4 ms·

> The switch to 5 nm gives "Zen 4" 62 percent lower power for the same performance, I know this is a desktop launch and all but I wonder how much does this upd

> The switch to 5 nm gives "Zen 4" 62 percent lower power for the same performance, I know this is a desktop launch and all but I wonder how much does this update catches upto Apple M1/M2s. With 6000U series CPUs the gap was already closer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOSQIUGGdYE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOSQIUGGdYE but it looks like this will get it pretty close. Obviously getting Laptops on new 7000 series will take time. AMD's achilles heel has always been availability when it comes to Laptops.Many paper launched SKUs of 6000 series Laptops are still not available in US market. Heck, you will be hard pressed to find a 99W laptop with AMD only CPU (basically Apple's flagship 16inch configuration).

bcrl 4y ago
For Zen 4 a good part of the power reduction is that the i/o die went from the Global Foundries 12nm process to TSMC's 6nm process. That probably accounts at least partly for the large drop in power for the same performance, making it unlikely that Apple will see the same drop.
gigatexal 4y ago
Yeah the M1/M2 chips are amazing. In this one test the 5950X is about 50% slower than the M1Max so perhaps the 7950X will close the gap even more: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=149829&sid=d80706cabedc57eb53aec2c6005be37b#p800285 https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1498...
- ben-schaaf 4y ago
  Encoding is usually done by hardware accelerators (located on the GPU) and is generally unrelated to the performance of a processor. Additionally in the video they're comparing hardware accelerated video encoding to software encoding; it's honestly surprising it's only half as fast. Here's a comparison showing the rtx3090 ahead of the Mac Studio in encoding: https://youtu.be/f-mbtSRz2nk?t=550 https://youtu.be/f-mbtSRz2nk?t=550
  - gigatexal 4y ago
    Sure but the 3090 is going to use a ton more power and release a lot more heat than say a M1Max studio. Then again, at the same time, the 3090 machine can do CUDA and other useful things.
GeekyBear 4y ago
> I wonder how much does this update catches upto Apple M1/M2s. >The greatest performance gains are actually at the lowest TDPs, where the 7950X saw a 74% increase in Cinebench R23 MT performance. These advantages actually decreased as TDPs went up, dropping to 37% at 105W, and finally 35% at 170W. When AMD isn’t loading CPU clockspeeds into the stratosphere – which is always well into the diminishing returns of the voltage/frequency curve – Zen 4 is significantly more power efficient than its predecessor. https://www.anandtech.com/show/17552/amd-details-ryzen-7000-launch-up-ryzen-7950x-coming-sept-27 https://www.anandtech.com/show/17552/amd-details-ryzen-7000-... The problem is that Intel is reviving their Pentium 4 strategy of performance via ridiculous frequencies and voltages, and AMD is following suit. Contrast to Apple, where the strategy is throwing die space at more execution units and running the clocks at the efficient end of the voltage frequency curve. The M2 clocks up to 3.5 Ghz, while AMD is targeting up to 5.7 Ghz.
- mcronce 4y ago
  > The greatest performance gains are actually at the lowest TDPs, where the 7950X saw a 74% increase in Cinebench R23 MT performance. These advantages actually decreased as TDPs went up, dropping to 37% at 105W, and finally 35% at 170W. My money is on the new I/O die being the source of most of the improvement in the low TDP range. That thing was pretty power hungry on 12nm GloFo; 6nm TSMC is a pretty sizeable leap. Obviously there are improvements everywhere in the V/F curve, implying that the CCDs have also had solid improvements, but since I/O die power draw doesn't change much with CCD frequency, it's a bigger slice of the pie (so to speak) at lower clocks.
- toast0 4y ago
  > The problem is that Intel is reviving their Pentium 4 strategy of performance via ridiculous frequencies and voltages, and AMD is following suit. > Contrast to Apple, where the strategy is throwing die space at more execution units and running the clocks at the efficient end of the voltage frequency curve. That's the benefit of having a single customer. Apple knows they're never going to build mobile devices with good thermals, so their chips will never clock to the moon, so they have freedom to make a much wider core that (almost certainly) has larger clock domains and would be difficult to run at higher clocks. Otoh, AMD has many customers and those customers like high clockspeed, and their competitor will give it to them, so AMD needs to have a design that can clock to the moon, but also be power efficient at lower clocks.
tiffanyh 4y ago
Where does the article say "The switch to 5 nm gives "Zen 4" 62 percent lower power for the same performance,"? Was the article linked changed?
- neogodless 4y ago
  Details covered in the AMD presentation can be found at Anandtech's article. https://www.anandtech.com/show/17552/amd-details-ryzen-7000-launch-up-ryzen-7950x-coming-sept-27 https://www.anandtech.com/show/17552/amd-details-ryzen-7000-... There, you'll see "up to 62% lower power for the same performance" and "up to 49% more performance at the same power."

bcrl 4y ago

For Zen 4 a good part of the power reduction is that the i/o die went from the Global Foundries 12nm process to TSMC's 6nm process. That probably accounts at least partly for the large drop in power for the same performance, making it unlikely that Apple will see the same drop.

gigatexal 4y ago

Yeah the M1/M2 chips are amazing. In this one test the 5950X is about 50% slower than the M1Max so perhaps the 7950X will close the gap even more: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=149829&sid=d80706cabedc57eb53aec2c6005be37b#p800285 https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1498...

ben-schaaf 4y ago
Encoding is usually done by hardware accelerators (located on the GPU) and is generally unrelated to the performance of a processor. Additionally in the video they're comparing hardware accelerated video encoding to software encoding; it's honestly surprising it's only half as fast. Here's a comparison showing the rtx3090 ahead of the Mac Studio in encoding: https://youtu.be/f-mbtSRz2nk?t=550 https://youtu.be/f-mbtSRz2nk?t=550
- gigatexal 4y ago
  Sure but the 3090 is going to use a ton more power and release a lot more heat than say a M1Max studio. Then again, at the same time, the 3090 machine can do CUDA and other useful things.

GeekyBear 4y ago

> I wonder how much does this update catches upto Apple M1/M2s. >The greatest performance gains are actually at the lowest TDPs, where the 7950X saw a 74% increase in Cinebench R23 MT performance. These advantages actually decreased as TDPs went up, dropping to 37% at 105W, and finally 35% at 170W. When AMD isn’t loading CPU clockspeeds into the stratosphere – which is always well into the diminishing returns of the voltage/frequency curve – Zen 4 is significantly more power efficient than its predecessor. https://www.anandtech.com/show/17552/amd-details-ryzen-7000-launch-up-ryzen-7950x-coming-sept-27 https://www.anandtech.com/show/17552/amd-details-ryzen-7000-... The problem is that Intel is reviving their Pentium 4 strategy of performance via ridiculous frequencies and voltages, and AMD is following suit. Contrast to Apple, where the strategy is throwing die space at more execution units and running the clocks at the efficient end of the voltage frequency curve. The M2 clocks up to 3.5 Ghz, while AMD is targeting up to 5.7 Ghz.

mcronce 4y ago
> The greatest performance gains are actually at the lowest TDPs, where the 7950X saw a 74% increase in Cinebench R23 MT performance. These advantages actually decreased as TDPs went up, dropping to 37% at 105W, and finally 35% at 170W. My money is on the new I/O die being the source of most of the improvement in the low TDP range. That thing was pretty power hungry on 12nm GloFo; 6nm TSMC is a pretty sizeable leap. Obviously there are improvements everywhere in the V/F curve, implying that the CCDs have also had solid improvements, but since I/O die power draw doesn't change much with CCD frequency, it's a bigger slice of the pie (so to speak) at lower clocks.
toast0 4y ago
> The problem is that Intel is reviving their Pentium 4 strategy of performance via ridiculous frequencies and voltages, and AMD is following suit. > Contrast to Apple, where the strategy is throwing die space at more execution units and running the clocks at the efficient end of the voltage frequency curve. That's the benefit of having a single customer. Apple knows they're never going to build mobile devices with good thermals, so their chips will never clock to the moon, so they have freedom to make a much wider core that (almost certainly) has larger clock domains and would be difficult to run at higher clocks. Otoh, AMD has many customers and those customers like high clockspeed, and their competitor will give it to them, so AMD needs to have a design that can clock to the moon, but also be power efficient at lower clocks.

tiffanyh 4y ago

Where does the article say "The switch to 5 nm gives "Zen 4" 62 percent lower power for the same performance,"? Was the article linked changed?

neogodless 4y ago
Details covered in the AMD presentation can be found at Anandtech's article. https://www.anandtech.com/show/17552/amd-details-ryzen-7000-launch-up-ryzen-7950x-coming-sept-27 https://www.anandtech.com/show/17552/amd-details-ryzen-7000-... There, you'll see "up to 62% lower power for the same performance" and "up to 49% more performance at the same power."