• 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.

Question Zen 6 Speculation Thread

Page 394 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
poke01 said:
and even by then who knows what those Cambridge folks cook up to counter it
Click to expand...
Cambridge as in ARM in general or the Cambridge CPU design team?

Because the latter aint done much worth writing home about since A53 going by lackluster showings of A5xx µArch lineage, including C1 Nano which is poor as hell for the timespan since A510.

It would be interesting if ARM went down the road of pursuing these slice out of order µArch's for future Cx Nano IP, though I strongly doubt that will happen.
 
Hulk said:
Anyway while doing this my CPU load is about 70% while the GPU is about 90%. Thing is the 9950X still isn't tapped out for cores. I know this is anecdotal because I'm looking at one of my use cases, but what I really need is more ST performance, not moar cores. Same thing when I'm running Studio One.
Click to expand...

That's perfectly normal. 16c is already overkill for most users. It's up to you to figure out what (if anything) to do with all that extra compute capacity.

Moving the halo desktop product from 16c->24c let's them shift 16c SKUs to lower price tiers (maybe, and that doesn't mean 16c is necessarily going to be cheaper) and lets them increase the price target for their new halo product. 16 P cores is already more than enough for a significant number of power users.
 
gdansk said:
They may kill 16c SKUs. Too choppy.
Click to expand...
Isn't there supposed to be a 8c low-cost CCD alongside the 12c main CCD?

I'd assume that the SKUs are 6, 8, 12 (+X3D), 16, 20 and 24 (+X3D).

With the 16c SKU very close in price to the 12c one, but actually worse in games, because it has less L3 per CCD.
 
Hulk said:
The more I analyze the core usage during my work flow the more I'm wondering how much improvement from from 16 to 24 cores will provide outside of Cinebench and other benches? For example, last night after shooting a video of my daughters musical I'm home splitting the instrumental and vocals out of the audio track using UVR on pretty high settings while rendering a video using Vegas Pro using the Voukoder encoder to H.265. It's tough on the processor as it "lights up" transistors in a dense way that creates hot spots.

Anyway while doing this my CPU load is about 70% while the GPU is about 90%. Thing is the 9950X still isn't tapped out for cores. I know this is anecdotal because I'm looking at one of my use cases, but what I really need is more ST performance, not moar cores. Same thing when I'm running Studio One.

I know this is impossible from a "building the stack" point-of-view for AMD as well as the Cinebench competition, but what would be nice if they built a processor for me would be 1 CCD devoted soley to ST performance through architecture and frequency with perhaps 8 or 10 cores, and the second CCD for MT with 12 or 14 cores.
Click to expand...
While I doubt you yourself would be interested at all in this, I really wish someone would deliver you a M5 Pro Mac mini (once it's released this spring) and you'd run a similar workloads on it for comparison.

Studio One and UVR are natively supported. Vegas Pro is not (which might be a dealbreaker), but DaVinci Resolve IS supported along with Voukoder (beta).

An alterantive is to setup a test-case on an open source video others could replicaet, but this doesn't really doable here (since it's not a canned benchmark but actual complex workflow). The other thing is that the base 16GB probably isn't enough for running these in parallel, or is it a non-issue?

All in all given the large caches, the unified memory and PCIE5 equivalent SSD (and all the other things mentioned in this interview of the Anand Lal Shimpi: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/apple-silicon-soc-thread.2587205/post-41585933, I'd assume it would run very well.
 
Gideon said:
While I doubt you yourself would be interested at all in this, I really wish someone would deliver you a M5 Pro Mac mini (once it's released this spring) and you'd run a similar workloads on it for comparison.

Studio One and UVR are natively supported. Vegas Pro is not (which might be a dealbreaker), but DaVinci Resolve IS supported along with Voukoder (beta).

An alterantive is to setup a test-case on an open source video others could replicaet, but this doesn't really doable here (since it's not a canned benchmark but actual complex workflow). The other thing is that the base 16GB probably isn't enough for running these in parallel, or is it a non-issue?

All in all given the large caches, the unified memory and PCIE5 equivalent SSD (and all the other things mentioned in this interview of the Anand Lal Shimpi: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/apple-silicon-soc-thread.2587205/post-41585933, I'd assume it would run very well.
Click to expand...
I hear you but I'm 50 years into x86.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top