitely worth checking out), but more...
videocardz.com videocardz.com

Glo. said:
LNL is the same perf as MTL but in smaller(lower) thermal envelope on iGPU.

What LNL does is it increases the amount of ALUs per cluster. Thats it. In terms of performance, it will still be 1024 ALUs vs 1024 ALUs between MTL and LNL. Yes, LNL will be more efficient, but will not mean it will be TWICE AS FAST. It means it will be the same perf. at lower power.
Click to expand...
adroc_thurston said:
Well not quite, SIMDs are twice the size (PVC-style) too.
Click to expand...
So it's a fatter GPU per Xe Core? I always thought Intel GPU arch subdivision to be too high and leading to occupancy problems and others bottleneck, not too different from past Mali GPUs(I might be totally off base here).

So they going with fatter Xe Core to try to cram on area and increase per core performance is a nice change of direction.

Edit: I totally missed this is the Zen 5 thread. Sorry for going off-topic, mods.
 
tamz_msc said:
Yes, even with 33% more CUs Strix Point is still scoring barely enough in TS to beat juiced up MTL. And Xe2 is supposedly twice as fast as MTL (8 Xe2 cores vs 4 Xe-LPG cores).
Click to expand...
MTL has 8 Xe-LPG cores, not 4!
What we should expect from Lunar Lake IGP I don't know.
But I am not even sure, If AMD will have a direct competitor against It, maybe Kraken Point? 4+4 and 8CU looks pretty similar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top