kondaminZen 5 has A much wider pipeline than zen 4
it is capable of doing more work in one tick than zen 4 is but the workloads just aren’t there on the desktop.

buying a new truck that is just as fast but can carry 50% more load isn’t going to get the job done faster if the load remains the same as on the original truck.

amd Should follow intel and split server architecture from the desktop architecture and try to make it lean so it can better deal with higher frequencies

kondaminZen 5 has A much wider pipeline than zen 4
it is capable of doing more work in one tick than zen 4 is but the workloads just aren’t there on the desktop.

buying a new truck that is just as fast but can carry 50% more load isn’t going to get the job done faster if the load remains the same as on the original truck.

amd Should follow intel and split server architecture from the desktop architecture and try to make it lean so it can better deal with higher frequencies

AusWolfThat means to me that Zen 5 is a server architecture, and the fact that we have desktop parts is a bonus.

igormpBut Intel hasn't split architectures, the cores used in their xeon lineup are the same cores used in their consumer lineup.
Their newest granite rapids uses the same redwood cove found in meteor lake.
Emerald rapids uses raptor cove, same found in desktop 13th gen.
Sapphire rapids used the same golden cove as the desktop 12th gen.
Sierra forest uses the same crestmont found in mtl E-cores.

Zen 5's design already allows it to be used in different nodes (3 and 4nm), while also focusing in both dense and high clock variants.

AMD just hasn't focused in improving gaming performance with this new μarch, but it's an amazing architecture for most other tasks, and is a multithreading best (its 2x4-wide decoder can't be properly used without SMT, as an example).

AusWolfThat means to me that Zen 5 is a server architecture, and the fact that we have desktop parts is a bonus.

I do not think splitting is a good idea, though. It requires double the R&D efforts, double the manufacturing allocation at TSMC, and results in an incoherent hardware/software stack, meaning you can only do certain things with one, but not the other. This is the same problem AMD has with RDNA and CDNA. AMD is trying to unify them within a few generations for a reason.

Edit: Splitting might be a reason for Intel's problems, imo. Too many projects going on at the same time, too much money spent on stuff that doesn't bear fruit, or doesn't have the time to bear fruit before they hop onto the next one. Not to mention, it makes their product stack a convoluted mess.

kondaminIntel stripped out avx512 from the consumer version which is present in the server version.

they also have the big little thing going on

igormpAMD just hasn't focused in improving gaming performance with this new μarch, but it's an amazing architecture for most other tasks, and is a multithreading best (its 2x4-wide decoder can't be properly used without SMT, as an example).

Minus InfinityAlso maybe, just maybe it's time for the game engines to be better optimised. It's clear a lot of titles are using old engines not designed for modern cpu's. People expecting 30% better performance every gen are unrealistic. There's only so much the cpu can do, some things can't be done in parallel, unlike what gpus can do. No way a game would be able to take advantage of say new wider pipeline without needing work and recompiling.

The fact Intel and AMD are showing poor game improvements despite decent IPC uplifts shows it's not a simple problem.

NhonhoOn the EPYC CPU specifications pages, AMD did the "favor" of not showing which type of core the processor has (whether ZEN5, ZEN5c, etc.), nor does it show which instruction sets the processor supports or how much cache memory each chiplet has:

www.amd.com/en/products/processors/server/epyc/9005-series/amd-epyc-9755.html
www.amd.com/en/products/processors/server/epyc/9005-series/amd-epyc-9575f.html



Is this performance difference between the EPYC 9xx5 and 9xx4 CPUs due to improvements in the AVX-512 unit of the ZEN5 architecture?

Why doesn't the EPYC 9755 (128 cores) perform nearly twice as well as the 9575F (64 cores) in this AV1 video encode test? Is this a limitation of the CPUs or of the software?



Source:
www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amd-launches-epyc-turin-9005-series-our-benchmarks-of-fifth-gen-zen-5-chips-with-up-to-192-cores-500w-tdp#section-encoding-benchmarks

Tek-CheckCrushing performance blow for new Xeons!
Xeons were one generation behind when they were released.
Now, Granite Rapids are two generations behind, yet again.

semitopethere's too much noise in the benchmarks. lots of meaningless tests when it comes to what the CPUs are for.

semitopethere's too much noise in the benchmarks. lots of meaningless tests when it comes to what the CPUs are for.

NhonhoWhy doesn't the EPYC 9755 (128 cores) perform nearly twice as well as the 9575F (64 cores) in this AV1 video encode test? Is this a limitation of the CPUs or of the software?