|
Cannonlake: pinch of salt wccftech point to 256KB / core l2. Which isn't really a big surprise if a bit disappointing. It might be interesting to compare the 6c HEDT to 6c clake. I don't care about frames except frametime.
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jan 28, 2021 02:12 |
|
|
DrDork posted:Overall cache hasn't really gone down by too much, though. A 5820k, for example, had 6x256k L2 + 15MB L3 = 16.5MB overall to back 6 cores. The new 7800X has 6x1MB L2 + 8.25MB L3 = 14.25MB to back 6 cores. Similar for the 5960k at 22MB total vs the 7820k at 19MB for 8 cores each. So it's more of a shift from L3 to L2 cache than a huge drop in cache. Considering that L2 undoubtedly takes up more die space than L3, the drop of 2.25MB/3MB might be the sacrifice needed to keep the total cache die sizes similar. All things equal, L2 cache may be more of a "bang for your buck" in terms of performance than L3 is, such that it makes sense to go for an overall smaller amount of cache but more heavily tilted towards L2. After all, the higher-tier caches are usually faster and physically closer. Or maybe they read this thread and they're putting a whole bunch of eDRAM on as L4 on that isn't listed in the charts yet. Enjoy Christmas In July AMD  The Kaby Lake-X processors here are explicitly just the small processors being ported onto the new socket, so I'm not sure why people are astonished that a 2-channel die only has 2 channels. Same thing for people who are complaining about it only having 16 lanes (not here). Putting it on a different socket doesn't magically add hardware that isn't on the die. It's a "low-end" option so that people who want to buy a 4C8T can buy an X299 motherboard and leave themselves an upgrade path. That's it. Nothing that's not on desktop or server Kaby Lake will be on the Kaby Lake-X chips. It's the exact same silicon. If the official spec is actually moving up to 2666 instead of 2133... that's actually still upward movement, since officially only 2133 is supported. 3200 is not officially supported and going past 3000 is not super reliable. On the other hand, it's not usually a big deal either since quad-channel has excessive amounts of bandwidth for desktop users anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:All things equal, L2 cache may be more of a "bang for your buck" in terms of performance than L3 is, such that it makes sense to go for an overall smaller amount of cache but more heavily tilted towards L2. After all, the higher-tier caches are usually faster and physically closer. Paul MaudDib posted:The Kaby Lake-X processors here are explicitly just the small processors being ported onto the new socket, so I'm not sure why people are astonished that a 2-channel die only has 2 channels. Paul MaudDib posted:It's a "low-end" option so that people who want to buy a 4C8T can buy an X299 motherboard and leave themselves an upgrade path. That's it. Nothing that's not on desktop or server Kaby Lake will be on the Kaby Lake-X chips. It's the exact same silicon. And if you're the type of person/business where selling things off isn't worth the effort, you probably aren't going to give much of a crap about that sort of upgrade path to begin with. Paul MaudDib posted:If the official spec is actually moving up to 2666 instead of 2133... that's actually still upward movement, since officially only 2133 is supported. DrDork fucked around with this message at 02:17 on May 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
DrDork posted:Overall cache hasn't really gone down by too much, though. DrDork posted:So it's more of a shift from L3 to L2 cache than a huge drop in cache. Considering that L2 undoubtedly takes up more die space than L3, the drop of 2.25MB/3MB might be the sacrifice needed to keep the total cache die sizes similar. DrDork posted:It also looks like The 6/8/10/12c's will be sticking with quad-channel 2666 memory, while the 4c chips are stuck with dual-channel. Considering X99 already defacto supports quad-channel upwards of 3200, it doesn't seem like much of an improvement. edit: \/\/\/\/\/\/\/AFAIK the higher DDR4 speeds possible with Intel's memory controller have more to do with allowing T2 command rates and much looser timings than AMD's currently, the newer or upcoming AMD AGESA BIOS updates should help lots here\/\/\/\/\/\/ PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 07:27 on May 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
If it carries over the better DDR4 controller of mainstream Skylake we'll probably see DDR4-3866+. Haswell-E got to 3466 with quad channel on the highest end boards so it wouldn't be too unreasonable of a jump.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
Meanwhile at amd (salt etc) http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-9-lineup-threadripper/
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
the only thing that seems too good to be true is that they're actually using the threadripper trademark
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
I'm the rumored model differentiation numbers that sound like years from the 20th century
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 09:28
|
|
|
Oh dear, 12C/24T Ryzen for same or less than the octocore Skylake-X, that'd be hilarious. The overclocking headroom is a little meh, but it'll be interesting to see what the quad channel stuff will do. Assuming they fix that poo poo with the CCX.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 10:23
|
|
|
EMIB when I want edram on the cheap!!!
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 10:46
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Fuad Abazovic can now confirm that Kyle Bennet was not bullshitting about Intel licensing graphics tech from AMD. At least he claims he can. He doesn't say much about how he knows so... Are we sure this isn't part of some Reality TV show?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
 http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/SpeedT...telR-CPU-0000-- http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/SpeedT...telR-CPU-0000--  http://www.tweaktown.com/news/57568...-24t/index.html eames fucked around with this message at 08:04 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
Weird dip in performance for the 7900X.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Weird dip in performance for the 7900X. Almost assuredly an ES chip on a board with not-quite-finalized drivers and BIOS, but yeah.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
Yeah, looking at the benchmarks the 7920X ran on a single 8GB stick of DDR4-2113 (9GB/s) and the 7900X benchmark is 3 months old.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 09:34
|
|
|
Oh this is exciting and annoying at the same time. Either tons of cheap cores for the media/render and compilation stuff, or higher IPC (and less cores) and eventually better overclock for gaming and CAD.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
It's a slow day at work so I overlaid the two cache latency graphs. This is pretty deep into  territory but whatever, maybe one of you smart guys can explain what we are looking at.orange = 10C 7900X blue = 12C 7920X
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
Well, both chips have 1MB L2 cache per core, and presumably are close on clocks, so they should have very similar cache performance up to the 1MB mark, as your chart shows. The 7900x has 13.75MB L3 cache, while the 7920x has 16.5MB, which explains why the 7900x takes the biggest hit at 16MB: right where it's L3 cache is no longer big enough, but the 7920x's still is. Above that, more of the same: the 7920x can leverage that larger L3 cache for a bit better performance. No idea what causes the 2-8MB performance gap, though. e; as far as conclusions, it's the same as what you'd expect from the outset: moar cache is moar faster when you're using big data sets.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
This page is kinda providing further indication that we might be better served by a vendor-neutral CPU thread. There's a large amount of overlap between the AMD and Intel threads.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 12:08
|
|
|
At this point I tend to agree. Now that they are starting to trade blows yet release little else exciting, combining the two might not be a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Also perhaps talk about server CPUs like the ARM push etc? Or just Consumer PC stuff, perhaps one of the enterprise threads instead.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
priznat posted:Also perhaps talk about server CPUs like the ARM push etc? AMD / Intel / ARM CPU and Platfrom Megathread But if has to be spelled platfrom or there's no point.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
GRINDCORE MEGGIDO posted:AMD / Intel / ARM CPU and Platfrom Megathread  I want to nerd out on new and exciting server architectures etc
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
There is an extreme amount of crossover between the two threads, and GPU stuff goes in its own thread anyways.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
I wonder what kind of an op that would need?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
GRINDCORE MEGGIDO posted:I wonder what kind of an op that would need? Quick and dirty hierarchy chart a la Tom's Hardware would be cool
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Can mods actually merge threads, or do we just create a new op?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
GRINDCORE MEGGIDO posted:I wonder what kind of an op that would need? One that updated after August 31st, 2014.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
The AMD thread has a fresh OP, just do a pull request with the Intel info.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
GRINDCORE MEGGIDO posted:AMD / Intel / ARM CPU and Platfrom MegaTHREADRIPPER
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:AMD / Intel / ARM CPU and Platfrom MegaEPYCTHREADRIPPER
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Oooo How do we do this, shall I put an op together? Is anyone not into this?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
I object! Just to be contrary.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
I feel that it would be disrespectful to the time that I, a Valued Member of the esteemed Something Awful community has put into the AMD thread... Nah, it's a good idea. 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
GRINDCORE MEGGIDO posted:Can mods actually merge threads, or do we just create a new op? We should probably just do a new OP -- I admit I don't check into the AMD thread that often. I'll swing over there and see how it's going -- a vendor neutral thread that includes some discussion on ARM/SPARC/POWER/etc could be cool and nerdy as gently caress. Feel free to sling drafts of your OP in this thread for now though -- when it's ready, we can unleash e: I forgot RISC-V, the future.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Will do. It'll need some redrafting but I'm happy to. I'll get on that and post it in next couple of days.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Before that happens, I do have to admit that the first look at the actual CPU has me a touch worried: http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/am...-confirmed.html Hopefully they've fixed the interconnect speed. Intel might charge a fortune, but at least they make unitary dies. I'm also wondering if there might be a thermal issue since there'll be four hot spots along the periphery of any contact plate with a 'void' in the middle.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Before that happens, I do have to admit that the first look at the actual CPU has me a touch worried: http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/am...-confirmed.html you'd just do a 'ring' rather than a 'plate'
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jan 28, 2021 02:12 |
|
|
I do like that no one cares even in the Intel thread to mention the discontinuation of Itanium that was announced recently. Rest in piss, Itanium. Owned by amd64. (A rare win)
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 00:58
|
|