HenrySomeoneIf the $200 rumor is true, than it won't even match 12600k, if it'll be better ... then it won't be $200, it's as simple as that (but I'm betting on the former this time).

It doesnt matter what the price is, the 7600x will barely match the 12600k best case scenario. The gap in mt performance between the 5600x and the 12600k is already stupendously high.

fevgatosIt doesnt matter what the price is, the 7600x will barely match the 12600k best case scenario. The gap in mt performance between the 5600x and the 12600k is already stupendously high.

Oh, for sure! I was slightly unclear above when I said "if it'll be better" by which I meant better than what the suggested $200 price would imply; it's quite obvious it will never best 12600k.

HenrySomeoneOh, for sure! I was slightly unclear above when I said "if it'll be better" by which I meant better than what the suggested $200 price would imply; it's quite obvious it will never best 12600k.

Why is that an issue. 7600x suggested price is 200$, cheapest I can find 12600k on newegg is 280$, and here in Germany 310E ~ 315$.
It's kinda hard to assume that the new generation 200$ CPU would beat a generation old processor costing 50% more.

Bwaze5.7 GHz sounds like a large frequency increase. But we know Ryzen processors don't actually do any work at their boost frequency, they jump to that peak momentarily with very light loads, and they perform even the purely synthetic sincle core load at lower frequency.

In my opinion that complicates simple arithmetic on how much frequency increase are we seing here.

That's at least somewhat true, but then we've seen ES silicon running at 5.5GHz in-game in AMD's own demos (with clearly visible dynamic clocks, so no major trickery), so we know that they'll clock high in real world use cases as well.

As for the arithmetic on how much frequency increase we're seeing here: look at the base clock increases. These base clocks are reaching Zen3 boost clock levels, and are ~> 1GHz higher than Zen3 base clocks. These chips will clock significantly higher than Zen3.

mahirzukic2Why is that an issue. 7600x suggested price is 200$, cheapest I can find 12600k on newegg is 280$, and here in Germany 310E ~ 315$.
It's kinda hard to assume that the new generation 200$ CPU would beat a generation old processor costing 50% more.

Multiple reasons. First of all, the 13400 will most likely be 6+4, which means it will at least tie the 12600k for starters

7600X better not be 300$ with only 6 cores when Intel is already at 14 for i5

James77877600X better not be 300$ with only 6 cores when Intel is already at 14 for i5

It probably wouldn't as detailed in the news. It would probably have a 200$ suggested price, as for retails price, that's anyone's guess. :laugh:

Core counts are not comparable anymore, why is every one still doing it?

Main cores of Zen4 and Raptor Lake will likely be pretty comparable (I'd wage on the latter still taking the single thread crown by a notable margin though), so one of them having 8 extra ones (however inferior/weak/useless they might be called by the red boys) gives them quite the advantage, wouldn't you say?

RedwoodzCore counts are not comparable anymore, why is every one still doing it?

Because core counts still tell us a lot about performance across various tasks, as long as one is cognizant of which type of core and how many, etc. - and on the other hand, in many tasks core counts don't matter as long as they're >4/>6 etc. I haven't seen anyone doing 16c v 16c comparisons or whatever, but then I may not have been paying attention. There are lots of possible points of comparison, but until we have confirmed SKUs, pricing, clock speeds, etc., rumored clocks and core counts are pretty much what we've got.

TheLostSwedeMSRP in US$ never includes sales tax / VAT.

That's because, at least where I live, taxes in my county are different from the taxes in a county south of me. You can't calculate sales tax until you enter in your ZIP code.

Regarding prices too good to be true in some models!
If AMD wanted to be more competitive and drop prices, the below would seem more logical imo:
7950X $699
7900X $499
7800X $399
7700X $349
7600X $249
7600 (65/88W) $199

ModEl4Regarding prices too good to be true in some models!
If AMD wanted to be more competitive and drop prices, the below would seem more logical imo:
7950X $699
7900X $499
7800X $399
7700X $349
7600X $249
7600 (65/88W) $199

This is how it's gonna look by the time Zen 5 is about to drop :oops:

For me the DDR4>DDR5 move really busts things up, getting a comparable high-quality 64 GB kit like my Dominator Platinums would cost me a bundle and I honestly don't fancy going back to a 6 core processor.

I could go for Raptor Lake or just sit on my 5950X, a GPU upgrade is far more important considering a 4K120 target.

I am sure 7700X will be going for over 400 EUR in EU for quite a bit.
Ergh...

RedwoodzCore counts are not comparable anymore, why is every one still doing it?

That's because of Intel's P-core / E-core thing right?

And the only reason why Intel is doing the x86 equivalent of Arms' big.LITTLE architecture is because Intel performance cores are freakin' heat pump on a chip. Reminds me of the old Pentium 4 Prescott days.

trparkyAnd the only reason why Intel is doing the x86 equivalent of Arms' big.LITTLE architecture is because Intel performance cores are freakin' heat pump on a chip. Reminds me of the old Pentium 4 Prescott days.

It would be nice if there was a more clean way in the OS to manually adjust and reserve what kind of things runs on what cores. (regardless of Intel or AMD) For example reserve certain tasks for slower or faster cores.

A Computer GuyIt would be nice if there was a more clean way in the OS to manually adjust and reserve what kind of things runs on what cores. (regardless of Intel or AMD) For example reserve certain tasks for slower or faster cores.

I doubt it. You just have to "trust" Windows to get it right. :laugh:

trparkyAnd the only reason why Intel is doing the x86 equivalent of Arms' big.LITTLE architecture is because Intel performance cores are freakin' heat pump on a chip. Reminds me of the old Pentium 4 Prescott days.

And thats more wrong than you can possibly imagine. P cores are way more efficient than zen 3 cores and way more efficient than E cores as well. Problem is they take a lot of die space, which means putting 16 of those in one chip will be insanely expensive. Heat and power arent an issue, that was juts a clueless statement

fevgatosAnd thats more wrong than you can possibly imagine. P cores are way more efficient than zen 3 cores and way more efficient than E cores as well. Problem is they take a lot of die space, which means putting 16 of those in one chip will be insanely expensive. Heat and power arent an issue, that was juts a clueless statement

... Except Zen3 cores peak around 20W, while ADL P cores can draw 2-3x that much. More efficient at lower clocks? Depends on the workload. More efficient at stock? Not even close in any CPU heavy task. They do run very well in games though, with most of those being variable, low threaded workloads that let the CPU boost high to race to finish each frame's compute cycle, which suits ADL's high clocks and good IPC nicely. But, crucially, you can't reliably measure a CPUs efficiency in something that isn't a cpu-intensive task. And for anything CPU-intensive, both Zen3 and E cores are vastly more efficient at anything resembling stock power levels.

Valantar... Except Zen3 cores peak around 20W, while ADL P cores can draw 2-3x that much. More efficient at lower clocks? Depends on the workload. More efficient at stock? Not even close in any CPU heavy task. They do run very well in games though, with most of those being variable, low threaded workloads that let the CPU boost high to race to finish each frame's compute cycle, which suits ADL's high clocks and good IPC nicely. But, crucially, you can't reliably measure a CPUs efficiency in something that isn't a cpu-intensive task. And for anything CPU-intensive, both Zen3 and E cores are vastly more efficient at anything resembling stock power levels.

More efficient at everything. What he is saying is that intel cant fit 16p cores cause of power draw which is absurd, cause we already know a p core outperforms a zen 3 core at same wattage. Therefore a 16p core intel would outperform the 5950x for example at same or lower wattage

Angry TacoZI will likely be upgrading from the R7 2700 to the R7 7700x, should be quite the increase in FPS!

I went from a 2700X (3200 ram) to a 5600X (3600 ram). And despite being GPU-limited with my Vega 64, I notice an unexpected amount of smoothness with the 5600X. I never played modern games that good before!!! It felt like I had some 20-30fps low spikes with the 2700X, vs none with the new CPU.
Trust me, it’ll be great especially for the minimum FPS. As smooth as a baby’s bottom, compared to Zen+.

Another fun fact is that when Intel released AL, I didn't see the P and E cores in a good way.

But the 12600K and its successor 13600K as i5 models, have a huge advantage over the R5 ones.
The 7600X may have the same performance or better in gaming over 12600K(probably close to13600K) but in MT will be destroyed if it remains a 6/12 cpu.
It has to score 5900X numbers or almost double the 5600X ones, with just 6/12 cores in order to be competitive in MT!

It's funny how the roles turned around. AMD has always been miles ahead in MT in the Ryzen era...

fevgatosMore efficient at everything. What he is saying is that intel cant fit 16p cores cause of power draw which is absurd, cause we already know a p core outperforms a zen 3 core at same wattage. Therefore a 16p core intel would outperform the 5950x for example at same or lower wattage

At everything? That's ... a stretch. Though, knowing your arguments from previous discussions, you've said things like "My 12900k at stock limited to 125w is like 7-8% behind the 5950x in CBR23." You're consistently arguing for power limiting, underclocking and undervolting the Intel chips, while leaving the AMD chips at stock, as if they aren't pushed to similar extremes on their respective V/F curves? I get that you probably haven't been reading Zen3 UC/UV/curve optimizer threads given that you're an ADL owner, but - news flash - these chips get far more efficient than stock with very modest performance losses as well. If your argument is "Intel's stock settings are crazy, but if power limited ADL is more efficient than stock Zen3", then you're - intentionally or not - creating an uneven playing field and thus making an invalid comparison. If one system is optimized for efficiency, then both should be, no?

Nobody is denying that ADL is quite efficient in low threaded or low utilization workloads even at stock, and can indeed be power limited, undervolted and underclocked to run quite efficiently at not-too-large performance losses. But you're ignoring the fact that the exact same thing is true for Zen3, except that Zen3 starts from a much, much lower stock power usage, especially in ST tasks, and thus has an inherent advantage there. It also has an inherent disadvantage through its through-package MCM solution (which consumes ~20W when active), giving it a higher base power draw, which means again that there's a crossover point somewhere around ~50W where ADL takes over as the more efficient. But, regardless of this, saying "ADL is more efficient at everything" is pure, unadulterated nonsense. It's less efficient at stock in most CPU-heavy workloads. It's less efficient in those same workloads if both systems are tuned equally, outside of a range of very low power limits.

Things often have complex answers, you know.

trparkyAnd the only reason why Intel is doing the x86 equivalent of Arms' big.LITTLE architecture is because Intel performance cores are freakin' heat pump on a chip. Reminds me of the old Pentium 4 Prescott days.

So what do you have to say about the fact that Zen5 will have pretty much the same arrangement, therefore following Intel's lead? Come on, I'm sure you can think of some excuse...