Is AMD making progress in the GHz race too?
AMD Ryzen 9 4950X Rumor: Could it Spell Trouble for Intel Gaming Supremacy? : Read more
AMD Ryzen 9 4950X Rumor: Could it Spell Trouble for Intel Gaming Supremacy? : Read more
The scheduled forum maintenance has now been completed. If you spot any issues, please report them here in this thread. Thank you!
Reports indicate that this also pertains an engineering sample of the 16-core part, making it the successor to the 3950X, likely to be called the 4950X -- unless AMD jumps straight to the 5000 nomenclature for the Zen 3 "Vermeer" parts, in which case it will likely be called the 5950X. A move such as this wouldn't be all too surprising given that the current 4000-series chips are APUs based on the Zen 2 architecture.
Maybe a tiny bit but probably not as much as architectural improvements.Could the 100mhz increase make the difference in games?
it depends on what its 4.8 means. old had 4.6 advertised so ~200mhz on paper.Could the 100mhz increase make the difference in games?
Could the 100mhz increase make the difference in games?
The 100MHz is mostly irrelevant. What will make a big difference in games is having twice as many cores and L3 cache per CCX to reduce the amount of off-CCX traffic and associated latency: CCX-to-CCX traffic is where Ryzen takes its largest performance hits vs Intel and core clock frequency does not help with CCX-to-CCX latency, especially if traffic goes across CCDs. It is also the main reason why fabric clock is such a big deal for Ryzen.Could the 100mhz increase make the difference in games?
The other big question is what the all-core (or typical) clocks will be for heavy workloads. Intel's 9900K for example runs 4.7GHz all-core, all day long, even though the boost clock is 5.0GHz and the base clock is 3.6GHz. From what I saw in testing, the 3950X typically ran most heavily threaded applications (including games!) at around 4.2GHz. So Intel is ~300MHz less than boost and AMD is ~500MHz less than boost. Zen 3 could change that, and if it gets typical clocks of ~4.5GHz instead of ~4.2GHz, that would be a decent bump in performance.The 100MHz is mostly irrelevant. What will make a big difference in games is having twice as many cores and L3 cache per CCX to reduce the amount of off-CCX traffic and associated latency: CCX-to-CCX traffic is where Ryzen takes its largest performance hits vs Intel and core clock frequency does not help with CCX-to-CCX latency, especially if traffic goes across CCDs. It is also the main reason why fabric clock is such a big deal for Ryzen.
Core to Core latency and RAM to CCX latency are things AMD needs to work on, the Chiplet approach has that inherent detriment and there are numerous solutions to it short of being Monolithic Die.But yeah, latency stuff is going to be a bigger factor I think. Paul and I have also talked, and Renoir being OEM-only for desktop is very likely AMD trying not to spoil the Zen 3 party.
Right. I think that's why the 3300x is a great performer? There's no ccx-ccx?The 100MHz is mostly irrelevant. What will make a big difference in games is having twice as many cores and L3 cache per CCX to reduce the amount of off-CCX traffic and associated latency: CCX-to-CCX traffic is where Ryzen takes its largest performance hits vs Intel and core clock frequency does not help with CCX-to-CCX latency, especially if traffic goes across CCDs. It is also the main reason why fabric clock is such a big deal for Ryzen.
Yes, that's why it is nearly impossible to overclock the 3100 enough to make it catch up with the 3300X despite having the same total number of cores and L3$ on the same architecture and why the 3300X can give the technically far more powerful 3600(X) a run for its money in some cases.Right. I think that's why the 3300x is a great performer? There's no ccx-ccx?
Not by itself, but couple with IPC gains, it will likely give gaming performance a healthy bump.Could the 100mhz increase make the difference in games?
You can't tell the difference in the performance of any software, between 4.8Ghz and 5.0Ghz, without benchmarks.I rather have it running 5Ghz+ and much more power hungry at least have the option Intel is more power hungry anyways. Even for 200mhz + your favorite appz just feel that much more snappier and even a lot sometimes it's worth it!
The other big question is what the all-core (or typical) clocks will be for heavy workloads. Intel's 9900K for example runs 4.7GHz all-core, all day long, even though the boost clock is 5.0GHz and the base clock is 3.6GHz. From what I saw in testing, the 3950X typically ran most heavily threaded applications (including games!) at around 4.2GHz. So Intel is ~300MHz less than boost and AMD is ~500MHz less than boost. Zen 3 could change that, and if it gets typical clocks of ~4.5GHz instead of ~4.2GHz, that would be a decent bump in performance.
But yeah, latency stuff is going to be a bigger factor I think. Paul and I have also talked, and Renoir being OEM-only for desktop is very likely AMD trying not to spoil the Zen 3 party.
Vermeer might just be the ultimate Zen that many have been waiting for. Things to consider that can contribute to its increased IPC over Zen2:
All of this can add up to 20% over Zen2. If that's the case, Intel would be in big trouble and Rocket Lake will really have to come out guns blazing, given that it's not too hamstrung by their 14nm limitations.
- 7nm+ node should bring around 5-10% IPC uplift over current 7nm.
- Architectural changes. Could easily add another 5-10%? Hard to tell.
- Clock speed increases. Another 3%?
- Single CCX over dual CCX designs (for 6C and 8C models)?
I was trying to get a rough estimate of IPC increase (taking mostly everything in consideration). I'm going with 17%ish. What would you reckon abouts?Usually a shrink brings a performance increase because they can fit more transistors into the same space,which would be a architectural change, or because it uses less power which they can put towards increasing clocks,you are adding the same thing three times here.
The difference will be all over the place depending on what you benchmark,just like going from zen 1 to zen 2, some things will have no improvement while others might have 15-17-20% difference, if today's implementation is handicapping them that much.I was trying to get a rough estimate of IPC increase (taking mostly everything in consideration). I'm going with 17%ish. What would you reckon abouts?
Practically all gaming benchmarks disagree, high-performance PC gaming requires BOTH strong IPC and high clock frequencies, can't sacrifice much of either for more of the other.Gaming doesn't rely on IPC heavy code
Gaming benchmarks are mostly flyby 3d renders without any user input,pathfinding or AI,maybe you get some scripted events but even then it's in the perfectly controlled environment that the benchmark creates,it's little more than 3d rendering with the help of the game engine.Practically all gaming benchmarks disagree, high-performance PC gaming requires BOTH strong IPC and high clock frequencies, can't sacrifice much of either for more of the other.
Doing a benchmark without any of those things would require fully pre-recorded animation, wouldn't be much of a benchmark and require a stupid amount of extra storage. The more logical way of doing a repeatable benchmark is to replay inputs using fixed/recorded PRNG seeds for AIs and other algorithms, in which case the load on the game engine is effectively the same as actual play as all of the pathfinding, AI and whatever else all need to be re-calculated for playback.Gaming benchmarks are mostly flyby 3d renders without any user input,pathfinding or AI
No all you need is the camera's x,y,z position and view angles, you feed that into the 3d engine and out comes a pretty picture.Doing a benchmark without any of those things would require fully pre-recorded animation,
Indeed most aren't.wouldn't be much of a benchmark
They are using the game assets that are already part of the game...so yes stupid amount of storage but not extra.and require a stupid amount of extra storage.