I mean the chief reason for these architectures, as AMD uses Zen 5 chiplets also in the server, is the server or data center not desktops - that’s where the big money is. And after that laptops. So AMD doesn’t worry too much about those gaming YouTubers that hype everything as YouTubers always do despite it not making too much sense or having low relevance. What those want is the X3D processors anyway, those are for the gamers specifically, these aren’t as much, these are general architectures reused for the desktop (just not 1:1 in the laptop anymore).
My point is that they are complaining because they are focusing on games while a CPU IPC is NOT limited to gaming, on the contrary, it is a really small portion of it.
Phoronix came out with a 17.5% geomean over the 7950x, well inline or even better than AMD's 16% IPC uplift.
Keep in mind the only reason Phoronix saw that much uplift is the AVX512 change not because they're actually that much improved. They mentioned at the end of the review that they'll be doing further testing without AVX512 for comparisons.
I am curious as to why AnandTech didn't immediately retest a subset of games, just a couple of the worst offenders, with the PPM disabled to see what happens. If the performance is restored and just fine with it turned off, that really isn't a huge problem. Software can always be fixed - or turned off lol. Definitely seems like AMD made the wrong choice saying PPM should be bundled and enabled by default though.
There is also a difference between one that clocks a bit better and "trash."
It has been long known, afaik, that some cores are a bit better than others. It seems obvious that the same applies to CCDs.
A third hypothesis, in terms of why this core parking software is being required seems to be that AMD is maximizing performance by favoring the CCD that has the better performance.
You probably missed the part about Intel Raptor Lakes Woes. Go back and read it.
Also,
"The Ryzen 9 9950X was 33% faster than the Intel Core i9 14900K performance overall and even the Ryzen 9 9900X was 18% faster than the Core i9 14900K. For those still on AM4, the Ryzen 9 9950X was delivering 1.87x the performance of the Ryzen 9 5950X processor. These are some great gains found with the Ryzen 9 9900 series."
Anybody buying a 9950X to do "content creation" on a Linux computer ... is the content they're creating about their struggles doing content creation on a Linux PC?
This exchange about "content creation" is a good example of why vague categories are so useful for marketing because it leaves the advertisers in a comfortable place where the targets of their ads are left to interpret what those words mean and that meaning, since it's ill-defined, can vary quite widely leading to legal immunity for sales speech. Meanwhile, people also tend to end up in an argument without being thoughtful enough to factor in potential differences in personal application of meaning to a given thing. We're quite a silly species.
Not magically. After Intel 7, Intel released Intel 4 last year for laptop only. Then after that, they released Intel 3, which is only being used in Xeon (SRF already launched, GNR soon).
Then after that is 20A, which will be a token ARL SKU which most of the ARL/LNL volume being on TSMC N3B. N3B is several nodes past Intel 7. 20A (and 18A next year) is several nodes past Intel 7.
"Intel" didn't skip several nodes. They just haven't released any desktop parts on the 2 nodes they've released since Intel 7
So now I’m finished reading the whole thing. Typical new launch CPU issues, how many times did I read about problems with new CPUs at launch? It happens more often than it doesn’t, these things will be ironed out, it’s not a big problem.
Worrying here is only for me the strict Anandtech enforcement of going with extremely slow RAM, which, as you can see nearly everywhere, just chokes those 16 cores. It’s evident that it needs way faster RAM to properly function, here the author or Anandtech missed the chance to test it also (not only) with proper RAM with at least 6400 and better even 7000-8000 speeds. Dual channel isn’t a lot for 16 cores, 16 cores used to have quad channel, if you just have dual channel you should use proper RAM and not the absolute slowest possible, as was used here (the minimum spec, more or less, and now don’t come and tell me you could’ve used even lower 4800s instead). So this is kinda 9950X for me in a worst case scenario, in a lot of the tests, maybe not all of them. Otherwise good review.
Core parking doesn't always "ironed out", does it? Some users still have difficulties with the Zen4 X3D CPUs, nearly 2 years later, sadly. It seems to require too much software intervention. That core parking depending on Windows-level drivers is especially problematic to me: who knows what bugs the next Windows update will bring?
I'd much rather have a reliable 100%-working 9700X 8C than a 95%-working 9950X 16C, but that's me and my low priority for nT workloads.
//
Re: DRAM. This is a time-honored and well-defended practice to use the *highest* DRAM AMD has specified. If all Zen5 AMD CPU IMCs can reliably hit 6000 Mbps on the DRAM, then AMD should allow that. Why is AMD holding back? Is AMD willingly destroying its Zen5 performance?! No, my friend.
AMD specifically refused / failed to bin Zen5 CPUs for 6400 due to IMC & fabric issues (see below). This is AMD's choice. With the ongoing Intel 13th/14th gen debacle, I think it's the wrong move to ask reviewers to go above & beyond the CPU manufacturers spec.
//
Hardware Unboxed shared AMD's reviewer's guide for Zen5. Again, AMD has recommended 6000 Mbps as the DRAM sweet spot, noting IMC and Fabric clocks. See here:
6400+ or higher can even cause lower performance for some kits and some users. Thus, 6000 Mbps is AMD's official highest-recommended EXPO / OC speed and 5600 Mbps is the guaranteed speed.
We should benchmark CPUs at guaranteed speeds, not "usually it works" speeds.
"... We should benchmark CPUs at guaranteed speeds, not "usually it works" speeds." Agreed. My Ryzen 5 Pro 3350G can make Win10 throw blue screen if I set RAM to 3200MHz. It's random, and each time I need to configure RAM speed again, because BIOS returns to defaults. I want benchmarks done with what the manufacturer recommends. I want to know what I can expect from the BOX, not a promise. I don't see the reason to bend to requests of a minority of users, where majority doesn't know what overclocking is.
I dont even consider AnandTech gaming reviews anymore. They are trash. That being said, AMD itself has said DDR5 6000 is the optimal ram speed for Zen 5. Techspot used that in their tests and the results were no better, about a 1% improvement in gaming for the 13 game average.
Anandtech used to be a site that pumped CPU-killing levels of voltage into CPUs for overclocking and considered the overclock stable if it didn't crash benchmarks.
It changed to be a site that won't use XMP and similar because it's warranty-voiding overclocking.
I was very critical of that but I will say that I am tired of AMD and Intel having their cake and eating it. If AMD is going to tell reviewers the 'sweet spot' is 6000 and the CPUs aren't given a warranty/validation for 6000, then AMD should be told where the plank is to walk from.
AT writes stories for tech enthusiasts to read, but refuses to test a system equipped like a tech enthusiast would set it up. That's been frustrating for at least a decade. Very un-Anand like. I see their argument, but this isn't consumer retorts.
I think I'm done with this "core parking" nonsense. With the X3D CPUs the CCD parking issue is controlled by the MB's BIOS, the AMD driver, and the Microsoft Game Bar Too many moving parts. And, if you change your AMD X3D CPU to a single CCD or a non X3D CPU you have to reinstall Windows completely to prevent performance degradations.
This is primitive nonsense. Intel may run hotter, and be a little slower in gaming, but you get all the cores up to their full TDP regardless of the workload without the V-Cache CCD chaos.
I think the X3D single CCD part is a great product, and an "extreme" edition with 2 X3D CCDs should be made available, but the 1 CCD with 1 without design isn't good.
Even if upgrading from Zen 3 or older, right now it is hard to recommend Zen 5 over Zen 4, at least until the price comes down on Zen 5. Zen 5 offers negligible performance gains at a higher price. I suppose you could argue Zen 5 is more "future proof" if AVX 512 suddenly becomes mainstream, but it has been around a long time and is still a niche instruction set.
AVX-512 is used in different video encoders and decoders: x265, SVT-AV1, and dav1d at the least, possibly x264 and FFmpeg, and I am sure elsewhere too. So it is available in quite common software used today.
Didn't this site have at least one custom benchmark designed specifically to showcase AVX-512 performance in CPU reviews?
I don't know if there were more than one. I do recall, though, that the AVX-512 performance of Intel CPUs at the time was considered important enough to showcase, and not merely in an article specific to AVX-512 performance.
I think the 3DPMv2 benchmark. All it did was show how much faster Intel was than the competition. It took a lot of criticism and was called unrealistic.
The weakness in AMD's strategy is that this is becoming like 3DNow! All Intel has to do is cut out AVX-512, and it will, possibly, die off. Programmers won't want to write code not used on both sides.
Intel has been like Lucy with the football with AVX-512 and I think the buck is stopping.
AMD has become a force to reckon with, especially given how weak Intel is, in terms of competing. I don't think Intel has the luxury to play Lucy with AVX-512 now.
It's almost certainly a core wake delay from the use of the Balanced power profile.
Staying on Balanced allows core parking for power savings and effective CPPC scheduling, but at the expense of constant core sleep/wake cycles. Switching to High Performance should solve the inter-CCD delay (cores do not full sleep, plus the Infinity Fabric does not downclock), but at the expense of disabling the CPPC scheduler. Easy to test.
I'll keep my 7950x for now. Not liking the PPM driver requirement. I wonder how much better the new linux 6.12 kernel will perform with the 9950x with its new AMD specific cpu scheduler? It certainly doesn't need the PPM driver.
Thanks, Gavin. Great review, and well written: I chuckled quite a few times with the humorous commentary, such as, "Winning comes at a cost," or it takes "every joule in sight."
As for the PPM issues, that's poor testing on AMD's part, but I'm sure they'll fix it soon. Reminds me of when Ryzen first came out, and there were deficits in games because of suboptimal scheduling. Otherwise, strong CPUs.
It might be nice to see the results of y-cruncher that support Zen-5. You're using the last version *before* support was added. It's also from September of 2023.
Very interesting. I think I probably already know the answer but was comment on the issues you found sought from AMD prior to publication, and if so was there a response?
Looks like I too will be waiting for the next single-CCD X3D.
Only huge boost is with AVX-512 loads which is useless for real life applications on client side. Otherwise Zen 5 has been the most meh upgrade from AMD in a while. its not shocking as there is only so much one can do to boost IPC and performance.
Let us wait for Turin review and comp with Granite Rapids. That should be more interesting.
On client side Apple M series is the boss. Their IPC is so much better and higher performance despite lower clockspeeds. I hope X Elite 2 on N3P can produce something competitive. I am pessimistic on x86 chips coming close to Apple.
Wow, the AMD apologists are out in full force. Reminds me of the Bulldozer days: "It's a great chip, just wait till the software catches up." Remember, though, these are consumer chips, not enterprise/server, so for the market it will be sold to, there is basically no improvement over the previous generation. Very disappointing release from AMD, and I don't expect much improvement performance wise for Arrow Lake either, except hopefully they solved the stability issues and lower power consumption. Even worse, it looks like another 2 years before a new desktop lineup from either manufacturer (Zen 6 or Nova Lake). So there is a good chance by 2026/27 we could have gone 4 years without significant performance increases for consumer desktop. Yikes!!
The IPC gains are really there if you filter out the overreactions of the reviewers themselves. The real question is how come that isn't translating to gains across the board like it normally would. Games in particular normally love a boost to IPC. There's a mystery to be solved here.
Yes. Once the scheduler issues are fixed, or those relating to the admin account, whatever they are causing, branch prediction or otherwise, Zen 5 will be shown in a truer light. It is an excellent series bogged down by problems on the OS side.
The biggest problem is using Microsoft Windows for the benchmark platform, Linux benchmarks show the true numbers AMD can give, it's just that the Windows kernel isn't using the hardware to it's potential but Linux can.
How come the latency is so bad is something that needs investigating. The poor latency to DRAM could explain why games are hit hard. They tend to need large amounts of main memory and rapidly bounce around it. Which will also be why the X3D parts excel in that environment.
The latency to DRAM is fine (~94ns for a 128MB access). The oddity we're looking into right now is the die-to-die latency. It's taking around 200ns for one CCD to reach the other.
After reading lots of other reviews, Anandtech's reviews are incomplete. This is more of an Intel counter-espionage article than anything else. You will probably need to redo these in about 4 weeks.
And it really is a puzzle because single core productivity and IPC testing do show excellent uplift. That should be good news for games but isn't. Why?
'All of the Ryzen 9000 series processors use the same AM5 socket as the previous Ryzen 7000 (Zen 4) series, which means users can use current X670E and X670 motherboards with the new chips. Unfortunately, as we highlighted in our Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 5 9600X review, the X870E/X870 motherboards, which were meant to launch alongside the Ryzen 9000 series, won't be available until sometime in September.'
How unfortunate is this in the big picture? Intel likes to arbitrarily obsolete the current motherboards when it releases a chip series.
Does the latencies between CCDs depend on the speed of infinity fabric or DRAM settings? It would be interesting to test this. Is it possible to adjunt de IF speed?
Don't believe everything that some PC media, stuck in their benchmarking segment caught up in their application box, then acting as a catalyst for others to shoot from the hip mimicking repeaters engaged in a false narrative promoting a herd effect reporting on Granite Ridge adoption "stalling' in sales channels
AMD relying on buyers for R9K validation ahead of Arrow there is so much back generation to sell; R7K, R5K, Raptors, Alder before Granite Ridge and Arrow producer (q4 OEM) ramp. PC market continues in a deflationary downward price spiral into q1 2025 probably all the way into summer 2025; CPU, dGPU, cases, boards you name it all has to liquidate to finance channel procurements into 2025.
R9K between Thursday and Saturday cleared down < 66% and it appears box processor got a restock on Saturday 17th. There are a lot more SI PC offered then boxed R9K CPU and those SI PC' are clearing their current run end full kit from the channel.
R9K price is held up by the channel to clear back generations R7K/R5K, Raptors, Alders and laptops wow there are a lot of laptops to clear and there are R9K CPU price premiums to margin cost offset the clearance sales. Today WW channel 9950X ask $689 to $1050, 9900X ask $499 to $782, 9700X ask $359 to $591, 9600X ask $279 to $484 so shop around if you can on geographic location.
Here is what AMD sells R9K for to volume customers which is the retail cost; 9950X = $486, 9900X = $375. 9700x = $270, 9600X = $210 so in relation AMD MSRP that is a + 33% margin across the board if there are no price premiums albeit there can be even for end user buyer beta evaluators (knowing and unknowing, voluntary and involuntary) until all the older products sells off.
Remember the AMD and Intel basic price to volume retail seller rule SO you know what the volume seller paid and in a kit purchase know you get what u negotiate. AMD CPU rule is MSRP / 3 * 1.5 is volume seller cost. For Intel its $1K AWP / 2.
I am monitoring the situation to validate R9K desktop sales out the gate were other than fleeting on initial interest.
One thing is certain through, current and back one generation AMD and Intel desktop processors and laptops are being discounted and the pricing only gets better between now and year end because the channel must liquidate current inventories to financial next generation procurements.
Note I have reworked this on missing a tier of distribution.
Why $650 for 9950X and the answer is channel mark up and to cost loss offset Raphael R7K and Vermeer R5K discounting to clear channel inventories. . 9950X = $216 from TSMC and TSMC makes approximately x3 over cost.
AMD 9950X high volume price is $325 suspect 3 M unit procurement estimated on AMD top 10 customers divided into suspect full run production. This high volume price supports OEM resale to secondary distributors. The mid volume price is $487 that would include volume retail. Low volume tray of 10, $1K < 10% and where MSRP = $649. So, a mid-volume buyer can make + 33%
10 OEMs on a 3 million unit procurement $223 to $289 with a sliding discount on 9600X down to AMD cost for meeting their full run contract sales objective.
This appears to be how AMD product’s total revenue potential is dived between the primary stakeholders,
TSMC takes 28.25% AMD takes 49% < costs where R&D is variable and earns net after tax. Top 10 customers as PC suppliers and CPU master distributors take up to 22.6%
I really appreciate AT reviews. And as always again, AT did a great job over the stupid HWU and GN's subpar reviews. Esp the videos on YT. Anandtech shows both the IPC gains in SPEC score but also translation failure on Windows, specifically mentioned how PPM ruins the CPUs. Most of the YT content is focusing on the here's the review guidelines and here's the game tests and here's some special workloads which they use a set of rendering techniques in Blender etc.
But Phoronix and AT have consistent written articles, AT here clearly showing the CCD interdie latency, that's the culprit here. AMD's poor choice of re-using the Zen 4 IODie is causing this alongside lack of IMC improvement. Many circulate BS such as AMD is using Mesh vs Ring, it's nonsense. The thing is AMD's CCD design since Zen 3 is using a hybrid of mesh and ring bus. Check Ian's article on that. So that's not the issue unless Zen 5 exclusively changed something big, which I doubt since this is just a revision of Zen 4.
RKL also had IPC gain but showed regression due to 14nm++ backport and 2C4T deficit and IMC regression. IPC SPEC does not always translate, AMD's major screw up is relying on a Software scheduler on top of the rehashed Zen 4 design causing this massive confusion.
Next is Power. This is never mentioned, the thing is AMD with Zen 5 went super conservative for some stupid reason and ruined the CPU boost and base clocks on all SKUs. Even the top bin dual CCD 9950X got that regression in base clocks. Basically AMD axed the TDP of the Zen 5 CPUs to match the Zen 4 lineup and killed the performance on these. I have always wondered why AM5 boards have tons of VRM but no CPU to utilize them, any X670E board VRM is capable of delivering over 350-400W of power to CPU but the AM5 PPT / Socket max is 250W top, maybe 270W if you push to extreme, so they are hard capped unlike Intel. AMD should have increased the AM5's socket power band to 300W to let them boost and unlock more performance. The 9700X is a massive L due to this huge power cut from 105W to 65W, they also nerfed 12C 9900X from 175W to 120W.
Also perhaps AMD wanted Zen 6 to shine brighter just like Intel Alder Lake, Intel killed LGA1200 with garbage RKL release and EOLed it to make the ADL look massive. Not that nefarious but in some extent AMD seems to take a page out of Intel. Esp given the fact on Intel's ARL lacking Hyperthreading cores and loss of Clockspeed from Raptor Lake (Disaster) 6.2GHz. And that gives AM5 to have Zen 6 with huge boost over Zen 4, 100% sure that Zen 6 will get new IODie and newer TSMC big node jump atop maybe a new chipset.
All in all AMD's Zen 5 is a real dissapointment, since AM4 triumph. AMD always delivered lot of performance all the way from Zen -> Zen + improving CCD, Clockspeed, IMC -> Zen 2 lot of changes to the CCD and IODie -> Zen 3 a totally new design and radical departure of NUMA system plus higher boost clocks -> Zen 4 decoupled a lot of baggage on IF links from Uclock / Mclock / IFclock to just 2 links as Uclock and Mclock and massive Clockspeed boost and super stable platform unlike Zen 3 / AM4's USB I/O issues, there also the GloFo's IODie caused a havoc, here its the not stable amalgamation of the older IODie with newer Zen 5 core. Turin will shatter performance because it won't be sandbagged by this weakpoint.
Shame since AMD lost a glorious chance to completely ruin Intel (They deserve at this point, killed Optane, ruined CPU desktop arena with Big little junk, absolutely insane California policies adoption, total disaster in 10nm delivery, hamfisting LGA1200 socket, CPU bending on LGA1700, Raptor lake failure... unending list, such as Gloo / NSO spyware / Unit 8200 sponsorship from Pat Gelsinger), AMD would have destroyed Intel but they chose not to.
That said if ARL performs better than Zen 5, that shame AMD will face would be totally deserving for ruining Zen5.
I also think the reusing of Zen 4's I/O die is causing the latency issues. Something is suboptimal somewhere along line.
As for the lowering of power, they certainly seem to have ample headroom to raise it, gaining performance. Perhaps they thought that Zen 4 was using too much and wanted to curtail it, to contrast favourably with Intel. Lowering power while raising IPC always pays off later. Perhaps it's got to do with the I/O die. Maybe they're laying the foundation for further widening of the core and reduction in frequency. Indeed, they made the decoder a two-by-four cluster but it is not doing much in Zen 5, diminished by the effect of the micro-op cache. Or perhaps they've made a chain of poor decisions.
What I'd like to see now is a direct comparison to AM4. Specifically, to the AM4 SKUs that were most recently launched - from the 5700x 3D to the 5900XT.
Because AM4 is mentioned in the conclusion, but there's no direct testing to pit the two generations against each other.
So looking at the response, seems like a Windows OS dependent update. That is ok but it's not going to save the Zen 5 flaws. Plus more over what about Windows 10 ? I honestly have no idea why the damn reviewers do not even care as if Win10 vanished. That OS is far more robust over the garbage Win11 which did regression in CPU performance due (VBS) to some Kernel level changes and the Shell32 / Win32 downgrades plus explorer.exe downgrades AND QA went into sewage. Microsoft is already pathetic in Windows ever since they sacked Terry, Chief of Windows for 20+ years and they dissolved Windows dept exclusivity to some Cloud department and that Panos Panay ruined whatever left of it and left the company. The mismanagement at Microsoft is astounding and these HW companies still lick the boot of the company so badly so do the dummy users who are braindead.
I think AMD's tone in that blog isn't right. Sure, mistakes are made: that's no problem. Apologise and fix it. Here, they've spun it in such a way that no fault lies with them. AMD of early Zen would apologise and take accountability. Seems they're changing as their coffers get loaded.
Regarding Windows 10, who knows if it'll get the update. Maybe not. Windows 10, in itself, works well. I've never had an issue in the five years of using it. But it is slowly on the way out. There are no more feature updates, it's stuck at Build 19045, and all the development effort is going into 11.
AMD is no better than Intel, which is to be expected since it's a corporation.
Remember the FX 9000 series (leaky, too demanding for most AM3+ boards, and massively overpriced on the basis of the deceptive 8-core claim*)? The Radeon VII (unnecessarily small die clocked way too high)?
*Deceptive, not because it didn't have 8 cores but mainly because its cores were weak, even without considering that there were only 4 FPU units, although that definitely did not help.
These companies will milk people for all they can, like Intel is with the ongoing scam vis-à-vis its time bomb high-voltage CPUs.
Another favourite AMD anecdote is how Su gave a presentation in which she unveiled the roadmap for Polaris and Vega. Oh, Vega will come out shortly. But, it did not. Instead, AMD milked customers with its "Polaris Forever" campaign. When Vega did arrive it had inadequate cooling and the same IPC as Fury X. All that time waiting for a part that only had a higher clock (thanks to the process shrink) and more VRAM to provide the illusion of significant progress.
In the Bulldozer era, AMD was well known for promising and not delivering, and even when there were improvements, such as across Bulldozer's four iterations, one was sceptical, and the Radeon story was little better. From Zen, they fulfilled their promises or over-delivered. Slowly, they earned our trust, and one could believe the general picture of AMD's marketing. Making mistakes, they took accountability and fixed it. So, it was somewhat surprising to see the tone of that blog, when there are clear issues with Zen 5. If they go on like this, the trust they've earned will be lost. As a plus, they've become greedier since the early days of Zen.
Possibly, it's some mitigation related to speculative execution or indirect branch prediction being enabled on these CPUs, slowing down performance. As can be seen, there are many settings in Win32 concerning speculative execution.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
123 Comments
Back to Article
Khanan - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
“AMD has doubled the amount of L2 cache per core on Zen 5 to 1 MB, which is up from 512KB per Zen 4 core.”This isn’t right. L2 cache was already doubled from Zen 3 to Zen 4 to 1 MB, you already did this mistake a few times now.
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
You are correct! That has been fixed. Thank you.eva02langley - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
I saw Steve and Steve still going strong with their nonsense. They were complaining again so I came here to have a REAL CPU review.Good old Anandtech is still setting the bar for what I should expect in a CPU review.
Khanan - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
I mean the chief reason for these architectures, as AMD uses Zen 5 chiplets also in the server, is the server or data center not desktops - that’s where the big money is. And after that laptops. So AMD doesn’t worry too much about those gaming YouTubers that hype everything as YouTubers always do despite it not making too much sense or having low relevance. What those want is the X3D processors anyway, those are for the gamers specifically, these aren’t as much, these are general architectures reused for the desktop (just not 1:1 in the laptop anymore).eva02langley - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
You don't teach me anything, I know that already.My point is that they are complaining because they are focusing on games while a CPU IPC is NOT limited to gaming, on the contrary, it is a really small portion of it.
Phoronix came out with a 17.5% geomean over the 7950x, well inline or even better than AMD's 16% IPC uplift.
thestryker - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
Keep in mind the only reason Phoronix saw that much uplift is the AVX512 change not because they're actually that much improved. They mentioned at the end of the review that they'll be doing further testing without AVX512 for comparisons.Oxford Guy - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
Greatly improved AVX-512 is more of an improvement than we've seen from some CPU releases.coburn_c - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
Not true at all, GN repeatedly said don't buy these chips for gaming. YOU are complaining without focusing, and you look like a clown.Gothmoth - Saturday, August 24, 2024 - link
indeed he looks like a very dumb clown.....Lonyo - Thursday, August 15, 2024 - link
GAMERS Nexus is focusing on GAME performance?fatweeb - Thursday, August 15, 2024 - link
Shocking if true.Spladam - Sunday, August 18, 2024 - link
This changes everything.temps - Thursday, August 15, 2024 - link
don't pay much attention to what gamers have to say about processorsGigaplex - Thursday, August 15, 2024 - link
Unless you're a gamer and want a CPU for gamingtemps - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
In which case you already know what to buy and shouldn't even be looking at high end processors anywayeloyard - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
They know... because of benchmarks, you know? That's why tests are made and that's why people look at them.Dante Verizon - Thursday, August 15, 2024 - link
Chips and cheese has done an in-depth analysis that shows several bottlenecks and situations where Zen5 is not only inferior to Zen4, but far inferiorkrazyfrog - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
"I saw data that upset me greatly because it didn't align with my preconceived notions so I started looking for other places to have them validated."cryosx - Sunday, August 25, 2024 - link
you mean AMD's nonsense and bullshit marketingJosh128 - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
Why 14600K instead of 14900K for first 10 or so benchmarks? Where was the 14900K?ZoZo - Thursday, August 15, 2024 - link
Probably busy being RMA'dbigboxes - Monday, August 19, 2024 - link
HA!shabby - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
That ppm issue is pretty bad, these chips shouldn't have been launched like this.NextGen_Gamer - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
I am curious as to why AnandTech didn't immediately retest a subset of games, just a couple of the worst offenders, with the PPM disabled to see what happens. If the performance is restored and just fine with it turned off, that really isn't a huge problem. Software can always be fixed - or turned off lol. Definitely seems like AMD made the wrong choice saying PPM should be bundled and enabled by default though.coburn_c - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
it's not a PPM issue, it's that one of the CCDs is trashGigaplex - Thursday, August 15, 2024 - link
That would show up in a multi threaded load.Oxford Guy - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
There is also a difference between one that clocks a bit better and "trash."It has been long known, afaik, that some cores are a bit better than others. It seems obvious that the same applies to CCDs.
A third hypothesis, in terms of why this core parking software is being required seems to be that AMD is maximizing performance by favoring the CCD that has the better performance.
Samus - Saturday, August 17, 2024 - link
It's a software issue, and like many previous software issues AMD has had (particularly with Microsoft Windows) it will be sorted out.Blastdoor - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
Nice to see that AMD's 2024 top of the line chip fabbed on TSMC N4 can beat Intel's best 2023 chip fabbed on Intel 7.I look forward to seeing how it does against Intel's best 2024 chip fabbed on Intel 20A.
eva02langley - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
You probably missed the part about Intel Raptor Lakes Woes. Go back and read it.Also,
"The Ryzen 9 9950X was 33% faster than the Intel Core i9 14900K performance overall and even the Ryzen 9 9900X was 18% faster than the Core i9 14900K. For those still on AM4, the Ryzen 9 9950X was delivering 1.87x the performance of the Ryzen 9 5950X processor. These are some great gains found with the Ryzen 9 9900 series."
-Phoronix
temps - Thursday, August 15, 2024 - link
Anybody buying a 9950X to do "content creation" on a Linux computer ... is the content they're creating about their struggles doing content creation on a Linux PC?Gigaplex - Thursday, August 15, 2024 - link
Linux is fine for content creation.PeachNCream - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
This exchange about "content creation" is a good example of why vague categories are so useful for marketing because it leaves the advertisers in a comfortable place where the targets of their ads are left to interpret what those words mean and that meaning, since it's ill-defined, can vary quite widely leading to legal immunity for sales speech. Meanwhile, people also tend to end up in an argument without being thoughtful enough to factor in potential differences in personal application of meaning to a given thing. We're quite a silly species.GeoffreyA - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
"We're quite a silly species."We're in need of a major update, Service Pack level :)
Oxford Guy - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
"We're quite a silly species."Understatement of the century.
temps - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
I do audio, there is still not a single workable daw for Linux so no, it is not. In fact it's utterly uselessOxford Guy - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
AI is coming for your job, anyway. : )shabby - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
Intel is on 10nm desktop parts now, you expect them to skip a few nodes medically?shabby - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
Magicallyeva02langley - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
Well, they will by going with TSMC, but it will also bring a new set of issues like max frequencies, density and power.I am not sure Intel will be able to redo another Raptor Like trick on TSMC.
kwohlt - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
Not magically. After Intel 7, Intel released Intel 4 last year for laptop only. Then after that, they released Intel 3, which is only being used in Xeon (SRF already launched, GNR soon).Then after that is 20A, which will be a token ARL SKU which most of the ARL/LNL volume being on TSMC N3B. N3B is several nodes past Intel 7. 20A (and 18A next year) is several nodes past Intel 7.
"Intel" didn't skip several nodes. They just haven't released any desktop parts on the 2 nodes they've released since Intel 7
Khanan - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
So now I’m finished reading the whole thing. Typical new launch CPU issues, how many times did I read about problems with new CPUs at launch? It happens more often than it doesn’t, these things will be ironed out, it’s not a big problem.Worrying here is only for me the strict Anandtech enforcement of going with extremely slow RAM, which, as you can see nearly everywhere, just chokes those 16 cores. It’s evident that it needs way faster RAM to properly function, here the author or Anandtech missed the chance to test it also (not only) with proper RAM with at least 6400 and better even 7000-8000 speeds. Dual channel isn’t a lot for 16 cores, 16 cores used to have quad channel, if you just have dual channel you should use proper RAM and not the absolute slowest possible, as was used here (the minimum spec, more or less, and now don’t come and tell me you could’ve used even lower 4800s instead). So this is kinda 9950X for me in a worst case scenario, in a lot of the tests, maybe not all of them. Otherwise good review.
ikjadoon - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
Core parking doesn't always "ironed out", does it? Some users still have difficulties with the Zen4 X3D CPUs, nearly 2 years later, sadly. It seems to require too much software intervention. That core parking depending on Windows-level drivers is especially problematic to me: who knows what bugs the next Windows update will bring?I'd much rather have a reliable 100%-working 9700X 8C than a 95%-working 9950X 16C, but that's me and my low priority for nT workloads.
//
Re: DRAM. This is a time-honored and well-defended practice to use the *highest* DRAM AMD has specified. If all Zen5 AMD CPU IMCs can reliably hit 6000 Mbps on the DRAM, then AMD should allow that. Why is AMD holding back? Is AMD willingly destroying its Zen5 performance?! No, my friend.
AMD specifically refused / failed to bin Zen5 CPUs for 6400 due to IMC & fabric issues (see below). This is AMD's choice. With the ongoing Intel 13th/14th gen debacle, I think it's the wrong move to ask reviewers to go above & beyond the CPU manufacturers spec.
//
Hardware Unboxed shared AMD's reviewer's guide for Zen5. Again, AMD has recommended 6000 Mbps as the DRAM sweet spot, noting IMC and Fabric clocks. See here:
https://youtu.be/IeBruhhigPI?t=1456
6400+ or higher can even cause lower performance for some kits and some users. Thus, 6000 Mbps is AMD's official highest-recommended EXPO / OC speed and 5600 Mbps is the guaranteed speed.
We should benchmark CPUs at guaranteed speeds, not "usually it works" speeds.
tommo1982 - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
"... We should benchmark CPUs at guaranteed speeds, not "usually it works" speeds."Agreed. My Ryzen 5 Pro 3350G can make Win10 throw blue screen if I set RAM to 3200MHz. It's random, and each time I need to configure RAM speed again, because BIOS returns to defaults.
I want benchmarks done with what the manufacturer recommends. I want to know what I can expect from the BOX, not a promise. I don't see the reason to bend to requests of a minority of users, where majority doesn't know what overclocking is.
Scabies - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
Page two, paragraphs one and two.ondma - Thursday, August 15, 2024 - link
I dont even consider AnandTech gaming reviews anymore. They are trash. That being said, AMD itself has said DDR5 6000 is the optimal ram speed for Zen 5. Techspot used that in their tests and the results were no better, about a 1% improvement in gaming for the 13 game average.Oxford Guy - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
Anandtech used to be a site that pumped CPU-killing levels of voltage into CPUs for overclocking and considered the overclock stable if it didn't crash benchmarks.It changed to be a site that won't use XMP and similar because it's warranty-voiding overclocking.
I was very critical of that but I will say that I am tired of AMD and Intel having their cake and eating it. If AMD is going to tell reviewers the 'sweet spot' is 6000 and the CPUs aren't given a warranty/validation for 6000, then AMD should be told where the plank is to walk from.
erotomania - Tuesday, August 20, 2024 - link
AT writes stories for tech enthusiasts to read, but refuses to test a system equipped like a tech enthusiast would set it up. That's been frustrating for at least a decade. Very un-Anand like. I see their argument, but this isn't consumer retorts.Chaser - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
I think I'm done with this "core parking" nonsense. With the X3D CPUs the CCD parking issue is controlled by the MB's BIOS, the AMD driver, and the Microsoft Game Bar Too many moving parts. And, if you change your AMD X3D CPU to a single CCD or a non X3D CPU you have to reinstall Windows completely to prevent performance degradations.This is primitive nonsense. Intel may run hotter, and be a little slower in gaming, but you get all the cores up to their full TDP regardless of the workload without the V-Cache CCD chaos.
lmcd - Thursday, August 15, 2024 - link
I think the X3D single CCD part is a great product, and an "extreme" edition with 2 X3D CCDs should be made available, but the 1 CCD with 1 without design isn't good.Oxford Guy - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
Intel sells CPUs with small cores and large cores. That's a kludge, too. Get used to these kludges because they're the new reality.Makaveli - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
If you are on Zen 4 you can skip this your next upgrade is Zen 6 and a new motherboard.For those of us on Zen 3 or lower Zen 5 is a good move.
ondma - Thursday, August 15, 2024 - link
Even if upgrading from Zen 3 or older, right now it is hard to recommend Zen 5 over Zen 4, at least until the price comes down on Zen 5. Zen 5 offers negligible performance gains at a higher price. I suppose you could argue Zen 5 is more "future proof" if AVX 512 suddenly becomes mainstream, but it has been around a long time and is still a niche instruction set.GeoffreyA - Thursday, August 15, 2024 - link
AVX-512 is used in different video encoders and decoders: x265, SVT-AV1, and dav1d at the least, possibly x264 and FFmpeg, and I am sure elsewhere too. So it is available in quite common software used today.Oxford Guy - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
Didn't this site have at least one custom benchmark designed specifically to showcase AVX-512 performance in CPU reviews?I don't know if there were more than one. I do recall, though, that the AVX-512 performance of Intel CPUs at the time was considered important enough to showcase, and not merely in an article specific to AVX-512 performance.
GeoffreyA - Saturday, August 17, 2024 - link
I think the 3DPMv2 benchmark. All it did was show how much faster Intel was than the competition. It took a lot of criticism and was called unrealistic.TheinsanegamerN - Monday, August 19, 2024 - link
And how many people are encoding video even on a monthly basis?For decode, well, I can decode 4k video just fine on my zen 3 rig, so its not necessary. AVX512 is a nice to have, not a necessity.
GeoffreyA - Monday, August 19, 2024 - link
Certainly. AVX2 tends to be the baseline nowadays. I'm just pointing out that AVX-512 *is* used in common software.GeoffreyA - Monday, August 19, 2024 - link
The weakness in AMD's strategy is that this is becoming like 3DNow! All Intel has to do is cut out AVX-512, and it will, possibly, die off. Programmers won't want to write code not used on both sides.Oxford Guy - Thursday, August 22, 2024 - link
Intel has been like Lucy with the football with AVX-512 and I think the buck is stopping.AMD has become a force to reckon with, especially given how weak Intel is, in terms of competing. I don't think Intel has the luxury to play Lucy with AVX-512 now.
Jorgp2 - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
Could the high latencies be the hardware bug which caused the delay?Slash3 - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
It's almost certainly a core wake delay from the use of the Balanced power profile.Staying on Balanced allows core parking for power savings and effective CPPC scheduling, but at the expense of constant core sleep/wake cycles. Switching to High Performance should solve the inter-CCD delay (cores do not full sleep, plus the Infinity Fabric does not downclock), but at the expense of disabling the CPPC scheduler. Easy to test.
aron9621 - Sunday, August 18, 2024 - link
With the High performance power profile selected the core to core latency numbers stay the same. Just tested it on my 9950x.Axiomatic - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
I'll keep my 7950x for now. Not liking the PPM driver requirement. I wonder how much better the new linux 6.12 kernel will perform with the 9950x with its new AMD specific cpu scheduler? It certainly doesn't need the PPM driver.GeoffreyA - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
Thanks, Gavin. Great review, and well written: I chuckled quite a few times with the humorous commentary, such as, "Winning comes at a cost," or it takes "every joule in sight."As for the PPM issues, that's poor testing on AMD's part, but I'm sure they'll fix it soon. Reminds me of when Ryzen first came out, and there were deficits in games because of suboptimal scheduling. Otherwise, strong CPUs.
Kamen Rider Blade - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
Process Lasso is your friend, I wouldn't trust Intel or AMD to properly park my Processes.dwillmore - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
It might be nice to see the results of y-cruncher that support Zen-5. You're using the last version *before* support was added. It's also from September of 2023.529th - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
Could be related to what Jay2cents discovered,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wdQpVcL_a4
529th - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
Sorry, the YT vid is about Core Parking fix and GamingIketh - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
Small gripe. You use "here" far too often. It never needs said at all.coburn_c - Wednesday, August 14, 2024 - link
The clocks make this a hard pass with X3D coming.boozed - Thursday, August 15, 2024 - link
Very interesting. I think I probably already know the answer but was comment on the issues you found sought from AMD prior to publication, and if so was there a response?Looks like I too will be waiting for the next single-CCD X3D.
trivik12 - Thursday, August 15, 2024 - link
Only huge boost is with AVX-512 loads which is useless for real life applications on client side. Otherwise Zen 5 has been the most meh upgrade from AMD in a while. its not shocking as there is only so much one can do to boost IPC and performance.Let us wait for Turin review and comp with Granite Rapids. That should be more interesting.
On client side Apple M series is the boss. Their IPC is so much better and higher performance despite lower clockspeeds. I hope X Elite 2 on N3P can produce something competitive. I am pessimistic on x86 chips coming close to Apple.
Oxford Guy - Saturday, August 17, 2024 - link
'Only huge boost is with AVX-512 loads which is useless for real life applications on client side.'Not really, although it doesn't help that Intel wasn't consistent with the deployment of that feature.
ondma - Thursday, August 15, 2024 - link
Wow, the AMD apologists are out in full force. Reminds me of the Bulldozer days: "It's a great chip, just wait till the software catches up." Remember, though, these are consumer chips, not enterprise/server, so for the market it will be sold to, there is basically no improvement over the previous generation. Very disappointing release from AMD, and I don't expect much improvement performance wise for Arrow Lake either, except hopefully they solved the stability issues and lower power consumption. Even worse, it looks like another 2 years before a new desktop lineup from either manufacturer (Zen 6 or Nova Lake). So there is a good chance by 2026/27 we could have gone 4 years without significant performance increases for consumer desktop. Yikes!!evanh - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
The IPC gains are really there if you filter out the overreactions of the reviewers themselves. The real question is how come that isn't translating to gains across the board like it normally would. Games in particular normally love a boost to IPC. There's a mystery to be solved here.Oxford Guy - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
'Reminds me of the Bulldozer days'Ridiculous hyperbole. These CPUs are highly competitive, unlike Bulldozer.
GeoffreyA - Sunday, August 18, 2024 - link
There's a narrative going on that Zen 5 is a failure.Oxford Guy - Thursday, August 22, 2024 - link
It's not a failure. It may not be terribly impressive but it's not a failure. Bulldozer was a failure.GeoffreyA - Friday, August 23, 2024 - link
Yes. Once the scheduler issues are fixed, or those relating to the admin account, whatever they are causing, branch prediction or otherwise, Zen 5 will be shown in a truer light. It is an excellent series bogged down by problems on the OS side.TheinsanegamerN - Monday, August 19, 2024 - link
That's a red herring. Both are being sold on a feature that isnt used yet.Oxford Guy - Thursday, August 22, 2024 - link
Given how poor the competition is from Intel, the red herring is expecting Zen 5 to be a big improvement in anything other than AVX-512.If Intel were in a highly competitive position it would be different.
Heavensrevenge - Thursday, August 15, 2024 - link
The biggest problem is using Microsoft Windows for the benchmark platform, Linux benchmarks show the true numbers AMD can give, it's just that the Windows kernel isn't using the hardware to it's potential but Linux can.ondma - Thursday, August 15, 2024 - link
Huh?? The "true" numbers you get are the numbers you get with the operating system you are using.TheinsanegamerN - Monday, August 19, 2024 - link
Huh?? The "true" numbers for hardware are what the hardware provides, if your OS is screwing up those numbers, that error should be corrected.James5mith - Thursday, August 15, 2024 - link
Seems like the interim answer while you wait for a fix from AMD is simply to re-run the tests without the PPM driver.Dante Verizon - Thursday, August 15, 2024 - link
Does Zen 5 use mesh instead of ring bus? If so, that's the explanation for the horrible latency.evanh - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
How come the latency is so bad is something that needs investigating. The poor latency to DRAM could explain why games are hit hard. They tend to need large amounts of main memory and rapidly bounce around it. Which will also be why the X3D parts excel in that environment.evanh - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
PS: It was noted by TechPowerUp that disabling SMT has a positive effect on most tests, not just games. Which should be the other way around.Ryan Smith - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
The latency to DRAM is fine (~94ns for a 128MB access). The oddity we're looking into right now is the die-to-die latency. It's taking around 200ns for one CCD to reach the other.evanh - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
Ah, right, thanks for the correction. Fingers crossed it has a rectification.jcc5169 - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
After reading lots of other reviews, Anandtech's reviews are incomplete. This is more of an Intel counter-espionage article than anything else. You will probably need to redo these in about 4 weeks.evanh - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
Gaming tests, on Windoze at least, have universally been below expectations. Doesn't matter which review site you read.evanh - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
And it really is a puzzle because single core productivity and IPC testing do show excellent uplift. That should be good news for games but isn't. Why?Oxford Guy - Friday, August 16, 2024 - link
'All of the Ryzen 9000 series processors use the same AM5 socket as the previous Ryzen 7000 (Zen 4) series, which means users can use current X670E and X670 motherboards with the new chips. Unfortunately, as we highlighted in our Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 5 9600X review, the X870E/X870 motherboards, which were meant to launch alongside the Ryzen 9000 series, won't be available until sometime in September.'How unfortunate is this in the big picture? Intel likes to arbitrarily obsolete the current motherboards when it releases a chip series.
ballsystemlord - Saturday, August 17, 2024 - link
@Gavin , The image for 1080p AV1 encoding, here: https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph21524/136...Is partially cut off. You might want to fix that.
icf80 - Saturday, August 17, 2024 - link
Is core parking affecting the inter-CCD latencies?icf80 - Sunday, August 18, 2024 - link
Does the latencies between CCDs depend on the speed of infinity fabric or DRAM settings? It would be interesting to test this. Is it possible to adjunt de IF speed?Bruzzone - Monday, August 19, 2024 - link
Don't believe everything that some PC media, stuck in their benchmarking segment caught up in their application box, then acting as a catalyst for others to shoot from the hip mimicking repeaters engaged in a false narrative promoting a herd effect reporting on Granite Ridge adoption "stalling' in sales channelsAMD relying on buyers for R9K validation ahead of Arrow there is so much back generation to sell; R7K, R5K, Raptors, Alder before Granite Ridge and Arrow producer (q4 OEM) ramp. PC market continues in a deflationary downward price spiral into q1 2025 probably all the way into summer 2025; CPU, dGPU, cases, boards you name it all has to liquidate to finance channel procurements into 2025.
R9K between Thursday and Saturday cleared down < 66% and it appears box processor got a restock on Saturday 17th. There are a lot more SI PC offered then boxed R9K CPU and those SI PC' are clearing their current run end full kit from the channel.
R9K price is held up by the channel to clear back generations R7K/R5K, Raptors, Alders and laptops wow there are a lot of laptops to clear and there are R9K CPU price premiums to margin cost offset the clearance sales. Today WW channel 9950X ask $689 to $1050, 9900X ask $499 to $782, 9700X ask $359 to $591, 9600X ask $279 to $484 so shop around if you can on geographic location.
Here is what AMD sells R9K for to volume customers which is the retail cost; 9950X = $486, 9900X = $375. 9700x = $270, 9600X = $210 so in relation AMD MSRP that is a + 33% margin across the board if there are no price premiums albeit there can be even for end user buyer beta evaluators (knowing and unknowing, voluntary and involuntary) until all the older products sells off.
Remember the AMD and Intel basic price to volume retail seller rule SO you know what the volume seller paid and in a kit purchase know you get what u negotiate. AMD CPU rule is MSRP / 3 * 1.5 is volume seller cost. For Intel its $1K AWP / 2.
I am monitoring the situation to validate R9K desktop sales out the gate were other than fleeting on initial interest.
One thing is certain through, current and back one generation AMD and Intel desktop processors and laptops are being discounted and the pricing only gets better between now and year end because the channel must liquidate current inventories to financial next generation procurements.
mb
ballsystemlord - Monday, August 19, 2024 - link
My question is, why $650 for the new R9950X? That's not competitive at all IMHO.Bruzzone - Wednesday, August 21, 2024 - link
Note I have reworked this on missing a tier of distribution.Why $650 for 9950X and the answer is channel mark up and to cost loss offset Raphael R7K and Vermeer R5K discounting to clear channel inventories.
.
9950X = $216 from TSMC and TSMC makes approximately x3 over cost.
AMD 9950X high volume price is $325 suspect 3 M unit procurement estimated on AMD top 10 customers divided into suspect full run production. This high volume price supports OEM resale to secondary distributors. The mid volume price is $487 that would include volume retail. Low volume tray of 10, $1K < 10% and where MSRP = $649. So, a mid-volume buyer can make + 33%
9950X = $216, $325, $487, $649
9900X = $166, $250, $375, $499
9700X = $120, $180, $269, $359
9600X = $93 (about $28 over TSMC cost), $140, $209, $279
10 OEMs on a 3 million unit procurement $223 to $289 with a sliding discount on 9600X down to AMD cost for meeting their full run contract sales objective.
This appears to be how AMD product’s total revenue potential is dived between the primary stakeholders,
TSMC takes 28.25%
AMD takes 49% < costs where R&D is variable and earns net after tax.
Top 10 customers as PC suppliers and CPU master distributors take up to 22.6%
mb
ballsystemlord - Thursday, August 22, 2024 - link
Thanks!Bruzzone - Friday, August 23, 2024 - link
You're welcome, anytime, your inquiry caused me to consider the data more thoroughly. mbSilver5urfer - Tuesday, August 20, 2024 - link
Now that the dust has settled.I really appreciate AT reviews. And as always again, AT did a great job over the stupid HWU and GN's subpar reviews. Esp the videos on YT. Anandtech shows both the IPC gains in SPEC score but also translation failure on Windows, specifically mentioned how PPM ruins the CPUs. Most of the YT content is focusing on the here's the review guidelines and here's the game tests and here's some special workloads which they use a set of rendering techniques in Blender etc.
But Phoronix and AT have consistent written articles, AT here clearly showing the CCD interdie latency, that's the culprit here. AMD's poor choice of re-using the Zen 4 IODie is causing this alongside lack of IMC improvement. Many circulate BS such as AMD is using Mesh vs Ring, it's nonsense. The thing is AMD's CCD design since Zen 3 is using a hybrid of mesh and ring bus. Check Ian's article on that. So that's not the issue unless Zen 5 exclusively changed something big, which I doubt since this is just a revision of Zen 4.
RKL also had IPC gain but showed regression due to 14nm++ backport and 2C4T deficit and IMC regression. IPC SPEC does not always translate, AMD's major screw up is relying on a Software scheduler on top of the rehashed Zen 4 design causing this massive confusion.
Next is Power. This is never mentioned, the thing is AMD with Zen 5 went super conservative for some stupid reason and ruined the CPU boost and base clocks on all SKUs. Even the top bin dual CCD 9950X got that regression in base clocks. Basically AMD axed the TDP of the Zen 5 CPUs to match the Zen 4 lineup and killed the performance on these. I have always wondered why AM5 boards have tons of VRM but no CPU to utilize them, any X670E board VRM is capable of delivering over 350-400W of power to CPU but the AM5 PPT / Socket max is 250W top, maybe 270W if you push to extreme, so they are hard capped unlike Intel. AMD should have increased the AM5's socket power band to 300W to let them boost and unlock more performance. The 9700X is a massive L due to this huge power cut from 105W to 65W, they also nerfed 12C 9900X from 175W to 120W.
Also perhaps AMD wanted Zen 6 to shine brighter just like Intel Alder Lake, Intel killed LGA1200 with garbage RKL release and EOLed it to make the ADL look massive. Not that nefarious but in some extent AMD seems to take a page out of Intel. Esp given the fact on Intel's ARL lacking Hyperthreading cores and loss of Clockspeed from Raptor Lake (Disaster) 6.2GHz. And that gives AM5 to have Zen 6 with huge boost over Zen 4, 100% sure that Zen 6 will get new IODie and newer TSMC big node jump atop maybe a new chipset.
All in all AMD's Zen 5 is a real dissapointment, since AM4 triumph. AMD always delivered lot of performance all the way from Zen -> Zen + improving CCD, Clockspeed, IMC -> Zen 2 lot of changes to the CCD and IODie -> Zen 3 a totally new design and radical departure of NUMA system plus higher boost clocks -> Zen 4 decoupled a lot of baggage on IF links from Uclock / Mclock / IFclock to just 2 links as Uclock and Mclock and massive Clockspeed boost and super stable platform unlike Zen 3 / AM4's USB I/O issues, there also the GloFo's IODie caused a havoc, here its the not stable amalgamation of the older IODie with newer Zen 5 core. Turin will shatter performance because it won't be sandbagged by this weakpoint.
Shame since AMD lost a glorious chance to completely ruin Intel (They deserve at this point, killed Optane, ruined CPU desktop arena with Big little junk, absolutely insane California policies adoption, total disaster in 10nm delivery, hamfisting LGA1200 socket, CPU bending on LGA1700, Raptor lake failure... unending list, such as Gloo / NSO spyware / Unit 8200 sponsorship from Pat Gelsinger), AMD would have destroyed Intel but they chose not to.
That said if ARL performs better than Zen 5, that shame AMD will face would be totally deserving for ruining Zen5.
GeoffreyA - Tuesday, August 20, 2024 - link
I also think the reusing of Zen 4's I/O die is causing the latency issues. Something is suboptimal somewhere along line.As for the lowering of power, they certainly seem to have ample headroom to raise it, gaining performance. Perhaps they thought that Zen 4 was using too much and wanted to curtail it, to contrast favourably with Intel. Lowering power while raising IPC always pays off later. Perhaps it's got to do with the I/O die. Maybe they're laying the foundation for further widening of the core and reduction in frequency. Indeed, they made the decoder a two-by-four cluster but it is not doing much in Zen 5, diminished by the effect of the micro-op cache. Or perhaps they've made a chain of poor decisions.
AnitaPeterson - Thursday, August 22, 2024 - link
What I'd like to see now is a direct comparison to AM4.Specifically, to the AM4 SKUs that were most recently launched - from the 5700x 3D to the 5900XT.
Because AM4 is mentioned in the conclusion, but there's no direct testing to pit the two generations against each other.
jcc5169 - Thursday, August 22, 2024 - link
Are you going to publish AMD's response?jcc5169 - Friday, August 23, 2024 - link
Of course not. I wonder if Intel compensated the writer or this site.AnitaPeterson - Friday, August 23, 2024 - link
Which AMD response would that be? Genuinely curious.GeoffreyA - Friday, August 23, 2024 - link
https://community.amd.com/t5/gaming/ryzen-9000-ser...Silver5urfer - Saturday, August 24, 2024 - link
So looking at the response, seems like a Windows OS dependent update. That is ok but it's not going to save the Zen 5 flaws. Plus more over what about Windows 10 ? I honestly have no idea why the damn reviewers do not even care as if Win10 vanished. That OS is far more robust over the garbage Win11 which did regression in CPU performance due (VBS) to some Kernel level changes and the Shell32 / Win32 downgrades plus explorer.exe downgrades AND QA went into sewage. Microsoft is already pathetic in Windows ever since they sacked Terry, Chief of Windows for 20+ years and they dissolved Windows dept exclusivity to some Cloud department and that Panos Panay ruined whatever left of it and left the company. The mismanagement at Microsoft is astounding and these HW companies still lick the boot of the company so badly so do the dummy users who are braindead.GeoffreyA - Saturday, August 24, 2024 - link
I think AMD's tone in that blog isn't right. Sure, mistakes are made: that's no problem. Apologise and fix it. Here, they've spun it in such a way that no fault lies with them. AMD of early Zen would apologise and take accountability. Seems they're changing as their coffers get loaded.Regarding Windows 10, who knows if it'll get the update. Maybe not. Windows 10, in itself, works well. I've never had an issue in the five years of using it. But it is slowly on the way out. There are no more feature updates, it's stuck at Build 19045, and all the development effort is going into 11.
Oxford Guy - Saturday, August 24, 2024 - link
AMD is no better than Intel, which is to be expected since it's a corporation.Remember the FX 9000 series (leaky, too demanding for most AM3+ boards, and massively overpriced on the basis of the deceptive 8-core claim*)? The Radeon VII (unnecessarily small die clocked way too high)?
*Deceptive, not because it didn't have 8 cores but mainly because its cores were weak, even without considering that there were only 4 FPU units, although that definitely did not help.
These companies will milk people for all they can, like Intel is with the ongoing scam vis-à-vis its time bomb high-voltage CPUs.
Oxford Guy - Saturday, August 24, 2024 - link
Another favourite AMD anecdote is how Su gave a presentation in which she unveiled the roadmap for Polaris and Vega. Oh, Vega will come out shortly. But, it did not. Instead, AMD milked customers with its "Polaris Forever" campaign. When Vega did arrive it had inadequate cooling and the same IPC as Fury X. All that time waiting for a part that only had a higher clock (thanks to the process shrink) and more VRAM to provide the illusion of significant progress.GeoffreyA - Sunday, August 25, 2024 - link
In the Bulldozer era, AMD was well known for promising and not delivering, and even when there were improvements, such as across Bulldozer's four iterations, one was sceptical, and the Radeon story was little better. From Zen, they fulfilled their promises or over-delivered. Slowly, they earned our trust, and one could believe the general picture of AMD's marketing. Making mistakes, they took accountability and fixed it. So, it was somewhat surprising to see the tone of that blog, when there are clear issues with Zen 5. If they go on like this, the trust they've earned will be lost. As a plus, they've become greedier since the early days of Zen.jcc5169 - Sunday, August 25, 2024 - link
What's interesting is the difference between performance on Windows and Linux.jcc5169 - Sunday, August 25, 2024 - link
Described here ...https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-promises-windows-1...
cryosx - Monday, August 26, 2024 - link
Might need to retest with 24h2 windows update, cause gaming is seeing an average 10% uplift for both zen4 and zen5evanh - Monday, August 26, 2024 - link
And apparently Intel parts too. That now begs the question as to what M$ has done to Windoze to allow branch prediction to magically get better?GeoffreyA - Tuesday, August 27, 2024 - link
Possibly, it's some mitigation related to speculative execution or indirect branch prediction being enabled on these CPUs, slowing down performance. As can be seen, there are many settings in Win32 concerning speculative execution.https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/ap...
evanh - Tuesday, August 27, 2024 - link
The CPUs are speeding up in the latest Win update. Not slowing down.GeoffreyA - Tuesday, August 27, 2024 - link
I should have used was, but that's what I meant. The update has, perhaps, reversed some unneeded mitigation.