These are actually really great. 4 + 4 and 8CU will be enough for mainstream consumers for the foreseeable future.Yea.
4+4. Chop is 2+4.
Yeah 8 CUs.
And a full AIE because le AIPC maymay.
RPL 282 is still a far cheaper option but not compelling in 2025 at all.
Will be interesting to see how the 8CU RDNA3.5 stacks up against the 780M in handhelds.These are actually really great. 4 + 4 and 8CU will be enough for mainstream consumers for the foreseeable future.
Pretty well, PHX iGP is a mess.pngWill be interesting to see how the 8CU RDNA3.5 stacks up against the 780M in handhelds.
You mean it's a mess in the same way every other RDNA3 product is a mess, or is there anything else wrong with it?Pretty well, PHX iGP is a mess.png
Yes.You mean it's a mess in the same way every other RDNA3 product is a mess
A bit but not enough.But I think I saw some graphs suggesting that HWK1 is a bit better in this regard
Would be nice to have some alternatives, but as it stands they're competing against themselves with MTL-U not looking too hot (or somewhat warm really).A bit but not enough.
I have a little idea how big this segment is, but whatever it is I assume you meant JS client libs and not the core SDKs backend.Ehhh, making MS teams even remotely snappy is the end goal.
LNL looks good for ultra low power stuff.but as it stands they're competing against themselves with MTL-U not looking too hot (or somewhat warm really).
Not at Epic settings.Isn't Fortnite CPU heavy over GPU?
Monthly corrections + plus "I told you so" incoming. There's also a recent video about the number 37 so I'll take 37% ipc upliftNo, the poster was implying the average IPC is 3x% ( meaning between 30 and 39%). Clocks seem to be roughly the same or a slightly higher for ST with Zen 5. Overall it looks like a total pwnage.
Just toggle the ecomode.However, heat is a major for me and for many others as the 7800x3d is just that good/cool.
Isn't Fortnite CPU heavy over GPU? A lot of the UT4 players I play with all say it's CPU
| CB R23 1T | Passmark | 7-Zip | V-Ray | Dolphin | wPrime (1024M) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zen 3 5950X (3.4 - 4.9GHz, 105W) | 1655 | 3468 | 165748 | 29738 | 227 | 49.434 |
| Zen 4 7950X (4.5 - 5.7 GHz, 170W) | 2066.8 | 4290 | 209616 | 42367 | 170 | 30.957 |
| + % | + 25% | + 24% | + 26% | + 42% | + 33.5% | + 60% |
| Zen 4 IPC @ 4GHz Average +13% | + 9% | + 5% | + 13% | + 15% | + 32% | + 39% |
| Zen 5 16-core (4.3 - 5.7 GHz, 170W) | ||||||
| Zen 5 IPC @ ? GHz Average +16% | + 17% |
Oh but it is, in Strix disclosure no less.Interesting that GB6 wasn’t shared by AMD
That would be some JavaScript hellware.That’s the most representative benchmark (IMO)
For Zen 4? AMD haven't shared anything for Zen 5 yet. But GB6 wasn't out yet when Zen 4 launched.Interesting that GB6 wasn’t shared by AMD. That’s the most representative benchmark (IMO) and would give a good idea of the overall performance.
There is leaks about 7-Zip numbers from Allthewatts, 28% faster score is 8 percent faster. I am not surprised cause I believe IPC numbers would be lower. What do you think?It s just that CB starting from R20 is the best case for Intel among all tests along with Povray wich use AVX2 only for Intel, let s look at 7 ZIP wich is integer code and more representative of consumer apps, you ll be surprised.
Did that to avoid getting bonkedSomebody pointed out to me that it’s probably fake.
All of those numbers are the Zen 4 figures but multiplied by 2.2x (which is conveniently 30%).
IPC Uplifts are not the same as Performance Numbers
View attachment 96183
CB R23 1T Passmark 7-Zip V-Ray wPrime (1024M) Zen 3 5950X (4.9GHz, 105W) 1655 3468 165748 29738 Zen 4 7950X
(5.7 GHz, 170W)2066.8 4290 209616 42367 + % + 25% + 24% + 26% + 42% Zen 4 IPC 4GHz
Average +13%+ 9% + 5% + 13% + 15% + 39% Zen 5 16-core
(? GHz)+ 20% + 11% + 28% + 33% + 86% Zen 5 IPC 4GHz
Average ?
I can't believe people don't understand the difference between performance numbers and IPC uplifts. As shown in the table above, performance numbers of Zen4 are far better than Zen3 and yet the IPC uplifts tested by AMD shown average 13% better uplifts. The reason is the because Zen4 is clocked much higher than Zen3 thus consume more power.
The same will happen to Zen5; I am sure AMD will try to clock Zen5 higher, hence the leaked results are ranged from 11% to 86%. But IPC of Zen5 would be much lower, my estimate IPC would be around 15% faster...Definitely not 40% uplift as adroc claimed.
@adroc_thurston Do you still think your 40% is IPC or performance numbers?
In order to get 40% perf uplift with 15% IPC gains you'd need a whopping 21% clock speed increase. That would mean a literal 5.7*1.21 = 6.9 GHz (lol) for the top SKU, on the same node no less.IPC Uplifts are not the same as Performance Numbers
View attachment 96183
CB R23 1T Passmark 7-Zip V-Ray wPrime (1024M) Zen 3 5950X (4.9GHz, 105W) 1655 3468 165748 29738 Zen 4 7950X
(5.7 GHz, 170W)2066.8 4290 209616 42367 + % + 25% + 24% + 26% + 42% Zen 4 IPC 4GHz
Average +13%+ 9% + 5% + 13% + 15% + 39% Zen 5 16-core
(? GHz)+ 20% + 11% + 28% + 33% + 86% Zen 5 IPC 4GHz
Average ?
I can't believe people don't understand the difference between performance numbers and IPC uplifts. As shown in the table above, performance numbers of Zen4 are far better than Zen3 and yet the IPC uplifts tested by AMD shown average 13% better uplifts. The reason is the because Zen4 is clocked much higher than Zen3 thus consume more power.
The same will happen to Zen5; I am sure AMD will try to clock Zen5 higher, hence the leaked results are ranged from 11% to 86%. But IPC of Zen5 would be much lower, my estimate IPC would be around 15% faster...Definitely not 40% uplift as adroc claimed.
@adroc_thurston Do you still think your 40% is IPC or performance numbers?