# AMD Ryzen 5 7600X



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

Ryzen 5 7600X is the company's most affordable offering for the Zen 4 family. Our review of the 7600X confirms that this new $300 CPU offers huge performance gains over Zen 3, and can even beat the Ryzen 5800X3D in gaming. In applications, the 7600X is faster than the Intel Core i9-11900K.

*Show full review*


----------



## Dyatlov A (Sep 26, 2022)

Absolutely not worth to come from an overclocked Intel Core i5-12400 CPU.


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 26, 2022)

Dyatlov A said:


> Absolutely not worth to come from an overclocked Intel Core i5-12400 CPU.


I mean you would be losing performance.


----------



## Dyatlov A (Sep 26, 2022)

phanbuey said:


> I mean you would be losing performance.



Yeah, i would loose money and performance.


----------



## Ayhamb99 (Sep 26, 2022)

While the performance gains over the previous 5600x is impressive.... The i5 12600k still remains very competitive and comes close to its performance.... While the 7950X and 7900X's performance gains are very big and impressive compared to the 5950X/5900X and I9 12900k.... The 7600X and 7700X barely overtake the 12600k and 12700k in gaming and productivity workloads and 13th gen Raptor lake is not that far away....


----------



## dirtyferret (Sep 26, 2022)

phanbuey said:


> I mean you would be losing performance.


yes but he would be gaining a new heater


----------



## ZetZet (Sep 26, 2022)

Wait this is not what was advertised... Seems disappointing, especially for the platform cost.


----------



## HD64G (Sep 26, 2022)

A 6-core CPU matching the average in app performance of 5900X is a small miracle imho. Platform cost will get lower in 2-3 months with B650 and the longegivity of AM5 will be the biggest advantage. Also, clocks are getting higher than advertised once cooling is enough.


----------



## jesdals (Sep 26, 2022)

A AM4 5950x with 4x8GB 4400MHz Samsung B-Die Kit setup ctr 7950x 32GB 6200MHz CL32 kit with a Gigabyte Master edition board cost 10000 dkr versus estimated 15000 dkr in Denmark thats going to be a big mark up


----------



## Ayhamb99 (Sep 26, 2022)

HD64G said:


> A 6-core CPU matching the average in app performance of 5900X is a small miracle imho. Platform cost will get lower in 2-3 months with B650 and the longegivity of AM5 will be the biggest advantage. Also, clocks are getting higher than advertised once cooling is enough.


To be honest I'd stay skeptical of their promise for longevity because AMD did break these kinds of promises before like with sTRX4 and B450/X470 was originally not going to be supported for Ryzen 5000s and only did it when the backlash started. Also B350/X370 support for Ryzen 5000s was only enabled after Intel released Alder Lake.... Although it's at least better than Intel 2 generations only per socket....

I hope though that there will be actual stock and not a repeat of the Ryzen 5000s launch where they were unobtainium well into 2021


----------



## IllIIIl (Sep 26, 2022)

I'm going to be careful with this review, the 12900/12700/12600 is way too powerful here, unlike other reviews I've seen





So considering amd-dominated games and intel-dominated games, and assuming that 7600x is stronger than 5800x3d in comprehensive performance（as this review shows）, the conclusion is 7600x is stronger than 12900k.This would be the exact opposite of this review.
--------------------



Now I see new reviews from hardware unboxed.
So techpowerup's amd review here is friendly to intel


----------



## catulitechup (Sep 26, 2022)

@W1zzard very thanks for review and specially for add emulators (very usefull because them have high cpu usage) to testing maybe can add in future dolphin emu (anadtech use dolphin in tests) and yuzu switch emulator personally seems more progress than ryujinx



> yuzu · yuzu
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Progress Report August 2022 · yuzu
> 
> 
> Welcome back, yuz-ers! August was a month packed with progress. A plethora of graphical changes, kernel and file system improvements, and more work pumped into network emulation. Next slide, please!
> ...



and do you can test avx 512 in rpcs3 because appear on various articles avx 512 improve performance around 30% (in web testing god of war i think so)



> Why Is AVX 512 Useful for RPCS3? – Whatcookie's blog
> 
> 
> Contacts below:
> ...








personally stay interested in how run avx 512 on zen 4 because them use 2x fma 256 for avx 512 implementation meanwhile intel use 1x fma 512 for avx 512 intel implementation

back to testing results in my case seems are more or less 12600k but with higher temps and more expensive, i5 13600k seems more interesting thanks to ddr4 compatibility


----------



## Raendor (Sep 26, 2022)

Quite a flop and doesn't bring much to the table compared to ADL. Raptor Lake has a chance to beat zen 4 on price and performance.


----------



## bug (Sep 26, 2022)

I really want to like this, but it just feels like it falls short on every front. Neck to neck with 12600k, basically. Sure, it's more energy efficient, but even that's not really impressive, considering we're looking at 5 vs 10nm.
It's not even better than 5600X, considering the difference in platform cost.


----------



## Mine18 (Sep 26, 2022)

Great review W1zzard! nice to see many different test scenarios used to evaluate performance. I'm curious as to the specifics of the media encoding tests, specifically what version of SVT was used with what preset and at what bitrate? it would be neat if you added that info to all the Zen 4 reviews too!


----------



## fevgatos (Sep 26, 2022)

bug said:


> I really want to like this, but it just feels like it falls short on every front. Neck to neck with 12600k, basically. Sure, it's more energy efficient, but even that's not really impressive, considering we're looking at 5 vs 10nm.
> It's not even better than 5600X, considering the difference in platform cost.


It's not competing with the 12600k though. wait for the 13600k


----------



## bug (Sep 26, 2022)

fevgatos said:


> It's not competing with the 12600k though. wait for the 13600k


I'm not waiting for anything, I'm on ADL, not looking to upgrade this round.
If anything, this makes me feel a little warmer for having chosen wisely


----------



## codex5600x (Sep 26, 2022)

I'm , the 13 gen of Intel will crush the 7 series of amd.
The 5600x and 12600k are the best cpu


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

Mine18 said:


> specifically what version of SVT was used with what preset and at what bitrate?


Just default settings and -w 3840 -h 2160 --fps 24 --progress 0

```
Svt[info]: SVT [version]:       SVT-AV1 Encoder Lib v1.1.0-127-gb1f4b68c
Svt[info]: SVT [build]  :       GCC 12.1.0       64 bit
Svt[info]: LIB Build date: Jul  8 2022 06:49:51
```

I started setting up the bench in summer and picked the newest available at that time. Spent the last months retesting processors, using constant version of course



IllIIIl said:


> unlike other reviews I've seen


You've read the conclusion where I specifically talk about that, right?


----------



## Arkz (Sep 26, 2022)

Think I'll stick with my 5600X for the next couple gens


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 26, 2022)

I read the 7600x review just now, and the one over on Techspot. I think 7600x is the clear winner with this launch for bang for buck ratio. I think I may do my next build with a 7600x and rdna3 assuming I can get my hands on RDNA3.


----------



## Arkz (Sep 26, 2022)

ZetZet said:


> Temperature is not heat, how many physics classes did you miss in school?


So a higher temp is not hotter than a lower temp? Got it. Thanks Mr Physics.


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 26, 2022)

I want a 420mm AIO Arctic cooler on the 7600x and max PBO it. i bet it would do pretty good. although with a 420mm AIO, i might as well go 7700x or 7900x.


----------



## bug (Sep 26, 2022)

Arkz said:


> So a higher temp is not hotter than a lower temp? Got it. Thanks Mr Physics.


Technically, he is correct.
But that distinction is irrelevant in this thread: a hotter CPU (higher temperature) will dissipate more heat in the environment, than a cooler (lower temperature) one.


----------



## Footman (Sep 26, 2022)

Interesting cpu. Not interesting enough for me to spend my money on it. Motherboard and DDR5 costs too high. Right now I can pick up a brand new 5800X from Microcenter for $249 and plug it in to my AM4 platform and get 92% of the 7600X. Put the difference towards a new video card.... Best upgrade for my old 2600x and ddr 3600...


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> I want a 420mm AIO Arctic cooler on the 7600x and max PBO it


that's exactly what I did in this review, numbers are included.


----------



## FreezingPC (Sep 26, 2022)

@W1zzard will there be a memory comparaison at some point ?
NGL, the 6000MHz+ memory kits are at spicy prices with 5400MHz-5600MHz being the most """""reasonable"""""


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

FreezingPC said:


> will there be a memory comparaison at some point ?


yes


----------



## RandallFlagg (Sep 26, 2022)

bug said:


> Technically, he is correct.
> But that distinction is irrelevant in this thread: a hotter CPU (higher temperature) will dissipate more heat in the environment, than a cooler (lower temperature) one.



That's not what he's really saying.  An analogy is in order.

I can heat up a pin to very high temps perhaps > 100C over ambient with just 5W, but it will have negligible effect on my environments temp because the pin is so small.

However if I take an aluminum baseball bat and apply 5W to it, it might maybe heat up 0.1C if that, because it is 1000x larger.  The effect on my environment would be the same as applying 5W to the pin though, because all 5W goes out into the environment in the form of heat.  

The same thing is happening here, Zen 4 is smaller so it heats up quicker with a smaller amount of power.  I'm sure some cooler manufacturers are already working on better methods of getting that heat out of the small die / package area.


----------



## lightning70 (Sep 26, 2022)

Less than 12600k is incredible . and the cost of DDR5 was costly.


----------



## bug (Sep 26, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> I want a 420mm AIO Arctic cooler on the 7600x and max PBO it. i bet it would do pretty good. although with a 420mm AIO, i might as well go 7700x or 7900x.


AIO for a mid-range chip sound like a terrible idea. Maybe undervolt or downclock a little, it's worked wonders before.


----------



## TheUn4seen (Sep 26, 2022)

Apparently, those things will try to hit their target temperature of "almost boiling water" and adjust frequency to keep themselves there. Thank you but no, thank you.
Either way, I'm not interested - platform cost is way too high and all that, but I have to say the new CPUs are kind of underwhelming for all the hype. I'd rather wait until Raptor Lake comes to market and get a 12600 during the inevitable sale of "previous-gen" chips.


----------



## bug (Sep 26, 2022)

RandallFlagg said:


> That's not what he's really saying.  An analogy is in order.
> 
> I can heat up a pin to very high temps perhaps > 100C over ambient with just 5W, but it will have negligible effect on my environments temp because the pin is so small.
> 
> ...


But is Zen4 smaller than Zen3? The CCD is a little smaller (70 vs 80-something sq mm), but at the same time the IO die moved from 12 to 6nm. So the overall size is probably the same.


----------



## TheDeeGee (Sep 26, 2022)

105 watt to get beaten by the 65 watt 12400f in 50% of the games at 1440p, that's not good at all.


----------



## usiname (Sep 26, 2022)

bug said:


> But is Zen4 smaller than Zen3? The CCD is a little smaller (70 vs 80-something sq mm), but at the same time the IO die moved from 12 to 6nm. So the overall size is probably the same.


The high temperature is caused from the thick lid, which was required for compatibility of coolers of AM4 to AM5 socket


----------



## HD64G (Sep 26, 2022)

Great review as usual by @W1zzard ! May I ask for a gaming test between the best CPUs from AMD and Intel using the 6950XT@1080P. I have a suspicion that the results will be different to the ones you got with RTX3080.


----------



## Vario (Sep 26, 2022)

HD64G said:


> A 6-core CPU matching the average in app performance of 5900X is a small miracle imho. Platform cost will get lower in 2-3 months with B650 and the longegivity of AM5 will be the biggest advantage. Also, clocks are getting higher than advertised once cooling is enough.


The i5 12600 already was though.


----------



## HD64G (Sep 26, 2022)

Vario said:


> The i5 12600 already was though.


Not a 6-core CPU though and it used more W...


----------



## Vario (Sep 26, 2022)

HD64G said:


> Not a 6-core CPU though and it used more W...


12600 is a 6 core.  12600K is a 6+4 core.  It costs $230. https://www.amazon.com/Intel-Core-i5-12600-3-30-Processor/dp/B09MSLG944, and it uses fewer watts.


----------



## Juventas (Sep 26, 2022)

These new power and temperature charts don't make sense to me.  If these are the same cooler, how is the Ryzen producing more heat energy using less electrical energy?  It seems to defy the first law of thermodynamics.


CPU Temperature - GamingPower Consumption - GamingRyzen 5 7600X (stock)70 C45 WCore i5-1260055 C50 W


----------



## Vario (Sep 26, 2022)

Juventas said:


> These new power and temperature charts don't make sense to me.  If these are the same cooler, how is the Ryzen producing more heat energy using less electrical energy?  It seems to defy the first law of thermodynamics.
> 
> 
> CPU Temperature - GamingPower Consumption - GamingRyzen 5 7600X (stock)70 C45 WCore i5-1260055 C50 W


Less efficient thermal conduction interface or cooler mounting difference, die size, lid size, die to lid interface, lots of things can account for it.


----------



## jinxjx (Sep 26, 2022)

Why they always use Ngreedia cards and never AMD cards on these reviews ????


----------



## usiname (Sep 26, 2022)

Juventas said:


> These new power and temperature charts don't make sense to me.  If these are the same cooler, how is the Ryzen producing more heat energy using less electrical energy?  It seems to defy the first law of thermodynamics.
> 
> 
> CPU Temperature - GamingPower Consumption - GamingRyzen 5 7600X (stock)70 C45 WCore i5-1260055 C50 W


Less die are, and don't include the IO die, the cores generate the most of the heat and that is why the temperature is so high


----------



## tussinman (Sep 26, 2022)

jinxjx said:


> Why they always use Ngreedia cards and never AMD cards on these reviews ????


From 2016-2020 they really didn't have a choice since AMD didn't really have a proper alternative to the 1080 and the 2080ti at launch (techpowerup 2016 setup using a Fury X for the next 2 years and techpowerup 2018 setup using a vega 64 for the next 2 years would have literally made no sense).

They had a chance in 2021 to do a 6800XT over a 3080 but i'm assuming they did the 3080 instead since it's slightly faster, more popular, and it wasn't proceeding a generation that had shaky driver issues (RX 5000 series).

Tell AMD to make better cards with better launch dates if you actually want techpowerup to use them (i'm not trying to be a smark aleck i'm just speaking the truth, the truth is techpowerup has to go back and literally test the cards on every single CPU so there not going to wait around for AMD to release cards late with a high chance of them not even being faster)


----------



## KV2DERP (Sep 26, 2022)

Idk, I don't feel really excited about this unlike me who get excited when hearing Zen 2 release.

Guess I'll stick with my 3600 then.


----------



## ZetZet (Sep 26, 2022)

Juventas said:


> These new power and temperature charts don't make sense to me.  If these are the same cooler, how is the Ryzen producing more heat energy using less electrical energy?  It seems to defy the first law of thermodynamics.
> 
> 
> CPU Temperature - GamingPower Consumption - GamingRyzen 5 7600X (stock)70 C45 WCore i5-1260055 C50 W


It's not. Ryzen just has less die area, so it reaches higher temperatures while using less energy. The amount of heat is also lower, it just gets rid of it worse.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 26, 2022)

The 7600X is currently looking pretty pointless until cheaper boards and DDR5 are available.

For the additional $250 platform cost that you'll have to pay for a 7600X over a 12400F or 5600X, you're better off just throwing that at a faster graphics card.

If you are after productivity, a 5900X can be had on the cheaper B550/DDR4 platform for the same money, and at twice the core count, there's no way the 7600X can hope to match it. The Zen4 clock and IPC improvements are generationally impressive, but they're not _twice_ as fast as Zen3


----------



## ZetZet (Sep 26, 2022)

Chrispy_ said:


> The 7600X is currently looking pretty pointless until cheaper boards and DDR5 are available.
> 
> For the additional $250 platform cost that you'll have to pay for a 7600X over a 12400F or 5600X, you're better off just throwing that at a faster graphics card.
> 
> If you are after productivity, a 5900X can be had on the cheaper B550/DDR4 platform for the same money, and at twice the core count, there's no way the 7600X can hope to match it. The Zen4 clock and IPC improvements are generationally impressive, but they're not _twice_ as fast as Zen3


Another option is stepping up all the way to 12700(F) non-K. Similar platform price, way more cores, similar gaming performance.

I personally will wait till 13600K reviews and see if it's worth waiting for non-K Raptor lake. (or maybe even get the 13600K, if Intel doesn't bump the pricing up a lot)


----------



## HD64G (Sep 26, 2022)

Vario said:


> 12600 is a 6 core.  12600K is a 6+4 core.  It costs $230. https://www.amazon.com/Intel-Core-i5-12600-3-30-Processor/dp/B09MSLG944, and it uses fewer watts.


My bad for thinking of 12600K but your bad thinking of it matching 5900X in app performance and not needing MUCH more than 100W in full load...  






As for gaming performance even vs the 12600K...


----------



## docnorth (Sep 26, 2022)

fevgatos said:


> It's not competing with the 12600k though. wait for the 13600k


Even worse I’m afraid (depending on price of course).


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

jinxjx said:


> Why they always use Ngreedia cards and never AMD cards on these reviews ????


NVIDIA is the market leader, so I picked one of their products. There is no sponsorship or anything here btw. The RTX 3080 is fast enough to not bottleneck the CPU much, but it's not a 3090 Ti that almost nobody can afford (I have 4 or 5 3090 Tis lying around here, so that's not the problem)



tussinman said:


> techpowerup has to go back and literally test the cards on every single CPU


Correct, that's what I did for these reviews, started with planning/game selection/test scene selection/etc in mid-June, and just finished in time


----------



## Fasola (Sep 26, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> NVIDIA is the market leader, so I picked one of their products. There is no sponsorship or anything here btw. The RTX 3080 is fast enough to not bottleneck the CPU much, but it's not a 3090 Ti that almost nobody can afford (I have 4 or 5 3090 Tis lying around here, so that's not the problem)


Wouldn't it be better to remove as much of the bottleneck as possible for the initial review as it is reviewing the CPU? Afterwards, various pairings can be done to find sweet spots or whatever scenarios you deem worthy of testing.


----------



## usiname (Sep 26, 2022)

Fasola said:


> Wouldn't it be better to remove as much of the bottleneck as possible for the initial review as it is reviewing the CPU? Afterwards, various pairings can be done to find sweet spots or whatever scenarios you deep worthy of testing.


Then the results will be unrealistic, if you want to see cpu bottleneck there is 720p tests


----------



## IllIIIl (Sep 26, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> You've read the conclusion where I specifically talk about that, right?


I bet you haven't read my reply, the point of my reply is just about your gaming performance review numbers being intel friendly. It doesn't matter what you say in your so-called "conclusions". Based on intel friendly reviews whatever your conclusion says will not remedy this.


----------



## LuxZg (Sep 26, 2022)

Chrispy_ said:


> The 7600X is currently looking pretty pointless until cheaper boards and DDR5 are available.
> 
> For the additional $250 platform cost that you'll have to pay for a 7600X over a 12400F or 5600X, you're better off just throwing that at a faster graphics card.
> 
> If you are after productivity, a 5900X can be had on the cheaper B550/DDR4 platform for the same money, and at twice the core count, there's no way the 7600X can hope to match it. The Zen4 clock and IPC improvements are generationally impressive, but they're not _twice_ as fast as Zen3



I was REALLY looking forward to Zen 4 and AM5. But you've pretty much summed it up perfectly.

5800X is roughly same as 7600X
Both perform roughly same and both are 105W TDP (even though actual consumption is on 7600X side)
But 5800X is already discounted heavily and can be found below 7600X expected pricing. Plus cheaper boards and RAM.

I'm a bit disappointed, no getting around that.

I'm in no hurry luckily, will wait for Raptor, and will wait to see if 7600/7700 non-X get released at ~65-75W. I'd like new platform. If neither pan out I'll just need to wait for next next-gen 

Edit: or maybe just wait for heavily discounted or 2nd hand previous gen...


----------



## QuietBob (Sep 26, 2022)

Thanks for another informative in-depth review! I really appreciate the new emulation and power consumption tests 

@W1zzard 
Is the same Blender BMW 27 scene used for temperature measurement and rendering benchmark?


----------



## Why_Me (Sep 26, 2022)

This thread is missing someone .. ah yes @Crackong


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 26, 2022)

LuxZg said:


> I was REALLY looking forward to Zen 4 and AM5. But you've pretty much summed it up perfectly.
> 
> 5800X is roughly same as 7600X
> Both perform roughly same and both are 105W TDP (even though actual consumption is on 7600X side)
> ...


Cheaper boards will come. The B650 (non-E) boards are expected within the month and _rumoured _to be as cheap as $150. That's not quite as cheap as B550 and DDR5 is still more expensive than DDR4, but it will improve the value proposition of the 7600X and 7700X - at the very least for gaming builds where 16GB of RAM is enough and the DDR4/DDR5 price difference matters less when we're only talking about a single small RAM kit.


----------



## wheresmycar (Sep 26, 2022)

Thanks for the review W1zzard! The gaming temps and power consumption charts are a nice addition - helps to identify perfectly acceptable temps outside of non-gaming full load/synthetic benchmarks/stress tests. 

I'm primarily interested in 1440p gaming performance and I have to admit i was hoping for a little wider performance uplift over the 5600X/12600K. Doesn't really matter... for a fresh socket still solid all-round performance from Zen 4 and the 3 year+ gen-2-gen longevity plan is very appealing. I'm all about best value for money hence sticking to that Nov-Dec upgrade plan in hopes of more affordable DDR5 memory and less extortianate non-X B-series boards. Should be interesting with the RPL drop, possibly 7000 series reductions and who knows a Zen 4 counterpunch with X3D.

I'm not discounting the 5800X3D either... what a road warrior! I got a B450 laying about hence if we see price reductions on the 5800X3D i might just grab one and call it a day for a couple of years.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

QuietBob said:


> Is the same Blender BMW 27 scene used for temperature measurement and rendering benchmark?


Correct. The temperature measurement runs multiple frames though, so it doesn't just stop early on fast machines



Fasola said:


> Wouldn't it be better to remove as much of the bottleneck as possible for the initial review as it is reviewing the CPU? Afterwards, various pairings can be done to find sweet spots or whatever scenarios you deep worthy of testing.


I rather use something more realistic, but that's a philosophy question imo. Not even sure if there's a meaningful difference there, other than higher FPS and more CPU bottleneck in some tests



IllIIIl said:


> I bet you haven't read my reply, the point of my reply is just about your gaming performance review numbers being intel friendly. It doesn't matter what you say in your so-called "conclusions". Based on intel friendly reviews whatever your conclusion says will not remedy this.


Of course I read your reply. Have you tried excluding the games you don't like? It's easy to do the math yourself to come to your own conclusions. Actually this is what you should do, look at the numbers, don't be a sheep and just believe everything people tell you


----------



## Dirt Chip (Sep 26, 2022)

The bluff has revealed over zen4.
I`m afraid zen4 best time will be from now till RL will be available to purchase (about 2 month?), And that "best" isn't looking good at all relative to AL.
Grate CPU`s and massive improvment that almost nobady will prefere.
Just sad.


----------



## ca_steve (Sep 26, 2022)

Thanks for the review. I'd love to see how this chip performs when locked to 65W TDP - sort of a preview of what the non-X might look like.


----------



## AdmiralThrawn (Sep 26, 2022)

I was very excited for this gen of AMD. But this is not looking very promising. AMD is trying to win over intel users in the mid range gaming market with zen 4. But from the benchmarks I am seeing, the 7600x loses to a 12600K in everything. While running 8 degrees hotter on average. 

Additionally the insane motherboard pricing is not very sexy, and neither is the DDR5 only. It looks like they won't be winning over any intel users. At least in the mid range for now.


----------



## gffermari (Sep 26, 2022)

The 7600X should have been cheaper.
It's not a problem about being slower than the 12600K.

The thing is that Intel made the x600K series a premium segment and AMD follows that.
The x400 cpus are the new x600.


----------



## Quattroking (Sep 26, 2022)

Welp. I think AMD blew it with the AM5-gen CPU's. At least for Mini-ITX computers. As my computer is a small Mini-ITX build with tiny spaces and with a CPU-cooler that is 65mm in height (max height possible in the case I have) with the fan (Noctua NH-L9x65), I don't think the idea of boosting the CPU in the beginning so much that it has to go up to 90-degree celsius is good at all for a Mini-ITX computer. It will pretty much cook the rest of the computer.

And as NVIDIA with its extremely insane prices on their new 4000-series GPU is ripping off everyone like there is no tomorrow, I won't be buying their GPU's as well. So, I'm most likely ending up with an 'Intel Core i5-13600K' CPU (as it seems to have the best balance between power usage and performance) and either an 'AMD RX 7600 XT' or 'AMD RX 7700 XT' GPU depending on if those can be bought in an ITX format GPU.

I know the 'Intel Core i5-13600K' have a 20-watt higher TDP than the 'AMD Ryzen 5 7600K' on paper. But it's the way the AMD CPU uses its power in a normal way that kills the new AMD CPU's for me.

Sorry AMD. 'Intel' will be my next CPU this time also. So, I will be going from 'Intel 4th-gen' to 'Intel 13th-gen' this time and not from 'Intel 4th-gen' to 'AMD 7th-gen' as I was hoping for.


----------



## sLowEnd (Sep 26, 2022)

Quattroking said:


> Welp. I think AMD blew it with the AM5-gen CPU's. At least for Mini-ITX computers. As my computer is a small Mini-ITX build with tiny spaces and with a CPU-cooler that is 65mm in height (max height possible in the case I have) with the fan (Noctua NH-L9x65), I don't think the idea of boosting the CPU in the beginning so much that it has to go up to 90-degree celsius is good at all for a Mini-ITX computer. It will pretty much cook the rest of the computer.


There's nothing stopping you from limiting the power, is there?


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 26, 2022)

Quattroking said:


> Welp. I think AMD blew it with the AM5-gen CPU's. At least for Mini-ITX computers. As my computer is a small Mini-ITX build with tiny spaces and with a CPU-cooler that is 65mm in height (max height possible in the case I have) with the fan (Noctua NH-L9x65), I don't think the idea of boosting the CPU in the beginning so much that it has to go up to 90-degree celsius is good at all for a Mini-ITX computer. It will pretty much cook the rest of the computer.
> 
> And as NVIDIA with its extremely insane prices on their new 4000-series GPU is ripping off everyone like there is no tomorrow, I won't be buying their GPU's as well. So, I'm most likely ending up with an 'Intel Core i5-13600K' CPU (as it seems to have the best balance between power usage and performance) and either an 'AMD RX 7600 XT' or 'AMD RX 7700 XT' GPU depending on if those can be bought in an ITX format GPU.
> 
> ...



It won't cook the computer - the output will still be 100W.  It will run to 95C on a 65W cooler or a quad rad -- it will hit 95 C with or without cooler.

Most laptop processors hit 95C on a regular basis in a much smaller chassis.  Fan noise is going to be a whole other story though.


----------



## Juventas (Sep 26, 2022)

ZetZet said:


> It's not. Ryzen just has less die area, so it reaches higher temperatures while using less energy. The amount of heat is also lower, it just gets rid of it worse.


This makes sense.  Although it seems like a big gap considering the die is only 25% smaller.  I guess it's not a linear relationship.


----------



## Quattroking (Sep 26, 2022)

sLowEnd said:


> There's nothing stopping you from limiting the power, is there?


Probably not. But then why buy the 7600X if you are going to limit Its performance back to 5600X performance to be able to use the CPU in a more normal way in a Mini-ITX case?

I would rather buy the 'AMD Ryzen 5 5600X' instead and then run that one on full power over longer periods and even have room to overclock it as it's only 65 watt. I'm sure I can reach 80-85 degrees Celsius on it as well, but that will be under extreme loads over longer periods.



phanbuey said:


> It won't cook the computer - the output will still be 100W.  It will run to 95C on a 65W cooler or a quad rad -- it will hit 95 C with or without cooler.
> 
> Most laptop processors hit 95C on a regular basis in a much smaller chassis.  Fan noise is going to be a whole other story though.


The point is still that the 7600X CPU will boost right to 95 degrees Celsius under heavy load which will be a massive problem for a Mini-ITX case with limited ability to cool everything in the case anyways.

High temperatures are the number 1 enemy to Mini-ITX cases.


----------



## RedBear (Sep 26, 2022)

gffermari said:


> The 7600X should have been cheaper.
> It's not a problem about being slower than the 12600K.
> 
> The thing is that Intel made the x600K series a premium segment and AMD follows that.
> The x400 cpus are the new x600.


After the 5600X the price of the CPU isn't really amazing, actually I kind of expected them to price it at $350, the problem is the whole platform cost; Intel at least still offers something of competitive on the medium-low range below the 12600K and while Raptor Lake doesn't introduce the new architecture on the low end, at least it increases the number of cores (Intel now is playing AMD's old card, more cores for less money, what times). AMD is basically telling the rest of us to stick with what we have (5600X+B450 in my case) or switch to Intel.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 26, 2022)

Yeah, this was definitely as impressive of a showing as I was hoping for - really looking forward to seeing how the inevitable 65W 7600 non-X performs, though I'm getting a feeling that an early price cut might be in the cards for this CPU.


----------



## sLowEnd (Sep 26, 2022)

Quattroking said:


> Probably not. But then why buy the 7600X if you are going to limit Its performance back to 5600X performance to be able to use the CPU in a more normal way in a Mini-ITX case?


You're making an assumption that you have to drop performance that low to get manageable heat levels.

Pending more in depth looks into eco mode, Anandtech's 7950X still demonstrated sizable gains in CB over the 5950X, even when limited to 65W.








						AMD Zen 4 Ryzen 9 7950X and Ryzen 5 7600X Review: Retaking The High-End
					






					www.anandtech.com
				




I'd wager the situation will be similar with the 7600X.


----------



## Fourstaff (Sep 27, 2022)

Looks like Zen architecture has more or less reached the limits when it comes to gaming, but they are still posting healthy gains in non-gaming benchmarks.


----------



## RainingTacco (Sep 27, 2022)

The cons kinda remind me the zen 2 launch.

Intel was taken with its pants down during zen 2 and zen 3 because of greed and laziness[if competitor has nothing to show you start to slack], but they got their shit together and returned back to their technological superiority. It was foolish to think that AMD will beat intel consistently. People tend to forget that AMD is on a smaller process...


----------



## Robin Seina (Sep 27, 2022)

Something stinks in these TPU Zen4 tests. The data for test of 5800X3D and i9-12900K are different from the older review by about 5 %.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5800x3d/17.html


----------



## tussinman (Sep 27, 2022)

Robin Seina said:


> Something stinks in these TPU Zen4 tests. The data for test of 5800X3D and i9-12900K are different from the older review by about 5 %.
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5800x3d/17.html


He explained in the conclusion that he retested all of the old CPUs with modern game updates, Windows 11 updates, and new drivers. 

Alderlake saw a pretty good uplift due to maturation of the architecture (for example i5 12400 when it launched was slower than a 5600x in gaming but now with updated windows 11 and updated game patches it's offering gaming performance almost on par with the 5900x)


----------



## RedBear (Sep 27, 2022)

Robin Seina said:


> Something stinks in these TPU Zen4 tests. The data for test of 5800X3D and i9-12900K are different from the older review by about 5 %.
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5800x3d/17.html


Not sure about Alder Lake, but the 5800X3D tests were done with tighter timed RAM (16GBx2 3600mhz at 14-14-14-34 instead of 16-20-20-34).


----------



## RandallFlagg (Sep 27, 2022)

phanbuey said:


> <snip> Fan noise is going to be a whole other story though.



Yeah, that 'turbo till 95c' thing is going to make for some noisy fans if profiles aren't changed.  I guess you could adjust you fan profile to go as fast as you can stand the noise at 95C, since it theoretically won't go above that no matter the cooler.


----------



## wheresmycar (Sep 27, 2022)

Robin I agree... something is a little off. I finally found time to go through a couple of reviews to see how other tested games measure up.

TPU's 12 game performance average sees the 7600X negligibly trailing the 12600K by ~1%




Hardware Unboxed showing their 12 game avg: 7600X beating the 12600X-DDR5 by a 8.5% margin or the 12600K-DDR4 by a whopping 16.5%.



Tomshardware: 7600X beating the 12600K by 11%



Am i correctly observing these results? I'm assuming all these charts are correct based on the games employed to conduct these tests whereby some games will favour Intel over AMD and vice versa.

Please shed some light!



tussinman said:


> He explained in the conclusion that he retested all of the old CPUs with modern game updates, Windows 11 updates, and new drivers.
> 
> Alderlake saw a pretty good uplift due to maturation of the architecture (for example i5 12400 when it launched was slower than a 5600x in gaming but now with updated windows 11 and updated game patches it's offering gaming performance almost on par with the 5900x)



Or is Windows 11 holding back the 7600X (cache latency/scheduler/etc)?.... which would contribute to uneven results. Wouldn't it have been better to stick with the previous results whilst the 7600X remains in its infancy at the OS level?

One thing is certain... as things stand: BAD VALUE buying into 7600X for gaming! We need those B-series boards pronto + further trim in the DDR5 pricing which seems likely


----------



## Crackong (Sep 27, 2022)

Why_Me said:


> This thread is missing someone .. ah yes @Crackong


Thanks for mentioning me.

And welcome you can join me at the 7950x post


----------



## RandallFlagg (Sep 27, 2022)

wheresmycar said:


> Robin I agree... something is a little off. I finally found time to go through a couple of reviews to see how other tested games measure up.
> 
> TPU's 12 game performance average sees the 7600X negligibly trailing the 12600K by ~1%
> 
> ...



Tom's used DDR5-4800 on Alder Lake, and DDR5-5200 on Zen 4.   TPU used DDR5-6000 C36 on all systems, plus some runs with DDR5-6000 C30 for AMD.  You can start there.  I think it obvious, no one doing DIY is using DDR5-4800.  

Another aspect is that Tom's is most likely re-using old benchmarks for comparison, TPU did a complete refresh with Win 11 and new drivers for all test configs.  Most sites don't do this, they show you what the chips performed like 1, 2 years ago when released - buggy BIOS, drivers, OS and all.  

When you cripple the memory on both rigs like that to the 4800/5200 offical spec, the 5800X3D absolutely crushes all of the Zen 4 and Alder Lake rigs.  

Thing is, I don't know a single person using that kind of memory.  Everyone I've talked to the last week who is upgrading is using 6000Mhz or 5600Mhz.  Nobody is using 4800 or even 5200.  I'd expect Zen 4 to be the same, the cost of upgrading is so large why skimp on something like memory to save $50 on your $1000 upgrade, especially to go so far down as 4800.   This makes those reviews pretty irrelevant for people upgrading in the way people actually upgrade.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 27, 2022)

bug said:


> Technically, he is correct.
> But that distinction is irrelevant in this thread: a hotter CPU (higher temperature) will dissipate more heat in the environment, than a cooler (lower temperature) one.


No, it’s about how many watts are being dissipated into an environment, it appears AMD made a stronger IHS that prevents the socket from flexing but doesn’t help thermal transfer.


----------



## Why_Me (Sep 27, 2022)

RandallFlagg said:


> Tom's used DDR5-4800 on Alder Lake, and DDR5-5200 on Zen 4.   TPU used DDR5-6000 C36 on all systems, plus some runs with DDR5-6000 C30 for AMD.  You can start there.  I think it obvious, no one doing DIY is using DDR5-4800.
> 
> Another aspect is that Tom's is most likely re-using old benchmarks for comparison, TPU did a complete refresh with Win 11 and new drivers for all test configs.  Most sites don't do this, they show you what the chips performed like 1, 2 years ago when released - buggy BIOS, drivers, OS and all.
> 
> ...


This ^^


----------



## 1d10t (Sep 27, 2022)

Kinda disappointing, yes its outperform 5800X in application and X3D variant in games, but not by significant margin. As @Valantar suggest, I might wait for non X SKU if that a thing, or 3D V-Cache so this SKU could get another price reduction.


----------



## Sombreuil (Sep 27, 2022)

How come the 12600K suddenly has a lower average in gaming perfomance than the 5600X? In this video the 12600k has a better average, but in this one the 5600X wins?
I'm a bit confused.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 27, 2022)

Robin Seina said:


> Something stinks in these TPU Zen4 tests. The data for test of 5800X3D and i9-12900K are different from the older review by about 5 %.
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5800x3d/17.html



Cause other sites don't update their reviews with new BIOS, firmware, drivers etc 


Meaning TPUs reviews are exactly the performance you should expect today with like hardware, not aged performance with old drivers or windows issues that were unknown then. Please see the Nvidia performance drivers er update, AMDs TPM polling issue, Intel has a LOT of microcode updates, their new GPU drivers were garbage and they were made better.

If anyone can't understand testing methodology and see how much more work W1zz puts in to give real world unbiased reviews they have other blinders on.


----------



## GoldenX (Sep 27, 2022)

The platform cost is too high to justify the 7600X and 7700X.


----------



## MarsM4N (Sep 27, 2022)

Hupe jump in *productivity tasks*, head to head now with Intel's top dogs.  In gaming a bit underwhelming. Still a big step up, though.
But lets wait & see what the *X3D* variants bring to the table. Or upcomming Intel's chips.



wheresmycar said:


> Robin I agree... something is a little off. I finally found time to go through a couple of reviews to see how other tested games measure up.
> 
> TPU's 12 game performance average sees the 7600X negligibly trailing the 12600K by ~1%
> 
> ...



Benchmark results differ mostly by game selection. You can create some pretty bias benchmark results by selecting games/engines that are badly optimized on AMD.
So it's always wise to check differnt sources.

The other thing is the OS. I wouldn't do benchmarks on the *"Beta OS"* Win11 (which TPU did). Adoption is still very low and most still use Win10.
_*Windows 11’s 2022 Update is wreaking havoc with PC gamers, but there’s a fix*_

About *"Value"*, yea it's bad. Upcomming _*B Series*_ boards bring it down a lot, but there is still the _*DDR5*_ price problem.  And that was very predictable. Prices didn't drop as fast as they hoped.
Tbh. AMD should have partnered up with some RAM companies & ship their CPU's with *RAM discount coupons*. Or just buy a RAM company & produce their own, lol.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 27, 2022)

RandallFlagg said:


> Tom's used DDR5-4800 on Alder Lake, and DDR5-5200 on Zen 4.   TPU used DDR5-6000 C36 on all systems, plus some runs with DDR5-6000 C30 for AMD.  You can start there.  I think it obvious, no one doing DIY is using DDR5-4800.
> 
> Another aspect is that Tom's is most likely re-using old benchmarks for comparison, TPU did a complete refresh with Win 11 and new drivers for all test configs.  Most sites don't do this, they show you what the chips performed like 1, 2 years ago when released - buggy BIOS, drivers, OS and all.
> 
> ...





Steevo said:


> Cause other sites don't update their reviews with new BIOS, firmware, drivers etc
> 
> 
> Meaning TPUs reviews are exactly the performance you should expect today with like hardware, not aged performance with old drivers or windows issues that were unknown then. Please see the Nvidia performance drivers er update, AMDs TPM polling issue, Intel has a LOT of microcode updates, their new GPU drivers were garbage and they were made better.
> ...


I have to thank the community for that. Over the years you people asked for better memory speeds, so I kept pushing them further and further. 

I think what also matters a lot is test selection. Look at the individual performance results, there's games like Far Cry 6 and Watch Dogs, which run much better on Intel than on AMD. For Far Cry 6 I know that it does complex stuff with memory and inter-thread communication. 
Should I kick out one of the most popular games for that? Don't think so. 
Does my test suite feel a bit biased towards Intel? I suspect so, even though I never intended that. I really just picked popular games. The target was 10, I ended up with 12. 
Will I look at switching out the games in the future? Absolutely, yes. 
Are other reviewers wrong? Definitely not. Look at their results, try to understand them, ask them about test configs and in the end come to your own conclusions based on what you've learned and what's relevant for you.

And as always, feel free to AMA


----------



## gffermari (Sep 27, 2022)

Fourstaff said:


> Looks like Zen architecture has more or less reached the limits when it comes to gaming, but they are still posting healthy gains in non-gaming benchmarks.



Not yet.
They still have the 3D V-cache.
On the other hand they might have reached the limits in productivity tests. I can't believe Zen 5 can go higher in clocks.


----------



## HABO (Sep 27, 2022)

Juventas said:


> These new power and temperature charts don't make sense to me.  If these are the same cooler, how is the Ryzen producing more heat energy using less electrical energy?  It seems to defy the first law of thermodynamics.
> 
> 
> CPU Temperature - GamingPower Consumption - GamingRyzen 5 7600X (stock)70 C45 WCore i5-1260055 C50 W


It just seems that you don't know much about thermodynamics at all.


----------



## GoldenX (Sep 27, 2022)

HABO said:


> It just seems that you don't know much about thermodynamics at all.


Check again.
Difference between a monolithic die and chiplets, contact area.


----------



## TheDeeGee (Sep 27, 2022)

KV2DERP said:


> Idk, I don't feel really excited about this unlike me who get excited when hearing Zen 2 release.
> 
> Guess I'll stick with my 3600 then.


As GN always says: "If you're happy with what you have, don't change it."

I'd look into upgrades once FPS drops below your standards.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 27, 2022)

Juventas said:


> These new power and temperature charts don't make sense to me.  If these are the same cooler, how is the Ryzen producing more heat energy using less electrical energy?  It seems to defy the first law of thermodynamics.
> 
> 
> CPU Temperature - GamingPower Consumption - GamingRyzen 5 7600X (stock)70 C45 WCore i5-1260055 C50 W





HABO said:


> It just seems that you don't know much about thermodynamics at all.


A bit more helpful of an answer: it isn't producing more heat, it's just not as efficient at transferring the thermal energy generated into the cooling system. As thermal energy accumulates in the die, temperatures rise. Factors affecting thermal transfer: thermal density of the die, TIM (both die-IHS and IHS-cooler), IHS materials, IHS thickness, cooler contact/flatness, cooler cold plate materials, cooler performance, and more.

These chips have a very thick IHS, which reduces thermal transfer, and have a very small, dense core, both of which hamper thermal transfer.

This means that it's not _generating more heat_, it just doesn't get that heat into the cooler as quickly. Cooling systems move towards equilibrium, as thermal transfer increases with increased thermal deltas, which means that the hotter any part of the system gets relative to the next step, the more efficiently it will transfer its thermal energy. Which is what we're seeing here: with the same cooler (and presumably fan speeds), the Ryzen due to its higher thermal density and thicker IHS reaches equilibrium at ~70°C where it's able to dissipate its ~45W power, while the Intel chip (due to its much lower thermal density, and thinner IHS) reaches its equilibrium at a lower ~55°C for transferring 50W. They're both transferring (roughly) the same energy into the ambient air, it's just that the different stages in the thermal transfer chain reach equilibrium at different temperatures for this to happen due to, well, physics.


----------



## Fourstaff (Sep 27, 2022)

gffermari said:


> Not yet.
> They still have the 3D V-cache.
> On the other hand they might have reached the limits in productivity tests. I can't believe Zen 5 can go higher in clocks.


Oh yes, one more trick in their sleeve. But both parties are pushing straight into the Pentium 4 / AMD FX corner of high performance high power.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 27, 2022)

Fourstaff said:


> Oh yes, one more trick in their sleeve. But both parties are pushing straight into the Pentium 4 / AMD FX corner of high performance high power.


True. This time around we have coolers capable of handling more heat output, but still running headfirst into a wall. Then again, the entire chip industry is - the scaling we've seen over the past couple of decades isn't anywhere close to sustainable, as we're already seeing with vastly increased component longevity in terms of delivering acceptable performance. Heat is just one of many walls we're running into.


----------



## MarsM4N (Sep 27, 2022)

Fourstaff said:


> Oh yes, one more trick in their sleeve. But both parties are pushing straight into the Pentium 4 / AMD FX corner of high performance high power.



In the stock settings, yes. But AMD also got the _*ECO Modes*_.  ~33% less power/heat for a 10% performance hit sounds like a pretty good tradeoff.
And the performance hit will only be in multithread applications. So gaming will mostly not take a hit.


----------



## IllIIIl (Sep 27, 2022)

RandallFlagg said:


> This makes those reviews pretty irrelevant for people upgrading in the way people actually upgrade.





Steevo said:


> Cause other sites don't update their reviews with new BIOS, firmware, drivers etc







Tell me what's wrong with this config table.

My first reaction when I saw this review was: 5800x3d is too weak. Then based on the 40 game data of 5800x3d in hardware unboxed, it is judged that the evaluation data here is intel friendly.

To be honest, I thought the review here was the one that didn't use the new data, especially when I saw that the price figures on the price/performance table were very old prices.

I have no problem with the source of information. You think the data here is relatively fair, and the evaluation here is a new source for me, so I look at it very cautiously. I usually don't look at any website's reviews but only watch video reviews, it's based on concerns about the quality of the review data, at least the video uploader said it was a retest, he may be lying, you may be right, But at least now i dont think so. And as I replied in #11, I think it's mostly a game choice difference.

You and I just chose information from different sources, that's all.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 27, 2022)

IllIIIl said:


> Tell me what's wrong with this config table.


Nothing wrong. HWUB does great testing. DDR4-3200 CL14 is a bit slower than my 3600 CL14, also I use 2x 16 GB (which will prob be an insignificant difference). 
Not sure why DDR5-6400 CL32 SR on Intel vs 6000 CL30 SR. Ideally one should use identical settings? 
AMD sent that G.SKILL DDR5-6000 CL30 kit to all reviewers and requested that it is used for testing, because it is the best case for them. I used the same memory I've been using on previous Intel reviews. The difference is like 1%, full data is in the 7950X review



IllIIIl said:


> To be honest, I thought the review here was the one that didn't use the new data, especially when I saw that the price figures on the price/performance table were very old prices.


I looked up the prices on Monday @ Newegg ?



IllIIIl said:


> so I look at it very cautiously


Good



IllIIIl said:


> I think it's mostly a game choice difference.


I think so too


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Sep 27, 2022)

Quattroking said:


> Probably not. But then why buy the 7600X if you are going to limit Its performance back to 5600X performance to be able to use the CPU in a more normal way in a Mini-ITX case?
> 
> I would rather buy the 'AMD Ryzen 5 5600X' instead and then run that one on full power over longer periods and even have room to overclock it as it's only 65 watt. I'm sure I can reach 80-85 degrees Celsius on it as well, but that will be under extreme loads over longer periods.
> 
> ...


It will be no more of a problem then the 5600x or 12600 would be. It's still pulling the same amount of power. You dont seem to understand the difference between temperature and thermal output.



W1zzard said:


> Nothing wrong. HWUB does great testing. DDR4-3200 CL14 is a bit slower than my 3600 CL14, also I use 2x 16 GB (which will prob be an insignificant difference).
> Not sure why DDR5-6400 CL32 SR on Intel vs 6000 CL30 SR. Ideally one should use identical settings?
> AMD sent that G.SKILL DDR5-6000 CL30 kit to all reviewers and requested that it is used for testing, because it is the best case for them. I used the same memory I've been using on previous Intel reviews. The difference is like 1%, full data is in the 7950X review
> 
> ...


Keep in mind, you're arguing with a brand new user who is accusing the sites admin of being intel biased. Smells a little....you know, smelly?


----------



## MarsM4N (Sep 27, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> AMD sent that G.SKILL DDR5-6000 CL30 kit to all reviewers and requested that it is used for testing, because it is the best case for them. I used the same memory I've been using on previous Intel reviews. The difference is like 1%, full data is in the 7950X review



Looks like the Ryzen 7000's are scaling good with memory OC (*DDR5-6400*) in some games.  4 vs 2 sticks could also give some percents.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 27, 2022)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> Keep in mind, you're arguing with a brand new user who is accusing the sites admin of being intel biased. Smells a little....you know, smelly?


I think he has every right to be sceptical, and it's my job to explain what I did, why and how the results can be interpreted


----------



## bug (Sep 27, 2022)

MarsM4N said:


> Looks like the Ryzen 7000's are scaling good with memory OC (*DDR5-6400*) in some games.  4 vs 2 sticks could also give some percents.


Memory scaling benchmarks incoming, you can be sure of that 
Too bad Zen4 is DDR5 only. We won't know what we're gaining/losing because of DDR5.


----------



## catulitechup (Sep 27, 2022)

Resuming in my case:

-95c that is terrible (short life cpu?)  and dont possible justify

-runs hotter with Noctua NH-U14S, that is rally bad for who likes air cooling

-price is a big joke for cost of another parts required like mainboard, memories and cooling

At simple seek amd put very high turbo frecuencies for seems have better turbo than i5 13600k aka raptor lake but this up temperatures too much, maybe X3D parts will be more interesting and with more moderate clocks for example turbo at 5.0ghz that sound ok

But mainboards prices are very expensive and memories (good memories 6400mhz and beyond) are expensive too

However stay waiting for zen 4 for am4 (some months ago appear information about exist examples for am4), this maybe more interesting because mainboards and memories have better prices


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 27, 2022)

Steevo said:


> No, it’s about how many watts are being dissipated into an environment, it appears AMD made a stronger IHS that prevents the socket from flexing but doesn’t help thermal transfer.


Yeah, I'm not worried about mITX with Zen4. Sure, the core temps will be higher but as long as you set the PBO values to levels that your CPU/case cooling can handle, the fan noise will be the same.

Sure, temperatures will read higher, but that's irrelevant since the new Zen4 boost algorithm won't pull back until temps reach 95C now; For Zen2 and Zen3 the boost algorithm would start to lower clocks around 75C so there was a good reason to keep temps lower than this but with Zen4, a 93C CPU temperature isn't a problem even in a tiny mITX case.

Sure, you're probably not going to want to use a 170W TDP option with a low-profile air cooler or slim 240mm radiator using quiet fans, but with PBO you can still set your PPT to a reasonable 135W or something like that and know that the CPU is going to run as fast as it can within that 135W envelope provided your cooling can keep it under 95C. The laws of thermodynamics still apply - if the socket is only providing 135W to the CPU, the most heat the cooler needs to deal with is 135W. The smaller, more concentrated die area, and the thicker IHS are bound to result in higher core temperature readings but the 20-25C higher start of clock throttling under the new boost makes up for that and more.



bug said:


> Memory scaling benchmarks incoming, you can be sure of that
> Too bad Zen4 is DDR5 only. We won't know what we're gaining/losing because of DDR5.


DDR5 is better, period.
We're only now approaching speeds and timings of DDR5 that are better than the best available DDR4, but you also have to remember that good, fast DDR4-3600 CL14 is outrageously expensive.

Whilst it's true that DDR5-6000 CL36 isn't quite as fast in *some* situations as the best DDR4, it's also true that something like 32GB of Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600 CL14 only comes in 8GB modules, so you're looking at 16GB total with reduced timings for 4 sticks. It's silly expensive (about 50-60% more expensive than even DDR5-6000 CL36) and availability is patchy as hell (I'm guessing it relies on an ever-dwindling stockpile of binned Samsung B-die).

So yeah, the very very very best DDR4 you can possibly run is a little bit faster, situationally, that garden-variety, mass-produced mainstream RAM from several major vendors. Faster/tighter speed grades are coming out every couple of months, and pricing/availability is improving slowly.

If you want to compare budget platforms, compare cheap DDR4-3200 CL16 or DDR4-3600 CL19 against cheap DDR5 5200 CL36. DDR5 looks much better then and it's only going to get better and cheaper as DDR4 is stuck where it is and will start to get more expensive as more manufacturing transitions to DDR5.


----------



## catulitechup (Sep 27, 2022)

Chrispy_ said:


> If you want to compare budget platforms, compare cheap DDR4-3200 CL16 or DDR4-3600 CL19 against cheap DDR5 5200 CL36.
> DDR5 looks much better then and it's only going to get better and cheaper as DDR4 is stuck where it is and will start to get more expensive as more manufacturing transitions to DDR5.



For now ddr5 5200mhz dont seem cheap still with lower prices like microcenter

ddr5 5200mhz cas 40 in 160us



> Corsair Vengeance 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR5-5200 PC5-41600 CL40 Dual Channel Desktop Memory Kit 32GX5M2B5200C40 - Black - Micro Center
> 
> 
> Get it now! CORSAIR VENGEANCE DDR5, optimized for Intel motherboards, delivers the higher frequencies and greater capacities of DDR5 technology in a high-quality, compact module that suits your system.
> ...



ddr4 3600mhz cas 18 in 95us



> TeamGroup T-FORCE VULCAN Z 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4-3600 PC4-28800 CL18 Dual Channel Desktop Memory Kit TLZGD432G3600HC - Gray - Micro Center
> 
> 
> Get it now! Designed for complete protection and enhanced heat dissipation, the heat spreader is formed by punch press process with a 0.8mm thick, one-piece alloy aluminum to reinforce the body structure.
> ...



sadly ddr5 now is uttertrash for frecuency and latency offered in price compared ddr4

ddr5 5200mhz cas 36 in 170us



> G.Skill Flare X5 Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR5-5600 PC5-44800 CL36 Dual Channel Desktop Memory Kit F5-5600J3636C16GX2-FX5 - - Micro Center
> 
> 
> Get it now! Flare X5 series DDR5 memory is designed and optimized for the latest DDR5-enabled AMD Ryzen platforms, and supports AMD EXPO overclocking profiles to enable easy memory overclocking by simply enabling the EXPO profile in the BIOS with a compatible motherboard and processor.
> ...



personally in this case prefer put 30us more for this kit

ddr4 3600mhz cas18 64gb



> G.Skill Ripjaws V 64GB (2 x 32GB) DDR4-3600 PC4-28800 CL18 Dual Channel Desktop Memory Kit F4-3600C18D-64GVK - Black - Micro Center
> 
> 
> Get it now! SKILL Ripjaws V series high performance memory is built with the newest DDR4 standard in a sleek, redesigned heat spreader that is ideal for powerful gaming rigs, professional workstations, or daily computing tasks. Tested under G.
> ...



However with this frecuencies but cheaper maybe can buy around in 18 months when stay in market 8xxxmhz frecuencies







from ddr4 3600mhz cas18 to ddr5 7200mhz with cas around 36 or 38 but with 1.35v wiil be ok


----------



## bug (Sep 27, 2022)

Chrispy_ said:


> DDR5 is better, period.


Not at the moment, but it will be, given time.


Chrispy_ said:


> We're only now approaching speeds and timings of DDR5 that are better than the best available DDR4, but you also have to remember that good, fast DDR4-3600 CL14 is outrageously expensive.


I doubt that. I got me 32GB of CL16 3600 DDR4 because it was dirt cheap. Granted, it was back in 2019, but how much more expensive it could be today?

Be that as it may, the point of DDR4 vs DDR5 isn't (entirely) about  which is faster. It's about being able to reuse your current RAM sticks. Or not.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Sep 27, 2022)

Chrispy_ said:


> DDR5 is better, period.
> We're only now approaching speeds and timings of DDR5 that are better than the best available DDR4, but you also have to remember that good, fast DDR4-3600 CL14 is outrageously expensive.
> 
> Whilst it's true that DDR5-6000 CL36 isn't quite as fast in *some* situations as the best DDR4, it's also true that something like 32GB of Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600 CL14 only comes in 8GB modules, so you're looking at 16GB total with reduced timings for 4 sticks. It's silly expensive (about 50-60% more expensive than even DDR5-6000 CL36) and availability is patchy as hell (I'm guessing it relies on an ever-dwindling stockpile of binned Samsung B-die).
> ...



Yeah but the thing is, a whole bunch of people already have DDR4-3600 C16 or C18 and such.  For the most part those people are going to get absolutely nothing going with DDR5-5200.  

IMO if you are coming from a kit like that, unless you can go for at least DDR5-6000 then there's no point in switching.  And for those with b-die 3600 C14, you may see performance regression.  That's not exactly a great thing when that DDR5-6000 will still cost $225 or so even with discounts today.


----------



## nexxusty (Sep 27, 2022)

This is a terribly done review.

The 12900k is literally just missing in some graphs.

SMH.



ZetZet said:


> Wait this is not what was advertised... Seems disappointing, especially for the platform cost.



It's pathetic. Raptor Lake is going to make Zen 4 look like a joke.

Then Zen 4 3D will come out. Should have been out day 1.


----------



## Wasteland (Sep 27, 2022)

Chrispy_ said:


> DDR5 is better, period.
> We're only now approaching speeds and timings of DDR5 that are better than the best available DDR4, but you also have to remember that good, fast DDR4-3600 CL14 is outrageously expensive.
> 
> Whilst it's true that DDR5-6000 CL36 isn't quite as fast in *some* situations as the best DDR4, it's also true that something like 32GB of Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600 CL14 only comes in 8GB modules, so you're looking at 16GB total with reduced timings for 4 sticks. It's silly expensive (about 50-60% more expensive than even DDR5-6000 CL36) and availability is patchy as hell (I'm guessing it relies on an ever-dwindling stockpile of binned Samsung B-die).
> ...



All of this is true, but it highlights my one complaint about that otherwise excellent Hardware Unboxed review: the value comparisons at the end of the video assumed that older platforms would be running ludicrously expensive B-Die DDR4, and unnecessarily expensive motherboards, to boot.

This speaks to the peculiar niche, or the lack thereof, of this 7600x CPU.  As of this moment, using HUB's numbers, the 7600x platform (CPU/Mobo/RAM) would cost $870, and then you'd also need a cooler, and not one from the bargain bin, either.  For that money, you could buy an i5-12400 (which comes with a cooler), a decent B660 motherboard, 32 GB of DDR4-3600 CL16 (or you could go ~$30 cheaper with DDR4-3200 at CL16; the locked SA voltage on the CPU might even encourage this choice), *and you'd have about $500 leftover for a GPU*.  This is a shocking disparity; the performance uplift from the Zen 4 part, even with the benefit of superior DDR5, doesn't begin to justify it.

Granted, DDR5 will continue to decline in price.  Granted, B650 is coming, though FWIW Steve from GamersNexus expressed concern about the low end AM5 boards, based on his less than rosy appraisal of the high-end boards he's already seen.  The essential components for these new boards are apparently just very expensive.

(We've already seen a lot of price creep in the motherboard space over the last ~3 years, presumably due in large part to the increased cost of e.g. PCIe 4.0--but at least LGA1700 and late-stage AM4 offered some pretty nice products in the new "low end" mobo segment at ~$100-150.  Now we're onto PCIe 5.0, DDR5 DIMM connectors and power delivery, and in the case of AMD, a more expensive socket type.  Hopefully those extra costs won't force the cheapest AM5 motherboard models to cut every conceivable corner.)

Anyway, it feels like AMD has abdicated the low-to-middle range for the time being, and although natural pressures will improve AM5's value proposition, it's hard to imagine the overall appraisal will drastically change soon, certainly no sooner than the launch of Intel's 13th gen, which will complicate things (and which can still use the cheaper LGA1700 platform).  The 7600X is therefore in a weird spot--its platform way, way too expensive for the casual/gamer use case, and its productivity bona-fides too weak to appeal to anyone else at its price point.  Serious computational workers/hobbyists will most likely spring for the higher end parts.


----------



## bug (Sep 27, 2022)

Wasteland said:


> All of this is true, but it highlights my one complaint about that otherwise excellent Hardware Unboxed review: the value comparisons at the end of the video assumed that older platforms would be running ludicrously expensive B-Die DDR4, and unnecessarily expensive motherboards, to boot.


That's what all reviews have to do: use the same platform for all reviewed parts. And in order not to hold back high-end parts, that platform has to be high-end itself. Of course real users won't go for "extreme everything and the kitchen sink" motherboard or the most exotic of RAM sticks to go with a $100 CPU, but it's our job to extrapolate from reviews. There are usually memory scaling benchmarks/reviews and specific motherboard reviews to help you with that.


----------



## Wasteland (Sep 27, 2022)

bug said:


> That's what all reviews have to do: use the same platform for all reviewed parts. And in order not to hold back high-end parts, that platform has to be high-end itself. Of course real users won't go for "extreme everything and the kitchen sink" motherboard or the most exotic of RAM sticks to go with a $100 CPU, but it's our job to extrapolate from reviews. There are usually memory scaling benchmarks/reviews and specific motherboard reviews to help you with that.


Yes, the benchmarks have to be consistent, and I understand why HUB would be inclined to carry that consistency over to the value comparison section of the video--but it was a discrete section of the video.  It is misleading to act as if DDR4 is B-Die or bust when you're making an explicit comparison between, among other things, the cost of memory for each platform.  (The B-Die in question, at the stock speeds he ran it, isn't even noticeably faster than CL16 kits that cost about half as much.)

And he could have assumed a cheaper motherboard, too.  I happen to know that HUB gave rave reviews to a $140 B660 motherboard (The MSI Pro B660-A).  The point is that the AM5 platform is _absurdly _more expensive than some of the alternatives, at the moment.  A reviewer might at least mention that instead of downplaying the disparity.  

Techpowerup was much less bullish on this CPU's value proposition.


----------



## R0H1T (Sep 27, 2022)

catulitechup said:


> -runs hotter with Noctua NH-U14S, that is rally bad for who likes air cooling


Well temps will be an issue with RPL as well, just as they were with ADL but bigger, because that things gonna be toasty!

Intel started this $hit with 9900k & AMD's joined in the fun, remember Intel's TDP


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 27, 2022)

bug said:


> We won't know what we're gaining/losing because of DDR5.


Oh, oh, I do! Die space on the IO die.


----------



## bug (Sep 27, 2022)

Wasteland said:


> Yes, the benchmarks have to be consistent, and I understand why HUB would be inclined to carry that consistency over to the value comparison section of the video--but it was a discrete section of the video.  It is misleading to act as if DDR4 is B-Die or bust when you're making an explicit comparison between, among other things, the cost of memory for each platform.  (The B-Die in question, at the stock speeds he ran it, isn't even noticeably faster than CL16 kits that cost about half as much.)
> 
> And he could have assumed a cheaper motherboard, too.  I happen to know that HUB gave rave reviews to a $140 B660 motherboard (The MSI Pro B660-A).  The point is that the AM5 platform is _absurdly _more expensive than some of the alternatives, at the moment.  A reviewer might at least mention that instead of downplaying the disparity.
> 
> Techpowerup was much less bullish on this CPU's value proposition.


I'd argue it's questionable to use B-die as a reference for anything these days, seeing as it's discontinued and everything (yes, I know you can still get _some_ kits). He should've compared with DDR5-7600 because he saw it in lab or something...



Aquinus said:


> Oh, oh, I do! Die space on the IO die.


Not even that. I imagine AMD would have built different IO dies for DDR4 and DDR5. A low-hanging fruit, if ever there was one.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 27, 2022)

bug said:


> Not even that. I imagine AMD would have built different IO dies for DDR4 and DDR5. A low-hanging fruit, if ever there was one.


It's not low hanging fruit if it cuts into the capacity for the DDR5 variant. It also goes against the reusability of their silicon since now you have two I/O dies that would be special purpose essentially. One way or another, the world will move to DDR5, just as we did with DDR4 and just about everything that preceded it and I think AMD knows that. The whole advantage of the chiplet design is the same parts used for everything. You negate that advantage by doing as you suggest. There are a lot of costs and not many benefits (for AMD that is.)

To me, this is a case of AMD keeping it simple and planning for the future, which I think is the right move for the sake of DDR5 adoption.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Sep 27, 2022)

Wasteland said:


> This speaks to the peculiar niche, or the lack thereof, of this 7600x CPU.  As of this moment, using HUB's numbers, the 7600x platform (CPU/Mobo/RAM) would cost $870, and then you'd also need a cooler, and not one from the bargain bin, either.  For that money, you could buy an i5-12400 (which comes with a cooler), a decent B660 motherboard, 32 GB of DDR4-3600 CL16 (or you could go ~$30 cheaper with DDR4-3200 at CL16; the locked SA voltage on the CPU might even encourage this choice), *and you'd have about $500 leftover for a GPU*.  This is a shocking disparity; the performance uplift from the Zen 4 part, even with the benefit of superior DDR5, doesn't begin to justify it.


Exactly. Please refer to my first post in this thread.



RandallFlagg said:


> Yeah but the thing is, a whole bunch of people already have DDR4-3600 C16 or C18 and such.  For the most part those people are going to get absolutely nothing going with DDR5-5200.
> 
> IMO if you are coming from a kit like that, unless you can go for at least DDR5-6000 then there's no point in switching.  And for those with b-die 3600 C14, you may see performance regression.  That's not exactly a great thing when that DDR5-6000 will still cost $225 or so even with discounts today.


True, but if you already have a late-gen DDR4 platform, chances are your system is already decent and you're not in the market for an upgrade to a 7600X. If you're bailing on Ryzen 5600X or an i5-10400F then it's likely you're needing big gains to justify doing the upgrade at all, at which point DDR4 isn't really an option. I'm sure there's some edge-case arguments you could make that are reasonable, but for the most part, if your system was built with RAM that's only been on the market at that speed grade for 3 years, and only affordable for 2, your system is unlikely to be old enough to really be an _upgrade _candidate that re-uses only RAM but not motherboard. That's pretty niche (or impatient and frivolous, IMO).



bug said:


> Be that as it may, the point of DDR4 vs DDR5 isn't (entirely) about  which is faster. It's about being able to reuse your current RAM sticks. Or not.


You want to reuse your RAM but _not_ your old board and CPU?

Valid - but ineffective IMO; If you reuse the old platform for yourself or friends/family you need that RAM anyway, and when I'm buying used I look for a complete platform because it's waaay better value - easier to buy a bundle and easier to sell a bundle. You could sell your CPU and board separately but it's twice the effort for you and the market for individual parts is smaller (over here at least) because each individual part incurs its own packaging and shipping costs.


----------



## Juventas (Sep 27, 2022)

Valantar said:


> Which is what we're seeing here: with the same cooler (and presumably fan speeds), the Ryzen due to its higher thermal density and thicker IHS reaches equilibrium at ~70°C where it's able to dissipate its ~45W power, while the Intel chip (due to its much lower thermal density, and thinner IHS) reaches its equilibrium at a lower ~55°C for transferring 50W.


Thanks for the answer.  Do we know that Ryzen has a significantly thicker IHS?  Why would they use a thicker IHS if it negatively effects cooling?


----------



## Valantar (Sep 27, 2022)

Juventas said:


> Thanks for the answer.  Do we know that Ryzen has a significantly thicker IHS?  Why would they use a thicker IHS if it negatively effects cooling?


Because it allows them to maintain cooler compatibility with AM4 coolers, as otherwise the change from PGA to LGA socket would have lowered the Z-height of the CPU (height from the motherboard PCB to the top of the IHS) significantly, breaking compatibility with most cooler mounting systems. Der8auer in his delidding video measured about 1.5mm of "unnecessary" copper thickness in the IHS - which is quite a lot at these small scales, and will have a significant effect on thermals.


----------



## Gameslove (Sep 27, 2022)

Cheapest in the Germany on the AM5:

ASUS PRIME X670-P - 248 EUR (238 $) (with 100 EUR bonus)





						ASUS PRIME X670-P, Mainboard
					

Das ASUS PRIME X670-P basiert auf dem AMD-X670-Chipsatz und unterstützt AMD-Prozessoren für den Sockel AM5. Es verfügt über vier DDR5-Slots für bis...




					www.alternate.de
				




AMD Ryzen 5™ 7600X - 379 EUR (363 $)





						AMD Ryzen 5™ 7600X, Prozessor
					

Der AMD Ryzen 5™ 7600X Prozessor ist eine 6-Kern-CPU für den Sockel AM5 mit 4,7 GHz Taktfrequenz und 32 MB L3-Cache. Der AMD Ryzen 5™ 7600X Prozess...




					www.alternate.de
				




Kingston FURY DIMM 32 GB DDR5-4800 Kit - 130 EUR (2 days discount) 125 $





						Kingston FURY DIMM 32 GB DDR5-4800 Kit, Arbeitsspeicher schwarz, KF548C38BBK2-32, FURY Beast, XMP
					

Das Kingston KF548C38BBK2-32ist ein Kit aus zwei 16-GB-DDR5-4800-Speichermodulen (PC5-38400) aus der Fury Beast Serie. Die Gesamtkapazität beträgt ...




					www.alternate.de
				




Rig on the AM4:

ASUS PRIME B550-PLUS - 132 EUR - 127 $





						ASUS PRIME B550-PLUS, Mainboard
					

Das ASUS PRIME B550-PLUS basiert auf dem AMD-B550-Chipsatz und unterstützt AMD-Prozessoren für den Sockel AM4. Es verfügt über vier DDR4-Slots für ...




					www.alternate.de
				




AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D - 457 EUR - 438$
https://www.amazon.de/dp/B09VCJ2SHD...763f08e3807ba326fce06c3dd16772b729&th=1&psc=1 

Kingston FURY DIMM 32 GB DDR4-3200 Kit - 89 EUR (2 days discount) - 85 $





						Kingston FURY DIMM 32 GB DDR4-3200 Kit, Arbeitsspeicher schwarz, KF432C16BB1K2/32, Beast, XMP
					

Das Kingston FURY KF432C16BB1K2/32 ist ein Kit aus zwei 16-GB-DDR4-3200-Speichermodulen (PC4-25600) aus der Beast Serie. Die Gesamtkapazität beträg...




					www.alternate.de
				




Ryzen 7 5800x3d vs Ryzen 5 7600X
AM5 investing: 726 $
AM4 investing: 650 $


----------



## catulitechup (Sep 27, 2022)

Some memes


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 27, 2022)

nexxusty said:


> The 12900k is literally just missing in some graphs.


This is the 7600X review, all competing CPUs in our test group are included? I typically allow +25% and -25% in relative performance. 12900K is way out of that range, twice as expensive, kinda irrelevant for comparisons?


----------



## wheresmycar (Sep 27, 2022)

RandallFlagg said:


> Tom's used DDR5-4800 on Alder Lake, and DDR5-5200 on Zen 4.   TPU used DDR5-6000 C36 on all systems, plus some runs with DDR5-6000 C30 for AMD.  You can start there.  I think it obvious, no one doing DIY is using DDR5-4800.
> 
> Another aspect is that Tom's is most likely re-using old benchmarks for comparison, TPU did a complete refresh with Win 11 and new drivers for all test configs.  Most sites don't do this, they show you what the chips performed like 1, 2 years ago when released - buggy BIOS, drivers, OS and all.
> 
> ...



Okay that makes sense but I believe the larger difference in performance is down to the type of games tested as some fare better on intel and others on AMD. 



MarsM4N said:


> Hupe jump in *productivity tasks*, head to head now with Intel's top dogs.  In gaming a bit underwhelming. Still a big step up, though.
> But lets wait & see what the *X3D* variants bring to the table. Or upcomming Intel's chips.
> 
> 
> ...



I do feel upped-up Windows versions (/beta) or major updates are initially better tuned for Intel CPUs.  I've seen some reports in the past with issues concerning cache, core scheduler, windows configured power presets, etc. Therefore unless the reviewer always opts for the latest updates with each CPU review, i believe it would be better to stick with previously produced benchmarks. I can see why the counter argument would be credible too for a more contemporary analysis , but if you think about it we haven't allowed the newer CPU's enough time to achieve their maximum performance yield with memory optimizations/OS updates/BIOS updates/etc - hence making the review too early to fathom real-world performance differences. 

About the "value" drawback.... i don't know if its justified or not, but not happy with AMD this time around at a time when I finally thought "yeah lets give AMD a shot on its fresh AM5 sock". Even looking at other reviews, the performance mark-up is too small for the excessive platform asking price. Even with B-series boards I suspect the total cost for an upgrade won't be exciting enough to pull the trigger. AMD already and now widely no longer maintains the value-king flag, something Ive always admired whilst willingly bolstered on Intel (im currently running 9700K+7700K) - hence the Zen 4 launch is a little disappointing for me. Let's see what happens in the coming months... i do like the through-2025/+ forward support vehicle with AM5 which should be eventually rewarding but if RPL proves exceptionally worthier by current standards i might just stick with my 3600/16 DDR4 memory kits, snap up a non-k ADL chip on a reasonably priced B-series board and put a blue flag on my desk. 



W1zzard said:


> I have to thank the community for that. Over the years you people asked for better memory speeds, so I kept pushing them further and further.
> 
> I think what also matters a lot is test selection. Look at the individual performance results, there's games like Far Cry 6 and Watch Dogs, which run much better on Intel than on AMD. For Far Cry 6 I know that it does complex stuff with memory and inter-thread communication.
> Should I kick out one of the most popular games for that? Don't think so.
> ...





W1zzard if anyone assumes you're intentionally drawing favour for Intel... just slap them down with some harsh words. We've got your back!!! 

I suppose I'm partially to blame with the earlier reviewer comparison - but this was purely in good faith to better grasp the benched technicalities. 

Your willingness to switch out games for a more balanced appraisal is testament in itself for top-notch reviews. Its great that we have a large selection of reviewers as the most important game performance comparison for me is individual game benchmarks, games which I play. Thats the real stat i'm looking for and the rest is just a nice-to-know comparison for bragging rights for my next upgrade.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 27, 2022)

Wasteland said:


> And he could have assumed a cheaper motherboard, too.  I happen to know that HUB gave rave reviews to a $140 B660 motherboard (The MSI Pro B660-A).


No doubt HUB plans to give a ~$150 B650 motherboard a rave review as well. They just are not out yet. 


Wasteland said:


> The point is that the AM5 platform is _absurdly _more expensive than some of the alternatives, at the moment. A reviewer might at least mention that instead of downplaying the disparity.


I thought the same thing with ADL. The cheapest motherboard at launch was ~$300+ and the first B660 boards were a good $200. The only real worry is the RAM support as far as I can see.


----------



## wheresmycar (Sep 27, 2022)

Valantar said:


> Because it allows them to maintain cooler compatibility with AM4 coolers, as otherwise the change from PGA to LGA socket would have lowered the Z-height of the CPU (height from the motherboard PCB to the top of the IHS) significantly, breaking compatibility with most cooler mounting systems. Der8auer in his delidding video measured about 1.5mm of "unnecessary" copper thickness in the IHS - which is quite a lot at these small scales, and will have a significant effect on thermals.



Good to learn something new (everyday on TPU)!!

So technically 7000-series has/had the potential of being more efficient. I thought it was primarily due to the crenels and merlons design language and the usual AMD opportunistic-volting. speaking of power consumption... are there any reviews on undervolting without harming "gaming" performance? I'd like my next upgrade to achieve a level of efficiency without having the fans ramped up, ultimately to achieve a dead-silent build without crossing the 80c mark (i understand its harmless at this range but its just one of things i can't shake off - gotto max @ ~79c or i'm willing to lose performance)


----------



## bug (Sep 27, 2022)

Chrispy_ said:


> You want to reuse your RAM but _not_ your old board and CPU?
> 
> Valid - but ineffective IMO; If you reuse the old platform for yourself or friends/family you need that RAM anyway, and when I'm buying used I look for a complete platform because it's waaay better value - easier to buy a bundle and easier to sell a bundle. You could sell your CPU and board separately but it's twice the effort for you and the market for individual parts is smaller (over here at least) because each individual part incurs its own packaging and shipping costs.


I mean, if you had some DDR4 sticks, you could still use them with ADL or RL. No such luck with Zen4 though.
Sure, if you're on ADL already, you can reuse both RAM and mobo. But I've never found it worthy to upgrade from one generation to the next.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 27, 2022)

wheresmycar said:


> Good to learn something new (everyday on TPU)!!
> 
> So technically 7000-series has/had the potential of being more efficient. I thought it was primarily due to the crenels and merlons design language and the usual AMD opportunistic-volting. speaking of power consumption... are there any reviews on undervolting without harming "gaming" performance? I'd like my next upgrade to achieve a level of efficiency without having the fans ramped up, ultimately to achieve a dead-silent build without crossing the 80c mark (i understand its harmless at this range but its just one of things i can't shake off - gotto max @ ~79c or i'm willing to lose performance)


W1zzard did a small undervolt in his 7950X review - I imagine it would translate reasonably well. It actually improved performance in some cases.


----------



## bug (Sep 27, 2022)

Aquinus said:


> It's not low hanging fruit if it cuts into the capacity for the DDR5 variant. It also goes against the reusability of their silicon since now you have two I/O dies that would be special purpose essentially. One way or another, the world will move to DDR5, just as we did with DDR4 and just about everything that preceded it and I think AMD knows that. The whole advantage of the chiplet design is the same parts used for everything. You negate that advantage by doing as you suggest. There are a lot of costs and not many benefits (for AMD that is.)
> 
> To me, this is a case of AMD keeping it simple and planning for the future, which I think is the right move for the sake of DDR5 adoption.


You forget AMD already had the DDR4-capable IO dies and the fab capacity to make them. Slap on faster USB or whatever and you're done.


----------



## sLowEnd (Sep 27, 2022)

catulitechup said:


> -95c that is terrible (short life cpu?)  and dont possible justify



Without any evidence that AMD has not taken proper measures to design their chips to withstand target operating temperatures, your assumption doesn't really hold water. Even as far back as the 1980s it was possible to tweak chips to tolerate various temperatures up to over 200c.






						High temperature, radiation hardened electronics for application to nuclear power plants (Technical Report) | OSTI.GOV
					

The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical Information




					www.osti.gov
				









						High Temperature Semiconductors | Tekmos Inc.
					

Tekmos now offers products based on special high temperature processes to meet the needs of the oil & gas, aerospace, automotive and industrial markets.




					www.tekmos.com
				




Processors today often run at temperatures way higher than they used to. My Athlon 64s and Pentium 4s loaded around mid 40c to low 50c, and IIRC max specified safe temperature was 72c for the Athlon 64. Nobody expects the same kind of behavior or limits from modern Ryzen CPUs.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 28, 2022)

Dyatlov A said:


> Absolutely not worth to come from an overclocked Intel Core i5-12400 CPU.


I know I'm late to the party, but this made me laugh. You're the exception not the rule. Very few people are looking to upgrade from a 12th gen Intel CPU to this platform. So your statement holds about as much water as a screen door on a submarine.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

wheresmycar said:


> Good to learn something new (everyday on TPU)!!
> 
> So technically 7000-series has/had the potential of being more efficient. I thought it was primarily due to the crenels and merlons design language and the usual AMD opportunistic-volting. speaking of power consumption... are there any reviews on undervolting without harming "gaming" performance? I'd like my next upgrade to achieve a level of efficiency without having the fans ramped up, ultimately to achieve a dead-silent build without crossing the 80c mark (i understand its harmless at this range but its just one of things i can't shake off - gotto max @ ~79c or i'm willing to lose performance)


That's the thing though: it doesn't affect efficiency (much). Efficiency is mainly a function of the architecture, process node, voltage and clocks, and those are the same regardless of thermals - with the exception of leakage current, which increases with higher thermals. So, yes, there would be a minor power drop from less leakage current if temperature were lower - but it wouldn't be huge. Der8auer measured ~-15W with his delidded setup that reduced temperatures by 20°C, off a 170-230W CPU. So, not a huge difference. And, of course, a thinner IHS wouldn't have come close to a 20°C temperature drop. In short: a CPU is pretty much equally efficient whether it's running at 30°C or 95°C, as long as it's drawing the same power and delivering the same performance.

There have been some results posted around these threads from tests run in Eco Mode (105W and 65W at least for the 7950X, can't remember for the 7600X). Gaming performance drops were essentially nothing; productivity performance drops were more noticeable, but still much faster than the 5950X.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 28, 2022)

Valantar said:


> That's the thing though: it doesn't affect efficiency (much). Efficiency is mainly a function of the architecture, process node, voltage and clocks, and those are the same regardless of thermals - with the exception of leakage current, which increases with higher thermals. So, yes, there would be a minor power drop from less leakage current if temperature were lower - but it wouldn't be huge. Der8auer measured ~-15W with his delidded setup that reduced temperatures by 20°C, off a 170-230W CPU. So, not a huge difference. And, of course, a thinner IHS wouldn't have come close to a 20°C temperature drop. In short: a CPU is pretty much equally efficient whether it's running at 30°C or 95°C, as long as it's drawing the same power and delivering the same performance.


15w not much? I am typing on that much. 

The V/F curve is a little high at stock. It should help stability, but this gen should undervolt well for efficiency gains.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> 15w not much? I am typing on that much.
> 
> The V/F curve is a little high at stock. It should help stability, but this gen should undervolt well for efficiency gains.


It's not much out of a 170-230W CPU under full load, no. It's noticeable, sure, but again, that's with direct die cooling with liquid metal. A thinner IHS might have delivered half that temperature drop at best, and thus a much lower drop in leakage current.


----------



## HTC (Sep 28, 2022)

wheresmycar said:


> Am i correctly observing these results? I'm assuming all these charts are correct based on the games employed to conduct these tests whereby some games will favour Intel over AMD and vice versa.
> 
> Please shed some light!



Dunno if anyone answered (haven't read all the replies) but *i think i can answer*: it's the coolers used.

Correct me if i'm wrong: isn't this the 1st time EVER a CPU's *stock performance* is so directly tied to the cooler used?

Since the CPU will boost as high as it can possibly get WHILE the temp doesn't surpass 95º, a review that used a stronger cooler will see better results in performance than a review that used a weaker one. This means that YOU CAN'T COMPARE different reviews UNLESS the same cooler model was used for both.


----------



## Why_Me (Sep 28, 2022)

HTC said:


> Dunno if anyone answered (haven't read all the replies) but *i think i can answer*: it's the coolers used.
> 
> Correct me if i'm wrong: isn't this the 1st time EVER a CPU's *stock performance* is so directly tied to the cooler used?
> 
> Since the CPU will boost as high as it can possibly get WHILE the temp doesn't surpass 95º, a review that used a stronger cooler will see better results in performance than a review that used a weaker one. This means that YOU CAN'T COMPARE different reviews UNLESS the same cooler model was used for both.











						AMD Ryzen 5 7600X Review - Affordable Zen 4 for Gaming
					

Ryzen 5 7600X is the company's most affordable offering for the Zen 4 family. Our review of the 7600X confirms that this new $300 CPU offers huge performance gains over Zen 3, and can even beat the Ryzen 5800X3D in gaming. In applications, the 7600X is faster than the Intel Core i9-11900K.




					www.techpowerup.com
				



Air Cooling: Noctua NH-U14S
Water Cooling: Arctic Liquid Freezer II 420mm


----------



## HTC (Sep 28, 2022)

Why_Me said:


> AMD Ryzen 5 7600X Review - Affordable Zen 4 for Gaming
> 
> 
> Ryzen 5 7600X is the company's most affordable offering for the Zen 4 family. Our review of the 7600X confirms that this new $300 CPU offers huge performance gains over Zen 3, and can even beat the Ryzen 5800X3D in gaming. In applications, the 7600X is faster than the Intel Core i9-11900K.
> ...


I wonder what the STOCK performance would be if someone tried to use ... a chiller ... or something even stronger.

I also wonder how much performance "would be lost" by using ... say ... a Cooler Master Hyper 212 120mm, for example.

It would be interesting to see how different the performance would be.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 28, 2022)

HTC said:


> I wonder what the STOCK performance would be if someone tried to use ... a chiller ... or something even stronger.


Almost none, the 7950X review has some testing with AIO+undervolt, and the deltas are tiny



HTC said:


> I also wonder how much performance "would be lost" by using ... say ... a Cooler Master Hyper 212 120mm, for example.


Planning for such an article right now. Run our Noctua at various fan speeds and record temp, clocks, perf in a few apps and perf in a few games


----------



## HTC (Sep 28, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> and record temp, clocks, perf in a few apps and perf in a few games


Efficiency too, please.

@ least lowest fan speed VS highest fan speed: if that doesn't produce enough efficiency variance, then there's no point in testing the "middle fan speed(s)".


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 28, 2022)

HTC said:


> least lowest fan speed


I was thinking 0% fan speed as minimum ^^


----------



## wheresmycar (Sep 28, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> Almost none, the 7950X review has some testing with AIO+undervolt, and the deltas are tiny
> 
> 
> Planning for such an article right now. Run our Noctua at various fan speeds and record temp, clocks, perf in a few apps and perf in a few games





W1zzard said:


> I was thinking 0% fan speed as minimum ^^



If you're running these tests with a 7600X, in the process it would be amazing if you could undervolt the 7600X and see what you get. You are the W1zzard hence anything is possible 



Valantar said:


> That's the thing though: it doesn't affect efficiency (much). Efficiency is mainly a function of the architecture, process node, voltage and clocks, and those are the same regardless of thermals - with the exception of leakage current, which increases with higher thermals. So, yes, there would be a minor power drop from less leakage current if temperature were lower - but it wouldn't be huge. Der8auer measured ~-15W with his delidded setup that reduced temperatures by 20°C, off a 170-230W CPU. So, not a huge difference. And, of course, a thinner IHS wouldn't have come close to a 20°C temperature drop. In short: a CPU is pretty much equally efficient whether it's running at 30°C or 95°C, as long as it's drawing the same power and delivering the same performance.
> 
> There have been some results posted around these threads from tests run in Eco Mode (105W and 65W at least for the 7950X, can't remember for the 7600X). Gaming performance drops were essentially nothing; productivity performance drops were more noticeable, but still much faster than the 5950X.



Yeah i have bad habit of referring to thermals as "efficiency"... can't count on me fingers how many times i've been corrected on that lol To compensate follow up unavoidable errors, maybe i should reinvent temps as "thermal efficiency" - if the tech community hasn't already trademarked these terms to define something else.

Valantar, i recall in some thread you mentioned B-series boards will be around $150/$180+ (maybe it was someone else?).... was that speculation or officially reported "starting from" prices. The X-series, with a limited selection of boards currently available, start from £350 in the UK. I refuse to fork out anything above £250, preferably £150-£200 for a basic non-compromising build for gaming and basic office/personal use. Just hope these not-so feature rich $150+ boards will be up-to-the-task for ~2025+ forward Gen support.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

wheresmycar said:


> Valantar, i recall in some thread you mentioned B-series boards will be around $150/$180+ (maybe it was someone else?).... was that speculation or officially reported "starting from" prices. The X-series, with a limited selection of boards currently available, start from £350 in the UK. I refuse to fork out anything above £250, preferably £150-£200 for a basic non-compromising build for gaming and basic office/personal use. Just hope these not-so feature rich $150+ boards will be up-to-the-task for ~2025+ forward Gen support.


I haven't said anything about specific prices (I don't know anything about that, unfortunately  ), but I might have speculated about base prices maybe? I know I wrote something about something in that direction in the past couple of days, but I can't remember if I pulled a number out of my rear end or if I just said "cheap"  You might be thinking about someone else too I guess.

I really, really hope we'll see decent B650 boards in that range as well, and I completely agree with you on 250+ boards being just silly for pretty much any ordinary use. They have tons of features, so it's not like you aren't getting anything for your money - but it's not things that people actually need. Personally I wouldn't worry about forward compatibility though. If it has VRMs to run a 7950X full tilt (which it ought to have - but that's also a big part of why prices are rising!) then it should handle any future AM5 CPU, given that the socket is specced at 230W, and that is unlikely to change. Of course you're still dependent on BIOS updates to support new hardware. I just hope AMD is less flaky about that this time around.


----------



## wheresmycar (Sep 28, 2022)

Valantar said:


> I haven't said anything about specific prices (I don't know anything about that, unfortunately  ), but I might have speculated about base prices maybe? I know I wrote something about something in that direction in the past couple of days, but I can't remember if I pulled a number out of my rear end or if I just said "cheap"  You might be thinking about someone else too I guess.
> 
> I really, really hope we'll see decent B650 boards in that range as well, and I completely agree with you on 250+ boards being just silly for pretty much any ordinary use. They have tons of features, so it's not like you aren't getting anything for your money - but it's not things that people actually need. Personally I wouldn't worry about forward compatibility though. If it has VRMs to run a 7950X full tilt (which it ought to have - but that's also a big part of why prices are rising!) then it should handle any future AM5 CPU, given that the socket is specced at 230W, and that is unlikely to change. Of course you're still dependent on BIOS updates to support new hardware. I just hope AMD is less flaky about that this time around.



Ooops might have been someone else.

I hope it holds weight though with barebone options starting from $150 and the finer clothed offerings somewhere in the $200 region. But, my goodness £350 for a starting point for X series adds doubt. I totally agree, most of these hi-end features are not of any use for most people (or a major "some") and I can't see that changing in the 3-year+ support cycle. 

Is there a particular reason why B-series is always launched after the premium stuff? Same with non-X variant processors? Is it down to profitability with higher priced parts or early release competitiveness with best available hardware? I see the same thing with Intel... the pricier stuff always first.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 28, 2022)

I may have stated that B650 will run around $150 to start with after someone talked about platform cost. I then looked at AMD's official marketing slides, and IIRC they were saying $120, and a launch in October.



wheresmycar said:


> I see the same thing with Intel... the pricier stuff always first.


Who doesn't do that?


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

wheresmycar said:


> Ooops might have been someone else.
> 
> I hope it holds weight though with barebone options starting from $150 and the finer clothed offerings somewhere in the $200 region. But, my goodness £350 for a starting point for X series adds doubt. I totally agree, most of these hi-end features are not of any use for most people (or a major "some") and I can't see that changing in the 3-year+ support cycle.
> 
> Is there a particular reason why B-series is always launched after the premium stuff? Same with non-X variant processors? Is it down to profitability with higher priced parts or early release competitiveness with best available hardware? I see the same thing with Intel... the pricier stuff always first.


Yep, pretty much. They want to recoup as much of their R&D and early production costs as quickly as possible, so they only sell premium SKUs in the beginning. If you're impatient, you pay for the privilege; if you're patient you inevitably get better value.


----------



## wheresmycar (Sep 28, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> I may have stated that B650 will run around $150 to start with after someone talked about platform cost. I then looked at AMD's official marketing slides, and IIRC they were saying $120, and a launch in October.



ahh we found the culprit lol... 

$120 for B-series? i doubt it. Maybe A-series? Around $150 for B-series would be triumph for the consumer



Count von Schwalbe said:


> Who doesn't do that?



I'm just curious why that was... if its profitability alone, i guess it makes sense from the seller/manufacturers perspective. As an inquisitive consumer, it would be nice if they could simply drop all the variants in one go... first we get informed about Next Gen (we wait), then we get informed of a date of announcement (we wait), then we wait for the announcement to confirm the release date (we wait) and finally when the stuff is released which is of the premium variety we then look forward to the more reasonable offerings (we wait some more). So i'm just curious why the intrusive teasing... the upgrade itch, forget the skin, is cutting thru me bones!



Valantar said:


> Yep, pretty much. They want to recoup as much of their R&D and early production costs as quickly as possible, so they only sell premium SKUs in the beginning. If you're impatient, you pay for the privilege; if you're patient you inevitably get better value.



I thought so. Can't blame them seeing how people are willing to pay their skin off for small performance gains (esp in the GPU sector)


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 28, 2022)

wheresmycar said:


> $120 for B-series? i doubt it. Maybe A-series? Around $150 for B-series would be triumph for the consumer


B550 with full PCIe 4.0 support can be had for under $100. No A-series coming. AMD is only making one chipset this gen - Promontory 21. B650 is a single one of these, and X670 is two. The E versions are just certification for PCIe 5.0 on the GPU slot, so nothing actually to do with the chipset. 

The only real price increase from B550 to B650 should be the M.2 and DMI being PCIe 5, potential socket cost increase, and DDR5 traces.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 28, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> B550 with full PCIe 4.0 support can be had for under $100. No A-series coming. AMD is only making one chipset this gen - Promontory 21. B650 is a single one of these, and X670 is two. The E versions are just certification for PCIe 5.0 on the GPU slot, so nothing actually to do with the chipset.
> 
> The only real price increase from B550 to B650 should be the M.2 and DMI being PCIe 5, potential socket cost increase, and DDR5 traces.


Yes, but B550 has also been on the market for a year and a half. Prices drop. Still, B650 shouldn't be that much more expensive than B550, outside of VRM costs. Hopefully we'll see some sensible boards.


----------



## HTC (Sep 28, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> I was thinking 0% fan speed as minimum ^^


I was thinking around 300 RMP or so ...


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 28, 2022)

Valantar said:


> Yes, but B550 has also been on the market for a year and a half. Prices drop. Still, B650 shouldn't be that much more expensive than B550, outside of VRM costs. Hopefully we'll see some sensible boards.


Just checked price history, 2 years ago the DS3H was $95. Some people just make cheap boards.


----------



## catulitechup (Sep 28, 2022)

wheresmycar said:


> ahh we found the culprit lol...
> 
> _*$*_*120 for B-series*? i doubt it. Maybe A-series? Around $150 for B-series would be triumph for the consumer





Valantar said:


> Yes, but B550 has also been on the market for a year and a half. Prices drop. *Still, B650 shouldn't be that much more expensive than B550*, outside of VRM costs. Hopefully we'll see some sensible boards.



90 to 95 degrees on 120us mainboard (if appear, personally wait for 150us and beyond for entry b650)







resuming this a big flop from amd but dont as bad like bulldozer, wait no this is worst than bulldozer because bulldozer support ddr3 but zen 4 have higher temperatures maybe caused to try show zen 4 are better than raptorlake up frecuencies* (however seems them possible fail in same cpu area like i5 13600k vs ryzen 5 7600x)

*if them use some lower frecuencies must be have better temps for example turbo at 5.0ghz or 5.1ghz must be have better temps
and now thanks to amd now delidded must be considered on zen 4 with higher frecuencies, in this video der8auer shows zen 4     delidd and them stay preparing delidd kit










and use ddr5 (expensive now and have some cheap sticks but with suck frecuencies and latencies like 4800/5200mhz kits) only for now and for see differences need high speed ddr5 memory aka 6000mhz and beyond


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 28, 2022)

catulitechup said:


> 90 to 95 degrees on 120us mainboard (if appear, personally wait for 150us and beyond for entry b650)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That was quite the exercise in mental gymnastics. 

On one hand, we have Intel with high power draw on $150 motherboards. On the other hand, we have AMD in the same situation. 

AMD has supported one memory generation per socket for a while now AFAIK. 

What's your point?


----------



## catulitechup (Sep 29, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> That was quite the exercise in mental gymnastics.
> 
> On one hand, we have Intel with high power draw on $150 motherboards. On the other hand, we have AMD in the same situation.
> 
> ...



no intel have lower cpus in lga 1700 like Celeron G6900 - Pentium Gold G7400 - Core i3 12100 with mainboards since 90us like this



> MSI H610M-G PRO DDR4 Intel LGA 1700 microATX Motherboard - Micro Center
> 
> 
> Get it now! PRO series helps users work smarter by delivering an efficient and productive experience. Featuring stable functionality and high-quality assembly, PRO series motherboards provide not only optimized professional workflows but also less troubleshooting and longevity.
> ...





> MSI B660M-G Pro DDR4 Intel LGA 1700 microATX Motherboard - Micro Center
> 
> 
> Get it now! PRO series helps users work smarter by delivering an efficient and productive experience. Featuring stable functionality and high-quality assembly, PRO series motherboards provide not only optimized professional workflows but also less troubleshooting and longevity.
> ...



meanwhile zen 4 only have cheapest cpu for now at 300us like 7600X

back to intel have more cpus and more cheaper (60us and beyond) in lga 1700 and still supporting ddr4, this are very good to fuck amd if them can offer ddr4 with zen 4 dont seem meh like now


----------



## Steevo (Sep 29, 2022)

catulitechup said:


> no intel have lower cpus in lga 1700 like Celeron G6900 - Pentium Gold G7400 - Core i3 12100 with mainboards since 90us like this
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Except you can still buy cheap AM4 boards and slap great performance processors in them with the same DDR4.....



So, what's the point beyond crying about something you aren't going to reasonably consider or use?


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Sep 29, 2022)

If you are considering a Celeron on a H610, I can offer you a nice little A320 with a 4500 on it as well. More features and more cores, just less ST performance. The beauty of competition is, we have choices. If you dump all over AMD, why are you not buying a Skylake? That's what there would be without competition.


----------



## wheresmycar (Sep 29, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> B550 with full PCIe 4.0 support can be had for under $100. No A-series coming. AMD is only making one chipset this gen - Promontory 21. B650 is a single one of these, and X670 is two. The E versions are just certification for PCIe 5.0 on the GPU slot, so nothing actually to do with the chipset.
> 
> The only real price increase from B550 to B650 should be the M.2 and DMI being PCIe 5, potential socket cost increase, and DDR5 traces.



not forgetting a new socket with a 3 year+ support plan (which sells itself) which AMD must have taken into account with X-series pricing... for which pricing consequences trickling down to B-series too. Even myself, im not interested as much in PCIe 5.0 or hardly excited about DDR5 (for the mo)... the AM5 forward support feature is one of the appealing factors which might have me overlook RPL's potential performance advantages or alternative cost effective options. More power, higher temps, possibly more than adequate Vram on mid-ranged B-series... i still think $150-$250 (if not more) depending on board type. $120 would be amazing... but thats too wide of a gap ($200'ish less) from an X-series which seems unrealistic. Seeing you mentioned A-series is not expected, maybe some low-grade B-series variants for that $120 range are possible but stripped to the bone for lesser demanding workloads which might not be a good fit for gaming

lol look at what you guys have got me doing... speculating the speculation whilst feeling spectacularly speculative


----------



## Valantar (Sep 29, 2022)

catulitechup said:


> resuming this a big flop from amd but dont as bad like bulldozer, wait no this is worst than bulldozer because bulldozer support ddr3 but zen 4 have higher temperatures maybe caused to try show zen 4 are better than raptorlake up frecuencies* (however seems them possible fail in same cpu area like i5 13600k


A flop? Why is it a flop? The CPUs perform well. They're not a smashing win, but they're a good improvement on the previous generation, and will likely compete decently with 13th gen - though they'll most likely need X3D models to keep up in gaming.

If you're talking about thermals, then you need to read some of the discussion going on it these threads. These CPUs operate differently from what we're used to. And that's fine.


catulitechup said:


> no intel have lower cpus in lga 1700 like Celeron G6900 - Pentium Gold G7400 - Core i3 12100 with mainboards since 90us like this


... and? AMD will too. It's perfectly normal to launch the high end first. Intel does exactly the same thing.



Count von Schwalbe said:


> Just checked price history, 2 years ago the DS3H was $95. Some people just make cheap boards.


Hm, that's lower than I thought. But then I haven't really looked at ATX boards for... give years? Something like that.



catulitechup said:


> 90 to 95 degrees on 120us mainboard (if appear, personally wait for 150us and beyond for entry b650)


The cores will (maybe) be that hot. Cores do not touch motherboards. No part of the motherboard will unless it has wildly underspecced VRM cooling.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 29, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> I was thinking 0% fan speed as minimum ^^


That would be interesting. I predict some throttling will take place..


----------



## catulitechup (Sep 29, 2022)

Valantar said:


> A flop? Why is it a flop? The CPUs perform well. They're not a smashing win, but they're a good improvement on the previous generation, and will likely compete decently with 13th gen - though they'll most likely need X3D models to keep up in gaming.
> 
> If you're talking about thermals, then you need to read some of the discussion going on it these threads. These CPUs operate differently from what we're used to. And that's fine.
> 
> ...



yeah is a big flop for this reasons:

- change to ddr5 only, for see good performance need higher frecuencies and this kits are prohibitive prices*



> *for christmas amd maybe have troubles because for this time memories still stay expensive, for ddr5 can be considered need cut prices so much for example 32gb 2 sticks ddr 6400 kit must cost around 90us and this possible occur in sometime of 2023 personally think this can be happend around Q3 or Q4 of 2023



-higher temps caused because amd stay desesperate to dont seems bad compared raptorlake but for example 7600X with 400mhz  less in turbo must be runs much cooler

curiously now thanks to before der8auer shows delidd for zen 4










-another topic indirectly related with temps are related to very stupid form of ihs of zen 4, if are needed change socket aka new   mainboard (expensive too), new memories (expensive too); why do you leave compatibility with old cooling because in many   cases cooling devices are more cheaper than mainboard or memories

for before reasons amd zen 4 socket stay overcharged with circuits out of ihs area, this cause strange form of ihs and possible hell to clean thermal paste in this spaces

personally i think amd are too stupid in socket design, maybe with more bigger socket them can prevent this problems like temps and thermal paste excess in this space if case appear

this video talking about this problem, stay in spanish but for see problem dont need learn spanish










-other topic stay on mainboards price maybe can appear cheap mainboards but for some designs filtered for courtesy of videocards, motherboards showed seems more than 150us personally think around 180 to 200us



> Sixteen AMD B650E/B650 motherboards for Ryzen 7000 CPUs have been leaked - VideoCardz.com
> 
> 
> AMD B650 motherboards are coming According to early sales data, retailers are seeing smaller interest in Ryzen 7/5 7000 models. The X670E and X670 boards are expensive to say the least, and that’s without including the cost of Ryzen 7000 CPU and DDR5 memory upgrade. However, there are new...
> ...



another stupid amd decision but curiously new chipsets aka X670E-X670-B650E-B650 in older article talking about thes chips cost lower than before for amd

However as your said maybe X3D parts, some rumors talking about appear around CES 2023 and X3D parts must run more cooler because this parts normally have more moderate clocks and 5800X3D is really very good cpu with excelent gaming performance


----------



## Valantar (Sep 29, 2022)

catulitechup said:


> yeah is a big flop for this reasons:
> 
> - change to ddr5 only, for see good performance need higher frecuencies and this kits are prohibitive prices*
> 
> ...


Literally none of the above is an argument for calling it "a flop". There are absolutely arguments to be made for why this likely won't be the most successful Ryzen generation - the main argument for which is the runaway success of Zen3 against nonexistent Intel competition, followed closely by market saturation, a recession, and more. Motherboard prices are rising across the board, due to component costs and rising BoM costs from high speed I/O. This is identical between AMD and Intel. Yes, DDR5 is more expensive, but it mainly looks that way because DDR4 is _ludicrously_ cheap these days. That of course doesn't change DDR4's value proposition, obviously. But it seems like the whole world has forgotten what RAM prices were like just three-four years ago? For a DRAM tech still in the early stages of adoption, DDR5 is quite affordable - but as with all new DRAM technologies, the older one presents a better value proposition in the first couple of years. As for the Zen4 socket design - we can have differing opinions whether the socket should have been enlarged or not, etc., but pretending that you know better than AMD's engineers is just stupid. These are carefully considered decisions. I mean, if your main complaint about it is that the unusual IHS shape makes it "hell to clean thermal paste in those spaces", then you're looking pretty hard for your "problems". As for why leave compatibility with coolers ... because it saves people money? You were just arguing that going DDR5-only was bad because it's too expensive, and now you're arguing that allowing people to save money by keeping their coolers is also bad? Yeah, sorry, your logic is _way_ inconsistent here.

There's no doubt that AMD has geared their boost algorithm towards aggressively boosting high to compete with Intel, and in combination with the thick IHS of the CPU and the increased power draw, this leads to high core temperatures. Only one of these worries me: the power draw. Personally I would just run these in Eco mode, but IMO that should have been the default setting. But again: none of that qualifies as this being "a flop".


----------



## catulitechup (Sep 29, 2022)

Valantar said:


> Literally none of the above is an argument for calling it "a flop". There are absolutely arguments to be made for why this likely won't be the most successful Ryzen generation - the main argument for which is the runaway success of Zen3 against nonexistent Intel competition, followed closely by market saturation, a recession, and more. Motherboard prices are rising across the board, due to component costs and rising BoM costs from high speed I/O. This is identical between AMD and Intel. Yes, DDR5 is more expensive, but it mainly looks that way because DDR4 is _ludicrously_ cheap these days. That of course doesn't change DDR4's value proposition, obviously. But it seems like the whole world has forgotten what RAM prices were like just three-four years ago? For a DRAM tech still in the early stages of adoption, DDR5 is quite affordable - but as with all new DRAM technologies, the older one presents a better value proposition in the first couple of years. As for the Zen4 socket design - we can have differing opinions whether the socket should have been enlarged or not, etc., but pretending that you know better than AMD's engineers is just stupid. These are carefully considered decisions. I mean, if your main complaint about it is that the unusual IHS shape makes it "hell to clean thermal paste in those spaces", then you're looking pretty hard for your "problems". As for why leave compatibility with coolers ... because it saves people money? You were just arguing that going DDR5-only was bad because it's too expensive, and now you're arguing that allowing people to save money by keeping their coolers is also bad? Yeah, sorry, your logic is _way_ inconsistent here.
> 
> There's no doubt that AMD has geared their boost algorithm towards aggressively boosting high to compete with Intel, and in combination with the thick IHS of the CPU and the increased power draw, this leads to high core temperatures. Only one of these worries me: the power draw. Personally I would just run these in Eco mode, but IMO that should have been the default setting. But again: none of that qualifies as this being "a flop".



bad value, bad temps, bad socket dimensions (stupid amd engineers* or them make thinking about nonsense money saving related cooler, maybe them can make better work thinking about real money savings like memory support aka ddr4)

*


>



bad ihs, higher cost on  mainboard / memories and all of this in recesion times.......................only can think a big big FLOP


----------



## Arco (Sep 29, 2022)

Valantar said:


> Literally none of the above is an argument for calling it "a flop". There are absolutely arguments to be made for why this likely won't be the most successful Ryzen generation - the main argument for which is the runaway success of Zen3 against nonexistent Intel competition, followed closely by market saturation, a recession, and more. Motherboard prices are rising across the board, due to component costs and rising BoM costs from high speed I/O. This is identical between AMD and Intel. Yes, DDR5 is more expensive, but it mainly looks that way because DDR4 is _ludicrously_ cheap these days. That of course doesn't change DDR4's value proposition, obviously. But it seems like the whole world has forgotten what RAM prices were like just three-four years ago? For a DRAM tech still in the early stages of adoption, DDR5 is quite affordable - but as with all new DRAM technologies, the older one presents a better value proposition in the first couple of years.


Oh yeah, DDR5 prices don't look that bad really. DDR4 in its earlyish days was still costly.

If I compared it to my set bought around 2018. 80 or more bucks for 16GB of DDR4@2400 CL16. Now double that because 32GB, add inflation, and put a bit extra for being a lot faster compared to the lowest DDR5. Then it looks not that bad.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 29, 2022)

catulitechup said:


> bad value


They're high end part. Bad value is expected.


catulitechup said:


> bad temps,


Or just a different way of boosting, that doesn't back off frequency until it hits its limit.


catulitechup said:


> bad socket dimensions


That's one of many possible opinions.


catulitechup said:


> (stupid amd engineers* or them make thinking about nonsense money saving related cooler, maybe them can make better work thinking about real money savings like memory support aka ddr4)


Yes, because nobody would be annoyed if cooler compatibility was broken, of course not 


catulitechup said:


> bad ihs


Arguably.


catulitechup said:


> higher cost on  mainboard


Literally the same as new Intel boards of a comparable featureset


catulitechup said:


> memories


Memories are free  RAM on the other hand costs a bit, but DDR5 isn't bad for where it is in its life cycle - it's just made to look bad by unprecedented cheap DDR4.


catulitechup said:


> and all of this in recesion times


That's true, but the same applies to Intel - it's not like they're launching low end 13th gen any time soon.


catulitechup said:


> .......................only can think a big big FLOP


Time will tell. You might want to look up the definition of 'flop'.


----------



## Arco (Sep 29, 2022)

The value of AM5 staying updated and supported until 2026 is more than the 5-10 percent performance gain that Intel has over AyyyyMD this generation. 

Also, there is no reason to go DDR4 if you have a decent budget and if you are building a completely new setup. The motherboard prices look a bit worse than intel to be fair though.


----------



## Dylan M (Sep 30, 2022)

There's no such thing as an "affordable Zen 4 offering", and anybody who's worth their weight in salt could tell you that. A $300 CPU means nothing in the grand scheme of things once you factor in the cost of an entirely new Motherboard socket (+$300), and DDR5 memory (+$200). In the end, that's an $800-$1000 CPU when you look at it objectively from that perspective.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Sep 30, 2022)

Dylan M said:


> There's no such thing as an "affordable Zen 4 offering"


Nonsense. There are number of them..


Dylan M said:


> and anybody who's worth their weight in salt could tell you that.


I'm worth my weight in Gold and I'm disagreeing with you.


----------



## Arco (Sep 30, 2022)

Honestly, this gen is for people that are completely rebuilding or have a little extra dough to buy a new platform.


----------



## Dylan M (Sep 30, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> Nonsense. There are number of them..
> 
> I'm worth my weight in Gold and I'm disagreeing with you.


Funny joke, I didn't realize it was opposite day today. That's fun. Gamers Nexus disagrees, and so most people in general. If I must cite sources for proof, watch their 7600X review.


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (Sep 30, 2022)

Arco said:


> Honestly, this gen is for people that are completely rebuilding or have a little extra dough to buy a new platform.



This is true of nearly every gen since, what, the '90s with the Pentium II?  P4 -> Core and Bulldozer -> Zen are notable exceptions.


----------



## Footman (Sep 30, 2022)

Based on my calculations, and compared to 5600X, not really much in the way of true uplift if we run each with 65W (ECO mode for 7600X), lock turbo boost at the same 4.6ghz and take in to account the faster DDR5 of the AM5 platform.
Currently if I wanted to boost the performance of my AM4 rig, I would just go out and buy a 5800X which is available on Amazon today for $249. 
I game at 2K, so cpu has less of an impact at this resolution and the extra cores of the 5800X make up for the 'uplift' that the 7600X has over previous generation...


----------



## Arco (Sep 30, 2022)

80-watt Hamster said:


> This is true of nearly every gen since, what, the '90s with the Pentium II?  P4 -> Core and Bulldozer -> Zen are notable exceptions.


Cough, shilltel cough. I mean this gen you have to upgrade your ram if you have DDR4. AM4 is a good platform.


----------



## Valantar (Sep 30, 2022)

Footman said:


> not really much in the way of true uplift if we run each with 65W (ECO mode for 7600X), lock turbo boost at the same 4.6ghz


Well, no, AMD themselves are pretty clear on that - the IPC increase is around 13%, so I'd you're limiting clocks to the same level obviously you're not getting more than that on average.

On the other hand, why would you do that, especially when you're already power limiting? One of the main advantages of this generation is that it can clock higher at lower power too. Set them to the same power level and the 7600X will boost noticeably higher than the 5600X - and thus also outperform it.


----------



## Footman (Sep 30, 2022)

Just an observation.


----------



## HTC (Oct 1, 2022)

An AnandTech Forum user posted a video in this post from Paul's hardware where he uses several coolers, beginning with a Corsair H150i, but also using an AMD Wraith Stealth, an AMD Wraith Spire and a BeQuiet Pure Rock 2 FX.

Here's the video, @ the beginning of the comparison:










Unfortunately, no efficiency comparisons ...


----------



## Valantar (Oct 1, 2022)

HTC said:


> An AnandTech Forum user posted a video in this post from Paul's hardware where he uses several coolers, beginning with a Corsair H150i, but also using an AMD Wraith Stealth, an AMD Wraith Spire and a BeQuiet Pure Rock 2 FX.
> 
> Here's the video, @ the beginning of the comparison:
> 
> ...


Really interesting results. So, even relatively basic air aftermarket air cooling will do just fine for a 7600X - on an open test bench, that is. Definitely needs a properly ventilated case, but that's a given. Also, the performance loss even with the basic Wraith Stealth wasn't really all that bad - and that's a cooler rated for AMD's 65W TDP CPUs, not 105W ones like this one. You lose performance, sure, but not _that_ much. If you're in a budgeting pinch and have the cooler laying around, using it until you can scrounge up another $30-to-50 for a better cooler will do just fine. And even if not all CPUs will do CO -30 all core, those results were damn impressive.


----------



## Quattroking (Oct 1, 2022)

This is kind of interesting.










That might be the solution to get the 'AMD Ryzen 5 7600X' to work in a Mini-ITX build with more acceptable temperatures.

However, I will wait for the benchmarks / test of the 'Intel Core i5-13600K' before I will decide on what CPU to upgrade to.


----------



## Why_Me (Oct 1, 2022)

Valantar said:


> I haven't said anything about specific prices (I don't know anything about that, unfortunately  ), but I might have speculated about base prices maybe? I know I wrote something about something in that direction in the past couple of days, but I can't remember if I pulled a number out of my rear end or if I just said "cheap"  You might be thinking about someone else too I guess.
> 
> *I really, really hope we'll see decent B650 boards in that range as well, and I completely agree with you on 250+ boards being just silly for pretty much any ordinary use.* They have tons of features, so it's not like you aren't getting anything for your money - but it's not things that people actually need. Personally I wouldn't worry about forward compatibility though. If it has VRMs to run a 7950X full tilt (which it ought to have - but that's also a big part of why prices are rising!) then it should handle any future AM5 CPU, given that the socket is specced at 230W, and that is unlikely to change. Of course you're still dependent on BIOS updates to support new hardware. I just hope AMD is less flaky about that this time around.











						MSI PRO B650M-A WIFI AM5 Micro-ATX Motherboard
					

Buy MSI PRO B650M-A WIFI AM5 Micro-ATX Motherboard featuring Micro-ATX Form Factor, AMD B650 Chipset, AM5 Socket, 4 x Dual-Channel DDR5 RAM Slots, PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 (x4 Mode), PCIe 3.0 x1, Wi-Fi 6E | Bluetooth 5.2 | 2.5 GbE, USB-C 3.2 Gen 1 & Gen 2 Ports, HDMI | DisplayPort, Windows 10...




					www.bhphotovideo.com
				



MSI PRO B650M-A WIFI $199.99









						AMD B650 Motherboards Listed at U.S. Retailer Starting at $199
					

A first look at pricing for budget Zen 4 AM5 motherboards.




					www.tomshardware.com


----------



## catulitechup (Oct 2, 2022)

Why_Me said:


> MSI PRO B650M-A WIFI AM5 Micro-ATX Motherboard
> 
> 
> Buy MSI PRO B650M-A WIFI AM5 Micro-ATX Motherboard featuring Micro-ATX Form Factor, AMD B650 Chipset, AM5 Socket, 4 x Dual-Channel DDR5 RAM Slots, PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 (x4 Mode), PCIe 3.0 x1, Wi-Fi 6E | Bluetooth 5.2 | 2.5 GbE, USB-C 3.2 Gen 1 & Gen 2 Ports, HDMI | DisplayPort, Windows 10...
> ...









But but but 125us mainboards where stay ??


----------



## Valantar (Oct 2, 2022)

catulitechup said:


> But but but 125us mainboards where stay ??


... so you're taking a few leaked B550 motherboard prices as confirmation that there will be no boards at the advertised $125 price point? Solid logic, that.


----------



## Why_Me (Oct 2, 2022)

Valantar said:


> ... so you're taking a few leaked B550 motherboard prices as confirmation that there will be no boards at the advertised $125 price point? Solid logic, that.


A $125 B650 DDR5 board if one exist is going to be pretty lean.









						First B650 Motherboard Pricing Detailed by B&H
					

US retailer B&H has kindly provided the first B650 motherboard pricing and it's something of a mixed bag. The company has listed no less than seven different models from MSI, ranging in price from US$199.99 to US$329.99. It doesn't appear as if any of these boards are based on the B650E chipset...




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## Steevo (Oct 3, 2022)

How long before we see vapor chamber IHS on stock processors?


----------



## wheresmycar (Oct 3, 2022)

Steevo said:


> How long before we see vapor chamber IHS on stock processors?



is that even a thing?

I thought vapor chambers were specifically designed to more effectively dissipate heat via heatpipes?


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Oct 4, 2022)

wheresmycar said:


> is that even a thing?
> 
> I thought vapor chambers were specifically designed to more effectively dissipate heat via heatpipes?


No, but it could be. A vapor chamber is very efficient at spreading heat laterally. Integrating it with the heatpipes is just an extra benefit.


----------



## Steevo (Oct 4, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> No, but it could be. A vapor chamber is very efficient at spreading heat laterally. Integrating it with the heatpipes is just an extra benefit.


And the die surface area seems to be the hold back on these chips, maybe when they release the 3D chip they can add it to help with heat dissipation.

is the CPU die up or down on the the chip when installed?


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Oct 4, 2022)

Steevo said:


> And the die surface area seems to be the hold back on these chips, maybe when they release the 3D chip they can add it to help with heat dissipation.
> 
> is the CPU die up or down on the the chip when installed?


Should show in der8auer's delid video.


----------



## Valantar (Oct 4, 2022)

Steevo said:


> How long before we see vapor chamber IHS on stock processors?


I've been asking this for years already. It's bound to arrive at some point, either as a third party product or stock offering on extreme models. Price and structural integrity would both be challenges to overcome first though.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Oct 4, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> No, but it could be. A vapor chamber is very efficient at spreading heat laterally. Integrating it with the heatpipes is just an extra benefit.


This. Spot on!


----------



## wheresmycar (Oct 4, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> No, but it could be. A vapor chamber is very efficient at spreading heat laterally. Integrating it with the heatpipes is just an extra benefit.



Gotcha!! I thought vapor chambers and heatpipes opened up into each other. Looking into it a little deeper, i see these are separate mechanisms joined together for conductive heat transfer opposed to transfer of vapor. 

I get it now...  lateral heat spread > more "equal" IHS surface roasting > potentially improved thermals with coolers more easily transfering/dissipating heat. 

If this is correct, please gimme a pat on the back  (i'm learning)


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Oct 4, 2022)

wheresmycar said:


> Gotcha!! I thought vapor chambers and heatpipes opened up into each other. Looking into it a little deeper, i see these are separate mechanisms joined together for conductive heat transfer opposed to transfer of vapor.
> 
> I get it now...  lateral heat spread > more "equal" IHS surface roasting > potentially improved thermals with coolers more easily transfering/dissipating heat.
> 
> If this is correct, please gimme a pat on the back  (i'm learning)


Yup. Some coolers "may" have them integrated, to help balance the heat across the pipes, but I am speaking theoretically.


----------



## AleXXX666 (Oct 12, 2022)

Raendor said:


> Quite a flop and doesn't bring much to the table compared to ADL. Raptor Lake has a chance to beat zen 4 on price and performance.


if only with ddr4. or you will be getting slower therefore cheaper cpus lol.


----------



## gffermari (Nov 12, 2022)




----------



## THU31 (Nov 12, 2022)

If they are smart, they will do a 7600X3D and destroy all Intel CPUs in gaming performance (probably even Meteor Lake) with incredible value.

If they are greedy (like with Zen 3), they will only do that with 8 cores and above. I do not think they can afford to be greedy this time, with how poorly Zen 4 is selling. Seriously, 7600X3D at $300-350, lower the price of the 7600X to $250 and release a 7600 at $200 or slightly below (depending on what the 13400 does). This would be a win.


----------



## Valantar (Nov 12, 2022)

THU31 said:


> If they are smart, they will do a 7600X3D and destroy all Intel CPUs in gaming performance (probably even Meteor Lake) with incredible value.
> 
> If they are greedy (like with Zen 3), they will only do that with 8 cores and above. I do not think they can afford to be greedy this time, with how poorly Zen 4 is selling. Seriously, 7600X3D at $300-350, lower the price of the 7600X to $250 and release a 7600 at $200 or slightly below (depending on what the 13400 does). This would be a win.


Yeah, I can't quite bring myself to believe that AMD would be stupid enough to not go _hard_ for competing on price once the X3D models launch. Cut the 7600X to $200-230, launch the 7600X3D at $250-270 - $300 at the very most - go after Intel where it hurts, in the mass market gaming parts, where the PR victories live. Even if the DIY market is tiny overall, it's vitally important for PR and gaining marketshare long term, and they can't afford to waste the goodwill they gained with Zen2 and Zen3. And competitive DIY value sells a ton of prebuilts and laptops.


----------



## Why_Me (Nov 12, 2022)

gffermari said:


>


His benches run contrary to just about every tech site on the internet including this one.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-13600k/ 
*Intel Core i5-13600K Review - Best Gaming CPU*


----------



## Valantar (Nov 12, 2022)

Why_Me said:


> His benches run contrary to just about every tech site on the internet including this one.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-13600k/
> *Intel Core i5-13600K Review - Best Gaming CPU*


The difference between these results is small enough that it is easily explained by differences in games tested, test scenes and so on.


----------



## Wasteland (Nov 12, 2022)

Valantar said:


> The difference between these results is small enough that it is easily explained by differences in games tested, test scenes and so on.


Right, HUB even said that it's effectively a tie in the video, which is the only sensible conclusion.  The 7600x's problem is that it's vastly inferior to the 13600k in heavy multi-threaded workloads, and at an analogous price point.  It does run at lower power, which is nice, but I think quibbling over low single-digit gaming perf differences is silly here.  AMD needs to lower prices in this space.


----------



## Why_Me (Nov 12, 2022)

Valantar said:


> The difference between these results is small enough that it is easily explained by differences in games tested, test scenes and so on.


Good luck on finding a tech site that has the same results as HUB in regards to those two cpu's.


----------



## Valantar (Nov 12, 2022)

Why_Me said:


> Good luck on finding a tech site that has the same results as HUB in regards to those two cpu's.


... as I said, different test methodologies, test scenes, games, etc. To have they same results those would have to be the same, so... yes?


----------



## lexluthermiester (Nov 12, 2022)

Valantar said:


> The difference between these results is small enough that it is easily explained by differences in games tested, test scenes and so on.


Otherwise known as "margin of error".


----------



## omerfak (Nov 21, 2022)

IGP performance is better than I expected. My Core i5 struggles playing indie games with the IGP.


----------



## Lordken (Dec 2, 2022)

I think there is small mistake in table UE5 on page8 https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-7600x/8.html , i somehow doubt that i5 11400F is fastest?  probably it should be 146.3s instead 46?

EDIT: does this forum work fine in FF? Tried to quote original post (to tag wizzard) but apparently I cant get it to show here...


----------



## bug (Dec 2, 2022)

Lordken said:


> I think there is small mistake in table UE5 on page8 https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-7600x/8.html , i somehow doubt that i5 11400F is fastest?  probably it should be 146.3s instead 46?
> 
> EDIT: does this forum work fine in FF? Tried to quote original post (to tag wizzard) but apparently I cant get it to show here...


I use this in FF all the time, works fine. Check your blockers, clear your cache...


----------



## Ayhamb99 (Dec 2, 2022)

Lordken said:


> I think there is small mistake in table UE5 on page8 https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-7600x/8.html , i somehow doubt that i5 11400F is fastest?  probably it should be 146.3s instead 46?
> 
> EDIT: does this forum work fine in FF? Tried to quote original post (to tag wizzard) but apparently I cant get it to show here...


I cannot quote it as well, perhaps tagging @W1zzard directly would work? I am not sure but there there is no way in hell the 11400F is fastest than all of the other CPUs lol.


----------



## W1zzard (Dec 2, 2022)

Lordken said:


> I think there is small mistake in table UE5 on page8 https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-7600x/8.html , i somehow doubt that i5 11400F is fastest?  probably it should be 146.3s instead 46?
> 
> EDIT: does this forum work fine in FF? Tried to quote original post (to tag wizzard) but apparently I cant get it to show here...


This is definitely a measurement error. I'll haveto setup a 11400F system and rerun the test.

Quoting the original post (the full review text) isn't possible because it would end up being a huge quote 



Ayhamb99 said:


> I cannot quote it as well, perhaps tagging @W1zzard directly would work? I am not sure but there there is no way in hell the 11400F is fastest than all of the other CPUs lol.


Thanks for tagging me, this always helps


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Dec 2, 2022)

> Quoting the original post (the full review text) isn't possible because it would end up being a huge quote


Allow me to introduce you to @robot zombie...


----------



## lexluthermiester (Dec 3, 2022)

Lordken said:


> EDIT: does this forum work fine in FF?


I use FireFox exclusively. No issues.



Count von Schwalbe said:


> Allow me to introduce you to @robot zombie...


No offense intended I'm sure..


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Dec 3, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> No offense intended I'm sure..


Certainly not! He jokes about it himself though...


----------



## AsRock (Dec 3, 2022)

Ayhamb99 said:


> While the performance gains over the previous 5600x is impressive.... The i5 12600k still remains very competitive and comes close to its performance.... While the 7950X and 7900X's performance gains are very big and impressive compared to the 5950X/5900X and I9 12900k.... The 7600X and 7700X barely overtake the 12600k and 12700k in gaming and productivity workloads and 13th gen Raptor lake is not that far away....



Gaining what ?, in most games 144+ fps is enough for most, it's only going be a real benefit if the lows are improved.


----------



## robot zombie (Dec 3, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> Allow me to introduce you to @robot zombie...


IIRC, I actually did hit the length limit for posts once or twice and had to get creative. Taking that into account, I'm capable of writing posts that will in fact be absolutely impossible to quote in a single post, no matter how you try.

It's a lot of responsibility, NGL. If I let my powers go unrestricted, words would be pouring out of people's screens at pressures upwards of 10000wsi (word-force per square inch.)


----------



## Ayhamb99 (Dec 3, 2022)

AsRock said:


> Gaining what ?, in most games 144+ fps is enough for most, it's only going be a real benefit if the lows are improved.


I was talking about the AVG FPS and Applications suite gains of the 7600X compared to the 5600X. I'd suggest you watch Gamers Nexus's reviews and compare the lows there if you want to compare between them. Of course 144+ FPS would be enough for most but it does not mean we can just completely ignore the architecture improvements if we're going by the your logic. It wouldn't make sense at all to go with a 7600X if one has a 5600X already but it would not make sense for one to build a new system with the 5600X instead of the 7600X in these days.


----------



## robot zombie (Dec 3, 2022)

lexluthermiester said:


> I use FireFox exclusively. No issues.
> 
> 
> No offense intended I'm sure..





Count von Schwalbe said:


> Certainly not! He jokes about it himself though...


I missed these, but without stealing the thread, I'll clarify a little. I know what it is for me and what it's all about. I know what my intentions are, and the value of my own effort. I know that the way I formulate posts stands out for the length, and that people will have a range of reactions to it. But the only person who ever knows why I do it, is me. I don't hold other people to that understanding, will never be mad at someone for cracking little jokes or saying "Sorry, this is too much for me to read." If it was all about being taken seriously, I'd be much more concise. And I typically am when I *really* have an important point to make. Every time I am long-winded, I knowingly take a chance on not being heard. It's a fully willing compromise, so being angry isn't really part of the whole equation. I accept the limitations of long form writing styles.


----------



## wheresmycar (Dec 3, 2022)

robot zombie said:


> I missed these, but without stealing the thread, I'll clarify a little. I know what it is for me and what it's all about. I know what my intentions are, and the value of my own effort. I know that the way I formulate posts stands out for the length, and that people will have a range of reactions to it. But the only person who ever knows why I do it, is me. I don't hold other people to that understanding, will never be mad at someone for cracking little jokes or saying "Sorry, this is too much for me to read." If it was all about being taken seriously, I'd be much more concise. And I typically am when I *really* have an important point to make. Every time I am long-winded, I knowingly take a chance on not being heard. It's a fully willing compromise, so being angry isn't really part of the whole equation. I accept the limitations of long form writing styles.



^its all good!

I'm more concerned about your listed 'system specs'...... _"benchmark score: *ask your mother*"_

cheeky!


----------



## robot zombie (Dec 4, 2022)

wheresmycar said:


> ^its all good!
> 
> I'm more concerned about your listed 'system specs'...... _"benchmark score: *ask your mother*"_
> 
> cheeky!


LMAOOO EYYYY! I myself forgot I put that there! 

I think at the time, I just wanted to be done filling them out 

Regardless, those specs are pretty out of date... I haven't seen your mother since ~2019.


----------



## Gica (Monday at 5:13 AM)

AGESA 1.0.0.4 BIOS Firmware bug.


----------

