• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Ryzen 9000 Zen 5 Single Thread Performance at 5.80 GHz Found 19% Over Zen 4

Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
2,789 (2.22/day)
Location
Germany
System Name Sunk Cost Fallacy
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard ASRock B650E Steel Legend Wifi
Cooling Thermalright Phantom Spirit 120
Memory 2x16GB Corsair Vengeance RGB 6000 CL30 (A-Die)
Video Card(s) RTX 4090 Gaming X Trio
Storage WD Black SN850X 1TB + 2x 2TB, 2x 4TB Crucial MX500, 4TB Samsung 870 Evo.
Display(s) Alienware AW2723DF, LG 27GR93U, LG 27GN950-B
Case Streacom BC1 V2
Audio Device(s) Bose Companion Series 2 III, Sennheiser GSP600 and HD599 SE - Creative Soundblaster X4
Power Supply bequiet! Dark Power Pro 12 1500w Titanium
Mouse Logitech GPRO X Superlight & G502 X
Keyboard Corsair K65 RGB Mini, Razer Black Widow V3 TKL
VR HMD Oculus Rift S
i'll wait for the last X3D Chip on AM5.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
555 (0.14/day)
Processor Ryzen 9 3900x
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 4
Memory 32GB GSkill Ripjaws V 3600CL16
Video Card(s) 3060Ti FE 0.9v
Storage Samsung 970 EVO 1TB, 2x Samsung 840 EVO 1TB
Display(s) ASUS ProArt PA278QV
Case be quiet! Pure Base 500
Audio Device(s) Edifier R1850DB
Power Supply Super Flower Leadex III 650W
Mouse A4Tech X-748K
Keyboard Logitech K300
Software Win 10 Pro 64bit
When AMD first released the Zen2 architecture, CPU-Z's author (or Intel) decided that he didn't like the Zen2 out-performing the Intel chip at the time, so a new benchmark version was released, reducing the AMD scores (Intel scores stayed the same) by some 15%. I have never taken the CPU-Z benchmark seriously after that, as it's apparently just an Intel sponsored benchmark.
In that case, we can ignore AMD vs. Intel results in CPU-z, but AMD vs. AMD is still relevant and shows a pretty chunky improvement over Zen4.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 6, 2021
Messages
1,604 (1.58/day)
1000015810.jpg

1000015809.jpg

For those who don't know, clock-to-clock Zen4 offered a 1% improvement over Zen3 in CPU-Z. So to bring 19% gains in such a shallow benchmark shows major design changes.

But wasn't this leak declared a fake?
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
3,132 (0.79/day)
Location
Athens, Greece
System Name 3 desktop systems: Gaming / Internet / HTPC
Processor Ryzen 5 5500 / Ryzen 5 4600G / FX 6300 (12 years latter got to see how bad Bulldozer is)
Motherboard MSI X470 Gaming Plus Max (1) / MSI X470 Gaming Plus Max (2) / Gigabyte GA-990XA-UD3
Cooling Νoctua U12S / Segotep T4 / Snowman M-T6
Memory 16GB G.Skill RIPJAWS 3600 / 16GB G.Skill Aegis 3200 / 16GB Kingston 2400MHz (DDR3)
Video Card(s) ASRock RX 6600 + GT 710 (PhysX)/ Vega 7 integrated / Radeon RX 580
Storage NVMes, ONLY NVMes/ NVMes, SATA Storage / NVMe boot(Clover), SATA storage
Display(s) Philips 43PUS8857/12 UHD TV (120Hz, HDR, FreeSync Premium) ---- 19'' HP monitor + BlitzWolf BW-V5
Case Sharkoon Rebel 12 / CoolerMaster Elite 361 / Xigmatek Midguard
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply Chieftec 850W / Silver Power 400W / Sharkoon 650W
Mouse CoolerMaster Devastator III Plus / CoolerMaster Devastator / Logitech
Keyboard CoolerMaster Devastator III Plus / CoolerMaster Devastator / Logitech
Software Windows 10 / Windows 10&Windows 11 / Windows 10
Which 8-core chips runs at 230W power limit? That is what 7900X and 7950X have.
I am talking about AM4.
With AM5 AMD decided to give users what they where cheering for. Some extra performance for much higher power consumption.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2021
Messages
232 (0.20/day)
CPU-Z benchmark has always been bad. It is essentially a look at a best case scenario though.
It runs entirely from L1I amd has a bunch of things that are synthetic and easy for modern CPUs.
 
Joined
Oct 6, 2021
Messages
1,604 (1.58/day)
It could very well be fake as all rumors and leaks come from unofficial sources. But who declared this one so?
"Don't bother. The baidu thread started like this

Op claimed that amd's launching zen5 in august, then october. Said that the source has proofs and can confirm it

Did a 180 turn 1 day later and claimed june launch, july availability (was known long before he made his post)

A user put up a screenshot of alleged zen5 cpuz bench, deleted it after a couple hours

He claimed that he did it just for fun and didn't expect people to repost and take it seriously

Chinese users laughing at wccf reposting his shit

A number of chinese tech forums have already started to warn users against sharing baidu bs and threatened bans or infrator points. Your choice on whether ya wanna believe in them"

"Also, the CPU-Z screenshot doesn't list AVX-VNNI in ISA extensions."

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/1d2od9j
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Messages
201 (0.08/day)
At 5.8GHz doesn't just equals 14900K. It equals an overclocked and unstable 14900K.
Are you sure about that?The baseline profile didn't affect the ST performance when it was benchmarked, even locking the 14900k to 65w give the same result in ST. MT results for Zen 5 is where we will probably see the gains, but in ST RPL is still very strong
1716984155262.png

1716984488802.png
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
1,436 (0.52/day)
Are you sure about that?The baseline profile didn't affect the ST performance when it was benchmarked, even locking the 14900k to 65w give the same result in ST. MT results for Zen 5 is where we will probably see the gains, but in ST RPL is still very strong
Different benchmarks, different test beds and as Denver investigated, this all could be fake.

"Don't bother. The baidu thread started like this

Op claimed that amd's launching zen5 in august, then october. Said that the source has proofs and can confirm it

Did a 180 turn 1 day later and claimed june launch, july availability (was known long before he made his post)

A user put up a screenshot of alleged zen5 cpuz bench, deleted it after a couple hours

He claimed that he did it just for fun and didn't expect people to repost and take it seriously

Chinese users laughing at wccf reposting his shit

A number of chinese tech forums have already started to warn users against sharing baidu bs and threatened bans or infrator points. Your choice on whether ya wanna believe in them"

"Also, the CPU-Z screenshot doesn't list AVX-VNNI in ISA extensions."

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/1d2od9j
Thanks for checking into this rumor. Fortunately we don't have to wait long for at least the AMD released numbers. Lisa Su's keynote is next Monday. And if we are lucky, review samples will follow shortly thereafter.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
10,324 (1.69/day)
Location
Austin Texas
Processor 13700KF Undervolted @ 5.6/ 5.5, 4.8Ghz Ring 200W PL1
Motherboard MSI 690-I PRO
Cooling Thermalright Peerless Assassin 120 w/ Arctic P12 Fans
Memory 48 GB DDR5 7600 MHZ CL36
Video Card(s) RTX 4090 FE
Storage 2x 2TB WDC SN850, 1TB Samsung 960 prr
Display(s) Alienware 32" 4k 240hz OLED
Case SLIGER S620
Audio Device(s) Yes
Power Supply Corsair SF750
Mouse Xlite V2
Keyboard RoyalAxe
Software Windows 11
Benchmark Scores They're pretty good, nothing crazy.
At 5.8GHz doesn't just equals 14900K. It equals an overclocked and unstable 14900K.
Also CPU-z benchmark is for years considered one of the Intel friendly ones.

While I doubt, I hope AMD to be considering bringing the X3D chips the same day with the regular ones. They can put a ridiculous high price if they want on them, but it will be stupid if they don't announce them together with the regular ones. They have to finally start understanding the power of marketing. Zen 5 will have a totally different, much higher level of acceptance, if an 8 core 9800X3D annihilates everything in gaming benchmarks with differences of 20-50%. If they fear internal competition, they can start that chip at $550. Zen 4 and AM5 would had much higher success if the X3D chips where introduced together with the new platform.
They're not bringing the x3d till 2025 - internal leaks already confirmed this - will be announced in Jan. Since intel doesn't have arrow lake ready these will just hang out at $550 until there's reason to drop them.
 
Joined
May 12, 2015
Messages
41 (0.01/day)
I would call it a fake, wouldn't you?

Moreover, i still remember the story about how developers of this utility revised their tests after, irc, Zen1 showed better results (and its result was of course downgraded).
Didn't someone from Intel have contact with these developers back then?
 
Joined
May 11, 2018
Messages
1,057 (0.47/day)
I would call it a fake, wouldn't you?

Moreover, i still remember the story about how developers of this utility revised their tests after, irc, Zen1 showed better results (and its result was of course downgraded).
Didn't someone from Intel have contact with these developers back then?

I think you won't find any concrete proof, but it was pretty obvious back then that Intel simply paid developer to change the benchmark to be more "representative of real workloads". It was also a time when Intel proclaimed what real workload is and what isn't, and of course excluded anything Zen was particulary good at.
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2023
Messages
187 (0.36/day)
Location
Lake Superior
Questionable source but about where I expect Zen 5 to land, in the 15-25% range.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
484 (0.17/day)
I've been reading "next generation 10-20% IPC lift" from both sides every year for the last ~15-20 years.

I know better than to believe those claims until I see them. It's usually too good to be true.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
2,064 (0.31/day)
Location
Toronto, Ontario
System Name The Expanse
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D
Motherboard Asus Prime X570-Pro BIOS 5013 AM4 AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.Ca.
Cooling Corsair H150i Pro
Memory 32GB GSkill Trident RGB DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34-1T (B-Die)
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX 24GB (24.6.1)
Storage WD SN850X 2TB / Corsair MP600 1TB / Samsung 860Evo 1TB x2 Raid 0 / Asus NAS AS1004T V2 14TB
Display(s) LG 34GP83A-B 34 Inch 21: 9 UltraGear Curved QHD (3440 x 1440) 1ms Nano IPS 160Hz
Case Fractal Design Meshify S2
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi + Logitech Z-5500 + HS80 Wireless
Power Supply Corsair AX850 Titanium
Mouse Corsair Dark Core RGB SE
Keyboard Corsair K100
Software Windows 10 Pro x64 22H2
Benchmark Scores 3800X https://valid.x86.fr/1zr4a5 5800X https://valid.x86.fr/2dey9c
I've been reading "next generation 10-20% IPC lift" from both sides every year for the last ~15-20 years.

I know better than to believe those claims until I see them. It's usually too good to be true.
Maybe on the intel side they were comfortable with single digit increases for years.(skylake)

I however wouldn't say that is the same for AMD who has showed us double digit increases in IPC in the last 10 years easily.

AMD Excavator lineup to Zen 1: There was roughly 52% IPC Increase
  • Zen 1 -Zen+: 3% IPC Increase
  • Zen --Zen 2: 15% IPC Increase
  • Zen --Zen 3: 19% IPC Increase
  • Zen 3 -- Zen 4: 13% IPC Increase
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 3, 2014
Messages
340 (0.10/day)
Location
Marabá - Pará - Brazil
System Name KarymidoN TitaN
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700X
Motherboard ASUS TUF X570
Cooling Custom Watercooling Loop
Memory 2x Kingston FURY RGB 16gb @ 3200mhz 18-20-20-39
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1070 GAMING X 8GB
Storage Kingston NV2 1TB| 4TB HDD
Display(s) 4X 1080P LG Monitors
Case Thermaltake Core V71
Power Supply Corsair TX 600
Mouse Logitech G300S
It's hard to compare from different sources and obviously bring salt. Anyways onto more leaks...
You guys have to consider a lot of those results are BEFORE that whole Intel baseline instability situation... remenber if you run the 14900k/s/f today in the baseline preset you're loosing a lot of performance (multitread) compared to the release day reviews.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
8,312 (3.19/day)
System Name Best AMD Computer
Processor AMD 7900X3D
Motherboard Asus X670E E Strix
Cooling In Win SR36
Memory GSKILL DDR5 32GB 5200 30
Video Card(s) Sapphire Pulse 7900XT (Watercooled)
Storage Corsair MP 700, Seagate 530 2Tb, Adata SX8200 2TBx2, Kingston 2 TBx2, Micron 8 TB, WD AN 1500
Display(s) GIGABYTE FV43U
Case Corsair 7000D Airflow
Audio Device(s) Corsair Void Pro, Logitch Z523 5.1
Power Supply Deepcool 1000M
Mouse Logitech g7 gaming mouse
Keyboard Logitech G510
Software Windows 11 Pro 64 Steam. GOG, Uplay, Origin
Benchmark Scores Firestrike: 46183 Time Spy: 25121
Maybe on the intel side they were comfortable with single digit increases for years.(skylake)

I however wouldn't say that is the same for AMD who has showed us double digit increases in IPC in the last 10 years easily.

AMD Excavator lineup to Zen 1: There was roughly 52% IPC Increase
  • Zen 1 -Zen+: 3% IPC Increase
  • Zen --Zen 2: 15% IPC Increase
  • Zen --Zen 3: 19% IPC Increase
  • Zen 3 -- Zen 4: 13% IPC Increase
Don't forget about the clock speed increase. 1700X 4.1 vs 5800X @ 5.0 or 5950X @ 5.1 Ghz, Also Multi core CPU enhancements with Windows updates also improved performance and faster RAM made a discernible difference up to 3600 Mhz.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
1,683 (1.07/day)
Maybe on the intel side they were comfortable with single digit increases for years.(skylake)

I however wouldn't say that is the same for AMD who has showed us double digit increases in IPC in the last 10 years easily.

AMD Excavator lineup to Zen 1: There was roughly 52% IPC Increase
  • Zen 1 -Zen+: 3% IPC Increase
  • Zen --Zen 2: 15% IPC Increase
  • Zen --Zen 3: 19% IPC Increase
  • Zen 3 -- Zen 4: 13% IPC Increase
Intel essentially stagnated between Skylake to Comet Lake. Between Alder Lake to Raptor Lake refresh, there was very little IPC improvement. The general performance improvement was mainly due to the aggressive clockspeed starting with the 13x00 series. So while AMD is busy improving their CPU architecture to deliver higher performance, Intel was busy tweaking their chips to soak in as much power to deliver the high clockspeed.
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
108 (0.08/day)
CPU-Z single core bench has pretty much zero relevance to real world applications and uses a tiny part of the CPU. Even if the 19% increase in performance is true in this bench, it's like saying Zen 5 has better L1 latency or something along the lines. And for some reason the news article sounds like after this 19% gain, Zen 5 has caught up to 14th gen's IPC which is obviously not the case. Zen 4 is close to 14th gen's in IPC in actual workloads.

Now if it's 19% increase in a real world application, that would be progress. Sort of similar to Zen 2 - Zen 3. Based on the architectural changes, it should at least be more than Zen 3 - Zen 4.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
89 (0.03/day)
Location
Europe
Processor Ryzen 9 5900X
Motherboard B550 chipset
Cooling SPC Fera 5
Memory 128 GiB
Video Card(s) RX 6700XT
Storage WD Black SN750, Seagate FireCuda 530, Samsung SSD 850 Pro, WD Blue HDD, Seagate IronWolf HDD
Display(s) Samsung (4K, FreeSync)
Case Corsair SPEC-03 Orange LED
Power Supply Corsair CX600M, APC 950VA (french sockets)
Mouse Eternico wireless mouse
Keyboard HyperX Alloy Origins Core Aqua with Corsair Onyx Black keycaps
Software Linux + KVM
AMD tried to promote it's chips as super efficient. They did that keeping 12 and 16 core chips at 8 core chips power consumption levels. Then users online where praising Intel's chips for being 1% faster in single threaded benchmarks and games while using twice the power. What was expected from AMD to do, other than offer users what they wanted? That +1% performance for a +50% power increase.
Intel didn't drag AMD to anything. Users and tech press did. They are so desperate to keep offering wins to Intel, that they made efficiency look like a secondary, unimportant feature.

Note 1: High power consumption is an industry-wide trend, in both desktop CPUs and desktop GPUs, enabled by advances in chip manufacturing and by larger&heavier coolers.

Note 2: Neither AMD nor Intel is FORCING users to run the CPU at 250 Watts, and neither AMD nor Intel nor Nvidia is FORCING gamers to run GPUs at 400 Watts. Running a CPU or GPU at high wattage is an OPTION offered to consumers. Another OPTION offered is to limit CPU's max temperature to 75℃ in the BIOS (single-threaded performance stays the same, while multi-threaded performance is reduced). 144Hz 4K HDR gaming is just an OPTION offered by high-end displays. Complaining about 250 Watt CPU consumption, while multiple options of how to limit/optimize power consumption and temperatures do exist and are fairly obvious, is a sign of incompetence+misunderstading on the side of the user of the desktop machine.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
3,598 (1.32/day)
Processor R5 5600X
Motherboard ASUS ROG STRIX B550-I GAMING
Cooling Alpenföhn Black Ridge
Memory 2*16GB DDR4-2666 VLP @3800
Video Card(s) EVGA Geforce RTX 3080 XC3
Storage 1TB Samsung 970 Pro, 2TB Intel 660p
Display(s) ASUS PG279Q, Eizo EV2736W
Case Dan Cases A4-SFX
Power Supply Corsair SF600
Mouse Corsair Ironclaw Wireless RGB
Keyboard Corsair K60
VR HMD HTC Vive
Note 1: High power consumption is an industry-wide trend, in both desktop CPUs and desktop GPUs, enabled by advances in chip manufacturing and by larger&heavier coolers.
I would phrase this the other way around. High power consumption is an industry-wide trend, caused by relative lack of advances in chip manufacturing.

For long years there were regular huge improvements in manufacturing processes that enabled huge increases of transistor budgets and huge efficiency increases. These manufacturing process increases have slowed down a lot in recent years but the industry and consumer expectation is for the performance of end product to keep increasing.

Note 2: Neither AMD nor Intel is FORCING users to run the CPU at 250 Watts, and neither AMD nor Intel nor Nvidia is FORCING gamers to run GPUs at 400 Watts. Running a CPU or GPU at high wattage is an OPTION offered to consumers. Another OPTION offered is to limit CPU's max temperature to 75℃ in the BIOS (single-threaded performance stays the same, while multi-threaded performance is reduced). 144Hz 4K HDR gaming is just an OPTION offered by high-end displays. Complaining about 250 Watt CPU consumption, while multiple options of how to limit/optimize power consumption and temperatures do exist and are fairly obvious, is a sign of incompetence+misunderstading on the side of the user of the desktop machine.
This is about cost to the consumer. If consumer would prioritize buying - and paying for - low power consumption and efficiency the products offered would reflect that. Basically for a CPU or GPU it means going larger-wider (more cores, more shader) and lower frequencies. This is exactly what enterprise and data center are doing - they feel the power requirements, cooling requirements and initial investment of buying the thing is relatively smaller. Thus, products offered there are more efficient.

Nothing stops me or you from buying an RTX 4090 and running it at half power limit - at 225W that will become a very efficient GPU with surprising bit of its performance intact. The problem - this will bring its performance down to lets say RTX 4080 level. RTX 4080 would be much cheaper to buy.

Although if I remember correctly 4090 is most efficient somewhere around 300W where it does not lose as much performance and would still be faster and more effcient than RTX4080. More costly, still.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
89 (0.03/day)
Location
Europe
Processor Ryzen 9 5900X
Motherboard B550 chipset
Cooling SPC Fera 5
Memory 128 GiB
Video Card(s) RX 6700XT
Storage WD Black SN750, Seagate FireCuda 530, Samsung SSD 850 Pro, WD Blue HDD, Seagate IronWolf HDD
Display(s) Samsung (4K, FreeSync)
Case Corsair SPEC-03 Orange LED
Power Supply Corsair CX600M, APC 950VA (french sockets)
Mouse Eternico wireless mouse
Keyboard HyperX Alloy Origins Core Aqua with Corsair Onyx Black keycaps
Software Linux + KVM
I would phrase this the other way around. High power consumption is an industry-wide trend, caused by relative lack of advances in chip manufacturing.

For long years there were regular huge improvements in manufacturing processes that enabled huge increases of transistor budgets and huge efficiency increases. These manufacturing process increases have slowed down a lot in recent years but the industry and consumer expectation is for the performance of end product to keep increasing.

If you mean 1980-ties and 1990-ties, then I mostly agree. After year 2000 it gets more complicated: AMD Bulldozer CPUs were a step back compared to the K10 architecture, which wasn't caused by manufacturing but by micro-architecture. Intel only slightly increasing IPC for 10 years is related to micro-architecture and to the absence of a competitive micro-architecture from AMD and ARM. While the size of an atom of silicon is indeed a constant, the truth is that the number of transistors on a single chip sold to a consumer has kept increasing exponentially for the past 20 years (albeit the exponent is now slightly lower than it was before 2000), which means that the main obstacle to more performance is lack of progress in micro-architecture and not a lack of progress in the number of transistors. GAA transitors will provide a lot of extra transistors for CPU micro-architecture designers to use throughout the next decade. But breakthoughts in micro-architecture have a PACING different from the PACING of advances in manufacturing. Huge mistakes in micro-architecture actually do happen sometimes (while mistakes in manufacturing are very tiny when compared to mistakes in micro-architectures). Micro-achitecture doesn't follow Moore's law.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
3,598 (1.32/day)
Processor R5 5600X
Motherboard ASUS ROG STRIX B550-I GAMING
Cooling Alpenföhn Black Ridge
Memory 2*16GB DDR4-2666 VLP @3800
Video Card(s) EVGA Geforce RTX 3080 XC3
Storage 1TB Samsung 970 Pro, 2TB Intel 660p
Display(s) ASUS PG279Q, Eizo EV2736W
Case Dan Cases A4-SFX
Power Supply Corsair SF600
Mouse Corsair Ironclaw Wireless RGB
Keyboard Corsair K60
VR HMD HTC Vive
This is an interesting point. I am not sure if that comes completely down to microarchitecture.

It has been clear for a while that frequencies will no longer increase considerably which has an effect on how microarchitectures need to evolve. Some - if not most - of the evolution has happened and will have to happen on different levels. Multi-/manycore CPUs and their consenquences in the system and software level has been significant and will go on.

Purely on microarchitecture there seem to be two cardinally different directions being attempted - going small simple like RISC-V or some of ARM, alternatively going wide and complex for which the Apple M is probably the best mainstream example. I think the problem with simple is that it will eventually have to rely on either clock speed or parallelism to improve. Clock speeds are not expected to improve considerably these days and parallelism works well with cores of any size or complexity. Plus of course ASICs for specific tasks for efficiency improvements.

Interesting times either way :D
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
89 (0.03/day)
Location
Europe
Processor Ryzen 9 5900X
Motherboard B550 chipset
Cooling SPC Fera 5
Memory 128 GiB
Video Card(s) RX 6700XT
Storage WD Black SN750, Seagate FireCuda 530, Samsung SSD 850 Pro, WD Blue HDD, Seagate IronWolf HDD
Display(s) Samsung (4K, FreeSync)
Case Corsair SPEC-03 Orange LED
Power Supply Corsair CX600M, APC 950VA (french sockets)
Mouse Eternico wireless mouse
Keyboard HyperX Alloy Origins Core Aqua with Corsair Onyx Black keycaps
Software Linux + KVM
This is an interesting point. I am not sure if that comes completely down to microarchitecture.

Of course that performance largely comes down to micro-architecture. For example, Python (or any programming language with arbitrary-precision integers as the default integer type) suffers a fairly large performance slowdown (even if you manage to JIT-compile the Python code into native code) JUST because CPUs don't have native support for accelerating arbitrary-precision integers. The same can be said about performance hit caused by garbage collection. And the same can be said in terms of CPUs lacking hardware support for message passing (that is: acceleration of concurrent programming languages).

Just a note: JIT compilation arrives to CPython with version 3.13, although it might be initially disabled by default and might noticeably improve performance only after version 3.14+ (https://peps.python.org/pep-0744/)

It has been clear for a while that frequencies will no longer increase considerably which has an effect on how microarchitectures need to evolve. Some - if not most - of the evolution has happened and will have to happen on different levels. Multi-/manycore CPUs and their consenquences in the system and software level has been significant and will go on.

Purely on microarchitecture there seem to be two cardinally different directions being attempted - going small simple like RISC-V or some of ARM, alternatively going wide and complex for which the Apple M is probably the best mainstream example. I think the problem with simple is that it will eventually have to rely on either clock speed or parallelism to improve. Clock speeds are not expected to improve considerably these days and parallelism works well with cores of any size or complexity. Plus of course ASICs for specific tasks for efficiency improvements.

Interesting times either way :D

The RISC-V standard will have (but I have no idea when it will happen, it is taking a long time) an extension "J" for accelerating dynamic programming languages (https://github.com/riscv/riscv-j-extension). With it in place, competition between ARM/x86 and RISC-V might become quite interesting.
 
Last edited:
Top