There's "always" more, more, more performance for the dollar in tech, and there is no perfect price/performance product. And yeah, it's faster for nearly the same price (though due to timing I paid ~$230 so it's not insignificant when compared to the launch day pricing.) I bought a Ryzen 7 2700X a few months before the release of the Zen 2 / 3700X. Improving the algorithms implemented in logic for various processes. Tweaking parameters of automated layout algorithms to reduce area of specific functional units. Improving CPU binning processes and data, improving on-die sensors, and improving boost algorithms to reliably run closer to the edge. Running lots of simulations to determine the optimal size and arrangement of each cache. Designing better workload and electrical simulations to make better decisions when evaluating changes. I wish there were more detailed information available about what day-to-day engineering work goes into these design changes. Yet they achieve +19% IPC and higher frequency with just design changes. Same IO die with same interfaces and memory controller. Same exact chiplet size to mount to the same substrate. Same process (even down to the same PDK) though generally higher yields probably let them choose higher bins. It's really impressive to me how big of an improvement AMD has made under the exact same constraints as last generation. This time with an advertised boost of 4800MHz AnandTech got up to 4950MHz and Gamers Nexus hit 5050MHz, though these are probably golden review samples. There was controversy last generation with the boost clocks being up to, where many chips couldn't reach their advertised numbers at launch.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |