it's not 2GHz.
what are you on.
clk readouts are in .gb5. like, wat?
He's talking about the 1.4GHz with ~1400 ST score benchmark.gb5 is reporting 2 GHz in the score we are discussing, so what are you talking about?
Only the last, the recently posted one, is relevant..gb5 is reporting 2 GHz in the score we are discussing, so what are you talking about?
Zen 5 is to wide to have lower ipc increase tham zen 4 over zen 3Zen 4 has slightly higher IPC than Golden Cove so the numbers track with the above calculation, roughly speaking at least. There’s basically no way Zen 5 gets that low of an increase unless AMD completely botched something. The far more plausible answer is that it’s just that the score is an ES on an immature platform that is limiting performance.
Wider cores don't automatically bump IPC by that much, see Cortex-X4.Zen 5 is to wide to have lower ipc increase tham zen 4 over zen 3
Wait for 0ther benchmarks.. geekbench can be easily tricked as chips and cheese showedEspecially when all prior Zens were 6 wide front ends and it's now 8 wide...if they bother to change something that big, I really don't get how they'd get a tiny tick level increase.
Or maybe the meme was just a way to cope and it's really Zen 5%.
He's talking about the 1.4GHz with ~1400 ST score benchmark
Explain why.Only the last, the recently posted one, is relevant.
Earlier samples have a pile of chicken bits popped off for post-Si validation purposes.Explain why.
Yeah, right... The first one is in the morning, and the second one is in the afternoon.Earlier samples have a pile of chicken bits popped off for post-Si validation purposes.
Coping already? Wow, fast.Yeah, right... The first one is in the morning, and the second one is in the afternoon.
I can literally see the timestamp on the entries.Coping already? Wow, fast.
it's ok bro Intel will be competitive with z5 in 2026. hopefully!
Only the last, the recently posted one, is relevant.
?I can literally see the timestamp on the entries.
It's about time to pull the curtain on your make-believe.
Remember that IPC/freq scaling isn't quite linear.If the 1.4 GHz score is legit, I get roughly 70% IPC increase in integer. Seems too good to be true but we’ll see soon enough I guess.
?
It's okay, 2026 will be your year!
Remember that IPC/freq scaling isn't quite linear.
So at prod clocks it'll be lower.
Well yeah, it's an impressive (and a bit crackhead) core.Sure, this is all just rough math, but even in ballpark terms it seems too high
NVL should be promising enough.If true though, it’s hard to see Intel catching up, even by 2026.
The *timestamps* are there on the entriesIt's okay, 2026 will be your year!
No worries, 2026 will be your year!The *timestamps* are there on the entries
Yeah.And while it's fun I'm pretty sure it's pointless to compare to possibly accurate GB5 results at nowhere near retail clock speeds.
Does bash not ask you to install it?cpupower set-frequency doesn't seem to work on Zen 4. So I can't get 2000MHz results.
And while it's fun I'm pretty sure it's pointless to compare to possibly accurate GB5 results at nowhere near retail clock speeds.
It runs but all it does is disable turbo. It doesn't limit the cores frequency properly.Does bash not ask you to install it?
You have to set both an upper and lower frequency with -u and -d.It runs but all it does is disable turbo. It doesn't limit the cores frequency properly.
I did the same steps as I did for the 12600K. 7800X3D doesn't seem to listen. I give up for now.You have to set both an upper and lower frequency with -u and -d.
yeah Linux benchmarking is a mess outside of shelf stable server platforms.Benchmarking on Linux comes with all sorts of interesting caveats tbh. Performance may vary wildly depending on the cpu governor, scheduler, kernel timer frequency, you name it.
I was able to achieve swings ranging from -50% up to +15% of 1T performance in GB5 by tweaking these things on my old Whiskey Lake laptop compared to stock settings.