AMD Zen 3 Ryzen Deep Dive Review: 5950X, 5900X, 5800X and 5600X Tested
by Dr. Ian Cutress on November 5, 2020 9:01 AM ESTNew and Improved Instructions
When it comes to instruction improvements, moving to a brand new ground-up core enables a lot more flexibility in how instructions are processed compared to just a core update. Aside from adding new security functionality, being able to rearchitect the decoder/micro-op cache, the execution units, and the number of execution units allows for a variety of new features and hopefully faster throughput.
As part of the microarchitecture deep-dive disclosures from AMD, we naturally get AMD’s messaging on the improvements in this area – we were told of the highlights, such as the improved FMAC and new AVX2/AVX256 expansions. There’s also Control-Flow Enforcement Technology (CET) which enables a shadow stack to protect against ret/ROP attacks. However after getting our hands on the chip, there’s a trove of improvements to dive through.
Let’s cover AMD’s own highlights first.
The top cover item is the improved Fused Multiply-Accumulate (FMA), which is a frequently used operation in a number of high-performance compute workloads as well as machine learning, neural networks, scientific compute and enterprise workloads.
In Zen 2, a single FMA took 5 cycles with a throughput of 2/clock.
In Zen 3, a single FMA takes 4 cycles with a throughput of 2/clock.
This means that AMD’s FMAs are now on parity with Intel, however this update is going to be most used in AMD’s EPYC processors. As we scale up this improvement to the 64 cores of the current generation EPYC Rome, any compute-limited workload on Rome should be freed in Naples. Combine that with the larger L3 cache and improved load/store, some workloads should expect some good speed ups.
The other main update is with cryptography and cyphers. In Zen 2, vector-based AES and PCLMULQDQ operations were limited to AVX / 128-bit execution, whereas in Zen 3 they are upgraded to AVX2 / 256-bit execution.
This means that VAES has a latency of 4 cycles with a throughput of 2/clock.
This means that VPCLMULQDQ has a latency of 4 cycles, with a throughput of 0.5/clock.
AMD also mentioned to a certain extent that it has increased its ability to process repeated MOV instructions on short strings – what used to not be so good for short copies is now good for both small and large copies. We detected that the new core performs better REP MOV instruction elimination at the decode stage, leveraging the micro-op cache better.
Now here’s the stuff that AMD didn’t talk about.
Integer
Sticking with instruction elimination, a lot of instructions and zeroing idioms that Zen 2 used to decode but then skip execution are now detected and eliminated at the decode stage.
- NOP (90h) up to 5x 66h
- LNOP3/4/5 (Looped NOP)
- (V)MOVAPS/MOVAPD/MOVUPS/MOVUPD vec1, vec1 : Move (Un)Aligned Packed FP32/FP64
- VANDNPS/VANDNPD vec1, vec1, vec1 : Vector bitwise logical AND NOT Packed FP32/FP64
- VXORPS/VXORPD vec1, vec1, vec1 : Vector bitwise logical XOR Packed FP32/FP64
- VPANDN/VPXOR vec1, vec1, vec1 : Vector bitwise logical (AND NOT)/XOR
- VPCMPGTB/W/D/Q vec1, vec1, vec1 : Vector compare packed integers greater than
- VPSUBB/W/D/Q vec1, vec1, vec1 : Vector subtract packed integers
- VZEROUPPER : Zero upper bits of YMM
- CLC : Clear Carry Flag
As for direct performance adjustments, we detected the following:
| Zen3 Updates (1) Integer Instructions |
|||
| AnandTech | Instruction | Zen2 | Zen 3 |
| XCHG | Exchange Register/Memory with Register |
17 cycle latency | 7 cycle latency |
| LOCK (ALU) | Assert LOCK# Signal | 17 cycle latency | 7 cycle latency |
| ALU r16/r32/r64 imm | ALU on constant | 2.4 per cycle | 4 per cycle |
| SHLD/SHRD | FP64 Shift Left/Right | 4 cycle latency 0.33 per cycle |
2 cycle latency 0.66 per cycle |
| LEA [r+r*i] | Load Effective Address | 2 cycle latency 2 per cycle |
1 cycle latency 4 per cycle |
| IDIV r8 | Signed Integer Division | 16 cycle latency 1/16 per cycle |
10 cycle latency 1/10 per cycle |
| DIV r8 | Unsigned Integer Division | 17 cycle latency 1/17 per cycle |
|
| IDIV r16 | Signed Integer Division | 21 cycle latency 1/21 per cycle |
12 cycle latency 1/12 per cycle |
| DIV r16 | Unsigned Integer Division | 22 cycle latency 1/22 per cycle |
|
| IDIV r32 | Signed Integer Division | 29 cycle latency 1/29 per cycle |
14 cycle latency 1/14 per cycle |
| DIV r32 | Unsigned Integer Division | 30 cycle latency 1/30 per cycle |
|
| IDIV r64 | Signed Integer Division | 45 cycle latency 1/45 per cycle |
19 cycle latency 1/19 per cycle |
| DIV r64 | Unsigned Integer Division | 46 cycle latency 1/46 cycle latency |
20 cycle latency 1/20 per cycle |
| Zen3 Updates (2) Integer Instructions |
|||
| AnandTech | Instruction | Zen2 | Zen 3 |
| LAHF | Load Status Flags into AH Register |
2 cycle latency 0.5 per cycle |
1 cycle latency 1 per cycle |
| PUSH reg | Push Register Onto Stack | 1 per cycle | 2 per cycle |
| POP reg | Pop Value from Stack Into Register |
2 per cycle | 3 per cycle |
| POPCNT | Count Bits | 3 per cycle | 4 per cycle |
| LZCNT | Count Leading Zero Bits | 3 per cycle | 4 per cycle |
| ANDN | Logical AND | 3 per cycle | 4 per cycle |
| PREFETCH* | Prefetch | 2 per cycle | 3 per cycle |
| PDEP/PEXT | Parallel Bits Deposit/Extreact |
300 cycle latency 250 cycles per 1 |
3 cycle latency 1 per clock |
It’s worth highlighting those last two commands. Software that helps the prefetchers, due to how AMD has arranged the branch predictors, can now process three prefetch commands per cycle. The other element is the introduction of a hardware accelerator with parallel bits: latency is reduced 99% and throughput is up 250x. If anyone asks why we ever need extra transistors for modern CPUs, it’s for things like this.
There are also some regressions
| Zen3 Updates (3) Slower Instructions |
|||
| AnandTech | Instruction | Zen2 | Zen 3 |
| CMPXCHG8B | Compare and Exchange 8 Byte/64-bit |
9 cycle latency 0.167 per cycle |
11 cycle latency 0.167 per cycle |
| BEXTR | Bit Field Extract | 3 per cycle | 2 per cycle |
| BZHI | Zero High Bit with Position | 3 per cycle | 2 per cycle |
| RORX | Rorate Right Logical Without Flags |
3 per cycle | 2 per cycle |
| SHLX / SHRX | Shift Left/Right Without Flags |
3 per cycle | 2 per cycle |
As always, there are trade offs.
x87
For anyone using older mathematics software, it might be riddled with a lot of x87 code. x87 was originally meant to be an extension of x86 for floating point operations, but based on other improvements to the instruction set, x87 is somewhat deprecated, and we often see regressed performance generation on generation.
But not on Zen 3. Among the regressions, we’re also seeing some improvements. Some.
| Zen3 Updates (4) x87 Instructions |
|||
| AnandTech | Instruction | Zen2 | Zen 3 |
| FXCH | Exchange Registers | 2 per cycle | 4 per cycle |
| FADD | Floating Point Add | 5 cycle latency 1 per cycle |
6.5 cycle latency 2 per cycle |
| FMUL | Floating Point Multiply | 5 cycle latency 1 per cycle |
6.5 cycle latency 2 per cycle |
| FDIV32 | Floating Point Division | 10 cycle latency 0.285 per cycle |
10.5 cycle latency 0.800 per cycle |
| FDIV64 | 13 cycle latency 0.200 per cycle |
13.5 cycle latency 0.235 per cycle |
|
| FDIV80 | 15 cycle latency 0.167 per cycle |
15.5 cycle latency 0.200 per cycle |
|
| FSQRT32 | Floating Point Square Root |
14 cycle latency 0.181 per cycle |
14.5 cycle latency 0.200 per cycle |
| FSQRT64 | 20 cycle latency 0.111 per cycle |
20.5 cycle latency 0.105 per cycle |
|
| FSQRT80 | 22 cycle latency 0.105 per cycle |
22.5 cycle latency 0.091 per cycle |
|
| FCOS 0.739079 |
cos X = X | 117 cycle latency 0.27 per cycle |
149 cycle latency 0.28 per cycle |
The FADD and FMUL improvements mean the most here, but as stated, using x87 is not recommended. So why is it even mentioned here? The answer lies in older software. Software stacks built upon decades old Fortran still use these instructions, and more often than not in high performance math codes. Increasing throughput for the FADD/FMUL should provide a good speed up there.
Vector Integers
All of the vector integer improvements fall into two main categories. Aside from latency improvements, some of these improvements are execution port specific – due to the way the execution ports have changed this time around, throughput has improved for large numbers of instructions.
| Zen3 Updates (5) Port Vector Integer Instructions |
||||
| AnandTech | Instruction | Vector | Zen2 | Zen 3 |
| FP013 -> FP0123 | ALU, BLENDI, PCMP, MIN/MAX | MMX, SSE, AVX, AVX2 | 3 per cycle | 4 per cycle |
| FP2 Non-Variable Shift | PSHIFT | MMX, SSE AVX, AVX2 |
1 per clock | 2 per clock |
| FP1 | VPSRLVD/Q VPSLLVD/Q |
AVX2 | 3 cycle latency 0.5 per clock |
1 cycle latency 2 per clock |
| DWORD FP0 | MUL/SAD | MMX, SSE, AVX, AVX2 | 3 cycle latency 1 per clock |
3 cycle latency 2 per cycle |
| DWORD FP0 | PMULLD | SSE, AVX, AVX2 | 4 cycle latency 0.25 per clock |
3 cycle latency 2 per clock |
| WORD FP0 int MUL | PMULHW, PMULHUW, PMULLW | MMX, SSE, AVX, AVX2 | 3 cycle latency 1 per clock |
3 cycle latency 0.6 per clock |
| FP0 int | PMADD, PMADDUBSW | MMX, SSE, AVX, AVX2 | 4 cycle latency 1 per clock |
3 cycle latency 2 per clock |
| FP1 insts | (V)PERMILPS/D, PHMINPOSUW EXTRQ, INSERTQ |
SSE4a | 3 cycle latency 0.25 per clock |
3 cycle latency 2 per clock |
There are a few others not FP specific.
| Zen3 Updates (6) Vector Integer Instructions |
||||
| AnandTech | Instruction | Zen2 | Zen 3 | |
| VPBLENDVB | xmm/ymm | Variable Blend Packed Bytes | 1 cycle latency 1 per cycle |
1 cycle latency 2 per cycle |
| VPBROADCAST B/W/D/SS |
ymm<-xmm | Load and Broadcast | 4 cycle latency 1 per cycle |
2 cycle latency 1 per cycle |
| VPBROADCAST Q/SD |
ymm<-xmm | Load and Broadcast | 1 cycle latency 1 per cycle |
2 cycle latency 1 per cycle |
| VINSERTI128 VINSERTF128 |
ymm<-xmm | Insert Packed Values | 1 cycle latency 1 per cycle |
2 cycle latency 1 per cycle |
| SHA1RNDS4 | Four Rounds of SHA1 | 6 cycle latency 0.25 per cycle |
6 cycle latency 0.5 per cycle |
|
| SHA1NEXTE | Calculate SHA1 State | 1 cycle latency 1 per cycle |
1 cycle latency 2 per cycle |
|
| SHA256RNDS2 | Four Rounds of SHA256 | 4 cycle latency 0.5 per cycle |
4 cycle latency 1 per cycle |
|
These last three are important for SHA cryptography. AMD, unlike Intel, does accelerated SHA so being able to reduce multiple instructions to a single instruction to help increase throughput and utilization should push them even further ahead. Rather than going for hardware accelerated SHA256, Intel instead prefers to use its AVX-512 unit, which unfortunately is a lot more power hungry and less efficient.
Vector Floats
We’ve already covered the improvements to the FMA latency, but there are also other improvements.
| Zen3 Updates (7) Vector Float Instructions |
||||
| AnandTech | Instruction | Zen2 | Zen 3 | |
| DIVSS/PS | xmm, ymm | Divide FP32 Scalar/Packed |
10 cycle latency 0.286 per cycle |
10.5 cycle latency 0.444 per cycle |
| DIVSD/PD | xmm, ymm | Divide FP64 Scalar/Packed |
13 cycle latency 0.200 per cycle |
13.5 cycle latency 0.235 per cycle |
| SQRTSS/PS | xmm, ymm | Square Root FP32 Scalar/Packed |
14 cycle latency 0.181 per cycle |
14.5 cycle latency 0.273 per cycle |
| SQRTSD/PD | xmm, ymm | Square Root FP64 Scalar/Packed |
20 cycle latency 0.111 per cycle |
20.5 cycle latency 0.118 per cycle |
| RCPSS/PS | xmm, ymm | Reciprocal FP32 Scalar/Packed |
5 cycle latency 2 per cycle |
3 cycle latency 2 per cycle |
| RSQRTSS/PS | xmm, ymm | Reciprocal FP32 SQRT Scalar/Pack |
5 cycle latency 2 per cycle |
3 cycle latency 2 per cycle |
| VCVT* | xmm<-xmm | Convert | 3 cycle latency 1 per cycle |
3 cycle latency 2 per cycle |
| VCVT* | xmm<-ymm ymm<-xmm |
Convert | 4 cycle latency 1 per cycle |
4 cycle latency 2 per cycle |
| ROUND* | xmm, ymm | Round FP32/FP64 Scalar/Packed |
3 cycle latency 1 per cycle |
3 cycle latency 2 per cycle |
| GATHER | 4x32 | Gather | 19 cycle latency 0.111 per cycle |
15 cycle latency 0.250 per cycle |
| GATHER | 8x32 | Gather | 23 cycle latency 0.063 per cycle |
19 cycle latency 0.111 per cycle |
| GATHER | 4x64 | Gather | 18 cycle latency 0.167 per cycle |
13 cycle latency 0.333 per cycle |
| GATHER | 8x64 | Gather | 19 cycle latency 0.111 per cycle |
15 cycle latency 0.250 per cycle |
Along with these, store-to-load latencies have increased by a clock. AMD is promoting that it has improved store-to-load bandwidth with the new core, but that comes at additional latency.
Compared to some of the recent CPU launches, this is a lot of changes!
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
339 Comments
View All Comments
5j3rul3 - Thursday, November 5, 2020 - link
Rip Intel🤩🤩🤩Smell This - Thursday, November 5, 2020 - link
Chipzillah has got good stuff ... everyone is "just dandy" for the most part...
but, AMD has kicked Intel "night in the ruts" in ultimate price/performance with Zen3
Kangal - Saturday, November 7, 2020 - link
True, but the price hikes really hurt.For the Zen3 chips, it's only worth getting the:
- r9-5950X for the maximum best performance
- r5-3600X for the gaming performance (and decent value).
The 12 core r9-5900X is a complete no-buy. Whilst the r7-5800X is pretty dismal too, so both chips really need to be skipped. Neither of them have an Overclocking advantage. And there's just no gaming advantage to them over the 5600X. For more performance, get a 3950X or 5950X. And when it comes to productivity, you're better served with the Zen2 options. You can get the 3700 for much cheaper than the 5800X. Or for the same price you can get the 3900X instead.
Otherwise, if you're looking for the ultimate value, as in something better than the 5600X value... you can look at the 3600, 1600f, 3300X, 3100 chips. They're not great for gaming/single-core tasks, but they're competent and decent at productivity. Maybe even go into the Used market for some 2700X, 2700, 1800X, 1700X, 1700, 1600X, and 1600 chips as these should be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper. Such aggressive pricing puts these options at better value for gaming (surprising), and better value for productivity (unsurprising).
DazzXP - Saturday, November 7, 2020 - link
Price hike doesn't really hurt that much, AMD was making very little money on their past Ryzen's because they had to contend with Intel Mindshare and throw more cores in as they did not quite have IPC and clock speeds, now they have all. It was as expected to be honest.Silma - Sunday, November 8, 2020 - link
Do you have any recommendations for motherboards for either a Zen3 or a Zen 2 (depending on availability of processors)? I want to spend as litte as possible on it, but it miust be compatible with 128 GB of RAM.AdrianBc - Sunday, November 8, 2020 - link
If you really intend to use 128 GB of RAM at some point in the future, you should use ECC RAM, because the risk of errors is proportional with the quantity of RAM.A good motherboard was ASUS Pro WS X570-ACE (which I use) previously at $300 but right now it is available at much higher prices ($370), for some weird reason.
If you want something cheap with 128 GB and ECC support, the best you can do is an ASRock micro-ATX board with the B550 chipset. There are several models and you should compare them. For example an ASRock B550M PRO4 is USD 90 at Amazon.
Silma - Wednesday, November 11, 2020 - link
Thanks for the input! Is ECC really necessary? The primary objective of the PC memory would be loading huge sound libraries in RAM for orchestral compositions. The PC would serve at the same time as gaming PC + Office PC.Spunjji - Sunday, November 8, 2020 - link
In the context of a whole system? Not really, no.In the context of an upgrade? Not at all, if you have a 4xx board you'll be good to go in January without having to buy a new board. That's something that hasn't been possible for Intel for a while, and won't be again until around March, when you'll be able to upgrade from a mediocre power hog of a chip to a more capable power hog of a chip.
Comparing new to used in terms of value of a *brand new architecture* doesn't really make much sense, but go for it by all means 👍 The fact remains that these have the performance to back up the cost, which you can see in the benchmarks.
leexgx - Sunday, November 8, 2020 - link
I would aim for the 5600x minimum unless your really trying to Save $100 as the 5600x is a good jump over the 3700x/3600xbiostud - Monday, November 9, 2020 - link
Uhm, no? For me the 5900X would make perfect sense. I game and work with/photo video editing, and would like to have my computer for a long time. The 5950X costs too much for my needs, the 5900X offers 50% more cores than the 5800X for $100 and the 5600X hasn't got enough cores when video editing. (Although I'm waiting for next socket before upgrading my 5820k)