# AMD Ryzen 7 7700X



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

With the Ryzen 7 7700X, AMD is introducing their fastest Zen 4 processor for gamers. In our review we found out that gaming on the 7700X runs better than the 7900X and 7950X, thanks to the single CCD design of the 7700X. Just like on other high-end AM5 CPUs, temperatures are a problem though.

*Show full review*


----------



## Fleurious (Sep 26, 2022)

Looks good but those temps are spicy.


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 26, 2022)

Well - it matches an OC on a 12600K... Loses in gaming. Gets beat quite badly by the old 5800x3d.  I think the competition heating up from intel and their own x3d last gen part beating these in gaming, but this release feels underwhelming for the temps and $.


----------



## champsilva (Sep 26, 2022)

Fleurious said:


> Looks good but those temps are spicy.



12700K performance for the same price.

Yeah. 13600K will crush 7700X.


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 26, 2022)

Seeing as how all I do is gaming, I think if I can find the 5800x 3d on sale for around $350, I will go for that. Plus I can save on the ram and mobo costs that way too.


----------



## kajson (Sep 26, 2022)

I'm a big fat AMD fan boy, I even own a  bundle of stock, but I can't appreciate the choice of running out of the box oc's, which is the only thing i can call it when it runs 95 celcius on a decent air cooler.

I understand the competition with Intel is "heating up" but these are not temps the average costumer is best served with. It is not a GPU, it is not preinstalled with an after market cooler fitted by a company that knows what temps it will run before selling it. 

If you want to go down this road, implement a solution where you can choose to run this setting as "opt in" in the bios. But let it run an efficiency mode by default.  (Best performance vs more normal temps)  like an spd xmp profile kinda thing.

Meh


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 26, 2022)

kajson said:


> I'm a big fat AMD fan boy, I even own a  bundle of stock, but I can't appreciate the choice of running out of the box oc's, which is the only thing i can call it when it runs 95 celcius on a decent air cooler.
> 
> I understand the competition with Intel is "heating up" but these are not temps the average costumer is best served with. It is not a GPU, it is not preinstalled with an after market cooler fitted by a company that knows what temps it will run before selling it.
> 
> ...



in gaming it still runs cold though. that's 90% of people who buy this chip.

I think the integrated gpu stuff is non-sense though.


----------



## Jism (Sep 26, 2022)

kajson said:


> I'm a big fat AMD fan boy, I even own a  bundle of stock, but I can't appreciate the choice of running out of the box oc's, which is the only thing i can call it when it runs 95 celcius on a decent air cooler.
> 
> I understand the competition with Intel is "heating up" but these are not temps the average costumer is best served with. It is not a GPU, it is not preinstalled with an after market cooler fitted by a company that knows what temps it will run before selling it.
> 
> ...



You can disable that boosting.. and your CPU runs just within designed parameters.

Its just that, one workload is'nt the other. And you can easily boost a single thread application and still stick within it's TDP / Power consumption or temperature. They just put the ceiling to the max core temperature a tad higher compared to the 5x00, 3x00 or even 2x00 series. Nothing wrong with it.


----------



## KaitouX (Sep 26, 2022)

The performance just looks like a more expensive 12700K, same goes for the 7600X which you could get a 12700F for the same price, the 7900X isn't as bad as it's slightly faster than the 12900K for the same price, but the lower power consumption in heavier workloads is a bit more significant than the lower-end parts, the stock power consumption in ST is atrocious though.
Overall disappointing in my opinion, but expected after the announcement, prices are way too high for what is being offered, roughly same performance as Intel 12th gen (with the exception of the 7950X), one year late.


----------



## kajson (Sep 26, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> in gaming it still runs cold though. that's 90% of people who buy this chip.
> 
> I think the integrated gpu stuff is non-sense though.


Yeah you are right probably about that. Just wish they would have gone bit more towards the efficiency side. Might be that future agesa updates and driver maturity also help those prefering a bit lower temps eventually.


----------



## HD64G (Sep 26, 2022)

kajson said:


> I'm a big fat AMD fan boy, I even own a  bundle of stock, but I can't appreciate the choice of running out of the box oc's, which is the only thing i can call it when it runs 95 celcius on a decent air cooler.
> 
> I understand the competition with Intel is "heating up" but these are not temps the average costumer is best served with. It is not a GPU, it is not preinstalled with an after market cooler fitted by a company that knows what temps it will run before selling it.
> 
> ...


That isn't a real problem with such easy solution. Just limit the power to 105W in UEFI and will drop temps drastically while sacrifising only 10% in multithreading performance. Gaming performance will be the same.

And thanks to the clock/core scaling analysis of @W1zzard we know for sure that the CPU AMD demoed reaching 5,5GHz while gaming was the 7700X.


----------



## Gica (Sep 26, 2022)

phanbuey said:


> Well - it matches an OC on a 12600K... Loses in gaming. Gets beat quite badly by the old 5800x3d.  I think the competition heating up from intel and their own x3d last gen part beating these in gaming, but this release feels underwhelming for the temps and $.


Ryzen 7000 oc - Pyrrhic victory
In all tests, it loses performance with overclocking and even with Max PBO. As with Ryzen 5000, it's better to stay stock


----------



## KrazedOmega (Sep 26, 2022)

I would still rather go with the 12700K over the 7700X based off the temps alone.


----------



## mechtech (Sep 26, 2022)

@W1zzard 

Do you have any plans do to an IPC comparison.

Like say set the clocks firm at 3Ghz and see how it compares??

thanks for the great review


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 26, 2022)

@W1zzard Just to let you know, Re-Size bar performance has bigger gains with Zen 4 according to the Techspot review... 30 fps gain... wowza


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> Re-Size bar


Interesting data, but nobody will use ReBAR off in 2022 and 2023 on a new platform



mechtech said:


> Do you have any plans do to an IPC comparison.
> 
> Like say set the clocks firm at 3Ghz and see how it compares??


Was hoping to, but didn't have the time. 

"Which benchmark would you like to run for IPC?" was my biggest obstacle


----------



## mechtech (Sep 26, 2022)

KrazedOmega said:


> I would still rather go with the 12700K over the 7700X based off the temps alone.


I’d probably just go zen 3 if on zen platform already.  Lots of sales lately with CPUs, motherboards and ram or just reuse ram and mobo and upgrade cpu.


----------



## nguyen (Sep 26, 2022)

awesome reviews, so much information is presented.


----------



## r9 (Sep 26, 2022)

So marginally better performance for a lot more money on and yeah 12700k wipes the floor with it.
So the only incentive would be to get to this platform for future upgrades but do you really want to with the current money grab direction AMD is going ?!
Ah and yes the AMD "dominance" in the last few years where they never ever beat intel in gaming performance which is what most people care for while for anything else unless you do rendering no mater what you buy it  will be an overkill anyways.


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 26, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> Interesting data, but nobody will use ReBAR off in 2022 and 2023 on a new platform
> 
> 
> Was hoping to, but didn't have the time.
> ...



I was under the impression REBAR only worked for AMD CPU and GPU when they were in the same system? so it would still matter if you had a ryzen cpu and a nvidia gpu or arc gpu, you would not be able to turn on REBAR? which could affect purchase of which cpu/gpu one goes with, if it is 30+ fps gains


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> I was under the impression REBAR only worked for AMD CPU and GPU when they were in the same system? so it would still matter if you had a ryzen cpu and a nvidia gpu or arc gpu, you would not be able to turn on REBAR? which could affect purchase of which cpu/gpu one goes with, if it is 30+ fps gains


No, it works on all modern AMD CPUs with all modern graphics cards from Intel, NVIDIA and AMD, and on all modern Intel CPUs with all modern graphics cards from AMD, NVIDIA and Intel.

The specification requires it to work universally, or not at all


----------



## Vayra86 (Sep 26, 2022)

Not a fan of this temp target at all, at stock. Its the same thing as Intel's hot chips - they're hot. Heat's gotta go somewhere.


----------



## The Quim Reaper (Sep 26, 2022)

Disappointed in the RPCS3 figures...was the 12900K used in the test an older example, still running with AVX 512 enabled?

Nearly 40% slower seems strange given that the new Ryzens have AVX 512 as well


----------



## Lovec1990 (Sep 26, 2022)

r9 said:


> So marginally better performance for a lot more money on and yeah 12700k wipes the floor with it.
> So the only incentive would be to get to this platform for future upgrades but do you really want to with the current money grab direction AMD is going ?!
> Ah and yes the AMD "dominance" in the last few years where they never ever beat intel in gaming performance which is what most people care for while for anything else unless you do rendering no mater what you buy it  will be an overkill anyways.



Well im more worried Intel gonna set Raptor Lake prices higher than AMD considering it cant beat Alder Lake.


----------



## Raendor (Sep 26, 2022)

Lovec1990 said:


> Well im more worried Intel gonna set Raptor Lake prices higher than AMD considering it cant beat Alder Lake.


Not if they want to crush AMD and convincingly dominate the market share.


----------



## r9 (Sep 26, 2022)

Lovec1990 said:


> Well im more worried Intel gonna set Raptor Lake prices higher than AMD considering it cant beat Alder Lake.


If that's the case I'll just stick to my 9700k until ddr6 platforms come out so I can buy this one. 
But there is no right or wrong here it's just demand and supply is if people are willing to pay those prices that is what it is. 
I know I'm not.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

The Quim Reaper said:


> was the 12900K used in the test an older example, still running with AVX 512 enabled?


Nope, tested with the latest BIOS. Everything at Intel defaults, too. No MCE or similar


----------



## jonup (Sep 26, 2022)

r9 said:


> So marginally better performance for a lot more money on and yeah 12700k wipes the floor with it.
> So the only incentive would be to get to this platform for future upgrades but do you really want to with the current money grab direction AMD is going ?!
> Ah and yes the AMD "dominance" in the last few years where they never ever beat intel in gaming performance which is what most people care for while for anything else unless you do rendering no mater what you buy it  will be an overkill anyways.


I'm a little confused. 7700x has 4 less cores and threads, and matches (barely beats) 12700k, while using about 30W less. With the rumored specs of raptor, this should be more of 13600k competitor.


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 26, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> No, it works on all modern AMD CPUs with all modern graphics cards from Intel, NVIDIA and AMD, and on all modern Intel CPUs with all modern graphics cards from AMD, NVIDIA and Intel.
> 
> The specification requires it to work universally, or not at all



I just researched it some more, you are correct. I did not know this. When SAM first launched, it required a ryzen 5000 and 6000 series AMD only product, but that has since changed. I didn't realize support was universal now, at launch it was not. The old article below also states this









						What is AMD Smart Access Memory?
					

Smart Access Memory is a performance-boosting feature found inside AMD’s Ryzen 5000 series processors and Radeon 6000 series graphics cards




					www.trustedreviews.com


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> SAM


Because they called it "Smart Access Memory" to confuse their customers


----------



## r9 (Sep 26, 2022)

jonup said:


> I'm a little confused. 7700x has 4 less cores and threads, and matches (barely beats) 12700k, while using about 30W less. With the rumored specs of raptor, this should be more of 13600k competitor.
> View attachment 263068


None of those things matter really only thing that matter is who's ahead and in both games and productivity 12700k is ahead and cheaper.
It might even need 50 more cores to achieve it still makes no difference.
30W more for that extra performance I can live with it.
Less cores = cheaper to make so it's a pro for AMD not the customer.
Only place where is justifiable to spend unproportinally more money to gain just that little extra performance even though I would never do it is at very cutting edge when you buy the top top product not at midrange.


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 26, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> Because they called it "Smart Access Memory" to confuse their customers



They succeeded, I was confused until now.  



r9 said:


> None of those things matter really only thing that matter is who's ahead and in both games and productivity 12700k is ahead and cheaper.
> It might even need 50 more cores to achieve it still makes no difference.
> 30W more for that extra performance I can live with it.



Do you know if all Intel motherboards allow for the turning off of E-Cores in the BIOS? that is the only thing I don't like about the new Intel chips.


----------



## The Quim Reaper (Sep 26, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> Nope, tested with the latest BIOS. Everything at Intel defaults, too. No MCE or similar



Then the only thing I can guess is that like the 12900K, the 7900X needs SMT disabling, to make use of AVX 512 in RPCS3 like the 12900K has to have its E-cores disabled or RPCS3 simply isn't running correctly on these new Ryzens yet and will need an update by the emulator authors.

Something isn't right, that's for sure. With a single core IPC matching Alder Lake, it shouldn't be nearly 40% slower


----------



## Arkz (Sep 26, 2022)

The Best Zen 4 for Gaming​
$100 more than the 7600X for 3% more game perf in 720p and 0.1% in 4k. Well I'm sold!


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 26, 2022)

Arkz said:


> The Best Zen 4 for Gaming​
> $100 more than the 7600X for 3% more game perf in 720p and 0.1% in 4k. Well I'm sold!



I think 7600x set to max pbo is best bang for buck cpu this launch if you are just a gamer, are doing a new build soon anyway, so it's a win win cause of the longevity of AM5 motherboard.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> allow for the turning off of E-Cores in the BIOS?


Yes, and you will lose performance



The Quim Reaper said:


> RPCS3


the RPCS3 devs reached out and confirmed they'll have a new build soon that will improve performance on Zen 4


----------



## MKRonin (Sep 26, 2022)

AIDA64 memory benchmark looks a little suspect...especially the write result.


----------



## jsven008 (Sep 26, 2022)

94C  0.0
The temperatures are insane, even with a high end cooler. Don't believe AMDs marketing that 95C is "fine" or "ok". And who wants to spend another $100 on a high end cooler just to maintain 95C? Or constantly fight against thermal throttling.

With high temperatures, not only will the PC generate a lot of heat, but also a lot of noise running fans at 100% to stay cooler. And good luck getting advertised performance with a prebuilt PC like HP that will constantly throttle.

The temperatures are a real dealbreaker (if I wanted a PC that sounds like a jumbo jet on takeoff I'd buy an 11900k). And this is from someone who owns AMD stock. I really wanted to like this CPU, but with those temps I can't. Some like it hot, but this is _too _hot.


----------



## Pepamami (Sep 26, 2022)

KrazedOmega said:


> I would still rather go with the 12700K over the 7700X based off the temps alone.


I would go for 5950X or 5800X3D, since Intel cant treat their costumers well, and new Zen4 is hot as hell.


----------



## LuxZg (Sep 26, 2022)

I'd like to make a request, no hurry though  could we get some numbers for 7600X and 7700X in ECO/65W mode. I'd like to gauge how much performance loss it would be. I'm hoping they release non-X models eventually at 65W stock.

Edit: and thanks for all those benches and re-benching so many CPUs!


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 26, 2022)

LuxZg said:


> I'd like to make a request, no hurry though  could we get some numbers for 7600X and 7700X in ECO/65W mode. I'd like to gauge how much performance loss it would be. I'm hoping they release non-X models eventually at 65W stock.
> 
> Edit: and thanks for all those benches and re-benching so many CPUs!



you can probably find these results somewhere else. keep in mind everyone is dumping their reviews today. gamersnexus, jayz2cents, linus, techspot, ars technica, and i could go on and on

jayz loves it











jsven008 said:


> 94C  0.0
> The temperatures are insane, even with a high end cooler. Don't believe AMDs marketing that 95C is "fine" or "ok". And who wants to spend another $100 on a high end cooler just to maintain 95C? Or constantly fight against thermal throttling.
> 
> With high temperatures, not only will the PC generate a lot of heat, but also a lot of noise running fans at 100% to stay cooler. And good luck getting advertised performance with a prebuilt PC like HP that will constantly throttle.
> ...



thermal throttling doesn't exist anymore. watch the Jayz video, he explains it at around 13 minutes in.


----------



## Shazamy (Sep 26, 2022)

I thought now that we're getting super high frame rates even on 4K, that the CPUs would matter more at that resolution.
Can anyone explain why the faster CPUs get practically the same FPS as much slower CPUs get at 4k res even at frame rates over 120 or 200?


----------



## Mistral (Sep 26, 2022)

Question about overclocking... With Ryzen, wasn't overclocking more successful in a way different than bumping the voltage and increasing the multiplier?


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Sep 26, 2022)

Shazamy said:


> I thought now that we're getting super high frame rates even on 4K, that the CPUs would matter more at that resolution.
> Can anyone explain why the faster CPUs get practically the same FPS as much slower CPUs get at 4k res even at frame rates over 120 or 200?


Because those scenarios become much more GPU dependent than CPU. CPU is able to send the GPU more data than the GPU is able to render at any instance in time. Look at 720p benches. Its the opposite. The gpu can basically sit idle at that res for the most part waiting for its work from CPU. It can process those frames so much faster.



error1984 said:


> Techpowerup is such a big website with nice forum who help thousands but their reviews are crap! When you test gpus or cpus the most important thing is to test MIN fps in games...still after so many years they did not learn basics of component testing. I would not be surprised if they did not test components themselves only copy other tests from the internet. *Sad but truth*!
> Here where I live 7700x with ddr5 5200 tests are not looking that good...zen 4 is very hot and expensive and the good thing its using much less power than alder lake...
> For final conclusions lets wait for raptor lake.


No. Just because TPU reviews dont look at mins doesnt mean they can just be written off as bogus. You also dont know for sure what Wizz is doing for his reviews. So unless you have proof tpu copies numbers from other sites dont throw that shit around.


----------



## r9 (Sep 26, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> you can probably find these results somewhere else. keep in mind everyone is dumping their reviews today. gamersnexus, jayz2cents, linus, techspot, ars technica, and i could go on and on
> 
> jayz loves it
> 
> ...


Are we back to the Duron times ?


----------



## jsven008 (Sep 26, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> Thermal throttling doesn't exist anymore. watch the Jayz video, he explains it at around 13 minutes in.


Thermal throttle or performance throttle. Gray or grey?  The end result is the same. Lower performance. 

If you dont believe me, try a 7700x with a stock $10 cooler.


----------



## Dirt Chip (Sep 26, 2022)

So zen4 are in line with AL preformance, about the same cost if not more (considering the expensive motherboard), consume same amount of W and produce much heat.
What did I miss?


----------



## Denver (Sep 26, 2022)

Can you show the settings used in the RPCS3? 

I expected a little more, the performance gain is inconsistent in games, unfortunately it leaves a lot of scope for the more expensive 3D models to take the crown.

And there also seems to be some fault on the part of AMD regarding the IHS used, a difference of -20° after the delid:  m.youtube.com/watch?v=y_jaS_FZcjI


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Just because TPU reviews dont look at mins doesnt mean they can just be written off as bogus


Umm .. have you seen the frametimes page? @error1984


----------



## tvshacker (Sep 26, 2022)

Thanks @W1zzard for keeping the 2700X in this review.
On the downside it's making me consider upgrading to a 5700X or 5900X if a good deal shows up...

Meanwhile can someone help me understand how a ~5% performance gap between the 2700X and the 5900X in 2020 grew to ~25% in 2022














						AMD Ryzen 9 5900X Review
					

The Ryzen 9 5900X dominates Intel's Core i9-10900K in our testing because of AMD's massive IPC improvements. At $550, this processor is certainly not cheap, but it offers so much more performance, especially single-threaded, that AMD has a clear winner on their hands.




					www.techpowerup.com
				












						AMD Ryzen 7 7700X Review - The Best Zen 4 for Gaming
					

With the Ryzen 7 7700X, AMD is introducing their fastest Zen 4 processor for gamers. In our review we found out that gaming on the 7700X runs better than the 7900X and 7950X, thanks to the single CCD design of the 7700X. Just like on other high-end AM5 CPUs, temperatures are a problem though.




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

First things that come to mind are memory speed, game selection, GeForce 3080, Windows 11, VBS enabled


----------



## Denver (Sep 26, 2022)

tvshacker said:


> Thanks @W1zzard for keeping the 2700X in this review.
> On the downside it's making me consider upgrading to a 5700X or 5900X if a good deal shows up...
> 
> Meanwhile can someone help em understand how a ~5% performance gap between the 2700X and the 5900X in 2020 grew to ~25% in 2022
> ...


Probably because the GPU and games used have changed...


----------



## Gica (Sep 26, 2022)

tvshacker said:


> Meanwhile can someone help me understand how a ~5% performance gap between the 2700X and the 5900X in 2020 grew to ~25% in 2022


1. RTX 3080 is way above RTX 2080Ti
2. Many AAA games in 2022 (Cyberpunk, Forza Horizon 5 and even FarCry 6 vs. 5, etc.)
3. W10 2019 edition vs W11 VBS ON.
The impact of the memory was small on the Alder Lake in games, but on the Ryzen 7000 it must be tested.
Edit: sorry, can't be tested because Ryzen doesn't support DDR4.


----------



## tvshacker (Sep 26, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> First things that come to mind are memory speed, game selection, GeForce 3080, Windows 11, VBS enabled


In that particular order?
What is VBS?
In the games that are in common between the 2 reviews (Battlefield V and Civ VI), the 5900X increased FPS on both but the 2700X didn't. I've heard Civ is very CPU intensive, did a patch or game update cause this?
Thanks for the quick replies!


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2022)

tvshacker said:


> In that particular order?


In that order I'd that



tvshacker said:


> What is VBS?


Virtualization based security


----------



## JAB Creations (Sep 26, 2022)

I'd like to see dedicated articles to running these CPUs at reasonable temperatures.

On an unrelated note: this is just one of the reasons why it's painful to read comments. ︀


----------



## jsven008 (Sep 26, 2022)

Much appreciation to W1zzard for another great review! Love the reviews, the information, the logical format, the analysis


----------



## mechtech (Sep 26, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> Was hoping to, but didn't have the time.
> 
> "Which benchmark would you like to run for IPC?" was my biggest obstacle


That's a good question.  Not sure, perhaps
Cinebench........since it seems to be the go to?
one or 2 games
something else which highlights IPC and/or per core decently?


----------



## Wirko (Sep 26, 2022)

@W1zzard , wouldn't it be more informative if you combined the three "Average Clock Frequency vs Thread Count" graphs into one, to make differences between curves more obvious? With all the vertical space saved, you could also make the graph taller than each of the three are now.

Also, it's just great that you are able to measure the CPU-only power consumption, this information is hard to come by. (Actually it's CPU+VRM, right?)


----------



## xSneak (Sep 26, 2022)

I would like to see a game using UE4 on the benchmarks, and a gaming while streaming test.
Thanks.


----------



## StellarShots (Sep 26, 2022)

Ryzen 7000 Delidding - Unreal Temperature improvement with Direct-Die Cooling​








Almost 20 degrees cooler.


----------



## AlwaysHope (Sep 27, 2022)

I know I'm asking a lot, but before I raise this point, like to thank W1zzard for this comprehensive review that helps a lot with perspective on it all. 

Be interesting to see the effects of OC the ring/LLC bus inside not only rocket lake but also alder lake cpus with this testing regime the author has put in place. I never hear mentions of this in reviews of these processors. Also to see if high bandwidth RAM in gear 2 for DDR4 (4400MHz+) effects on overall performance I believe will alter results compared to gear 1. 
High & mid end motherboards do have options to OC these 2 parts of this 2 architectures in the bios for these platforms, & I'm sure enthusiasts would be keen to see this in testing results. 

I do understand time is an issue, but in some applications, the speed of the ring/LLC bus does have an effect in performance outcomes & even more when combined with high bandwidth gear 2 RAM. 

However, like some have commented before, the total platform costs for AM5 are a hinderance atm for some & I'm in that club atm.


----------



## techguru177 (Sep 27, 2022)

Bro you jump the gun I got Asus latest Agesa BIOS and the board post quicker and performance way better. You should retest everything this is irrelevant


----------



## Jism (Sep 27, 2022)

The bios quality of Asus is way better then any other vendor in my experience. I regret buying a Gigabyte X570 Auros Elite. I had to because the Nic on the asus board died before that.


----------



## Iain Saturn (Sep 27, 2022)

_* The bios quality of Asus is way better then any other vendor in my experience. I regret buying a Gigabyte X570 Auros Elite. I had to because the Nic on the asus board died before that_.​
Respectfully…why not buy a nic - why buy a whole new board?


----------



## Jism (Sep 27, 2022)

Well, the nic "died" sporadicly... (Intel) Not before throwing the most weirdest erratic behavour in regards of my internet experience. The NIC was gone (not visible in bios even) and it took less then 2 weeks to take the whole board along with it. RMA would take weeks and i was in the need of a new board.


----------



## monseven7 (Sep 27, 2022)

95 deg is hot, so if everything is ok with it, then its actually not bad.
Originally, I thought yeh, more fan to cool, noisy, just harder to cool. But it should actually be the opposite.
In theory, higher operating temp means higher Td to ambient air temp, therefore less air to move to keep it cool.
NFI if higher Td makes existing coolers more efficient, e.g. wicking withing heat pipes works better. For liquid, should work better, transfer should be more efficent.

To spell it out a bit, 105W @ 40 deg Td vs 105W @ 70 deg Td. Power the same but Td changes.

Which in theory means, 2l/s air vs 1.25l/s so less has to be shifted.

So just boosting fan curves up to ramp at 100 deg perhaps.

Useful heat though, can boil water and heat rooms better.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 27, 2022)

Wirko said:


> @W1zzard , wouldn't it be more informative if you combined the three "Average Clock Frequency vs Thread Count" graphs into one, to make differences between curves more obvious? With all the vertical space saved, you could also make the graph taller than each of the three are now.
> 
> Also, it's just great that you are able to measure the CPU-only power consumption, this information is hard to come by. (Actually it's CPU+VRM, right?)


I tried, it will look like a colorful mess, and you can't see anything when the 3 curves are identical like on 7600X



Wirko said:


> Also, it's just great that you are able to measure the CPU-only power consumption, this information is hard to come by. (Actually it's CPU+VRM, right?)


Yes, I measure on the 12V side, so there's still the VRM, but it's completely impractical to reliably measure power on the CPU's ~1.2V side. The losses in the VRM are tiny. You're pumping hundreds of amps through it and can still passively cool it



xSneak said:


> and a gaming while streaming test.


streaming is free on modern graphics cards?



xSneak said:


> I would like to see a game using UE4 on the benchmarks


Borderlands 3, that's why it's included. Or did you mean UE5? No games with that yet. I did look into making my own with UE5, but felt it couldn't reach the AAA quality required



techguru177 said:


> Bro you jump the gun I got Asus latest Agesa BIOS and the board post quicker and performance way better. You should retest everything this is irrelevant


Where I can I get that BIOS?


http://imgur.com/9Le1aTA

0605 is a typo, it's supposed to be 0604
"1)	The reviewer's guide mentions ASUS Hero BIOS 0605 as optimum, the press site only lists 0604. I guess this is a typo in the RG?"
"1.	Typo, 0604 is OK"



Jism said:


> The bios quality of Asus is way better then any other vendor in my experience. I regret buying a Gigabyte X570 Auros Elite. I had to because the Nic on the asus board died before that.


Had no noteworthy issues on ASUS or I would have mentioned it. The only bug I encountered is that loading a profile does not restore the "Show ASUS logo on POST screen: off" setting. Happens on Z690, too


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 27, 2022)

Very nice!

So... for gaming, this is a 7950X with a much lower power consumption.

It's also interesting to see that these CPUs essentially work like GPUs with their boost behaviour, that is they boost until they hit thermal limits.

I was tempted to buy a 7950X, but the more I think about it, the more I'm tempted to buy the 7700X instead.


----------



## Wirko (Sep 27, 2022)

monseven7 said:


> 95 deg is hot, so if everything is ok with it, then its actually not bad.
> Originally, I thought yeh, more fan to cool, noisy, just harder to cool. But it should actually be the opposite.
> In theory, higher operating temp means higher Td to ambient air temp, therefore less air to move to keep it cool.
> NFI if higher Td makes existing coolers more efficient, e.g. wicking withing heat pipes works better. For liquid, should work better, transfer should be more efficent.
> ...


We'll all learn from experience but this doesn't look good. It may be safe to run the new chips at 95°C in the long term, I can believe that. But I'm sure that they have less headrom than before. Even without overclocking, there are chip-to-chip variations. Some live in hot areas and may not have an air conditioner. A processor pushed that far up the temperature scale is less forgiving to every detail like having less than ideal airflow in the PC case.

Are heat pipes more effective at higher temps? That's highly questionable, and more testing will be necessary. Everything with an evaporation - condensation cycle is designed to function best in a certain range of temperatures (and pressures). Go cooler than that, and evaporation becomes slower; go hotter, and condensation becomes slower.


----------



## Tyl3n0L (Sep 27, 2022)

Yesterday I said ill be holding off on AM5 because of price of entry however this morning I ordered the 7700x, as well as Artic Freezer II 360mm & 32Gb DDR5

Should be a nice upgrade from my i7 3770, 8GB DDR3

Just need a 500$ motherboard now... Lol.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 27, 2022)

Wirko said:


> We'll all learn from experience but this doesn't look good. It may be safe to run the new chips at 95°C in the long term, I can believe that. But I'm sure that they have less headrom than before. Even without overclocking, there are chip-to-chip variations. Some live in hot areas and may not have an air conditioner. A processor pushed that far up the temperature scale is less forgiving to every detail like having less than ideal airflow in the PC case.
> 
> Are heat pipes more effective at higher temps? That's highly questionable, and more testing will be necessary. Everything with an evaporation - condensation cycle is designed to function best in a certain range of temperatures (and pressures). Go cooler than that, and evaporation becomes slower; go hotter, and condensation becomes slower.


The problem with that question is that heatpipes only get hot if they get soaked in heat. You need a high power consumption CPU with a relatively large die that sits right below the heatpipes. AMD's chiplets are small and offset to one side (or corner) of the CPU package. That's why my be quiet! Shadow Rock LP didn't work well with a R5 3600, but works brilliantly with the Core i7 11700.

As much as I love the design of direct-touch heatpipes (the ones that touch the CPU IHS directly, without a coldplate in between), I would never use such a cooler with a chiplet-based CPU.


----------



## trparky (Sep 27, 2022)

I knew that prices for this new platform were going to be high but damn, I never imagined that it would be this damn high.


tvshacker said:


> Thanks @W1zzard for keeping the 2700X in this review.
> On the downside it's making me consider upgrading to a 5700X or 5900X if a good deal shows up...


Me too. It'd cost me nearly $1200 to $1300 to do a full platform upgrade; that includes a new power supply, chip, motherboard, cooler, and memory. And for what? Maybe a ten percent improvement over that of current-gen AMD?

Meanwhile, I could go the cheaper route and do an upgrade at less than $600 and just replace the motherboard, chip, and cooler.


----------



## HD64G (Sep 27, 2022)

The Quim Reaper said:


> Disappointed in the RPCS3 figures...was the 12900K used in the test an older example, still running with AVX 512 enabled?
> 
> Nearly 40% slower seems strange given that the new Ryzens have AVX 512 as well


RPCS3 didn't use the AVX512 of Zen4. It got updated yesterday though and I think @W1zzard should know about that by now.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 27, 2022)

trparky said:


> I knew that prices for this new platform were going to be high but damn, I never imagined that it would be this damn high.
> 
> Me too. It'd cost me nearly $1200 to $1300 to do a full platform upgrade; that includes a new power supply, chip, motherboard, cooler, and memory. And for what? Maybe a ten percent improvement over that of current-gen AMD?
> 
> Meanwhile, I could go the cheaper route and do an upgrade at less than $600 and just replace the motherboard, chip, and cooler.


My conflict is either a new graphics card for my Rocket Lake system, or a platform upgrade and then graphics card later. I technically don't need either, it's just for the fun of building.


----------



## HD64G (Sep 27, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> Interesting data, but nobody will use ReBAR off in 2022 and 2023 on a new platform
> 
> 
> Was hoping to, but didn't have the time.
> ...


I would suggest mp3 encoder since it is singlethreaded and a real life app, not a benchmark-only program.


----------



## FeelinFroggy (Sep 27, 2022)

It's funny that I have a 5 year old CPU and at 4k fps has improved 4%.  Honestly, this CPU is not for gamers.  I dont know anyone who will drop this much for a CPU and game on 1080p.  The platform upgrade alone is gonna cost around 1k.

I have thought about an upgrade from my 8700k, but why?  If you already have a 6 core CPU, move on from these reviews and wait for the new GPUs to come out and put your money where it will make an actual difference while playing a game.


----------



## gffermari (Sep 27, 2022)

I don't know if AMD could make them better at gaming. The whole lineup feels like being general use cpus while the gaming lineup is going to be released later.
Instead of having 4 cpus at 5-10% better than 12900/5800X3D, they'll have 4 for general use and 1 or 2 X3Ds which will probably be compromised at productivity tasks but perform at gaming.

I mean....is there a possibility AMD to have limited the gaming performance in order to see how the Raptor Lake perform and act accordingly?


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 27, 2022)

gffermari said:


> I mean....is there a possibility AMD to have limited the gaming performance in order to see how the Raptor Lake perform and act accordingly?


I don't think they're "limited". They are still great CPUs giving older Intel CPUs a beating. Of course, 3D cache Zen 4 will be even better at gaming, but that doesn't make these any worse than they are. I mean, the 7700X runs circles around my 11700 which is already a good gaming CPU.



FeelinFroggy said:


> It's funny that I have a 5 year old CPU and at 4k fps has improved 4%.  Honestly, this CPU is not for gamers.  I dont know anyone who will drop this much for a CPU and game on 1080p.  The platform upgrade alone is gonna cost around 1k.
> 
> I have thought about an upgrade from my 8700k, but why?  If you already have a 6 core CPU, move on from these reviews and wait for the new GPUs to come out and put your money where it will make an actual difference while playing a game.


The differences are more pronounced in 1080p, as you're not relying on GPU power that much at lower resolutions.

With that said, I agree that any 6 or 8 core CPU can game. The only reason I'm considering an upgrade is curiosity, nothing more.


----------



## leha12345 (Sep 27, 2022)

Very interesting, so with MAX PBO 7700x is 2% faster than my 12600kf(R23 multi 19880 multi and 2015 point single core), which basically is the same performance.

mine running at 52-51 on pcores and 41 on ecores and benches at 190W but at only *90C* on 360 aio.

Why did amd create they own 12600k a year late,  called it 7700x and are charging through the roof?

oh and 12700k OC'ed is at least 18% faster than 7700x MAX PBO numbers presented here, in multicore. Given that 13600k is going to very closely match 12700k means it will be much faster than 7700x.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 27, 2022)

I've just spotted the 7700X at a UK store for £429. Not bad. Not excellent, but not bad.

Shame that the only m-ATX board available is some Asus hyper-super ultra gaming stuff for over £500. That's about 300 more than I would consider spending on a motherboard. Does anyone know when B650 and B650E boards are coming?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 27, 2022)

Frames per watt is something I want to see more of, some surprises in that chart.   

It's about what I expected, matching a 12700\12900 (outside of 1080p we're GPU limited in almost every title anyway) at far lower wattages 


I'm not keen on 90c temps so I'll wait and see if a new IHS revision works on that


----------



## zenlaserman (Sep 28, 2022)

jsven008 said:


> The temperatures are insane, even with a high end cooler. Don't believe AMDs marketing that 95C is "fine" or "ok".



Why not?  I've had AMD (and Intel) stuff run at 85-95C for over a decade and still work fine.  I always laugh at people paranoid about their temperatures.

Are you a professional overclocker trying to get every last bit of performance out of your system for a hail mary screenshot?  No?  Relax, your effing temps are fine.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 28, 2022)

Mussels said:


> Frames per watt is something I want to see more of,


Like you want changes, or just keep seeing it in its current form in all CPU reviews?


----------



## KrazedOmega (Sep 28, 2022)

zenlaserman said:


> Why not?  I've had AMD (and Intel) stuff run at 85-95C for over a decade and still work fine.  I always laugh at people paranoid about their temperatures.
> 
> Are you a professional overclocker trying to get every last bit of performance out of your system for a hail mary screenshot?  No?  Relax, your effing temps are fine.



95C may be fine for the CPU lifespan, but it is not ok for the heat dumped into the room and noise from your fans flying along at high RPM to keep it cool.


----------



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

KrazedOmega said:


> 95C may be fine for the CPU lifespan, but it is not ok for the heat dumped into the room and noise from your fans flying along at high RPM to keep it cool.



Temperature and heat are related, but they are not the same.  100W from your processor is 100W, whether it runs at 70C or 95C.  With a smaller node and die, Z4 concentrates dissipation of that 100W into a smaller area than Z3, hence the higher temps.  Since Z4 is designed to run at 95C, set your max fan speed to what you find tolerable, and let the CPU work within the thermal envelope available.


----------



## gffermari (Sep 28, 2022)

Impressive!!


----------



## blued (Sep 28, 2022)

Things like this will ruin AMD's day:  12700F @ Amazon = $314. If that were in the price/perf chart, it would probably be top spot.

p.s. and Intel z690 boards are also getting cheap. Gigabyte Aorus Elite AX @ $199 (about $100 less than what it was months ago).


----------



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

blued said:


> Things like this will ruin AMD's day:  12700F @ Amazon = $314. If that were in the price/perf chart, it would probably be top spot.



No kidding. It took me until this year to grab a Ryzen because Micro Center kept having last-gen xx700Ks for about 200 bucks.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Sep 28, 2022)

blued said:


> Things like this will ruin AMD's day:  12700F @ Amazon = $314. If that were in the price/perf chart, it would probably be top spot.
> 
> p.s. and Intel z690 boards are also getting cheap. Gigabyte Aorus Elite AX @ $199 (about $100 less than what it was months ago).



I think only the 7950X is selling, and it's selling like a flagship product (relatively slow).   Quite bizarre, but understandable.  At Best Buy it is #5 seller, no other Zen Sku before it.  MC is funny, Zen 4 are literally the lowest sellers with 7950X the best of the lot.  And the #1 selling AM5 motherboard is a $999 Asus Rog Crosshair Extreme.  

Only the rich, or perhaps fiscally irresponsible, enthusiasts are buying.


----------



## AusWolf (Sep 28, 2022)

RandallFlagg said:


> I think only the 7950X is selling, and it's selling like a flagship product (relatively slow).   Quite bizarre, but understandable.  At Best Buy it is #5 seller, no other Zen Sku before it.  MC is funny, Zen 4 are literally the lowest sellers with 7950X the best of the lot.  And the #1 selling AM5 motherboard is a $999 Asus Rog Crosshair Extreme.
> 
> Only the rich, or perhaps fiscally irresponsible, enthusiasts are buying.


That's no surprise considering that B650 motherboards are still nowhere to be seen, and the only m-ATX X670 board I've found sells north of £500. That's the price of a whole computer for some people.

I myself am waiting for B650 and RDNA 3 to be out before I decide to either do a platform upgrade or settle with an Arc A770.


----------



## trparky (Sep 29, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> I myself am waiting for B650


Me too. These X670 boards are _way_ too rich for my blood. I’m really hoping that by the time the more, shall we say, mainstream boards come out DDR5 will also be cheaper as well.

Then, I’ll make my decision on what to go with.


----------



## Melvis (Sep 29, 2022)

Mussels said:


> I'm not keen on 90c temps so I'll wait and see if a new IHS revision works on that


Tell me more? First ive heard of this, are they redoing it?


----------



## vekspec (Sep 29, 2022)

for equivalent tier set-up, it'll set me back $1500. $1500 for 95%->99% relative performance at 1440P with a 3080. And a whopping 10s quicker than my 5900x in Adobe. Hard pass for me right now.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Sep 30, 2022)

trparky said:


> Me too. These X670 boards are _way_ too rich for my blood. I’m really hoping that by the time the more, shall we say, mainstream boards come out DDR5 will also be cheaper as well.
> 
> Then, I’ll make my decision on what to go with.



I've been reading up on the new X670E boards.

FWIW, I'm seeing good stuff.  The cheapest X670E I could find is the ASRock PG Lightning at $260. 

This is an 8-layer motherboard with 2oz copper layer.  That's impressive when you consider that on MSI's lineup (as example), normally the 8-layer boards start with the Carbon, everything below that is typically 6 layer.  The layers are important for clean signals on high speed DDR5.  Igor's used the PG Lightning in their Zen 4 DDR5 OC article.

Not sure if this is a one-off or an overall trend on the next gen DDR5 boards.


----------



## trparky (Sep 30, 2022)

And how is ASRock when it comes to quality? I thought ASUS usually took the crown.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Sep 30, 2022)

trparky said:


> And how is ASRock when it comes to quality? I thought ASUS usually took the crown.



Nobody reviews low or midrange boards until 3-6 months after a launch, but Igor's was using it for RAM OC.  

Asus and MSI have the best rep on Z690.  ASRock has had bad VRM designs, while Gigabyte has BIOS issues and DDR5 compatibility problems.  I have a preference for Asus myself, but once you get past ASRock's offerings you're talking $450+ for a X670E.


----------



## LuxZg (Oct 1, 2022)

RandallFlagg said:


> I've been reading up on the new X670E boards.
> 
> FWIW, I'm seeing good stuff.  The cheapest X670E I could find is the ASRock PG Lightning at $260.
> 
> ...



Same here (Croatia), PG Lightning is cheapest AM5 board, and it's "E", so kudos to ASRock. All we can hope they release similarly with B650E.

Also, side note, somehow I've found this memory scaling article only today:








						DDR5 Ryzen 7 7700 DDR5 memory scaling review
					

You've likely just read our Ryzen 7000 reviews. and will have noticed that AMD calls DDR5 6000MHz /30CL a sweet spot. It, however might not be a sweet spot for your wallet, ergo we take a look at how... Introduction




					www.guru3d.com
				




From what I see, all workloads except 7-zip compression, and all gaming at 4K, 1-3% with 6000/CL30 RAM. But compared to 4800/CL42 !!

So if ASRock can pump out good cheap B650E boards, pick lowest end DDR5, and you're good to go. Will save a whole boatload of money compared to this first wave.

Edit:
WOW!! That "Fixing Ryzen 7000" video is really insane! Sure silicon lottery a bit, but wow, just what I wanted! Perf same or better, temps and power way lower!


----------



## AusWolf (Oct 1, 2022)

LuxZg said:


> Same here (Croatia), PG Lightning is cheapest AM5 board, and it's "E", so kudos to ASRock. All we can hope they release similarly with B650E.
> 
> Also, side note, somehow I've found this memory scaling article only today:
> 
> ...


Finally, no point paying extra for high-speed RAM with AMD! Lovely.  All we need now is B650 boards to be affordable.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Oct 1, 2022)

LuxZg said:


> Same here (Croatia), PG Lightning is cheapest AM5 board, and it's "E", so kudos to ASRock. All we can hope they release similarly with B650E.
> 
> Also, side note, somehow I've found this memory scaling article only today:
> 
> ...



You have to take Guru3D with a big does of salt and doubt though.  They are one of the sites that tests with JEDEC normally, for one.  That's extremely misleading to any DIY builder.

For another, that scaling article is only showing 4 games.  It's fairly meaningless to infer anything from such a small sample.

I think you'll find, when more thorough tests come out, that article to be dead wrong about no Zen 4 memory scaling.  Alder Lake can scale +15-20% on some games in both 1% low and average.  Zen 4 won't scale as much I think, because its larger cache is already keeping the cores fed better, but from what I've seen so far it does scale more than what guru3d suggest.

If however they (guru3d) are correct and scaling is minimal at best, that's bad for Zen 4.  

Think about it.


----------



## AusWolf (Oct 2, 2022)

RandallFlagg said:


> If however they (guru3d) are correct and scaling is minimal at best, that's bad for Zen 4.


Why would that be bad for Zen 4? You can have the same performance even with cheaper RAM. I think it's a positive thing.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Oct 2, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> Why would that be bad for Zen 4? You can have the same performance even with cheaper RAM. I think it's a positive thing.



Is that sarcasm?   

What do you think will happen here?


----------



## trparky (Oct 2, 2022)

Um... I'm looking at a table of data and I have no idea what it means. Can someone turn the help files on?


----------



## RandallFlagg (Oct 2, 2022)

trparky said:


> Um... I'm looking at a table of data and I have no idea what it means. Can someone turn the help files on?



Those are DDR5-7200 to 7600 speed kits for Raptor Lake.

My point is that if Zen 4 doesn't scale with memory speed past 6000, it's going to be toast for any real enthusiast build, regardless of what what some JEDEC using "review" says.  DDR5-7200 / 7600 is real, it's gonna be a thing.  This time next year we may be at 10000, that's what Micron predicted when DDR5 came out - 2 years to DDR5-10000 starting from 2021.


----------



## trparky (Oct 2, 2022)

RandallFlagg said:


> My point is that if Zen 4 doesn't scale with memory speed past 6000, it's going to be toast for any real enthusiast build


I don't see it that way. The way I see it is if getting faster memory beyond 6000 makes no difference in the performance of the processor that means there's no need to buy faster, more expensive memory. That's a good thing, that's a win for the consumer. There is a thing called the point of diminishing returns, hit that and it doesn't matter what you do.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Oct 2, 2022)

trparky said:


> I don't see it that way. The way I see it is if getting faster memory beyond 6000 makes no difference in the performance of the processor that means there's no need to buy faster, more expensive memory. That's a good thing, that's a win for the consumer. There is a thing called the point of diminishing returns, hit that and it doesn't matter what you do.



I don't think you're getting it, that logic is strange.

Let's say 13900K and 7950X are equal using 6000, lets call that '1'.
Then we had 6400, and 13900K goes to 1.1 and 7950X stays at '1.
Then we had 7200 and 13900K goes to 1.2 and 7950X stays at '1'.
Then we have 7600 and 13900K goes to 1.3 and 7950X stays at '1'.

In what world is this 'good' for Zen 4?


----------



## Forza.Milan (Oct 2, 2022)

i think this 7700x is the best of all Ryzen 7000 series..


----------



## AusWolf (Oct 2, 2022)

RandallFlagg said:


> I don't think you're getting it, that logic is strange.
> 
> Let's say 13900K and 7950X are equal using 6000, lets call that '1'.
> Then we had 6400, and 13900K goes to 1.1 and 7950X stays at '1.
> ...


Except that 1.3x faster RAM will cost you 2x more. So with Zen 4 and 6000 MHz RAM, you can have a marginally slower system for half the price than a 13900K with 7200 (if B650 lands at affordable levels). The highest enthusiasts of the enthusiast elite will care, but they are not the ones who generate the biggest sales for either company.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Oct 2, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> Except that 1.3x faster RAM will cost you 2x more. So with Zen 4 and 6000 MHz RAM, you can have a marginally slower system for half the price than a 13900K with 7200 (if B650 lands at affordable levels). The highest enthusiasts of the enthusiast elite will care, but they are not the ones who generate the biggest sales for either company.



Bad math.

You can pay 2x as much for RAM and the upgrade cost won't be 2X.  

The TG DDR5-7200 kit is $350 vs $225 for 6000, and a full platform upgrade for a rig that can run that speed is likely going to well north of $1000.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 3, 2022)

RandallFlagg said:


> Bad math.
> 
> You can pay 2x as much for RAM and the upgrade cost won't be 2X.
> 
> The TG DDR5-7200 kit is $350 vs $225 for 6000, and a full platform upgrade for a rig that can run that speed is likely going to well north of $1000.


I is not bad it just lack of understanding from your part. Diminishing returns. Your math with the TG DDR5 kit still show a lot more for a lot less or no difference even (that can also happen) 
It is irrelevant by what margin @AusWolf math was wrong since that was not the point. The point is it is still not worth the jump in Mem speed. 

I have seen the reviews around and the difference in the performance between the reviews is quite substantial for some reason. Either way it is a huge leap in comparison to the older 5000 series CPUs. I'm curious what Rocket Lake will show and how things will play out for new Zen then. As for Zen's power consumption and efficiency, it is dman great but the temps are worrying and this is not due to excessive power consumption like Intel's Alder Lake but the die size for sure and incapable IHS maybe? I'm not changing to new Ryzen (or any else for that matter) since there is no point for that. The temps are getting higher and both companies will have to look into this because trying to convince people that running a CPU at 95 degrees Celsius is OK is simply put laughable. It is not OK and wont be OK at least for me.


----------



## AusWolf (Oct 3, 2022)

ratirt said:


> I is not bad it just lack of understanding from your part. Diminishing returns. Your math with the TG DDR5 kit still show a lot more for a lot less or no difference even (that can also happen)
> It is irrelevant by what margin @AusWolf math was wrong since that was not the point. The point is it is still not worth the jump in Mem speed.


Exactly.

@RandallFlagg In your example, you're talking about a $125 difference between the two RAM kits. With Zen 4, you can spend that money on a better motherboard, or better graphics card. Or a birthday gift for your partner. Or 10 pizzas. If you go with Intel and faster RAM, what do you get? A couple percent more in Cinebench? 10 FPS more in CS:GO? A very "enthusiast" way to think, indeed.


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (Oct 3, 2022)

ratirt said:


> I is not bad it just lack of understanding from your part. Diminishing returns. Your math with the TG DDR5 kit still show a lot more for a lot less or no difference even (that can also happen)
> It is irrelevant by what margin @AusWolf math was wrong since that was not the point. The point is it is still not worth the jump in Mem speed.
> 
> I have seen the reviews around and the difference in the performance between the reviews is quite substantial for some reason. Either way it is a huge leap in comparison to the older 5000 series CPUs. I'm curious what Rocket Lake will show and how things will play out for new Zen then. As for Zen's power consumption and efficiency, it is dman great but the temps are worrying and this is not due to excessive power consumption like Intel's Alder Lake but the die size for sure and incapable IHS maybe? I'm not changing to new Ryzen (or any else for that matter) since there is no point for that. The temps are getting higher and both companies will have to look into this because trying to convince people that running a CPU at 95 degrees Celsius is OK is simply put laughable. It is not OK and wont be OK at least for me.



Time will tell if 95C is a bad idea for Zen 4.  A passively-cooled GF 210 will run at that temp its entire non-idling life, so 95C doesn't seem like an automatic early death sentence.  All depends on the silicon.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 3, 2022)

80-watt Hamster said:


> Time will tell if 95C is a bad idea for Zen 4.  A passively-cooled GF 210 will run at that temp its entire non-idling life, so 95C doesn't seem like an automatic early death sentence.  All depends on the silicon.


I literally don't understand your statement. Time will tell if 95c is a bad idea? Will it ever be a good idea? If you mean, it is OK to a point because it does not affect the hardware only the temp which can be dissipated if you have a good air cooling or water cooling I would get it. Implying, that Ryzen CPUs reaching 95c might be a good idea is crazy.
I'm not talking about death sentence but the implication of the CPU running at 95c with other components at the same time. For me, it is not good and it is really hard to say 95c for a CPU is a good move for Ryzen cause that's what I get from your post.


----------



## AusWolf (Oct 3, 2022)

ratirt said:


> I literally don't understand your statement. Time will tell if 95c is a bad idea? Will it ever be a good idea? If you mean, it is OK to a point because it does not affect the hardware only the temp which can be dissipated if you have a good air cooling or water cooling I would get it. Implying, that Ryzen CPUs reaching 95c might be a good idea is crazy.
> I'm not talking about death sentence but the implication of the CPU running at 95c with other components at the same time. For me, it is not good and it is really hard to say 95c for a CPU is a good move for Ryzen cause that's what I get from your post.


I think he meant that time will tell whether constant 95 °C kills a Zen 4 CPU or not.

As a side note, I can't help myself thinking about the series Chernobyl when I read or type "95 °C".



"What is the CPU temperature?"
"95 °C, but that's as high as the..."
"95. Not great, not terrible."


----------



## ratirt (Oct 3, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> I think he meant that time will tell whether constant 95 °C kills a Zen 4 CPU or not.
> 
> As a side note, I can't help myself thinking about the series Chernobyl when I read or type "95 °C".
> View attachment 264056
> ...


I would not wait to find  out it is a bad idea. I think it is too high for comfort.
Love the series


----------



## AusWolf (Oct 3, 2022)

ratirt said:


> I would not wait to find  out it is a bad idea. I think it is too high for comfort.


I've decided to wait with buying one. 6 months should be a decent enough time to hear news about slight degradation or any other side-effects. Maybe I'll give it a go for my birthday in March. Maybe.



ratirt said:


> Love the series


Me too!


----------



## trparky (Oct 3, 2022)

Um... guys, AMD isn't the only one that said that 95c was OK to run at. Intel was famously blasted too for having a TjMax value of 110c.


----------



## Arco (Oct 3, 2022)

trparky said:


> Um... guys, AMD isn't the only one that said that 95c was OK to run at. Intel was famously blasted too for having a TjMax value of 110c.


This is fine. (Insert dog in a burning house.)


----------



## RandallFlagg (Oct 3, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> Exactly.
> 
> @RandallFlagg In your example, you're talking about a $125 difference between the two RAM kits. With Zen 4, you can spend that money on a better motherboard, or better graphics card. Or a birthday gift for your partner. Or 10 pizzas. If you go with Intel and faster RAM, what do you get? A couple percent more in Cinebench? 10 FPS more in CS:GO? A very "enthusiast" way to think, indeed.



No, My example was there to disprove your assertion that the RAM was going to make your upgrade cost twice as expensive.

It won't because the upgrade is not going to just be RAM, it'll make it maybe 15% more expensive on Zen 4.    

It's not a smart move to use crappy memory on Zen 4.


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (Oct 3, 2022)

ratirt said:


> I literally don't understand your statement. Time will tell if 95c is a bad idea? Will it ever be a good idea? If you mean, it is OK to a point because it does not affect the hardware only the temp which can be dissipated if you have a good air cooling or water cooling I would get it.



That's the hypothesis, yes.



ratirt said:


> Implying, that Ryzen CPUs reaching 95c might be a good idea is crazy.



What's crazy about it?  _If_ the chip can run at that temperature for an arbitrary amount of time without negative consequences, what's the issue? Also, see below.



ratirt said:


> I'm not talking about death sentence but the implication of the CPU running at 95c with other components at the same time. For me, it is not good and it is really hard to say 95c for a CPU is a good move for Ryzen cause that's what I get from your post.



I didn't claim it was a good idea, but that we won't definitively know for several years whether it was a bad one based on whether or not chips start going south.  How is the internal CPU temp related to the other components?  Presumably they'll be working within their own thermal envelope.  95C on the CPU doesn't mean 95C anywhere else.


----------



## AusWolf (Oct 3, 2022)

RandallFlagg said:


> No, My example was there to disprove your assertion that the RAM was going to make your upgrade cost twice as expensive.
> 
> It won't because the upgrade is not going to just be RAM, it'll make it maybe 15% more expensive on Zen 4.
> 
> ...


OK, you prefer to spend that $125 to gain that extra 5% in Geekbench. I prefer to use the money for something more useful. Let's agree to disagree. 

Edit: The only thing I see in your graph is what AMD said: 6000 MHz is the sweet spot. Also, I'm probably not gonna buy a 7950X, so...


----------



## ratirt (Oct 4, 2022)

RandallFlagg said:


> No, My example was there to disprove your assertion that the RAM was going to make your upgrade cost twice as expensive.
> 
> It won't because the upgrade is not going to just be RAM, it'll make it maybe 15% more expensive on Zen 4.
> 
> It's not a smart move to use crappy memory on Zen 4.


It is not a good move to use crappy memory with any mobo and CPU to be fair. It's not such a great argument you know.
We are talking about ram and truly, it is $125 for some meaningless % in benchmarks only. Not worth it and that was his assertion not that the ram is twice expensive. 


80-watt Hamster said:


> I didn't claim it was a good idea, but that we won't definitively know for several years whether it was a bad one based on whether or not chips start going south. How is the internal CPU temp related to the other components? Presumably they'll be working within their own thermal envelope. 95C on the CPU doesn't mean 95C anywhere else.


Implying is not claiming. I do understand it can run at that temp and I'm sure AMD has tested it regardless but for me (private opinion) it is high and I would not want to run my CPU at that temp. Besides, I'm pretty sure, high temp will not help any silicon so I'm skeptic about the idea of running the CPU a 95c and be OK with it. Maybe, if the silicon quality for a CPU is in a way lower quality, the 95c for extended time will have an impact on performance. Not sure just saying.


----------



## Gica (Oct 5, 2022)

Three hours of session, two, at least, in World of Tanks. I can say that it runs cool, but long sessions of 80 degrees or more would trigger the alarm even for a budget processor. Processors come already overclocked from the factory (except Intel non-k) and excessive temperatures can create problems over time.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 5, 2022)

Gica said:


> Three hours of session, two, at least, in World of Tanks. I can say that it runs cool, but long sessions of 80 degrees or more would trigger the alarm even for a budget processor. Processors come already overclocked from the factory (except Intel non-k) and excessive temperatures can create problems over time.


How is it overclocked? 4.6Ghz is its initial speed unless you talk about memory?
I been wondering what are you trying to showcase here. WOT is totally not CPU intensive so no wonder your CPU can handle it well and it is not being used a lot meaning it is cool. Kinda like saying my CPU is cool while Idle when you barely use it. WOT is idle of games in my opinion.


----------



## Gica (Oct 5, 2022)

I specified that non-k processors are not overclocked, but K and AMD processors are at the limit directly from the factory, the overclocking that brings more performance to them being practically impossible without extreme top cooling. So, high frequencies, mixed with extreme temperatures, should give thought to anyone who plans to keep that processor even after the warranty expires.
In my opinion.


----------



## ratirt (Oct 5, 2022)

Gica said:


> I specified that non-k processors are not overclocked, but K and AMD processors are at the limit directly from the factory, the overclocking that brings more performance to them being practically impossible without extreme top cooling. So, high frequencies, mixed with extreme temperatures, should give thought to anyone who plans to keep that processor even after the warranty expires.
> In my opinion.


Yeah I can see your point but then I don't understand the pc come overclocked. Nothing comes overclocked. The K version have different spec.
Well, it makes sense AMD and Intel K come with the boost options and automated overclocking. 
With the AMD processors, the situation is a bit different. There is no throttle. Obviously the performance may be lower if inadequate cooler is being used but I have seen the charts for various AMD Zen 4 CPUs and it does not look bad to be fair. Obviously with wraith cooler the 7950x will not do awesome.
With Intel the throttle was more profound in my opinion but with AMD the CPUs are hot since these are tiny so the die area has a lot of work with the heat. there is a correlation between heat and performance but to a lesser extent.


----------



## AusWolf (Oct 5, 2022)

Gica said:


> I specified that non-k processors are not overclocked, but K and AMD processors are at the limit directly from the factory, the overclocking that brings more performance to them being practically impossible without extreme top cooling. So, high frequencies, mixed with extreme temperatures, should give thought to anyone who plans to keep that processor even after the warranty expires.
> In my opinion.


What do you mean "Intel K and AMD are at the limit"? By default, my 11700 non-K runs at 2.8 GHz in Cinebench R23, scoring around 9k points due to the 65 W power limit. It's 300 MHz above base clock. With power limits unlocked, it runs at its 4.4 GHz all-core boost all day and night, scoring around 14k, but it eats about 160-170 W. A 125 W limit is somewhere in the middle, and that's what K CPUs come with by default. It's around 3.8 GHz, which is below max all-core boost, but above the base clock of the 11700K and 11900K as well, and it's easily coolable with a low profile Be Quiet Shadow Rock LP. I don't know what limit you mean that Intel K CPUs are at. Power?


----------



## Gica (Oct 5, 2022)

Can you overclock 11700K to get at least 10% performance boost in all applications?
Giving this example, you cannot consider overclocking successful a processor that can no longer reach the maximum speed set in the factory.
You probably haven't caught the times when a processor could be overclocked even over 50%.
As a special note:
Ryzen 1000: decent overclock
Ryzen 3000, 5000 and 7000: overclock... it's better to stay with the factory settings.
The pre-ryzen era


----------



## AusWolf (Oct 5, 2022)

Gica said:


> Can you overclock 11700K to get at least 10% performance boost in all applications?
> Giving this example, you cannot consider overclocking successful a processor that can no longer reach the maximum speed set in the factory.
> You probably haven't caught the times when a processor could be overclocked even over 50%.
> As a special note:
> ...


You still haven't defined what you mean by overclocking. Also, what do you mean by "maximum speed set in factory"? Is it the base clock? Is it the maximum boost clock? As far as I'm concerned, the base clock is guaranteed, and the max boost is an "up to" value.

Like I said, even K chips don't run at their advertised boost clocks when you have factory power limits enabled. That's why those clocks are "up to" values. You can reach them under certain conditions with good enough cooling and raised power limits. It's the same with non-K chips and AMD as well. So basically, you can choose to complain about not reaching max boost clocks, or about exceeding TDP values. Your choice.

Your link is quite irrelevant, to be honest, as the tested CPU maintained its boost clocks in all circumstances, except for AVX, which is 1. Known to use a ton of power, so it's more dependent on motherboard power delivery that the CPU itself, and 2. Intel has clock offsets for it to make sure the CPU doesn't fry itself. Every Intel CPU that I've seen (including my non-K 11700) runs around 200 MHz lower than standard when using AVX. It's normal.

Also, what's with this obsession with manual overclocking? Would it be better to have 3 GHz CPUs by default that you have to fiddle with to get up to 5 GHz? Personally, I prefer it the way it is now. Just like your car's ECU, the CPU knows what it needs better than you do.


----------



## Wirko (Oct 5, 2022)

Any plans to measure the idle power consumption? It would depend on IGP activity so more than one data point would be needed (IGP disabled, enabled, multi-monitor - in case it behaves like dGPUs and draws more power when more than one monitor is connected).


----------



## Tyl3n0L (Oct 6, 2022)

I can provide idle power cosumption for my 7700x I also have the Corsar Hxi that tells power figures


----------



## Gica (Oct 6, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> You still haven't defined what you mean by overclocking. Also, what do you mean by "maximum speed set in factory"? Is it the base clock? Is it the maximum boost clock? As far as I'm concerned, the base clock is guaranteed, and the max boost is an "up to" value.
> 
> Like I said, even K chips don't run at their advertised boost clocks when you have factory power limits enabled. That's why those clocks are "up to" values. You can reach them under certain conditions with good enough cooling and raised power limits. It's the same with non-K chips and AMD as well. So basically, you can choose to complain about not reaching max boost clocks, or about exceeding TDP values. Your choice.
> 
> ...


1. The silicon lottery.
2. In the past we have been warned that processors can be destroyed by overclocking, but these processors had huge overclocking potential. And now we are warned, but you can hardly get a few extra megahertz. Isn't it a sign that the processors are pushed to the limit from the factory?
1+2=3. If they are pushed to the limit from the factory, shouldn't extreme temperatures worry you? No man-made machine can work permanently pushing the limits.
Technically, one megahertz above the reference is called overclocking, but what advantages does it bring you? What advantages does a 2-3% extra performance with 20-30% extra power consumption bring you? Sometime, you managed to get a minimum of 10% extra performance even with the decrease in consumption. Sometime.

To determine exactly if these processors wear out over time, the entire platform of the first test, hardware and software, must be kept unaltered. You only use it when testing (1-2 years) these processors. Otherwise, you are tempted to blame program updates and technological progress on performance losses and the growing gap with new devices. But no one has availability and you need thousands of samples to prove it. But we have material physics, right?


----------



## fevgatos (Oct 6, 2022)

ratirt said:


> Yeah I can see your point but then I don't understand the pc come overclocked. Nothing comes overclocked. The K version have different spec.
> Well, it makes sense AMD and Intel K come with the boost options and automated overclocking.
> With the AMD processors, the situation is a bit different. There is no throttle. Obviously the performance may be lower if inadequate cooler is being used but I have seen the charts for various AMD Zen 4 CPUs and it does not look bad to be fair. Obviously with wraith cooler the 7950x will not do awesome.
> With Intel the throttle was more profound in my opinion but with AMD the CPUs are hot since these are tiny so the die area has a lot of work with the heat. there is a correlation between heat and performance but to a lesser extent.


Remember when I was telling you the 7950x will be less efficient than the 5950x out of the box? Do you see it now?


----------



## W1zzard (Oct 6, 2022)

Wirko said:


> Any plans to measure the idle power consumption? It would depend on IGP activity so more than one data point would be needed (IGP disabled, enabled, multi-monitor - in case it behaves like dGPUs and draws more power when more than one monitor is connected).


CPU-only idle power is pretty much 0 on any modern CPU. Are you asking about whole system power?


----------



## Solid State Brain (Oct 6, 2022)

CPU-only idle power consumption strongly depends on the enabled (and active) C-states. In might be in the order of ~0.5W or less in the best case scenario, or more commonly around 2W, or perhaps 15-20W or more with all C-states disabled (only C0/C1 enabled, but not C1E and above), which some overclockers configure that way. Sometimes the deepest C-states may not be available if PCIe devices are present, etc.


----------



## AusWolf (Oct 6, 2022)

Gica said:


> 1. The silicon lottery.


What do you want with the silicon lottery?

In the past, you had to manually overclock until you got random freezes, restarts or blue screens before you got anywhere near the temperature or power limit of your CPU. For some people, it was 4 GHz. For others, it was 4.1 or 4.2 on the same chip. That's silicon lottery.

These CPUs run up to their temperature limits way before you hit the limit imposed on you by silicon lottery. With a better cooler, you have more performance. With liquid nitrogen, you can achieve way above 6 GHz on any Zen 4 chip. With an identical motherboard, PSU and cooler, everybody has the same clock speed. What's this if not a massive win on the silicon lottery?



Gica said:


> 2. In the past we have been warned that processors can be destroyed by overclocking, but these processors had huge overclocking potential. And now we are warned, but you can hardly get a few extra megahertz.


Let me reiterate that everything above base clock (not max boost clock) is technically overclocking. A 5.7 GHz max boost clock doesn't mean you should run your CPU at 5.7 GHz all day and night.



Gica said:


> Isn't it a sign that the processors are pushed to the limit from the factory?


They are. So what? If you don't like it, just turn on the damn Eco mode. If I ever upgrade to a Zen 4 system in the future, I sure will.



Gica said:


> 1+2=3. If they are pushed to the limit from the factory, shouldn't extreme temperatures worry you? No man-made machine can work permanently pushing the limits.


See above.



Gica said:


> Technically, one megahertz above the reference is called overclocking, but what advantages does it bring you? What advantages does a 2-3% extra performance with 20-30% extra power consumption bring you? Sometime, you managed to get a minimum of 10% extra performance even with the decrease in consumption. Sometime.


Again, see above. I'd gladly sacrifice 2-5% performance for 30% lower power consumption and heat.



Solid State Brain said:


> CPU-only idle power consumption strongly depends on the enabled (and active) C-states. In might be in the order of ~0.5W or less in the best case scenario, or more commonly around 2W, or perhaps 15-20W or more with all C-states disabled (only C0/C1 enabled, but not C1E and above), which some overclockers configure that way. Sometimes the deepest C-states may not be available if PCIe devices are present, etc.


Disabling C-states is stupid, imo. Most of our home PCs spend a huge chunk of their time at idle. It only makes sense to properly configure the system for that.


----------



## Gica (Oct 7, 2022)

Do you see how you prove me right, although your intention is different?   
It is your right to go for long sessions at 90-95 degrees with processors pushed to the limit from the factory.


Gica said:


> Three hours of session, two, at least, in World of Tanks. I can say that it runs cool, but long sessions of 80 degrees or more would trigger the alarm even for a budget processor. *Processors come already overclocked from the factory (except Intel non-k) and excessive temperatures can create problems over time.*


----------



## Wirko (Oct 7, 2022)

W1zzard said:


> CPU-only idle power is pretty much 0 on any modern CPU. Are you asking about whole system power?


I mean CPU-only DC power. Pretty much zero would be something that's negligible compared to 1T consumption. Like 1-2W. With IGP on, I don't think it can get that low. There are several parts of the SoC that can't go to sleep - the bus, the IMC (or L3 and its controller, not sure if the frame buffer ever goes to cache).


----------



## Gstorm CZE (Oct 15, 2022)

I boot from pressing Power button until Windows 10 show up whole 8seconds with my i3-10100f.

Also knowing those 80USD price I payed for it 2y ago and just 25perc more fps possible with even most powerfull CPUs around at 1440p, I find my i3 really still great value.
Just about to upgrade my GPU.


----------



## Gica (Oct 16, 2022)

Wirko said:


> I mean CPU-only DC power. Pretty much zero would be something that's negligible compared to 1T consumption. Like 1-2W. With IGP on, I don't think it can get that low. There are several parts of the SoC that can't go to sleep - the bus, the IMC (or L3 and its controller, not sure if the frame buffer ever goes to cache).


Intel
Idle (cores+igp+rest of chip): 0.8 W minimum in this session
In a test with furmark, igp consumed 11.2 W and increased the consumption of the entire processor (CPU Packpage Power) to 15.3W
At AMD, it seems that idle means at least 13 W even for processors that do not have igp included.


----------



## jackka (Nov 17, 2022)

Am I missing something here?  Or do the graphs show that overclocked setting is using less power, running slower, and colder than stock setting?
It looks like the OC and Stock numbers are switched in those graphs?  I don't understand.


----------



## AusWolf (Nov 17, 2022)

jackka said:


> Am I missing something here?  Or do the graphs show that overclocked setting is using less power, running slower, and colder than stock setting?
> It looks like the OC and Stock numbers are switched in those graphs?  I don't understand.


These modern CPUs at stock allocate their voltage and frequency headrooms to give you as much performance as your cooling and power delivery allow. They also dynamically change voltage and frequency depending on the specific workload. That's why turbo speeds are "up to" levels. Manually changing voltage and frequency to a fixed value will never be as effective as the built-in algorithm. If you want to over-/underclock, you should play with power and temperature limits, and leave the stock voltage/frequency algorithm alone.

Edit: Let's say your CPU can run up to 5.5 GHz in single-core and 4.8 GHz in all-core workloads. If you can OC it to a fixed 5.1 GHz with moderate voltage, you're gaining a little bit in efficiency, but you're losing performance in lightly threaded workloads.


----------



## jackka (Nov 17, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> These modern CPUs at stock allocate their voltage and frequency headrooms to give you as much performance as your cooling and power delivery allow. They also dynamically change voltage and frequency depending on the specific workload. That's why turbo speeds are "up to" levels. Manually changing voltage and frequency to a fixed value will never be as effective as the built-in algorithm. If you want to over-/underclock, you should play with power and temperature limits, and leave the stock voltage/frequency algorithm alone.


So the OC setting in this review is effectively an underclock and that’s why it shows lower temp lower fps and lower power use?

Also, stock setting means PBO enabled?


----------



## AusWolf (Nov 17, 2022)

jackka said:


> So the OC setting in this review is effectively an underclock and that’s why it shows lower temp lower fps and lower power use?


Yes. The 7700X's 5.4 GHz turbo is a single-core value. It cannot sustain such speeds in all-core workloads, so a fixed OC will naturally have to be lower than this, resulting in lower performance in some cases.


----------



## jackka (Nov 17, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> Yes. The 7700X's 5.4 GHz turbo is a single-core value. It cannot sustain such speeds in all-core workloads, so a fixed OC will naturally have to be lower than this, resulting in lower performance in some cases.


I guess I’ll just have to get used to “OC” and “Stock” not meaning what I think they mean.


----------



## AusWolf (Nov 17, 2022)

jackka said:


> I guess I’ll just have to get used to “OC” and “Stock” not meaning what I think they mean.


Well, "OC" used to mean anything above stock. But since stock literally means base clock nowadays, any kind of turbo behavior is technically an automatic way of "OC-ing". It's only that the CPU does it a lot more intelligently on its own than if you set it manually. Zen 4 is configured to run as fast as your cooling allows straight out of the factory, which manual OC can only make worse.


----------



## jackka (Nov 17, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> Well, "OC" used to mean anything above stock. But since stock literally means base clock nowadays, any kind of turbo behavior is technically an automatic way of "OC-ing". It's only that the CPU does it a lot more intelligently on its own than if you set it manually. Zen 4 is configured to run as fast as your cooling allows straight out of the factory, which manual OC can only make worse.


Yeah.  In this particular review, stock seems to mean PBO enabled.  Makes it a bit confusing since PBO is an auto-overclock.


----------



## AusWolf (Nov 17, 2022)

jackka said:


> Yeah.  In this particular review, stock seems to mean PBO enabled.  Makes it a bit confusing since PBO is an auto-overclock.


Everything is an auto overclock on these CPUs. You can only manually OC by disabling PBO, disabling turbo, disabling power and temperature limits, and maybe also disabling power saving features, which is a very stupid thing to do, in my opinion. You're much better off leaving everything as is, and maybe setting your power and/or temperature limits to levels that you consider acceptable. For example, I'm running my 7700X with a manual power limit of 100 W with PBO on. It still boosts to 5.5 GHz in single-core and 4.8 GHz in all-core workloads, which I think is plenty. It's only a 500 point loss in Cinebench R23 all-core compared to stock, but it never exceeds 80 °C in return.


----------



## jackka (Nov 17, 2022)

AusWolf said:


> Everything is an auto overclock on these CPUs. You can only manually OC by disabling PBO, disabling turbo, disabling power and temperature limits, and maybe also disabling power saving features, which is a very stupid thing to do, in my opinion. You're much better off leaving everything as is, and maybe setting your power and/or temperature limits to levels that you consider acceptable. For example, I'm running my 7700X with a manual power limit of 100 W with PBO on. It still boosts to 5.5 GHz in single-core and 4.8 GHz in all-core workloads, which I think is plenty. It's only a 500 point loss in Cinebench R23 all-core compared to stock, but it never exceeds 80 °C in return.


If that’s the case, not sure why “OC” numbers are included in this review where overclock apparently means underclock, and is a stupid thing to do.

Other reviews post numbers for PBO enabled and PBO not enabled, and sometimes manual overclocks that push beyond PBO.  Makes much more sense imo.


----------



## AusWolf (Nov 17, 2022)

jackka said:


> If that’s the case, not sure why “OC” numbers are included in this review where overclock apparently means underclock, and is a stupid thing to do.
> 
> Other reviews post numbers for PBO enabled and PBO not enabled, and sometimes manual overclocks that push beyond PBO.  Makes much more sense imo.


True. I never look at OC numbers, to be honest. I consider the whole concept of OC-ing a huge waste of time 99% of the time.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 17, 2022)

jackka said:


> Am I missing something here?  Or do the graphs show that overclocked setting is using less power, running slower, and colder than stock setting?
> It looks like the OC and Stock numbers are switched in those graphs?  I don't understand.


No, those are all correct


An all core overclock can not achieve the same as letting boost do its thing, so when you're at lower clock speeds they run lower voltages and run colder, and get lower performance.
Only synthetic multi threaded tests get faster, stock or tweaked PBO give better gaming performance but with higher voltages and temperatures.


----------



## Godrilla (Dec 18, 2022)

Got my 7700x at 5.65 ghz on all cores overclock on air with Noctua D15 and x670e strix-i mobo FYI via ai overclocking.


----------



## Melvis (Dec 18, 2022)

Well I just bought a 5800X3D for $266 USA Dollars


----------



## leha12345 (Dec 19, 2022)

Godrilla said:


> Got my 7700x at 5.65 ghz on all cores overclock on air with Noctua D15 and x670e strix-i mobo FYI via ai overclocking.


CInebench R23 score, multi and single?


----------



## PenguinBelly (Monday at 7:34 AM)

All core OC at 5.65?  I want to see Prime95, choose any of the default 3 presets.


----------

