The DDR5 throughput is quite low.
View attachment 359181
vs Core i9-14900K:
View attachment 359182
At least, the L2 cache throughput is quite high:
View attachment 359184
vs.:
View attachment 359183
We review the ZEN 5 processor series, highlighting the powerful 16-core Ryzen 9 9950X. This model boasts the highest number of cores for consumers and operates at the fastest speeds. We're moving beyond high-end to the enthusiast tier of processors.
www.guru3d.com
Join us as we review, analyse and test the Intel 14th Gen core processor, specifically the Raptor Lake-based Core i9 14900K, which has been officially released. Prior to this, there were numerous leaks and performance reviews surrounding the series. The latest model represents the advanced...
www.guru3d.com
And? Help me understand...
Ryzen CPUs always had AIDA scores lower than Intel ones. That didnt stop them from being faster overall in many cases.
What is the point of this apple-orange comparison other than showing a few arbitrary numbers that do not translate directly into overall performance. Let alone on different applications.
These may have some meaning when comparing same architecture.
Its like trying to compare shader count on 2 completely GPU architectures.
You will be driven to the wrong conclusion with mathematical precision if thats the only thing you are looking.
Yes, memory bandwidth and latency always sucks on Zen (even previous generations) compared to Intel. This is a weakness that AMD still didn't improve with Zen 5 by keeping the same old IOD (big mistake).
And that's why X3D performance benefit a lot especially for games, as the largest L3 cache makes up for the slow IMC.
What is surprising to me is that games didn't benefit much on Zen 5 even with the cache bandwidth being double.
You mean the bandwidth of L3?
But you said it right above it. What good is the wider path if the "source" (IOD) cant feed it enough.
Enter the extra cache for games...
Same IOD = lower cost, better margins and mainly opens the door for X3D parts to be more relevant than ever (=more profit). Sure... sales are not looking good for these "regular" 9000 but 7000 is in the mix and 3DVcache is coming. I can already see in the future a 9500X3D for "entry" level gaming.
I've said it again (cant remember if her or another thread, confused by so many discussions... lol) that these chiplets will be also on EPYC and there we dont know what kind of IOD AMD has cooked.
On desktop? things will pick up
AMDs new ZEN5 CPUs weren't ready for prime time. They should have waited till the software and new motherboards were "Officially" ready. So now AMD needs to play catch-up because these CPUs should be at a min 10-12% IPC over the previous gen.
ZEN5 suffers from Windows Scheduling issues. The same happened with ZEN4 when they first came out.
AMD did have an opportunity to really give it to Intel and all their major design issues. But nope lol, not yet I suppose.
You can say that. AMD is known for rushed releases. Or maybe its ready as can be for the EPYC.
In the end if you think about it, no matter how much testing is happening on a close environment the real test is out there...
You can also say that nothing is over yet. This so far was half (or less?) the Zen5 parts
And we really should want Intel to stay relevant in the industry of CPUs, so its not all that bad not striking hard on Intel... yet...