|
|
|
|
|
|
by websg-x
763 days ago
|
|
|
because area density is not the point, power efficiency is. That where zen4c gone wrong. https://www.anandtech.com/show/10025 The clustered instruction decoders is more scalable and power efficient than the coventional approach. The "mont" cores is just so much more interesting with much higher potentials. |
|
|
I have not seen yet any good benchmark comparing the energy efficiencies of the Crestmont cores from Meteor Lake (which are made with the new Intel 4 process) with any product containing Zen 4c cores, so which of them is more efficient is unknown for now.
It is pretty certain that for any problem that can use AVX-512 or even 256-bit AVX, the Zen 4c cores will have significantly better energy efficiency than Crestmont. Only for integer workloads Crestmont might be more efficient, but even that is uncertain. Crestmont should consume less energy in its instruction-decoding frontend, but how efficient are its execution units is unknown.
The older Gracemont cores had worse energy efficiency than Zen 4c, but they were handicapped by the inferior Intel 7 process, so that does not demonstrate anything about the relative merits of the Gracemont microarchitecture, had they been made in a competitive manufacturing process.
Only after the launch of the Intel Sierra Forest server CPUs (expected in a few months), a direct comparison with AMD Bergamo will show whether Intel has succeeded to design a CPU core with better energy efficiency than Zen 4c.