this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
278 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wewbull@feddit.uk -1 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

Is 20% faster than intel a step up, generation on generation?

[–] frezik@midwest.social 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It'll be a step up from the 7800x3d, but how much is a question. The 9000 series in general has been a disappointment in terms of the gains that were expected, but it does show some kind of gain. There's reason to think those issues are fixable. Linux performance does show a decent uplift, for one, which has not been the case with Intel's Arrow Lake chips.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 30 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

I know people meme about "Zen 5%" (sidenote: genuinely a clever quip), but most of that is down to AMD massively reducing the power draw of the chips.

If you set it to the same power limits as Zen4, you can get large performance improvements.

Gamers have been saying for years that stuff is getting too power-hungry, but when steps were made to reverse this, they collectively lost their minds.

Seriously, what are they expecting, a 25% improvement in performance at half the power draw, while staying on a 5nm-family node?

AMD were dumb for thinking gamers give even the slightest fuck about power usage. Gamers would much more readily accept a CPU going from 120W to 500W if it meant an imaginary +20% perf uplift over a CPU going from 120W to 70W with a +5% perf uplift. I say imaginary because nobody with a high end CPU and a 4090 actually plays their games at 1080p low.

[–] alphabethunter@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I couldn't quite understand why people were memeing on Zen 5. It's 5% performance increase while at much lower TDP, what is there not to like? Efficiency is plenty important. And even if we could see a 20% performance increase while using more power, is that worth it? What are the true benefits of a 20% faster CPU when considering pure gaming while we are already at the top of the spec sheet? The games where the difference would be a massive number of FPS are those like CS2 where you would go from 600 to 720 fps, does that truly matter? I like my pcs running as efficient as possible, that way I know they'll last longer.

[–] fluckx@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

To them it probably is. I've seen literal posts ( or GitHub comments - I forgot ) where they are raging their fps dropped from 420 to 370 with the latest patch and that the game is now completely unplayable!

They have a point complaining because the patch had a big fps drop, but the game is unplayable? At 370fps? Gtfo xD.

There's people playing on a lot less than that.

So the smart move here for AMD would have been to bin the chips differently according to their tested stability for power usage, like Intel T SKUs. It’s the same chip, but the “X” versions are running at full power (with bios options to turn it down to be more efficient, or aggressively scale power delivery, or what have you), and “E” versions that just always run at lower voltages and currents.

I agree that cutting TDP nearly in half while STILL pulling out a perf gain is remarkable, but also not something most gamers are going to care much about in the context of a desktop system.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

There are gamers and there are gamers.

Some gamers prefer not to have the level of noise of a jet engine taking off right next to them to get a couple percent more frames per second on a game.

I would say there are at least two quite different markets amongst PC gamers who have different preferred balances between performance and the downsides of it (noise, heat, power costs), a bit like not all people who enjoy driving want muscle cars.

load more comments (5 replies)