2 ms·
It's the average IPC improvement from the AMD marketing slides - Zen 2 over Zen, 15%, Zen 3 over Zen 2, 19% and Zen 4 over Zen 3 at 13%, so Zen 3 over Zen is 37
by formerly_proven 3y ago
It's the average IPC improvement from the AMD marketing slides - Zen 2 over Zen, 15%, Zen 3 over Zen 2, 19% and Zen 4 over Zen 3 at 13%, so Zen 3 over Zen is 37% and Zen 4 over Zen is 55% (maybe a typo in the article)
- jeffbee 3y agoZen 1 was terrible and is not a useful baseline. It was obsolete at launch. Nobody bought them except companies who were paid to take them and agree to be in a press release. It was literally half the speed of Skylake on server workloads.
- phkahler 3y ago>> Zen 1 was terrible and is not a useful baseline. First off, it's a perfect baseline when comparing AMD chips since that time. Zen 1 was similar to Intel performance-wise, winning some benchmarks and losing some. Second, the Raven Ridge (Zen 1+) APUs were IMHO excellent performance for the price at the time - even against Intel. I have not felt the need to build a new system since the Mellori_ITX: https://github.com/phkahler/mellori_ITX https://github.com/phkahler/mellori_ITX
- ahartmetz 3y agoZen 1 was slightly slower per core, but had twice the amount of cores that Intel was willing to sell for desktop platforms! Kind of a big deal for use cases such as compiling C++ code...