/r/hardware

Photograph via snooOG

/r/hardware is a place for quality computer hardware news, reviews, and intelligent discussion.

The goal of /r/hardware is a place for quality hardware news, reviews, and intelligent discussion.

/r/hardware IS NOT the place to come for help of any kind.

Techsupport and PC building questions should be posted to /r/techsupport or /r/buildapc instead.

The goal of /r/hardware is a place for quality hardware news, reviews, and intelligent discussion.

/r/hardware is not the place to come for help of any kind. This includes tech support and PC building questions.

Rules:
Rule Description
Follow the Reddit Content Policy You can find it here. TL;DR: If you can't say something respectfully, don't say it at all. Insults and personal attacks aren't welcome here.
Post should be about hardware Posts should be about hardware news, reviews, technical discussion or how-tos and buyers guides.
No editorializing titles Please use the "suggest title" button for link submissions, or copy the title of the original link. Do NOT editorialize the title of the submission; (minor) changes for clarity may be acceptable if the original title is clickbait, or failed to summarize its actual content.
Original Source Policy Content submitted should be of original source, or at least contain partially original reporting on top of existing information. Exceptions can be made for content in foreign language or any other exceptional cases. Fully paywalled articles are not allowed. Please contact the moderators through modmail if you have questions.
No memes, jokes, or direct links to images Memes, direct image links, and low effort content will be removed. This includes both posts and comments. Images submitted as self posts must include an informative description for context. Top level comments must be substantive and contain more than 20 characters.
No tech support or PC building questions These belong in /r/techsupport, /r/buildapc or any relevant tech subreddits. If your post asks a question about a specific product or need, it probably belongs elsewhere. This includes 'What should I buy?', 'Does a ____ do what I need?', 'How much is _____ worth?' and 'How long until (something obvious) happens?' type questions.
Serious and intelligent discussion We allow discussion posts on relevant topics to hardware; there should however be at least background information and relevancy to demonstrate such a discussion is worthwhile. Low effort posts such as "What is ______ and what does it do?" is not acceptable.
Rumor Policy No unsubstantiated rumors - Rumors or other claims/information not directly from official sources must have evidence to support them. Any rumor or claim that is just a statement from an unknown source containing no supporting evidence will be removed.
Misc. Rules No content behind paywalls. No submissions to streaming sites outside of event megathreads. No submissions to crowdfunding sites or ongoing campaigns. No bots.
Spam and Self Promotion:

Spam and self promotion are not allowed. Users who want to post links to their website should be aware of the reddit definition of spam and read this article concerning self promotion on reddit. The 10% rule is enforced on /r/hardware; repeat offenders and/or your website or channel may be banned.

Related Reddits:

filters

News

Review

Rumor

Discussion

Informational


This subreddit is night mode compatible

/r/hardware

4,161,672 Subscribers

7

[Asianometry] The End of Dennard Scaling

2 Comments
2024/12/03
05:53 UTC

30

Is Intel and AMD repeat of 20+ years ago??

Intel Ultra Desktop PC has been shitting the bed recently, while AMD's desktop PC is just destroying every other Windows CPU... on the other hand...

Intel's Core Ultra Series 2 laptop CPU is near Apple M series power efficiency destroying every other windows CPU even the Qualcomm ARM CPU...

this feels so deja vu as 20 years ago, the Intel Pentium was just going downhill every iteration, but their "Core" series laptop CPU came to save the day. At the same time, AMD 64 released and was insanely good...

This just feels uncanny at this point rofl.

36 Comments
2024/12/03
04:07 UTC

7

AMD MI325X vs. MI355X accelerator comparison

MI325X vs. MI355X Chip-Level Comparison

SpecificationMI325XMI355X
ArchitectureCDNA 3CDNA 4
Compute Performance (FP16)10.4 PF18.5 PF
Compute Performance (FP8)20.8 PF37 PF
Compute Performance (FP4/FP6)Not Supported74 PF (FP6/FP4)
Memory TypeHBM3eHBM3e
Memory Capacity (per GPU)256 GB288 GB
Memory Bandwidth6 TB/s8 TB/s
Parameter Capacity1.8 Trillion4.2 Trillion
11 Comments
2024/12/02
16:24 UTC

71

[TechTechPotato] Shock Retirement

85 Comments
2024/12/02
14:47 UTC

0

Ray Tracing: Has it Been A Success for PC Gaming?

111 Comments
2024/12/02
07:19 UTC

100

Why Hybrid Bonding is the Future of Packaging

18 Comments
2024/12/01
15:15 UTC

183

Ryzen 9000 performance re-examinated (what AMD left behind at the launch)

As is known, AMD left some of potential performance for Ryzen 9000 at its launch, which were improved by subsequent microcode updates and software patches. With the launches of Arrow Lake and the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, Ryzen 9000 (non-X3D) was able to show a clearly improved performance, especially at gaming benchmarks.

This short article (long form at 3DCenter) will take a closer look at this performance improvement in comparison to Ryzen 7000 and Core i-14000 in order to correct the performance differences established at launch. At its launch, Ryzen 9000 was measured with an average of +9% application performance and +4% gaming performance compared to Ryzen 7000.

For this purpose, the benchmark evaluation for the launch of the Ryzen 7 9800X3D was extended to Ryzen 7000 and the missing figures were filled by interpolation. The following performance tables show how the performance of Ryzen 7000 & 9000 has changed compared to Intel's Core i-14000 between the benchmarks from August (launch of Ryzen 9000) and November (launch of Ryzen 7 9800X3D):

 

 7600X7700X7900X7950X9600X9700X9900X9950X14900K
 6C Zen48C Zen412C Zen416C Zen46C Zen58C Zen512C Zen516C Zen58P+16E RPL
Application Perf. OLD55.5%67.4%85.6%101.0%61.4%71.8%94.4%110.1%100%
Application Perf. NEW56.8%68.7%86.8%101.7%62.1%73.4%96.5%111.6%100%
Difference+1.3 PP+1.3 PP+1.2 PP+0.7 PP+0.7 PP+1.6 PP+2.1 PP+1.5 PP
Gain Zen 4 to Zen 576X→96X +9.3%77X→97X +6.8%790X→990X +11.2%795X→995X +9.7%
Gaming Perf. OLD82.0%86.5%86.5%88.4%86.7%91.5%87.5%91.1%100%
Gaming Perf. NEW87.7%91.9%90.8%92.5%93.5%97.5%96.1%99.4%100%
Difference+5.7 PP+5.4 PP+4.3 PP+4.1 PP+6.8 PP+6.0 PP+8.6 PP+8.3 PP
Gain Zen 4 to Zen 576X→96X +6.6%77X→97X +6.1%790X→990X +5.8%795X→995X +7.4%

 

In terms of application performance, the differences are small - and only exist compared to Intel, but not between Ryzen 7000 and 9000. In terms of gaming performance, Ryzen 9000 also only gains slightly vs Ryzen 7000 with the new benchmarks. Compared to Intel, however, Ryzen 9000 achieves a convincing result. But, Ryzen 7000 also benefits very noticeably from the firmware and software improvements.

The picture becomes even clearer in a direct generation comparison of all tested models against each other: With the new benchmarks, Ryzen 9000 gains almost nothing over Ryzen 7000 at application performance, and the (relative) gain is also small at gaming performance. However, the advantages of the new benchmarks of Ryzen 9000 compared to Core1-14000 are very clear: Under applications it is only +2.4% more, but under games it is +8.9% more.

 

 OLD (Aug '24) NEW (Nov '24)Difference
Applic. Perf.: Ryzen 7000(X) to Ryzen 9000(X)100% vs 109.1%109.2%+9.1% → +9.2%
Applic. Perf.: Core i-14000(K) to Ryzen 9000(X)100% vs 103.5%105.6%+3.5% → +5.6%
Gaming Perf.: Ryzen 7000(X) to Ryzen 9000(X)100% vs 103.9%106.5%+3.9% → +6.5%
Gaming Perf.: Core i-14000(K) to Ryzen 9000(X)100% vs 93.4%101.6%–6.6% → +1.6%

 

AMD has therefore left a lot of potential performance behind at the launch of Ryzen 9000. Not so much compared to Ryzen 7000, but very clearly compared to Intel. Nevertheless, the progress in the gaming performance of Ryzen 9000 between the benchmarks from August to November is sufficient for Ryzen 9000 to no longer lag behind Core i-14000 at gaming performance, but rather to catch up (or partially lead).

Such a result would certainly have made Ryzen 9000 look better at its launch, and the net-wide rating would probably have been much friendlier. This underlines the importance of not launching prematurely without finished firmware & software. Now a few months later, it is certainly much more difficult for AMD to change the narrative on Ryzen 9000 once it has been set.

 

TLDR — What AMD has left behind in terms of performance at the Ryzen 9000 launch:

  • Note: all comparison values are based on the average of the four X models at AMD; at Intel, based on their three K models compared to the three larger X models from AMD
  • +2.0% more application performance for Ryzen 9000(X) compared to Core i-14000(K)
  • +0.1% more application performance for Ryzen 9000(X) compared to Ryzen 7000(X) (= within measurement tolerance)
  • +8.9% more gaming performance for Ryzen 9000(X) compared to Core i-14000(K)
  • 101.6% gaming performance level of Ryzen 9000(X) compared to Core i-14000(K) instead of the 93.4% shown at launch
  • +2.4% more gaming performance for Ryzen 9000(X) compared to Ryzen 7000(X)
  • for the following reason: +5.7% more gaming performance for Ryzen 7000(X) compared to Core i-14000(K) (= Ryzen 7000 also benefits well from all the patches & updates)
  • Sources: averaged results of the launch reviews for Ryzen 9000 (from August 2024) and Ryzen 7 9800X3D (from November 2024)

 

Original & some longer article in german: 3DCenter.org

63 Comments
2024/12/01
13:34 UTC

1,882

[Gamers Nexus - Special Report] Do Not Buy NZXT | Predatory, Evil Rental Computer Scam Investigated

575 Comments
2024/12/01
00:08 UTC

0

Lunar Lake at 17W - Windows Laptops NEEDED This(video)

32 Comments
2024/11/30
10:40 UTC

74

Geekerwan: "高通X Elite深度分析:年度最自信CPU [Qualcomm X Elite in-depth analysis: the most confident CPU of the year]"

169 Comments
2024/11/28
14:49 UTC

39

Tom “TAP” Petersen breaks down Lunar Lake’s Xe2 GPU

18 Comments
2024/11/28
01:25 UTC

Back To Top