draggy as in aerodynamic drag (slow in straight line), that's my motorsports obsession leakingDraggy? You mean frequency?
cpupower frequency-set -u xxxxmhzcpupower frequency-set -d xxxxmhzAs usual, I return to see garbage analyses being posted and regurgitated for dozens of pages.
These are the two results on Geekbench 5 so far:
[1]
[2]
Now, anybody interested in what "Xen HVM domU" is could do a Google search to find out that it is the Xen hypervisor.
Here's the thing - Virtualized environments are WAY MORE unreliable when it comes to Geekbench detecting the CPU specs using the usual method of querying MSRs.
So that automatically discards the first result as it is running a hypervisor.
So that leaves result [2].
Doing the usual appending ".gb5" to the URL shows that it is running 2000 MHz frequency.
And here is my 11370H @2000 MHz fixed frequency.
N.B. It is very easy to fix a frequency in Linux - just typeandCode:cpupower frequency-set -u xxxxmhzas root in the terminal.Code:cpupower frequency-set -d xxxxmhz
So here I am focusing on the result for my 11370H
View attachment 97732
And here is the Strix ES
View attachment 97733
So compared to Tiger Lake at 2.0 GHz - the frequency being the same as the leak - Zen 5 is ~31% faster clock-for-clock.
Intel has this covered with Lion Cove.
Do you have the linux tarball for version 5.4.6?Any chance you could run it on the same sub-version as the Zen 5 run?
Do you have the linux tarball for version 5.4.6?
5.5 for Strix.All depends on the clock rate.
Zen 5 already confirmed worse than Zen 4.
Where?
Edit - my 12600K scores 871 at 2000MHz. So Zen 5 is only 17% faster. This should be easy for Intel to counter. I'm sure.
I'm not good enough technically to throw my dart in, but comparing it at 2Ghz to cores that are years old on other nodes seem a bit silly, when the expected clocks should be around 6Ghz, which none of the older CPUs can reach. Scaling isn't fully linear across frequency IIUC.Yeah, the 1.41 GHz result seems too good to be true (probably not reading the frequency correctly) because that would be ~2X increase. However, the 2 GHz result also seems too low to be true (probably bad result with immature platform/BIOS), otherwise it's like a <5% IPC increase gen on gen.
How? Thought this would still be a ~15-20% increase over Zen 4 still?Yeah, the 1.41 GHz result seems too good to be true (probably not reading the frequency correctly) because that would be ~2X increase. However, the 2 GHz result also seems too low to be true (probably bad result with immature platform/BIOS), otherwise it's like a <5% IPC increase gen on gen.
I don't think the score is worse on a zen 4 cpu at 2ghzI'm not good enough technically to throw my dart in, but comparing it at 2Ghz to cores that are years old on other nodes seem a bit silly, when the expected clocks should be around 6Ghz, which none of the older CPUs can reach. Scaling isn't fully linear across frequency IIUC.
I'm also finding very funny that an 8 wide front end would somehow have near or worse IPC than Zen 4 after Z2->Z4 has been all on 6 wide.
I try not to add weird testing to my profile: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/22424973
I'll run Zen 4 at 2000MHz later.Lots of Linux users here - just test Zen 4@2000 MHz and report.
How? Thought this would still be a ~15-20% increase over Zen 4 still?
...and 12 percent higher IPC than Golden Cove at 2000 MHz, according to @gdansk posted score.I’m going off of @tamz_msc ’s results and rough IPC math from Anandtech reviews.
Zen 3 over Icelake was about 15% integer IPC and ICL ~ TGL while Zen 4 is roughly 10% over Zen 3. That leaves Zen 4 being roughly 26% higher IPC than TGL while @tamz_msc showed 31% higher for Zen 5 which would mean Zen 5 would be less than a 5% IPC increase over Zen 4. It’s really rough math but close enough to show that something is off in the score.
...and 12 percent higher IPC than Golden Cove at 2000 MHz, according to @gdansk posted score.
it's not 2GHz.Zen 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.