Valantarbut you're arguing that this power usage is sufficient to make it likely that these are Zen4c cores and not Zen4

Which gets wasted with an IGP, try again :rolleyes:

I'm guesstimating the bigger cache variants would likely ditch the IGP with massive (L3?) caches near the cores or on the IoD, maybe even an L4 cache.

R0H1TNo I'm arguing that if these are the big cores, zen4 (with more cache) or zen4D whatever they'd call them, then pairing them with an IGP makes no sense. Because these will probably replace the 16c/32t 5950x at the top end with a 24c/48t(?) chip given Genoa is already 96 cores? So I expect the flagship Ryzen MSDT to not have an IGP ~ that's it, I'm totally guesstimating in this regard & so are you btw o_O

ratirtWell i disagree with you and I can say that extrapolating this (like you said) from a variety of application which behave differently and there is such a vast number of them is impossible as well.
For example, 1 cpu is better than another in one application and the another cpu is better than the first one in a different application. If IPC is a metric describing instructions per second which are a constant, the outcome should be the same for every app but it is not. So performance does not always equal IPC.
For instance.
5800x and 5800x3d in games. Normally these are the same processors but they behave differently in gaming and differently in office apps. So out of curiosity, am I talking here about IPC or a performance? Somehow, you say that IPC has to be measured across variety of benchmarks to be valid. I thought that is general performance of a CPU across mostly used applications.

Bomby569I've read they will all inclued igpu, that seems like a waste of die and money for the consumer. I would prefer 2 versions with and without like Intel is doing.

MarsM4NWould :love: if they one day include a "Automatic Toggle Mode", so that the APU runs the desktop/video applications & the (comletely shut down) GPU turns only on for gaming.
Now that would be a real killer feature. :rockout:

ValantarAFAIK W11 has this feature already - it has a toggle for setting a "high performance" and "[something, can't remember, don't think it's "low performance"] GPU, which should allocate the render workload to the appropriate GPU depending on the task at hand. It might not correctly recognize and categorize all applications, but you can override that manually.

ValantarBut that's the thing: IPC in current complex CPU architectures is not a constant. It is a constant in very simple, in-order designs. In any out-of-order design with complex instruction queuing, branch prediction, instruction packing and and more, the meaning of "IPC" shifts from "count the execution ports" to "across a representative selection of diverse workloads, how many instructions can the core process per clock". The literal, constant meaning of "instructions per second" is irrelevant in any reasonably modern core design as a) they can process tons at once, but b) the question shifts from base hardware execution capabilities to queuing and instruction handling, keeping the core fed.

That is also why caches and even RAM has significant effects on anything meaningfully described as "IPC" in a modern system, as cache misses, RAM speed, and all other factors relevant to keeping the core fed play into the end result. That is why you need a representative selection of benchmarks to measure IPC - because there is no such thing as constant IPC in modern CPUs, nor is there any such thing as an application that linearly loads every execution port in a way that demonstrates IPC in an absolute sense.

ModEl4Although I really didn't want to get involved, below my 2 cents:

The common use for faster is to denote that A has higher speed than B
While the common use of Quicker is to denote that A completes something at a shorter time than B
If AMD used quicker it would be fine ,
since they used faster they involve speed, which means they involve rate (speed : the rate at which someone or something moves or operates or is able to move or operate) [or more strictly in Euclidean Physics : Speed is the ratio of the distance traveled by an object to the time required to travel that distance] so you see fast/faster essentially refers to a fraction, with time being just one of the 2 numbers and it's always the denominator and being the denominator it gives 45% not 31% , hence the logic gap in AMD's wording.

ModEl4I just saw the last update regarding 170W being the absolute max limit (probably 125W typical vs 105W), that's great news and clear advantage vs Intel!
I'm curious more for the performance/W comparison between 13400/7600(X?) 65W parts that will be much closer probably.

TheLostSwedeHopefully not, as if the stability is as bas as it was for both X370 and X570, AMD is going to get a lot of unhappy customers.

Mussels99% of people had no issues, with the exception of the funky PCI-E/USB 3 related reset bugs that took time to diagnose (But also took some uncommon setups to trigger, like PCI-E risers and high power draw USB 3.x devices in the same system)

ValantarBut that's the thing: IPC in current complex CPU architectures is not a constant. It is a constant in very simple, in-order designs. In any out-of-order design with complex instruction queuing, branch prediction, instruction packing and and more, the meaning of "IPC" shifts from "count the execution ports" to "across a representative selection of diverse workloads, how many instructions can the core process per clock". The literal, constant meaning of "instructions per second" is irrelevant in any reasonably modern core design as a) they can process tons at once, but b) the question shifts from base hardware execution capabilities to queuing and instruction handling, keeping the core fed.

That is also why caches and even RAM has significant effects on anything meaningfully described as "IPC" in a modern system, as cache misses, RAM speed, and all other factors relevant to keeping the core fed play into the end result. That is why you need a representative selection of benchmarks to measure IPC - because there is no such thing as constant IPC in modern CPUs, nor is there any such thing as an application that linearly loads every execution port in a way that demonstrates IPC in an absolute sense.

W1zzardJust rechecked the video. Highest was 5520 MHz, news post has been updated

ValantarThat's an excellent illustration of exactly what we're discussing here: that specific contexts engender specific meanings of words, often in order to highlight specific differences. What this discussion misses, is that such specific meanings do not invalidate the more general meanings of the same words, especially not outside of those contexts - and that in this context, there is no directly applicable sub-meaning that differentiates "faster" from other terms. Which feeds back into your example: the quicker car is still faster in a general sense, after all - it reaches the finish line first; it finishes the task first. The specific definition you're referring to is meant to highlight that if what you mean by "faster" is "reaches the highest top speed", that might not be the same as "finishes the race first". This again illustrates a similar issue to what we're discussing here: that a general measure of a rate - such as mph / km/h - might not give an accurate representation of overall performance in a given workload - such as racing down a quarter mile stretch of road.

ValantarThe only reason why this isn't done in such situations is that the percentage difference would be minuscule and thus meaningless in terms of effectively communicating the difference.

Valantaryou cannot argue that such contextual meanings are universal and overrule all other possible meanings. That isn't how language works.

ValantarIt's not the same as ADL - ADL has 5.0 x16 PEG and 5.0 for the chipset (IIRC), but no 5.0 m.2. Not that 4 lanes less matters much, but ADL prioritizing 5.0 for GPUs rather than storage never made sense in the first place - it's doubtful any GPU in the next half decade will be meaningfully limited by PCIe 4.0 x16.

Valantar... is that any more likely than them buying a shitty $20 AM5 tower cooler? There are plenty of great AM4 coolers out there after all. Retaining compatibility reduces waste in a meaningful and impactful way. You don't fix people being stupid by forcing obsolescence onto fully functional parts.

ValantarX670E is literally marketed as "PCIe 5.0 everywhere", providing 24 more lanes of 5.0 (and, presumably, another 4 of which go to the CPU interconnect, leaving a total of 40). X670 most likely retains the 5.0 chipset uplink even if it runs its PCIe at 4.0 speeds. The main limitation to this is still the cost of physically implementing this amount of high speed IO on the motherboard, as that takes a lot of layers and possibly higher quality PCB materials.

ValantarSeveral announced motherboards mention it explicitly, so no need to worry on that front. The only unknown is whether it's integrated into the CPU/chipset or not. Support is there.

ValantarOn this I'd have to disagree with you. DS has a lot of potential - current software just can't make use of our blazing fast storage, and DS goes a long way towards fixing that issue. It just needs a) to be fully implemented, with GPU decompression support, and b) be adopted by developers. The latter is pretty much a given for big name titles given that it's an Xbox platform feature though.

ValantarThat is why you need a broad range of tests: because no single test can provide a generalizeable representation of per-clock performance of an architecture.

That is why you need a broad range of tests: because no single test can provide a generalizeable adequate representation of performance.

ValantarPerforming a calculation on data in order to transform its unit is ... transforming the data. It is now different data, in a different format.

TheoneandonlyMrKSo this didn't get locked, yeah 15% still and upwards of that since it's a initial rumour, all good.

TheLostSwedeThat's simply not true. There were a lot of UEFI/AGESA issues early on, on both platforms, some took longer to solve than others. Much of which was memory related, but X570 had the boost issues and a lot of people had USB 2.0 problems as well.

As I said, it mostly got resolved after a few months, but some things took quite a while for AMD to figure out.

MusselsI've had so many ryzen systems here for myself, and then all the sales builds - the only issue that ever turned out to be actual AGESA/AMD and not shitty manufacturers, was the RAM incompatibility early on with Zen 1 and 300 chipsets hating odd numbered latencies (which was mostly blown out of proportion by people ignoring that more ranks of RAM = slower max clock speeds. When comparing to intel at the time that said 2133! no more! stay! they'd move to an AMD board that said upto 4000 or whatever, and assume that 4000 MUST. WORK. NOW.)

Of the four original boards i had, i've still got three working perfectly fine. The only ones with unsolveable issues were the budget MSI 300 and 450 boards.
The x370 setup had lingering memory issues i could never resolve, until i moved that RAM over to an intel system... and the issues moved with it. Faulty corsair RAM that got unstable above 45C, so that issue went away every winter and came back every summer to drive me mad.

TheLostSwedeI could never get my Asus Prime X370 board and Ryzen 7 1700 to work with my Corsair LPX 3200 memory properly. Got up to 2933 at best, as 3000 was never properly stable.
That RAM worked perfectly fine at its rated speed in my previous Intel system.
The first couple of months there were a lot of other weird little issue too, it's in a thread here somewhere...

X570, lots of weird issues again early on and some that took much longer to solve, again, plenty posts about it here in the forums. Biggest blunder was of course boost speeds that were promised but took them 3-4 months to deliver after launch.

I never said they didn't solve the issues, my point was simply that I'm sick and tired of being a beta tester for these companies. Spend an extra six months working on these platforms and make them stable before launch, instead of rushing it out so you can launch before your one single competitor. Obviously this doesn't just apply to AMD and Intel, but also a lot of other companies that have more competition, but even so, the same applies, stop launching beta products or worse sometimes.