Maybe we are looking at different screeshots. I was comparing the tweeted screenshot mainly with this one shared on TPU's forums, matching memory clock (though better subtimings):
3600 chip is 6 core, 1500/6*16 => 4000GB/s for 16C
Maybe we are looking at different screeshots. I was comparing the tweeted screenshot mainly with this one shared on TPU's forums, matching memory clock (though better subtimings):
Wow, L3 bandwidth got cut in half, i guess that explains lack of MT scaling in benchmarks. Not exactly unexpected due to move from 2 to 1 L3 domain and end result is that 8C can access ~same L3 BW as Intel Skylake 8-10C ring.
Is this legit? That performance jump seems insane! I can take my current CPU and jump 4 generations, and barely see an increase of a few points/percent. Yet Ryzen 5000 is supposedly ~20-30% greater then just a gen earlier?!
It's possible especially in some select benchmarks. ST IPC is ~19% better on average vs Zen2, that is massive jump and what we could call a true gen to gen leap.Is this legit? That performance jump seems insane! I can take my current CPU and jump 4 generations, and barely see an increase of a few points/percent. Yet Ryzen 5000 is supposedly ~20-30% greater then just a gen earlier?!
Not only this, also the scaling is not ideal, logic, SRAM, SerDes, Analog blocks etc scale differently. And a CPU is not all logic.Probably both, the process doesn't improve power usage sufficiently and may have a worse frequency/power curve, while the design clearly is not optimized for that node. AMD warned before that getting high frequencies is harder on smaller nodes. N7 seems to handle it well, N5 may take more time to reach a similar level.
3600 chip is 6 core, 1500/6*16 => 4000GB/s for 16C
Thanks for the correction. Somehow I was thinking L1 and L2 cache bandwidth would be given as per core, not as a sum across all cores which is frankly nonsensical... ah well.3600 chip is 6 core, 1500/6*16 => 4000GB/s for 16C
Thanks for the correction. Somehow I was thinking L1 and L2 cache bandwidth would be given as per core, not as a sum across all cores which is frankly nonsensical... ah well.
For comparison, this is my 3950x at 3666mhz with very tight timings
A 5950x with similar timings should easily get in the mid to low 50s, which is very good for not having an IMC.
2 | Cinebench R20 (higher is better) | Cinebench R15 (higher is better) | CPU-Z (higher is better) | Passmark Single Threaded (higher is better) | Passmark PerfTestv10 (Higher is better) | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 | Multi core | Single Core | Multi core | Single Core | Single Thread | Multi Threads | R5 5600x | 3487 | CPU mark | Integer Math | Floating Point Math | SSE | Encryption | Sorting | Cross-platform | ||||||||
4 | R5 5600x | 4117 | 600 | R5 5600x | 1780 | 253 | R5 5600x | 642.7 | R5 3600x | 2677 | R5 5600x | 22403 | 77596 | 40890 | 16293 | 16007 | 27596 | 43596 | |||||
5 | R5 3600x | 3751 | 501 | R5 3600x | 1647 | 204 | R5 3600x | 505 | i5 10600k | 2926 | R5 3600x | 18318 | |||||||||||
6 | i5 10600k | 3629 | 501 | i5 10600k | 1615 | 215 | i5 10600k | 551 | i5 10900k | 3177 | i5 10600k | 14594 | |||||||||||
7 | i5 10900k | 6399 | 539 | i5 10900k | 2677 | 234 | i5 10900k | 584 | R9 3950x | 2747 | i5 10900k | 24283 | |||||||||||
8 | R9 3950x | 9148 | 531 | R9 3950x | 3897 | 217 | R9 3950x | 524 | R9 3950x | 39281 | |||||||||||||
9 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
With the official launch of Milan Azure jumps onto this train as well, using SEV-SNP.SEV in use at Google. Previously SUSE was providing this service downstream.Google’s new Confidential Virtual Machines on 2nd Gen AMD EPYC
www.anandtech.com
SEV is almost done being upstreamed. SEV-SNP is being worked upon downstream.
SME(Zen)--> SEV(Zen2)-->SEV-SNP(Zen3)-->?(Zen4)
MPI kfd bits also being upstreamed.
amdgpu support for TMZ is also in. Looks like the whole circle is getting bigger and covering all the neccessary bits.
I don't know if it has been posted before:
Exclusive Benchmarks - Google Drive
docs.google.com
2 Cinebench R20 (higher is better) Cinebench R15 (higher is better) CPU-Z (higher is better) Passmark Single Threaded (higher is better) Passmark PerfTestv10 (Higher is better) 3 Multi core Single Core Multi core Single Core Single Thread Multi Threads R5 5600x 3487 CPU mark Integer Math Floating Point Math SSE Encryption Sorting Cross-platform 4 R5 5600x 4117 600 R5 5600x 1780 253 R5 5600x 642.7 R5 3600x 2677 R5 5600x 22403 77596 40890 16293 16007 27596 43596 5 R5 3600x 3751 501 R5 3600x 1647 204 R5 3600x 505 i5 10600k 2926 R5 3600x 18318 6 i5 10600k 3629 501 i5 10600k 1615 215 i5 10600k 551 i5 10900k 3177 i5 10600k 14594 7 i5 10900k 6399 539 i5 10900k 2677 234 i5 10900k 584 R9 3950x 2747 i5 10900k 24283 8 R9 3950x 9148 531 R9 3950x 3897 217 R9 3950x 524 R9 3950x 39281 9 10
My device is very slow please suggest what i can do i am using windows 7 in Dell E-6320.
That 6 core has the exact same specifications as the 5600X. Same base, same boost.XT like refresh incoming? New stepping with higher frequencies:
We don't know about the headroom, and Zen 3 offers one unlike Zen 2. The noteworthy part it's a new stepping. OPN is the same so they are likely not distinct products in the market.That 6 core has the exact same specifications as the 5600X. Same base, same boost.
Not so sure about these being an XT style refresh.
That's what I'm thinking more or less. Seems like a silent update with potentially some firmware changes.We don't know about the headroom, and Zen 3 offers one unlike Zen 2. The noteworthy part it's a new stepping. OPN is the same so they are likely not distinct products in the market.
Speaking about that. How much power does the IOD in Ryzen desktop really use? I can't remember seeing that info anywhere.That's what I'm thinking more or less. Seems like a silent update with potentially some firmware changes.
Or weird other theory, perhaps it's related to X570S? A new IOD with changes to drop power consumption somewhat?