![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
yep just saw this today too: basically Gordon also brought up the fact that the chips that use multiple ccd's may have increased latency in the cache so may not get as much a benifit as the 5800x and like you said power draw prob too high on the 5900/5950 which would mean lowering clocks too much also negating benifits?
most likely just a bios update since there will be no more am4 chipset revisions, afaik.
depends on what the multithreaded application is, how sensitive it is to latency & bandwidth, but generally won't be as big as the performance gains in gaming.
If the two CCDs basically limits cache to Infinity Fabric speeds then have the 5950X3D with one chiplet with VCache and the other without for great Multithreading performance with the best gaming performance. Scheduling the first 8/16 threads to the CCD with VCcache first or assigned for games will allow best gaming performance as well as great multithreading performance for those that do more than just game on their computer and need that extra performance. Do this with TR as well, which I doubt they will do. Great single thread performance with very low latency combined with great multithreading performance. AMD decision may have to do with actually how constrained they are in getting manufactured VCache chiplets.
Since Zen 4 is on a different process, 5nm, strapped more so than 7nm, I would think AMD will keep AM4 alive for awhile together for production numbers and market share. Basically Vcache can extend selling period for Zen3+ for all those with AM4 motherboards that will accept them.
V-cache would most likely have to offer a 15% or so improvement to get 5000 series owners to upgrade. People with older boards will most likely go with a 5800x3D if they mostly play games or if they need productivity then it will still be cheaper for them to go with a 5900x or 5950x rather than switching to intel. I doubt that AMD loses much market share over just releasing the 5800x3D to get the gaming crown back (marketing) and just leaving the rest as is. People who demand the best will most likely just jump on the next gen Intel or AMD this fall, rather than purchasing a new CPU for the AM4 socket just before AM5 comes out. Their current strategy makes sense from a business perspective IMO.
There are lots of other areas than games where performance matters. Also if you are looking at games, at least use charts with a current gen high-end GPU and sitations that are actually measuring CPU performance. According techpowerup reviews with a 3080 the jump from 3800xt to 5800x is actually aprox 25% and 17% at 720p and 1080p with a 3080. Not sure if 3000 series to 5000 series counts as 2 generations, but feel free to cherry pick graphs.
By generation I meant the last 2 release 2000 to 3000 and 3000 to 5000, some people did the jump seeing a less than 15% jump on the highest video card of the time (well except the 720p and/or low quality players chasing very high fps).
No, because in a scenario where cheap cards are good for 4K60, higher-end cards would be capable of 4K120 or 4K240 and then a fast CPU become relevant again.
Exactly. We're already starting to see a situation developing where 1440 will be the new 1080, high-refresh 4K takes up the segment that high-refresh 1440 has been in, 8K will be the new 4K, weird ultrawides will continue to be a thing, and 1080 will be relegated to very high refresh (like 240-360hz+) or extreme budget. It's already happening- I'm seeing 1440P165 prices dropping, more 4K120 panels coming out, and 4K60 is actually affordable and reasonable to use now.
It is just a matter of how powerful the GPU and CPU is. Even with a 3080 the 12900k has a slight advantage at 4k over anything AMD so in 1-2 generations of GPUs that difference will probably be significant. You of course have the difference between good enough and best performance and people buying a $200 card are looking for good enough.
Fascinating theory -- but how well does it hold up? I am a big, big fan of TechPowerUp and the relative gpu/cpu pages in their reviews. I went to the most recently CPU (intel 12400) and looked to see how it fared against the competition in 4K gaming. Your point that CPUs at 4k60 won't be a big deal is true, there is ~5% difference there. But your point about 4k120-240 made me see if there was any data available.
I'm not surprised by the Doom Eternal results; that game doesn't seem to use the CPU much. I think that we're just not at the point yet where 4K frequently gets CPU bound- I did say the situation "developing", not that it's already here. It wasn't that long ago that 1440P charts were pretty flat like 4K charts, now they mostly have a curve like the 1080P charts.
but they have had the 3d vcache tooling ready since zen 2 they just never had the reason i guess? to implement it till now it is prob more down to cost / benefit analysis more then anything. i woulda never thought of that idea noko that would be a very smart approach to this tech. i thought for sure they were adding vcache to TR / Epic guess well see if they release a zen 3+ Based TR.
Show me the lows in CSGO and you'll see a totally different picture. Thing is nobody competitive plays at 4K in CSGO.
That's a good point. I'm not sure TPU provider them.
You need a pretty good CPU to maintain that fps in CSGO.
This is all anecdotal, but I do notice a slight difference on my laptop (1080P 240hz panel) between 120 and 240 the few times I've done a comparison. But that's in FPS games with mouse/controller sensitivity at the max type situations. From experience on that panel and a 144hz I had, I think the gap has to be like 2x for it to be really noticeable. So 60 -> 75 or 100 -> 120 is negligible, but 60 -> 120 or 120 - 240 will be noticeable for many people in some situations. And there's cases where I've noticed a positive change in game visuals smoothness with a 1.5x increase, like in Civ VI where there's not a lot of fast action, but there may be a lot of fast scrolling and panning and even going from 60 - 90hz there made it look nicer to me in motion.
yes! that was part of my attraction to 240hz specifically. Divides evenly by a ton of common framerates.
This.
My 10+ year old Sony KDL-46Z5100 1080p TV (one step below the XBR at the time) is a 240 Hz panel. I guess they knew what they were doing back then.
Wild... I didn't know 240hz LCDs existed back then, I only knew abt the high-refresh Plasmas. I bet 24fps content looks fantastic on that TV!
I guess I need to try playing something at 24fps ;-) The PS5 is capable of that, but it will just be at 1080p since that's all the TV supports of course.
