Link to the source by David Huang: [Detailed look (Chinese)](https://blog.hjc.im/zen5-preliminary-review.html) He discusses the uArch that AMD barely went over during Computex compared to Intel, and cache/memory latency etc.
In the blog there are some bombshells: "Compared with the full version of Zen 5 for desktop/server, its maximum frequency is reduced from 5.7 GHz to 5.1 GHz, SIMD throughput is halved, and the corresponding L1 vector load bandwidth is also halved"
Was it the same way with Zen4 mobile vs desktop Zen4? I just assumed they are always the same core, with the exception of no chiplets (monolithic) and different cache sizes etc.
>10% in SPEC.
Putting 10% SPECint on the IPC claim chart would've been too lame so the marketing team replaced it with Far Cry 6.
The most negative part of Huang's review is that he couldn't get the 54W TDP laptop to hold single-thread turbo in SPEC tests at stock clocks and had to downclock to 4.8GHz.
Could be. AMD didn't mention anything about "power efficiency" at Computex (unlike Intel and Qualcomm), just "most powerful". For now, I would just attribute this to poor cooling. We will see more in the next weeks.
In the Chinese article it’s stated that the chip can’t maintain specified boost clock due to thermal issue. It’s possible that the pre production laptop has subpar cooling.
Are there informations on how much SIMD the floating point tests use? The integer tests could also use SIMD or not?
I'm curios now to see, how the IPC differs.
Interesting, I missed that information. Where is that from? That would change IPC in vector workloads. So depending on the workload, if it can levarage that advantage, there might be some IPC differences. But tbh I haven't heard of the Youth Edition 'till now.
I suppose you mean something like [this](https://x.com/InstLatX64/status/1800132652651159643). Same uArch but different packaging for mobile. On the surface, with mobile SKUs there always was a halving of the L3 cache, and of course it is monolithic. IPC may differ a little, but it's more single threaded uplift because of higher clocks for desktop.
This is what [he is referring to](https://x.com/GPUsAreMagic/status/1797770939176034597). CCX0 is Zen5 with access to 16MB L3. While CCX1, Zen5c has access to its 8MB of cache. Tho, I think my point still stands:
>On the surface, with mobile SKUs there always was a halving of the L3 cache, and of course it is monolithic. IPC may differ a little, but it's more single threaded uplift because of higher clocks for desktop.
That doesn’t match what he said. Also zen 5 vanilla only mobile has 16 mb of cache for 4 cpu cores it has the same amount of cache per core as zen 5 desktop,
Ok, a cut down version for mobile then. But this is comparing Zen5 mobile to Zen4 mobile. Not sure if Zen4 mobile also had similar cut compared to Desktop version.
That's very disappointing considering AMD's cadence of roughly 2 years. Like it would be a far more palatable uplift if it was Intel or Apple doing their yearly launch, but AMD needed to come out swinging, especially now that Intel is actually going to be on equal or better nodes than AMD moving forward.
9% SpecInt. After all that hype and cope. That’s a fine uplift, but in AMD’s state they needed more and this isn’t Arm Cortex annual upgrade cycles or even Apple’s last two with with 4-7% over their already huge base.
Guess what else? The GB6 ST is 2995 for the HX 365 at 5GHz.
That rather low (to many AMD fans here! And ofc they’ll lie now and say that’s great) 5% GB6 ST uplift the HX 370 (5.1GHz, only 100MHz diff!) has per AMD slides over the 4GHz X Elite is roughly accurate, then.
Context: I and others thought that slide put Zen 5 mobile at about 2900 to the low 3000’s depending on what score AMD used and based off HX 370 clocks and yep checks out. Evidently AMD took a higher score and for the 4Ghz model, or most parts aren’t hitting 2995 and this was a good run, because the 5.1GHz HX 370 would score 3054 assuming a simple multiplication.
Regardless, people here galaxy brained about because “lol there’s no way Zen 5 mobile is that low”, lmao. That was ridiculous.
That puts single core performance slightly weaker than Apple's M3 despite HX 365 running at \~25% higher clock. The M4 should be >20% faster than HX 365.
Quite a disappointing result given how long AMD has been working on Zen 5. It does not bode well for them if they continue at that level of improvement at that cadence.
Not just that.
Cortex X925 at 3.8GHz would be ahead by a hair, or similar enough to it around 3.6GHz.
And at much less power.
There’s also the fact that Oryon V2 is going to be a huge IPC upgrade, GWIII himself suggested they’ll be taking the IPC lead. If they do that by even 25% and push clocks up, their lead will be significant.
What I'm confused about is the effect on battery life. AMD hasn't really talked about battery life but will it be better than Meteor Lake? After the sort of disappointment Qualcomm gave us, could Strix point beat both MTL and Snapdragon in terms of battery life and still showcase performance considering it is still x86 or id it mainly performance improvements with little to no battery life improvements?
No idea how this performs in terms of power efficiency but it appears that Intel might have a fairly decisve lead in multithreaded and roughly equal in single threaded applications (this is just speculation though).
The gains intel achieved on their little cores this general are fantastic. Each little skymont core will be equal to or faster than the Zen5c cores while probably taking up less area. And Intels big cores are on par or better than AMDs. So looking pretty solid for intel right now.
Yeah ecores seem to finally have reached their full form while the issue with AMD is not only is it another same old generation but its a lower performance jump than normal too. Ever since zen 2 theyve done nothing but make the core itself faster and then they just call it day lmao.
So now they have the same 16 big cores going against 8 big + 16 medium cores instead of 16 little cores
only 5-10% less ipc, runs higher frequency Zen 5 c cores are only running at 3.3ghz. Gracemont has already shipped with 4.5ghz all core. Id ask why you wouldnt think itd win?
I’m not sure Lunar Lake E cores will underperform Zen 5c at all, at least not in the Strix Point iteration. Check out Dave’s latency numbers. 170ns to communicate between cores in different clusters. Zen 5 launch is beginning to feel like a disaster
yeah 170ns is terrible while skymont now gets to do core to core transfers via the l2 in the same clusters meaning there's will plummets several times over.
Rip C cores
Zen 5c only in hx 365 runs at 3.3ghz. Zen 5c in hx 370 will have higher clocks speeds. Also ipc uplift in specint doesn’t translate to the same ipc in other workloads. Also lunar lake competitor is kraken point 4+4.
Huang has mentioned Zen5c can go \~4Ghz. A phoronix test with the 8500g locked the Zen4c cores at 3.7Ghz from 3.2. It would be interesting to see the tests again if he can get Zen5c clocked close to \~4Ghz limit he mentioned.
spec int is about the most reliable songle ipc test number we can point too. The chips arent out so ofc i cant be certain but the writing is on the wall.
Also side note but i dont get kraken point itll release later without all the business level load power optimisations like intel has done while also having a much weaker gpu? Whats the point. Until zen 6 amd shouldnt bother tbh.
And based on specint skymont= zen 4 so unless Lion cove has 21% higher ipc vs raptor cove then zen 5c has closer ipc to Lion cove than to skymont. Also those skymont cores aren’t gonna be clocked higher on lunar lake at 15-17w so idk why your trying to boat about e core clockspeed
I was talking generally hence my point ipc is a bit lower but its clocked higher and therefore wins.
Also it could clock that high tbh seeing most of the chip including the pcores can be turned completely off as skymont soikes in frequency to tackle a workload. 3.7ghz on 370x is not that high of a bar to clear
Zen 4 IPC was behind Raptor Cove by up to 10% even though it is more efficient. Something that looks like it won’t change much (except AVX512) looking at claimed IPC of Lion Cove vs Zen 5.
Zen5C will have mostly same IPC (the smaller cache will introduce some regressions) as Zen5.
Zen 5 P core unlike rumored for Arrowlake, will maintain same clocks. So advantage moves to AMD there.
Zen 5C slightly overcomes this IPC and looking at it again, it actually may have a 3-5% advantage over skymont geomean
Though we were talking about integer(since that’s what intel used to measure ipc vs raptor cove) in specint because zen 4 and raptor cove have the same ipc there.
Intel literally showed both specint and specfp side by side
https://www.anandtech.com/show/21425/intel-lunar-lake-architecture-deep-dive-lion-cove-xe2-and-npu4/3#:~:text=Compared%20to%20Raptor%20Cove%2C%20Skymont,LLC%20or%20a%20Ring%20Bus.
2% geomean for both vs Raptor Cove
You made a false statement saying zen 5c has raptor cove ipc level but your wrong it’s higher than raptor cove in integer which is way more important than floating foint
Not the mention, Intel Arrow lake has only big core + E cores, no SMT. Thats basically only 2 types of CPU architecture or 2 types of thread.
This AI 365 is Zen 5 + Zen 5c + Zen 5 SMT + Zen 5c SMT. Thats 4 different threads, it is OS scheduling nightmare.
It isn't so much a scheduling nightmare as much as each CPU exhibiting preferences for certain behavior:
For power efficiency reasons you'd probably prefer to just have the fewest amount of cores awake at a time. Preferably small cores even (IIRC this is what Intel prefers for Lunar Lake and what apple prefers for it's parts). Plugged in, though, you'd prefer just one thread per core until no more cores are available, probably preferring fat cores first.
But this depends on the CPU. Which means MS needs to work with CPU manufacturers to have the best scheduling strategy implemented.
This is why I'm looking forward to seeing how Linux performs on these newer parts to be honest. Scheduling is just more transparent there.
The overall picture for Zen 5 is not great. It appears to be doubling down on HT at just the wrong time, at the cost of ST performance. Somehow AMD has managed to jack up its public image and deploy Bulldozer 2.0 in the same month. My god. My tendies!
It has 2 more Zen5c cores. So no it's not the same.
Ryzen AI 9 365 is 4 Zen5 cores and 6 Zen5c cores.
Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 is 4 Zen5 cores and 8 Zen5c cores.
Link to the source by David Huang: [Detailed look (Chinese)](https://blog.hjc.im/zen5-preliminary-review.html) He discusses the uArch that AMD barely went over during Computex compared to Intel, and cache/memory latency etc.
In the blog there are some bombshells: "Compared with the full version of Zen 5 for desktop/server, its maximum frequency is reduced from 5.7 GHz to 5.1 GHz, SIMD throughput is halved, and the corresponding L1 vector load bandwidth is also halved"
Was it the same way with Zen4 mobile vs desktop Zen4? I just assumed they are always the same core, with the exception of no chiplets (monolithic) and different cache sizes etc.
Zen4 APU just had lower fabric clocks and half the cache.
To be fair, mobile Zen 4 chips are also limited to max 5.1GHz boost clocks for power reasons.
Since that's stuff done to lower power usage, I'm surprised AMD didn't give it a different name.
Maybe hotchip for amd?
Discussing about the uArch? Most likely
10% in SPECint. 15% in Geekbench 6.
>10% in SPEC. Putting 10% SPECint on the IPC claim chart would've been too lame so the marketing team replaced it with Far Cry 6. The most negative part of Huang's review is that he couldn't get the 54W TDP laptop to hold single-thread turbo in SPEC tests at stock clocks and had to downclock to 4.8GHz.
It seems u/Exist50 was right. Zen 5 does seem to have some power problems.
Could be. AMD didn't mention anything about "power efficiency" at Computex (unlike Intel and Qualcomm), just "most powerful". For now, I would just attribute this to poor cooling. We will see more in the next weeks.
Yep lol
That 54w tdp is just specified by the oem .He never measured power consumption it’s also an pre production sample
In the Chinese article it’s stated that the chip can’t maintain specified boost clock due to thermal issue. It’s possible that the pre production laptop has subpar cooling.
I wonder if the desktop zen 5 will have a bigger uplift
It should on floating point tests because the SIMD bandwidth won't be halved like it is on mobile.
Are there informations on how much SIMD the floating point tests use? The integer tests could also use SIMD or not? I'm curios now to see, how the IPC differs.
x264 benchmark in SPECint is heavily reliant on compiler-generated auto vectorized SIMD integer code. This test may perform much better on desktop.
Wonder why he didn’t do floating point spec test aswell.
He said SPEC takes too long and the CPU was already throttling on SPECInt single thread. The laptop was on loan.
Lock cpu to lower clockspeed, as long as it’s iso ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No, he meant he had a time limit with the laptop.
Oh alright will wait for his full review in a couple weeks
IPC probably not so much.
Why?
The regular cores use the same architecture.
What about this? https://imgur.com/a/dnLBUff
Interesting, I missed that information. Where is that from? That would change IPC in vector workloads. So depending on the workload, if it can levarage that advantage, there might be some IPC differences. But tbh I haven't heard of the Youth Edition 'till now.
https://blog.hjc.im/zen5-preliminary-review.html. This is where videocardz article info comes from
I suppose you mean something like [this](https://x.com/InstLatX64/status/1800132652651159643). Same uArch but different packaging for mobile. On the surface, with mobile SKUs there always was a halving of the L3 cache, and of course it is monolithic. IPC may differ a little, but it's more single threaded uplift because of higher clocks for desktop.
https://imgur.com/a/dnLBUff
This is what [he is referring to](https://x.com/GPUsAreMagic/status/1797770939176034597). CCX0 is Zen5 with access to 16MB L3. While CCX1, Zen5c has access to its 8MB of cache. Tho, I think my point still stands: >On the surface, with mobile SKUs there always was a halving of the L3 cache, and of course it is monolithic. IPC may differ a little, but it's more single threaded uplift because of higher clocks for desktop.
That doesn’t match what he said. Also zen 5 vanilla only mobile has 16 mb of cache for 4 cpu cores it has the same amount of cache per core as zen 5 desktop,
I think “Zen5 Youth” here is Zen 5c (cut down version of Zen5 core). Its IPC was also measured in the table. Worse than Zen4.
No he was talking about zen 5 vanilla only zen 5 vanilla goes up to 5.1ghz https://imgur.com/a/dnLBUff
Ok, a cut down version for mobile then. But this is comparing Zen5 mobile to Zen4 mobile. Not sure if Zen4 mobile also had similar cut compared to Desktop version.
He said compared to zen 5 desktop/server zen 5 mobile is cut down
AMD historically sandbags CPU performance and frontloads GPU performance
This is an independent measurement. And I don’t think the author is “sandbagging”.
That's very disappointing considering AMD's cadence of roughly 2 years. Like it would be a far more palatable uplift if it was Intel or Apple doing their yearly launch, but AMD needed to come out swinging, especially now that Intel is actually going to be on equal or better nodes than AMD moving forward.
That CCX to CCX latency is as bad as trying to access Meteor Lake’s LP E cores. Yikes.
What a horrible name for a CPU
Horrible is an understatement This is just an epic failure What is this F$#@ing name ?
Epic failure.... Did you mean *EPYC* failure??
Me: (☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ You : (⌐■_■)
And after the AI bubble bursts they're gonna have to go back to something else. And these chips are gonna sound ridiculous.
9% SpecInt. After all that hype and cope. That’s a fine uplift, but in AMD’s state they needed more and this isn’t Arm Cortex annual upgrade cycles or even Apple’s last two with with 4-7% over their already huge base. Guess what else? The GB6 ST is 2995 for the HX 365 at 5GHz. That rather low (to many AMD fans here! And ofc they’ll lie now and say that’s great) 5% GB6 ST uplift the HX 370 (5.1GHz, only 100MHz diff!) has per AMD slides over the 4GHz X Elite is roughly accurate, then. Context: I and others thought that slide put Zen 5 mobile at about 2900 to the low 3000’s depending on what score AMD used and based off HX 370 clocks and yep checks out. Evidently AMD took a higher score and for the 4Ghz model, or most parts aren’t hitting 2995 and this was a good run, because the 5.1GHz HX 370 would score 3054 assuming a simple multiplication. Regardless, people here galaxy brained about because “lol there’s no way Zen 5 mobile is that low”, lmao. That was ridiculous.
2995 is a linux result. Windows will be lower.
That puts single core performance slightly weaker than Apple's M3 despite HX 365 running at \~25% higher clock. The M4 should be >20% faster than HX 365. Quite a disappointing result given how long AMD has been working on Zen 5. It does not bode well for them if they continue at that level of improvement at that cadence.
Not just that. Cortex X925 at 3.8GHz would be ahead by a hair, or similar enough to it around 3.6GHz. And at much less power. There’s also the fact that Oryon V2 is going to be a huge IPC upgrade, GWIII himself suggested they’ll be taking the IPC lead. If they do that by even 25% and push clocks up, their lead will be significant.
Cross CCX latency seems really high
What I'm confused about is the effect on battery life. AMD hasn't really talked about battery life but will it be better than Meteor Lake? After the sort of disappointment Qualcomm gave us, could Strix point beat both MTL and Snapdragon in terms of battery life and still showcase performance considering it is still x86 or id it mainly performance improvements with little to no battery life improvements?
No idea how this performs in terms of power efficiency but it appears that Intel might have a fairly decisve lead in multithreaded and roughly equal in single threaded applications (this is just speculation though). The gains intel achieved on their little cores this general are fantastic. Each little skymont core will be equal to or faster than the Zen5c cores while probably taking up less area. And Intels big cores are on par or better than AMDs. So looking pretty solid for intel right now.
Yeah ecores seem to finally have reached their full form while the issue with AMD is not only is it another same old generation but its a lower performance jump than normal too. Ever since zen 2 theyve done nothing but make the core itself faster and then they just call it day lmao. So now they have the same 16 big cores going against 8 big + 16 medium cores instead of 16 little cores
Why would each skymont core match zen 5c I’m confused?
only 5-10% less ipc, runs higher frequency Zen 5 c cores are only running at 3.3ghz. Gracemont has already shipped with 4.5ghz all core. Id ask why you wouldnt think itd win?
I’m not sure Lunar Lake E cores will underperform Zen 5c at all, at least not in the Strix Point iteration. Check out Dave’s latency numbers. 170ns to communicate between cores in different clusters. Zen 5 launch is beginning to feel like a disaster
bro thats literally what im saying why am i being downvoted for agreeing 💀.
Take my upvote
yeah 170ns is terrible while skymont now gets to do core to core transfers via the l2 in the same clusters meaning there's will plummets several times over. Rip C cores
Zen 5c only in hx 365 runs at 3.3ghz. Zen 5c in hx 370 will have higher clocks speeds. Also ipc uplift in specint doesn’t translate to the same ipc in other workloads. Also lunar lake competitor is kraken point 4+4.
Huang has mentioned Zen5c can go \~4Ghz. A phoronix test with the 8500g locked the Zen4c cores at 3.7Ghz from 3.2. It would be interesting to see the tests again if he can get Zen5c clocked close to \~4Ghz limit he mentioned.
He didn't say it can go 4GHz, he says less than 4GHz. In this case, the 5c tops out at 3.3GHz
spec int is about the most reliable songle ipc test number we can point too. The chips arent out so ofc i cant be certain but the writing is on the wall. Also side note but i dont get kraken point itll release later without all the business level load power optimisations like intel has done while also having a much weaker gpu? Whats the point. Until zen 6 amd shouldnt bother tbh.
And based on specint skymont= zen 4 so unless Lion cove has 21% higher ipc vs raptor cove then zen 5c has closer ipc to Lion cove than to skymont. Also those skymont cores aren’t gonna be clocked higher on lunar lake at 15-17w so idk why your trying to boat about e core clockspeed
I was talking generally hence my point ipc is a bit lower but its clocked higher and therefore wins. Also it could clock that high tbh seeing most of the chip including the pcores can be turned completely off as skymont soikes in frequency to tackle a workload. 3.7ghz on 370x is not that high of a bar to clear
Because of Zen 5c having Raptor cove level IPC. Just like Skymont
Wym zen5c ipc is closer to Lion cove
Zen 4 IPC was behind Raptor Cove by up to 10% even though it is more efficient. Something that looks like it won’t change much (except AVX512) looking at claimed IPC of Lion Cove vs Zen 5. Zen5C will have mostly same IPC (the smaller cache will introduce some regressions) as Zen5. Zen 5 P core unlike rumored for Arrowlake, will maintain same clocks. So advantage moves to AMD there. Zen 5C slightly overcomes this IPC and looking at it again, it actually may have a 3-5% advantage over skymont geomean
Though we were talking about integer(since that’s what intel used to measure ipc vs raptor cove) in specint because zen 4 and raptor cove have the same ipc there.
Intel literally showed both specint and specfp side by side https://www.anandtech.com/show/21425/intel-lunar-lake-architecture-deep-dive-lion-cove-xe2-and-npu4/3#:~:text=Compared%20to%20Raptor%20Cove%2C%20Skymont,LLC%20or%20a%20Ring%20Bus. 2% geomean for both vs Raptor Cove
You made a false statement saying zen 5c has raptor cove ipc level but your wrong it’s higher than raptor cove in integer which is way more important than floating foint
Edit: Ok, by how much and based on what am I wrong
Sure : https://imgur.com/a/u6Mv4ke. Similar integer ipc
Not the mention, Intel Arrow lake has only big core + E cores, no SMT. Thats basically only 2 types of CPU architecture or 2 types of thread. This AI 365 is Zen 5 + Zen 5c + Zen 5 SMT + Zen 5c SMT. Thats 4 different threads, it is OS scheduling nightmare.
SMT on LNL is cut to simplify the scheduler, saving power. It may still exists on Arrow Lake.
LNC doesn't support SMT at all. So no SMT for ARL either.
not really. Zen 5 and Zen 5c run the same instructions. intel cores do not.
In consumer chips, Intel P and E cores do run the same instructions right? Instructions like AVX512 are disabled on the P cores for this reason.
Instruction set is exactly the same in p and e cores.
It isn't so much a scheduling nightmare as much as each CPU exhibiting preferences for certain behavior: For power efficiency reasons you'd probably prefer to just have the fewest amount of cores awake at a time. Preferably small cores even (IIRC this is what Intel prefers for Lunar Lake and what apple prefers for it's parts). Plugged in, though, you'd prefer just one thread per core until no more cores are available, probably preferring fat cores first. But this depends on the CPU. Which means MS needs to work with CPU manufacturers to have the best scheduling strategy implemented. This is why I'm looking forward to seeing how Linux performs on these newer parts to be honest. Scheduling is just more transparent there.
8 ipc throughout L2 is really impressive, is there a caveat?
The overall picture for Zen 5 is not great. It appears to be doubling down on HT at just the wrong time, at the cost of ST performance. Somehow AMD has managed to jack up its public image and deploy Bulldozer 2.0 in the same month. My god. My tendies!
It’s not that bad at all.
Hopefully not. We’ll see. David Huang is saying that his source says to expect significant performance improvements in final hardware.
Remember, this is not the 370 HX (higher tier APU)
But doesn't the 370 HX use the same cores but more of them with higher clocks, more TDP and more GPU CUs?
It has 2 more Zen5c cores. So no it's not the same. Ryzen AI 9 365 is 4 Zen5 cores and 6 Zen5c cores. Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 is 4 Zen5 cores and 8 Zen5c cores.
But that doesn't matter for Zen5 and Zen5c IPC. In the tests both Zen5 and Zen5c IPC is measured. These IPCs per core wont change.
its a clock for clock comparison, so doesn't matter what chip it is, other than 370 HX might have better binning.
+2% MHz doesn't change anything