# AMD Ryzen 9 7950X



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

The Ryzen 9 7950X is a monster CPU. When paired with the right workload it will eat even the 12900K for breakfast. As our review shows, the performance uplifts can be massive: +30-50% gen-over-gen is totally possible. What makes things complicated though, is that keeping the beast cool is almost impossible.

*Show full review*


----------



## Arco (Sep 26, 2022)

Vrooommmmm!


----------



## Toss (Sep 26, 2022)

wtf. All we got is overclocked 5950x with lower efficiency. 
5950x is 120W TDP and this monstrocity is 200W+ TDP everywhere.
I guess sticking with my 5950x until 2030 then.


----------



## ExcuseMeWtf (Sep 26, 2022)

All hail the new king.


> wtf. All we got is overclocked 5950x with lower efficiency.


Page 24 shows otherwise lol.


----------



## Xuper (Sep 26, 2022)

hmm , gaming performance


----------



## jesdals (Sep 26, 2022)

Well at my native game resolution at 7680x1440p the 7950x is simply not worth the upgrade over my current 5950x - but thats a good thing - then theres budget for a new GPU


----------



## Toss (Sep 26, 2022)

ExcuseMeWtf said:


> All hail the new king.
> 
> Page 24 shows otherwise lol.


cinebench MTT says no


----------



## Crackong (Sep 26, 2022)

So we have the new fastest CPU right now


----------



## ExcuseMeWtf (Sep 26, 2022)

Toss said:


> cinebench MTT says no


And STT AND gaming say yes.


----------



## to001 (Sep 26, 2022)

No wall power ?


----------



## Jism (Sep 26, 2022)

Very neat. Just dial it in at 5Ghz and you have a winner for the next few years.


----------



## fevgatos (Sep 26, 2022)

As I kept saying and people like Ratirl kept laughing, the 7950x is less efficient than the 5950x. Probably the same will apply to the whole zen 4 range. Yikes


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 26, 2022)

Toss said:


> cinebench MTT says no


Great real world application choice there...


----------



## SaLaDiN666 (Sep 26, 2022)

lol Zen4 is the ultimate failure, the fastest gaming cpu my ass, slower than 1-year-old 12900k and 5800x3D.

You know now why you didn't get promised 5900x3D and 5950x3D. They would have buried this failure in gaming.


Can't wait for amdfanbois to come with another conspiracy, why they are again slow this time in gaming     Bios? Windows? Star constellations?


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 26, 2022)

These are pushed way past efficiency.  Really the undervolt looks amazing though.  You lose almost nothing by shaving off 50W - in fact it's actually faster in some instances.


----------



## jesdals (Sep 26, 2022)

I think we will see better results with better usage of DDR5 - but thats not a ground breaking or earth shattering start point


----------



## Pumper (Sep 26, 2022)

Well, the trash power draw is no surprise after AMD said these will be 170W TDP. Wonder what the people who keep shitting on Intel over this will say now, lol.

Looks like I'll be hunting for a 5950X for an upgrade as Zen4 is is just not good enough in a lot of ways, especially for the entry price, or maybe I get a 13xxx as those will at least let me keep my RAM.


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 26, 2022)

Jism said:


> Very neat. Just dial it in at 5Ghz and you have a winner for the next few years.


Why do that when it runs over 5.2 Ghz all core under AVX?


----------



## JATownes (Sep 26, 2022)

Good CPU, but not worth the upgrade costs for a new platform.  I'll skip 7000 series and wait for the process to mature while X670 and DDR5 gain traction in the market and bring prices down.  

If you are still on a Ryzen 1xxx, 2xxx or 3xxx with X470 or older board, it might make more sense, but if you are running a relatively high-end X570 with a 5000 chip, it is probably better to skip this generation.  Avoid the early adopter tax and growing pains of the platform.

JAT


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

to001 said:


> No wall power ?


Switched to chip only power after people kept complaining about wall power. 

Honest question: what kind of wall power testing would you like to see, and why? and how does it improve the results vs chip-only?


----------



## Arco (Sep 26, 2022)

JATownes said:


> Good CPU, but not worth the upgrade costs for a new platform.  I'll skip 7000 series and wait for the process to mature while X670 and DDR5 gain traction in the market and bring prices down.
> 
> If you are still on a Ryzen 1xxx, 2xxx or 3xxx with X470 or older board, it might make more sense, but if you are running a relatively high-end X570 with a 5000 chip, it is probably better to skip this generation.  Avoid the early adopter tax and growing pains of the platform.
> 
> JAT


I have half a mind to go intel but if I do I'm going to have to buy a new motherboard anyways to upgrade the CPU. I'm also not too keen on moving to Windows 11 for the big little.


----------



## to001 (Sep 26, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> Switched to chip only power after people kept complaining about wall power.
> 
> Honest question: what kind of wall power testing would you like to see, and why? and how does it improve the results vs chip-only?


I mean the ram, Cooling, chipset all of these stack up must be pretty significant.


----------



## bastordd (Sep 26, 2022)

This 7000 Series is a big failure for a normal consumer... 
More eat, more watts less gaming performance... waste of money...
12900k and 5800 3D much better


----------



## BorisDG (Sep 26, 2022)

What a disappointment for high-end gaming (1440p+)... very small improvement or even weaker than 12900K.


----------



## Chomiq (Sep 26, 2022)

94C at stock. Ooooof.


----------



## nebulaxis (Sep 26, 2022)

gaming performance ? intel rekt
imagine buying ryzen 7 series in 2022 xd


----------



## Solid State Brain (Sep 26, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> Switched to chip only power after people kept complaining about wall power.
> 
> Honest question: what kind of wall power testing would you like to see, and why? and how does it improve the results vs chip-only?



I'd like only to point out that CPU power, if software-reported, might or might not be inaccurate depending on motherboard settings. On Intel, it relies on the DC Loadline parameter in advanced BIOS settings to be correct (it should be set so that VID matches motherboard-reported die voltage/vcore under all-core loads). I am not sure if a similar setting exists for AMD as well.


----------



## Xuper (Sep 26, 2022)

Chomiq said:


> 94C at stock. Ooooof.


Are you surprising ? 12900K is still at 99'c ! everyone knew that going to lower nm means hotter CPU.


----------



## EzioAs (Sep 26, 2022)

This is about as awesome (or rather mediocre) as the alleged performance of the RTX 4000 GPUs. The fact that efficiency isn't improved significantly while drawing so much more power and running so hot isn't a good generational upgrade by my own criteria.


----------



## big_glasses (Sep 26, 2022)

Thanks for the review

@W1zzard 
What's up with the MySQL test? it looks obscenely low





I'd love to have a Unity Engine game included, looking forward to the full 50 game test.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

Solid State Brain said:


> I'd like only to point out that CPU power, if software-reported, might or might not be inaccurate depending on motherboard settings


Not using software measurement of course.. these are trash .. i'm using proper physical measurements

edit: any thoughts where in the text i could clarify that, so it's more obvious?



big_glasses said:


> What's up with the MySQL test? it looks obscenely low


Yeah, I noticed that, too, and retested it several times. No change, no idea what's happening



to001 said:


> I mean the ram, Cooling, chipset all of these stack up must be pretty significant.


Right .. so you're looking or some kind of "platform power" number .. in idle? load? gaming?


----------



## SLObinger (Sep 26, 2022)

I think when you look at the overall platform plus the CPU gains Zen 4 is a very compelling upgrade. Perhaps held back a bit by DDR5 maturity which will only improve.


----------



## Pumper (Sep 26, 2022)

Chomiq said:


> 94C at stock. Ooooof.


Steve said in GN review, that AMD design Zen4 to boost like GPU, with a temp limit. So it goes to 95C in seconds and stays there, but does not throttle.


----------



## Solid State Brain (Sep 26, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> Not using software measurement of course.. these are trash .. i'm using proper physical measurements
> 
> edit: any thoughts where in the text i could clarify that, so it's more obvious?



Perhaps a small box with the methodology could be added either in the beginning on the page or at the end; personally I assumed it was the software-reported value, as used by many (most?) people when referring to CPU-only power. Physical measurements might or might not take into account PSU and/or motherboard VRM efficiency, so some clarification could be useful in this regard.


----------



## SLObinger (Sep 26, 2022)

@W1zzard excellent work as always. Like the new test setup and methodology changes.


----------



## Legacy-ZA (Sep 26, 2022)

Suffice it to say, this is the generation I wanted to upgrade to initially, but my old PC was just well, too old and well, dead. That being said, I am still very happy with this setup, it will probably last me a good 7 to 10 years. 

Oh and AMD, well done, can't wait to see what you have done with RDNA3, I hope you slaughter nVidia, and at a good price range too.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

Solid State Brain said:


> Perhaps a small box with the methodology could be added either in the beginning on the page or at the end; personally I assumed it was the software-reported value, as used by many (most?) people when referring to CPU-only power. Physical measurements might or might not take into account PSU and/or motherboard VRM efficiency, so some clarification could be useful in this regard.


Lol I could swear I added some text at the start of the power measurmeents page .. will fix later today


----------



## ModEl4 (Sep 26, 2022)

Lol wtf.
AMD claimed 7600X was 5% faster than 12900K at 1080p high, and in TPU 1080p Ultra/high, 7950X is only 1.6% faster than 12600K, rofl!!!
Also there are other major failures (it was supposed to be faster in emulation especially in RPCS3 and it's slower in that especially 7950X/7900X vs 12900K/12700K, gaming power efficiency if you exclude 7600X is just at Alder's Lake level, in the vast majority of the multithreading rendering and Video encoding tasks 12700K and 12600K are better than 7700X and 7600X, cooling requirements are at similar level of what Alder Lake needs etc.)
Just wait for Raptor's Lake reviews and then decide!


----------



## lsevald (Sep 26, 2022)

I would like to know what clocks these CPU's are able to sustain in a "more worst case scenario", like under Prime95 or maybe even Blender. The Clock analysis chart is interesting, but seems to be more type of instruction focused. What happens to boost and clocks at different temps and power loads?


----------



## Gameslove (Sep 26, 2022)

Thanks for the test. Ryzen 7 5800x3d stay stong in the gaming. Ryzen 5xxx series gamers no reason to upgrade AM5.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Sep 26, 2022)

Is it just me (could be reading the chart wrong) but the overclocking shows slightly worse performance over stock?



nebulaxis said:


> gaming performance ? intel rekt
> imagine buying ryzen 7 series in 2022 xd


Honestly, you cant compare 12th gen to AMD 7000. By all rights, AMD 7000 should beat Intel 12th gen. Ill wait for the comparisons for 13th gen and AMD 7000.


----------



## champsilva (Sep 26, 2022)

Xuper said:


> Are you surprising ? 12900K is still at 99'c ! everyone knew that going to lower nm means hotter CPU.



Said apple with 4nm and much cooler than prodecessors.


----------



## Xuper (Sep 26, 2022)

champsilva said:


> Said apple with 4nm and much cooler than prodecessors.


Low clock vs High clock , really?


----------



## defaultluser (Sep 26, 2022)

ExcuseMeWtf said:


> And STT AND gaming say yes.



yeah, zen 4 is in need of a 3d treatment to enhance efficiency once again *(and now we can see how much improvement those APUs get with 3d cache)*


----------



## Jism (Sep 26, 2022)

And derbauer already shaved off 20 degrees off those cores.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

Pumper said:


> So it goes to 95C in seconds and stays there, but does not throttle.


That is not true. It will reduce the clock speeds to stay at or below 95°C. In my definition that's "throttling", even if it's very mild (when you have decent cooling)


----------



## Ravenas (Sep 26, 2022)

Thank you for the review.

The 7950X absolutely dominates all work loads Quite amazing that the 7950x achieving 50% more efficiency in multi threaded workloads compared to the 12900k, and I would venture to say this will be even more compared to the 13900k.

25% increase in performance may not be a deal breaker for me having a 5950x, and I may wait another generation.

AMD providing integrated graphics is defiantly a plus.


----------



## zmeul (Sep 26, 2022)

this ain't good
AMD did a Intel - gamers will not buy this, expensive CPU, hard to cool, expensive mobo, expensive RAM


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 26, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> edit: any thoughts where in the text i could clarify that, so it's more obvious?


Maybe include that in the test equipment being used?



zmeul said:


> this ain't good
> AMD did a Intel - gamers will not buy this, expensive CPU, hard to cool, expensive mobo, expensive RAM


Did gamers buy the 5950X?


----------



## xkm1948 (Sep 26, 2022)

Nice review @W1zzard  Can you share a bit more regarding your genome analysis benchmark? We can DM if you dont want it out publicly.

Thanks!


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

Solid State Brain said:


> in the beginning on the page or at the end;


Added the following to the power measurement page:



> All power measurements on this page are based on a physical measurement of the voltage, current and power flowing through the 12-pin CPU power connector(s), which makes them "CPU only", not "full system." We're not using the software sensors inside the processor, as these can be quite inaccurate and will vary between manufacturers. All measurements are collected and processed at a rate of 30 data points per second, on a separate machine, so the power measurement does not affect the tested system in any way. Our new data processing pipeline allows us to link recorded data precisely with benchmark runs, so we can easily create the charts below.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Sep 26, 2022)

TheLostSwede said:


> Did gamers buy the 5950X?



I did  

I'm both impressed and underwhelmed with these results although other sites seem to have gotten better gaming results although they also used a 3090ti.

Just like with any cpu it is likely very game and even maybe scene dependent though.

Either way can't wait for 3DV$ versions.


----------



## ERazer (Sep 26, 2022)

like many 5950x user 7950x didn't stuck me to upgrade, cost to newer power platform is not compelling and AMD did mentioned they still have plans for probably higher 3dx cpu for am4


----------



## InVasMani (Sep 26, 2022)

Value for dollar isnt' quite there with 7950x then again it rarely is for chips at that end of the spectrum.


----------



## outpt (Sep 26, 2022)

The winner of this yawn fest is: both sides.
Hope there’s more to the gpu’s than this.


----------



## champsilva (Sep 26, 2022)

Xuper said:


> Low clock vs High clock , really?



Well, AMD choose to use high clocks to fight intel. So is their fault, right?


----------



## Richards (Sep 26, 2022)

@W1zzard great review... we need Spider-Man  for future  benchmarks...

Intel 10nm competing  well in efficiency  with tsmc 5nm.. meteor  lake  on intel 4 will destroy  every cpu


----------



## THU31 (Sep 26, 2022)

I wonder what kind of clocks this could do at 65 W and 95 W for AVC/HEVC encoding utilizing all 32 threads. Undervolting these CPUs is supposed to be amazing. I hope people will test it.


----------



## Pumper (Sep 26, 2022)

BTW, the leaked 7950X review shows great performance in 65 ECO mode. Any plans to test that? Would be nice to see what an optimezed setup is capable of and what kind of temps and power draw is possible.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

Richards said:


> we need Spider-Man for future benchmarks...


It was released too late to make it into this test bench


----------



## AnotherReader (Sep 26, 2022)

Richards said:


> @W1zzard great review... we need Spider-Man  for future  benchmarks...
> 
> Intel 10nm competing  well in efficiency  with tsmc 5nm.. meteor  lake  on intel 4 will destroy  every cpu


Intel 10 nm isn't really competing in efficiency with TSMC's N5. Take a look at this slide from Anandtech when they limited the 7950X to 65 W, i.e. 88 W total power draw:






A full power 12900k is unable to even come close to a hobbled 7950X. this is going to be a bloodbath in servers which is the actual focus of Zen 4.


----------



## defaultluser (Sep 26, 2022)

Richards said:


> @W1zzard great review... we need Spider-Man  for future  benchmarks...
> 
> Intel 10nm competing  well in efficiency  with tsmc 5nm.. meteor  lake  on intel 4 will destroy  every cpu




By throwing in a shitload of e-cores.  And still somehow managing to increse power consumption by nearly 100 more watts?


----------



## RandallFlagg (Sep 26, 2022)

Such irony... 

Zen 4 was supposed to be the killer in games, and it isn't.  

But it was supposed to lose in productivity apps, which it didn't, at least not to alder lake.

The new arch also seems to lose to Zen 3 in some of the areas alder lake was losing in, like compression.  

Seems like a very mixed bag, and not what AMD said it was at all with all of their hyping about Zen 4 game prowess.

It's not bad, it's just weird.


----------



## ARF (Sep 26, 2022)

The integrated graphics performance is so low. Lower than the junk brand intel:   

Core i9-12900K is 5% faster at 1080p:






The IPC improvement over Zen 3 is a measly 3%!


----------



## AnotherReader (Sep 26, 2022)

Great review W1zzard! Is adding results for ECO mode for each of the three Zen 4 samples on the cards? Are there any AVS-512 enabled applications that you could use to test the uplift due to this addition to Zen 4? Phoronix tested some Linux applications and saw some noticeable performance uplifts.






Alder Lake still competes in single threaded tasks and Raptor Lake is likely to be the single threaded champion, but will have a tough time in multi-threaded applications. All in all, the situation seems like this:

Intel's focus on big cores and single threaded performance is probably the best approach for desktop users
AMD's focus on relatively small cores and excellent power consumption at saner clock speeds will be a boon for both servers and laptops
Anandtech reports that AMD's target was 6 Ghz clocks for Zen 4. Zen 5 will probably push the clock speeds even higher than Zen 4



ARF said:


> The integrated graphics performance is so low. Lower than the junk brand intel:
> 
> Core i9-12900K is 5% faster at 1080p:
> 
> ...


Where do you get the 3% IPC improvement? Anandtech ran SPEC and saw sizable improvements in many sub tests. In the SpecInt test which is most relevant to common desktop workloads, the average uplift is 23% over the 5950X.


*Test**7950X**5950X**Uplift**12900k**Increase over 12900K*perlbench10.1​7.93​27%​9.7​4.1%​gcc11.8​10.01​18%​11.7​0.9%​mcf9.6​7.69​25%​7.7​24.7%​omentpp7​5.71​23%​6.1​14.8%​xalancbmk8.3​6.95​19%​7.7​7.8%​x26414.9​12.08​23%​13.7​8.8%​531.deepsjeng_r7.3​6​22%​6.4​14.1%​541.leela_r7.5​6.28​19%​6.1​23.0%​548.exchange2_r15.4​11.78​31%​12.2​26.2%​557.xz_r6.4​5.28​21%​4.8​33.3%​*GEOMEAN*9.39​7.65​23%​8.15​15.3%​


----------



## natero62 (Sep 26, 2022)

i cant understand why test include undervolting and more like that options?

its not for normal user way,jusr cpu for mobo,turn PC on and run test.

anyway,i cant se uundervolting intel cpus...

but, dissapointment amd zen 5nm cpu

power eat i say is higher than intel 10nm cpu,so much handicap 5nm zen4 get.

still loose gaming..and we i took 12900k not 13900k

i say good value,not editor choice.

again, not taken took that different 5nm cpu and 10nm cpu, its massive different..
i hope intel raptor was 5nm cpu also, we seen truth.
well, few years,but i think 7nm meteor lake show direct..

still, good test if we forget thouse tricks aka undervolting and others.


----------



## ARF (Sep 26, 2022)

AnotherReader said:


> Where do you get the 3% IPC improvement? Anandtech ran SPEC and saw sizable improvements in many sub tests.





AMD Ryzen 9 7950X review - Conclusion (guru3d.com)


----------



## Tomgang (Sep 26, 2022)

Meh, I'm a little disappointed. Yes 7950X is fast. But compared my 5950X. 7950X have som red flags. Power consumption, heat, gaming performance is not so great as I hoped for.

5950X is easy to air cool, is not that much slower in games and is more power efficient. All in all I stick to my 5950X. It is still more than fast enough for my use. I'm glad I actually just upgraded last year to Zen 3. I had regreted waiting another year for Zen 4. 

Looks like I'm better off just upgrading gpu this year.


----------



## AnotherReader (Sep 26, 2022)

ARF said:


> View attachment 263076
> AMD Ryzen 9 7950X review - Conclusion (guru3d.com)


They use one application, Cinebench, to determine IPC. I don't think that's a valid way to determine IPC. Moreover, on the IPC test page, they write:



> Coming from the Ryzen 9 5950X (Vermeer), we see an increase of 13% in IPC over last gen, exactly what AMD claimed it to be.


----------



## LifeOnMars (Sep 26, 2022)

Weird times.


----------



## ARF (Sep 26, 2022)

My conclusion is that this launch is a mess.

The Ryzen 9 7950X is simply a rebadged Threadripper which for some weird reason AMD were not brave enough to launch.

Only the 6-core and 8-core SKUs deserve to be Ryzens but that would put AMD far far BEHIND the Raptor Lake launch tomorrow.


----------



## THU31 (Sep 26, 2022)

AnotherReader said:


> Intel 10 nm isn't really competing in efficiency with TSMC's N5. Take a look at this slide from Anandtech when they limited the 7950X to 65 W, i.e. 88 W total power draw:
> 
> View attachment 263070
> 
> A full power 12900k is unable to even come close to a hobbled 7950X. this is going to be a bloodbath in servers which is the actual focus of Zen 4.



This puts joy in my eyes.

It means it probably stays over 4 GHz in that 65 W test. And that is just a power limit, without manual undervolting.


----------



## dayne878 (Sep 26, 2022)

I'm a bit disappointed by this. It's comparable to the 12900k by the looks of things and that suggests 13900k is going to blow it out of the water.

It IS good for competition, however. It keeps Intel on their toes. It just might not be good for our wallets, since Intel could theoretically price the top tier 13th generation CPUs at higher than the top tier AMD CPUs.

I'm not planning on upgrading for a year or two (have a 10700k from my 2020 build), but if I were this fall/winter I would (even with Intel CPUs still not officially released) be buying Intel still.


----------



## BorisDG (Sep 26, 2022)

Same here... still waiting for my next Intel HEDT.


----------



## efikkan (Sep 26, 2022)

Xuper said:


> hmm , gaming performance


The gaming performance is excellent, but it's not outperforming Alder Lake. But as I've been saying, when most current games are not bottlenecked by Alder Lake, we shouldn't expect something to perform significantly better either until more demanding games arrives. The same will hold true with Raptor Lake too, there will probably be a few games improving, but overall it's only going to be slightly faster in gaming.


----------



## Vario (Sep 26, 2022)

dayne878 said:


> I'm a bit disappointed by this. It's comparable to the 12900k by the looks of things and that suggests 13900k is going to blow it out of the water.
> 
> It IS good for competition, however. It keeps Intel on their toes. It just might not be good for our wallets, since Intel could theoretically price the top tier 13th generation CPUs at higher than the top tier AMD CPUs.
> 
> I'm not planning on upgrading for a year or two (have a 10700k from my 2020 build), but if I were this fall/winter I would (even with Intel CPUs still not officially released) be buying Intel still.


The 7000 series X3D are the one to look out for, if the 3dCache benefits your application.


----------



## Ravenas (Sep 26, 2022)

TheLostSwede said:


> Maybe include that in the test equipment being used?
> 
> 
> Did gamers buy the 5950X?



I don’t really care to get in the weeds on this, but I will say…

I purchased the 5950X at the time, because like the 7950X, it was the best overall processor. It basically does everything that the 7700X does, plus more but for extra money. I don’t build PCs strictly for gaming, and therefore to me to say a gamer would never buy a processor like this is incorrect.


----------



## evernessince (Sep 26, 2022)

phanbuey said:


> These are pushed way past efficiency.  Really the undervolt looks amazing though.  You lose almost nothing by shaving off 50W - in fact it's actually faster in some instances.



It's a shame, at stock power consumption I don't see these processors as worth it and stock is what a majority of people will be using.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 26, 2022)

Thanks the Zen4 reviews.

I'm curious what AMD will come back with in response to the CCD boost clock disparity. If I was a CPU designer with limited good early yields, I would absolutely only put one top-tier CCD on a 7950X and 7900X package because there's no way that those boost clocks are sustainable over more than 8 cores without melting the socket. At the point where the second CCD cores are needed, you're already well into lower clock bins because of the total TDP.


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Sep 26, 2022)

AnotherReader said:


> Intel 10 nm isn't really competing in efficiency with TSMC's N5. Take a look at this slide from Anandtech when they limited the 7950X to 65 W, i.e. 88 W total power draw:
> 
> View attachment 263070
> 
> A full power 12900k is unable to even come close to a hobbled 7950X. this is going to be a bloodbath in servers which is the actual focus of Zen 4.


This was what caught my eye the most. Intel opened the door for higher TDP, and the infrastructure will build around that. AMD would be stupid not to join in and make a design that can at least use the extra headroom. However, they also allowed you to run it at more traditional TDPs, and it still results in a very solid product. It also tells me that mobile Zen4 is going to be very good, especially since I’m sure we’ll see a nice RDNA2 IGP.


----------



## ModEl4 (Sep 26, 2022)

Hi @W1zzard, great reviews thanks!
Can you please share with us how the % score of each CPU is calculated in application performance summary?
(I mean which applications contribute to the application score and at what percentage each?)






Edit: out of curiosity, when you found out based on your testing that 12900K is 4% faster than 7950X in 1080p, did you check with AMD or other reviewers what is going on? (because AMD claimed at 1080p high 7950X was 11% faster than 12900K based on their testbed and the difference between them is 15%, it's not something small)
Thanks again!


----------



## ARF (Sep 26, 2022)

efikkan said:


> The gaming performance is excellent, but it's not outperforming Alder Lake. But as I've been saying, when most current games are not bottlenecked by Alder Lake, we shouldn't expect something to perform significantly better either until more demanding games arrives. The same will hold true with Raptor Lake too, there will probably be a few games improving, but overall it's only going to be slightly faster in gaming.



I do expect the gaming performance to be improved by AMD. But they either don't know how or don't want to do it.
Some games like Borderlands 3 show very large performance gains with the large additional cache in the Ryzen 7 5800X3D.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 26, 2022)

Ravenas said:


> I don’t really care to get in the weeds on this, but I will say…
> 
> I purchased the 5950X at the time, because like the 7950X, it was the best overall processor. It basically does everything that the 7700X does, plus more but for extra money. I don’t build PCs strictly for gaming, and therefore to me to say a gamer would never buy a processor like this is incorrect.


Which is a fair comment. 
I very much doubt that people that mainly only game on their PC got one though.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

ModEl4 said:


> Can you please share with us how the % score of each CPU is calculated in application performance summary?


All applications (not the games), equal weight of course



ModEl4 said:


> did you check with AMD or other reviewers what is going on?


Yeah, many of them have it match or beat 12900K, but with fewer and older games. If you look at my tests, Age of Empires, Watch Dogs, Far Cry 6, RDR2 run very well on Intel. Far Cry 6 is very memory intensive, just like FC5. Not sure what the others are doing that Alder Lake runs them so well. Given that these are recent, highly popular titles, I can't just dismiss them and cherry pick the games that I'd like to use, so that AMD beats Intel. Or should I?

At the end of the day, you should look at multiple reviews. As I said in my conclusion, gaming performance is fantastic onall these CPUs and you'll never notice a difference without FPS counter


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 26, 2022)

What a beast! 

I'm tempted to buy one just for fun, but I know I don't need one. It's just that my 750 W Seasonic PSU and be quiet! Silent Loop 2 280 mm AIO are a bit bored with my Rocket Lake Core i7. 

Only three things hold me back:
1. The incredible heat output of the small chiplets,
2. The cost of buying into a new platform,
3. The CCD clock speed disparity. I'll be eagerly waiting for the update in the review to see what AMD says about the matter. Hopefully it will be rectified in Agesa updates or something.


----------



## Arco (Sep 26, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> What a beast!
> 
> I'm tempted to buy one just for fun, but I know I don't need one. It's just that my 750 W Seasonic PSU and be quiet! Silent Loop 2 280 mm AIO are a bit bored with my Rocket Lake Core i7.
> 
> ...


Honestly, I'm half tempted to direct die it. Although, if I have to ask how to do so then I most likely can't.


----------



## Metroid (Sep 26, 2022)

Maybe I will skip this gen, I have at moment a 5900x or I could sell this and buy that 7900x or maybe that 7700x, or even that 7950x because that 7950x will be very binned x 7900x. Other than that, need to wait for that 13400 or lower ones with minimal wattage and very good single thread, lots of choices here. At moment my 240mm aio cooler is dissipating that 5900x at 4.3ghz at 1.15v using 130 watts. Or maybe wait for the 7800x3d. The 13900x or the 13700 will be power hungry, my aio cooler will not be able to cool that down. What I like about this next gen amd is ddr5, need at least 64gb, 32gb has not been enough.


----------



## jesdals (Sep 26, 2022)

These delidding results are insane 







 How could AMD stumble like that?


----------



## zlobby (Sep 26, 2022)

Eagerly waiting for intel's answer but we all know their E-cores will be the end of them.


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 26, 2022)

ARF said:


> I do expect the gaming performance to be improved by AMD. But they either don't know how or don't want to do it.
> Some games like Borderlands 3 show very large performance gains with the large additional cache in the Ryzen 7 5800X3D.
> 
> View attachment 263085



Honestly if they released these chips at their efficiency curve (like the undervolt in the review) and with X3D off the bat, they would have absolutely buried raptor lake.  Right now they're on par with stock ADL....

Non-X3D Zen 4 is very underwhelming.  But based on zen3 X3D,  Zen 4 X3D will be incredible...


----------



## usiname (Sep 26, 2022)

jesdals said:


> These delidding results are insane
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is how they should sell them.


----------



## rv8000 (Sep 26, 2022)

What a bad trend, so now 12k, 13k and 7000 series are going to be absolute nuclear balls of fire to attempt to cool in a reasonable fashion…

Side note, 7600 and 7700 are priced way out of their performance category; I’m going to assume some of that is attributed to the node/wafer cost, but these are not gonna sell well depending where the 13600/13700 come in.


----------



## zlobby (Sep 26, 2022)

rv8000 said:


> What a bad trend, so now 12k, 13k and 7000 series are going to be absolute nuclear balls of fire to attempt to cool in a reasonable fashion…


With great power comes great (cooling) responsibility.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Sep 26, 2022)

Pumper said:


> Well, the trash power draw is no surprise after AMD said these will be 170W TDP. Wonder what the people who keep shitting on Intel over this will say now, lol.
> 
> Looks like I'll be hunting for a 5950X for an upgrade as Zen4 is is just not good enough in a lot of ways, especially for the entry price, or maybe I get a 13xxx as those will at least let me keep my RAM.



What, this beast of a CPU still draws much less power than the 12900K.


----------



## rv8000 (Sep 26, 2022)

zlobby said:


> With great power comes great (cooling) responsibility.



And absolutely no shot to use in a m-itx system


----------



## ThrashZone (Sep 26, 2022)

rv8000 said:


> What a bad trend, so now 12k, 13k and 7000 series are going to be absolute nuclear balls of fire to attempt to cool in a reasonable fashion…
> 
> Side note, 7600 and 7700 are priced way out of their performance category; I’m going to assume some of that is attributed to the node/wafer cost, but these are not gonna sell well depending where the 13600/13700 come in.


Hi,
When was 16 core+ 32 threads+ ever easy to cool ?

Multicore overclocking has always been a beast to cool 
Only solution is leave on default clocks and enjoy with air/ aio cooling


----------



## evernessince (Sep 26, 2022)

Does anyone happen to know which motherboards include an eco mode feature / auto uv?

Can't seem to find anything explicitly stated on X670 motherboard pages.


----------



## Nordic (Sep 26, 2022)

In a cpu bound game like Borderlands 3, the 7950x is 15% faster than the 5950x.

In a cpu bound game like Borderlands 3, the 5800x3d is 38% faster than the 5800x.

Will a 7950x3d be 38% faster than the 7950x?


----------



## LifeOnMars (Sep 26, 2022)

Weird times.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Sep 26, 2022)

rv8000 said:


> What a bad trend, so now 12k, 13k and 7000 series are going to be absolute nuclear balls of fire to attempt to cool in a reasonable fashion…
> 
> Side note, 7600 and 7700 are priced way out of their performance category; I’m going to assume some of that is attributed to the node/wafer cost, but these are not gonna sell well depending where the 13600/13700 come in.


A lot higher than current Intel chips.








						Potential Intel 13th Gen Core Processor Pricing Leaked by Amazon UK
					

There have been some rumours circulating about Intel looking at increasing the pricing for its CPUs and if a screenshot from Amazon UK posted by @momomo_us on Twitter is to be believed, it looks like it'll be a significant increase in price. The Core i9-13900KF is listed with a price of £750.12...




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## Blueberries (Sep 26, 2022)

Okay I need to know, is it even safe to run 95C for extended durations? I understand that AMD has rated their chips this high but everything else in your chassis will also be cooking unless you have some really exotic airflow.

Those are BBQ temperatures. You can cook ribs in there.


----------



## ModEl4 (Sep 26, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> All applications (not the games), equal weight of course
> 
> 
> Yeah, many of them have it match or beat 12900K, but with fewer and older games. If you look at my tests, Age of Empires, Watch Dogs, Far Cry 6, RDR2 run very well on Intel. Far Cry 6 is very memory intensive, just like FC5. Not sure what the others are doing that Alder Lake runs them so well. Given that these are recent, highly popular titles, I can't just dismiss them and cherry pick the games that I'd like to use, so that AMD beats Intel. Or should I?
> ...


Oh i absolutely agree, If you buy at fall 2022 a $700 CPU it just makes sense to test it with newer games, who gives a **** what's the CS:GO's difference?
Regarding applications i guess that doesn't include synthetics correct?


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 26, 2022)

Blueberries said:


> Okay I need to know, is it even safe to run 95C for extended durations? I understand that AMD has rated their chips this high but everything else in your chassis will also be cooking unless you have some really exotic airflow.


Not necessarily. You only need an AIO / custom watercooling loop with the radiator used as exhaust. In terms of other components, only VRM temps are a bit worrying, though.



Blueberries said:


> Those are BBQ temperatures. You can cook ribs in there.


I'm tempted to test that too.


----------



## TheEndIsNear (Sep 26, 2022)

Ugghhh I was hoping they wouldn't have the same temp issues as Intel.  Guess I'm sticking with what I have plus 4k gaming is virtually no difference with my 12900k.  Save for new video card instead


----------



## birdie (Sep 26, 2022)

Here's the biggest concern @W1zzard has overlooked.

Anyone who uses Ryzen 7000 CPUs will have to deal with a fan spinning at 100% given the CPU maximum temperature.

People will have to learn to edit the fan curve in BIOS settings.

Looks like AMD wanted to look better than 12900K at the cost of the extreme temperatures.

And considering der8auer's video about delidding looks like AMD made a major mistake by retaining cooler compability. Had they gone for a new cooler mount, they could have reached the same performance at far lower temps.

Lastly, I'm not convinced running at 95C 24/7 is safe.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

evernessince said:


> Does anyone happen to know which motherboards include an eco mode feature / auto uv?


Right now the feature exists on paper. To enable it you have to manually adjust the PBO limits.

In a future AGESA code (which applies to all motherboards), AMD will add a single-option "Eco mode" that sets the options to the right values



Blueberries said:


> Okay I need to know, is it even safe to run 95C for extended durations?





birdie said:


> Lastly, I'm not convinced running at 95C 24/7 is safe.


Check the quote I posted in the conclusion



ModEl4 said:


> who gives a **** what's the CS:GO's difference?


CSGO players  and highest FPS actually makes a difference there


----------



## rv8000 (Sep 26, 2022)

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> When was 16 core+ 32 threads+ ever easy to cool ?
> 
> Multicore overclocking has always been a beast to cool
> Only solution is leave on default clocks and enjoy with air/ aio cooling



Bar more testing, and potentially agesa/power profile updates, the 7700X is ramming its face into the 95c threshold (I didn’t check the 7600X), my 5800X, 5800X3D and my 3900X might hit the mid 70s (80c in my mitx build). The requirement to have  basically the top tier air cooler for a low/midrange cpu like the 7600/7700X is bad imo.

The heat  alone in more midrange builds, or mitx systems is going to cost general pc users, and those wanting sff systems a lot of performance. RAM instability, throttling on SSDs, lower GPU clocks.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the 7000 series is bad, but heat is one of the reasons I’ve stayed away from intel since the 8k series. The trend of companies pushing parts to the edge of what’s capable stock has been a bad one if you ask me.


----------



## HisDivineOrder (Sep 26, 2022)

If Intel had released a CPU that ran at 95 degrees constantly and suggested AIO cooling as basically required at absurd power requirements, you'd hear nothing but how bad it is. I wonder where those people are now that AMD is doing the same but worse, running a CPU at 95 as typical. Imagine the heat load in your room.

Underclocking is going to be the order of the day now that companies think they don't even need to worry about product longevity anymore.


----------



## natr0n (Sep 26, 2022)

Great Review.


----------



## mb194dc (Sep 26, 2022)

Far to expensive with board and ram, hot and draws 200w. It's fast but can get last gen for much cheaper. Only really niche use case to bother upgrade.

The 5.1ghz all core clock only sane way to run, stopping it feeding itself crazy voltage, looking at power and temps.


----------



## ModEl4 (Sep 26, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> CSGO players  and highest FPS actually makes a difference there


I guess (isn't already at near 500fps or something in 4K Ultra with a 6800XT?)
Anyway, i saw in PCWorld video review some weirdly low 0.1% and 1% scores and also *Tech YES city* decided to postpone their reviews for exactly the same reason!


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

ModEl4 said:


> some weirdly low 0.1% and 1% scores


Haven't noticed anything, my frametime charts are included in the reviews


----------



## Prima.Vera (Sep 26, 2022)

If you only use a CPU for gaming , then the Intel's i5-12600K is still the king of the Price/Performance chart by far.


----------



## zlobby (Sep 26, 2022)

mb194dc said:


> Far to expensive with board and ram, hot and draws 200w. It's fast but can get last gen for much cheaper. Only really niche use case to bother upgrade.
> 
> The 5.1ghz all core clock only sane way to run, stopping it feeding itself crazy voltage, looking at power and temps.


Yeah, you are better with intel.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 26, 2022)

rv8000 said:


> The trend of companies pushing parts to the edge of what’s capable stock has been a bad one if you ask me.





HisDivineOrder said:


> If Intel had released a CPU that ran at 95 degrees constantly and suggested AIO cooling as basically required at absurd power requirements, you'd hear nothing but how bad it is.




This sort of temperature loading has been commonplace in the market forever. People seem to forget that these are essentially mobile parts released for desktop. Intel killed their true desktop CPUs, and AMD has threadripper.

Laptops run these temps every day, with lifespans that exceed many years. This "new" thing is hardly something to be concerned about.


----------



## zlobby (Sep 26, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> Haven't noticed anything, my frametime charts are included in the reviews


As the guys said it could be due to a heap of things. So far it doesn't seem to be widespread.


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Sep 26, 2022)

Blueberries said:


> Okay I need to know, is it even safe to run 95C for extended durations? I understand that AMD has rated their chips this high but everything else in your chassis will also be cooking unless you have some really exotic airflow.
> 
> Those are BBQ temperatures. You can cook ribs in there.


Regarding engineering, it’s all about design limits and running accordingly. One thing you get now in modern semiconductors is more temperature sensors, and more accurate temperature readings across the entirety of the chip. That means being able to run that chip at higher limits because the chip is better able to run at any set tolerance and regulate local temps very well. In the old days, there wasn’t even a thermistor on the CPU, so max values had to be quite conservative. There’s also a factor in smaller nodes having hotter temps. Transistor density is high, so the design must account for increased thermal density too. 

Besides, reviews have said you can bypass 95C for overclocking and set the new limit at up to 115C. Even 115C must be under the acceptable thermal threshold before chip failure.


----------



## Aranarth (Sep 26, 2022)

Everyone is all up in arms over 95c temps. Let me explain from my point of view:


So if you have a 200watt cooler and stick a cpu that could output 200wats but wont because it will only output 150watts then you have 50watts of untapped power.
It will run cool and will always run cool but that is bad because you have some wasted performance.

With this cpu it will give max performance on every cpu cooler. It revs to 95c finishes the task and drops back to low power state.

If your cpu cooler can do 100 watts then you get 100 watts of performance and the cpu will boost till it hits 95c and will sit there until the task is complete.
If you have a cpu cooler that can handle 250 watts then the cpu will rev to whatever that limit is until the task is complete.

In essence this cpu is now operating the same as laptop cpu's that can run into heat soak with small coolers.
The cpu is now designed to give you whatever the max performance your heat sink is capable of producing.

In other words you start to see people complaining that they stuck a 100 watt cooler and are not getting the same performance as someon using a water cooling loop not understanding that the cpu is running as fast as it can go with the gimped cooler that has been stuck on it.

In other words the entire cooling narative has been flipped.
Anyone still confused about this?


----------



## efikkan (Sep 26, 2022)

ARF said:


> I do expect the gaming performance to be improved by AMD. But they either don't know how or don't want to do it.
> Some games like Borderlands 3 show very large performance gains with the large additional cache in the Ryzen 7 5800X3D.


There is a reason why I said _most_ current games, not all current games, as there are a handful outliers. Some of these are very sensitive to L3 cache, which are the few games which showcased significant gains with 5800X3D, and we can expect the same games to show gains with a Zen 4 with 3D V-cache too. But loads of extra L3 cache did not show significant gains in most games, as sensitivity to L3 cache is a symptom of inefficient instruction cache usage by the software, which in other words mean software bloat. So these few games are experiencing a bottleneck on most current hardware, a sort of "artificial" one.

As to whether AMD knows or wants to do "it", AMD's engineers are very aware of their performance characteristics and shortcomings. And when it comes to gaming overall, their performance is great, at least until we get games which puts very different levels of stress on the CPU's resources.


----------



## THU31 (Sep 26, 2022)

Blueberries said:


> Okay I need to know, is it even safe to run 95C for extended durations? I understand that AMD has rated their chips this high but everything else in your chassis will also be cooking unless you have some really exotic airflow.
> 
> Those are BBQ temperatures. You can cook ribs in there.



As someone has already mentioned, that is not how it works. It makes absolutely no difference what the temperature of the CPU is. Whether it is 95* or 50*, the heat output is the same, it is all about how that heat is transferred.

The dies are so small and the IHS is so thick, that the heat cannot be transferred fast enough to the cooler.

If the heat can be transferred quickly, the CPU will be cooler, but other components like the radiator or the water block will be hotter. But it is the same amount of heat.

What happens when you spin up your GPU fans to maximum? The GPU temperature will drop by 10 or 20 degrees, but all that heat will still be inside the case and you need to get rid of it using exhaust fans. And once you exhaust it, all that heat will be in your room.


----------



## evernessince (Sep 26, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> Right now the feature exists on paper. To enable it you have to manually adjust the PBO limits.
> 
> In a future AGESA code (which applies to all motherboards), AMD will add a single-option "Eco mode" that sets the options to the right values



Thank you very much, highly appreciated!


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 26, 2022)

Aranarth said:


> Everyone is all up in arms over 95c temps. Let me explain from my point of view:
> 
> 
> So if you have a 200watt cooler and stick a cpu that could output 200wats but wont because it will only output 150watts then you have 50watts of untapped power.
> ...


That's an interesting train of thought. I've just watched JayzTwoCent's review of the 7950X. He also reached 95 °C with a 360 mm AIO on an open test bench while running 5.1 GHz all-core. Can we assume, then, that you won't be able to get the 5.1 GHz all-core unless you run at least a 360 mm AIO on open air?


----------



## Dirt Chip (Sep 26, 2022)

THU31 said:


> As someone has already mentioned, that is not how it works. It makes absolutely no difference what the temperature of the CPU is. Whether it is 95* or 50*, the heat output is the same, it is all about how that heat is transferred.
> 
> The dies are so small and the IHS is so thick, that the heat cannot be transferred fast enough to the cooler.
> 
> ...


But in 7950/7900 case, you need to use good AIO. That is a big difference and pose limitations (both space and cost) on the consumer.
Not cool at all.


----------



## THU31 (Sep 26, 2022)

Dirt Chip said:


> But in 7950/7900 case, you need to use good AIO. That is a big difference and pose limitations (both space and cost) on the consumer.
> Not cool at all.



That is the main problem with the whole Turbo Boost thing on both Intel and now AMD. Reviewers test with the best possible equipment, so their results are not representative.

There have been pre-built PCs with a 12900K where the CPU throttles to 12700K level of performance, because they screwed up the cooling.

Unfortunately, they are selling you a CPU with a base clock. That is what you are paying for. All the boost stuff is optional (even if turned on by default), and they tell you about it in the product sheet or whatever.


----------



## zlobby (Sep 26, 2022)

Dirt Chip said:


> But in 7950/7900 case, you need to use good AIO. That is a big difference and pose limitations (both space and cost) on the consumer.
> Not cool at all.


Yes, next time AMD will take it into consideration and lower the thermals! /s

It's a top-tier CPU FFS! What are you people expecting? Do you cool your intel 13900 with a stock fan?

If you can cough so much cash for PSU, RAM, CPU and mobo, but the coller is your problem - I have bad news for you...



THU31 said:


> Unfortunately, they are selling you a CPU with a base clock. That is what you are paying for. All the boost stuff is optional (even if turned on by default), and they tell you about it in the product sheet or whatever.


This guy gets it!


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Sep 26, 2022)

AMD has an Eco mode on these, and I wouldn’t mind seeing extensive testing of these chips under modest coolers and 65W and 100W modes. I bet you’d still get really good everyday performance out of it. This is a 16C CPU mind you, we do have to contend with physics eventually. If you want crazy levels of sustained multithreaded performance, something has to give.
Put the 7950 against the 5950 at the same TDP and see what you get—I bet you’ll still get the rated boost clocks across some cores, they just won’t sustain near as long.

Even with Adler lake, those E cores can only buy you so much efficiency. When the workload hits, total energy consumed is going to be measured by the sustained load X time to complete. Pure max power draw is only half the story.


----------



## Dirt Chip (Sep 26, 2022)

THU31 said:


> That is the main problem with the whole Turbo Boost thing on both Intel and now AMD. Reviewers test with the best possible equipment, so their results are not representative.
> 
> There have been pre-built PCs with a 12900K where the CPU throttles to 12700K level of performance, because they screwed up the cooling.
> 
> Unfortunately, they are selling you a CPU with a base clock. That is what you are paying for. All the boost stuff is optional (even if turned on by default), and they tell you about it in the product sheet or whatever.


But with 7950/7900 you must use good AIO (AMD more than recomend it) that gows 100% fan, with extreme noise, from the very first seconds of load to be able to get those boost.
On the other side (intel), temprature build is gradual so you can get away with 'just' a good fan cooling (as long you dont have long loads) and much lower overall noise.


----------



## Solid State Brain (Sep 26, 2022)

Darmok N Jalad said:


> AMD has an Eco mode on these, and I wouldn’t mind seeing extensive testing of these chips under modest coolers and 65W and 100W modes. I bet you’d still get really good everyday performance out of it. This is a 16C CPU mind you, we do have to contend with physics eventually. If you want crazy levels of sustained multithreaded performance, something has to give.
> Put the 7950 against the 5950 at the same TDP and see what you get—I bet you’ll still get the rated boost clocks across some cores, they just won’t sustain near as long.
> 
> Even with Adler lake, those E cores can only buy you so much efficiency. When the workload hits, total energy consumed is going to be measured by the sustained load X time to complete. Pure max power draw is only half the story.



This. These tests with the CPU at 230W or more are almost completely pointless for sustained multithreaded workloads (rendering, etc) in actual workstation usage. The CPU will likely be far more efficient (joules per work accomplished) and certainly simpler to cool at much lower power levels than that, and probably performance wouldn't even suffer that much even by appreciably reducing the TDP.


----------



## zlobby (Sep 26, 2022)

Dirt Chip said:


> But with 7950/7900 you must use good AIO (AMD more than recomend it) that gows 100% fan, with extreme noise, from the very first seconds of load to be able to get those boost.
> On the other side (intel), temprature build is gradual so you can get away with 'just' a good fan cooling (as long you dont have long loads) and much lower overall noise.


100% fan RPM could be barely noticeable (if at all). Check Noctua for example.

That 'gradual' temp on intels that you speak of is pure BS! I have many last-year intels and under load the fans start screaming (stock server and laptop fans) after a second or two!

If you speak of custom fan curves, etc. then you get into enthusiast ballpark where users are either aware of what they are doing or they are willing to experiment and accept the risks. Everyting else is delusion or wishful thinking.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 26, 2022)

Dirt Chip said:


> But with 7950/7900 you must use good AIO (AMD more than recomend it) that gows 100% fan, with extreme noise, from the very first seconds of load to be able to get those boost.
> On the other side (intel), temprature build is gradual so you can get away with 'just' a good fan cooling (as long you dont have long loads) and much lower overall noise.


This is how gradual Intel is. This is an 11700 with unlocked power limits under a 280 mm AIO in Prime95.


----------



## Dirt Chip (Sep 26, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> This is how gradual Intel is. This is an 11700 with unlocked power limits under a 280 mm AIO in Prime95.
> 
> View attachment 263118


Is this the way zen3 and AL shoot as well?
And if so than zen4 is just more of the same, except all reviews pointing the instantaneous high temps. Can you explain?


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 26, 2022)

Dirt Chip said:


> Is this the way zen3 and AL shoot as well?
> And if so than zen4 is just more of the same, except all reviews pointing the instantaneous high temps. Can you explain?


Depends on which CPU. I have a R3 3100 (albeit, Zen 2) that takes about 10 minutes to reach 70 °C, and maybe another 5 to reach 75 with the stock cooler.

Generally speaking, the less heat you put into a system (any system, not just computers), the more of it the system can store and dissipate before saturation.

Generally speaking again, the smaller the die area is, and the more power you pump through it, the more trouble you're going to have with heat dissipation.


----------



## Guwapo77 (Sep 26, 2022)

I'm seeing so many people complaining about gaming performance...  AMD's 3D V-Cache is the new gaming line is it not?  I'm rather excited for what's to come if the non-gaming line is trading blows with the 12900K.


----------



## Totally (Sep 26, 2022)

Garbage power consumption. Double the draw for a 30% increase?

"I may not be a smart man but I can tell when something's f***** up...and that's f****** up.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 26, 2022)

Guwapo77 said:


> I'm seeing so many people complaining about gaming performance...  AMD's 3D V-Cache is the new gaming line is it not?  I'm rather excited for what's to come if the non-gaming line is trading blows with the 12900K.


That's what they said. We'll see what they come up with. I hope it won't only be one SKU, like with the 5000-series. A 7950X 3D would be nice!


----------



## GeorgeMan (Sep 26, 2022)

Excellent review like always. I've read most comments and many other reviews too. I understand that they set the power limit very high so that the management circuit in these CPUs actually prefers to stay at the TJ MAX (which is considered by AMD completely fine for 24/7 operation and is not the absolute max allowed temperature) and then hit the power limit.
I've seen multiple reviews that even the 7600X hits 92 degrees in just a matter of seconds on AIO cooling without throttling. Throttling is not dropping all core 100% load frequency by some hundreds of MHz. That's within design spec. Throttling is frequency fluctuating much, not being stable at all, dropping below spec for many seconds etc etc.
De8rauer who delidded it only saw 200-300 more MHz in all core sustained load, which is completely normal and above spec.
I of course wouldn't want my brand new 700€ CPU to be running at 95 degrees Celsius (personal preference) on a 360 water cooling, but if it's done on purpose it's okay for me...
What is not ok are the ridiculous prices of the platform. I wouldn't buy an $400+ desktop motherboard no matter what. I just refuse to accept it. I'd seriously prefer to buy a B550 with a 5800X3D. It's the same with official new GPU prices. I can and will skip everything until they have affordable options. If they don't, I still won't pay them. I can play my games on medium settings on my console or my 5600H/3060 130W laptop...


----------



## birdie (Sep 26, 2022)

Sorry for crapping on this parade but RPL is expected to have a _15%_ better ST performance and _41%_ better MT performance, with the same if not better thermals than ADL.

This not a rumor, that's the official information.

Just don't rush with a new Zen 4 platform  Intel has some aces up its sleeve 

I've checked the graphs and that will make 13900K match the MT performance of 7950X and be an indisputable king in ST mode.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 26, 2022)

Thanks for another great review, @W1zzard. Definitely a mighty powerful CPU, but that thick IHS is hurting thermals for sure. Truly makes me wonder if keeping cooler compatibility by maintaining Z-height was worth it - now they're stuck with this for the lifetime of the platform, after all. I guess AM5 delidding will be the hot new enthusiast thing? I suppose it's good that der8auer's delid tools tend to be relatively affordable.


Also, @W1zzard, can you please do a power limited review, maybe of this and the 7600X? I assume these new AM5 chips have a built-in "Eco Mode" cTDP-down setting accessible in BIOS just like AM4 chips did, which would be an excellent starting point, though I guess that also depends on what power level that Eco Mode setting is at. 105W for 170W chips and 65W for 105W chips, maybe?


----------



## Icon Charlie (Sep 26, 2022)

Totally said:


> Garbage power consumption. Double the draw for a 30% increase?
> 
> "I may not be a smart man but I can tell when something's f***** up...and that's f****** up.


Yea.  As posted on the 7900X line.  There was a real good reason why I made my upgrade that I did.  There is NO EXCUSES for this.  

If you are getting performance increase AT THE EXPENSE of heat and wattage usage, then it is NOT a real performance increase at all.


----------



## Solid State Brain (Sep 26, 2022)

GeorgeMan said:


> Throttling is not dropping all core 100% load frequency by some hundreds of MHz. That's within design spec. Throttling is frequency fluctuating much, not being stable at all, dropping below spec for many seconds etc etc.



I've seen this being repeated around, but on my 12700K I don't observe frequency dropping below spec when the CPU reaches the thermal throttling point. The CPU gradually decreases frequency (and voltages) and then oscillates quickly by a few hundred MHz to mantain temperatures at the configured level, like AMD is supposed to be doing here.

The Intel datasheets suggest that in some cases the processor duty cycle can be decreased to 1/4 of the regular rate (25% on, 75% off), if voltage and frequency changes do not manage to decrease temperatures, but this does not normally happen.


----------



## zlobby (Sep 26, 2022)

birdie said:


> Sorry for crapping on this parade but RPL is expected to have a _15%_ better ST performance and _41%_ better MT performance, with the same if not better thermals than ADL.
> 
> This not a rumor, that's the official information.
> 
> ...


While I don't disagree completely, why don't we wait for independent reviews and decide afterwards, instead of putting more wood to the fire?


----------



## birdie (Sep 26, 2022)

One thing that sticks out is that Ryzen 7000 CPUs are tuned far outside the efficiency sweet spot:







Icon Charlie said:


> Yea.  As posted on the 7900X line.  There was a real good reason why I made my upgrade that I did.  There is NO EXCUSES for this.
> 
> If you are getting performance increase AT THE EXPENSE of heat and wattage usage, then it is NOT a real performance increase at all.



An IPC increase is absolutely there. As for thermals and TDP you can cut both in BIOS settings, no prob.







zlobby said:


> While I don't disagree completely, why don't we wait for independent reviews and decide afterwards, instead of putting more wood to the fire?



I don't think I said anything wrong. RPL will be released very soon, there's no need to rush with a purchase.


----------



## zlobby (Sep 26, 2022)

Icon Charlie said:


> Yea.  As posted on the 7900X line.  There was a real good reason why I made my upgrade that I did.  There is NO EXCUSES for this.
> 
> If you are getting performance increase AT THE EXPENSE of heat and wattage usage, then it is NOT a real performance increase at all.


Uhm, basic physics called - you can NOT have anything out of nothing. Something's got to give. Not at least until we understand Dark energy.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 26, 2022)

Dirt Chip said:


> But with 7950/7900 you must use good AIO (AMD more than recomend it) that gows 100% fan, with extreme noise, from the very first seconds of load to be able to get those boost.
> On the other side (intel), temprature build is gradual so you can get away with 'just' a good fan cooling (as long you dont have long loads) and much lower overall noise.


What, I don't think it works how you think.
By the sounds of it under only heavy load it gets that 95° hot gaming mid 70's.

And it doesn't idle at 95°c so no you didn't have to have your fans t 100% all the time.
Like AL gamer's won't hit the highest temp with a good cooler.

Proper tasks will hit that 95 pretty much no matter the cooling besides extreme, because it's designed to.

What I would add is every other prior Ryzen generation did run hot.
As does any multicore WHEN loaded.


----------



## Zareek (Sep 27, 2022)

I am a little disappointed with the performance per dollar with Zen4 but it certainly isn't the failure that the Intel fanboys on here are painting it as. Yes the 13xxx Intel chips should be faster but let's not forget that there will also be a X3D variant launched to counter that as well.


----------



## LeeHwak (Sep 27, 2022)

_*THANK YOU for adding emulators*_. they always get overlooked in benchmarks. hopefully they become common with more games and emulators tested across multiple resolutions. like the normal gaming benchmarks you guys do here. an endless scrolling down of just emulation benchmarks.

BUT, for now. *is the emulation page broken?* Showing RDR2 in the PS3 graph. I'm assuming that's RDR1 and that's just a typo. but what is resolution used? 1080? 1440? 4k? what are the quality settings used? low? medium? high? I hope you check it out again and fix any errors and add the necessary information. Thanks


----------



## Guwapo77 (Sep 27, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> That's what they said. We'll see what they come up with. I hope it won't only be one SKU, like with the 5000-series. A 7950X 3D would be nice!


Man you and me both.  I was pretty disappointed when there wasn't a 5950X version.  The way I see how the priced the 7950X this time around, I would bet my third wife that they will have a 7950X V-Cache.


----------



## Totally (Sep 27, 2022)

zlobby said:


> Uhm, basic physics called - you can NOT have anything out of nothing. Something's got to give. Not at least until we understand Dark energy.



While I don't disagree with you, what he stated is not without merit. From where I sit Zen 4 just looks like Zen 3 with DDR5 and a really nice overclock. I wager if AMD released a DDR4 capable Zen 4 there would be little thay sets them apart aside from the clockspeed adv. That's probably the reason why Zen 4 is DDR5  only. Sell us that and a lot less people would be unhappy.


----------



## SLObinger (Sep 27, 2022)

I guess its ok compare unreleased parts to ones you can actually buy so think Ill go ahead and state with absolute confidence that the 7950X3D will absolutely slay Raptor Lake at everything just like the 7950X slays Alder Lake at everything. Seriously does anybody actually think Raptor Lake won't hit 95 degrees, have its priced increased and suck up some stupid amount of power? I have a 12900HK in my laptop that runs betweent 95-100 degrees all day every day


----------



## Aranarth (Sep 27, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> That's an interesting train of thought. I've just watched JayzTwoCent's review of the 7950X. He also reached 95 °C with a 360 mm AIO on an open test bench while running 5.1 GHz all-core. Can we assume, then, that you won't be able to get the 5.1 GHz all-core unless you run at least a 360 mm AIO on open air?


You're still thinking the old way.

Just turn on PBO, give it a good cooler, and you might find it boosting beyond 5.1. 
It will run as fast as it can for as long as it needs to, once the job is complete it will setting back down to idle.
This is the same way laptop cpu's operate.

there is some built in intelligence in this "auto-overclock" that will tweak it far better on the fly than you ever could manually.



Totally said:


> While I don't disagree with you, what he stated is not without merit. From where I sit Zen 4 just looks like Zen 3 with DDR5 and a really nice overclock. I wager if AMD released a DDR4 capable Zen 4 there would be little thay sets them apart aside from the clockspeed adv. That's probably the reason why Zen 4 is DDR5  only.


the previous generation was a reengineer of the back end, this is a re-engineer of the front end and tuning with better lithography to clock faster.

Faster clocks always equal more heat.

The new socket gives higher power, and if your going to do a new socket might as well throw in as many new technologies as you can at the same time.
The switch to ddr5 is about giving a clean break and future proofing.

I suspect you would see a small drop in performance but not to the extent you're proposing.
Even in the intel chips there isn't a huge performance difference when switching memory types.

Also Tomshardware and anandtech  have a nice writeups and pretty graphs that go into all of what I'm saying.


----------



## tfdsaf (Sep 27, 2022)

fevgatos said:


> As I kept saying and people like Ratirl kept laughing, the 7950x is less efficient than the 5950x. Probably the same will apply to the whole zen 4 range. Yikes


How can it be less efficient if its running at 25% higher performance? Your take is nonsensical! 

I think this is a great showing by AMD, certainly blows everything right now out of the water, though I'm hoping for a price war with Intel once their 13 series processors are released. I think this and all new AMD processors can be 20% cheaper!


----------



## Crackong (Sep 27, 2022)

Darmok N Jalad said:


> AMD has an Eco mode on these, and I wouldn’t mind seeing extensive testing of these chips under modest coolers and 65W and 100W modes. I bet you’d still get really good everyday performance out of it. This is a 16C CPU mind you, we do have to contend with physics eventually. If you want crazy levels of sustained multithreaded performance, something has to give.
> Put the 7950 against the 5950 at the same TDP and see what you get—I bet you’ll still get the rated boost clocks across some cores, they just won’t sustain near as long.
> 
> Even with Adler lake, those E cores can only buy you so much efficiency. When the workload hits, total energy consumed is going to be measured by the sustained load X time to complete. Pure max power draw is only half the story.



It is pretty obvious that the eco mode setting should be the original 'normal' setting
And the current setting should be the counter measure of Intel MCE behaviour, which unlocks all potential of the CPU, in the cost of heat and power consumption


----------



## Aranarth (Sep 27, 2022)

tfdsaf said:


> How can it be less efficient if its running at 25% higher performance? Your take is nonsensical!
> 
> I think this is a great showing by AMD, certainly blows everything right now out of the water, though I'm hoping for a price war with Intel once their 13 series processors are released. I think this and all new AMD processors can be 20% cheaper!


Tomshardware has a nice graph to show efficiency improvments..

If you have been doing deep dives into cpu architecture for 20 years like I have then this stuff pretty simple. (I got into the more geeky side of this when amd released the k6-iii)
If you just started looking at this it is kind of heady and confusing to get your head around some of it.


----------



## Solid State Brain (Sep 27, 2022)

Computerbase (de) made extensive tests with the CPU at various power levels:








						AMD Ryzen 7000 im Test: So schnell sind 7950X und 7700X: Leistungsaufnahme und Effizienz
					

Ryzen 9 7950X & Ryzen 7 7700X im Test: Leistungsaufnahme und Effizienz / TDP und PPT steigen deutlich




					www.computerbase.de
				




Google Translation:


----------



## Adonisds (Sep 27, 2022)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1574398461642174464
Thank you very much for testing emulator performance. Did you enable AVX512 mode before testing RPCS3?


----------



## zlobby (Sep 27, 2022)

Totally said:


> While I don't disagree with you, what he stated is not without merit. From where I sit Zen 4 just looks like Zen 3 with DDR5 and a really nice overclock. I wager if AMD released a DDR4 capable Zen 4 there would be little thay sets them apart aside from the clockspeed adv. That's probably the reason why Zen 4 is DDR5  only. Sell us that and a lot less people would be unhappy.


Now that's something I'm willing to work with.

Apart from being 'Zen 3 unleashed' it's an entirely new uArch with lots of tweaks and reworks under the hood. Take the memory bandwidth from DDR5 for example. Or the fact it can boost automatically to insane clocks.
I haven't checked Zen 4 in great detail yet but I'm sure other things are also improved. Whether it's worth the ask price - that's for anyone to decide for themselves.

BTW, anyone got nitty-gritty numbers of memory latencies and in-depth memory testing?


----------



## Easo (Sep 27, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> At the end of the day, you should look at multiple reviews. As I said in my conclusion, gaming performance is fantastic onall these CPUs and you'll never notice a difference without FPS counter



That's the thing most people here forget - average person will see bajillion frames anyway on pretty much all modern CPU's and that is assuming they even know what FPS counter is or how to enable it. Enthusiasts are few but think everyone views world through their eyes where 1-2% difference is horror/amazing/fail/win, when it really really does not matter since game already pushes 150+ FPS (I am not counting CS:GO fanatics and the like).
GPU will make or break it for most people, not CPU.


----------



## onemanhitsquad (Sep 27, 2022)

JaysTwoCents has the scoop...


----------



## Garrus (Sep 27, 2022)

Pumper said:


> Well, the trash power draw is no surprise after AMD said these will be 170W TDP. Wonder what the people who keep shitting on Intel over this will say now, lol.
> 
> Looks like I'll be hunting for a 5950X for an upgrade as Zen4 is is just not good enough in a lot of ways, especially for the entry price, or maybe I get a 13xxx as those will at least let me keep my RAM.


Oh dear people are so confused about this stuff. The new silicon has better performance, and uses a more efficient 5nm node. YOU decide the settings. In no way is it less efficient. AMD showed at a fixed 65W the 7950X is 74 percent more efficient than the 5950X. Seems like you are about to make a huge mistake.


----------



## erek (Sep 27, 2022)

onemanhitsquad said:


> JaysTwoCents has the scoop...


opinion?

basically 0% gain from 5950X to 7950X @ 4K imho


----------



## Blueberries (Sep 27, 2022)

THU31 said:


> As someone has already mentioned, that is not how it works. It makes absolutely no difference what the temperature of the CPU is. Whether it is 95* or 50*, the heat output is the same, it is all about how that heat is transferred.
> 
> The dies are so small and the IHS is so thick, that the heat cannot be transferred fast enough to the cooler.
> 
> ...


Maybe I'm just stupid but this makes no sense to me.

Using an identical cooler:
CPU A has a load temperature of 90C
CPU B has a load temperature of 60C

You're telling me the air surrounding the heatsink will be the same temperature? How can this be?


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 27, 2022)

Blueberries said:


> Maybe I'm just stupid but this makes no sense to me.
> 
> Using an identical cooler:
> CPU A has a load temperature of 90C
> ...


Quite simple, one cpu has higher thermal resistance than the other.
Heat is getting out of CPU B faster than CPU A until it reaches equilibrium.
The temperature of the room it is in will be the same if the power thus energy dissipated is the same.
Also you are assuming the heatsink fins will be the same temp as the cpu, it is not.

For example when I had my 1950X OCed pulling 380W in Prime95 it reached 80C,
but my water temp was hotter than my 12700K unlimited @280W under Prime95 despite the CPU reaching 108C before I got my contact frame.
After I switch to the contact frame the CPU temp went down but the water temp is still the same as before.


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 27, 2022)

Blueberries said:


> Maybe I'm just stupid but this makes no sense to me.
> 
> Using an identical cooler:
> CPU A has a load temperature of 90C
> ...



If I put a cheap 120MMAIO on my GPU, it will only get to about 65-70C, which is quite low for a GPU but the radiator will burn you to touch it and the tubes will be melting.

Heat output in wattage is what matters not the diode temperature.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Sep 27, 2022)

phanbuey said:


> If I put a cheap 120MMAIO on my GPU, it will only get to about 65-70C, which is quite low for a GPU but the radiator will burn you to touch it and the tubes will be melting.
> 
> Heat output in wattage is what matters not the diode temperature.



I don't understand why people don't get this.... My 5950X runs around 68C while fully stressed but puts out very little heat, My 3080ti on the other hand running around 65C is dumping a crap ton of heat into my case/room because it's consuming more than double the wattage even though it is running relatively cool.


----------



## nguyen (Sep 27, 2022)

Man the long boot time is certainly a pain to deal with on a high-end build, AMD will be fixing this issue but I wonder how long will it take them doing so. 

Now if Intel 13th + DDR4 can beat Ryzen 7000 + DDR5, AMD will have a hard time selling Ryzen 7000...


----------



## MarsM4N (Sep 27, 2022)

7950X = *best productivity CPU*.  Basically _"raping"_ the Intels. Will be hard for them to catch up.
Thermals are kinda toasty, but the smaller process the hotter it get's. Guess we need to get used to it.

P.S.: for the kids out there, this is not a_ "Gaming"_ CPU. Save your cash and go for the Ryzen 5 (or 7 if you need something between). For gaming I would wait for the _*X3D*_ variants.



onemanhitsquad said:


> JaysTwoCents has the scoop...



*"The Ryzen 7000 system felt like a faster Intel system than a Intel system."* Jayz2Cents  Needs confirmation @W1zzard

*Boot delay*, because of RAM initialization, now that's something that could drive folks nuts who prefer to unplug their systems from the grid (f.e. with a smart socket).
Hope there is a way to set the "found optimum" RAM speeds fixed in the BIOS to skip this nonsense.

"*95c by design, NO thermal throttling.*" That's something that should be thoroughly tested. Does performance suffer from bad coolers?


----------



## A Computer Guy (Sep 27, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> That is not true. It will reduce the clock speeds to stay at or below 95°C. In my definition that's "throttling", even if it's very mild (when you have decent cooling)


What happens to AIO's over extended period of time when the CPU is pumping out 95°C?  Can they even keep up?  Will they get overwhelmed and leak or explode?



Blueberries said:


> Okay I need to know, is it even safe to run 95C for extended durations? I understand that AMD has rated their chips this high but everything else in your chassis will also be cooking unless you have some really exotic airflow.
> 
> Those are BBQ temperatures. You can cook ribs in there.


Sounds like a bad day for fans on air coolers.


----------



## Kissamies (Sep 27, 2022)

I'm actually surprised that the IGP's 128 shaders are even somewhat capable. Though still GT 1030 goes way ahead. But usable for older games.


----------



## pantherx12 (Sep 27, 2022)

Not sure if it's been said but high temperatures are because the IHS is stupidly thick to maintain cooler compatibility.

Bad move on AMD in my opinion. Could of included a shim for people that want to use old coolers, or different size spacers or something along those lines.

This will be a CPU that will benefit from.lapping and delidding.


----------



## GeorgeMan (Sep 27, 2022)

Solid State Brain said:


> I've seen this being repeated around, but on my 12700K I don't observe frequency dropping below spec when the CPU reaches the thermal throttling point. The CPU gradually decreases frequency (and voltages) and then oscillates quickly by a few hundred MHz to mantain temperatures at the configured level, like AMD is supposed to be doing here.
> 
> The Intel datasheets suggest that in some cases the processor duty cycle can be decreased to 1/4 of the regular rate (25% on, 75% off), if voltage and frequency changes do not manage to decrease temperatures, but this does not normally happen.


You're right, but the frequency/time plot in some reviews didn't reveal any fluctuation, just the normal 50-150MHz frequency drop (due to thermal saturation and power limits) in all core loads. Yet even the 7600X reached >90°C in many reviews... It's not that hard to cool ~100-150W CPUs with a 360 hydro cooler after all... I know the smaller manufacture nodes don't help with heat but it can't be so much worse than the previous iteration (5000 series).


LeeHwak said:


> _*THANK YOU for adding emulators*_. they always get overlooked in benchmarks. hopefully they become common with more games and emulators tested across multiple resolutions. like the normal gaming benchmarks you guys do here. an endless scrolling down of just emulation benchmarks.


Completely agree with this comment! And please know that RPCS3 doesn't have AVX-512 enabled by default, if it gets enabled it should blow away the older models.


----------



## Kissamies (Sep 27, 2022)

pantherx12 said:


> Not sure if it's been said but high temperatures are because the IHS is stupidly thick to maintain cooler compatibility.
> 
> Bad move on AMD in my opinion. Could of included a shim for people that want to use old coolers, or different size spacers or something along those lines.
> 
> This will be a CPU that will benefit from.lapping and *delidding*.


Are these soldered? Delidding a soldered CPU is a thing which isn't for anyone (trust me, I know personally  )


----------



## big_glasses (Sep 27, 2022)

MarsM4N said:


> *Boot delay*, because of RAM initialization, now that's something that could drive folks nuts who prefer to unplug their systems from the grid (f.e. with a smart socket).
> Hope there is a way to set the "found optimum" RAM speeds fixed in the BIOS to skip this nonsense.


Shouldn't the CMOS battery make sure the settings/initialization/etc is kept even when disconnected?



Lenne said:


> I'm actually surprised that the IGP's 128 shaders are even somewhat capable. Though still GT 1030 goes way ahead. But usable for older games.


Yea, same. I expected the IGP to be only capable of desktop/cli useage


----------



## jsven008 (Sep 27, 2022)

Chomiq said:


> 94C at stock. Ooooof.


LOL! AMD said 95C (203F) isn't hot...


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 27, 2022)

A Computer Guy said:


> What happens to AIO's over extended period of time when the CPU is pumping out 95°C? Can they even keep up? Will they get overwhelmed and leak or explode?


The temperature at the AIO "side" is much lower. Technically bad things can happen if water inside an AIO starts to boil, because it expands, but I never even heard of such a case, nor experienced it. The thermal gradient CPU silicon -> IHS glue -> IHS -> coldplate -> water inside block would probably be too big for that to happen in the first place



big_glasses said:


> Shouldn't the CMOS battery make sure the settings/initialization/etc is kept even when disconnected?


Assuming whatever takes so long can be saved and it gets saved to the CMOS



LeeHwak said:


> Showing RDR2 in the PS3 graph. I'm assuming that's RDR1 and that's just a typo.


Whoops, typo indeed. It is RDR1, fixing



Adonisds said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1574398461642174464
> Thank you very much for testing emulator performance. Did you enable AVX512 mode before testing RPCS3?


I used it at default settings. I did a quick test of the new AVX512 build yesterday, and gained around 10% in performance


----------



## MarsM4N (Sep 27, 2022)

big_glasses said:


> Shouldn't the CMOS battery make sure the settings/initialization/etc is kept even when disconnected?



Apparently, *NO*. _**_ Jay says *in his video* it's happening _"everytime your system looses power long enough for the caps to drain, or you clear the CMOS, or update the BIOS, or make memory changes."_
So how long does it take to drain the caps? Guess just a few hours. Needs to be tested, deal breaker for quite some.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 27, 2022)

MarsM4N said:


> *"The Ryzen 7000 system felt like a faster Intel system than a Intel system."* Jayz2Cents  Needs confirmation @W1zzard


I haven't noticed a subjective interactive difference between systems for years, as long as you have decent SSD storage. Typing this on a 8700K, which is my productivity workhorse PC
And even if, whatever time you gain over the duration of your day, you'll lose waiting 30 seconds in the morning when you power on the machine



MarsM4N said:


> Apparently, *NO*. _**_ Jay says *in his video* it's happening _"everytime your system looses power long enough for the caps to drain, or you clear the CMOS, or update the BIOS, or make memory changes."_
> So how long does it take to drain the caps? Guess just a few hours. Needs to be tested, deal breaker for quite some.


There's the ultralong 70+ second boot first time it thinks it needs to initialize the memory. After that EVERY TIME you press the power button, no matter what you did before (except fully cut power), it takes 30+ seconds to show the BIOS screen.


----------



## fevgatos (Sep 27, 2022)

tfdsaf said:


> How can it be less efficient if its running at 25% higher performance? Your take is nonsensical!
> 
> I think this is a great showing by AMD, certainly blows everything right now out of the water, though I'm hoping for a price war with Intel once their 13 series processors are released. I think this and all new AMD processors can be 20% cheaper!


What kind of question is that? Do you understand what efficiency is? It's performance per watt. The 7950x at stock is less efficient than the 5950x. Heck, it's less efficient than the 12900k as well at 125 / 240 stock configuration,lol



A Computer Guy said:


> What happens to AIO's over extended period of time when the CPU is pumping out 95°C?  Can they even keep up?  Will they get overwhelmed and leak or explode?


Man, stop. Just stop. Nothing pumps out temperature. Stuff pump out HEAT. Heat is not temperature. It doesn't make any freaking difference for the AIO whether your cpu is at 50c or 9000c.


----------



## jsven008 (Sep 27, 2022)

Aranarth said:


> Everyone is all up in arms over 95c temps. Let me explain from my point of view:
> 
> 
> So if you have a 200watt cooler and stick a cpu that could output 200wats but wont because it will only output 150watts then you have 50watts of untapped power.
> ...


Yeah, but the problem is most people won't receive the advertised performance with a standard prebuilt PC like HP, Dell, or Lenovo. So they are paying for 7900x or 7950x performance they see in the reviews, but then when they buy the PC they receive far less performance (due to the cooler etc). It's essentially a scam: Advertising performance with a high-end cooler, but then delivering far lower performance (while not disclosing it).

I'll use an analogy to cars. Assume you bought a sports car for $80k based on reviews that said the car does the 1/4 mile in 9.7 seconds. But once you purchased it, you found the car was only capable of 12.7 seconds because all the reviews had equipped custom upgrades like drag slicks for tires, custom suspension etc. Would you be happy? You paid for 9.7 seconds of performance, but received 12.7 seconds.

AMD is doing essentially the same thing.


----------



## MarsM4N (Sep 27, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> I haven't noticed a subjective interactive difference between systems for years, as long as you have decent SSD storage. Typing this on a 8700K, which is my productivity workhorse PC
> And even if, whatever time you gain over the duration of your day, you'll lose waiting 30 seconds in the morning when you power on the machine



Yea, I found Jay2Cents claims that *everything is snappier on Ryzen 7000* a head scratcher. But he's swearing on it. 
Experienced something only when comming from a really old PC that constantly runs into it's CPU limits to a newer more powerful one.

If true, I could overlook the 30 second bootup time. But it's still for todays (SSD) standards too long. Let's hope they can reduce it with a BIOS update.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 27, 2022)

MarsM4N said:


> If true, I could overlook the 30 second bootup time. But it's still for todays (SSD) standards too long. Let's hope they can reduce it with a BIOS update.


I hope so too. Just to clarify, this long "boot time" isn't storage dependent. It happens way before anything is initialized, during memory training. So once those 30 seconds are over you get to see the motherboard POST screen, then the POST finishes and the OS boot screen comes up, then the OS boots, then you see the login/desktop, all of which add even more time


----------



## Chomiq (Sep 27, 2022)

MarsM4N said:


> Yea, I found Jay2Cents claims that *everything is snappier on Ryzen 7000* a head scratcher. But he's swearing on it.
> Experienced something only when comming from a really old PC that constantly runs into it's CPU limits to a newer more powerful one.
> 
> If true, I could overlook the 30 second bootup time. But it's still for todays (SSD) standards too long. Let's hope they can reduce it with a BIOS update.


You're watching Jayz2Cents, that's your error.


----------



## Why_Me (Sep 27, 2022)

TheEndIsNear said:


> Ugghhh I was hoping they wouldn't have the same temp issues as Intel.  Guess I'm sticking with what I have plus 4k gaming is virtually no difference with my 12900k.  Save for new video card instead


You can't be too worried about temps if you purchased a 12900K for gaming at 4K.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 27, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> The temperature at the AIO "side" is much lower. Technically bad things can happen if water inside an AIO starts to boil, because it expands, but I never even heard of such a case, nor experienced it. The thermal gradient CPU silicon -> IHS glue -> IHS -> coldplate -> water inside block would probably be too big for that to happen in the first place


There is absolutely no way for this to happen, even bringing it up as something worth considering is just silly. Heck, boiling any amount of water with a puny 200W heat source is near impossible - most electric kettles are 10x that or more - and doubly so when that water is being run through a radiator. You need massive amounts of energy input to facilitate phase change.

As you point to, but which could be said much more clearly, the absolute temperature of the silicon doesn't directly relate to water temperature - that's a function of wattage and thermal transfer. These new Ryzens seem to run (very) hot due to very thick IHSes - i.e. due to heat transfer from the die to the cooler being slow and relatively inefficient, driving up silicon temperatures. It's a question of where the system finds an equilibrium between cooling, thermal transfer and heat output, not something as simple as "hot cpu=hot water".


----------



## Jimmy_ (Sep 27, 2022)

Crackong said:


> So we have the new fastest CPU right now


Not long enough 

Awesome review .... 

95C is now Normal


----------



## fevgatos (Sep 27, 2022)

Valantar said:


> There is absolutely no way for this to happen, even bringing it up as something worth considering is just silly. Heck, boiling any amount of water with a puny 200W heat source is near impossible - most electric kettles are 10x that or more - and doubly so when that water is being run through a radiator. You need massive amounts of energy input to facilitate phase change.
> 
> As you point to, but which could be said much more clearly, the absolute temperature of the silicon doesn't directly relate to water temperature - that's a function of wattage and thermal transfer. These new Ryzens seem to run (very) hot due to very thick IHSes - i.e. due to heat transfer from the die to the cooler being slow and relatively inefficient, driving up silicon temperatures. It's a question of where the system finds an equilibrium between cooling, thermal transfer and heat output, not something as simple as "hot cpu=hot water".


To expand on that, for people that don't understand.

The bigger the temperature difference between your cooler and your CPU, the more heat is able to be transferred. For example, when your CPU is at 40c and your cooler at 30c, we have a δΤ of 10c, and so the cpu can only transfer 50w to the cooler. Therefore if the CPU draws 200w, the CPU temperature will increase. Then the CPU will reach 60c with your cooler at 30c, now the δΤ is 30c and more heat can be transferred (let's say 100w). So the CPU will keep heating up, until it reaches 95c. Now we have a δΤ of 65c between the CPU and the cooler, and now we can transfer 200w at 65δΤ, so the cpu will stop heating up, since all of the wattage it consumes is transferred to the heatsink.


Regarding boiling the water, just lol. A 360 AIO can keep water temps at around 7c over ambient with a constant 250w heatload. So, usually it would never exceed 40c, unless i don't know, you turn the fans completely off or something


----------



## nguyen (Sep 27, 2022)

Valantar said:


> There is absolutely no way for this to happen, even bringing it up as something worth considering is just silly. Heck, boiling any amount of water with a puny 200W heat source is near impossible - most electric kettles are 10x that or more - and doubly so when that water is being run through a radiator. You need massive amounts of energy input to facilitate phase change.
> 
> As you point to, but which could be said much more clearly, the absolute temperature of the silicon doesn't directly relate to water temperature - that's a function of wattage and thermal transfer. These new Ryzens seem to run (very) hot due to very thick IHSes - i.e. due to heat transfer from the die to the cooler being slow and relatively inefficient, driving up silicon temperatures. It's a question of where the system finds an equilibrium between cooling, thermal transfer and heat output, not something as simple as "hot cpu=hot water".



Man where did you study physics, water has a heat capacity of 4.2 joules per gram per degree C, a 200W kettle can boil 1L of water (from 30C-100C) in about 20mins
1Wh = 3600J


----------



## fevgatos (Sep 27, 2022)

nguyen said:


> Man where did you study physics, water has a heat capacity of 4.2 joules per gram per degree C, a 200W kettle can boil 1L of water (from 30C-100C) in about 20mins


If the water in the kettle goes through a radiator with active airflow, it will never boil the water


----------



## nguyen (Sep 27, 2022)

fevgatos said:


> If the water in the kettle goes through a radiator with active airflow, it will never boil the water



Yup, and the heat dissipation at the radiator is more efficient the higher temp difference between ambient/coolant, that's why 120mm AIO can even cool 300W GPU but the coolant will reach higher temp at equilibrium.

That being said, with coolant temp at above 60C, lots of things can go wrong.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Sep 27, 2022)

ComputerBase said:
			
		

> ...the Ryzen 9 7950X requires significantly less energy than the slightly faster Core i9-12900KS, which, however, also draws 168 watts on average for the 1 percent more FPS and thus 50 watts more than the AMD CPU. In extreme cases, the gap can widen significantly: In Spider-Man Remastered including ray tracing, *the Ryzen 9 7950X, for example, uses 129 watts, but the Core i9-12900K uses 218 watts. The difference here is 89 watts. *











						Ryzen 9 7950X und Ryzen 7700X im Spiele-Benchmark: Benchmarks mit RTX 3090 Ti, Taktraten und Leistungsaufnahme
					

Gaming-Benchmarks: Benchmarks mit RTX 3090 Ti, Taktraten und Leistungsaufnahme / Benchmarks in Spielen in 720p




					www.computerbase.de
				




Good power consumption during gaming. Matches 12900KS (1% gap) but draws a lot less power.


----------



## MarsM4N (Sep 27, 2022)

Chomiq said:


> You're watching Jayz2Cents, that's your error.



I am watching them _*all*_.  But this statement was just standing out, made me curious.

On that note, here's something about *power consumption* & the *ECO mode*:










The 7950X beats the 12900K even in the _*65w ECO mode*_ in Cinebench R23 nT.  Holy smokes!
And only 10% performance hit when you switch to the 105w ECO mode.



Valantar said:


> There is absolutely no way for this to happen, even bringing it up as something worth considering is just silly. Heck, boiling any amount of water with a puny 200W heat source is near impossible - most electric kettles are 10x that or more - and doubly so when that water is being run through a radiator. You need massive amounts of energy input to facilitate phase change.
> 
> As you point to, but which could be said much more clearly, the absolute temperature of the silicon doesn't directly relate to water temperature - that's a function of wattage and thermal transfer. These new Ryzens seem to run (very) hot due to very thick IHSes - i.e. due to heat transfer from the die to the cooler being slow and relatively inefficient, driving up silicon temperatures. It's a question of where the system finds an equilibrium between cooling, thermal transfer and heat output, not something as simple as "hot cpu=hot water".



Yes, it's theoretically impossibe.  The surface of a water radiator is big enough to dissipate the heat from the small size of a CPU.
The CPU would have to reach melting temperatures to make water boil.

However, if the pump fails and there is no water circulation it could increase pressure in the system. Higher temperatures can also affect the AIO's lifespan:
*TPU: does high aio liquid temperature affect its lifespan?*

Btw. what is the IHS made out of, aluminium? If it where made out of pure copper heat dissipation would be quite better.
Would be a bit more expensive, but it would also use less power, potentially runs faster & reduces degredation of the CPU.


----------



## Crackong (Sep 27, 2022)

Jimmy_ said:


> 95C is now Normal


AMD changed the boost behaviour to be like a GPU
CPU T die : GPU T junction

The CPU will keep boosting on all threads as long as there is thermal headroom and power headroom.

Not like the previous generation with separated boost limits depending on thread loading.

I think this is some kind of 'Intel MCE' counterpart since they basically did the same thing.


----------



## Dirt Chip (Sep 27, 2022)

Will a na-u12a be able to handel it?

And if so, how do you think the noise output will look like across time comper to a 12900k with the same coller and work load?


----------



## Melvis (Sep 27, 2022)

What a CPU, to have basically double the amount of P cores then the 12900K, better IPC, and still use less power and be cooler then the 12900K is just amazing!


----------



## InVasMani (Sep 27, 2022)

Valantar said:


> There is absolutely no way for this to happen, even bringing it up as something worth considering is just silly. Heck, boiling any amount of water with a puny 200W heat source is near impossible - most electric kettles are 10x that or more - and doubly so when that water is being run through a radiator. You need massive amounts of energy input to facilitate phase change.
> 
> As you point to, but which could be said much more clearly, the absolute temperature of the silicon doesn't directly relate to water temperature - that's a function of wattage and thermal transfer. These new Ryzens seem to run (very) hot due to very thick IHSes - i.e. due to heat transfer from the die to the cooler being slow and relatively inefficient, driving up silicon temperatures. It's a question of where the system finds an equilibrium between cooling, thermal transfer and heat output, not something as simple as "hot cpu=hot water".



I have doubts you could make it explode even without fans on the radiator to aid in the cooling because the CPU is designed to throttle anyway plus it also will shut off if a certain temp is exceeded. There damn near no way you could make AIO explode with pretty much any CPU w/o it being deliberate user error. You could have a leak, but that is a different can of worms.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 27, 2022)

nguyen said:


> Man where did you study physics, water has a heat capacity of 4.2 joules per gram per degree C, a 200W kettle can boil 1L of water (from 30C-100C) in about 20mins
> 1Wh = 3600J


... assuming _zero_ heat transfer into the surrounding air. Which, in case you missed it, is not how reality tends to work. So ... maybe you should have paid more attention during physics class? Also: _boiling_ is not equal to water temperature being 100°C. _Boiling_ means _rapid phase change_ (above the general evaporation of water into ambient air, which is also temperature dependent but happens even at freezing temperatures). Bringing water up to ~100°C is not sufficient to boil it - you need significant excess energy to tip it over the phase change threshold. As temperatures rise, water evaporation would increase, which would slow temperature rise as said evaporation dissipates heat into ambient air - and evaporation also drives convection, causing airflow around the water and container, further increasing thermal transfer. And, of course, as thermal deltas increase, water-air thermal transfer would also increase. The hotter the water got, the more of its heat would be transferred into the air, and the more energy you would need to put into the system to heat it up further. Would this reach equilibrium for a 200W heat source before boiling? That depends on the container, ambient air temperatures, and a bunch of other variables. In a sufficiently sealed container it would _eventually_ boil with a 200W heat source, sure, but it would take _ages_ unless it was covered in thick insulation.


nguyen said:


> Yup, and the heat dissipation at the radiator is more efficient the higher temp difference between ambient/coolant, that's why 120mm AIO can even cool 300W GPU but the coolant will reach higher temp at equilibrium.


Which in turn points back to the problem (if it really is a problem) with these chips: high thermal resistance and a resulting low ability to get said heat into the cooling system while keeping the chip at low temperatures (unlike GPUs, with their low thermal density and direct die cooling).


nguyen said:


> That being said, with coolant temp at above 60C, lots of things can go wrong.


That's true - both plastics and pumps can fail at those temperatures. But again, for that you need efficient thermal transfer _from_ the heat source - excactly what these CPUs lack. The exact reason why the CPU reaches 95°C is that it _isn't_ transferring its thermal energy efficiently into the cooling loop - so water temperatures will be quite low.


InVasMani said:


> I have doubts you could make it explode even without fans on the radiator to aid in the cooling because the CPU is designed to throttle anyway plus it also will shut off if a certain temp is exceeded. There damn near no way you could make AIO explode with pretty much any CPU w/o it being deliberate user error. You could have a leak, but that is a different can of worms.


Water does like to evaporate even at freezing temperatures, but AFAIK that requires it to actually be in contact with air (i.e. it doesn't spontaneously transition into gas if in a closed, air-free container). Beyond that, 95°C is below 100°C, and thus _can't_ boil water, and according to this, propylene glycol additives _increase _the boiling point of coolants. So no, there would under no circumstances be any explosions or pressure-related leaks.


----------



## beedoo (Sep 27, 2022)

jsven008 said:


> Yeah, but the problem is most people won't receive the advertised performance with a standard prebuilt PC like HP, Dell, or Lenovo.



You know this, so why buy a branded unit from HP, Dell or Lonovo where corners will be cut?!?


----------



## Valantar (Sep 27, 2022)

MarsM4N said:


> However, if the pump fails and there is no water circulation it could increase pressure in the system. Higher temperatures can also affect the AIO's lifespan:
> *TPU: does high aio liquid temperature affect its lifespan?*


That is true, but only if said heat is actually effectively transferred into the loop - and the problem here is that it isn't. The die is hot precisely because it fails to effectively transfer its heat into the cooling system, so despite the die being hotter, water (and general AIO) temperatures won't be.


MarsM4N said:


> Btw. what is the IHS made out of, aluminium? If it where made out of pure copper heat dissipation would be quite better.
> Would be a bit more expensive, but it would also use less power, potentially runs faster & reduces degredation of the CPU.


IHSes are pure copper, with nickel plating for protection (and often gold plating on the inside to aid in soldering).


----------



## zlobby (Sep 27, 2022)

oxrufiioxo said:


> I don't understand why people don't get this.... My 5950X runs around 68C while fully stressed but puts out very little heat, My 3080ti on the other hand running around 65C is dumping a crap ton of heat into my case/room because it's consuming more than double the wattage even though it is running relatively cool.


Thermodynamics is a bitch! Many people ended their lives just studying it, incl. the 'father' of the discipline, the great Boltzmann.


----------



## Jimmy_ (Sep 27, 2022)

Crackong said:


> AMD changed the boost behaviour to be like a GPU
> CPU T die : GPU T junction
> 
> The CPU will keep boosting on all threads as long as there is thermal headroom and power headroom.
> ...


They might have done that  - cant deny the fact that AMD had no options left


----------



## Bwaze (Sep 27, 2022)

How does one even set the fan curves for air cooling on such a processor? If I understand correctly, it can now shoot to Tmax (95 degrees) even without the torture test like Prime95, just ordinary multicore load like unzipping, Cinebench? Even though there is still large difference in power consumption with lighter loads that push the CPU to 95 degrees, and full torture? 

It's easy enough with custom water cooling, I use an Aqua Computer Quadro to run fan and pump speed relative to water temperature. But setting up a fan curve for air cooling directly from motherboard by CPU temperature will be less than ideal - either fans will overshoot often, spin at 100% when they don't need to, or you don't leave any headroom between light multicore load and a really heavy load with heavy power draw...


----------



## Valantar (Sep 27, 2022)

Bwaze said:


> How does one even set the fan curves for air cooling on such a processor? If I understand correctly, it can now shoot to Tmax (95 degrees) even without the torture test like Prime95, just ordinary multicore load like unzipping, Cinebench? Even though there is still large difference in power consumption with lighter loads that push the CPU to 95 degrees, and full torture?
> 
> It's easy enough with custom water cooling, I use an Aqua Computer Quadro to run fan and pump speed relative to water temperature. But setting up a fan curve for air cooling directly from motherboard by CPU temperature will be less than ideal - either fans will overshoot often, spin at 100% when they don't need to, or you don't leave any headroom between light multicore load and a really heavy load with heavy power draw...


That's an excellent question - setting fan curves based on die temperature alone becomes insufficient with a boost system like this. Rather you would have to base it off of something more representative, like CPU power, but you also need to factor in actual temperatures at the same time. IMO, AMD should standardize a system for this and make motherboard vendors bake it into their BIOSes.

This is essentially how laptops operate: they (largely) ignore absolute temperatures and instead care about temperatures over time, power draw, etc., which allows them to both operate somewhat quietly, keep chips within their rated operating ranges, _and_ ramp fans in a somewhat controlled manner. (The good ones, that is.)


----------



## Solid State Brain (Sep 27, 2022)

Bwaze said:


> How does one even set the fan curves for air cooling on such a processor? If I understand correctly, it can now shoot to Tmax (95 degrees) even without the torture test like Prime95, just ordinary multicore load like unzipping, Cinebench? Even though there is still large difference in power consumption with lighter loads that push the CPU to 95 degrees, and full torture?
> 
> It's easy enough with custom water cooling, I use an Aqua Computer Quadro to run fan and pump speed relative to water temperature. But setting up a fan curve for air cooling directly from motherboard by CPU temperature will be less than ideal - either fans will overshoot often, spin at 100% when they don't need to, or you don't leave any headroom between light multicore load and a really heavy load with heavy power draw...



On my MSI Z690 Intel motherboard I use socket temperature and almost completely disregard core temperature. I set the CPU to a 90 °C limit and let it regulate by itself under load while CPU fan slowly ramps up as the socket (slowly) heats up.


----------



## MarsM4N (Sep 27, 2022)

Valantar said:


> That is true, but only if said heat is actually effectively transferred into the loop - and the problem here is that it isn't. The die is hot precisely because it fails to effectively transfer its heat into the cooling system, so despite the die being hotter, water (and general AIO) temperatures won't be.



You need also consider the factor _"*time*"_.  No matter how bad the heat transfer of the IHS is, if there is no water and/or air circulation, the water will heat up anyways. Just takes more time.
And the water in the CPU area will be very hot & expanding = increasing pressure in the loop.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 27, 2022)

MarsM4N said:


> You need also consider the factor _"*time*"_.  No matter how bad the heat transfer of the IHS is, if there is no water and/or air circulation, the water will heat up anyways. Just takes more time.
> And the water in the CPU area will be very hot & expanding = increasing pressure in the loop.


It absolutely will - but if you don't have flow, the CPU will be thermal throttling anyhow (ask me how I know), so that's a rather moot point as that will reduce the heat put into the system drastically. The pressure increase will also be negligible, given that water doesn't have all that much thermal expansion between 0-100°C. It definitely happens, it just isn't very significant.

And once you have flow, water temperatures will be roughly equal throughout the loop (again, thermal transfer seeks equilibrium), and in turn entirely dependent on how efficiently the IHS and cold plate are able to transfer heat into the water (as well as how efficiently the radiator and fans are able to dissipate it into ambient air, of course).


----------



## zlobby (Sep 27, 2022)

Solid State Brain said:


> On my MSI Z690 Intel motherboard I use socket temperature and almost completely disregard core temperature. I set the CPU to a 90 °C limit and let it regulate by itself under load while CPU fan slowly ramps up as the socket (slowly) heats up.


That's certainly one approach.

Not that anyone asked me, but here goes. Since I paid for the full potential of a CPU and I need the full potential of the CPU, I always let all fans run at 100%, both case and AIO. It could be a true nightmare, so I run Noctuas with an occasional PWM reduction of a case fan when 3000rpm (for example) is not really needed.
At the end there is just one pleasan hum, plus I got all the thermal headroom I can get.


----------



## Bwaze (Sep 27, 2022)

zlobby said:


> That's certainly one approach.
> 
> Not that anyone asked me, but here goes. Since I paid for the full potential of a CPU and I need the full potential of the CPU, I always let all fans run at 100%, both case and AIO. It could be a true nightmare, so I run Noctuas with an occasional PWM reduction of a case fan when 3000rpm (for example) is not really needed.
> At the end there is just one pleasan hum, plus I got all the thermal headroom I can get.



That's certainly one way of setting things up, but it would drive me crazy. 

I use my PC for working, gaming, media consumption, light browsing... And it's idling a lot. These are uses with very different power consumption, and even 5900X and RTX 3080 can run very efficiently or dump large amounts of heat. And both at full throttle can in no way be quiet enough to place that PC by the TV and turntable, but by setting fans and pump by water temperature it's one if the quietest systems I ever built (4x140mm + 3x120mm radiator area also helps).


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 27, 2022)

Bwaze said:


> That's certainly one way of setting things up, but it would drive me crazy.
> 
> I use my PC for working, gaming, media consumption, light browsing... And it's idling a lot. These are uses with very different power consumption, and even 5900X and RTX 3080 can run very efficiently or dump large amounts of heat. And both at full throttle can in no way be quiet enough to place that PC by the TV and turntable, but by setting fans and pump by water temperature it's one if the quietest systems I ever built (4x140mm + 3x120mm radiator area also helps).


That is one of the reasons why I went Gigabyte, many of their boards have a temp sensor header.


----------



## Legacy-ZA (Sep 27, 2022)

Does anyone know if AMD is planning to release a BIOS/UEFI update for AM4 platforms to auto-check the best memory timings without me having to do anything? I have to say, I kinda suck at memory overclocking, but wouldn't mind having tighter timings.


----------



## Totally (Sep 27, 2022)

tfdsaf said:


> How can it be less efficient if its running at 25% higher performance? Your take is nonsensical!



Because it consumes double the power, it would need to have 100% higher performance to have the same efficiency.


----------



## zlobby (Sep 27, 2022)

Legacy-ZA said:


> Does anyone know if AMD is planning to release a BIOS/UEFI update for AM4 platforms to auto-check the best memory timings without me having to do anything? I have to say, I kinda suck at memory overclocking, but wouldn't mind having tighter timings.


Hardly. AM4 work with XMP and anything extra is done by some mobo manufacturers as a bonus.



Bwaze said:


> That's certainly one way of setting things up, but it would drive me crazy.
> 
> I use my PC for working, gaming, media consumption, light browsing... And it's idling a lot. These are uses with very different power consumption, and even 5900X and RTX 3080 can run very efficiently or dump large amounts of heat. And both at full throttle can in no way be quiet enough to place that PC by the TV and turntable, but by setting fans and pump by water temperature it's one if the quietest systems I ever built (4x140mm + 3x120mm radiator area also helps).


True. As it is common sense, eveyone shoul aim to satisfy their own needs and requirements. We must admit that vendors give us a lot of control an options to achieve that.


----------



## Quake (Sep 27, 2022)

This is interesting - 20°C lower temps and higher clocks when delidded


----------



## onemanhitsquad (Sep 27, 2022)

fevgatos said:


> As I kept saying and people like Ratirl kept laughing, the 7950x is less efficient than the 5950x. Probably the same will apply to the whole zen 4 range. Yikes





Pumper said:


> Steve said in GN review, that AMD design Zen4 to boost like GPU, with a temp limit. So it goes to 95C in seconds and stays there, but does not throttle.


JaysTwoCents test showed the same...also claims slightly more efficient than 12900


----------



## Bwaze (Sep 27, 2022)

Quake said:


> This is interesting - 20°C lower temps and higher clocks when delidded
> 
> View attachment 263200



Yeah, but it's not something you can safely do yourself, Ryzen 4 processors have soldered heatspreader. Warranty on a processor costlier than average monthly salary in some European countries isn't something you throw away.

And that's one processor, one data point. And that's Der8auer, I wouldn't count on other mere mortals to achieve 20 degrees cooler CPU while overclocking.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 27, 2022)

Bwaze said:


> Yeah, but it's not something you can safely do yourself, Ryzen 4 processors have soldered heatspreader. Warranty on a processor costlier than average monthly salary in some European countries isn't something you throw away.
> 
> And that's one processor, one data point. And that's Der8auer, I wouldn't count on other mere mortals to achieve 20 degrees cooler CPU while overclocking.


Did you watch the video? And have you ever used any of Der8auer's delid tools? They are surprisingly easy to use as long as you follow the instructions, and are designed to minimize the chance of damage to the CPU, while breaking the solder bond safely.. Make sure everything is inserted and aligned properly and be careful when applying force, and anyone should be able to do this. The 20°C-ish thermal drop will be pretty much the same for anyone delidding and doing direct die cooling with liquid metal - there just isn't much variance to be found as long as you do all those things. That is obviously not to say that any of this is trivial, and the point about sacrificing your warranty is very valid (though CPUs essentially never fail unless they're DOA), but once those tools become available this should be reasonably accessible to any enthusiast with a moderate tolerance for risk.


----------



## vmarv (Sep 27, 2022)

Those +90°C at full load from just the cpu will transform the room in an oven during summer months.
Imagine this thing paired with one or two 4090 and using both gpu and cpu for rendering.


----------



## MarsM4N (Sep 27, 2022)

Quake said:


> This is interesting - 20°C lower temps and higher clocks when delidded



Did he test the *performance improvement* after the delid?  If there is none or just minor it's pretty pointless.


----------



## A Computer Guy (Sep 27, 2022)

fevgatos said:


> Man, stop. Just stop. Nothing pumps out temperature. Stuff pump out HEAT. Heat is not temperature. It doesn't make any freaking difference for the AIO whether your cpu is at 50c or 9000c.


Yes of course it pumps out heat.  A poorly phrased question perhaps but the idea behind it is maybe you can't use your older cooling solution because you had a CPU that didn't pump out so much heat consistently.  If the cooling was inadequate what would happen to an AIO in that scenario if you pushed it too far?


----------



## Palindrome (Sep 27, 2022)

My takeaway from this wasn't even the performance of the 7950X but that the 5800X3D seems to deliver as much as twice the performance of my 2700X  might have to consider an upgrade to that instead, especially since it seems to be able to hold its own against the 7950X in certain circumstances.


----------



## fevgatos (Sep 27, 2022)

A Computer Guy said:


> Yes of course it pumps out heat.  A poorly phrased question perhaps but the idea behind it is maybe you can't use your older cooling solution because you had a CPU that didn't pump out so much heat consistently.  If the cooling was inadequate what would happen to an AIO in that scenario if you pushed it too far?


Nothing will happen to your aio. The cpu will thermal throttle and drop power draw and clocks.

But who's going to have inadequate cooling for an 800 msrp cpu? I mean come on...


----------



## Quake (Sep 27, 2022)

Bwaze said:


> Yeah, but it's not something you can safely do yourself, Ryzen 4 processors have soldered heatspreader. Warranty on a processor costlier than average monthly salary in some European countries isn't something you throw away.
> 
> And that's one processor, one data point. And that's Der8auer, I wouldn't count on other mere mortals to achieve 20 degrees cooler CPU while overclocking.



I agree, it's not for every user. But my point is more towards possible issues with IHS/solder/pressure. 20°C for direct die on AIO cooler seems a lot to me.


----------



## BorisDG (Sep 27, 2022)

vmarv said:


> Those +90°C at full load from just the cpu will transform the room in an oven during summer months.
> Imagine this thing paired with one or two 4090 and using both gpu and cpu for rendering.


There is *NO* NVLink on 4090. nVidia killed it.


----------



## Quake (Sep 27, 2022)

MarsM4N said:


> Did he test the *performance improvement* after the delid?  If there is none or just minor it's pretty pointless.


I think he mentioned 50 MHz gain.


----------



## vmarv (Sep 27, 2022)

BorisDG said:


> There is *NO* NVLink on 4090. nVidia killed it.


With rendering programs you don't need to bridge them with a connector. The software sees that you have two gpus and use both, and some programs allow also to use the cpu with them (like Blender).
By the way, NVLink was removed from the 4090 and the RTX6000, but looks like they are keeping the technology for the servers/scientific lab solutions.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Sep 27, 2022)

Kinda surprised more outlets didn't test this cpu at 65w it still seems to beat a stock 12900k in a lot of workloads which is kinda crazy.

Seems like mobile Zen4 is going to be insane.

Either way this seems like the great milking generation even though AMD dropped 100 off the price of this cpu vs last generation the platform cost for a decent motherboard and some nice expo ddr5 is very high not that a 13900k/Z790 combo will be any better.

New builders are going to have a hard time deciding between a dead platform with lga 1700 and trying to save money with Z690 or going with a much more expensive but more future proof AM5. #ripdiypcbuilding


----------



## Aranarth (Sep 27, 2022)

jsven008 said:


> Yeah, but the problem is most people won't receive the advertised performance with a standard prebuilt PC like HP, Dell, or Lenovo. So they are paying for 7900x or 7950x performance they see in the reviews, but then when they buy the PC they receive far less performance (due to the cooler etc). It's essentially a scam: Advertising performance with a high-end cooler, but then delivering far lower performance (while not disclosing it).
> 
> I'll use an analogy to cars. Assume you bought a sports car for $80k based on reviews that said the car does the 1/4 mile in 9.7 seconds. But once you purchased it, you found the car was only capable of 12.7 seconds because all the reviews had equipped custom upgrades like drag slicks for tires, custom suspension etc. Would you be happy? You paid for 9.7 seconds of performance, but received 12.7 seconds.
> 
> AMD is doing essentially the same thing.


Yes I agree sort of.

The chip runs and the max speed the cooler is capable of, ANY cooler.
Want max performance? Build your own.

To go with a car analogy, BMW makes cars for driving or for racing.
The biggest difference after the increase in HP is the radiator.

A typical bmw is designed to do 125mph all day long on the autobahn with the odd vrroom from a stop light it is NOT designed for racing. If you try to race it you get heat soak.

But you can take any bmw put some upgrades such as better radiator, brakes, etc and race it. Heat is no problem.

Porsche does the same thing, they have 911's for cruising or they have 911's for racing. the racing verision is NOT fun drive every single day on city streets in (IE Detroit), Your back will hate you. The regular driving version is fine for regular driving.

Want a max performance car for racing? Build your own.

Need a machine to really crunch data build your own.
Otherwise go at whatever speed your radiator can give you and this chip will find it.


----------



## InVasMani (Sep 27, 2022)

What's it look in terms of performance, temps, and boosts if you disable the second CCX similar to E cores being disabled. I can see that as a reasonable reason to consider doing so actually while gaming or doing lighter tasks especially if you can just do it easily with software from the desktop rather than venturing into the bios to do so. I'm not sure if AMD has them setup to be disabled from the desktop software or not though they've done quite a lot with software so I wouldn't doubt it. 

Provided you can still access the full L3 cache with 1 of the 2 CCX disabled I really don't see a issue with it at all and if anything it could even provide some better performance depending on application and system usage. Perhaps AMD can work with Microsoft on Windows scheduler to determine what's best based on usage at when the other CCX is basically effectively idle disable them until it needs to be activated or assign it to background time slice tasks only, but not foreground tasks.


----------



## phill (Sep 27, 2022)

Thank you @W1zzard for amazing reviews of the new AMD line up...

I'll be sticking with my Threadripper 3970X and 5950X for now, but maybe 8 series   We'll see !!  Interesting times ahead!!


----------



## jesdals (Sep 27, 2022)

In stock in Denmark - but a decent setup with 32gb memory will cost 35% more than a 5950x setup


----------



## Colddecked (Sep 27, 2022)

Quake said:


> I think he mentioned 50 MHz gain.



He noted there was alot more head room for tweaking.  Anyways, the way Ryzen boosts, lower temps automatically equals more performance.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Sep 27, 2022)

I'm pretty impressed by this.









						Ryzen 9 7950X vs Core i9: Can ECO Mode save you money?
					

AMD says the Eco Mode on its new top-of-the-line Ryzen processor can beat Intel, even running at full power. It's time to put it to the test.




					www.pcworld.com
				








When AMD talked about 65W performance still being good I kinda just expected it to match or slightly lose to the stock 5950X in this configuration boy was I wrong. SFF builders seem to really have a winner here 12900k like performance at less than half the total system power...


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 27, 2022)

@W1zzard you mentioned that AVX-512 was disabled for your PS3 emulator test. Are there any plans for testing this compared to an AVX-512 enabled 12900K (P-cores only, early sample) to see the performance difference between Intel's and AMD's implementations? Just curious, really. 


I would absolutely love to try milling the drastically thick IHS (on any of the 7k series) into an integrated waterblock. Extreme variants, anyone? Do I have a buyer?


----------



## R0H1T (Sep 27, 2022)

AVX 512 is disabled by Intel for quite a while now, unless you have an old board & older OS or get the 11900k?


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 27, 2022)

oxrufiioxo said:


> I'm pretty impressed by this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


so ECO 105 is the same power limit as a 5950X and that's still a 34% improvement in performance at the same TDP.



jesdals said:


> In stock in Denmark - but a decent setup with 32gb memory will cost 35% more than a 5950x setup


and it's 34% faster!


----------



## R0H1T (Sep 27, 2022)

It's even more efficient at 65W mode. These chips would be real beasts in laptop or other SFF devices!


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Sep 27, 2022)

oxrufiioxo said:


> I'm pretty impressed by this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Intel needs to get off of 10nm (Intel 7) asap. It's so inefficient, this will be driven home like excalibur through a rock with Raptor Lake. If you thought the 12900K drew a lot of power, wait until you see how much power the 13900K needs to match the 7950X in productivity apps.


----------



## fevgatos (Sep 27, 2022)

Shatun_Bear said:


> Intel needs to get off of 10nm (Intel 7) asap. It's so inefficient, this will be driven home like excalibur through a rock with Raptor Lake. If you thought the 12900K drew a lot of power, wait until you see how much power the 13900K needs to match the 7950X in productivity apps.


What? The 13900k at 245w will probably tie or be really close to the 7950x at 230w. So what are you freaking talking about?


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Sep 27, 2022)

fevgatos said:


> What? The 13900k at 245w will probably tie or be really close to the 7950x at 230w. So what are you freaking talking about?


'Tie' in what?


----------



## fevgatos (Sep 27, 2022)

Shatun_Bear said:


> 'Tie' in what?


In heavy mt workloads like cbr23? I mean considering the 12900k already scores 28k, the 13900 with 8 ecores extra will have to score at least 35k...so,what are you talking about??


----------



## R0H1T (Sep 27, 2022)

You have a serious habit of embellishing facts, with 8 more E cores, higher clocks & possibly higher temps (leakage) you think 13900k will be more efficient? And where are you pulling that 245W number from


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Sep 27, 2022)

fevgatos said:


> In heavy mt workloads like cbr23? I mean considering the 12900k already scores 28k, the 13900 with 8 ecores extra will have to score at least 35k...so,what are you talking about??



Yes, but the 7950X can score 28k at 65w and 34k+ at 105w so if raptor lake needs to nearly double wattage to slightly beat zen4 that's a pretty epic fail considering it has what intel want's to call 16 efficiency cores.

Obviously people need to wait for real reviews done by reputable reviewers regardless not random internet leaks as plausible as they may be.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 27, 2022)

vmarv said:


> Those +90°C at full load from just the cpu will transform the room in an oven during summer months.
> Imagine this thing paired with one or two 4090 and using both gpu and cpu for rendering.


No, this is a misunderstanding. It will be pumping out however many watts of heat is being produced, regardless if the core temperature is 95°C or 30°C - the temperature of the core is not directly linked to heat output, but in a very complex, multi-factor relation to it. Heat output is (over time) equal to the amount of electrical energy consumed.


MarsM4N said:


> Did he test the *performance improvement* after the delid?  If there is none or just minor it's pretty pointless.


At least +50MHz oc stability, - 15W power from less leakage, definitely more OC headroom and room for manual tuning, but he didn't explore it much. Probably room for increasing voltages more due to lower leakage.


A Computer Guy said:


> Yes of course it pumps out heat.  A poorly phrased question perhaps but the idea behind it is maybe you can't use your older cooling solution because you had a CPU that didn't pump out so much heat consistently.  If the cooling was inadequate what would happen to an AIO in that scenario if you pushed it too far?


But that only applies if your cooler can't handle the thermal energy (i.e. power draw) put out by the chip, and doesn't directly relate to the absolute temperature of the chip.


----------



## A Computer Guy (Sep 27, 2022)

Valantar said:


> ... doesn't directly relate to the absolute temperature of the chip.


Indeed, like I said a poorly phrased question none the less some great replies by participants in the thread offering much clarity on the issue.


----------



## zlobby (Sep 27, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> @W1zzard you mentioned that AVX-512 was disabled for your PS3 emulator test. Are there any plans for testing this compared to an AVX-512 enabled 12900K (P-cores only, early sample) to see the performance difference between Intel's and AMD's implementations? Just curious, really.
> 
> 
> I would absolutely love to try milling the drastically thick IHS (on any of the 7k series) into an integrated waterblock. Extreme variants, anyone? Do I have a buyer?


This is an idea I was thinking of a long time ago! I'd surely buy one if it turns out to be of good quality.



A Computer Guy said:


> Indeed, like I said a poorly phrased question none the less some great replies by participants in the thread offering much clarity on the issue.


TPU is still one of the very few remaining strongholds of sanity and normal (whatever that means) community. Not possible without a heavy moderation anyway.



Valantar said:


> No, this is a misunderstanding. It will be pumping out however many watts of heat is being produced, regardless if the core temperature is 95°C or 30°C - the temperature of the core is not directly linked to heat output, but in a very complex, multi-factor relation to it. Heat output is (over time) equal to the amount of electrical energy consumed.
> 
> At least +50MHz oc stability, - 15W power from less leakage, definitely more OC headroom and room for manual tuning, but he didn't explore it much. Probably room for increasing voltages more due to lower leakage.
> 
> But that only applies if your cooler can't handle the thermal energy (i.e. power draw) put out by the chip, and doesn't directly relate to the absolute temperature of the chip.


Power draw doesn't automatically mean heat. The missing thing here is the efficiency, which tells us what part of the consumed energy went for useful work and what as heat.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 27, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> @W1zzard you mentioned that AVX-512 was disabled for your PS3 emulator test. Are there any plans for testing this compared to an AVX-512 enabled 12900K (P-cores only, early sample) to see the performance difference between Intel's and AMD's implementations? Just curious, really.


Not even sure if I can find such an old BIOS to flash back to enable AVX-512. Maybe when I have spare time .. next year after all the upcoming launches



oxrufiioxo said:


> Kinda surprised more outlets didn't test this cpu at 65w it still seems to beat a stock 12900k in a lot of workloads which is kinda crazy.


and yet AMD didn't release the productlike that, instead they chose to go overboard with the clocks and voltages, but have several times requested press to show the eco mode, which currently doesn't exist in the BIOS. You have to emulate it by manually adjusting PBO settings


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Sep 27, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> and yet AMD didn't release the productlike that, instead they chose to go overboard with the clocks and voltages, but have several times requested press to show the eco mode, which currently doesn't exist in the BIOS. You have to emulate it by manually adjusting PBO settings



They did boast about it at the Ryzen 7000 reveal though and personally I thought it was just marketing BS.

I know you tech reviewers have a ton on your plate covering 4 different cpus and possibly having to re run previous generation to validate data I can't even imagine how much work goes into the in depth coverage you provide definitely more than my 40 hour work week.

I wasn't trying to criticize yours or anyone else coverage of these cpus I was just surpised more outlets didn't validate amd claims of performance at lower wattages. Thanks for clarifying it isn't a simple toggle that's definitely something AMD should add.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Sep 27, 2022)

fevgatos said:


> In heavy mt workloads like cbr23? I mean considering the 12900k already scores 28k, the 13900 with 8 ecores extra will have to score at least 35k...so,what are you talking about??



How on earth is Cinebench a 'productivity workload' or even a workload? Come back to the real world and read the review, Wizzard did all the tests for no reason it seems...






Look at the above. In Blender, the 7950X draws 235W, the 12900K draws 257W. The 13900K has 8 more cores than the 12900K and is clocked even further past the limit on the same aging 10nm process node. It will offer around the same performance as the 7950X in productivity apps on average yet the power draw is going to be what, 300W+? For the CPU alone, that is rather obscene.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Sep 27, 2022)

Shatun_Bear said:


> How on earth is Cinebench a 'productivity workload' or even a workload? Come back to the real world and read the review, Wizzard did all the tests for no reason it seems...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They are claiming 41% avg MT performance uplift vs stock 12900K at about 260w which would still be impressive if true.

Just like Amd claims I'll believe it once @W1zzard  and other reputable sites review it.

My guess is if it does blow past 300w they'll blame boardmakers.


----------



## R0H1T (Sep 27, 2022)

It's not possible at 260W, that's simply not going to happen!
Just like AMD, or you could argue beginning with Intel, the efficiency will be much worse at those abominable clocks & so will power consumption/temps ~


Spoiler


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Sep 27, 2022)

oxrufiioxo said:


> They are claiming 41% avg MT performance uplift vs stock 12900K at about *260w* which would still be impressive if true.
> 
> Just like Amd claims I'll believe it once @W1zzard  and other reputable sites review it.
> 
> My guess is if it does blow past 300w they'll blame boardmakers.



I think there is little chance of that, which would be a massive leap in performance per watt. It's the same node, and not meant to be a huge departure from Alder Lake.

Certainly in the test I quoted, Blender multi-thread, it will not draw only 260W. Let's wait and see.


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Sep 27, 2022)

Shatun_Bear said:


> I think there is little chance of that, which would be a massive leap in performance per watt. It's the same node, and not meant to be a huge departure from Alder Lake.
> 
> Certainly in the test I quoted, Blender multi-thread, it will not draw only 260W. Let's wait and see.



Personally excited to see the results us consumers need both companies to do well so I'm hoping their claims are true.

AMD massively improved performance per watt on 7nm going from RDNA 1 to RDNA 2 and also improved it going from  Zen 2 to Zen 3 so it's possible.


----------



## R0H1T (Sep 27, 2022)

It's possible but not at those clocks. Here's the thing, these companies advertise up to X% performance gains or Y% efficiency gains but never or very rarely at the same time. Do you remember Apple's chips doing turbo? And that's why they're so efficient.


----------



## fevgatos (Sep 27, 2022)

Shatun_Bear said:


> How on earth is Cinebench a 'productivity workload' or even a workload? Come back to the real world and read the review, Wizzard did all the tests for no reason it seems...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I never said producitivity, i said heavy multithreading workloads. 

No, the 13900k won't draw 300w. It has a limit at 250, and probably a PL1 of 125, meaning after the 56s of TAU it WILL be more efficient than the 7950x, just like the 12900k is.



R0H1T said:


> You have a serious habit of embellishing facts, with 8 more E cores, higher clocks & possibly higher temps (leakage) you think 13900k will be more efficient? And where are you pulling that 245W number from


Yes, exactly because of those extra 8 ecores and better binning it will absolutely be more efficient than the 12900k. Also it will absolutely be way easier to cool since it's a bigger die. The power draw of the 13900k official is 125 / 253, meaning it will boost to 253w for 56 seconds and then drop down to 125, in which guess it will be insanely more efficient than a stock 7950x. Guaranteed.


----------



## R0H1T (Sep 27, 2022)

That's not how stock 12900k performs & you know it ~





















So can we stop this insinuation that it doesn't run at full turbo by default? Whether by design or Intel allowing their motherboards to basically ignore all power limits 

At stock IMO 13900k will at best match 12900k's efficiency, of course it will depend on the task as well but I don't really see it being that much better. What is more likely though that it will be less efficient at those higher default clocks.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 27, 2022)

oxrufiioxo said:


> I wasn't trying to criticize yours or anyone else coverage of these cpus I was just surpised more outlets didn't validate amd claims of performance at lower wattages. Thanks for clarifying it isn't a simple toggle that's definitely something AMD should add.


No worries, it didn't come across like that, I still felt I could add more context

AMD said that they will add it as toggleable option to AGESA, the way you would expect it to work


----------



## Valantar (Sep 27, 2022)

zlobby said:


> Power draw doesn't automatically mean heat.


It literally does.


zlobby said:


> The missing thing here is the efficiency, which tells us what part of the consumed energy went for useful work and what as heat


CPUs do not break the laws of thermodynamics. All electric energy put into the chip is converted to thermal energy while performing said work (with the exception of the small amount of energy leaving the package still in the form of electric energy through various I/O). Your X watts of electric energy in means X watts of thermal energy out. Your presentation of CPU efficiency here is very fundamentally wrong - it is "how much work is performed per unit of energy", not "which proportion of energy is useful and which is wasted".


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Sep 27, 2022)

fevgatos said:


> Yes, exactly because of those extra 8 ecores and better binning it will absolutely be more efficient than the 12900k. Also it will absolutely be way easier to cool since it's a bigger die.* The power draw of the 13900k official is 125 / 253, meaning it will boost to 253w for 56 seconds and then drop down to 125*, in which guess it will be insanely more efficient than a stock 7950x. Guaranteed.



This is all totally wrong, going by how the 12900K behaves. Please stop.


----------



## vmarv (Sep 27, 2022)

It's cool that they included the option to switch to an ECO mode. This probably reduces the base cpu frequency in the heavy multithreading loads, like in rendering. 
The great performance even in these modes is given by the single thread performance of the single core and by the core counts. It's a beast.


----------



## fevgatos (Sep 27, 2022)

R0H1T said:


> That's not how stock 12900k performs & you know it ~
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don';t care about motherboard defaults, motherboards might run them at 999 watts by default, that's up the mobo manafacturers. From the intel website it has both the 12900k at the 13900k at 125 / 241w and 125/253 respectively. 

Regardless of that, even at full TAU numbers the 13900k will obviously be way more efficient than the 12900k, lol.



Shatun_Bear said:


> This is all totally wrong, going by how the 12900K behaves. Please stop.


Are you saying intel has wrong info on their website about their own cpus? LOLK


----------



## R0H1T (Sep 27, 2022)

So you claimed it goes down to 125W "TDP" after 56s & when you saw that's not the case you're trying the other obfuscation/deflection route?


fevgatos said:


> Regardless of that, even at full TAU numbers the 13900k will obviously be way more efficient than the 12900k, lol.


Yeah no, not happening at those clocks unless Intel strictly restricts "TDP" to reasonable numbers!

What's ironic is that if they did limit "TDP" like in the past both the chips, ADL & likely RPL on unlimited turbo, would be a bit to a lot more efficient overall.


----------



## fevgatos (Sep 27, 2022)

R0H1T said:


> So you claimed it goes down to 125W "TDP" after 56s & when you saw that's not the case you're trying the other obfuscation/deflection route?
> 
> Yeah no, not happening at those clocks unless Intel strictly restricts "TDP" to reasonable numbers!
> 
> What's ironic is that if they did limit "TDP" like in the past both the chips, ADL & likely RPL on unlimited turbo, would be a bit to a lot more efficient overall.


I didn't claim anything, Intel claims it in their official 12900k webpage. What the heck are you talking about, really?

All im saying is that even with unlimited TAU, the 13900k will be way more efficient than the 12900k. It's way better binned and has more cores, it's a no brainer that efficiency will go up.


----------



## vmarv (Sep 27, 2022)

@W1zzard 
Don't know if it's possible with these cpus, because of their architecture, but can you try to overclock the boost/turbo of just 1 or 2 cores and reduce their base frequency for when more cores are used? Would be possible to get close to 6GHz this way?

Just asking, I never tried a Ryzen, so I don't know if it's possible to overclock things the same way of something like the FX or the i7-5960X.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 27, 2022)

vmarv said:


> @W1zzard
> Don't know if it's possible with these cpus, because of their architecture, but can you try to overclock the boost/turbo of just 1 or 2 cores and reduce their base frequency for when more cores are used? Would be possible to get close to 6GHz this way?
> 
> Just asking, I never tried a Ryzen, so I don't know if it's possible to overclock things the same way of something like the FX or the i7-5960X.


OC doesn't work like that on Ryzen. You can either do all-core fixed OC or use PBO and push up the clocks PBO selects, and possibly push down the voltage at the same time for more headroom.

No way to get 6 GHz on air I'd say. 5.4, 5.5 maybe, but not significantly higher


----------



## R0H1T (Sep 27, 2022)

fevgatos said:


> I didn't claim anything, Intel claims it in their official 12900k webpage. What the heck are you talking about, really?
> 
> All im saying is that even with unlimited TAU, the 13900k will be way more efficient than the 12900k*. It's way better binned *and has more cores,* it's a no brainer that efficiency will go up.*


And how do you know it's better binned? And binned for what exactly? Did you forget what binning does ~








						Explainer: What is Chip Binning?
					

You bought a new CPU and it seems to run cool, so you try a bit of overclocking. The GHz climb higher. Did you hit the silicon...




					www.techspot.com
				



So better binned == much better efficiency? Should I quote you on that?


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 27, 2022)

fevgatos said:


> I didn't claim anything, Intel claims it in their official 12900k webpage


Intel is full of bs for 12900K power. The chips are configured to run PL1=PL2=241 W, so they will never go down to 125 W. What Intel means with the 125 W number is some vague "typical average in some non-boosted workload [that we don't disclose and that magically hits that magic 125 W number]"


----------



## Solid State Brain (Sep 27, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> Intel is full of bs for 12900K power. The chips are configured to run PL1=PL2=241 W, so they will never go down to 125 W. What Intel means with the 125 W number is some vague "typical average in some non-boosted workload [that we don't disclose and that magically hits that magic 125 W number]"



Intel Turbo limits are entirely up to the motherboard manufacturers/integrators. There are Intel-defined _recommendations_ which include for the i9-12900K PL2=241W, PL1=125W, Tau=56s, but these limits are not enforced nor meant to be strictly followed and the notes in their datasheets make this clear.

Please have a look at sections 4.1 and 4.2 under chapter 4 "Thermal Management" here in the 12th gen datasheet: https://cdrdv2.intel.com/v1/dl/getcontent/655258

I wonder if the upcoming one for 13th gen Intel CPUs will change anything in this regard; it should be out soon given that the i9-13900K/KF is already on the Intel Ark database.


----------



## fevgatos (Sep 27, 2022)

R0H1T said:


> And how do you know it's better binned? And binned for what exactly? Did you forget what binning does ~
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You can tell by the freaking clocks, lol. Binning is the wrong word, so my bad. I should have said more mature  process = better clocks at same voltage. Better now?



W1zzard said:


> Intel is full of bs for 12900K power. The chips are configured to run PL1=PL2=241 W, so they will never go down to 125 W. What Intel means with the 125 W number is some vague "typical average in some non-boosted workload [that we don't disclose and that magically hits that magic 125 W number]"


I've seen mobos automatically place 125w PL1 limits, for example both my unifyx and my apex do that when you choose you are running on an air cooler (which I am). Other than that, yeah for alderlake and onwards it seems to be up to the OEMs and mobo manafacturers to enforce the 125/241 limits, but still they are the official recommendations i think.

Btw, any chance youll redo the 12900k power limited review you did back 10 months ago. Your numbers are flawed beyond belief 
Was telling people and they called me crazy.


----------



## R0H1T (Sep 27, 2022)

Solid State Brain said:


> Intel Turbo limits are entirely up to the motherboard manufacturers/integrators. There are Intel-defined _recommendations_ which include for the i9-12900K PL2=241W, PL1=125W, Tau=56s, but these limits are not enforced nor meant to be strictly followed and the notes in their datasheets make this clear.
> 
> Please have a look at sections 4.1 and 4.2 under chapter 4 "Thermal Management" here in the 12th gen datasheet: https://cdrdv2.intel.com/v1/dl/getcontent/655258
> 
> I wonder if the upcoming one for 13th gen Intel CPUs will change anything in this regard; it should be out soon given that the i9-13900K/KF is already on the Intel Ark database.


We've been over this ~












						Intel 12th Gen Core Alder Lake for Desktops: Top SKUs Only, Coming November 4th
					






					www.anandtech.com
				



It is basically* Intel sanctioned*, if Intel can retroactively patch non Z OCing a year after their previous gen boards released you think they can't shut this down?


fevgatos said:


> You can tell by the freaking clocks, lol. Binning is the wrong word, so my bad. I should have said more mature process = better clocks at same voltage. Better now?


There's basically only two ways to make efficient processors, on the same node, these days ~
Higher IPC or much better/tighter power management. The corollary to that is if you increase clocks further, with higher IPC, all that efficiency goes down the drain! You saw that with zen4, how much do you think RPL will be more efficient than ADL at stock? Take a wild guess?


----------



## zlobby (Sep 27, 2022)

Valantar said:


> It literally does.
> 
> CPUs do not break the laws of thermodynamics. All electric energy put into the chip is converted to thermal energy while performing said work (with the exception of the small amount of energy leaving the package still in the form of electric energy through various I/O). Your X watts of electric energy in means X watts of thermal energy out. Your presentation of CPU efficiency here is very fundamentally wrong - it is "how much work is performed per unit of energy", not "which proportion of energy is useful and which is wasted".


Wrong! This would actually break thermodynamics. X watts electric cannot be equal to Y watts thermal output, and at the same time you'd get tons of rendering (for example) be done on the CPU!


----------



## R0H1T (Sep 27, 2022)

Right, technically speaking there's nothing like equivalent exchange ~


Spoiler










You always loose something more than you gain. Whether it be life or physics!


----------



## fevgatos (Sep 27, 2022)

R0H1T said:


> There's basically only two ways to make efficient processors, on the same node, these days ~
> Higher IPC or much better/tighter power management. The corollary to that is if you increase clocks further, with higher IPC, all that efficiency goes down the drain! You saw that with zen4, how much do you think RPL will be more efficient than ADL at stock? Take a wild guess?


At stock, meaning 240w on 12900k vs 253 on raptorlake? A lot, like 25% minimum


----------



## R0H1T (Sep 27, 2022)

We'll see. I think you're a fair bit off, probably a month to go now before first reviews leak?


----------



## fevgatos (Sep 27, 2022)

R0H1T said:


> We'll see. I think you're a fair bit off, probably a month to go now before first reviews leak?


I don't understand how you expect similar efficiency when adding 8 cores but w/e, we will see. Im willing to bet a paycheck or two   

Yeah, in about a month the reviews will be out


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (Sep 27, 2022)

zlobby said:


> Wrong! This would actually break thermodynamics. X watts electric cannot be equal to Y watts thermal output, and at the same time you'd get tons of rendering (for example) be done on the CPU!



In terms of energy, rendering (or other computing workload) is a side effect of the work done, not the work itself.  Work in the physics sense is energy changing from one form to another.  All the electrical energy that goes into a computer has to come out in another form to "do" anything; that is, perform work.  That ends up being kinetic energy in the fans and the air they're moving (we can consider the sound generated by fans and HDDs as kinetic, but there's hardly enough of that to matter), a small amount of EM radiation from the various electrical components, a few milliwatts as signaling to your monitor or whatever, and maybe another mW or three as light from LEDs.  The rest becomes heat.  Those are the only options. Unless you've got some weird custom setup with a rechargeable battery, none of the energy becomes chemical, and if you're turning a bunch of energy into light, something has gone VERY wrong.

Long story short:  >95% (est) of the electricity drawn by a PC becomes heat.


----------



## HTC (Sep 27, 2022)

Regarding efficiency, @W1zzard :

If you stick "a worse cooler", while it should end up having the same 95º temps, it will also boost to lower speeds thus requiring less power but more time for the various benches, possibly less FPS in the various games, and also better power efficiency.

OTOH, if you stick "a better cooler", while it should end up having the same 95º temps, it might also boost to higher speeds thus requiring more power but less time for the various benches, possible more FPS in the various games, and also worse power efficiency.

Wouldn't it be better to say so, wherever applicable in the review?

Also, and i'm not sure if all boards have this option in BIOS, it's apparently possible to change the value of 95º max temp for the CPU. If it's changed to a lower temp like ... say ... 88º for example, all the scores will be affected by the fact that the CPU, instead of ramping up as much as it can with a temp target of 95º, will "only" ramp up as much as it can with a temp target of 88º, in this example, with the power and efficiency changes, and performance drop that entails.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

zlobby said:


> Wrong! This would actually break thermodynamics. X watts electric cannot be equal to Y watts thermal output, and at the same time you'd get tons of rendering (for example) be done on the CPU!


So ... uh ... _work_ is not _energy_.  _Energy _is _used_ _to do_ work - to convert energy from one form to another. That is how that rendering (for example) gets done. In the process of doing work, electrical energy is converted to heat energy, which is a lower form of energy than electricity. Take a light bulb: electric energy is used to trigger some form of light-generating process (incandescent, LED, whatever). Some portion of said electrical energy is converted to electromagnetic radiation in the visible light spectrum. Some portion of it is turned directly into heat. As that visible light is spread out and hits other things, eventually it will all be absorbed by surrounding objects, and, again, turn into heat. CPUs do not give off light, or any other meaningful form of energy. As I said, some negligible amount of electrical energy is kept as that and transferred off-die for I/O - writing to RAM or storage, transferring data over PCIe, etc. This amount in watts is _tiny_ compared to the heat output of the CPU.



80-watt Hamster said:


> In terms of energy, rendering (or other computing workload) is a side effect of the work done, not the work itself.  Work in the physics sense is energy changing from one form to another.  All the electrical energy that goes into a computer has to come out in another form to "do" anything; that is, perform work.  That ends up being kinetic energy in the fans and the air they're moving (we can consider the sound generated by fans and HDDs as kinetic, but there's hardly enough of that to matter), a small amount of EM radiation from the various electrical components, a few milliwatts as signaling to your monitor or whatever, and maybe another mW or three as light from LEDs.  The rest becomes heat.  Those are the only options. Unless you've got some weird custom setup with a rechargeable battery, none of the energy becomes chemical, and if you're turning a bunch of energy into light, something has gone VERY wrong.
> 
> Long story short:  >95% (est) of the electricity drawn by a PC becomes heat.


Exactly. We've essentially found a bunch of smart ways of converting energy from one form into another that leave us with really useful byproducts. Like converting fuel to heat, while leaving us with rapid movement or cooked food; or converting electricity to heat and leaving us with lights, warm (or cool) houses, and RGB. Lots of RGB.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 28, 2022)

Really, we are moving potential energy around (differential charge, that is how data is stored) by pushing it with more energy. The push is what is lost as heat. 

How the heck did we derail this far?


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> Really, we are moving potential energy around (differential charge, that is how data is stored) by pushing it with more energy. The push is what is lost as heat.
> 
> How the heck did we derail this far?


Because some people apparently need explanations to go all the way to these levels from time to time.


----------



## zlobby (Sep 28, 2022)

80-watt Hamster said:


> In terms of energy, rendering (or other computing workload) is a side effect of the work done, not the work itself.  Work in the physics sense is energy changing from one form to another.  All the electrical energy that goes into a computer has to come out in another form to "do" anything; that is, perform work.  That ends up being kinetic energy in the fans and the air they're moving (we can consider the sound generated by fans and HDDs as kinetic, but there's hardly enough of that to matter), a small amount of EM radiation from the various electrical components, a few milliwatts as signaling to your monitor or whatever, and maybe another mW or three as light from LEDs.  The rest becomes heat.  Those are the only options. Unless you've got some weird custom setup with a rechargeable battery, none of the energy becomes chemical, and if you're turning a bunch of energy into light, something has gone VERY wrong.
> 
> Long story short:  >95% (est) of the electricity drawn by a PC becomes heat.


Energy conservation is universal. We don't get energy out of nothing. It is just converted from one form to another. In SI energy is measured in [J].
Work is the rate at which one form of energy is converted to another, i.e. the rate at which work is done. Unit would be [J/s].

And here is where our agreement ends. 

Speaking of a CPU, you basically reduce it to a room heater! Last time I checked my 2kW room heater produced very low FPS in Crysis.

We have found clever ways to utilize the electrical work done (i.e. pushing electrons and holes around) by electrical energy to do some neat calculations for us. It is a direct result, not a byproduct.

Due to material imperfections, some of this very same energy is converted to heat. 
Some of it is converted to EM radiation by variations in the electric field (electric and magnetic fields are coupled). Variations, i.e. distruptions by particles carrying electrical charge.

The sum of those different kinds of output energies (electrical, thermal, EM) would be exactly equal to the energy input of the system, in our case - a CPU.



Valantar said:


> So ... uh ... _work_ is not _energy_.  _Energy _is _used_ _to do_ work - to convert energy from one form to another. That is how that rendering (for example) gets done. In the process of doing work, electrical energy is converted to heat energy, which is a lower form of energy than electricity. Take a light bulb: electric energy is used to trigger some form of light-generating process (incandescent, LED, whatever). Some portion of said electrical energy is converted to electromagnetic radiation in the visible light spectrum. Some portion of it is turned directly into heat. As that visible light is spread out and hits other things, eventually it will all be absorbed by surrounding objects, and, again, turn into heat. CPUs do not give off light, or any other meaningful form of energy. As I said, some negligible amount of electrical energy is kept as that and transferred off-die for I/O - writing to RAM or storage, transferring data over PCIe, etc. This amount in watts is _tiny_ compared to the heat output of the CPU.
> 
> 
> Exactly. We've essentially found a bunch of smart ways of converting energy from one form into another that leave us with really useful byproducts. Like converting fuel to heat, while leaving us with rapid movement or cooked food; or converting electricity to heat and leaving us with lights, warm (or cool) houses, and RGB. Lots of RGB.


Eh...



Valantar said:


> Because some people apparently need explanations to go all the way to these levels from time to time.


Bruh, you were insisting that all electrical energy that enters in a CPU is dissipated as heat! Irony much?


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (Sep 28, 2022)

zlobby said:


> Energy conservation is universal. We don't get energy out of nothing. It is just converted from one form to another. In SI energy is measured in [J].
> Work is the rate at which one form of energy is converted to another, i.e. the rate at which work is done. Unit would be [J/s].



1 J/s = 1 Watt.  So far we're on the same page.



zlobby said:


> And here is where our agreement ends.



Judging by the below, we agree on every point but one...



zlobby said:


> Speaking of a CPU, you basically reduce it to a room heater! Last time I checked my 2kW room heater produced very low FPS in Crysis.
> 
> We have found clever ways to utilize the electrical work done (i.e. pushing electrons and holes around) by electrical energy to do some neat calculations for us. It is a direct result, not a byproduct.
> 
> ...



... and that is this:  In regard to energy and power, calculations are not work. Let's compare a classic seismograph (I'm going to get the terminology wrong. You have been warned). 

The energy from an earthquake is transferred to the scribe arm, which drives the stylus across the drum leaving a mark.  Most of the energy is dissipated in the drag of the stylus, which is where the useful work happens.  It is then up to a technician to interpret what's left. In a computer, the CPU is the arm and stylus, and your output device is the drum. Think of it this way: the energy to perform the calculations: where is it stored? A video file has no stored energy, nor does the image on a screen. The energy used needs to GO somewhere. And where is that if not heat?

And yes, a processor is basically a space heater that can do lots of logic operations per second.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

zlobby said:


> Speaking of a CPU, you basically reduce it to a room heater! Last time I checked my 2kW room heater produced very low FPS in Crysis.


And last I checked, room heaters were pretty much giant resistors, not CPUs - so they work quite differently, even if both convert electric energy to heat.


zlobby said:


> We have found clever ways to utilize the electrical work done (i.e. pushing electrons and holes around) by electrical energy to do some neat calculations for us. It is a direct result, not a byproduct.


That is literally the same thing. A byproduct is a direct result of whatever process creates it.


zlobby said:


> Due to material imperfections, some of this very same energy is converted to heat.


... What? Are you saying that with a theoretical perfect material we would have CPUs that use zero energy?


zlobby said:


> Some of it is converted to EM radiation by variations in the electric field (electric and magnetic fields are coupled). Variations, i.e. distruptions by particles carrying electrical charge.


... and how much is lost this way, exactly? If your CPU was outputting several watts of EMI, things like WiFi and other wireless communications would be impossible, as interference would overwhelm any nearby signal.


----------



## THU31 (Sep 28, 2022)

fevgatos said:


> I don't understand how you expect similar efficiency when adding 8 cores but w/e, we will see. Im willing to bet a paycheck or two


You should not be surprised at what can be achieved with a mature process node, they have a lot of experience in that area. 
This will be the fourth generation on 10 nm (I am counting the mobile chips).

I expect they managed to lower the voltages at the highest boost clocks. AMD on the other hand are running crazy voltages to push the clocks as high as possible. You can cut power by half and only lose 5% performance, which is insane.

I also expect that Zen 4 might be more efficient when just comparing the P-cores, especially at low TDPs.
But for productivity, E-cores are exceptionally efficient, so Raptor Lake should be on a similar level.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 28, 2022)

If only a certained banned TPU member who kept making new accounts to argue with me was still around, he loved to say how 12th gen was more power efficient than zen 3 in gaming



AMD have finally released a CPU that's equally as power hungry!
(and at stock settings vs stock settings, intel still takes more power)



5700g is a surprise winner for efficiency here, WTAF?


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

Mussels said:


> If only a certained banned TPU member who kept making new accounts to argue with me was still around, he loved to say how 12th gen was more power efficient than zen 3 in gaming
> View attachment 263417AMD have finally released a CPU that's equally as power hungry!
> (and at stock settings vs stock settings, intel still takes more power)
> 
> ...


While I'm not directly disagreeing with you, efficiency is more than "power draw while gaming" - performance also needs to be factored in. Divide that average power draw with the average fps of each cpu across that test suite and you'll have gaming efficiency.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 28, 2022)

80-watt Hamster said:


> The energy used needs to GO somewhere. And where is that if not heat?


It goes back to the other pin in your wall outlet. It's like two hoses with water, pushing a waterwheel and going back out - the axle of the waterwheel heating up is independent of the water, but that resistance slows the flow down and the reduced kinetic energy is converted to heat.

The heat is from friction, that's it. It's physical movement causing friction which causes heat, which is why higher clock speeds produce more heat even at the same voltage - they're flicking on and off more often, producing more heat.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 28, 2022)

Mussels said:


> 5700g is a surprise winner for efficiency here, WTAF?


Not a measurement error btw, it's a laptop CPU with all its power optimizations brought to desktop


----------



## Mussels (Sep 28, 2022)

Valantar said:


> While I'm not directly disagreeing with you, efficiency is more than "power draw while gaming" - performance also needs to be factored in. Divide that average power draw with the average fps of each cpu across that test suite and you'll have gaming efficiency.


I mean, one of the charts literally is the results of gaming and gaming only.
Performance is something seperate, as that ongoing argument was 100% entirely about efficiency.
In neither single threaded, multi threaded, nor gaming only results does intel's 12th gen come ahead of zen 3.

"performance per watt" is an entirely different metric, and they don't win there either.
And again since i'm referring to a discussion in other threads: This was purely about zen 3 vs 12th gen and efficiency with gaming, if you mix more generations or tests it gets derailed into something else entirely



W1zzard said:


> Not a measurement error btw, it's a laptop CPU with all its power optimizations brought to desktop


I can believe it, but it's still shockingly far ahead of everything else.


----------



## nguyen (Sep 28, 2022)

Mussels said:


> If only a certained banned TPU member who kept making new accounts to argue with me was still around, he loved to say how 12th gen was more power efficient than zen 3 in gaming
> View attachment 263417AMD have finally released a CPU that's equally as power hungry!
> (and at stock settings vs stock settings, intel still takes more power)



Wait wut




12900K use 1% more power while being 4% faster than 7950X, that means 12900K is more efficient in gaming


----------



## Anoldnewb (Sep 28, 2022)

zlobby said:


> Wrong! This would actually break thermodynamics. X watts electric cannot be equal to Y watts thermal output, and at the same time you'd get tons of rendering (for example) be done on the CPU!


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

Mussels said:


> I mean, one of the charts literally is the results of gaming and gaming only.
> Performance is something seperate, as that ongoing argument was 100% entirely about efficiency.
> In neither single threaded, multi threaded, nor gaming only results does intel's 12th gen come ahead of zen 3.
> 
> ...


Performance per watt is _by far_ the most accepted metric of efficiency for computers, and anything electrically powered, really. Unless you are factoring in performance, you aren't measuring efficiency but power draw. Those two are not the same thing.
If two electric cars drain their equally sized batteries, but one drives further, or one drives the same distance more quickly, then that car is more efficient. If you ignore the distance, speed or time driven on that amount of power, you are rendering yourself unable to discuss efficiency by  default. If two marathon runners each consume 5000Kcal during the run, but one finishes in three hours and one in five, then the three-hour run has used said energy more efficiently: producing more, or higher quality work for the same energy expenditure.

You can of course argue that the baseline for "performance" in an efficiency comparison is "being able to complete the task", but that also introduces such a massive range of variance into the results that comparison becomes essentially impossible.  A more practically applicable understanding of this in terms of PC gaming would be allowing for +/- 10% performance as being treated as "the same", as that's roughly the limit for what is perceptibly faster/slower. But you would still need a graph of more than just power draw to talk about efficiency.


Mussels said:


> I can believe it, but it's still shockingly far ahead of everything else.


Mobile(-based) chips generally are - they don't deliver peak absolute performance, but they're tuned for efficiency - maximizing the amount of useful work done per unit energy - so they tend to vastly outperform anything else in that regard. Desktop chips haven't been focused on efficiency for ages, as their cooling and power limits are so much higher, you can always just add a bit more.

Edit: Also worth mentioning that the 5700G CB 1t efficiency score aptly illustrates the power needs of IF in AMD's MCM CPUs. Other than the 5700G clocking marginally lower than its non-G counterparts and having half the cache, it's the same thing after all, so the only major difference is monolithic (internal fabric) vs. MCM (through-package IF). IF consumes somewhere in the realm of 20W on a 2CCD MCM Ryzen, which is _massive_ when considering that at least Zen3 cores peak at about 20-21W themselves. Which also explains why the MCM chips overtake the mobile chips in highly threaded loads, as the detrimental effect of IF power becomes less of a factor as total power draw increases. Of course, the 5700G's cores with their relatively low clocks are likely closer to 10W than the 20-21W of a 5950X too.


----------



## Anoldnewb (Sep 28, 2022)

Check this out for  cinbench comparison of 7950 at 170, 105 and 65 watts.








						Ryzen 9 7950X vs Core i9: Can ECO Mode save you money?
					

AMD says the Eco Mode on its new top-of-the-line Ryzen processor can beat Intel, even running at full power. It's time to put it to the test.




					www.pcworld.com


----------



## fevgatos (Sep 28, 2022)

Mussels said:


> I mean, one of the charts literally is the results of gaming and gaming only.
> Performance is something seperate, as that ongoing argument was 100% entirely about efficiency.
> In neither single threaded, multi threaded, nor gaming only results does intel's 12th gen come ahead of zen 3.
> 
> ...


What? Efficiency is by definition power used divided by work produced. Power draw on its own doesn't tell you anything about efficiency. If it did, then the 7950X would be the most inefficient cpu on planet earth, since according to gnexus, it topped the power draw charts.


----------



## Daven (Sep 28, 2022)

In the initial 5800X3D review, the CPU was identical to the 12900K at 720p. Now its over 10% slower!!! What happened?!?!?


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

Daven said:


> In the initial 5800X3D review, the CPU was identical to the 12900K at 720p. Now its over 10% slower!!! What happened?!?!?


System updates, game updates, BIOS, microcode and AGESA updates. Things change over time. Might also be a slightly altered benchmark selection?


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 28, 2022)

Daven said:


> In the initial 5800X3D review, the CPU was identical to the 12900K at 720p. Now its over 10% slower!!! What happened?!?!?


Looks like the test setup is very similar in both reviews. I think the X3D moved down (not the 129K up), considering the relative positioning of the 5950X. 

Probably the game selection happened to not favor a large L3 cache.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

Mussels said:


> It goes back to the other pin in your wall outlet. It's like two hoses with water, pushing a waterwheel and going back out - the axle of the waterwheel heating up is independent of the water, but that resistance slows the flow down and the reduced kinetic energy is converted to heat.


You're mixing up voltage and current. What happens to the water in a waterwheel? It is slowed down to a near stop, losing its kinetic energy as this is transferred into the wheel. Only the momentum of the wheel and the force applied by the new water coming in makes it go anywhere. Voltage is the "pressure" from oncoming water; current is the energy actually extracted from this process, including a loss of energy at "the other end". Of course, AC power oscillates back and forth 50/60 times a second, so a water wheel is a pretty bad analogy. There is no energy "going back to the other pin of your wall outlet" - if that was the case, we couldn't have fuses, as literally every wire would constantly be transmitting infinite current, and everything would be on fire. An electrical circuit will only draw the energy required/allowed by the parts in that circuit. If your circuit has a 100W motor, or light bulb, or whatever, then 100W passes through the circuit - and is converted to kinetic energy, or light, or whatever. (The vast majority of which will soon thereafter be converted to heat.) There will be no more energy passing through that circuit than what it consumes.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 28, 2022)

Valantar said:


> You're mixing up voltage and current. What happens to the water in a waterwheel? It is slowed down to a near stop, losing its kinetic energy as this is transferred into the wheel. Only the momentum of the wheel and the force applied by the new water coming in makes it go anywhere. Voltage is the "pressure" from oncoming water; current is the energy actually extracted from this process, including a loss of energy at "the other end". Of course, AC power oscillates back and forth 50/60 times a second, so a water wheel is a pretty bad analogy. There is no energy "going back to the other pin of your wall outlet" - if that was the case, we couldn't have fuses, as literally every wire would constantly be transmitting infinite current, and everything would be on fire. An electrical circuit will only draw the energy required/allowed by the parts in that circuit. If your circuit has a 100W motor, or light bulb, or whatever, then 100W passes through the circuit - and is converted to kinetic energy, or light, or whatever. (The vast majority of which will soon thereafter be converted to heat.) There will be no more energy passing through that circuit than what it consumes.


There's a curve ball in my mind, have at it.

The power doesn't travel down the wire's anyway it moves through the air around the circuit not through the circuit.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 28, 2022)

TheoneandonlyMrK said:


> There's a curve ball in my mind, have at it.
> 
> The power doesn't travel down the wire's anyway it moves through the air around the circuit not through the circuit.


Not in DC. Very high frequency AC (or technically pulsed DC) will travel along the skin of the wire, but either of those will cause a CPU to let the magic smoke out.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 28, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> Not in DC. Very high frequency AC (or technically pulsed DC) will travel along the skin of the wire, but either of those will cause a CPU to let the magic smoke out.


Not the skin, the rather air,  but yes I agree.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

TheoneandonlyMrK said:


> There's a curve ball in my mind, have at it.
> 
> The power doesn't travel down the wire's anyway it moves through the air around the circuit not through the circuit.


Yep, I know. And that's pretty much when I realize there's a reason why I never went into engineering


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 28, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> Probably the game selection happened to not favor a large L3 cache.


Nice observation, Far Cry 5 has been replaced with Far Cry 6, big difference in gains for the 5800X3D vs everything else



			https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5800x3d/images/far-cry-5-1920-1080.png
		



			https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-7950x/images/far-cry-6-1920-1080.png


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> Nice observation, Far Cry 5 has been replaced with Far Cry 6, big difference in gains
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow, that's a massive difference. Wonder what changed - those are based on more or less the same engine, no?


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 28, 2022)

Valantar said:


> Wow, that's a massive difference. Wonder what changed - those are based on more or less the same engine, no?


Similar engine, but DX12 and of course the usual modernization updates for a new iteration of the engine. 5800X3D thrives when workloads suddenly fit in its cache and they don't fit on the other CPUs. Now I suspect either large parts of FC6 run in cache of all modern CPUs, or don't fit into 5800X3D cache either, or the developer optimized their code somehow


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 28, 2022)

Dunia Engine 2 - Wiki says:


> For _Far Cry 6_, Ubisoft introduced more features to the Dunia 2 engine such as ray tracing support on the PC version and support for AMD's open source variable resolution technology, FidelityFX.


Engine isn't everything though.


----------



## Xero717 (Sep 28, 2022)

Not sure if someone brought this up already, but the second chiplet not boosting as high definitely occurred in the 5000 series.  I heard rumors of some 5000 series processors not having this issue, but from my experience I never ran into any 5950X before the revision that worked that way.  The second CCD was often referred to as the "shitlet" with binning falling below a 5800X, basically a way for AMD to dump their low performing 8 cores.


----------



## dgianstefani (Sep 28, 2022)

Mussels said:


> If only a certained banned TPU member who kept making new accounts to argue with me was still around, he loved to say how 12th gen was more power efficient than zen 3 in gaming
> View attachment 263417AMD have finally released a CPU that's equally as power hungry!
> (and at stock settings vs stock settings, intel still takes more power)
> 
> ...


Monolithic die 5700g that's why.


----------



## nguyen (Sep 28, 2022)

Xero717 said:


> Not sure if someone brought this up already, but the second chiplet not boosting as high definitely occurred in the 5000 series.  I heard rumors of some 5000 series processors not having this issue, but from my experience I never ran into any 5950X before the revision that worked that way.  The second CCD was often referred to as the "shitlet" with binning falling below a 5800X, basically a way for AMD to dump their low performing 8 cores.



TPU reviews mentions the same happening in 7950X review


> In pure stock settings, we noticed that the boosting behavior of among the two CCDs is vastly different, with cores on the second CCD boosting anywhere between 100 to 250 MHz lower than their counterparts from the first CCD


----------



## HD64G (Sep 28, 2022)

I will ask @W1zzard since he has the CPUs and know about the following:

Imho, a high temp operating CPU is a problem only 1) if it throttles or 2) if this heat is affecting accordingly the temp in your room/space. What of those 2 problems Zen4 creates?


----------



## Xero717 (Sep 28, 2022)

nguyen said:


> TPU reviews mentions the same happening in 7950X review


Yeah, I was referring to the very end of that paragraph that states:

"We've reproduced this CCD boosting disparity on even our 7900X sample. *Older-gen 5000-series chips such as the 5950X don't exhibit this.*"

That's simply not true.


----------



## InVasMani (Sep 28, 2022)

nguyen said:


> TPU reviews mentions the same happening in 7950X review



It might be by design to do with temps and latency access between CCX chiplets. Drop the second CCX clocks a bit to allow a bit more temperature headroom to boost higher on the initial CCX chiplet. They might have carefully optimized it such to reduced frequencies just enough on the second CCX to get the most reasonable uplift out of the first CCX while minimizing the relative drop off on the second CCX. The latency access for accessing cores on second CCX while reduced from earlier Ryzen chips is still very much present, but they've done a good bit to offset and minimize it better. Intel doesn't have CCX chiplets, but they still drop frequencies and boost frequencies dynamically at different ends to improve general ST performance. They pretty much do a bit of a high pass boost with a low pass cut with the turbo and boost frequencies to use for thermal headroom for higher on demand ST performance if proper thermals permit.


----------



## Xero717 (Sep 28, 2022)

InVasMani said:


> It might be by design to do with temps and latency access between CCX chiplets.



If both chiplets were of an equivalent quality, they'd only be able to sell half as many 7950Xs.  Purely an economics decision, and nothing else.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

Xero717 said:


> If both chiplets were of an equivalent quality, they'd only be able to sell half as many 7950Xs.  Purely an economics decision, and nothing else.


Probably - but then again the performance difference is essentially zero, so it doesn't cost users anything either. If your load is below 8/6 cores, then you're only loading one CCD. If your load is nT, then you're running, let's say 5.1GHz on CCD0, and maybe 4.9GHz on CCD1 - that's a 4% clock decrease on half your cores. So, this costs you 2% performance, at most, in the most extreme use cases. It's really not worth talking about.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 28, 2022)

Xero717 said:


> Not sure if someone brought this up already, but the second chiplet not boosting as high definitely occurred in the 5000 series.  I heard rumors of some 5000 series processors not having this issue, but from my experience I never ran into any 5950X before the revision that worked that way.  The second CCD was often referred to as the "shitlet" with binning falling below a 5800X, basically a way for AMD to dump their low performing 8 cores.


I remember seeing small differences, even such big deltas were common on Zen 3?


----------



## dgianstefani (Sep 28, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> I remember seeing small differences, even such big deltas were common on Zen 3?


My 5950x had about 100-150mhz disparity between the chiplets.


----------



## Xero717 (Sep 28, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> I remember seeing small differences, even such big deltas were common on Zen 3?


For sure.  With my current chip, top end single core boost on CCD1 maxes out around ~4950 while CCD2 maxes out between 4700-4750.  When overclocking all core per CCD I'm able to hit 4550 on CCD1 but only 4350 on CCD2.  One of the chips I had prior would boost over 5ghz on CCD1 but CCD2 was even worse than my current.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 28, 2022)

Interesting, so not that out of the ordinary .. makes me wonder why AMD has had my question about it for a week, replied on Monday "researching" and nothing since .. should be trivial to answer, if it's the same as Zen 3


----------



## efikkan (Sep 28, 2022)

R0H1T said:


> AVX 512 is disabled by Intel for quite a while now, unless you have an old board & older OS or get the 11900k?


I believe certain motherboard/BIOS combos should allow the option, but chasing those down might be tricky.

It will be very interesting though if any reviewer could do this comparison, especially since Alder Lake have full 512-bit vector engines while Zen 4 is "double-pumping" its 256-bit engines, and presumably Zen 4 manages to maintain higher clocks. Just take a look at the gains for Zen 4 with AVX-512 across multiple open source projects. Keep in mind that the majority of these have no manual AVX-512 optimizations, this is mostly due to enabling a compiler flag, so this is basically free performance. As I've been saying for years to critics of AVX-512; it will be amazing, and Intel's problems have been due to flawed implementation and node issues, not the underlying ISA.

For those wondering how AVX-512 can gain performance when double-pumping 256-bit vector engines; the denser code improves cache efficiency and precision of prediction and prefetching. There is also some instructions which can be completely eliminated, as loops are better unrolled and AVX-512 have many features not available in AVX2. It's worth noting that VIA have implemented AVX-512 in a similar way to AMD.

As I've been arguing in early threads about Alder Lake, this double-pumping way is how Intel should have implemented it in their E-cores.



Valantar said:


> Wow, that's a massive difference. Wonder what changed - those are based on more or less the same engine, no?


Probably some new features requiring a lot of (potentially unrefined) code. High sensitivity to instruction cache is a typical characteristic of code with low computational density, in other words "bloated code".


----------



## vmarv (Sep 28, 2022)




----------



## Dirt Chip (Sep 29, 2022)

vmarv said:


>


OC contest are over, the new thing is UC contest.


----------



## ARF (Sep 29, 2022)

Nah... meh!




Affordable & Mainstream AMD B650E / B650 Motherboards From Gigabyte Pictured, Designed For Budget Ryzen 7000 PCs (wccftech.com)


----------



## Denver (Sep 29, 2022)

@W1zzard 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1574441621625749507


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 29, 2022)

Denver said:


> @W1zzard
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1574441621625749507


I know, I did a quick test and saw +10% perf, but haven't had time for further testing. DHL Express, DHL, UPS, Fedex and German DPD came in just today, all bringing samples


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 29, 2022)




----------



## HD64G (Sep 29, 2022)

The Intel fastest CPUs since 9900K are sold being factory oced and thus being very hot at full load needing high end cooling. AMD just now started doing the same. And if one uses Ryzen Master curve optimizer he will get 1-2% less performance at MT-heavy apps for at least 20% less power draw and for sure better thermals. Gaming temps are low either way.


----------



## mechtech (Sep 29, 2022)

@W1zzard 

Another thing that would be interesting to see is if these were cooled with a stock zen 3 cooler how would the clocks compare to zen3??


----------



## A Computer Guy (Sep 29, 2022)

mechtech said:


> @W1zzard
> 
> Another thing that would be interesting to see is if these were cooled with a stock zen 3 cooler how would the clocks compare to zen3??


I'd like to see performance comparisons at a normalized wattage (65, 88, 105, 142, etc..) between Zen2, Zen3, Zen4 vs. Intel 10th, 11th, and 12th gen.


----------



## Icon Charlie (Sep 30, 2022)

A Computer Guy said:


> I'd like to see performance comparisons at a normalized wattage (65, 88, 105, 142, etc..) between Zen2, Zen3, Zen4 vs. Intel 10th, 11th, and 12th gen.


I agree.  This Eco stuff is market speak.  Show me REAL data against undervolted CPU's from previous generations.

I am really thinking of under volting my CPU just because of this AMD nonsense.  And I am already running a very cool rig right now with great performance and stability.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 30, 2022)

nguyen said:


> Wait wut
> View attachment 263420
> 
> 12900K use 1% more power while being 4% faster than 7950X, that means 12900K is more efficient in gaming



.... no. Thats a performance graph at 720p and you cant go using power figures out of nowhere.

Maybe try using w1zzards own results that were measured while in game?



Icon Charlie said:


> I agree.  This Eco stuff is market speak.  Show me REAL data against undervolted CPU's from previous generations.
> 
> I am really thinking of under volting my CPU just because of this AMD nonsense.  And I am already running a very cool rig right now with great performance and stability.


That's really hard to achieve, it's not like reviewers have 50 different platforms ready to go with identical setups to go testing that sort of thing, and then of course individual variance of each CPU happens


----------



## nguyen (Sep 30, 2022)

Mussels said:


> .... no. Thats a performance graph at 720p and you cant go using power figures out of nowhere.
> 
> Maybe try using w1zzards own results that were measured while in game?
> 
> ...



How about this chart?





I really love TPU way of using avg FPS/avg power consumption (across 12 games), no room for cherry picking result.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 30, 2022)

nguyen said:


> How about this chart?
> View attachment 263699
> 
> I really love TPU way of using avg FPS/avg power consumption (across 12 games), no room for cherry picking result.


Nice crop, It's not like the rest of the lineup - the 5600x, 5700x and 5800x are more efficient or anything


The only 12th gen that makes a good showing is the 12600/K, it seems everything above that destroys efficiency





The gaming performance is basically identical on all the Zen3 parts.
No one ever buys a 5950x for gaming. No one.
It's like you went right for the worst performing Zen3 part and tried to make up facts to fit the opinion instead of the other way around.


----------



## nguyen (Sep 30, 2022)

Mussels said:


> Nice crop, It's not like the rest of the lineup - the 5600x, 5700x and 5800x are more efficient or anything
> 
> The only 12th gen that makes a good showing is the 12600/K, it seems everything above that destroys efficiency
> 
> ...



Lol I thought you were talking about direct competition 5950X vs 12900K, but if you like to cherry pick CPU to fit your narrative, how about the 12400F which is Intel 12th?



What else do you have? that Ryzen 5000 can be tweaked for better efficiency? that 12400F can't be tweaked right?


----------



## Richards (Oct 1, 2022)

nguyen said:


> Lol I thought you were talking about direct competition 5950X vs 12900K, but if you like to cherry pick CPU to fit your narrative, how about the 12400F which is Intel 12th?
> View attachment 263731
> What else do you have? that Ryzen 5000 can be tweaked for better efficiency? that 12400F can't be tweaked right?


Exposed him lol


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 1, 2022)

nguyen said:


> What else do you have? that Ryzen 5000 can be tweaked for better efficiency?* that 12400F can't be tweaked right*?


No actually it can't & yes Ryzen chips have a lot more room because they're all unlocked!

Depending on the workload you can expect anywhere between at least 5-40% more efficiency for Ryzen, though *you will need to cap power consumption* as well.
Which is why locked Intel chips are generally so efficient.









						AMD Ryzen 9 7950X in faster or more frugal: Gaming and workstation undervolting with light and shadow | Page 11 | igor'sLAB
					

Anyone who buys a new AMD Ryzen 7000, no matter which model, will certainly curse the high temperatures and thus also get annoyed about the usually high power consumption under full load. However…




					www.igorslab.de


----------



## fevgatos (Oct 1, 2022)

Mussels said:


> Nice crop, It's not like the rest of the lineup - the 5600x, 5700x and 5800x are more efficient or anything
> 
> 
> The only 12th gen that makes a good showing is the 12600/K, it seems everything above that destroys efficiency
> ...


Aren't these graphs SYSTEM power consumption? So wtf are you comparing then? If one CPU gets more fps the GPU will also pull more wattage. 

I don't know why this argument keeps on going, it's been demonstrated repeatedly that in gaming, zen 3 efficiency sucks. Or better put, in all lightly threaded workloads like games / autocad / premiere and these kinds of stuff.


----------



## Dr. Dro (Oct 1, 2022)

Mussels said:


> No one ever buys a 5950x for gaming. No one.



Hi, I have been summoned  

But I am also out of my mind! 

Anyways, I agree in general. Zen 4 is a solid improvement when power-normalized IMO, but we've reached a point where processors have gotten plenty fast. No one left Sandy Bridge for Ivy Bridge, hell, most people stayed on Sandy Bridge well into Haswell's lifetime. We're just hitting that point now - I strongly believe that Zen 2 and Zen 3 are the new Sandy and Ivy processors, these will stick around as a performance standard for some time.

It seems obvious to me that if you're after the absolute fastest gaming parts, Raptor Lake will be the way to go, but buyers of Raptor Lake should also be aware that it's a sealed deal. Not that i'm placing too much stock on AMD honoring X670E's long life if they begin to get too far ahead of Intel in performance. I won't forget, or forgive the treatment and cold shoulder given to us X370 adopters.


----------



## nguyen (Oct 1, 2022)

R0H1T said:


> No actually it can't & yes Ryzen chips have a lot more room because they're all unlocked!
> 
> Depending on the workload you can expect anywhere between at least 5-40% more efficiency for Ryzen, though *you will need to cap power consumption* as well.
> Which is why locked Intel chips are generally so efficient.
> ...



This will be the only time I response to you, every Intel CPU can be undervolted and it takes about 10s doing so.


----------



## InVasMani (Oct 1, 2022)

Yes, but if you want efficiency just run a 5800X3D on a single core with the rest disabled and have nice big cache for it while it sips power punches well above it's weight for a single core.


----------



## R0H1T (Oct 1, 2022)

nguyen said:


> This will be the only time I response to you, every Intel CPU can be undervolted and it takes about 10s doing so.


So can Ryzen & no you need a compatible board for Intel.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 2, 2022)

nguyen said:


> Lol I thought you were talking about direct competition 5950X vs 12900K, but if you like to cherry pick CPU to fit your narrative, how about the 12400F which is Intel 12th?
> View attachment 263731
> What else do you have? that Ryzen 5000 can be tweaked for better efficiency? that 12400F can't be tweaked right?


I'm not arguing against the 12400F at all.
I fully agree some of the intel chips have better power efficiency - but it's not the high end ones people go on about being for 'gamers'

We have maybe one xx400 or xx600 cpu in each generation, and then every model above that is a shitshow


----------



## nguyen (Oct 2, 2022)

Mussels said:


> I'm not arguing against the 12400F at all.
> I fully agree some of the intel chips have better power efficiency - but it's not the high end ones people go on about being for 'gamers'
> 
> We have maybe one xx400 or xx600 cpu in each generation, and then every model above that is a shitshow



What I'm trying to say since the beginning is that making assumption about gaming efficiency from cinebench is just wrong, games are definitely not designed to utilize every core to 100% (it would be a stuttering mess).

I'm glad W1zzard cleared that up by separating productivity and gaming efficiency in the new review format.

Ever since Cinebench become a popular benchmarking tools, people just got the wrong impression about how much CPUs use during gaming and just over-spent on motherboards for absolutely nothing. Now we have expensive X670 motherboards with overkill VRM for nothing.


----------



## PurchaseTBD (Oct 2, 2022)

Hello, I had originally went over the 7600X review and its comment section which mentioned fresh OS and whatnot but I came across some things that I'm not sure explain it away.

*WinRar Compress* in the 7600X review has an 11400F faster than anything reviewed in the 7700X&7950X reviews?

*Adobe Premiere Pro* 7950X review & 12900KS review in april, "A lot of memory is consumed and accessed in the process, over 10 GB for our test scene." was this the same test scene? because windows 11 shouldn't be taking twice as long for the same scene? *Adobe Photoshop* also had a substantial push back to time to complete which suggests to me they were a different "battery of typical editing tasks", were they different? The gaming FPS numbers I looked over briefly didn't jump this much.

*STV-AV1 *was mentioned in the comment section also, new build, a 12900K going from 99.6s to 12.8s, large improvements made there for that compressor if the footage was the same, which it appears to be the case when I look at x264, x265, and mp3 results, which made me question the Adobe tests.


----------



## fybyfyby (Oct 2, 2022)

Toss said:


> wtf. All we got is overclocked 5950x with lower efficiency.
> 5950x is 120W TDP and this monstrocity is 200W+ TDP everywhere.
> I guess sticking with my 5950x until 2030 then.


So compare them at the same wattage and you will see. Reason new Ryzens have higher TDP is to make possible to have high frequency on all cores. And thats cool! No one forces you to use that frequencies. You can set TDP lower. You still get high ST performance but also higher MT performance. Thanks to better IPC and higher frequencies on same TDP as 5950x. On the other hand, if you have 5950x, you allready have beast cpu. I have 5900x, so for me 7950x is very much good upgrade.


----------



## Dr. Dro (Oct 2, 2022)

fybyfyby said:


> So compare them at the same wattage and you will see. Reason new Ryzens have higher TDP is to make possible to have high frequency on all cores. And thats cool! No one forces you to use that frequencies. You can set TDP lower. You still get high ST performance but also higher MT performance. Thanks to better IPC and higher frequencies on same TDP as 5950x. On the other hand, if you have 5950x, you allready have beast cpu. I have 5900x, so for me 7950x is very much good upgrade.



I would argue it's not worth changing platform and memory to upgrade from the 5900X processor yet. If you desperately want more gaming kick - flip it and sidegrade to the 5800X3D. You'll lose four cores but optimize the internal architecture and gain all the benefits from the huge cache. Or, add a little extra money and get a 5950X processor, which is immune to the 6-core CCD's limitations and is effectively a dual-5800X setup, having your cake and eating it too, at the cost of being a small bit behind in gaming performance CPU wise (who cares lol)


----------



## W1zzard (Oct 2, 2022)

PurchaseTBD said:


> *WinRar Compress* in the 7600X review has an 11400F faster than anything reviewed in the 7700X&7950X reviews?


This is definitely a testing error, will retest and update the reviews accordingly

Edit: this is fixed now



PurchaseTBD said:


> Adobe


I think they should be the same workloads, not 100% sure. Both programs have been updated though. Maybe Adobe optimized their tracking algorithm to be more precise, but runs longer. Photoshop usually gets slower with each new version, the 10% increase in runtime seems plausible.

My benchmarks are not designed to be comparable across test systems over the years, this gives me much more freedom to pick newer/better workloads and scenarios.



PurchaseTBD said:


> AV1


I selected a shorter input video this time to cut back on total runtime of the benchmarks. Running SO many tests takes forever, and I also have A LOT of comparison CPUs. The duration for AV1 does seem rather short now on the fastest CPUs, guess I'll pick something longer for next rebench.


----------



## veleciraptor (Oct 2, 2022)

If you drop the power usage to 65 watt, it is one of the most efficient CPU ever made.


----------



## PurchaseTBD (Oct 3, 2022)

would you consider adding VMAF (Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion) to your selection of tests? perhaps as a synthetic or rendering?
powershell would measure the time it takes ffmpeg to perform the task on a video file

for example, I generated colorbars at 4K, exported a lossless x265 600 frame video under a megabyte and told ffmpeg to compare it to itself using the vmaf model, took 318.4561 seconds on an 6T FX6300 while a 12T 2600X took 46.5407 seconds, I don't believe the contents of the video matter, just the resolution and frame count.

like cinebench you could potentially measure single threaded and multithreaded performance


----------



## Denver (Oct 3, 2022)

More Zen4 specific updates:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1576335723044622337


----------



## blazeddd (Oct 14, 2022)

Any chance we could get some updated relative performance charts with the new Nvidia RTX 4090?
Would it most likely be similar for 4K gaming? Mostly concerned about 5600x paired with a 4090 at 4K.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 15, 2022)

blazeddd said:


> Any chance we could get some updated relative performance charts with the new Nvidia RTX 4090?
> Would it most likely be similar for 4K gaming? Mostly concerned about 5600x paired with a 4090 at 4K.


future CPU reviews might use the new GPU's, it takes a lot of time to re-test every combination


Having a 5600x tested would be useless without every OTHER CPU also being tested to compare it against


----------



## AnotherReader (Nov 10, 2022)

Chips and Cheese has a pretty comprehensive two part deep dive into Zen 4's microarchitecture:

Part1
Part 2


----------



## DMD (Dec 24, 2022)

Good morning.
Regarding the problem of slow boot up, is there currently any motherboard more suitable for 7950X CPU or should we wait for AGESA bios update that can improve the boot performance?
Thank you and merry Christmas to all.


----------



## AusWolf (Dec 24, 2022)

DMD said:


> Good morning.
> Regarding the problem of slow boot up, is there currently any motherboard more suitable for 7950X CPU or should we wait for AGESA bios update that can improve the boot performance?
> Thank you and merry Christmas to all.


The newest BIOS with AGESA 1.0.0.4 transformed my motherboard from an unusable mess that even had issues POSTing properly into a quite decent board.

If you're just about to buy one, I'd suggest looking at the BIOS update page for that specific board, and see if it has AGESA 1.0.0.4 already.

Merry Christmas to you too!


----------



## DMD (Dec 24, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> The newest BIOS with AGESA 1.0.0.4 transformed my motherboard from an unusable mess that even had issues POSTing properly into a quite decent board.
> 
> If you're just about to buy one, I'd suggest looking at the BIOS update page for that specific board, and see if it has AGESA 1.0.0.4 already.
> 
> Merry Christmas to you too!


Thanks for the advice.
I saw in the specifications of the two motherboards I am interested in:
Asus ROG STRIX X670E-F GAMING and Gigabyte X670 AORUS ELITE
In the latest BIOS version it shows: "Update AMD AGESA 1.0.0.3 Patch A to D"


----------



## AusWolf (Dec 24, 2022)

DMD said:


> Thanks for the advice.
> I saw in the specifications of the two motherboards I am interested in:
> Asus ROG STRIX X670E-F GAMING and Gigabyte X670 AORUS ELITE
> In the latest BIOS version it shows: "Update AMD AGESA 1.0.0.3 Patch A to D"


Those boards are more expensive and better made than mine (I have an MSi Pro B650M-A Wifi), so you should be okay, I think.

Edit: What RAM do you want to use? That's the most important factor that influences boot speed.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 25, 2022)

DMD said:


> Good morning.
> Regarding the problem of slow boot up, is there currently any motherboard more suitable for 7950X CPU or should we wait for AGESA bios update that can improve the boot performance?
> Thank you and merry Christmas to all.


RAM seems to be a big part of the issues, with the higher speed kits being more likely to have slow-downs and problems

Nothings guaranteed as things keep improving with BIOS and AGESA updates, but finding what users are happy with on that specific board you chose would be wise


----------



## DMD (Dec 25, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> Those boards are more expensive and better made than mine (I have an MSi Pro B650M-A Wifi), so you should be okay, I think.
> 
> Edit: What RAM do you want to use? That's the most important factor that influences boot speed.


I am already in possession of 2 stik G.SKILL Flare X5 32GB Kit DDR5-6000 CL32 (F5-6000J3238F16GX2-FX5)
Can I make them work at a lower frequency with Asus ROG STRIX X670E-F GAMING motherboard?
Thank you and Merry Christmas


----------



## AusWolf (Dec 25, 2022)

DMD said:


> I am already in possession of 2 stik G.SKILL Flare X5 32GB Kit DDR5-6000 CL32 (F5-6000J3238F16GX2-FX5)
> Can I make them work at a lower frequency with Asus ROG STRIX X670E-F GAMING motherboard?
> Thank you and Merry Christmas


A 32 GB stick of 6000 MHz RAM should work. If it doesn't, running at a lower speed is always an option. You don't have to stick to SPD settings, you can also make your own - but I don't think you'll have to. 

Merry Christmas to you too!


----------



## Mussels (Dec 25, 2022)

DMD said:


> I am already in possession of 2 stik G.SKILL Flare X5 32GB Kit DDR5-6000 CL32 (F5-6000J3238F16GX2-FX5)
> Can I make them work at a lower frequency with Asus ROG STRIX X670E-F GAMING motherboard?
> Thank you and Merry Christmas


Easily.
Simplest option is to just enable XMP, and if you have issues, clear CMOS and try again - but lower the speed after enabling XMP (so 5800, 5600, 5400 etc) until it's stable


----------

