AMD Zen 5 CPUs Reportedly Made on TSMC's 3nm Process, Mass Production in Q3

But real performance improvements post M1 didn't really match expectations. IMO the expectations Apple stated/implied in their usual marketing incantations are partly to blame, but they were the ones pumping the hype, so it's completely fair to charge them for that.

Compute performance improvements of ~30% are OK and in line with everybody else, meaning they are dealing with the same reality as other companies, hence the "let down"

Depending on what you're doing, modern AMD chips are very close to M series chips under load (specifically efficiency). The biggest issue is idle power is still higher. My amd framework (7840u) takes between 5-10watts idle unless I use something like the xtu tuner.

Of course, it also has a very low performance-per-watt, comparatively speaking.

Shouldn't AMD and Intel have an expertise that ideally would take decades and billions to be reached?

With that said the competition is gaining, a couple hope to match Perf and perf/watt of the M3. Some even mention the M3 pro. None mention the M3 max.

I've recently bought new MSI with a Core Ultra 7 155h, just finished making Linux work on it, seems that without turbo boost (set it up with TLP) it manages at least 10h of life, and I didn't notice any degradation without turbo in everyday tasks. I've very little experience with it yet though.

I expect that it will use less baterry once Intel Thread Director usage finally gets merged to scheduler, right now on 6.8rc5 it is still using all different types of cores as if they are the same.

Also, was surprised that there are 4 types of cores now in a sense - P, E, two new LP cores, and actually two out of six P cores have slightly bigger maximum frequency, 4.8 instead of 4.6 GHz.

That being said, AMD chips are absolutely more power efficient than Intel chips, by a huge margin

The only thing I really regret is getting a B450 Motherboard that only supports 1 NVMe SSD (and only PCIE Gen 3 SSDs). I would focus on making sure your motherboard has enough RAM and SSD expansion room, and then buy a big enough power supply for whatever GPU you want to run. You might want to figure out whether Zen 5 will have a new chipset, and if so, will the IO be significantly better. Nothing else is going to make a huge difference.

You, on the other hand, have been waiting about 15 CPU generations. You can build a PC on the AM5 platform and be content for 5+ years.

Get a B650E or X670E chipset, PCIe 4.0 or 5.0 NVMe drive, 64GB of RAM (why not), 1000W power supply (thanks nvidia).

By the 7800X3D now, worst case scenario the 9800X3D is so good that you'll have to sell the 7800X3D for half the price on eBay

that's why I think there's no race on even buying a system now with a placeholder 7800X3D... motherboards should be significantly better next year too (albeit I'm sure more expensive too).

it may make sense to jump on RAM this year though, because most forecasts have RAM prices increasing 50-100% over the course of this year (and they are already up by 10-20% from the bottom) due to large cuts in production and a large rebound in demand. It's gonna be 2017 all over again.

Let me explain RISC vs CISC, RISC is Reduced Instruction Set Computer and CISC is Complex Instruction Set Computer. The base component instruction sets of x86 are CISC. The base component instruction sets of ARM are RISC.

When technology evolves and newer instruction sets are required to handle those tasks they can often become more complex and so today with the variety of instruction sets on both x86 and ARM they are closer to each other more than ever. Still different.

Now going to the differences between ARM and x86 where it matters. ARM has the lowest power draw to performance ratio but it's need for power skyrockets as it approaches more complicated tasks. x86 starts higher in power draw but its performance is pretty maintained under all workloads.

Neither are wrong, just it depends what you're planning to do. x86 is probably the best architecture for the general user, but ARM is great in a phone if everything stays relatively simple. Notice how some phones with 4000 mAh battery will be dead in 30mins while playing a game which the Steam Deck can handle for maybe 1.5 hours of gameplay? However if I wanted something to stay on all day to receive text notifications and pretty much be idle in my pocket, I'd want an ARM processor. I think the real reason Apple went ARM is that after studying the life habits of their customers they realized most of their laptop users fold sleep their devices like a phone without ever really charging them. At least the majority, when working in a Mac Shop, the term used for a mac only software development team, the constant amount of fold close open recharge would've been better on an ARM processor. Someone at work even asked if they could just code on their Samsung phone because it got better battery life than the old Intel Macs.

This does not work and just adds noise. This is not Twitter, if you want him to see something, you should send an email. Also, submissions in non-English languages are strongly discouraged so the quality of your source does not matter. You can submit a better article in English, though, which should not be too hard in this case.

So you get more, faster cores/units, in the same footprint.

sram.is the exception as it scales poorly, so don't expect much. If anything, this is the largest and most important hardware issue facing all the chip gains, since so much of performance is memory dependent.