• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Zen 5 rumours

edgedemon said:
This guy seemed pretty impressed with them in the benchies, though it would have been good to see him go up against 8000MT ram to see if that made a difference.


Thanks for the heads up for the GSkill though, looks like I better start researching plan B
Click to expand...

As I said before, the CL28 Royals aren't worth the increased cost as the benefits are non-existant, which was also my experience in overclocking the Gskill CL30 Trident Neo to CL28 Royal timings too.

https://tech4gamers.com/g-skill-trident-z5-royal-neo-ddr5-6000-cl28-expo-kit-review/

The Corsair Vengeance have good bench performance and are 20% cheaper that the Trident Neo, (45% cheaper than the Royals) but I've seen a lot of people saying they've had problems with them, so do your own research, but I'd be inclined to stick to Gskill
 
uscool said:
yet to see what dual ccd x3d cache will do for gaming other then less issue with software deciding which ccd to use, but you'll still only be using 6 cores for gaming , some games are benefiting using 8 cores
Click to expand...

I'm dubious about the advantages unless they can increase the cores on a single CCD.

On one CCD the 3d cache is shared whereas on two CCD's it's split across them with 6/8 cores accessing one chunk directly and the other 6/8 cores the other chunk. Would the cache on each need to be synchronised? Would there be additional latency penalty for accessing the cache on the other CCD? Would it even be possible, and how much overhead would that bring with it?

No matter what you would still have the OS putting games on a single CCD and trying to keep it within those boundaries because that would be the most efficient regardless of anything else.

I understand the Zen5c cores can actually have up to 16 cores on a single CCD however, so if they manage to do something with that for the 9900x3d/9950x3d that would be very interesting.
 
Marak said:
I'm dubious about the advantages unless they can increase the cores on a single CCD.

On one CCD the 3d cache is shared whereas on two CCD's it's split across them with 6/8 cores accessing one chunk directly and the other 6/8 cores the other chunk. Would the cache on each need to be synchronised? Would there be additional latency penalty for accessing the cache on the other CCD? Would it even be possible, and how much overhead would that bring with it?

No matter what you would still have the OS putting games on a single CCD and trying to keep it within those boundaries because that would be the most efficient regardless of anything else.

I understand the Zen5c cores can actually have up to 16 cores on a single CCD however, so if they manage to do something with that for the 9900x3d/9950x3d that would be very interesting.
Click to expand...
On the 7950X3D the 3D cache core has lower clocks than the non-3D cache core which means you've got the 3D cache for games and the higher frequency cores for productivity tasks. Be interesting to see how an all 3D cache CPU works, AMD may have found a way to not have to limit the clocks on the 3D cache CCDs.
 
Marak said:
I understand the Zen5c cores can actually have up to 16 cores on a single CCD however, so if they manage to do something with that for the 9900x3d/9950x3d that would be very interesting.
Click to expand...
From what I've seen, the c cores are usually clocked a lot lower, so I doubt this would help.
 
MyBrainz said:
Im dual booting 10 & 11 currently (Both on Samsung M.2's) while trying to get 11 running to the standard of my Win 10 install and so far its a pile of garbage.

I have set it all up pretty much the same regarding Windows tweaks, drivers etc.

I get mad stuttering in OBS using their new Windowed Mode Optimization rubbish, just does not run nearly as smooth as Win 10 while playing DayZ.

Heaven bench was insane with the hitching and a low fps of just 9.. wtf is wrong with Microsoft, i thought things were supposed to improve and get better, obviously not.

3PfmDTu.png


Did some research and benched Heaven again on Win 11.. heres the difference in low fps after turning OFF ReBar, looked a load smoother too.

kF1zwsP.png


So basically back on par with Win 10.

I need to give DayZ a good test with the Windowed Mode Optimization crap turned on & off and see if that makes anything better.

I've installed GTA V on 11 now too so will benchmark that on both at some point.

Right now though, Windows 11 is garbage!

Just glad i didnt do a straight upgrade and chose to dual boot :p
Click to expand...
My guess is it's all the background monitoring/data sponging that is causing the performance issues.
 
Rroff said:
Anti-malware service(s) seem to chug a lot of CPU time of late, especially the first couple of hours after an update :(
Click to expand...
I miss Windows 7. Yes there was still monitoring, but it was and still is, the best Windows OS imo. Why they butchered it with Win 8 I have no idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom