3900X has the same score too. Looks like a weird benchmark. Also we don't know clock speeds.Matching 16 core Zen3 Threadripper is crazy! That thing has a 280W TDP and over 200GB/s bandwidth from 8-channel DDR4.
38 in the OP code means it's limited at 3.8 GHz, doesn't it?3900X has the same score too. Looks like a weird benchmark. Also we don't know clock speeds.
I'm not sure that's what 38 means. And since this is STX1 we don't know if it's Zen5 or Zen5c clocks38 in the OP code means it's limite do 3.8 GHz, doesn't it?
That's also true, power limit is also unknownI'm not sure that's what 38 means. And since this is STX1 we don't know if it's Zen5 or Zen5c clocks
Easy now, from the same results:Matching 16 core Zen3 Threadripper is crazy! That thing has a 280W TDP and over 200GB/s bandwidth from 8-channel DDR4.
I'm not sure that's what 38 means. And since this is STX1 we don't know if it's Zen5 or Zen5c clocks
That would mean lower IPC than Zen2, which I think is a bit unlikelyIn principle this is the base frequency, this was always the case for AMD s ESs since a decade if not more.
Before I can offer some input, what’s the difference with a Zen5 and Zen5c core?Easy now, from the same results:
- 7845HX gets 356.92 - this is a chiplet-based 12 core (repurposed desktop) CPU (1 result in database)
- 7700X (desktop) gets 269.02 (24 results)
- 7940HS gets 224.22 (16 results)
- 7840U gets 216.09 (1 result) and 153.31 (for 5 results) not sure why they are separate
- 8840U gets 205.62 (1result)
So in the end it all depends on what TDP that chip was running at. Let's not forget it's a 12 core chip.
These numbers are very-very impressive numbers if configured for a TDP of a 15 - 28W U level chip (e.g. 7840U).
Not so much so for a 35-54W HS chip (as it's only about 20% faster than a 7940HS with 50% more cores)
Similar to the GB5 results, FP/vector ops seems to not have as much gain as the rest.Easy now, from the same results:
- 7845HX gets 356.92 - this is a chiplet-based 12 core (repurposed desktop) CPU (1 result in database)
- 7700X (desktop) gets 269.02 (24 results)
- 7940HS gets 224.22 (16 results)
- 7840U gets 216.09 (1 result) and 153.31 (for 5 results) not sure why they are separate
- 8840U gets 205.62 (1result)
So in the end it all depends on what TDP that chip was running at. Let's not forget it's a 12 core chip.
These numbers are very-very impressive numbers if configured for a TDP of a 15 - 28W U level chip (e.g. 7840U).
Not so much so for a 35-54W HS chip (as it's only about 20% faster than a 7940HS with 50% more cores)
That would mean lower IPC than Zen2, which I think is a bit unlikely
| Ryzen 7 7700X DDR5-5200CL32 | 10:40 |
| Ryzen 9 7950X (45 W) DDR5-5200CL32 | 12:45 |
| Ryzen 9 7900X (45 W) DDR5-5200CL32 | 13:42 |
It's just posting following image:Don't wonna log into twitter, what does this one say? Please summarize the tweet if you're just posting a link
yessir.They fit 16 chiplets plus giant IO die on one package?
Really funky, world-class substrate design!Honestly It was already bonkers with 12 CCDs
Easy now, from the same results:
- 7845HX gets 356.92 - this is a chiplet-based 12 core (repurposed desktop) CPU (1 result in database)
- 7700X (desktop) gets 269.02 (24 results)
- 7940HS gets 224.22 (16 results)
- 7840U gets 216.09 (1 result) and 153.31 (for 5 results) not sure why they are separate
- 8840U gets 205.62 (1result)
So in the end it all depends on what TDP that chip was running at. Let's not forget it's a 12 core chip.
These numbers are very-very impressive numbers if configured for a TDP of a 15 - 28W U level chip (e.g. 7840U).
Not so much so for a 35-54W HS chip (as it's only about 20% faster than a 7940HS with 50% more cores)
You're close!If we extrapolate from the Computerbase test and using the 70W lower bound to not overestimate the calculation then this Strix Point ES perform 26% better than a 7940HS@70W and about 52% better than a 7940HS@45W, so assuming a run at 45W that would make 1.52x the perf with 1.5x the core count, and this would also imply 20% better perf/clock
Off topic but what do you mean by "FI" in this statement?.. FI computerbase measured ..
Off topic but what do you mean by "FI" in this statement?
Isn't 20% more IPC kinda low? You said something around 30-40 if I remember correctly? So were you wrong or what happened?You're close!
Very close.
Does that account for 4 of the cores being zen5c?All those references are meaningless since TDP is unknown for all these parts excepted for the 7700X.
Using this CPU as reference and assuming that cores power is 125W then Strix Point has something like 20% better perf/clock if the run was made at 45W, this as an estimation based on power/frequency curves, assuming power scales at an average 2.8 power of frequency between 80 and 125W and 2.36 average between 45 and 80W.
FI computerbase measured the 7700X as 26% faster in Blender than a 7940HS at around 70-90W, their run over 100s display about 85W but Blender test last much more at 800s and they state that the CPU end running at 70W.
If we extrapolate from the Computerbase test, and using the 70W lower bound to not overestimate the calculation, then this Strix Point ES perform 26% better than a 7940HS@70W and about 52% better than a 7940HS@45W, so assuming a run at 45W that would make 1.52x the perf with 1.5x the core count, and this would also imply 20% better perf/clock.
Razer Blade 14 (2023) mit 7940HS und RTX 4070 im Test
Die 3. Generation Razer Blade 14 setzt auf AMD Phoenix und Nvidia Ada Lovelace. Statt 16:9 mit 144 Hz gibt es 16:10 mit 240 Hz. Der Test.www.computerbase.de
Does that account for 4 of the cores being zen5c?