IMHO, increasingly inefficient software notwithstanding, CPU performance has been well beyond acceptable since a long time ago.
Thus, the real question is how buggy these new CPUs will be. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37812556
Thus, the real question is how buggy these new CPUs will be. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37812556
They're hopefully not using a CPU for that - that's all been on the GPU for years.
If you're doing something that follows the same general design as most existing video codecs, absolutely; these days "hardware" encoding is less "fixed function chip" and more "the driver/firmware knows how to stitch together these components so as to comply with the xyz standard" - hence you see support for new encoding standards getting added in driver updates. If you're doing some completely radical out-of-left-field video compression algorithm, maybe not, although even then GPU hardware is pretty general these days and video encoding tends to be well suited to running on it.
For simulation applications there is no such concept as "acceptable", the utility of a CPU scales linearly with how fast it can do the calculations.
Our antenna design folks sends simulation runs to a group of R7525s with 2x EPYC 75F3 CPUs and 2x A100 80GB GPUs.
A small problem might have tens of millions of elements and billions of unknowns to solve and run on one server. Larger problems might be spread across all of the servers, after coordination with everyone else.
Simulations take 8-12 hours to run.
This is not acceptable.
Anything slower than "an amount of time imperceptible to even the most responsive human" is unacceptable.
Everything is too slow.
Networks are too slow, memory is too slow, storage is too slow, GPUs are too slow, and CPUs are definitely too slow.
CPUbenchmark is giving the new chip about a 100% improvement over the 3990x which is fairly tempting even at the 6-10k price tag I've seen floating around.