The AMD Zen and Ryzen 7 Review: A Deep Dive on 1800X, 1700X and 1700
by Ian Cutress on March 2, 2017 9:00 AM ESTThe High-Level Zen Overview
AMD is keen to stress that the Zen project had three main goals: core, cache and power. The power aspect of the design is one that was very aggressive – not in the sense of aiming for a mobile-first design, but efficiency at the higher performance levels was key in order to be competitive again. It is worth noting that AMD did not mention ‘die size’ in any of the three main goals, which is usually a requirement as well. Arguably you can make a massive core design to run at high performance and low latency, but it comes at the expense of die size which makes the cost of such a design from a product standpoint less economical (if AMD had to rely on 500mm2 die designs in consumer at 14nm, they would be priced way too high). Nevertheless, power was the main concern rather than pure performance or function, which have been typical AMD targets in the past. The shifting of the goal posts was part of the process to creating Zen.
This slide contains a number of features we will hit on later in this piece, but covers a number of main topics which come under those main three goals of core, cache and power.
For the core, having bigger and wider everything was to be expected, however maintaining a low latency can be difficult. Features such as the micro-op cache help most instruction streams improve in performance and bypass parts of potentially long-cycle repetitive operations, but also the larger dispatch, larger retire, larger schedulers and better branch prediction means that higher throughput can be maintained longer and in the fastest order possible. Add in dual threads and the applicability of keeping the functional units occupied with full queues also improves multi-threaded performance.
For the caches, having a faster prefetch and better algorithms ensures the data is ready when each of the caches when a thread needs it. Aiming for faster caches was AMD’s target, and while they are not disclosing latencies or bandwidth at this time, we are being told that L1/L2 bandwidth is doubled with L3 up to 5x.
For the power, AMD has taken what it learned with Carrizo and moved it forward. This involves more aggressive monitoring of critical paths around the core, and better control of the frequency and power in various regions of the silicon. Zen will have more clock regions (it seems various parts of the back-end and front-end can be gated as needed) with features that help improve power efficiency, such as the micro-op cache, the Stack Engine (dedicated low power address manipulation unit) and Move elimination (low-power method for register adjustment - pointers to registers are adjusted rather than going through the high-power scheduler).
The Big Core Diagram
We saw this diagram last year, showing some of the bigger features AMD wants to promote:
The improved branch predictor allows for 2 branches per Branch Target Buffer (BTB), but in the event of tagged instructions will filter through the micro-op cache. On the other side, the decoder can dispatch 4 instructions per cycle however some of those instructions can be fused into the micro-op queue. Fused instructions still come out of the queue as two micro-ops, but take up less buffer space as a result.
As mentioned earlier, the INT and FP pipes and schedulers are separated, however the INT rename space is 168 registers wide, which feeds into 6x14 scheduling queues. The FP employs as 160 entry register file, and both the FP and INT sections feed into a 192-entry retire queue. The retire queue can operate at 8 instructions per cycle, moving up from 4/cycle in previous AMD microarchitectures.
The load/store units are improved, supporting a 72 out-of-order loads, similar to Skylake. We’ll discuss this a bit later. On the FP side there are four pipes (compared to three in previous designs) which support combined 128-bit FMAC instructions. These can be combined for one 256-bit AVX, but beyond that it has to be scheduled over multiple instructions.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
574 Comments
View All Comments
deltaFx2 - Wednesday, March 8, 2017 - link
@Meteor2: No. Consumer GPUs have poor throughput for Double precision FP. So you can't push those to the GPU (unless you own those super-expensive Nvidia compute cards). Apparently, many rendering/video editing programs use GPUs for preview but do the final rendering on CPU. Quality, apparently, and might be related to DP FP. I'm not the expert, so if you know otherwise, I'd be happy to be corrected and educated. Also, you could make the same argument about AVX-256.The quoted paragraph is probably the only balanced statement in that entire review. Compare the tone of that review with AT review above.
On an unrelated note, there's the larger question of running games at low res on top-end gpus and comparing frame-rates that far exceed human perception. I know, they have to do something, so why not just do this. The rationale is: " In future a faster GPU in future will create a bottleneck ". If this is true, it should be easy to demonstrate, right? Just dig through a history of Intel desktop CPUs paired with increasingly powerful GPUs and see how it trends. There's not one reviewer that has proven that this is true. It's being taken as gospel. OTOH, plenty of folks seem happy with their Sandy Bridge + Nvidia 1080, so clearly the bottleneck isn't here 5 years after SB. Maybe, just maybe, it's because the differences are imperceptible?
Ryzen clearly has some bottlenecks but the whole gaming thing is a tempest in a tea-cup.
theuglyman0war - Thursday, March 9, 2017 - link
ZBRUSHprobably 90% of all 3d assets that are created from concept ( NOT SCANNED )
Went through Zbrush at some point.
Which means no GPU acceleration at all.
Renderman
Maxwell
Vray
Arnold
still all use CPU rendering As do a mountain of other renderers.
Arnold will be getting an option
But the two popular GPU renderers are Otoy Octane and Redshift...
The have their excellent expensive place. But the majority of rendering out there is still suffered through software rendering. And will always be a valid concern as long as they come FREE built into major DCC applications.
theuglyman0war - Thursday, March 9, 2017 - link
Saw that same GPU trumps CPU render validity concerns...Comment and had a good laugh.
I'll remember to spread that around every time I see Renderman Vray Arnold Maxwell sans GPU rendering going on.
Or the next time a Mercury engine update negates all non Quadro GPU acceleration.
To be fair a lot of creative pros and tech artists seem to disagree with me but...
The only time between pulling vrts in Maya and brushing a surface in Zbrush that I really feel that I am suffering buckets of tears and desire a new CPU ( still on i7-980x ) is when I am cussing out a progress bar that is teasing me with it's slow progress. And that means CORES! encoding... un compressing... Rendering! Otherwise I could probably not notice day to day on a ten year old CPU. ( excluding CPU bound gaming of course... talking bout day to day vrt pulling )
I was just as productive in 2007 as I am today.
MaidoMaido - Saturday, March 4, 2017 - link
Been trying to find a review including practical benchmarks for common video editing / motion graphics applications like After Effects, Resolve, Fusion, Premiere, Element 3D.In a lot of these tasks, the multithreading is not always the best, as a result quad core 6700K often outperforms the more expensive Xeon and 5960X etc
deltaFx2 - Saturday, March 4, 2017 - link
I would recommend this response to the GamersNexus hit piece: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5xgonu/analy...The i5 level performance is a lie.
Notmyusualid - Saturday, March 4, 2017 - link
@ deltaFx2Sorry, not reading a 4k worded response. I'll wait for Anand to finish its Ryzen reviews before I draw any final conclusions.
Meteor2 - Tuesday, March 7, 2017 - link
@deltaFX2 RE: in the 4k word Reddit 'rebuttal', what that person seems to be saying, is that once you've converted your $500 Ryzen 1800X into a 8C/8T chip, _then_ it beats a $240 i5, while still falling short of the $330 i7. Out-of-the-box, it has worse gaming performance than either Intel chip.That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
The analysis in the Anandtech forums, which concludes that in a certain narrow and low power band a heavily down-clocked 1800X happens to get excellent performance/W, isn't exactly thrilling either.
deltaFx2 - Wednesday, March 8, 2017 - link
@ Meteor2: The anandtech forum thing: Perf/watt matters for servers and laptop. Take a look at the IPC numbers too. His average is that Zen == Broadwell IPC, and ~10% behind Sky/Kaby lake (except for AVX256 workloads). That's not too shabby at all for a $300 part.You completely missed the point of the reddit rebuttal. The GN reviewer drops i5s from plenty of tests citing "methodological reasons", but then says R7==i5 in gaming. The argument is that plenty of games use >4 threads and that puts i5 at a disadvantage.
tankNZ - Sunday, March 5, 2017 - link
yes I agree, it's even better than okay for gaming[img]http://smsh.me/li3a.png[/img]deltaFx2 - Monday, March 6, 2017 - link
You may wish to see this though: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictl... Way, way, more detailed than any tech media review site can hope to get. No, it's got nothing to do with gaming. Gaming isn't the story here. AMD's current situation in x86 market share had little to do with gaming efficiency, but perf/watt.I'll quote the author: "850 points in Cinebench 15 at 30W is quite telling. Or not telling, but absolutely massive. Zeppelin can reach absolutely monstrous and unseen levels of efficiency, as long as it operates within its ideal frequency range."