Comments

• By nisten 2024-11-0616:294 reply

  I am surprised at how much this thing is just straight up crushing it with just 8 cores.

  I think it topping the machine learning benchmarks has to do with having only 8 cores to share the 96MB of L3 cache, which ends up having a ratio of 1core having 1MBL2 + 12MB L3 which is huge, that means EACH THREAD has more cache than i.e the entire nvidia 3090 (6mb l2 total), and this ends up taking FULL advantage of the extra silicon of various avx extensions.

  By BeefWellington 2024-11-0616:502 reply

  I'm curious to see if AMD will release a 9950X3D this time around. I can foresee that kind of CPU dominating everything else across most workloads given how good this 8-core is holding up against CPUs with double or more cores.

  By didgetmaster 2024-11-0617:171 reply

  I have a 5950x that is now a few years old and I planned to upgrade to a 9950x.

  I have never had one of the 3D V-Cache processors and am curious how it would improve the benchmarks for my multi-threaded data management system that does many operations against a set of 4K blocks of data.

  I heard rumors that a 9950x3D version will be available in January. I am trying to figure out if I should wait.

  By grepfru_it 2024-11-071:25

  January is two months away. I would.

  By Tuna-Fish 2024-11-0617:121 reply

  Yes, it's supposedly coming early next year.

  By jsheard 2024-11-0617:551 reply

  I think the current rumor is that only one of the chiplets will have the extra cache though, so you'll have 8 cores with the big cache and 8 cores with the normal cache.

  By qzw 2024-11-0619:341 reply

  If they make one with extra cache on both CCDs, it would probably get some kind of AI branding and be at a significantly higher price point. Current games would hardly benefit from 16 cores all with that much cache.

  By scheeseman486 2024-11-0620:011 reply

  The main benefit is that it's a no-compromise product. High single thread performance for games and there's more of those cores for productivity, it'd be the best workstation CPU and the best gaming CPU in one package.

  By qzw 2024-11-0621:102 reply

  But you'd get 95+% of the same benefit with the v-cache on just one CCD, which is what they did with the 7950X3D.

  By scheeseman486 2024-11-0711:58

  They've solved a lot of the manufacturing issues since then and since it's already a premium product, why not go all in? There might be cases where the extra cache helps performance in heavily multithreaded workloads, also niche usecases like running the chip in a headless gaming server, which would allow for splitting of the CPU into two for simultaneous game streaming without significantly compromising performance for either client.

  That's the point of no compromise, sometimes it's nice to have 100% benefit (not to say that making a single CCD cache version doesn't make sense as a product).

  By snvzz 2024-11-072:17

  there was some point to doing that, due to the power restrictions imposed by having cache on top.

  But now cache is underneath.

  By tiffanyh 2024-11-0617:297 reply

  While true, also keep in mind that the iPad Pro (M4) which has no active cooling, and uses only 1/4th the power ... is still faster (single & multicore) than this 9800X3D - and it's also been on the market for 1/2 year now already.

  By JohnTHaller 2024-11-0620:261 reply

  In multi-threaded workloads, the M4 gets 13,380, the 9800X3D gets ~19,000 (varies by build), and the 9950X gets 22,000-24,000 depending on build.

  The M4 Max you can pre-order gets around 26,000 multicore but is significantly more expensive than the 9950X ($569) or 9800X3D ($479). The M4 Max is a $1,200 premium over the M4 on the 14 inch MacBook Pro and a $1,100 premium over the M4 Pro on the 16 inch.

  The M4 Max is only available in the MacBook Pro at present. The Mac Mini and iMac will only get the base M4. The Mac Studio is still based on the M2.

  This is just a summary of performance and cost. Portability, efficiency, and compatibility factors will weigh everyone's choices.

  By JohnTHaller 2024-11-1121:42

  UPDATE TO MY COMMENT: The new small Mac Mini does have an option for the M4 Pro but not the M4 Max. For the curious, the M4 Pro supposedly gets around 22,000 in Geekbench. It's an $800 premium over the base M4 Mac Mini while adding 8GB of RAM and 256GB of storage.

  By adrian_b 2024-11-0618:441 reply

  Single core yes, but multi core no.

  The Geekbench scores cannot compare laptop CPUs with desktop CPUs, because the tasks that are executed are too short and they do not demonstrate the steady-state throughput of the CPUs. The desktop CPUs are much faster for multithreaded tasks in comparison with laptop/tablet CPUs than it appears in the GB results.

  The Apple CPUs have a much better instructions-per-clock-cycle ratio than any other CPUs, and now in M4 they also have a relatively high clock frequency, of at least 4.5 GHz. This allows them to win most single-threaded benchmarks.

  However the performance in multi-threaded benchmarks has a very weak dependence on the CPU microarchitecture and it is determined mostly by the manufacturing process used for the CPU.

  If we were able to compare Intel, AMD and Apple CPUs with the same number of cores and made with the same TSMC process, their multithreaded performance would be very close at a given power consumption.

  The reason is that executing a given benchmark requires a number of logic transitions that is about the same for different microarchitectures, unless some of the design teams have been incompetent. An Apple CPU does more logic transitions per clock cycle, so in single thread it finishes the task faster.

  However in multithreaded execution, where the power consumption of the CPU reaches the power limit, the number of logic transitions per second in the same manufacturing process is determined by the power consumption. Therefore the benchmark will be completed in approximately the same number of seconds when the power limits are the same, regardless of the differences in the single-threaded performance.

  At equal power, an M4 will have a slightly better MT performance than an Intel or AMD CPU, due to the better manufacturing process, but the difference is too small to make it competitive with a desktop CPU.

  By wtallis 2024-11-0620:28

  > The Geekbench scores cannot compare laptop CPUs with desktop CPUs, because the tasks that are executed are too short and they do not demonstrate the steady-state throughput of the CPUs. The desktop CPUs are much faster for multithreaded tasks in comparison with laptop/tablet CPUs than it appears in the GB results.

  Bullshit. What you're talking about is the steady-state of the heatsink, not the steady state of the chip. Intel learned the hard way that a fast CPU core in a phone really does become a fast CPU core in a laptop or desktop when given a better cooling solution.

  > However in multithreaded execution, where the power consumption of the CPU reaches the power limit, the number of logic transitions per second in the same manufacturing process is determined by the power consumption. Therefore the benchmark will be completed in approximately the same number of seconds when the power limits are the same, regardless of the differences in the single-threaded performance.

  No, microarchitecture really does matter. And so does the macro architecture of AMD's desktop chips that burn a huge amount of power on an inefficient chip to chip interface.

  By kuschku 2024-11-0618:162 reply

  For an apples to apples comparison, you'll need to compare Zen 5 with M3, or whatever Zen 6 is going to be with M4.

  Apple is paying for exclusive access to TSMC's next node. That improves their final products, but doesn't make their architecture inherently better.

  By ricketycricket 2024-11-0619:51
  Do you though? M4 is what is on the market now and this chip is just coming out. Maybe they are on different processes, but you still have to compare things at a given point in time.
  By rowanG077 2024-11-0623:001 reply
  Why would a consumer care about what node something is on? You should only care about a set of processors that is available in the market at the same time. The M4 is available now and Zen 6 is not. Once zen 6 is here we probably have an M5.
  By OKRainbowKid 2024-11-0722:451 reply
  Where can I buy an M4? I don't care about the rest of Apple's products, but the chips are pretty sweet.
  By rowanG077 2024-11-0723:071 reply
  Is this a serious question? Apple.com and basically every computer part store.
  By OKRainbowKid 2024-11-0723:151 reply
  The question wasn't entirely serious, no. My point is: afaik the M processors aren't actually available on the market, they only come as one component of a much more expensive product.
  I don't mean to take away from how impressive they are.
  By rowanG077 2024-11-080:501 reply
  And why does that matter exactly for the discussion at hand?
  By OKRainbowKid 2024-11-088:012 reply
  You wrote
  >You should only care about a set of processors that is available in the market at the same time. The M4 is available now and Zen 6 is not.
  I can't buy an M4, it's not available in the market.

  By osti 2024-11-0617:342 reply

  Yup I just looked at the clang score in geekbench, for single threaded 9800x3d scored about 3200, whilst m4 had 4400... The m4 is so far above the rest it's ridiculous. Wish Apple made an x86 equivalent so that it can play Windows games lol.

  By nightski 2024-11-0618:431 reply

  Just supporting Linux would be adequate imho. Non-existent Linux support straight up makes M4 a non-starter for myself as much as I can admire the hardware.

  By osti 2024-11-0620:112 reply

  For developers yes, but gamers seem to have the loudest voice in the desktop PC performance conversation, so I think it's important to cater to that market.

  By nieve 2024-11-0622:10

  Gamers in general are not looking at Apple's chips.

  By hulitu 2024-11-0620:16

  > for single threaded 9800x3d scored about 3200, whilst m4 had 4400... The m4 is so far above the rest it's ridiculous.

  Except the fact that your computer runs more than one thread. Pity that this "single core" performance cannot be utilized at its maximum potential.

  By heraldgeezer 2024-11-0619:43

  And the OS is terrible, so it's practically useless for me.

  By ploxiln 2024-11-0619:52

  Hehe ... yeah, single threaded, in some benchmarks. Very impressive chip, the M4. Multi-threaded loads that take more than 30 seconds, no way, come on. But to see the X3D chips really shine above their competitors, you need to slot in a high-end graphics card, and load up a ... uh well you can't compare to Apple Silicon at that point ...

  By rasz 2024-11-084:15

  ... in geekbench. How about compiling? compressing?

  By jsheard 2024-11-0617:53

  > I am surprised at how much this thing is just straight up crushing it with just 8 cores.

  ♫ Cache rules everything around me ♫

  By helf 2024-11-0617:51

  [dead]

• By aurareturn 2024-11-0616:534 reply

  https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d/images/efficie...

  Raw gaming performance increase is good but its gaming efficiency seems to have taken a dip compared to 7800X3D.

  So AMD chose to decrease efficiency to get more performance this generation.

  Source: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d/23.ht...

  By Numerlor 2024-11-0617:061 reply

  The efficiency is only worse because the CPU can use the power without burning itself up unlike the last generation's X3D. And efficiency is always better at lower clocks. You can get this generation's efficiency uplift by limiting its power to the levels where last generation's CPU started throttling to keep its 89C Tjmax, but that will inevitably also limit the frequency that's the main performance uplift for the CPU

  For comparison on how limited last gen's X3D was wrt power, tom's hardware has it on 71W with all core AVX, while my 7600X with 2 fewer cores consumes up to 130W

  By aurareturn 2024-11-0617:211 reply

  If I can summarize what you wrote: Same IPC gain as normal Zen5 but more power can be drawn to increase performance due to moving the cache chiplet to the bottom.

  By wtallis 2024-11-0620:36

  The previous 3D cache solutions were not just limited thermally, but also the cache chiplet could not tolerate the high voltages that AMD's CPU cores use at high frequencies. Even with excellent cooling, you weren't going to get a 7800X3D or 5800X3D to match frequencies with the non-3D parts. (This might have been less of a problem if AMD could put the extra cache on a different power rail, but that's hard to retrofit into an existing CPU socket.) This new cache chiplet still has a lower voltage limit than the CPU cores, but it's not as big a disparity.

  By shantara 2024-11-0618:532 reply

  9800X3D is supposed to have Eco mode with a lower TDP cap, similarly to other AMD processors. I don't see it included in the initial reviews, but it would be curious to see the followup data. If the history is anything to go by, it would significantly decrease the power consumption with only a marginal performance impact.

  By SushiHippie 2024-11-0622:511 reply

  I have the 7950x, and if I set it to 65W eco mode, I still have basically the same geekbench score

  65W: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/6126001

  105W: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/5821065

  I actually haven't tested it with 170W (which is the default for the 7950x) for whatever reason, but the average 7950x score on geekbench is basically the same as my geekbench scores with lower than normal TDP.

  https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/amd-ryzen-9-7950x

  I wouldn't be surprised if the same is possible with the newer CPUs.

  Nice added bonus is that my PC fans barely spin (not at audible speeds)

  By ahartmetz 2024-11-071:44

  Yeah, my 7950X is also limited to ~90W nominal (which is ~120W actual) - full power (170/230 or so) is very loud, rapidly wears out the weak-ass VRMs on my Asus B650 board (lesson: Asus can't be blindly trusted anymore), and buys 0-5% of performance.

  By xarope 2024-11-072:46

  my 2700 is due for a refresh next year, so that's what I plan to do, get one of these fancy X3D versions, then cap it to hopefully sub 100W

  By Hikikomori 2024-11-0617:081 reply

  Man Intel is so far behind on that list.

  By Already__Taken 2024-11-0618:23

  Bad arch decision are punishing. AMD was absolutely dwarfed in the early core iX days and never really came back until Ryzen. The whole bulldozer linage was DoA to the point Opteron just never factored in.

  Hopefully Intel pull something out again but they look asleep a the wheel.

  By toast0 2024-11-075:23

  For a long time, x86 chips are happy to give you a little more performance for a lot more watts at the top end of the performance chart.

  Watts/fps @ max fps makes for an interesting graph, but not a very clear comparison. It would be better to compare watts used when locked at a given fps, or fps available when locked at a given wattage. Or watthours to do a video encode (with max wattage, and at various watt limits).

• By Night_Thastus 2024-11-0615:572 reply

  Nice to actually have a decent release this generation of CPUs.

  The rest of Zen5 was maybe a 5% bump on average, and Intel's new series actually regressed in performance compared to 14th gen.

  Seems like the Zen5X3D's will be the only good parts this time around.

  By notanote 2024-11-0616:59

  Hardware Unboxed has the interesting theory that the I/O die, which is unchanged between Zen4 and Zen5, is a significant bottleneck especially for the latter. The 3D v-cache would then ease the pressure there, and so see the cpu get an extra boost beyond that expected from increased cache.

  By 13hunteo 2024-11-0616:146 reply

  To cut Intel some slack, this latest version overhauls their old architecture, and they were fairly upfront about the lack of development in performance in this generation.

  The idea is the new platform will allow for better development in future, while improving efficiency fairly significantly.

  By Night_Thastus 2024-11-0616:461 reply

  From a consumer standpoint - this doesn't matter. You can't buy that future product that may exist. You can only choose whether to buy the current product or not. And right now, that product is bad.

  I certainly hope the next generation is a massive bump for Intel, but we'll see if that's the case.

  By mmaniac 2024-11-0713:31

  Adding onto that, the roadmap to Intel's next generation isn't exactly clear. Arrow Lake Refresh would have seemingly bumped core counts healthily, but that's cancelled now. I don't believe that it's cancelled because its successor is ahead of schedule.

  By qzw 2024-11-0616:28

  Also nice to be able to boast a bigger uplift in the following gen due to regressing this one! But they definitely did need to get their efficiency under control since their parts were turning into fairly decent personal heating units.

  By fweimer 2024-11-0618:03

  I think the new T-equivalent CPU could be very interesting if Intel releases one. Those variants are optimized for 35W TDP, and they can be used for building high-performance fanless systems that can sustain their performance for quite some time. The lower power requirements for Arrow Lake might be a really good match there.

  By 5kg 2024-11-0618:551 reply

  it's scrapped, the new design: https://www.pcworld.com/article/2507953/lunar-lakes-integrat...

  By zeusk 2024-11-0621:18

  Parent is quite possibly talking about arrow lake and not lunar lake which is a mobile only part.

  By heraldgeezer 2024-11-0619:44

  So why buy this generation and not wait unless your computer broke and you NEED Intel?

  By duskwuff 2024-11-0618:20

  > To cut Intel some slack, this latest version overhauls their old architecture...

  ... and their 13th/14th generation processors had serious problems with overvoltage-induced failures - they clearly needed to step back and focus on reliability over performance.