AMD Ryzen 9 7900X / Ryzen 9 7950X Benchmarks Show Impressive Linux Performance
phoronix.com
phoronix.com
https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-ryzen-7900x-7950x-linux/...
I'm surprised Intel has basically abandoned the idea, and AMD just markets it for "gaming".
Checking out the numbers for these non-3d models, the large cache SKUs are going to be pretty amazing. Likely expensive too
Most speculation/leaks point to CES (early January) would be the announcement so not this year.
because they don't implement "true" 512bit registers for AVX-512. This is basically to support instruction set rather than SIMD performance boost.
> On average for the tested AVX-512 workloads, making use of the AVX-512 instructions led to around 59% higher performance compared to when artificially limiting the Ryzen 9 7950X to AVX2 / no-AVX512.
See the other thread on HN, which points to https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=614191
It appears that Zen 4 implements around 192 registers of 512 bits. However, the latest Intel model (Sapphire Rapids) implements more 512-bit registers, around 332 such registers.
For most operations, Zen 4 has the same execution units as Zen 3, it has not expanded them to 512 bits, but the execution units of Zen 3 are enough to match the 512-bit throughput of the Intel CPUs. The only exception is that Zen 4 can do one 512-bit FMA and one 512-bit FADD per cycle, while the most expensive of the server and workstation Intel CPUs have a second 512-bit FMA unit, so they can do 1 FMA + 1 FMA, instead of 1 FMA + 1 FADD. The cheaper Intel CPUs with AVX-512 are worse than Zen 4, because they can do only 1 FMA, not also an FADD, like Zen 4.
On the other hand Zen 4 implements a true 512-bit shuffle unit, while the current Intel CPUs have only 256-bit shuffle units, slowing down the shuffles that must cross the register halves.
As tested at that link, while there are a few cases when Zen 4 has slower implementations for some 512-bit instructions, in many cases the AVX-512 implementation in Zen 4 is better than in the current Intel CPUs.
Also, there is no idle power comparison, something that may also differ significantly and affect Linux.
The rationale is that each architecture has a sweet spot consumption/performance, and increasing performance over a certain threshold has increasing costs (AFAIK, one significant factor is the increase of voltage in order to push frequencies higher).
I don't know the numbers, but AMD has been offering the 65W threshold for a while, so it can be reasonably assumed that 65W is the sweet spot performance/consumption.
The reason for not buying directly a cheaper model is the number of cores - one may choose, say, a 65W-throttled CPU with 16 cores over an unthrottled 8-cores (in some scenarios, this can make sense).
https://www.anandtech.com/show/17585/amd-zen-4-ryzen-9-7950x...
(2) Cooling budget on servers.
Both are very significant limiting factors for non-gaming applications.
Top gaming rigs are the dragsters of computing: no power consumption is too high, no hardware contraption is too large. But most people, and most businesses, don't drive dragsters.
Basically how many watts required to do some fix unit of work (to render 1 frame using Blender CPU rendering)
You can do an unlimited amount of computation on one joule. One watt-second, if you like.
Not an infinite amount of computation, but any finite amount.
In that test, the CPUs are running on an open-air test bench with a 360mm AIO liquid cooler with the fans running at 100%. I don't think any of us are going to be running the CPUs like that, and that type of cooling encourages the CPUs to draw way more power - because they can draw much more power without overheating.
What I'd want in a test is to take some reasonable cooling solution (reasonable varies from person to person, of course) like a high-quality 140mm tower cooler or a 240mm AIO, in a computer case with the fans running at a silent or slightly above silent level. Then see what type of power and performance you get out of it.
As CPU frequency goes down, it waits less cycles for RAM. Practically it's a bit of a copout since keeping your RAM at high clocks/voltages doesn't effect more CPU TDP but does use more power. It might explain some of the irregularities in testing at least.
Do some traffic analysis on the upstream end of an ethernet cable plugged into that computer while it is hibernating or sleeping some time, you might not like what you what you find.
It's funny that you'd think real-world espionage by intelligence agencies would be sending that data to headquarters rather than some random commercial VPS set up as collection infrastructure that is deliberately unattributable to the organization behind the espionage.
Is this something you know for a fact, or are you extrapolating from intel ME?
Blocklisting, that's a cat and mouse game. Go look at how many different URLs and IPs are utilized for commercial telemetry in the likes of Adobe and Microsoft software if you aren't familiar.
I have a small computer that is used as the router for the Internet connection and on which I have complete control over the firewall and over the proxies used for connecting to the Internet, so there are no chances for an unwanted connection to the Internet.
For additional protection, one could run the Internet browsers in a Virtual Machine, to be absolutely certain that there is no way for a script run by the browser to access the physical hardware, assuming that you do not trust the sandboxing capabilities of the browser.
VMs do not provide protection to the guest OS (or it's processes) from inspection and snooping by the host OS, or from inspection / snooping by the hardware the host OS is running on.
If using a bare metal hypervisor, sed 's/host OS/hypervisor/g'
(I know about Talos.)
I suspect that like with Threadrippers, some Xeons will not ship with it, but I am not as confident about this as I am for Threadrippers, for reasons I cannot divulge.
Now, with regards to the important part of your message, I'm begging people to realize that if they're blindly trusting all code running on all firmware in their personal machine, they are even worse at accurately internalizing risk than those who are proactively paranoid.
Raptor Systems is right there for the truly paranoid.
If you're aware of the risks, you do you, just don't kid yourself into thinking the third most valuable company on the planet is diligently concerned with protecting your privacy and putting your interests above their own.
https://youtu.be/uks4qQ2MXrM?t=1087
https://www.anandtech.com/show/17585/amd-zen-4-ryzen-9-7950x...
And then there is a greater chance that phoronix will include it in its tests; or others will run it and publish the results.
so everybody can verify and compare the results.
If you create a benchmark; everybody can run .. and you can ask your networks for run this public test and upload the results.
On the other hand you can wait for ZEN4 Epyc ... and rent for 1-2 hour in a cloud.
Also, 7000 series is designed for 95C. It'll run forever at 95C, and will always run at 95C if it has the workload and power budget. IOW, giving it more cooling will cause it to run faster rather than making it cooler.
On other chips 95C might indicate it's on the edge of failure, but AMD asserts that 95C won't shorten the 7000's life.
You can run it at 95% speed and usually something like 70% voltage.
My 3900x can do around 4.5ghz at 1.4v or 4.3ghz at 1.05v all core. I imagine Zen 4 will be exactly the same. Don't have the power draw off the top of my head, but that is essentially 125w for 4.5ghz and 90w for 4.3ghz.
I do some gaming and I can tell you their posts never reflect my reality.
Still, I would have liked to see a graph or other pretty chart showing the results of the benchmark off better so that I could internalize them easier.
good PR tricks - they just sign NDA agreements with different reviewers with slightly different embargo lift dates.
sadly, the same can't be said for hundreds/thousands other much smaller reviewers.
See the url in my replies.
Maybe the China/Asia review briefings or so are going with a different date based on different retail availability or so? Hadn't heard of some reviewers getting a different embargo date, typically see that usually only for different geo availability or if getting a sample from a motherboard OEM / other partner and not the CPU company review embargo.
Anyway, enough ranting, nobody sane decides on these 0day benchmarks but waits at least few weeks for overall conclusions, quirks, not so common issues etc. And even better is to wait few months for more stable motherboards and drivers, better availability of compatible RAM etc.
The source of the claim is from here (in Chinese) -
https://www.chiphell.com/thread-2445527-1-4.html
chiphell is the largest computer parts review site in China, and that nApoleon guy posting this two batches of review story is the owner of the site.
In a more recent thread, he confirmed again that his site has completed their own review and he had read it, yet they are not allowed to post it until tomorrow.
https://www.chiphell.com/thread-2446331-1-1.html
In a separate thread he posted today, he mentioned that based on their tests, the temp of the zen4 chip is always 95 degrees celsius - no matter whether you use a shitty cheap cooler or a fancy kick ass one.