AMD Ryzen 7000 series

It's frustrated me to the point that it was a major factor in deciding to splurge on buying a Steam Deck. The suspend / resume works so flawlessly on it that I weep. I keep an arbitrary game running on it in the drawer of my night stand. I don't actually have the energy to play a game that often, but knowing that resume button will work brings me great comfort.

Yes, I figured that much would be obvious to this crowd. Thus the "pseudo" part. The point isn't that there isn't a benefit, it's that you start to pay exponentially more energy per 0.1GHz at a certain point. Furthermore, AMD and Intel were exceptionally aggressive about it in the generations I outlined (AMD would be 7000 series ryzens specifically), leading to instability issues on both platforms due to their spec itself being too aggressive, or AIB partners improperly implementing that spec as the headroom that typically exists from factory stock to push clocks/voltages further was no longer there in some silicon (some of it comes down to silicon lottery and manufacturing defects/mistakes (Intel's oxidation issues for example) but we're really getting into the weeds on this already) And to clarify: I'm talking specifically of Intel turboboost and AMD's PBO boosting technologies where they boost where they boost well over base clocks, separate from the general dynamic clocking behavior where clocks will drop well below base when not in (heavy) use.

To be honest, I'm disappointed by the new Ryzen 7000 series power consumption, enough so that I'll be sticking with my 5000 series CPUs for as long as I can. Not everyone wants their PC to double as a space heater.

In Raphael (the cpus that were just launched) the GPU is a tiny, weak one that's sitting on the IO die, while the v-cache chip is integrated on top of the main CPU die. I would suspect that it can't make any use of it, not that it would benefit much because it just doesn't have the compute power. It's really only intended to make the CPUs able to do basic desktop work without a separate GPU. AMD currently has no published big APUs that would use v-cache, but many enthusiasts, including me, have noted that if they made one and allowed the GPU to share the last-level cache, it would potentially be a very compelling product for mobile. Who knows when/if they make one. They do have upcoming discrete GPUs which are rumored to optionally contain v-cache (RDNA3, probably released as Radeon RX 7000).

> I wonder how much does this update catches upto Apple M1/M2s. >The greatest performance gains are actually at the lowest TDPs, where the 7950X saw a 74% increase in Cinebench R23 MT performance. These advantages actually decreased as TDPs went up, dropping to 37% at 105W, and finally 35% at 170W. When AMD isn’t loading CPU clockspeeds into the stratosphere – which is always well into the diminishing returns of the voltage/frequency curve – Zen 4 is significantly more power efficient than its predecessor. https://www.anandtech.com/show/17552/amd-details-ryzen-7000-... The problem is that Intel is reviving their Pentium 4 strategy of performance via ridiculous frequencies and voltages, and AMD is following suit. Contrast to Apple, where the strategy is throwing die space at more execution units and running the clocks at the efficient end of the voltage frequency curve. The M2 clocks up to 3.5 Ghz, while AMD is targeting up to 5.7 Ghz.

I wish AMD would add more cache for faster speed and lower energy consumption Ryzen 5xxx L1 32/32, L2 512, L3 32768 Ryzen 7xxx L1 32/32, L2 1024, L3 65536 M2 L1 192/128, L2 16384, SL 8192 M1 Ultra L1 192/128, L2 49152, SL 98304 [edit: see comment about latency cache comparison below]