AMD Unveils 5 nm Ryzen 7000 "Zen 4" Desktop Processors & AM5 DDR5 Platform

[Crackong]

Perspective. change/original x 100 is the formula, where change = new - original (or the reverse, it's just a sign). Which is the original is the point. Faster implies slower is original, slower ...

eg I take a work cut - reduce to 4 da

Put your formula into the example I 've mentioned above and tell me "a job finished in 1s" is how many % faster than "a job finished in 200s"

 

[wheresmycar]

I'm not blown away with the 15% IPC increase... was hoping something doubled up to consider a platform swap with DDR5. Hope TPU gaming benchmarks show more significant performance gains to sway the opinion.

What happened to 3D-CACHE... not incorporated on Zen 4? i didnt see any mention or am i missing something Or is AMD to use this feature on one-off refresh novelty chips?

For me, the graphics integration is a BIG +1. On my personal gaming/work build I've never opted for anything otherwise... i like the idea of having a trouble-shoot iGPU, needed more than ever with these crazy power consuming modern graphics cards and their higher than usual fail rate.

 

[Drash]

Put your formula into the example I 've mentioned above and tell me "a job finished in 1s" is how many % faster than "a job finished in 200s"

No, it isn't "my" formula, it is "the" formula. You do it, what is the answer? What do you learn from that.

 

[Crackong]

No, it isn't "my" formula, it is "the" formula. You do it, what is the answer? What do you learn from that.

The answer is
"a job finished in 1s" is 20000% faster than "a job finished in 200s"

Now did you learn anything from that?

 

[R0H1T]

You clock them lower because that allows a higher number of cores within a given power limit

Which gets wasted with an IGP, try again

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.

 

[Drash]

The answer is
"a job finished in 1s" is 20000% faster than "a job finished in 200s"

Now did you learn anything from that?

Valantar said:


204s is 31% faster than 297s; 297s is 45% slower than 204s.

>>No
>>It is the other way around

Apologies, apparently I cannot type and nest quotes properly. Valantar was right.

 

[roberto888]

>>No
>>It is the other way around

Apologies, apparently I cannot type and nest quotes properly. Valantar was right.

The difference is 93s, which is 45% of 204s and 31% of 297s. Thus 297s is 45% slower than 204s, and 204s is 31% faster than 297s.

 

[defaultluser]

I know you folks keep cracking the ""Raptor Lake ill destroy this" whip like it's gong-out-of-style, but i think you're missing the large part:

Raptor lake just doubles the e-cores (so as most real-world loads hit a scaling wall, Raptor lake will also hit that same scaling wall earlier than Zen 4 (8P + 16e versus 16 P!)

it's going to take a perfectly-scaling application for Raptor Lake to rape 7950!

 

[Crackong]

>>No
>>It is the other way around

Apologies, apparently I cannot type and nest quotes properly. Valantar was right.

Can you just answer my question?
"a job finished in 1s" is how many % faster than "a job finished in 200s" ?

Answer that with common sense and compare with Valantar's formula.

I am tired explaining primary school maths online.

The difference is 93s, which is 45% of 204s and 31% of 297s. Thus 297s is 45% slower than 204s, and 204s is 31% faster than 297s.

Same

 

[ArcanisGK507]

it will remain smoke until it comes to light...

 

[Deleted member 24505]

I know you folks keep cracking the ""Raptor Lake ill destroy this" whip like it's gong-out-of-style, but i think you're missing the large part:

Raptor lake just doubles the e-cores (so as most real-world loads hit a scaling wall, Raptor lake will also hit that same scaling wall earlier than Zen 4 (8P + 16e versus 16 P!)

it's going to take a perfectly-scaling application for Raptor Lake to rape 7950!

Raptor Lake processors will offer performance increases of 30-40% in multi-threaded workloads, compared to Alder Lake. This double digit increase extends to single-threaded tasks too, with a reported 8-15% increase, which should boost fps in the best PC games.
https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel/raptor-lake-40-percent-faster

With Raptor Lake, Intel is said to be improving the performance of these cores, and the leaked road map published by Videocardz suggests that we should see “new hybrid CPU core changes for improved performance” as well as “improved CPU cache for gaming” improvements for desktop Raptor Lake. It’s unclear what these changes will be at this time, however.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/intel-raptor-lake-cpu-rumors-news-specs/

Pretty sure they are not "just" adding more E cores
https://wccftech.com/roundup/intel-13th-gen-raptor-lake-cpus/

 

[Dimitriman]

Disappointing. Only 15% up when the CPU is boosting 400-500MHz higher is really not impressive.

And what is up with that comparison to 12900K? In 5950x vs Zen4 they are using 3600CL16 vs 6000CL30, but vs Intel they use the same 6000CL30 for Intel and 6400CL32 for Zen4, for whatever reason - why not use the same RAM, especially when you already have the Zen4 +6000CL30 RAM system at hand?

MT looks impressive, but then again they are using some in house benchmark for that instead of Cinebench, which they could have used instead, so it's impossible to tell if it will perform that good in the real world (5950X is only ~5% faster than 12900K in rendering, according to TPU tests).

No gaming numbers also shows that AMD is not confident in the performance advantage vs the current Intel CPU, not to mention their own 5800X3D. No wonder they chose not to release 5900X3D and 5950X3D as these would just end up beating Zen4.

Was waiting for Zen4 to see if I should upgrade from my 3900X to 5950X, now that these are going for 500€. Looks like there is no point in going for Zen4, especially when it requires a new mobo, new ram and new cooling on top of the CPU.

All of your questions and comments can be answered by this: it was not a CPU launch. This was a launch of the AM5 platform. I don't think AMD will reveal (and neither will Intel for that matter) anything detailed about their CPU before launch as it would give their competitor the opportunity to fine tune their product and better compete.

 

[Tomgang]

5.5 ghz in gaming is a little better than i hoped for and that rumors around 5.4 ghz to 5.6 ghz is actually true.

With that said, my own 5950X can stock boost up to 5.05 ghz on the best cores. With some tingering in bios the 3 best cores can go to 5.25 ghz and all cores capable of reaching 5 ghz or above at light load. Clock Will be lower at high load and anything above 5.25 ghz and it crashes at just the slides load, it can boot but not handle much stress over 5.25 ghz. By the way my cpu is aircooled, so it doesn't need exotic cooling to reach these clocks, just a good motherboard.

But a 5950X3D and I would be more than happy and dosent need a new socket. But I don't know, guess a 3d version dosent make sense as v-cashe mostly benefits games only.

 

[R0H1T]

This double digit increase extends to single-threaded tasks too, with a reported 8-15% increase

And AMD can do SMT4 with zen5, kinda chicken & egg thing there. But AMD with their chiplet approach will have the core advantage going in to the future, till Intel copies them.

 

[Richards]

Zen3 was a ground-up redesign, not "a few design changes".

Even apple got 20% from tsmc 5nm.. is the node a flop or amd zen 4 architecture has weaknesses in it ?

 

[MarsM4N]

Is this just a show prop she's holding up or are chip dies now golden? Remember them only silver'ish.

Guess it's for some thermal advantages, right?

 

[Drash]

Can you just answer my question?
"a job finished in 1s" is how many % faster than "a job finished in 200s" ?

Answer that with common sense and compare with Valantar's formula.

I am tired explaining primary school maths online.


Same

Can you not work it out? Are you not confident in your own reasoning? What's your PhD in? Mine is in Electronic Engineering, with some novel new maths I invented to prove 802.11 is a "pile of wank" and Hiperlan was actually on the right track. Then I moved on.

TLR Valantar was right. Go Away and think about this.

PS I also like beer. Try it, it helps.

 

[Valantar]

Here is a really really simple example
Person A uses 100s to finish a job
Person B uses 200s

With YOUR equation
200/100 so B is 100% slower than A
100/200 so A is 50% faster than B

Yes, that is exactly correct. When you say "slower than A" that wording explicitly takes the time spent by A to finish the job as the point of reference. Working with percentages, that would then be 100%. Similarly, "faster than B" means the point of reference is B, setting the time spent by B as 100%. The difference is thus relative to the base number, whether that is higher or lower. Whereever you set the baseline, the comparisons follow from that.

Your equation is fundamentally flawed because in your equation, A will NEVER be 100% faster than B becasue it has to be finished with 0 second to do that, in YOUR equation.

... is that a problem? It is literally impossible for something to be infinitely fast, that's just how nature works, so ... yes? Is there some fundamental problem with the impossibility of a 100% increase in a relative percentage measuring towards zero? You can't do the task in zero time, and you can't have a 100% increase, because 100% is then the span between a theoretical zero time expenditure and the real time expenditure. This is literally the only common sense approach of comparing time expenditures trending towards zero - the only method that takes into account that zero will never be reached, and that doesn't exaggerate the difference bewteen minute real-world changes.

I mean, this is even included in your hackneyed reformulation, which tries to avoid this by reformulating the variables in question to "units of work per time" (which might be zero, but only at zero work done) rather than "time spent per one unit of work", which is what the slide here (and nearly all such benchmarks) presents.

You're arguing as if it's better if a change between, say, 20s and 10s compared to a 200s baseline were presented as "10x faster" and "20x faster", despite the fact that this grossly exaggerates the difference between the two. You see that, right? Presenting those two as 90% and 95% faster is a far more accurate representation of their absolute time expenditure.

Please, use your common sense.
If a person finish his job in 10s when the other guy needs 200s, he is 20x faster than the other guy, but in YOUR equation, he is just 95% faster.

Even if the first person only needs 1s to finish the job, in YOUR equation he is just 99.5% faster.
In reality he is 200x faster

But all of those are still true. Your "in reality" statements, which seem to be meant as rebuttals, are literally the same ratio. They're saying the same thing. And all are equally valid - but which is more useful or appropriate depends on context, of course. And the context is what you're misapplying here. The context is not a question looking for a rate of work, but a time till completion of work. And in terms of marketing, the application you're arguing for is one that exaggerates the actual improvements. When you're comparing two things to see how fast they can finish a task, it's the reduction in task completion time that matters, not the fact that a 100% reduction is impossible. That's just how the world works.

 

[Dyatlov A]

Can it reach similar high single score as Alder Lake, like 800+ points in CPU-Z? Just because i dont care very many cores, i want fast cores.

 

[Assimilator]

"the company claiming a 15% single-threaded uplift over "Zen 3"" - 15% is really not much to write home about for a generational change, especially considering there's the transition to faster memory too. Is the Zen design running out of steam finally?

"AI compute acceleration" is vague enough to mean precisely nothing - why would consumers care?

"up to 24 PCI-Express 5.0 lanes from the processor" - that's not nearly as many as I was hoping, it's the same number as ADL (I'm including the latter's chipset DMI link here). Granted, 8 PCIe 5.0 lanes are superior to 8 4.0 lanes, but if AMD has to spend 4 lanes on the chipset(s) then you're back to parity with ADL. Which means it should be easy for RKL to match or even exceed this count.

"the AM5 Socket retains cooler compatibility with AM4" - I wonder how many idiots are going to reuse their shitty $20 tower coolers on Zen 4 CPUs, then complain the CPUs are slow because they throttle.

"up to 14 USB 20 Gbps ports" - lovely marketing weasel-words, you still need an entire lane of PCIe 5.0 or 2 lanes of 4.0 to reach 20Gbps. Unless the chipset(s) themselves are 5.0-capable, which I strongly doubt due to cost implications, they will need to have a shitton of 4.0 lanes to be able to provide that level of USB connectivity. I'm expecting the same thing that we saw on X370, namely one or two USB-C ports at the highest speed and the rest still being ye olde 3.1 gen 1 type-A.

No explicit mention of USB4 anywhere, which is ominous. I can't imagine AMD would be stupid enough to launch a platform that lacks USB4, but also... AMD.

"will also standardize Wi-Fi 6E + Bluetooth WLAN solutions it co-developed with MediaTek, weaning motherboard designers away from Intel-made WLAN solutions" - that MediaTek-branded solution will have to be incredibly good to pull board manufacturers away from Intel's tried-and-true WiFi hardware. My fear is that it'll instead be incredibly cheap and instead of having decent Intel WiFi on everything, we'll get crappy MediaTek on lower-end SKUs and need to pay more for Intel on the better ones.

"AMD is betting big on next-generation M.2 NVMe SSDs with PCI-Express Gen 5" - nobody cares, PCIe 4.0 SSDs are stupidly fast already, no ordinary consumer wants or needs 5.0 SSDs, what they want and need are cheaper and more energy-efficient SSDs. Console tards will lap this up though.

"The new AMD Smart Access Storage technology builds on Microsoft DirectStorage" - something else nobody cares about.

 

[Yraggul666]

Yeeeaaah...NO!
Don't get me wrong, i'm ECSTATIC about AMD being in THE GAME again and insanely happy about the competition;
also LOVING the new AM5/DDR5/Pci-E5.0 stuff.
Now i'll just enjoy this AM4/DDR4/Pci-E4.0 system for the next 5/6 years while at the same time watching the AMD/INtel/nGreedia wars.
Next upgrade is bound for 2027/2028, unless smth goes poof outside the warranty period but even then i'm not switching platform.

 

[Tech Ninja]

Seems this is a lot worse than fanboys predicted.

They need a 3D cache version ASAP or AMD is AMDead.

7000 a series is gonna lose to LoveLace as well

 

[dont whant to set it"']

@Tech Ninja
Your point beeing?

We( consumers) still win, or should win.

I'm still gaming at 1080p 144Hz, had a RX 5700 XT $385 in 2020 including shipped from 2000miles, under ran it by both power (sometimes at 50% for the kicks of it) and gpu clocks / gpu Tension supply , card mustered trough exceding expectations and then some.

A pretty much similar story( mind the price) after upgrading to a RX 6900XT, heavily under run , not much heat output , fans speed set on minimum( only because I currently find it better compared to the fan stop feature).

It might of well been a couple of nVidia based gpu graphics cards my last two, but it wasnt.

Notable mention : PSU rated 550 Watts.

 

[Jism]

15% ST increase should yield a higher overal MT performance, right?

I dont see the issue(s) here. New platform with future CPU releases.

They need some time, but they will come.

PCi-E 5.0 is'nt a requirement either...Theres no card taxing even PCI-E 4.0.

 

[529th]

USB4 is connected to the CPU. Shown on a diagram