No we're not, it's really just you trying to setup a narrative.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.
Looks like you missed it when he admitted that his 32% IPC Claim was made up BS because the real number is so high that people would think it's made up BS. And no, this is not a joke.Adroc's claim has always been 32% IPC iso/clk.
But nice attempt at setting up a narrative.
I remember it, but the claim not being a concrete number makes it impossible to evaluate whether the statement ends up true or not.Looks like you missed it when he admitted that his 32% IPC Claim was made up BS because the real number is so high that people would think it's made up BS. And no, this is not a joke.
You are deliberately choosing to set up claims that no one has ever made. This is MLID's level of social awareness.Are we down to only 32% now? Previously it was 40-45+%, what happened to that? And where does the 32% number come from?
No, I’m just reiterating what has been speculated by others.No we're not, it's really just you trying to setup a narrative.
The claim always was >40% per core in SpecInt (so basically even 40.01% would be satisfactory), 32% IPC.
Both claims leave very little wiggle room (the second one literally has none).
You literally just said it earlier "Previously it was 40-45+%, what happened to that?" And from a couple of pages ago too.No, I’m just reiterating what has been speculated by others.
Note that I’m not saying that speculation was done by Kepler directly, just inherited from the 40% SpecINT and then built upon based on other additional info/guessing.
You missed the 5+% clock bump speculation, and the reasoning that SpecINT would be representative of perf in general?You literally just said it earlier "Previously it was 40-45+%, what happened to that?" And from a couple of pages ago too.
It was only you, no one else. Dunno about others but this is so cringe. Just stop. Your posts are so foul that I'm actually sad someone actually posted that.
You took the 2 extremes, put them together to make a new one. Just stop.You missed the 5+% clock bump speculation, and the reasoning that SpecINT would be representative of perf in general?
You took the 2 extremes, put them together to make a new one. Just stop.
Tell you what, I'll share my numbers so you don't have to be lonely anymore: 42%.
No, I just reiterated what has been mentioned/discussed/speculated by others previously.You took the 2 extremes, put them together to make a new one. Just stop.
Tell you what, I'll share my numbers so you don't have to be lonely anymore: 42%.
No, I just reiterated what has been mentioned/discussed/speculated by others previously.
No, I just reiterated what has been mentioned/discussed/speculated by others previously.
so true, RDOA3.5% incoming.No, that's impossible. RDNA 3 is what it is, and it is unfixable.
Anyone thinking otherwise, is still falling for the same "hype".
it's just Turin data.That it happens to be 32% is a coincidence.
?Any tests? At what clock speed?
Like the least relevant point about Zen5.Interestingly, however, seeing an increase in only two points of the architecture from 6 to 8 (+33%) Dispatch/Rename and from 4 to 6 (+50%) ALU
That's not what I said.an average IPC increase of 40% is already assumed
Yeah, has some really novel tricks in there.because it is a "new project from scratch.
Intel has been doing pretty dog on IPC:area since SNC.If there is a small IPC gain after such a major redesign of the LionCove core and adding so many resources
Jim Keller: "Jumping on the next s-curve is always gonna be risky", or something like thatI don't buy it at all. For a wider grounds-up major redesign that would be a f*** up of Bulldozer proportions. Never ever are 10% true...I hope... xD
Just for context , Zen 4 was ~10-12% uplift with some minor tweaks versus Zen 3. If Zen 5 ends up being just 10-15% faster at iso clocks versus Zen 4*, then something went wrong in the design process. AMD has such advanced internal performance modeling tools that I find it impossible they would waste so much time and money to get so little out of it.Jim Keller: "Jumping on the next s-curve is always gonna be risky", or something like that
This thread is huge, and it's spread out. But it's discussed e.g. here:Who speculated 40% IPC + 5% clock bump?
If Zen 5 is indeed >40% uplift in ST SPECint (which is usually very close to Geekbench ST and the average IPC AMD reports) then this is quite a unique achievement.
AMD had Zen 5 samples running higher than 6 GHz. Not by much, but over 6 GHz.
I hope it´s gonna be faster than Zen3 :-DIf Zen 5 ends up being just 10-15% faster at iso clocks versus Zen 3
This thread is huge, and it's spread out. But it's discussed e.g. here:
SpecINT representative of average IPC:
Page 314 - Discussion - Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)
Page 314 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.forums.anandtech.com
Clock bump mentioned e.g. here:
Page 316 - Discussion - Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)
Page 316 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.forums.anandtech.com
And in other places, but you'll have to search for the rest yourself
You can just ignore himRight, you’re talking different speculation from different people and putting them together to make all new speculation that no one else ever mentioned. That’s what people are complaining about.
No, not really. E.g. I just quoted this regarding SpecINT being very close to average IPC:Right, you’re talking different speculation from different people and putting them together to make all new speculation that no one else ever mentioned. That’s what people are complaining about.
Not something I made up myself. Whether you agree with it or not, I'll leave that up to you.if Zen 5 is indeed >40% uplift in ST SPECint (which is usually very close to Geekbench ST and the average IPC AMD reports) then this is quite a unique achievement.
You’re the only one I’ve seen that has treated the 40% as an IPC number and added a click bump on top of it, that’s why I addressed you directly and why people are saying you’re making up new numbers.No, not really. E.g. I just quoted this regarding SpecINT being very close to average IPC:
Not something I made up myself. Whether you agree with it or not, I'll leave that up to you.
Regarding whether the 5+% clock bump should be added on top or not, it is also something that has been discussed by others in the thread. Not made up by me.
But I don't really care what you think. If 40% sounds better to you than 45%, then go with that and be happy.