So, he black box tests the CPU to try and discover its innards.
Agner
That sounds like a weird design choice. Curious if this will affect memcpy-heavy workloads.
Writes aside, Zen5 is taking much longer to roll out than I thought, and some of AMD's positioning is (almost expectedly) misleading, especially around AI.
AMD's website claims Zen5 is the "Leading CPU for AI" (<https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/server/epyc/ai.ht...>), but I strongly doubt that. First, they compare Zen5 (9965), which is still largely unavailable, to Xeon2 (8280), a 2 generations older processor. Xeon4 is abundantly available and comes with AMX, an exclusive feature to Intel. I doubt AVX-512 support with a 512-bit physical path and even twice as many cores will be enough to compete with that (if we consider just the ALU throughput rather than the overall system & memory).
Consider the standard matrix multiplication primitive the FMAC / multiply and accumulate: 3 reads and one write if I'm counting correctly .... (Output = A * B + C, three reads one output).
Whether the core does a 512-bit write in 1 cycle or 2 because it is two 256-bit writes is immaterial. Memory bandwidth is bottlenecked by 64GB/sec per CCX. You need to use cores from multiple CCXs to get full bandwidth.
That said, the EYPC 9175F has 614.4GB/sec memory bandwidth and should be able to use all of it. I have one, although the machine is not yet assembled (Supermicro took 7 weeks to send me a motherboard, which delayed assembly), so I have no confirmed that it can use all of it yet.
This was a typo. It should have been “inference is memory bandwidth bound”.
Now, if we say "Zen5 is the leading consumer CPU for AI" then no objections can be made, consumer Intel models do not even support AVX-512.
Also, note that for inference they compare with Xeon 8592+ which is the top Emerald Rapids model. Not sure if comparison with Granite Rapids would have been more appropriate but they surely dodged the AMX bullet by testing FP32 precision instead of BF16.
On the right, they compare the EPYC 9965 (launched 10/10/24) with the Xeon Platinum 8592+ (launched Q4 23), a like for like comparison against Intel's competition at launch.
The argument is essentially in two pieces - "If you're upgrading, you should pick AMD. If you're not upgrading, you should be."
The floating point schedulers have a slow region, in the oldest entries of a scheduler and only when the scheduler is full. If an operation is in the slow region and it is dependent on a 1-cycle latency operation, it will see a 1 cycle latency penalty.
There is no penalty for operations in the slow region that depend on longer latency operations or loads.
There is no penalty for any operations in the fast region.
To write a latency test that does not see this penalty, the test needs to keep the FP schedulers from filling up.
The latency test could interleave NOPs to prevent the scheduler from filling up.
[1] https://www.amd.com/content/dam/amd/en/documents/processor-t...
There is very little reason to use integers for anything anymore. Loop counter? Why not make it a double - you never know when you might need an extra 0.5 loops at the end!
Zen 5 breaks several performance "conventions" e.g. AMD went directly from one to three complex scalar integer units (multiplication, PDEP/PEXT, etc.).
Intel effectively has two vector pipelines and the shortest instruction latency is a single cycle while Zen 5 has four pipelines with a two cycle minimum latency. That's a *very* different optimisation target (aim for eight instead of two independent instructions in flight) for low level SIMD code going forward despite an identical instruction set.
If a laptop will need to be plugged in to deliver full performance, whilst blasting fans at full throttle, what is the point? (apart from server / workstation use, where you don't like MacOS or need different OS)
Desktops for gaming? AMD makes the best gaming CPUs with the X3D series.
Getting near desktop performance when plugged but portability and lower consumption when unplugged is a pretty good tradeoff.
There is also AMD's "Software Optimization Guide" that might contain some background information. [4] has many direct attachments, AMD tends to break direct links. Intel should have similar docs, but I am currently more focused on AMD, so I only have those links at hand.
[1] https://www.agner.org/optimize/instruction_tables.pdf
[2] https://www.uops.info/background.html
It's often faster to use one less core than you hit constraints at so that the processor can juggle them between cores to balance the thermal load as opposed to trying to keep it completely saturated.
eigenform•10h ago
Tuna-Fish•9h ago
JackYoustra•5m ago