Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The whole problem with IPC is that so many games are far from optimized for something as 8 core. Coming this summer we will see 12 and 16 cores hitting the desktop market and software will still be behind.
And if you check video games resolutions you will find out that it is more gpu bound.
The only thing that really matters with IPC is lower resolutions the gap between Intel and AMD after Zen 2 hits will more then ever be a thing of the past.
AMD's IPC is really not that far behind Intels. However it's clock speed really is. https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-5-2600-review,9.html gives an example of IPC with them all locked to the same clock speed.
Invalid review: (i) It only uses Cinebench, which favors AMD Zen muarch. (ii) It uses engineering samples of Intel systems (see here or here), not the real retail chips. (iii) It compares Intel chips with stock interconnect to AMD chips overclocked (when selecting 3200MHz, the IF is overclocked in Zen/Zen+ systems, but the Intel chips are running with the interconnect in stock settings)
A valid IPC comparison (measuring over 20 applications, testing retails chips, and comparing stock to stock) shows that Zen/Zen+ IPC is 10--15% behind Skylake/CoffeeLake. According to the first link in my post the average IPC gap is "14.4%".
That is called a classic moving the goal posts ...
Invalid review: (i) It only uses Cinebench, which favors AMD Zen muarch. (ii) It uses engineering samples of Intel systems (see here or here), not the real retail chips. (iii) It compares Intel chips with stock interconnect to AMD chips overclocked (when selecting 3200MHz, the IF is overclocked in Zen/Zen+ systems, but the Intel chips are running with the interconnect in stock settings)
A valid IPC comparison (measuring over 20 applications, testing retails chips, and comparing stock to stock) shows that Zen/Zen+ IPC is 10--15% behind Skylake/CoffeeLake. According to the first link in my post the average IPC gap is "14.4%".
IPC gap, excl. 256b and AVX512 workloads (edge cases not encountered frequently by most users), with regards to Zen+, is ~9% according to The Stilt, who is about as reliable as anyone can be on this matter. 9% is the number I accept. In throughput applications (Cinebench being one), that margin evaporates to a few percentage points at most. In latency-sensitive workloads, it is somewhat higher. Gaming being a prime example of this - however, that is somewhat mitigated by the fact the GPU tends to be the limiting factor anyway.
Either way, 9% will do.
No. It isn't. It is just the technical difference between one single benchmark being close to the average (and so can be used as metric for representing the whole sample) and a single benchmark being an "outlier" and not-representative of the sample.
Don't worry about itthanks everyone, I am hoping that amd can get it done. cpu and gpu
the reason I asked was intel was winning and someone said it was clock speed...but even when clock speeds were locked the same intel was still winning test so they said ipc must be the reason.
IPC gap, excl. 256b and AVX512 workloads (edge cases not encountered frequently by most users), with regards to Zen+, is ~9% according to The Stilt, who is about as reliable as anyone can be on this matter. 9% is the number I accept. In throughput applications (Cinebench being one), that margin evaporates to a few percentage points at most. In latency-sensitive workloads, it is somewhat higher. Gaming being a prime example of this - however, that is somewhat mitigated by the fact the GPU tends to be the limiting factor anyway.
Either way, 9% will do.
You mean now that AMD has a better floating point processor we suddenly can't use the same benchmark we have used before. What is next a generic compiler demand where we can't optimize ? The one that we have been claiming in the days of Cinebench when it first started to be the benchmark to show IPC.
Like I said before the higher the resolution of whichever game you are playing the more gpu bound it will become . Find some 4K benchmarks
Zen core is only 16 FLOP. CofeeLake is 32 FLOP, and Skylake-X is 64 FLOP. This deficit in the floating point performance is the reason why AMD duplicates the throughput of the floating point units for Zen2.
No one said that you cannot use Cinebench. What we are saying is that you cannot use only Cinebench to measure the IPC gap. Cinebench is an "outlier" that doesn't represent the average. This was explained to you in #12 and the first link in #10 gives the relevant details.
You can find a 4K benchmark here
View attachment 128780
it proves that under GPU bound scenarios Zen performs as Piledriver. Of course, it would be a wrong conclusion to believe that Piledriver is so capable for gaming as Zen is. A 1080p test reveals the gaming differences
View attachment 128781
This review explains very well why is "avoiding a GPU bottleneck so important for testing and understanding CPU performance".
Why are you referencing old ass zen 1 benches? Why not use zen plus. There was some big differences in overall performance where you wouldn't expect. Unless your just point proving and the latest data is irrelevant to your argument.
Zen core is only 16 FLOP. CofeeLake is 32 FLOP, and Skylake-X is 64 FLOP. This deficit in the floating point performance is the reason why AMD duplicates the throughput of the floating point units for Zen2.
No one said that you cannot use Cinebench. What we are saying is that you cannot use only Cinebench to measure the IPC gap. Cinebench is an "outlier" that doesn't represent the average. This was explained to you in #12 and the first link in #10 gives the relevant details.
You can find a 4K benchmark here
View attachment 128780
it proves that under GPU bound scenarios Zen performs as Piledriver. Of course, it would be a wrong conclusion to believe that Piledriver is so capable for gaming as Zen is. A 1080p test reveals the gaming differences
View attachment 128781
This review explains very well why is "avoiding a GPU bottleneck so important for testing and understanding CPU performance".
(snip)
AMD Zen is currently about 10--15% behind Intel in IPC. The gap grows to about 2x or 3x on AVX256/512 workloads (e.g. a 12 core Xeon run circles around a 32 core EPYC on GROMACS).
(snip)
((iii)
He tested with Spectre/Meltdown software patches enabled. Those software patches are emergency security patches, not optimized for performance. The new Intel processors have hardware mitigations that avoid the performance penalty of the software patches. So new processors will recover the performance that they lost recently.
(i)
The small number of AVX256/512 workloads he used is the reason why the IPC gap grows only 5% when those workloads are considered to compute the average. So there is little reason to ignore those cases using your argument that they are "not encountered frequently by most users". That low frequency you allude is already being considered in the sample.
The average IPC gap must be 9% for you. But it is 14.4% for him. And it is a much larger percentage for customers as Google and TACC, which use AVX512 massively, including workloads he didn't test.
(ii)
He tested exclusively applications, most of which are throughput oriented. If he had tested games, the IPC gap had been bigger, because Intel muarchs are optimized for latency.
AMD Zen is currently about 10--15% behind Intel in IPC. The gap grows to about 2x or 3x on AVX256/512 workloads (e.g. a 12 core Xeon run circles around a 32 core EPYC on GROMACS).
(iii)
He tested with Spectre/Meltdown software patches enabled. Those software patches are emergency security patches, not optimized for performance. The new Intel processors have hardware mitigations that avoid the performance penalty of the software patches. So new processors will recover the performance that they lost recently.
Why are you referencing old ass zen 1 benches? Why not use zen plus. There was some big differences in overall performance where you wouldn't expect. Unless your just point proving and the latest data is irrelevant to your argument.
You proved my point it is meaningless because of the workload not because of the IPC difference. If all you do is game at 4K who cares and what about 2K is that a good enough reason to not be worried about IPC?
You proved my point it is meaningless because of the workload not because of the IPC difference. If all you do is game at 4K who cares and what about 2K is that a good enough reason to not be worried about IPC?
IPC becomes meaningless more and more if gaming engines start using different approaches instead of the half baked DX11 stuff we see now. It takes time and larger then 1080p will be relevant sooner rather then later.
The reason why Techspot is so utterly utterly useless because it pretends that IPC is important and it is not. When you can have a bottleneck it is of the game engine rather then the cpu/gpu and that is why we have the GPU the cpu is only there to send data to the gpu for rendering. This is a concept so simple that something as a Playstation 4 manages 60 fps on battlefield 4 and makes the Playstation 4 pro do 4K on nothing more then jaguar cores. 7 or 8 .
The concept is being pushed because of the misunderstanding on how things are supposed to work rather then could work. In the end it is the game engine and API limitations that matters more in the gaming needs IPC debate.
The IPC debate or lack of the people with better understanding about game development, it took us so many years that the whole game industry is stuck because that debate was ruled by a company that limited everyone to 4c8t and the only thing that matters is IPC.
And now before the time when we finally can have more cores on the desktop the game industry is still figuring how badly they stood still all of these years.
IPC has been the death of game development far to long....
https://hardforum.com/threads/an-in...ome-server-processor.1971333/#post-1043930871
Grow up about gromacs. Frequency OP.
As I am about to order 1.5 million in new servers I'd love to see where you found that the new CPU's have hardware level mitigation's for Specter and Meltdown and their variants.
Most recent article I could find that clearly spelled this out some...
https://www.bit-tech.net/news/intel-details-spectre-meltdown-protection-in-its-latest-cpus/1/
So in answer.. yes... it is on SOME variants of specter and meltdown, and even then that is limited because some of the new chips are just die shrunk older chips running at a higher speed. (read as a lot of them.)
You can choose to emphasize AVX workloads if they are important to you. He includes both the excl. 256b results and the results with 256b for a reason.
"Must be" is bad language. He provides both values. You want to accept the larger number because it works better for your argument. I accept the smaller number because it is more likely to represent the normal use case of an end user. However, if we were explicitly comparing enterprise datacenter usage, 14.4% is the value I would choose to use for that situation.
He selected tests which were latency sensitive as well as throughput sensitive. He did not use games directly because IPC is difficult to measure in a circumstance where the GPU affects the outcome. We know Intel's architecture is better for this. The Stilt resolved to determine by how much. In some latency-sensitive tests he conducted, Zen did quite poorly. The Stilt's analysis is the best, most comprehensive deep dive into Zen IPC anyone has yet conducted. If you don't think it's done right, YOU DO IT.
It is 9% excluding 256b workloads. It is 14% including them. In heavy AVX512 use cases, you'd be an idiot not to buy Intel right now for reasons that should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. I'm always amazed by your ability to use rhetorical pseudo-dialectic to put spin on your data. You will use real data values, but you will cherry pick the ones you choose to accept according to what makes Intel look best. You do not do so according to use case, which would be the proper way to do it. To understand what I mean, imagine if, instead of using The Stilt's 9% value, arrived at via comprehensive testing... I just used Cinebench R15 only and then told you Zen is only 3% or 4% behind in IPC. That would be bullshit. Cinebench is a benchmark. Nobody uses Cinebench (though it's at least based on a real rendering engine). You do the same by cherry picking those workloads which favor Intel's offerings - to which few (if any) in this forum will ever use.
Now I can't actually recall if he did or not. I will take you at your word, though, and assume that he did.
If he did, it was entirely appropriate of him to do so. This is what you get, today, if you buy an AMD or an Intel CPU. The hardware mitigations - as I understand them - are essentially the same as the software ones in principle. I.e. IPC difference between a 9900k and an 8700k are negligible - probably non-existent. I read a couple tests on this recently, though I can't recall where exactly (I read too much of this shit). Perhaps you recall. In any event, if Intel releases an update that recovers some performance, then I will modify my position accordingly. If they release new hardware tomorrow that improves performance, we will assign new values to Intel IPC, thus increasing the gap. If AMD's Zen 2 improves IPC, then we will compare Zen 2 to all these...
This isn't hard.
I already answered you in that thread.
The source is requesting cores in a cluster, so showing the scaling of the cluster, not the scaling of the benchmark.
Serve The Home usually tests joy benches as dyyristone and basic benchs like C-Ray, and some other stuff. They only tested a single AVX512 workload, they didn't test any of the dozens of server/HPC AVX512 workloads.
We've been through the rest a dozen times before, juanrga. But as for the hardware mitigations in CFL refresh, they don't appear to noticeably affect performance. I remember reading it somewhere... I went ahead and located it for you:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1365...ith-spectre-and-meltdown-hardware-mitigations
A quote:
"As a result, this hardware fix appears to essentially be a hardware implementation of the fixes already rolled out via microcode for the current Coffee Lake processors."
We will have to wait for Cascade Lake for performance enhancements from hardware mitigations, probably.
Game engines use resources on gpu and cpu the reason why you have a bottleneck is because how the game engine in question uses these(API related as well), something Juanrga and hardware unboxed/techspot fail to understand.
Did you???
I really don't think you understand software then.
Both Intel chips turbo to 3.7 while the AMD turbos 3.2.
0.5/3.2 = 0.15625
From the graph the
Intel
22 core 3.7/2.1 chip enjoys about 60% advantage
12 core 3.7/3.0 chip 50%
AMD
32 core 3.2/2.2 chip 0%
Turbo clocks have a +15% advantage.
If GROMACS scaled perfectly without turbos the 22 core would have a 28% advantage, yet it has 7%.
This pretty much follows the curve I showed in the other thread.
You lamely explained this with "scaling of the cluster"
WTF does that even mean?
So any advantage over 16 cores is basically nothing and for every core after 12 you get less than 2% improvement.
Turbo + diminished returns + 10-30% IPC about equals the difference.
Edit: messed up some %
The gap grows to about 2x or 3x on AVX256/512 workloads
Nonsense. Reducing the resolution and lowering the settings eliminates the GPU bottleneck and shows the real capabilities of the CPU. Anyone can see it in the pair of Techspot images given above. At 4K Piledriver behaves as Zen because the GPU is bottlenecked. At 1080p Zen is much faster than Piledriver because the GPU is not.
The issue in all of this is I think the op wanted to know how well Zen\+\2 games not how well a server chip handles AVX512. We are going off on a tangent here. Yes Intel server hardware has higher IPC. We all know this. That is where Intel is king, but Intel losses on performance per dollar. When Intel's 16 core server chip cost as much as AMD's 32 core server chip we are being screwed as consumers. Intel charges such a premium for their less than 20% IPC gain on single core performance that it is mind blowing. Intel screwed us because they could. They are finding out that they are not going to be able to do that anymore. Intel is hurting and they know that. Thats why Cascade Lake appeared out of nowhere. They know that they can't just sit around and twiddle their thumbs anymore. AMD is closing the gap and at a more competitive price. Two or three years ago I would have said buy Intel, but today no. Buy AMD. One you are helping a business that wants to innovate and two you are showing Intel that we are not going to pay a premium for a name anymore.
Than the workload scales well above 16 cores (0.9 scaling factor) is easy to see by comparing the scores of EPYC 7351P and EPYC 7451. Using the 16 core as baseline, the 24 core would score about 46 and it does 40.
32 * 24/16 * 2.3GHz/2.4GHz = 46
Platinum and Golden have several differences such as binning, TDP, and 1.5 higher L3 per core. All that affects performance and you are ignoring it.
Also, since this is a heavy compute workload that scales over all the cores, the single core turbos that you mention and use for your computations mean nothing.
It is not about core scaling, it is because Skylake core is 64FLOP whereas Zen core is 16 FLOP. Also we can invert your argument and compare the 22 core Xeon and the 16 core EPYC.
Gold 6152: 70 / (22 * 1.4) = 2.3
EPYC 7351P: 32 / (16 * 2.4) = 0.8
"2.3" is 2.9x higher IPC than "0.8", confirming that
Gold 6152: 70 / (22 * 1.4) = 2.3
EPYC 7351P: 32 / (16 * 2.4) = 0.8
"2.3" is 2.9x higher IPC than "0.8", confirming that
If gold was a 1.4ghz processor that math would work. But it's a 2.1.