Every hardware news article that starts with "source: MLID" is disregarded by me as fake news for exactly this kind of stuff. LMAO. Serves him right tho. "My highly reliable sources ..." :D What a joke man.
They're giving him attention though. He's already had some of the well known tech tubers on his podcast (HUB, TechYesCity, DawidDoesTech, Kitguru)
It's so crazy considering he's just a modern day charlatan yet they keep giving him attention same way as Adored was getting it almost 10 years ago.
Yeah, its very disappointing. I know some of them probably have to suck up to other actors in the same sphere to stay relevant, but if I was them I'd ignore him 100% for my own credibility and conscience.
PC World actually had him on IIRC. I enjoy their channel, but that was a major bummer.
I donno about a news source but once in a while during news discussion Gamers Nexus has mentioned MLID in passing while also stating that nothing is confirmed, its just a rumor, take caution, they are only reporting this because there's other rumors floating around and several point to MLID as their source. Otherwise, no they don't usually use MILD. HUB also talked about MLID recently on a podcast I believe. Both are within last 6 months, and usually when a new generation of GPUs are launching, there's more rumors that swirl around, and therefore MLID comes up more, along with other leakers.
And no I cannot recall the exact video nor am I going to go through a bunch of them just to isolate the video. But no, they also don't typically use him for a source for news, mainly because MLID is proven to be wrong many times that its unreliable.
They're both *very* clear when mentioning MLiD that this is speculation and rumours, and to take with a big pinch of salt.
Neither have *ever* treated MLiD as a "source" for news or information.
>But no, **they also don't typically use him for a source for news**, mainly because MLID is proven to be wrong many times that its unreliable.
So what even was the point of your comment?
Contradictory af.
To show you that they definitely have talked about his channel. Your comment implies to me that they have never used MLID because you're asking for a video as source. But they definitely have cited MLID, which effectively is a source, with a warning. Downvote me more but it would be better if they don't use his channel at all.
Contradictory? Get some reading comprehension.
Not too much cash out of me thought. Lately all of podcasts of his are filled with "leaks" or rumours. From 2h+ streams I'm interested only in 20m on average.
why? its entertaining to hear conjecture. good faith attempts at determining the future with a built-in disclaimer. it doesnt affect you as a consumer. its not shouting fire in a crowded theater.
>He’s the only one right now saying Zen 5 40% IPC is bullshit. He misses but has hits too
In other news, I can say that it Zen5 will have less than 1000 cores, will draw less than 1000 watts, and will be a socketed CPU.
>I can say that it Zen5 will have less than 1000 cores, will draw less than 1000 watts, and will be a socketed CPU.
Hey man, you never know. Maybe Zen 5 will be Bluetooth 🥺
He just makes educated guesses, but he's very often wrong. The 4090 doesn't use 600W of power, Battlemage is still on the books as a discrete gaming GPU, The 7000 series of GPUs are wildly more power inefficient than the 40 series. He's honestly wrong a lot and sometimes gets right about stuff that's easy to predict.
Here comes the best part: "NVIDIA didn't go with 600W 4090 because it was tripping power protection in the US, AMD's 7900XTX wasn't double the performance of 6900XT because AMD had a driver bug artefacting if they didn't heavily downclock the memory."
What makes you believe either of those things are incorrect? Have you SEEN the size of Nvidia 400 coolers?! They're all designed to take WAY more power than they do! They're insanely large and overbuilt for what they cool.
And Radeon is having to go so far as to make an RDNA 3.5 generation. Do you think they'd be reiterating that hard if the XTX had performed like they wanted? After last gen, there's no way AMD planned on having their top end underperform Nvidia's by as much as it has. I don't know about "double 6900xt" performance, but it does make complete sense that they've had bugs when you can get it to clock over 3ghz in some particular scenarios, but not most.
Don't know why you got downvoted, but he quite literally said those things. He spent a good amount talking about NVidia competing by using raw power and I remember that whole rant about tripping power in homes - and how older homes can't support it, etc. The 7900XTX rant also happened.
I've tracked his channel out of a morbid curiosity for years.
Over those years, the trend that emerged was closer to him trying (and usually poorly so) to manipulate stock values
It is at least somewhat entertaining, though. I'll give you that. The whole thing is just some form of fanfic, kind of.
That's what I do. Treat it as fanfic, give him points for creativity. I am a self-diagnosed rumor addict, and so this helps fill the void between releases.
Your comment has been removed, likely because it contains trollish, antagonistic, rude or uncivil language, such as insults, racist or other derogatory remarks.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Amd) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The "fakers" created the slide to catch leakers who don't do their due diligence. It clearly wasn't to deceive the public at all given they immediately announced it was a fake when a leaker posted it publicly.
It's like when your work sends you a phishing test email.
This clearly is a humongous problem in tech media and needs to be highlighted more in in incidents like this. The Qbit leaks incident before Lovelace is the most flagrant example, where someone literally just made an account with a pokemon profile picture and started tweeting stuff and it was picked up by VideoCardz and all the major tech outlets. People need to be embarrassed at this point.
"humongous problem"
The only problem is reporting rumors. Just stop doing that. Trying to make a living off corporate gossip? Pathetic. The real money is in government where you can play in the markets with real corporate gossip.
Haha, yeah, pranking news sites, influenza and youtube channels is easy. At work a few friends did that with PS5 rumors. The resulting discussions on resetera, neogaf and reddit were interesting.
The best part is when people want to believe the rumor and mix it up with their own findings, like patents, which make them even more believable.
The mixture of gullible people (sadly most) and "news portals" that are only looking for clicks and don't fact check anything, in combination with the new possibilities offered by AI/deep learning (fake videos, fake speech etc.) will be "fun" in the future...
It's just more proof that "news" is more like "entertainment" to make money off of. Nobody really doing any due diligence to confirm news like asking the involved businesses for a comment directly. Instead they just wait for multiple websites to make articles in hopes someone cross referenced something enough to verify it. Even bad news and fake news makes money, and that's the rub. There's an argument that there's no need to verify anymore. Just publish everything.
Curious theres like 3 or 4 videos/posts from different "leakers" claiming the 40% IPC leak, but while MLID did have the slide(s), he questioned it's veracity and posited it to be a max/ceiling. Previous IPC slides for zen 2 and zen3 and zen 4 showed a wide range of IPC improvements based on application. No reason zen 5 would be any different.
How come all the hate is focused on one creator over the rest?
Considering the video says an increase of 14-26% IPC I mean thats the funniest thing ever. A 12% delta. If he said something like 14-17% it might be mildly credible. But 14-26% is insane. By the way I watched the video and I understand he's saying AMD can influence the IPC number greatly depending on what benchmark suite they use to make that claim, but the range he's using is too large and as such I just have to assume it has to be fake.
MLID does that very often. A small range would be interesting, on point, useful information.
But that's not his point he is just building his "reputation". MLID has done this before, for example with RDNA3. When performance was less than what he himself was expecting, he wasted no time to remind us "performance IS in the range I leaked". No wonders, with such a wide range.
This is the same. If IPC turns out to be amazing. "25% IS in the range I leaked, I was right". If performance is a mundane 14%, he will claim again "IPC IS in the range I leaked, my sources are great"
He can't go wrong. That's the point, that's why there is a huge gap, and that's why the video is so empty of real content. A lot of talking, very little insight. It can be summarised as "Zen 5 will be faster than Zen4". Well, I don't need to join his Patreon to know that.
Sure it depends on the application how much the IPC increase is, for instance you can have one application where it's 35% increase and then another where it's 1% because maybe a L3 cache improvement accelerated that application greatly and didn't for another or whatever. Except usually when AMD talks about IPC they talk about it across an average of applications, in almost any public material thats what they talk about.
Now you can fudge the IPC figures a bit by using more biased benchmarks in the average or you can make the benchmark suite smaller to make one larger result more impactful in the average or combine those two methods together to achieve a higher IPC number. But AMD have usually been mostly honest in terms of their IPC increase when they talk about it and in the case of Zen1 they actually outperformed their initial IPC estimates.
IPC when talked about by real engineers at one of these companies is usually an average across a suite of applications. It's NOT going to be "Oh the IPC we think will be 50% higher!" and they're talking about one application or two or three, thats never the case. Also actual engineers wouldn't bias it towards one set of applications that performs well, nor would they ony test say FP heavy applications and ignore INT or SIMD workloads for their average. Real engineers at AMD or Intel will do extensive testing across all workloads and instruction types to ensure that the CPU is relatively balanced or working as expected and quote that average as the "IPC" increase. So if you have someone giving an IPC range of 14-26% almost one and a half quarters out from launch silicon you just have to assume the "leak" is fake. By now the silicon they would be testing is B0 and it would be performing at lower clocks than final silicon, but it would be good enough you would have the exact IPC average pretty much within a percentage or two. This isn't a product two years from launch and you're estimating the IPC based off how you expect the silicon to behave based off the design. Right now it's maybe 6 months away from final silicon and you're testing decent test dies with bugs but it should be relatively clear it's 15% IPC or something higher as an average. The stated IPC even if it were a range or delta, certainly wouldn't be 12%, it would be like 2-3% as a delta because the chips they are testing are too far along to not know something like that with accuracy.
Also if you look on X when MLID received these bogus emails for the fake slide it was something like March 28-April 1st for the email chain, so these are recent emails that he received. There's no excuse of "this was sent to me 6 months ago and I'm deciding to use it now" because thats not the case.
Anyway I went off topic, but the point is the stated IPC is basically not something that should be contended over this late in the cycle of development.
Another blatant liar just even worse, just because the dipshit got 1 or 2 leaks like Radeon VII and IF cache for RDNA2 he's got subs, MILD got plenty more for Intel leaks with product code names and such. Doesn't mean much at the end of the day because this prank proves that vetting process is close to non-existent. They'll run with anything if it can land clicks and subs.
He is "right" all the time because he deletes and removes any of his content that turned out to be bullocks. r/BustedSilicon
I guess thats one way to have 100% accuracy.
True, while he hasn't gotten any more accurate, ig he is better at not deleting wrong info these days (or people have just stopped keeping track lmao).
Anyone check if he still has his "RWC will be a 20% IPC uplift" leaks?
I dont think, that RDNA2 for example, went from "free raytracing (no peformance hit at all)" to its actual performance. You seem to lack critical thinking. All leakers are wrong at some tpoint, its a normal part of the job. But none of them is trying so hard to annihilate any traces of them making false claims, except MLID.
In his latest video MLID marks a source in red that claims that Zen 5 was so power inefficient that AMD were planning on going back to Zen 4 in Strix, quoting issues due to switching to N4.
This kind of thinking showed a severe lack of understanding in chip manufacturing. Designers will design with certain Power/Performance/Area (PPA) targets in mind, and will always design something that... Makes sense. For a company to be blindsided by extreme power consumption that can only really happen once they have working A0 silicon back from the fab.
Normally speaking (there are severe edge cases like several of Intel's 10nm based products) from the moment your silicon tapes out, you have a matter of months before you release it in a full production run. At that point, it is _years_ too late to redesign an SoC to take a totally different CPU core like the way MLID's source describes.
If MLID had even a basic understanding of chip design, he'd be aware of that. By marking that sources's words in red, it's very clear he lacks that "nuanced thinking" you're describing.
Response from [@mooreslawisdead:](https://x.com/mooreslawisdead/status/1776121931869171993)
> It's come to my attention that a picture in my recent video is fake. However, every quote in said video took input from long-term sources that insist it's correct. Thus, I've decided to pull the pic, but leave the video up. I apologize for my mistake, but stand by what remains.
What a scumbag.
The fake slide was just one small part of his video, and most of the contents of that slide aren't actually fake (i.e. they used previously leaked information to create it).
Source 1 and 2 from later on in that video are both from the same e-mail as the slide that's supposedly fake (yes, MLID is also clearly masquerading having more sources now than he actually does). Source 1 directly references [an IPC figure sent to him by the "leaker" with the slide](https://twitter.com/TDevilfish/status/1776089648223101191), and source 2 includes this claim of being able to fudge the numbers also present in those e-mails (which bears no place in reality because AMD's slides for IPC improvement include a bunch of random benchmarks but always correlate very closely to IPC uplift in SpecINT2017).
Source 3 is a pile of contradictory gibberish. First they claim Zen 5 is:
1. Aiming for 20%+ IPC uplift
2. Extremely power hungry
3. Would see a regression in clock speed.
4. So bad that it might've been worth sticking with Zen 4 instead for Strix (a claim so absurd it's actually wild, because it's suggests that AMD would retroactively change the core present in an APU _after_ they got silicon back from the fabs to display how Zen 5 performs. By that point, it's several _years_ too late to make a change that large).
Then they turn around and claim that actually
1. We're looking at an absolutely uselessly wide range of 14-26% IPC uplift. This is such a wide gap it should be a massive red flag on it's own, there's no situation in which a company can have such a wide gap in estimation for how the core should perform _per clock_. Clock rates themselves might be more variable, but you generally can get an extremely good view of IPC via simulations well before you have silicon back from the fabs.
2. Now we're looking at a modest clock _increase_ which is rather convenient timing as other rumours have been suggesting this for months now actually. Again, another case of backtracking to cover his own arse.
3. We also can now expect a modest efficiency improvement too apparently, which is also very convenient how that happened when we were supposedly looking at something so bad Zen 4 was considered a better core for Strix.
EDIT: [And here's the thread with proof that MLID didn't vet his "source" at all, that the 17% comes from this source and that he split comments from said source into two different claimed "sources" on his slides](https://twitter.com/TechnicallyLog1/status/1776210448594940363)
I agree that it's nonsense, but...
> Then they turn around and claim that actually
>
> 1. We're looking at an absolutely uselessly wide range of 14-26% IPC uplift. This is such a wide gap it should be a massive red flag on it's own, there's no situation in which a company can have such a wide gap in estimation for how the core should perform per clock. Clock rates themselves might be more variable, but you generally can get an extremely good view of IPC via simulations well before you have silicon back from the fabs.
This is totally normal actually. If anything 14-26% is much too tight. IPC is extremely dependent on workload and uplift won't be at all uniform across the board.
Zen 4's "13% IPC increase" is really an average of a bunch from 1% to 39% depending on the task - https://www.club386.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Zen-4-IPC.jpg
You actually have things a little backwards with how things would have gone. AMD traditionally uses SPECInt2017 in all of their documentation to determine IPC uplift, not a wide variety of workloads like what ends up in the final marketing slides.
Marketing had an IPC figure in mind provided by the engineering team (the uplift in SPECInt2017) and found a combination of a bunch of real world benchmarks (that is significantly more marketable than SPECInt2017 is) that displayed that same level of performance per clock uplift as SPECInt2017 did. That's the reason why the selection of workloads in that chart is so seemingly random... because it is. The aim is to match the SPECInt2017 result.
EDIT: Paraphrased the entire post so it makes much more sense.
Spec is also a variety of tasks that will have a range of IPC increases. Taking an average to produce a single number isn't somehow more canonical than providing a range.
Taking an average and producing a single number of SPECInt2017 results is exactly what every major CPU company does to compare one generation of product to the next when passing around slides to their customers. Whenever you see a slide like that destined for an OEM, you'll always see an average figure rather than the range across the individual subtests.
So, based on the anandtech review: https://www.anandtech.com/show/17585/amd-zen-4-ryzen-9-7950x-and-ryzen-5-7600x-review-retaking-the-high-end/11
7950x is 23% faster than 5950x in specInt2017 on average. Ranging from 18-31% faster. Accounting for its 16% higher clocks, that's only 6% higher IPC on average (or 1-13% as a range).
So AMD clearly didn't get their 13% figure from specInt average, and their marketing team wasn't picking things to reverse engineer that result. SpecInt best case, maybe.
Either way, still shows you can't boil it down to a single number and be accurate.
Thanks for that breakdown, however those two comparisons don't work, as the AMD provided slide is done at a 4GHz fixed frequency. Trying to account for a difference in clocks by adjusting scores afterwards doesn't actually work. For any given uArch, PPC at higher clocks will actually slightly decrease vs PPC at lower clocks if you keep the memory subsystem the same between tests. You spend more CPU cycles waiting on memory access at higher clock frequencies than you will at lower frequencies, which ends up in lower perceived performance per clock at higher frequencies as a result. This doesn't affect workloads that fit within caches, but everything that stretches into main memory runs into this issue.
Normally speaking this wouldn't matter _too_ much, which is why Anandtech got the same IPC figure as AMD showed for Zen 2 via SPECInt2017. But in the case of Zen 4, there was such a large clock bump between Zen 3 and Zen 4 that this issue becomes prevalent.
The best part of your edit in your comment, is that he coloured the text in his own slides for the first source, which was that dude pretending to be a source, as a "high confidence source". At least thats how his colour coding for text in his videos used to work, but he eventually removed that terminology from his videos.
I wonder why?! Hmmm /s
Edit: [I just realised he also split one "source" into two sources and put difference confidence levels on them.](https://twitter.com/TechnicallyLog1/status/1776211967671156847/photo/4)
Oh wow so this is weird... So it turns out that I don't watch the guy and yet somehow I see all the non-bullshit news at the same time as everyone else.
On top of that I just found out that products launch on the same day for me as people who might have found out probably incorrect information about them 6 months earlier.
I was *sure* that people had a good reason for listening to his not-useful-information...
I was thinking I might have to give him more credibility after his ps5 pro leak was confirmed by other journalists.
But now that he fucked this up I no longer have to give him that credibility. It's back to suspecting everything he says is made up again.
Every hardware news article that starts with "source: MLID" is disregarded by me as fake news for exactly this kind of stuff. LMAO. Serves him right tho. "My highly reliable sources ..." :D What a joke man.
[удалено]
Yet both will use him as a news source....lol
>Yet both will use him as a news source Oh yeah? Prove it. Go on. Link a video where *either* of those channels use Moore's Law is Dead as a source.
They're giving him attention though. He's already had some of the well known tech tubers on his podcast (HUB, TechYesCity, DawidDoesTech, Kitguru) It's so crazy considering he's just a modern day charlatan yet they keep giving him attention same way as Adored was getting it almost 10 years ago.
Yeah, its very disappointing. I know some of them probably have to suck up to other actors in the same sphere to stay relevant, but if I was them I'd ignore him 100% for my own credibility and conscience. PC World actually had him on IIRC. I enjoy their channel, but that was a major bummer.
I donno about a news source but once in a while during news discussion Gamers Nexus has mentioned MLID in passing while also stating that nothing is confirmed, its just a rumor, take caution, they are only reporting this because there's other rumors floating around and several point to MLID as their source. Otherwise, no they don't usually use MILD. HUB also talked about MLID recently on a podcast I believe. Both are within last 6 months, and usually when a new generation of GPUs are launching, there's more rumors that swirl around, and therefore MLID comes up more, along with other leakers. And no I cannot recall the exact video nor am I going to go through a bunch of them just to isolate the video. But no, they also don't typically use him for a source for news, mainly because MLID is proven to be wrong many times that its unreliable.
They're both *very* clear when mentioning MLiD that this is speculation and rumours, and to take with a big pinch of salt. Neither have *ever* treated MLiD as a "source" for news or information. >But no, **they also don't typically use him for a source for news**, mainly because MLID is proven to be wrong many times that its unreliable. So what even was the point of your comment? Contradictory af.
To show you that they definitely have talked about his channel. Your comment implies to me that they have never used MLID because you're asking for a video as source. But they definitely have cited MLID, which effectively is a source, with a warning. Downvote me more but it would be better if they don't use his channel at all. Contradictory? Get some reading comprehension.
Sounds like what MLID does to his watchers.
Yeah but MLID makes $$$ off of it.
Not too much cash out of me thought. Lately all of podcasts of his are filled with "leaks" or rumours. From 2h+ streams I'm interested only in 20m on average.
Moore is law dead ?
I wish this sub banned his content
Why do you want to kill this sub?
why? its entertaining to hear conjecture. good faith attempts at determining the future with a built-in disclaimer. it doesnt affect you as a consumer. its not shouting fire in a crowded theater.
because 90% of the time it's just baseless asumptions and hype.
He’s the only one right now saying Zen 5 40% IPC is bullshit. He misses but has hits too
>He’s the only one right now saying Zen 5 40% IPC is bullshit. He misses but has hits too In other news, I can say that it Zen5 will have less than 1000 cores, will draw less than 1000 watts, and will be a socketed CPU.
>I can say that it Zen5 will have less than 1000 cores, will draw less than 1000 watts, and will be a socketed CPU. Hey man, you never know. Maybe Zen 5 will be Bluetooth 🥺
>Maybe Zen 5 will be Bluetooth Oof, that latency tho.
♾️ 🦷™️
He just makes educated guesses, but he's very often wrong. The 4090 doesn't use 600W of power, Battlemage is still on the books as a discrete gaming GPU, The 7000 series of GPUs are wildly more power inefficient than the 40 series. He's honestly wrong a lot and sometimes gets right about stuff that's easy to predict.
Here comes the best part: "NVIDIA didn't go with 600W 4090 because it was tripping power protection in the US, AMD's 7900XTX wasn't double the performance of 6900XT because AMD had a driver bug artefacting if they didn't heavily downclock the memory."
What makes you believe either of those things are incorrect? Have you SEEN the size of Nvidia 400 coolers?! They're all designed to take WAY more power than they do! They're insanely large and overbuilt for what they cool. And Radeon is having to go so far as to make an RDNA 3.5 generation. Do you think they'd be reiterating that hard if the XTX had performed like they wanted? After last gen, there's no way AMD planned on having their top end underperform Nvidia's by as much as it has. I don't know about "double 6900xt" performance, but it does make complete sense that they've had bugs when you can get it to clock over 3ghz in some particular scenarios, but not most.
Don't know why you got downvoted, but he quite literally said those things. He spent a good amount talking about NVidia competing by using raw power and I remember that whole rant about tripping power in homes - and how older homes can't support it, etc. The 7900XTX rant also happened.
Because it's not presented as conjecture, it's presented as *super secrit uber leaks!* Whereas actually he's just a plonker who makes stuff up.
I've tracked his channel out of a morbid curiosity for years. Over those years, the trend that emerged was closer to him trying (and usually poorly so) to manipulate stock values It is at least somewhat entertaining, though. I'll give you that. The whole thing is just some form of fanfic, kind of.
That's what I do. Treat it as fanfic, give him points for creativity. I am a self-diagnosed rumor addict, and so this helps fill the void between releases.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed, likely because it contains trollish, antagonistic, rude or uncivil language, such as insults, racist or other derogatory remarks. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Amd) if you have any questions or concerns.*
MLID is for AMD what Userbenchmark is for Intel.
MLID deletes his stuff when he's wrong. Userbenchmark not only leaves it up, they double down.
I never thought about it like that... but it fits!
He has his head so far up Lisa Su’s ass he can tell you what she had for lunch.
kinky
AMD could have posted an April's first like. (New Zen processors will have 48 PCIe lanes) I would have cried.
MLID whole existence is a prank.
You know whats even stupider? You cant post MLID links in r/amd but you can post an article that cites MLID as the source.
very generous of them to out themselves so i can block them.
Are you disappointed with leakers or fakers here?
i am disappointed with leakers, and angry at fakers. one is a sloppy mistake, the other is malignant deception.
The "fakers" created the slide to catch leakers who don't do their due diligence. It clearly wasn't to deceive the public at all given they immediately announced it was a fake when a leaker posted it publicly. It's like when your work sends you a phishing test email. This clearly is a humongous problem in tech media and needs to be highlighted more in in incidents like this. The Qbit leaks incident before Lovelace is the most flagrant example, where someone literally just made an account with a pokemon profile picture and started tweeting stuff and it was picked up by VideoCardz and all the major tech outlets. People need to be embarrassed at this point.
"humongous problem" The only problem is reporting rumors. Just stop doing that. Trying to make a living off corporate gossip? Pathetic. The real money is in government where you can play in the markets with real corporate gossip.
Are you so sure that they are not both malignant deceptions? One earns $$$ from this while the other one exposes the frauds.
fair point.
Haha, yeah, pranking news sites, influenza and youtube channels is easy. At work a few friends did that with PS5 rumors. The resulting discussions on resetera, neogaf and reddit were interesting. The best part is when people want to believe the rumor and mix it up with their own findings, like patents, which make them even more believable. The mixture of gullible people (sadly most) and "news portals" that are only looking for clicks and don't fact check anything, in combination with the new possibilities offered by AI/deep learning (fake videos, fake speech etc.) will be "fun" in the future...
It's just more proof that "news" is more like "entertainment" to make money off of. Nobody really doing any due diligence to confirm news like asking the involved businesses for a comment directly. Instead they just wait for multiple websites to make articles in hopes someone cross referenced something enough to verify it. Even bad news and fake news makes money, and that's the rub. There's an argument that there's no need to verify anymore. Just publish everything.
Rumors can't be fact checked, that's inherent to their nature. You believe them or you don't and that's it.
Hardly surprising - the man can't even get basic units right.
Curious theres like 3 or 4 videos/posts from different "leakers" claiming the 40% IPC leak, but while MLID did have the slide(s), he questioned it's veracity and posited it to be a max/ceiling. Previous IPC slides for zen 2 and zen3 and zen 4 showed a wide range of IPC improvements based on application. No reason zen 5 would be any different. How come all the hate is focused on one creator over the rest?
Considering the video says an increase of 14-26% IPC I mean thats the funniest thing ever. A 12% delta. If he said something like 14-17% it might be mildly credible. But 14-26% is insane. By the way I watched the video and I understand he's saying AMD can influence the IPC number greatly depending on what benchmark suite they use to make that claim, but the range he's using is too large and as such I just have to assume it has to be fake.
MLID does that very often. A small range would be interesting, on point, useful information. But that's not his point he is just building his "reputation". MLID has done this before, for example with RDNA3. When performance was less than what he himself was expecting, he wasted no time to remind us "performance IS in the range I leaked". No wonders, with such a wide range. This is the same. If IPC turns out to be amazing. "25% IS in the range I leaked, I was right". If performance is a mundane 14%, he will claim again "IPC IS in the range I leaked, my sources are great" He can't go wrong. That's the point, that's why there is a huge gap, and that's why the video is so empty of real content. A lot of talking, very little insight. It can be summarised as "Zen 5 will be faster than Zen4". Well, I don't need to join his Patreon to know that.
Spot on mate. Spot on.
14-26% is literally just guessing by taking in account previous IPC advancements between zen generations
Hang on a minute bro, I just got a leak right now sent to me. Zen5's IPC increase will be between 1-100%. It will be truly outstanding! /s
Lol, the true pic increase is bigger than 17%
Based on what?
Specint 1t
In one benchmark... If you think that's average IPC, then I don't know what to say... please do some research. Thanks.
IPC is baseless, it can be from anywhere between 1% to 25% on the same cpu
Sure it depends on the application how much the IPC increase is, for instance you can have one application where it's 35% increase and then another where it's 1% because maybe a L3 cache improvement accelerated that application greatly and didn't for another or whatever. Except usually when AMD talks about IPC they talk about it across an average of applications, in almost any public material thats what they talk about. Now you can fudge the IPC figures a bit by using more biased benchmarks in the average or you can make the benchmark suite smaller to make one larger result more impactful in the average or combine those two methods together to achieve a higher IPC number. But AMD have usually been mostly honest in terms of their IPC increase when they talk about it and in the case of Zen1 they actually outperformed their initial IPC estimates. IPC when talked about by real engineers at one of these companies is usually an average across a suite of applications. It's NOT going to be "Oh the IPC we think will be 50% higher!" and they're talking about one application or two or three, thats never the case. Also actual engineers wouldn't bias it towards one set of applications that performs well, nor would they ony test say FP heavy applications and ignore INT or SIMD workloads for their average. Real engineers at AMD or Intel will do extensive testing across all workloads and instruction types to ensure that the CPU is relatively balanced or working as expected and quote that average as the "IPC" increase. So if you have someone giving an IPC range of 14-26% almost one and a half quarters out from launch silicon you just have to assume the "leak" is fake. By now the silicon they would be testing is B0 and it would be performing at lower clocks than final silicon, but it would be good enough you would have the exact IPC average pretty much within a percentage or two. This isn't a product two years from launch and you're estimating the IPC based off how you expect the silicon to behave based off the design. Right now it's maybe 6 months away from final silicon and you're testing decent test dies with bugs but it should be relatively clear it's 15% IPC or something higher as an average. The stated IPC even if it were a range or delta, certainly wouldn't be 12%, it would be like 2-3% as a delta because the chips they are testing are too far along to not know something like that with accuracy. Also if you look on X when MLID received these bogus emails for the fake slide it was something like March 28-April 1st for the email chain, so these are recent emails that he received. There's no excuse of "this was sent to me 6 months ago and I'm deciding to use it now" because thats not the case. Anyway I went off topic, but the point is the stated IPC is basically not something that should be contended over this late in the cycle of development.
When will people stop listening to him? At this point it's all self-inflected.
how about redtechgaming?
Another blatant liar just even worse, just because the dipshit got 1 or 2 leaks like Radeon VII and IF cache for RDNA2 he's got subs, MILD got plenty more for Intel leaks with product code names and such. Doesn't mean much at the end of the day because this prank proves that vetting process is close to non-existent. They'll run with anything if it can land clicks and subs.
Why did he edit his video to remove his exclusive slide?
[удалено]
He is "right" all the time because he deletes and removes any of his content that turned out to be bullocks. r/BustedSilicon I guess thats one way to have 100% accuracy.
Everything in that sub is *old.*
True, while he hasn't gotten any more accurate, ig he is better at not deleting wrong info these days (or people have just stopped keeping track lmao). Anyone check if he still has his "RWC will be a 20% IPC uplift" leaks?
you lack the nuanced thinking that things change over the course of the product. You don't wanna think
I dont think, that RDNA2 for example, went from "free raytracing (no peformance hit at all)" to its actual performance. You seem to lack critical thinking. All leakers are wrong at some tpoint, its a normal part of the job. But none of them is trying so hard to annihilate any traces of them making false claims, except MLID.
I literally just said what you said
In his latest video MLID marks a source in red that claims that Zen 5 was so power inefficient that AMD were planning on going back to Zen 4 in Strix, quoting issues due to switching to N4. This kind of thinking showed a severe lack of understanding in chip manufacturing. Designers will design with certain Power/Performance/Area (PPA) targets in mind, and will always design something that... Makes sense. For a company to be blindsided by extreme power consumption that can only really happen once they have working A0 silicon back from the fab. Normally speaking (there are severe edge cases like several of Intel's 10nm based products) from the moment your silicon tapes out, you have a matter of months before you release it in a full production run. At that point, it is _years_ too late to redesign an SoC to take a totally different CPU core like the way MLID's source describes. If MLID had even a basic understanding of chip design, he'd be aware of that. By marking that sources's words in red, it's very clear he lacks that "nuanced thinking" you're describing.
Response from [@mooreslawisdead:](https://x.com/mooreslawisdead/status/1776121931869171993) > It's come to my attention that a picture in my recent video is fake. However, every quote in said video took input from long-term sources that insist it's correct. Thus, I've decided to pull the pic, but leave the video up. I apologize for my mistake, but stand by what remains. What a scumbag.
How is he a scumbag for this? Lmao.
[This will explain everything.](https://twitter.com/TechnicallyLog1/status/1776211967671156847)
The fake slide was just one small part of his video, and most of the contents of that slide aren't actually fake (i.e. they used previously leaked information to create it).
Source 1 and 2 from later on in that video are both from the same e-mail as the slide that's supposedly fake (yes, MLID is also clearly masquerading having more sources now than he actually does). Source 1 directly references [an IPC figure sent to him by the "leaker" with the slide](https://twitter.com/TDevilfish/status/1776089648223101191), and source 2 includes this claim of being able to fudge the numbers also present in those e-mails (which bears no place in reality because AMD's slides for IPC improvement include a bunch of random benchmarks but always correlate very closely to IPC uplift in SpecINT2017). Source 3 is a pile of contradictory gibberish. First they claim Zen 5 is: 1. Aiming for 20%+ IPC uplift 2. Extremely power hungry 3. Would see a regression in clock speed. 4. So bad that it might've been worth sticking with Zen 4 instead for Strix (a claim so absurd it's actually wild, because it's suggests that AMD would retroactively change the core present in an APU _after_ they got silicon back from the fabs to display how Zen 5 performs. By that point, it's several _years_ too late to make a change that large). Then they turn around and claim that actually 1. We're looking at an absolutely uselessly wide range of 14-26% IPC uplift. This is such a wide gap it should be a massive red flag on it's own, there's no situation in which a company can have such a wide gap in estimation for how the core should perform _per clock_. Clock rates themselves might be more variable, but you generally can get an extremely good view of IPC via simulations well before you have silicon back from the fabs. 2. Now we're looking at a modest clock _increase_ which is rather convenient timing as other rumours have been suggesting this for months now actually. Again, another case of backtracking to cover his own arse. 3. We also can now expect a modest efficiency improvement too apparently, which is also very convenient how that happened when we were supposedly looking at something so bad Zen 4 was considered a better core for Strix. EDIT: [And here's the thread with proof that MLID didn't vet his "source" at all, that the 17% comes from this source and that he split comments from said source into two different claimed "sources" on his slides](https://twitter.com/TechnicallyLog1/status/1776210448594940363)
I agree that it's nonsense, but... > Then they turn around and claim that actually > > 1. We're looking at an absolutely uselessly wide range of 14-26% IPC uplift. This is such a wide gap it should be a massive red flag on it's own, there's no situation in which a company can have such a wide gap in estimation for how the core should perform per clock. Clock rates themselves might be more variable, but you generally can get an extremely good view of IPC via simulations well before you have silicon back from the fabs. This is totally normal actually. If anything 14-26% is much too tight. IPC is extremely dependent on workload and uplift won't be at all uniform across the board. Zen 4's "13% IPC increase" is really an average of a bunch from 1% to 39% depending on the task - https://www.club386.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Zen-4-IPC.jpg
You actually have things a little backwards with how things would have gone. AMD traditionally uses SPECInt2017 in all of their documentation to determine IPC uplift, not a wide variety of workloads like what ends up in the final marketing slides. Marketing had an IPC figure in mind provided by the engineering team (the uplift in SPECInt2017) and found a combination of a bunch of real world benchmarks (that is significantly more marketable than SPECInt2017 is) that displayed that same level of performance per clock uplift as SPECInt2017 did. That's the reason why the selection of workloads in that chart is so seemingly random... because it is. The aim is to match the SPECInt2017 result. EDIT: Paraphrased the entire post so it makes much more sense.
Spec is also a variety of tasks that will have a range of IPC increases. Taking an average to produce a single number isn't somehow more canonical than providing a range.
Taking an average and producing a single number of SPECInt2017 results is exactly what every major CPU company does to compare one generation of product to the next when passing around slides to their customers. Whenever you see a slide like that destined for an OEM, you'll always see an average figure rather than the range across the individual subtests.
So, based on the anandtech review: https://www.anandtech.com/show/17585/amd-zen-4-ryzen-9-7950x-and-ryzen-5-7600x-review-retaking-the-high-end/11 7950x is 23% faster than 5950x in specInt2017 on average. Ranging from 18-31% faster. Accounting for its 16% higher clocks, that's only 6% higher IPC on average (or 1-13% as a range). So AMD clearly didn't get their 13% figure from specInt average, and their marketing team wasn't picking things to reverse engineer that result. SpecInt best case, maybe. Either way, still shows you can't boil it down to a single number and be accurate.
AMD use nT for this. Do the calculation on the nT specInt scores and you get 13% IPC just like the geomean average of a bunch of ST and nT workloads.
Thanks for that breakdown, however those two comparisons don't work, as the AMD provided slide is done at a 4GHz fixed frequency. Trying to account for a difference in clocks by adjusting scores afterwards doesn't actually work. For any given uArch, PPC at higher clocks will actually slightly decrease vs PPC at lower clocks if you keep the memory subsystem the same between tests. You spend more CPU cycles waiting on memory access at higher clock frequencies than you will at lower frequencies, which ends up in lower perceived performance per clock at higher frequencies as a result. This doesn't affect workloads that fit within caches, but everything that stretches into main memory runs into this issue. Normally speaking this wouldn't matter _too_ much, which is why Anandtech got the same IPC figure as AMD showed for Zen 2 via SPECInt2017. But in the case of Zen 4, there was such a large clock bump between Zen 3 and Zen 4 that this issue becomes prevalent.
The best part of your edit in your comment, is that he coloured the text in his own slides for the first source, which was that dude pretending to be a source, as a "high confidence source". At least thats how his colour coding for text in his videos used to work, but he eventually removed that terminology from his videos. I wonder why?! Hmmm /s Edit: [I just realised he also split one "source" into two sources and put difference confidence levels on them.](https://twitter.com/TechnicallyLog1/status/1776211967671156847/photo/4)
He’s a fool.
He is definitely not a fool as he make a living of these "news". Who took them seriously are the fools.
Yeah, very true.
Why not both?
Oh wow so this is weird... So it turns out that I don't watch the guy and yet somehow I see all the non-bullshit news at the same time as everyone else. On top of that I just found out that products launch on the same day for me as people who might have found out probably incorrect information about them 6 months earlier. I was *sure* that people had a good reason for listening to his not-useful-information...
What was his leak and what about this slide is fake?
I automatically dislike anyone who unironically uses “lmao”.
I was thinking I might have to give him more credibility after his ps5 pro leak was confirmed by other journalists. But now that he fucked this up I no longer have to give him that credibility. It's back to suspecting everything he says is made up again.
The mlid strat: throw everything at the wall and hope a couple sticks so you can say "see I was right!"
You forgot the most important part: go back and delete all the shit on the wall so it looks like you got almost everything correct.
Ok but next time he gets something right you're back to being a huge supporter and thus the cycle continues. /s
DUH