AMD Zen 3 (5000 Series), rumored 17% IPC gain.

[LePhuronn]

The video was posted as a respond to you back in October. But you didn't watched it burring your head to the sand.
Keep going.

Not watching a video is different from not recalling watching a video, and both are a far cry from burying my head in the sand, but if that makes you feel special then I afford you such blessing. Of course, you could just relink the video, or relink the post here and prove us all wrong.

 

[Participant]

I'm beginning to think Panos is a typo .

 

[Joxeon]

But will this make 8 core zen3 the better gaming CPU over 12 and 16 cores due to the lower latency?

 

[Twinz]

But will this make 8 core zen3 the better gaming CPU over 12 and 16 cores due to the lower latency?

I would expect the microcode to ensure the 16 core CPU's don't waist time using the IF unless it's necessary.

 

[opethdisciple]

The 3300x currently shows that cores are not currently as important for gaming as we think.

Memory latency and bandwidth is more important.

 

[cliffy]

First of all, its mentioned that Zen 3 will include a single CCX consisting of 8 cores. So till now, Zen and Zen 2 had two core complexes on the same die with each CCX consisting of 4 cores. But with Zen 3, each CCX would hold 8 cores so that's essentially a single CCD. Diving further into the core structure of the Zen 3 CCD/CCX, since the CCD has moved to just one CCX, the entire L3 cache can now be shared across all 8 cores rather than each CCX consisting of two slices of L3 caches per CCX in the previous Zen cores. So we have 512 KB of L2 cache per core and 32 MB of L3 cache per CCX or CCD.

I took the above from an article i just found from April if this helps

 

[LePhuronn]

I took the above from an article i just found from April if this helps

It'll help Panos, the rest of the planet know what a CCX and CCD are. Although that article snippet is still incorrect in saying "that's essentially a single CCD". It always was a single CCD, because the CCD is the chiplet. So it's a CCD that contains 1 8 core CCX.

It may sound pedantic, but I think it's important to understand the difference and how the arch is set up, we've seen on this thread alone people talking about latency with inter-CCX, cross-chiplet and memory and it makes for a confusing mess when all the terms are muddled and confused and then trying to discuss the benefits Zen 3 will bring.

 

[Troezar]

It'll help Panos, the rest of the planet know what a CCX and CCD are. Although that article snippet is still incorrect in saying "that's essentially a single CCD". It always was a single CCD, because the CCD is the chiplet. So it's a CCD that contains 1 8 core CCX.

It may sound pedantic, but I think it's important to understand the difference and how the arch is set up, we've seen on this thread alone people talking about latency with inter-CCX, cross-chiplet and memory and it makes for a confusing mess when all the terms are muddled and confused and then trying to discuss the benefits Zen 3 will bring.

I think what you're saying is we have different words because they mean different things? I say this all the time when people get mad because others don't understand the incorrect words they have used. It literally changes the meaning of the sentence!

 

[LePhuronn]

I think what you're saying is we have different words because they mean different things? I say this all the time when people get mad because others don't understand the incorrect words they have used. It literally changes the meaning of the sentence!

Drives me to distraction when you try to explain somebody's incorrect use and they just stubbornly ignore you. I'm not correcting you because I'm arrogant, I'm correcting you because you're wrong and it's important that you're not wrong.

 

[humbug]

Its really simple once you understand the difference between a CCX and a CCD

Yeah, the CCX's are linked together through an L3 Cache bridge, if the cores in CCX 1 need to communicate with cores in CCX 2 they do that through the memory system, the faster the memory the faster that will happen.

Having everything contained in a single CCX does away with that completely....

Ryzen 3950X

The two core blocks are CCD's, inside those are two CCX's, 4 cores on each side with each core cluster having its own 16MB L3 Cache, if core 1 in CCX 1 needs to communicate with core 1 in CCX 2, or core 1 in CCX 1 in CCD 2 the data travels from core one CCX 1 to CCX 1 L3 to the IMC, to the IF bus into the Ram, back through the IF into the other IMC, into the L3 of the other CCX or CCX in the other CCD and into the core.

Its a round about through the memory trip, which is why the faster the memory the faster that will happen and the higher the performance in latency sensitive applications like games.

The second image in the 3300X, there is no other CCX or CCD, if core 1 wants to communicate with Core 3 or Core 4 its a short jump through its own L3 Cache. Zen 3 will have a 8 core version of this, and no doubt more besides.......

 

[eeek]

So for VMs if assigning multiple cores to it you should ensure the cores are in the same CCX.

If I'm using a 3900x which means 4 cores aren't in use is it possible to identify where the 4 missings cores are located?

 

[humbug]

So for VMs if assigning multiple cores to it you should ensure the cores are in the same CCX.

If I'm using a 3900x which means 4 cores aren't in use is it possible to identify where the 4 missings cores are located?

If you're running VM's it shouldn't matter.

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

Digital Foundry really likes using those same games to benchmark CPUs, same ones again for testing the new Intel chips, Zen 3 is going to need a big jump in performance to beat Intel in those.

 

[alec]

I would expect the microcode to ensure the 16 core CPU's don't waist time using the IF unless it's necessary.

it is up to operating system scheduler to decide which core gets which thread. And even tho windows scheduler was updated with that in mind, we can see it is still doing worse job than manual pinning of process to a single CCX.

 

[Boot_Loop]

Digital Foundry really likes using those same games to benchmark CPUs, same ones again for testing the new Intel chips, Zen 3 is going to need a big jump in performance to beat Intel in those.

I think it's so silly judging CPUs mostly on gaming performance, I always have. Grown men arguing that a CPU is better than another one because it gets 130 fps in COD as opposed to 120 fps on the other. Grow up, for a start nearly all of these games are sh*te or for kids to while away their lives, and funniest of all you need to game @ 1080p res using a 2080 Ti to see this tiny difference in fps.

 

[Joxeon]

Grow up, for a start nearly all of these games are sh*te or for kids to while away their lives.

Dad, is that you?!

I think it's so silly judging CPUs mostly on gaming performance

I think it's a perfectly reasonable way of comparing CPUs if your main activity is gaming, don't forget it hasn't always been this close.

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

I think it's so silly judging CPUs mostly on gaming performance, I always have. Grown men arguing that a CPU is better than another one because it gets 130 fps in COD as opposed to 120 fps on the other. Grow up, for a start nearly all of these games are sh*te or for kids to while away their lives, and funniest of all you need to game @ 1080p res using a 2080 Ti to see this tiny difference in fps.

#1 who is arguing? I'm stating facts that come from DF on youtube, and the difference is also there at 1440p, i also stated "they really like using those same games" to benchmark.
#2 it's possible to have a mature conversation about this and not be the one to resort to childish insults by saying "grow up" etc, so it's pretty ironic talking like that tbh.

 

[LePhuronn]

Grown men arguing that a CPU is better than another one because it gets 130 fps in COD as opposed to 120 fps on the other. Grow up, for a start nearly all of these games are sh*te or for kids to while away their lives...

So, you've forgotten that the majority of their visitor base are children who play games?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Asus looks like it's adding a big premium on its B550 motherboards . The mATX B550 Prime looks to be £130 or £50 more than the B450 equivalent,and the B550I Strix mini-ITX motherboard looks to be £230 or £70~£80 more than the B450I Strix,or around X570 mini-ITX pricing.

I think it's better to spend a bit more and get an X570 motherboard if B550 motherboards are this pricey!

 

[Joxeon]

Asus looks like it's adding a big premium on its B550 motherboards . The mATX B550 Prime looks to be £130 or £50 more than the B450 equivalent,and the B550I Strix mini-ITX motherboard looks to be £230 or £70~£80 more than the B450I Strix,or around X570 mini-ITX pricing.

I think it's better to spend a bit more and get an X570 motherboard if B550 motherboards are this pricey!

If this is the case then I wasn't far off with my original estimate from a week ago and was met with dismay.

I think you will be looking at £120 to around £220 for the b550 range with A520 essentially replacing the b450 price range of £70-120.

Not unless they've completely lost their minds. £220 is mid-range X570 pricing. Why on earth would anybody buy a B550 board at £200+ over an X570 one?

/edit/ It's also pretty important to remember that the B550 chipset isn't dealing with PCIe 4.0, which is what's driving up the prices on X570 and Z490. The only 4.0 functionality will be directly from the CPU, which means only the first PCIe slot and one NVMe slot, so no need for the complex routing and signal boosting required for getting 4.0 lanes to slots physically further from the CPU socket. There's no justification for jacking up the price on B550.

the excellent msi x570 tomahawk is £200, B550 should be £80-150

You will be paying for the beefy VRM and extra features over B450 and I could definetly see some of the Itx boards going for around £220.