Im not taking words as gospel but there is a ton of info and test that show there is a difference, where it is or whats the cause is not yet clear but the numbers say it is.
Nvm the difference was cause by the difference in core parking between the OSes.
https://translate.google.com/transl...-windows-7-benchmark-core-parking/&edit-text=
https://translate.google.com/transl...-windows-7-benchmark-core-parking/&edit-text=
Original post was deleted:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...-four-core-processors-available-april-11.html
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...-four-core-processors-available-april-11.html
Don't know about that, but it shows the inter-CCX fabric in under-provisioned with bandwidth. Latency would be roughly similar for both memory speeds.
AMD probably linked the fabric to the DDR/2 clock because the individual CCXs can be running at different speeds (the L3 runs at the fastest core speed). Maybe they intended to run at DDR clockspeeds, but had to halve it to support faster RAM The situation is pretty bad, when you add multiranked DIMMs or multiple DIMMS for increased RAM capacity, memory operating frequence falls as does CPU performance.
IMO, they need to make the whole un-core an independent clock domain and ensure the inter-CCX fabric has enough bandwidth to support sustained performance. Either double the link widths, or double the number of links; The Infinity fabric has a mesh topology which degenerates to a single link when there are just two nodes, maybe use two instead ?
Cheers
iMacmatician
Regular
A Chinese website has roadmaps containing Pinnacle Ridge and Raven Ridge.
There's no sign of the rumored DDR4 + HBM2 Raven Ridge.
There's no sign of the rumored DDR4 + HBM2 Raven Ridge.
You wanted more than 8 cores for the next version of Ryzen 7, just a year after it's released?
Yes. The 1800X enjoys a comfortable lead over the i7-7700K in non-gaming workloads, but not a huge one. Intel is about to introduce 6-core processors with Coffee Lake and I would expect those to close that gap, and perhaps even overcome Ryzen. There will probably be Skylake-E SKUs with 8, 10, and perhaps 12 cores as well.
So I think AMD needs 12 cores to maintain Ryzen's edge, which shouldn't be difficult on a 14nm process that is already pretty mature now, let alone next year, especially when Ryzen is apparently something like 215mm². The other option would be for Pinnacle Ridge to have at least 10% higher IPC compared to Summit Ridge, slightly higher clock speeds, and fewer issues with its interconnect and memory subsystems. This is possible, but adding more cores would be easier, and not incompatible with any of this.
Alternatively, AMD could make relatively affordable—$1000?—versions of Naples with 16 cores, essentially offering something comparable to Intel's HEDT platform, but with much more raw power.
On a somewhat unrelated note, the R7 1700 seems to be really, really power efficient:
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/939-2/consommation-efficacite-energetique.html
I think the last time AMD was clearly more power-efficient than Intel at anything might have been in 2006…
I demand a rematch with v3.20 & 3D Now! support.
Well they use one test (x264 ) performance, i can imagine, it can allready change from one test from another ( i have try watch on some other reviews, they completely differ on test choice and so results too. ).. ( And ofc, CPU binn, system used can get a bit part on it. ( when 12V is mesured )
Actually, i think outside some internal change, IPC increase can come mostly from "clock speed" increase.
Last edited:
AMD will fix ryzens bottlenecks and increase performance before adding more core which I think its the right move. Burn resources into adding core without fixing the flaw in the design would be a bad move. Get the design better first, then scale it.
New "article" from wccftech, AMD brings back 3D Now! to Ryzen
Breaking News: "3D Zen and Now!"
Similar threads
