Comment by Aurornis

18 hours ago

> The extra cache doesn't do a damn thing (maybe +2%)

It depends on the task. For some memory-bound tasks the extra cache is very helpful. For CFD and other simulation workloads the benefits are huge.

For other tasks it doesn't help at all.

If someone wants a simple gaming CPU or general purpose CPU they don't need to spend the money for this. They don't need the 16-core CPU at all. The 9850X3D is a better buy for most users who aren't frequently doing a lot of highly parallel work

CFD benefits from cache, but it benefits even more from sustained memory bandwidth, no? A small(ish) chunk of L3 + two channels of DRAM is not going to compete with a quarter as much L3 plus eight channels of DRAM when typical working set sizes (in my experience) are in the tens of gigabytes, is it?

But consumer product does not support SDCI (only Epyc Turin supports it), so it does not benefit too much if an accelerator is involved.

It really doesn't. In virtually every case the work is being completed faster than the cache can grow to that size. What little gains are being realized are from not having to wait for cores with access to the cache to become available.

  • > It really doesn't. In virtually every case the work is being completed faster than the cache can grow to that size.

    If your tasks don’t benefit then don’t buy it.

    But stop claiming that it doesn’t help anywhere because that’s simply wrong. I do some FEA work occasionally and the extra cache is a HUGE help.

    There are also a lot of non-LLM AI workloads that have models in the size range than fit into this cache.

  • There are some very specific workloads (say simple object detection) that fit into cache and have crazy performance where the value of the cpu will be unbeatable, as the alternative is one of the cache epycs, everywhere else it'll only be small improvement if the software is not purpose made for it