Friday, August 26th 2022
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X Allegedly 40% Faster than 5950X in CPU-Z Bench Multi-Threaded
The upcoming AMD Ryzen 9 7950X 16-core/32-thread processor is allegedly over 40% faster than its predecessor, the 5950X, at the CPU-Z Bench multi-threaded test, according to a leaked benchmark screenshot scored by harukaze5719, and tabulated by Wccftech. The 7950X is shown with a score of 16809 points, which puts it 41 percent faster than the 5950X, and 43% faster than the i9-12900K. It's also shown to be behind the leaked benchmarks of the i9-13900K by a whisker—with the upcoming Intel chip being 0.5% faster.
Source:
Wccftech
112 Comments on AMD Ryzen 9 7950X Allegedly 40% Faster than 5950X in CPU-Z Bench Multi-Threaded
People need to take a step back from their brand loyalty for a second and just appreciate the pace of innovation we've been seeing here lately. So many are quick to forget (or even think fondly of) the stagnation we saw in the early to mid 2010s. AMD's weak heavy machinery architectures paving the way for Intel to begin resting on their laurels put the industry on its ass for way too long. Feels so good to see the two firing on all cylinders in the CPU space again. Here's to hoping we see a proper K6 vs. Pentium era once again!
Competition is guud.
Think the real term is thermal defective cores
If e cores can't do the same speed as p cores at the same temperature then they are defects which at one time were binned out.
Silicon isn't run on X frequency universally. E cores and P cores are fabricated entirely differently. They are not the same.
In case you never bothered knowing how the CPU cores look in the SOC before calling them defective, this is ADL-S, with the 8 P cores and 8 E-cores to the right.
These "toy cores" and "defective cores" are built to be very silicon space efficient, and carry an IPC similar to what people met on Skylake \ Zen2
videocardz.com/newz/intel-core-i9-13900kf-cpu-reaches-6-18-ghz-with-liquid-chiller-attached-in-new-overclocking-test
Here is official TSMC FINFLEX™ diagram, the way to produce "thermal defective cores" in N3E node. Designing a core with 3-2 Fin transistors will increase the clock speed, while using 2-1 Fin transistors will result in a "thermal defective" core with low clock speed and high efficiency.[ATTACH type="full"]259522[/ATTACH]
I'm willing to give the edge to AMD for lower power use and a better platform longevity. Upgraded a 2600 to a 5700 last month. Have never been able to jump that much with Intel. Been running a 5950X since shortly after launch and very happy overall. Looking forward to gen5 nvme and ddr5@6000.
Also despite e chores being good enough in a lot of tasks,. I'm running Linux and don't expect the scheduler updates to really solidify for a couple more years. Intel put a lot of effort with Microsoft for this model. And even then had to disable avx512… and now physically cutting it off. They broke standard capability reporting and it will take time. When AMF introduces their own little cores it'll probably be more solid in Linux.
I am really happy to see the dramatically improved performance and competition. The lower power and mobile space has gotten very interesting. I'm not using a 5900hx based mini PC as my home server... Lower power, more performance, yes please. And replacing my router with an Intel N6005 box
It's pretty great all around.
"Having a full eight E-cores compared to Skylake's 4C/8T arrangement helps in a lot of scenarios that are compute limited. When we move to more memory limited environments, or with cross-talk, then the E-cores are a bit more limited due to the cache structure and the long core-to-core latencies."
The issue is one single E core can appear to equal a Skylake core, all by itself. But when you run 8 of them together, the core performance doesn't scale right because of their limited design. Look at the MT tests and you'll get almost half the performance as what you expected.
E cores are small for a reason. Lacking cache, high latency, lacking hyper threading, don't expect much from 16 of them. CPUs are more than the raw compute core. I don't want any E cores at all, thank you.
CPU Benchmark Performance: E-Core - The Intel 12th Gen Core i9-12900K Review: Hybrid Performance Brings Hybrid Complexity (anandtech.com)
AMD is going to suffer on marketing, becuase they are releasing the same processors just in Zen 4 form, but Intel has increased core counts effectively pushing everything up a tier. 7600X will be expected to compete against 13600K but now is a lower end cpu same with 7700X vs 13700K. And Intel is going to keep increasing e-core counts with Arrow Lake hitting 40 IIRC. AMD does not appear to have an answer to this unless they also go hybrid in Zen 5 and use Bergamo cores as e-cores. AMD luckily does have v-cache coming though.
While I have no real interest in Raptor Lake, and will repalce my old Zen 1700X system with a 7900X (hopefully with v-cache) come Arrow Lake I might be a lot more inclined to go that way if AMD keeps to current core counts. No way a regular 16 core 8950X would compete with a 32 core (8P + 24 E) 14900K say. There are rumours AMD is going hybrid with Zen 5 and IMO they have no other option. I don't having 32 full cores is wise in the desktop market especially from power use terms.
4 big superfast cores, 4 medium duty all round cores, 8 little slow cores.
Then have a robust ability to pin software threads to particular core types.
8xE core win: 12 tests
i7-6700K win: 3 tests
tie (difference within 5%): 5 tests
Contrary to your description, the E-core cluster appears to have better MT characteristics than Skylake 4C/8T.
I have done some tests myself comparing E and P cores, and it appears that the E core provides 1.5 times the power efficiency when both P and E cores are run at maximum clock, and the same MT performance in 2/3 the area when they are run at the same clock. These comparison are still true for the runtime benchmarks in productive applications.
By the way, @OneRaichu already showed difference in core-to-core latency matrix between ADL and RPL. The matrix indicates that the cache and latency problems seem to have eased considerably.
Anyways I tried to help. Bizarre. If it was truly as fast as you say, the 12900k would have been much faster than it is, and you know it. I'm done. Don't expect, and don't lie to people, 16 E cores in Raptor lake will not be like 16 Skylake Cores. This is why there is no point in making comments, nobody actually cares what the truth is.
Try it: "I admit, it is about half the speed as I thought it was." "It takes 8 E cores, not 4, to consistently equal or beat 4 Skylake Cores". You're welcome.
Reviews will always tell and for now, hybrid is not looking too bright for me ;)
It would be hilarious if a CPU with so much efficient core count still ended up drawing more power than one with double "P" core count :laugh:
(I.e.: 8P/24E Vs 16 )
With such drastic move from Intel, I expected way more, I guess I was a bit too enthusiastic, although the disappointment is not on the level of their ARC GPUs
And have you never seen the Alder lake die photos, Intel would have distributed a lot of them in PR. Including cache and corresponding ring bus area, each P-core is about 10.7 mm² and each E-core is about 13.4 mm² in a cluster of four. 24 E-cores are placed in the same area of 8 P-cores. Intel itself treats a cluster of four E-cores as if they were a single P-core. Have you ever seen an illustration like this? (I have directly taken these from Intel Newsroom Press Kit: 12th Gen Intel Core)
In the 12900K, comparison between 4xE cores and 1xP core become:
- 25% more area
- Equal power consumption
- 50% more MT performance
The relationship is 1.2x area efficiency and 1.5x power efficiency.
BIG = Zen 5
MEDium = best of Zen 3/3+/4
little = Zen 2
The 'E' here should stay for 'e-waste'.