• 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 7 speculation thread

Page 23 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
511 said:
AVX -512 was introduced in SkylakeX 2017 for Xeons
Click to expand...
exactly so for select niche SKUs support was late. They added better support thanks to rocket lake and AVX512-FP16 support was added a few months after SPR launched, again due to mainstream SKUs not supporting these.


AVX512-FP16 is only for Xeons right now in GB and Zen6 should benefit next year since FP16 support is already there.
 
Josh128 said:
All the Intel shills used to scream about it being the only reason Zen 4 beat Alder Lake in GB, but in reality turning off AVX-512 only made like 1%-2% difference in the score.
Click to expand...
Even if true, who cares? If Zen has something in it that makes it faster than Intel processors across a wide range of applications (even within a specific use model and market), the customer will see a reasonable difference ..... and that matters IMO.

Also, lets not get too cute here and forget that Intel put these instructions in first only to back them out because the implementation caused heat issues AND took up an inordinate amount of space. It wasn't because they weren't effective at adding performance.

Intel has decided to do a lesser approach to AVX 512 and use the remaining transistor budget for other things. This is IMO not a bad approach for them..... but that doesn't diminish the fact that AMD's AVX 512 implementation is amazing and provides substantial performance benefits.
 
OneEng2 said:
Even if true, who cares? If Zen has something in it that makes it faster than Intel processors across a wide range of applications (even within a specific use model and market), the customer will see a reasonable difference ..... and that matters IMO.
Click to expand...
Not on windows and certainly not in video games we would need another 10 years for AVX-512 to be the baseline
 
poke01 said:
exactly so for select niche SKUs support was late. They added better support thanks to rocket lake and AVX512-FP16 support was added a few months after SPR launched, again due to mainstream SKUs not supporting these.


AVX512-FP16 is only for Xeons right now in GB and Zen6 should benefit next year since FP16 support is already there.
Click to expand...

Xeon CPU is not a niche processor.

GB banding over backwards to showcase Arm processors tells you everything about Geekbench.
 
CouncilorIrissa said:
the behaviour is reproducible on Windows as well, 10% in one subtest.
Click to expand...
Everybody is not even looking at code which is avx-512 heavy, as most primegrid applications are. I am sure there are commercial applications that are avx-512 heavy. It makes 30-40% difference in those cases. Phoronix saw 56%

Phoronix result here: https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-zen5-avx-512-9950x/7
1762969339365.png

When taking the geometric mean of the 90 benchmarks used for this AVX-512 on/off comparison, the Zen 5 AVX-512 implementation with the Ryzen 9 9950X saw its performance go up by 56%
 
Last edited:
Markfw said:
Everybody is not even looking at code which is avx-512 heavy, as most primegrid applications are. I am sure there are commercial applications that are avx-512 heavy. It makes 30-40% difference in those cases.
Click to expand...
I even doubt proper AVX-512 support on GB ...
 
511 said:
1%
View attachment 133756

Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. B650M AORUS ELITE AX vs 9950X default (AVX512 off) - Geekbench

browser.geekbench.com browser.geekbench.com
Click to expand...

Here are 2 Geekbench 5 submissions that look like identical system. Both submissions by David Huang:

9950x AVX-512 off: 2425

9950X default (AVX512 off) - Geekbench

Benchmark results for a Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. B650M AORUS ELITE AX with an AMD Ryzen 9 9950X processor.
browser.geekbench.com browser.geekbench.com

9950x AVX-512 on: 2652

Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. B650M AORUS ELITE AX - Geekbench

Benchmark results for a Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. B650M AORUS ELITE AX with an AMD Ryzen 9 9950X processor.
browser.geekbench.com browser.geekbench.com

That's a 9.3% difference that Geekbench deceptively "erased", just to show x86 in worst light and Arm in the best light.

So, when you see you see 1%, it is after you have been visited by the Men In Black.

1762967634767.png
 
Joe NYC said:
Here are 2 Geekbench 5 submissions that look like identical system. Both submissions by David Huang:

9950x AVX-512 off: 2425

9950X default (AVX512 off) - Geekbench

Benchmark results for a Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. B650M AORUS ELITE AX with an AMD Ryzen 9 9950X processor.
browser.geekbench.com browser.geekbench.com

9950x AVX-512 on: 2652

Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. B650M AORUS ELITE AX - Geekbench

Benchmark results for a Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. B650M AORUS ELITE AX with an AMD Ryzen 9 9950X processor.
browser.geekbench.com browser.geekbench.com

That's a 9.3% difference that Geekbench deceptively "erased", just to show x86 in worst light and Arm in the best light.

So, when you see you see 1%, it is after you have been visited by the Men In Black.

View attachment 133770
Click to expand...

MT:
AVX-512 off: 23,561
AVX-512 on: 26,093

Difference even greater: 10.6%
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top