CPU IPC Gaming Performance over the generations

[jigger]

Running only half a Ryzen cluster isn’t ideal either.

 

[humbug]

Running only half a Ryzen cluster isn’t ideal either.

Yeah, cuts out half the L3, at least on Zen 1 and 2, don't know about 3.

 

[humbug]

If the current Nvidia 3000 cards are more bottlenecked than AMD 6000 cards does this mean in a year or two time with the newer more powerful CPUs we'll see them pull away from AMD in performance?

We are already seeing that, i think. At 4K the there isn't any bottlenecking from the CPU and the 3090 does pull ahead of the 6900XT at 4K vs 1080P.

But there isn't much difference between them in rasterization performance, 5% or so.

 

[Cyber-Mav]

is it just gaming benches they run? no video encoding etc?

 

[mmj_uk]

Multithread is the future

but people such as yourself were arguing that IPC would no longer matter and hence Bulldozer's poor IPC wasn't important, AMD fans used to post high resolution gaming benchmarks where there was an obvious GPU bottleneck and use that as evidence.

Well, its both, not one or the other.

For gaming a high IPC processor with fewer cores will nearly always beat a high core count chip with poor IPC, game engines are not well suited to parallel processing.

It's true that you need the right balance but to use extremes as an example you'd get way better performance in games from a single core 4ghz chip versus 4 cores at 1ghz, adding more cores should be supplementary not done at the expense of IPC like it was with Bulldozer.

 

[jigger]

but people such as yourself were arguing that IPC would no longer matter and hence Bulldozer's poor IPC wasn't important, AMD fans used to post high resolution gaming benchmarks where there was an obvious GPU bottleneck and use that as evidence. Look it now, struggling at 1080P even.

I was? I remember a load of pro Nvidia nuts saying Intel quads with small IPC bumps where the future.

 

[jigger]

but people such as yourself were arguing that IPC would no longer matter and hence Bulldozer's poor IPC wasn't important, AMD fans used to post high resolution gaming benchmarks where there was an obvious GPU bottleneck and use that as evidence.



For gaming a high IPC processor with fewer cores will nearly always beat a high core count chip with poor IPC, game engines are not well suited to parallel processing.

It's true that you need the right balance but to use extremes as an example you'd get way better performance in games from a single core 4ghz chip versus 4 cores at 1ghz, adding more cores should be supplementary not done at the expense of IPC like it was with Bulldozer.

Ah, you’re one of those people. OK, show me that single core with 4x the performance of any other. Show me that 32 core that beats 128 cores.

 

[mmj_uk]

I was? I remember a load of pro Nvidia nuts saying Intel quads with small IPC bumps where the future.

Well high IPC quad core processors are still hugely popular whereas the low IPC Bulldozer architecture has been consigned to the garbage bin so clearly it is? AMD basically admitted they were wrong with Ryzen.

If AMD or Intel could make a 100ghz single core CPU you wouldn't even need multiple cores, we only have multiple cores because extra IPC has become harder and harder to come by.

Even today Intel have the edge in gaming because their CPU's can reach closer to 5ghz and achieve a higher IPC.

 

[jigger]

Well high IPC quad core processors are still hugely popular whereas the low IPC Bulldozer architecture has been consigned to the garbage bin so clearly it is? AMD basically admitted they were wrong with Ryzen.

If AMD or Intel could make a 100ghz single core CPU you wouldn't even need multiple cores, we only have multiple cores because extra IPC has become harder and harder to come by.

Even today Intel have the edge in gaming because their CPU's can reach closer to 5ghz and achieve a higher IPC.

Intel don’t have any edge in anything. Zero edges. AMD have turned Intel spherical.

Show me this single core 100ghz awesomeness.

 

[LePhuronn]

...Bulldozer architecture was so poor...

...like it was with Bulldozer...

...low IPC Bulldozer architecture...

Why do you keep banging on about Bulldozer? You do know AMD have produced new architectures since then, yeah? And AMD have still stuck with their vision of highly parallel workloads, they've just implemented it better with the Zen architectures over the years.

Even today Intel have the edge in gaming because their CPU's can reach closer to 5ghz and achieve a higher IPC.

It's not 2017 dude, you really need to catch up.

 

[mmj_uk]

Looking back now what would you have rather had.. Bulldozer/Piledriver which never amounted to anything and was eventually scrapped or a gradually upgraded Phenom II X6 with higher clockspeeds, newer instructions and overall IPC improvements? even if you can argue that 8 cores is better than 6 today it certainly wasn't back then and on top of that you had the embarrassingly low IPC. If AMD had continued with Phenom II X6 they would probably have forced Intel to releasing a cheap hexacore processor in order to compete with it.

 

[LePhuronn]

Hindsight is a beautiful thing. AMD probably would have been better off with the rumoured Phenom III rather than Bulldozer, but AMD chose a more innovative approach and, unfortunately, it backfired in the short-medium term. By the same token, if Intel took AMD seriously back in 2016 then they could've pushed the 6 and 8 core upgrades to Skylake a lot sooner, and Zen wouldn't be in the dominant position it is now.

But that's not what happened. Bulldozer doesn't matter any more outside of the sort of retrospective video that HUB have done here. To keep bringing it up like it's somehow remotely relevant any more is a bit silly and pointless.

 

[humbug]

but people such as yourself were arguing that IPC would no longer matter and hence Bulldozer's poor IPC wasn't important, AMD fans used to post high resolution gaming benchmarks where there was an obvious GPU bottleneck and use that as evidence.



For gaming a high IPC processor with fewer cores will nearly always beat a high core count chip with poor IPC, game engines are not well suited to parallel processing.

It's true that you need the right balance but to use extremes as an example you'd get way better performance in games from a single core 4ghz chip versus 4 cores at 1ghz, adding more cores should be supplementary not done at the expense of IPC like it was with Bulldozer.

Its not possible to get 1 core with the IPC of 8 cores combined.

So they do a combination of both, let me block out the bottom half of the slide, its easier to see it, since Ryzen Intel, to be fair to them because i didn't think they had, a lot of people didn't think they had, but Intel have actually been increasing IPC since AMD launched the 1800X, as well as core count.

I'll put it in to numbers starting with:

2017. 1800X: 100%
2018. 2700X: 110%
2019. 3800X: 127%
2020. 5800X: 148%
2021. ??????????

2018. 8700K: 100%
2019. 9900K: 103%
2020.10900K: 106%
2021. 11900K 110%