- Mar 3, 2017
- 1,777
- 6,791
- 136
In what way is it different, if not in gmi links? Something for stacking cache?It's true but not in a way you think.
Few points:
* Turin with that 8000+ RAM would surely shine even more. Too bad AMD went the cheap road again.
* 400W TDP sounds horrific but this headroom allows to get those many core gains
* AFAK AMD slides did not compare to GNR but still Turin defeats it rather easily
* Does anybody remember those slides presenting challenging routing of Rome's 8 CCDs? Today Turin got 16 of those...
I find myself agreeing with one of your posts! I agree, zen 6 being merged with mobile could mean a bit more of a focus on consumer workloads and optimisation.Maybe it’ll change with Zen6, if Zen6 DT will share die with Zen6 mobile (instead of server) like some have speculated.
In that case, perhaps one should skip Zen5 on DT and wait for Zen6.
Some screens![]()
AMD EPYC ‘Turin’ 9005 Series - we benchmark 192-core Zen 5 chip with 500W TDP
Cranking up the power.www.tomshardware.com
![]()
![]()
It was mentioned in the slide deck.So was there any mention of the fabled new 16 core CCX in the 3nm 9965 chip? I dont recall any talk at all about it.
And just as insanely expensive.I hope they release Threadripper cpu based on Zen 5 sometime next year because based on these benchmarks they will be insanely fast
When you are a corp, efficiency and performance outweigh pricing so much its almost not worth considering
Some screens![]()
AMD EPYC ‘Turin’ 9005 Series - we benchmark 192-core Zen 5 chip with 500W TDP
Cranking up the power.www.tomshardware.com
![]()
![]()
I think that 128 threads would prove what you want to know, but from the existing benchmarks, there are no weakness in Turin.I want to see some R23 and R24 nT benchmarks, lol. Are either of those limited to 256 threads?
It does win by a decent margin but some of this is due to GNR issues. The 2P scaling for GNR is just 1.2x, whereas for Turin it’s ~1.4x-1.5X, same is true with earlier Xeon like Emerald Rapids so it’s something uniquely broken with GNR at the moment.🤣🤣🤣🤣 wipeout!
Xeon 6980P does have some odd scaling with 2P / performance issues with 2P if looking at a few of the benchmarks like NAMD.... Intel was aware and reproduced my original review data and was investigating since launch but haven't heard anything more from them (granted there's staffing changes, etc, going on there). And the GNR 1P / 2P behavior did reproduce with both DDR5-6400 and MRDIMMs as you can see on the geo mean.
That's why I left e.g. NAMD out of my original GNR review to give Intel time for feedback/guidance. Like on the NAMD side they reproduced but then recommended I use the oneAPI compiler for better performance. Even though on every other CPU tested I was using the official NAMD binaries each time and behaving as expected. In the two weeks since no further updates and to provide EPYC insight into NAMD and other areas, the tests were included as that's what can be observed right now on the platforms when running the tests the same.
If you compare the EPYC 9965 and Xeon 6980P in 1P config, you get the same +18.3% perf in addition to 20% less average power usage. Add those two up and its a landslide win for AMD. Add to that the fact that 9965's MSRP is around 20% cheaper than the 6980P and Intel is not even in the picture anymore.It does win by a decent margin but some of this is due to GNR issues. The 2P scaling for GNR is just 1.2x, whereas for Turin it’s ~1.4x-1.5X, same is true with earlier Xeon like Emerald Rapids so it’s something uniquely broken with GNR at the moment.
This set of benchmarks also included NAMD, whereas the original 6980P review didn’t include it because it’s currently bugged on GNR (unless using oneAPI), this is why the geomean for GNR was reduced by 10% in this comparison compared to the day 1 reviews. So the bugged NAMD benches drags down the geomean for 1P as well as the meager 1.2X scaling for 2P exaggerating things too.
If you compare Epyc 9755 and Xeon 6980P in 1P configuration, at the moment Turin has a lead of 18.3% in the geomean of tests (this is with the bugged NAMD & miniBUDE results).
Michael Larabel’s comments below:
Phoronix also has many benchmarks where it doesn't scale well with amount of cores, and in the ones that do, and more representative of a server test, even Emerald Rapids got annihilated, while GNR is now within the ballpark.Add to that the fact that 9965's MSRP is around 20% cheaper than the 6980P and Intel is not even in the picture anymore.
IMO, It's hard to say anything definitive since it seems Intel rushed out GNR half baked to pre-empt the Turin launch. It appears that has backfired on them because it's making their platform look worse from various bugs. I can't give numbers for GNR 1P with the bugged tests removed since annoyingly Phoronix didn't include any 1P results in their day 1 review of GNR. However, If you remove the bugged NAMD tests in the 2P results, the geomean goes from 1006 -> 1106, roughly +10% boost. I don't know if 1P would get the same +10% boost or not, or if it effects the perf/watt numbers in any meaningful way either.If you compare the EPYC 9965 and Xeon 6980P in 1P config, you get the same +18.3% perf in addition to 20% less average power usage. Add those two up and its a landslide win for AMD. Add to that the fact that 9965's MSRP is around 20% cheaper than the 6980P and Intel is not even in the picture anymore.
I have answered you in the Intel thread.IMO, It's hard to say anything definitive since it seems Intel rushed out GNR half baked to pre-empt the Turin launch. It appears that has backfired on them because it's making their platform look worse from various bugs. I can't give numbers for GNR 1P with the bugged tests removed since annoyingly Phoronix didn't include any 1P results in their day 1 review of GNR. However, If you remove the bugged NAMD tests in the 2P results, the geomean goes from 1006 -> 1106, roughly +10% boost. I don't know if 1P would get the same +10% boost or not, or if it effects the perf/watt numbers in any meaningful way either.
If you're trying to find the impact of process alone shouldn't one compare the Zen 5C on Strix Point (N4P) to Zen 5C in Turin (N3E)? Well, I guess there's no reasonably comparable configuration and they have different core complexes.Are there any efficiency numbers per core with Zen 5 on N3 vs Zen 4 server chips? I am looking for the power efficiency gains of TSMC 3nm.
Potential clocks for the 9800X3D. 5.2 GHz all core turbo.
Really strange they have gone with this low clockspeedPotential clocks for the 9800X3D. 5.2 GHz all core turbo.
5.2 GHz all core for the 9800X3D. Gaming at 5.3 to 5.4 GHz would be a 6% to 8% higher frequency as the 7800X3D.
So possibly a 10% higher gaming performance as the 7800X3D.
The all core boost for the 7800X3D is ~4.8 GHz here:
10% is a lot on a bar chart.
View attachment 109189