The practical 'average consumer' argument in this case would be 'I need the CPU that delivers at least 60-165FPS+ depending on needs' after the GPU bottleneck has been removed. The fact that you're pretending not to know this only detracts from the quality of the conversation.It's similar to CPU scaling benchmarks for video games, which are usually performed at low resolutions to ensure there isn't a GPU bottleneck. The practical 'average consumer' argument would be "well at 1440p/4k CPU selection doesn't matter because all the CPUs will be within a few frames of each other". What's the point in even benchmarking then?
In that case why don’t AMD simply increase the number of wafers they order from TSMC? If you say AMD can use those extra wafers for more laptop chips, and that the market would absorb those chips, that is.
Are we talking physical or logical cores?That being said, it's interesting that you bring up video games in this discussion, considering many games have a hard time scaling strongly past 6-8 cores. Do you reckon game reviewers should intentionally favor games with high MT scaling in their roundups? We all know future titles will scale better with more cores [...]
TSMC N5/N4 nodes are not running at full utilisation currently (?). So AMD could buy more capacity yes?Wafers aren't like loaves of bread where you can just drop by the store and pick up another when you need it. AMD would have purchased the wafer allotments they are using now well before the present the time, and adding additional production would require first that some other company not wanting to use the wafer allotments it purchased and AMD being willing to pay more than anyone else who might also want them.
Even if they could get more wafers, if AMD could make more profit from using them for increasing their share in any other market segment, they'd do that first.
Chasing market share for its own sake is foolish and shortsighted. Apple could probably sell twice as many Macs by cutting the prices substantially, but then they wouldn't be nearly as profitable.
The src is a db that has a front end web app , we have scenarios where people don't have inet access but the data is important/useful. So yes in this case excel is an offline database....lolMy god man, quit abusing the tool and put that $@#% into a database.
Poor excel, it should not have to stand for such abuse!
This from an excel user =)
there's a few neato databases like sqlite and duckdb for which presumably the same front end could be used offline though they'd have to run a web server locally (stranger things have been done).The src is a db that has a front end web app , we have scenarios where people don't have inet access but the data is important/useful. So yes in this case excel is an offline database....lol
you dont want to know how many million dollar mistakes my program ( not even company ) has had from bad excel.............there's a few neato databases like sqlite and duckdb for which presumably the same front end could be used offline though they'd have to run a web server locally (stranger things have been done).
anyway I think it is a proven fact: there's no getting business away from misuing Excel except sometimes managers want to misuse Google Sheets too
I never said so either. Of course they must order wafers well in advance, juts like everyone else.Wafers aren't like loaves of bread where you can just drop by the store and pick up another when you need it.
One does not rule out the other. They can order enough wafers to cover both the additional laptop chips, and whatever other chips you think they can make sufficient profit from.Even if they could get more wafers, if AMD could make more profit from using them for increasing their share in any other market segment, they'd do that first.
This is the main point. So you mean AMD could only gain market share in the laptop segment by entering into a price war? I.e. not because their laptop CPUs are good anough to sell more of at their current pricing?Chasing market share for its own sake is foolish and shortsighted. Apple could probably sell twice as many Macs by cutting the prices substantially, but then they wouldn't be nearly as profitable.
I guess you mean it’s MLID that claims 10-15%. But which leak is it that claims 30%?As for Zen5, we have two leaks that say the IPC increase is:
1. 10-15%+
2. 30%.
Yes, you are right that this slide showing Zen 5 and Zen 6 supposedly from AMD publishes the MLID.I guess you mean it’s MLID that claims 10-15%. But which leak is it that claims 30%?
Yes, you are right that this slide showing Zen 5 and Zen 6 supposedly from AMD publishes the MLID.
As for the 30% higher IPC, maybe it's not the MLID, although I don't know why I assumed that was leaking from it. Either way, there are rumors floating around the internet about +30%.
All in all, it doesn't change the tone of my statement. Regardless of which point on the IPC growth curve we draw from the leaks, we may still be close to the truth, and the question is how to interpret the numbers someone provides (regardless of whether they were made up or not).
The Zen3 IPC growth curve ranges from +1% to +46% (one load +109%), and the average of this curve is +19%.
Someone (I mean leaks) saying that the increase in IPC is, among other things, +30% or +20-30% means nothing if we do not know whether this increase is within the average IPC growth curve. Without knowing what specific type of load they refer to, these are rather empty numbers.
RAM bandwidth is a limit for 16 cores, but not for single-threaded workloads. Besides, there are always some bottlenecks even in the core microarchitecture itself, which will also be in Zen5, and some of them will be removed in Zen6 and subsequent generations. And so on without end.isnt the MILD data SIR for a platform that has significantly more core then the predecessor but not significantly more memory bandwidth?
yes read what i wrote.RAM bandwidth is a limit for 16 cores, but not for single-threaded workloads.
I really hope this is not what adroc means when he says he would sound schizo if he told us how fast Zen 5 really is.(one load +109%)
I guess that's what he meant, unfortunately it's true, we don't know the average Zen5 IPC growth curve.I really hope this is not what adroc means when he says he would sound schizo if he told us how fast Zen 5 really is.
TSMC N5/N4 nodes are not running at full utilisation currently (?). So AMD could buy more capacity yes?
Thought it was @adroc_thurston mentioning +32% for SIR? Or am I misremembering?isnt the MILD data SIR for a platform that has significantly more core then the predecessor but not significantly more memory bandwidth?
He said 32 for spec int 1t, but then we yolo'd to 41% , and that's the current position of the hype train that I'm all aboard for.....Thought it was @adroc_thurston mentioning +32% for SIR? Or am I misremembering?
(I mean come on... 287 pages for a cpu that hasn't even been released yet... this thread is hard to keep up with... )
pffft... this is not an Intel thread...What? I thought the we all agreed on a -5% antihype train
The AMD hype train giveth... and taketh away.What? I thought the we all agreed on a -5% antihype train
im still waiting for the low ballers to explain how from zen 1 to 4, core width didn't grow and OOOE window increased a small amount ( especially relative to others ) while doing ~ 50% more ipc and yet going to 6 wide plus a whole new fronted we know nothing about except its big shinny and new and we are getting -5 to 15% with clock regression.....The AMD hype train giveth... and taketh away.