- Mar 3, 2017
- 1,659
- 6,101
- 136
Nope.
It's true for Product X with power limit increase but not Product Y without power limit increase.Either it hits the claimed figure or it does not, there is no wiggle room on it.
Nope.Have you ever thought that perhaps the boost clock speeds on Epyc might be a lot higher?
This is all kinds of wrong, GPU clocks in particular.I don't know if there is anything new here, or just summary of the "consensus"
LNC is a catastrophe so they want to make Z5 one too.Boy, the angry people on thread now calling Zen 5 bulldozer 2.0 right now is amusing. Enjoying Tears of disappointment? I mean really? 🙄
Well, w.r.t. performance improvement, Zen1 did much better than Zen3. So if the redesign was as big with Zen3 as Zen1, then the changes made in Zen3 were not as effective at least.yea.
yuo can see in on the floorplan.
Z1 was a finfet shrink (i.e. area constraints are somewhat secondary) and a jump off a real bad baseline.Well, w.r.t. performance improvement, Zen1 did much better than Zen3.
It was very very good at IPC:Cac and IPC:area metrics.then the changes made in Zen3 were not as effective at least.
Does a project from scratch have to mean such a large expansion that the project achieves an average of 40% higher IPC?Intel had a massive headstart in architecture, node and OEM support. It should have been impossible for AMD to catch up let alone surpass Intel on what looks to be all 3 fronts. They have done so through Intel utterly screwing up on multiple sides and by AMD taking a leaf out of NVs book and becoming an execution machine.
Zen 5 is the 1st ground up design where AMD have had decent R & D money. They could squander it of course but given their execution record over the last 7 years I don't think they will.
Compared to other designs I don't think Zen 4 is that great, it is simply the least bad x86 design
Apple had no competitive pressure. It is safe to say that there was stagnation in terms of core expansion and the industry reacted with a delay anyway.Apple, they did many 20-30% IPC increases in a row despite already having the best core.
yea.Does a project from scratch have to mean such a large expansion that the project achieves an average of 40% higher IPC?
Nope.I think you are overestimating the phrase "new project from scratch".
Depends on the timeline, people and power/area constraints involved.A new greenfield project can also average 10-15% higher IPC.
YES THEY DID.Apple had no competitive pressure
AMD cache layouts are shared between client and server (well, *were* shared).while AMD and Intel must take into account the core + cache area not only for consumer processors but also for Epyc and Xeon
Because it's a skeleton crew with most Big and Relevant people who drove their roadmap leaving to greener pastures (Nuvia, Rivos, AMD, etc).Why is Apple now giving modest IPC profits and not +30% again?
I'm guessing the 10%ers are as wrong as the 32%ers
I don't think either side will be crying but cherrypicking.
It's true for Product X with power limit increase but not Product Y without power limit increase.
In any case, that specific claim is itself also possibly a cherrypicked good result. It's better than GB but still contains some easily broken benchmarks.
Yeah, well. Coming back to Zen5, Zen4 is not such a bad baseline.Z1 was a finfet shrink (i.e. area constraints are somewhat secondary) and a jump off a real bad baseline.
Zen3 isn't that.
Ehhhh it's rather skinny in many places by modern standards.Zen4 is not such a bad baseline.
Ambition tamed by execution discipline is how you run a good roadmap.that would be much harder than it was for Zen1.
Specint 2017 1t shouldn't be impacted by power constraints being a single threaded test.
Then let me rephrase my post for you: who thinks Zen 5 is 32% faster in general is likely as wrong as people saying 10% faster in general. And no amount of cherrypicking specific benchmarks will make either right in general based entirely on past performance.It does not matter if Specint is a good showing Vs the geomean, the claim cites a specific benchmark suite with a specific thread count. It is on that basis alone it should be judged. If the Specint uplift does not translate to the average then so be it but that is a separate thing.
On Weibo they say top end EPYC will be going from 1T 3.7GHz to 1T ≥4.3GHz...Specint 2017 1t shouldn't be impacted by power constraints being a single threaded test.
This is all kinds of wrong, GPU clocks in particular.
Are we down to only 32% now? Previously it was 40-45+%, what happened to that? And where does the 32% number come from?who thinks Zen 5 is 32% faster in general is likely as wrong as people saying 10% faster in general.
But the max boost clock on most of the Epyc lineup is very low.
On Weibo they say top end EPYC will be going from 1T 3.7GHz to 1T ≥4.3GHz...
Who is talking about IPC? They care about 1T. The claims regarding SPECint were not at a iso frequency, rather "core to core". Then later they also say clock rate isn't increasing or maybe worse (but this is only true for some products).That affects IPC how?
Clocks will determine final performance but IPC claims are not impacted by final clockspeeds.
For desktop Zen5 the thought is that final clocks are similar to Zen 4 clocks so performance and IPC are practically synonyms but if we are talking laptop or server then performance can vary quite a bit more than the IPC figure.
We're not "down" anything.Are we down to 32% now? Previously it was 40-45+%, what happened to that? And where does the 32% number come from?
Who is talking about IPC? They care about 1T. The claims regarding SPECint were not at a iso frequency, rather "core to core".
Any tests? At what clock speed? No one is going to change what Zen 5 and LionCove are by saying positively or negatively about the uarch they choose.Nope.
This is all kinds of wrong, GPU clocks in particular.
LNC is a catastrophe so they want to make Z5 one too.
Sad!
Well, some reasoned that the 40% SpecINT would also be representative of perf increase in general. Then some added possible 5+% clock bump on top of that. So we were at 40-45+% perf increase.We're not "down" anything.
There never was a 45%+ claim, the claim from Kepler was 40% faster in SpecInt 1T per core.
Adroc's claim has always been 32% IPC iso/clk.
But nice attempt at setting up a narrative.
I see. I'm talking about 1T performance, not IPC. I needed to choose a number equally far from 21% (an average of AMD's past performance) as 10% was. That it happens to be 32% is a coincidence.That was the 40% claim. The original 32% claim from a long while ago was IPC.
I'm not keen on discussing the bold headlines that you apparently considered indisputable evidence. As for the rest of the slides, they are not much different from the Zen 2 ISSCC, for exampleIn a way that people who designed it disagree with you, and I tend to believe them more:
The Zen 2 design has numerous design improvements over Zen (Fig. ^^^), including a 15% instructions-per-cycle (IPC) improvement on an average single-threaded application, while reducing the technology-neutral switched capacitance-per-cycle (CAC) by 9%