Thursday, August 4th 2022
![AMD](https://tpucdn.com/images/news/amd-v1721205152158.png)
Potential Ryzen 7000-series CPU Specs and Pricing Leak, Ryzen 9 7950X Expected to hit 5.7 GHz
It's pretty clear that we're getting very close to the launch of AMD's AM5 platform and the Ryzen 7000-series CPUs, with spec details and even pricing brackets tipping up online. Wccftech has posted what the publication believes will be the lineup we can expect to launch in just over a month's time, if rumours are to be believed. The base model is said to be the Ryzen 5 7600X, which the site claims will have a base clock of 4.7 GHz and a boost clock of 5.3 GHz. There's no change in processor core or thread count compared to the current Ryzen 5 5600X, but the L2 cache appears to have doubled, for a total of 38 MB of cache. This is followed by the Ryzen 7 7700X, which starts out a tad slower with a base clock of 4.5 GHz, but it has a slightly higher boost clock of 5.4 GHz. Likewise here, the core and thread count remains unchanged, while the L2 cache also gets a bump here for a total of 40 MB cache. Both these models are said to have a 105 W TDP.
The Ryzen 9 7900X is said to have a 4.7 GHz base clock and a 5.6 GHz boost clock, so a 200 MHz jump up from the Ryzen 7 7700X. This CPU has a total of 76 MB of cache. Finally the Ryzen 9 7950X is said to have the same base clock of 4.5 GHz as the Ryzen 7 7700X, but it has the highest boost clock of all the expected models at 5.7 GHz, while having a total of 80 MB cache. These two SKUs are both said to have a 170 W TDP. Price wise, from top to bottom, we might be looking at somewhere around US$700, US$600, US$300 and US$200, so it seems like AMD has adjusted its pricing downwards by around $100 on the low-end, with the Ryzen 7 part fitting the same price bracket as the Ryzen 7 5700X. The Ryzen 9 7900X seems to have had its price adjusted upwards slightly, while the Ryzen 9 7950X seems to be expected to be priced lower than its predecessors. Take these things with the right helping of scepticism for now, as things can still change before the launch.
Source:
Wccftech
The Ryzen 9 7900X is said to have a 4.7 GHz base clock and a 5.6 GHz boost clock, so a 200 MHz jump up from the Ryzen 7 7700X. This CPU has a total of 76 MB of cache. Finally the Ryzen 9 7950X is said to have the same base clock of 4.5 GHz as the Ryzen 7 7700X, but it has the highest boost clock of all the expected models at 5.7 GHz, while having a total of 80 MB cache. These two SKUs are both said to have a 170 W TDP. Price wise, from top to bottom, we might be looking at somewhere around US$700, US$600, US$300 and US$200, so it seems like AMD has adjusted its pricing downwards by around $100 on the low-end, with the Ryzen 7 part fitting the same price bracket as the Ryzen 7 5700X. The Ryzen 9 7900X seems to have had its price adjusted upwards slightly, while the Ryzen 9 7950X seems to be expected to be priced lower than its predecessors. Take these things with the right helping of scepticism for now, as things can still change before the launch.
277 Comments on Potential Ryzen 7000-series CPU Specs and Pricing Leak, Ryzen 9 7950X Expected to hit 5.7 GHz
And yes all the tests that I compared to a 5800x were done with 8gc cores - ecores off. You keep saying it's only tests that favor alderlake, but it's not like it's my choice. Whenever I ask people to run something with their zen CPU after the claimed it's more efficient they basically dissapear. If you know someone willing to test with his zen 3, im all up for it. You think it's more likely that the 12600k is more efficient at same wattage while having less P coress and half the ecores? Ok man
power limit a 12900k and it will lose performance. 10% down when power limit is at 175w. A lot of sites confirmed it. Go lower with the power limit performance tanks but efficiency goes up.
Where is the 12600K more efficient show me
www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-12600k-alder-lake-12th-gen/20.html
tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-alder-lake-tested-at-various-power-limits/images/cinebench-multi.png
According to the consumption table, the 12900k at 125w consumes 5 watts more than the 12600k while scoring very similarly. If you dont understand how that's absolutely impossible.... Its like boostint the 5600x to 125w and suddenly it matches the 5950x.
Also here is techspots review of the 12700, which has less cores and worse bin.
static.techspot.com/articles-info/2391/bench/CB23-1.png
At 65w the 12700 outscores the 12900k at 100w from tpus review. Again, if you dont understand why that's absolutely impossible.. I dont know how to help
What is also worth to point out, if power limits are lifted, TPUs 12900K test shows around 28k score just like TechSpot's.
Maybe the 12900K sample is not so great when tested. It would have been better if TechSpot had them both tested that way. Getting information from one site and the other and compare is kinda sketchy if there is certain limitations etc.
There is nothing sketchy about comparing across reviews, cbr23 is a repeatable workload and when tested at similar power limits the cpus should score the same. And i know cause ive tested, 4 motherboards and 3 cpus, all scored 23500 to 24500 at 125watts.
Ask anyone with a 12900k to test stock with 125w power limit, they will all verify what im telling you. They'll score over 23k points
I googled for you some reviews testing at 125w. They all verify what im saying, TPUs review is absolutely wrong. Here you go, 125w = 23500 score
www.club386.com/intel-core-i9-12900k-at-125w/3/
tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-alder-lake-tested-at-various-power-limits/images/cinebench-multi.png
That is the one you brought. Show me what the power consumed by the 12600K of 120W because I literally don't see it FOR REAL.
Don't hesitate with examples from the graphs. Maybe it will be easier to understand what you mean or talk about. True it has 4ecores less. Think about it if it isnt. Same power limit for both and one has more "mouths" to feed. Also base clock and boost clocks are different which means power required is different to sustain it. It is just a guess here but still possible.
Different boards and drivers used equals different power draw?
You will need to ask Wizz about the testing criteria not me or compare everything not only those things you disagree with.
tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-alder-lake-tested-at-various-power-limits/images/power-multithread.png
Also check my previous post, I linked you a review of the 12900k with 125w power limit and it shows exactly what im saying, he scored 23500 at 125w. TPU scores 18k. That's just absurd
Wizz has to clarify that I'm only looking for some sort of explanation.
I already sent you the above link. Its the power draw numbers in cbr23. Cant you see that the 12600k consumes as much as the 12900k at 125w???
Your problem is the 12900K under perform in CB23 with the power limit set to 125w? or what is the problem here?
Who keeps pointing out result after result showing that you're making things up?
You create weird convoluted scenarios for your preferred setup, then ignore all information that disagrees.
I mean heck this post alone says it, i've posted dozens of reviews images and quotes at you but nope - i just disappear (from your memory, as you blank out anything that doesnt agree with you)
And yes, the 12900k underperforms in every power limited test, not just in the 125w. The 100, 75 and 50 are also hilariously wrong No I wasn't talking about you, i dont even know who you are.
You cant have posted a result that proves me wrong, simply because im not wrong. I have the cpu, Heck i tested 3 of them on 4 mobos and all got the same results. Also every other review out there agrees with me (techspot, igorslab, club365). So whatever you think you postes that proves me wrong never happened im afraid.
Anyways, I've already posted 3 more reviews that show the same thing (igors lab, techspot and club365), so whatever you are claiming here (which you havent made clear) is absolutely wrong as well.
I just checked your post history, wtf are you even talking about? You just said that my test setup is flawed and not the TPUs and then you left the conversation. So what links and proofs are you talking about, lol
Also: you're wrong. Igor tests AM4 systems with PBO auto, inlcuding their 12400 "workstation" (CPU focused loads) review. Unless you're looking at the gaming review, which literally doesn't have any CPU-based power testing, only game testing? I mean ... I shouldn't have to tell you that to test CPU power consumption, you need some kind of controllable load, and that games are not this whatsoever. If you're looking at CPU efficiency, you need to run CPU tests to do so. That doesn't render the gaming tests invalid, but they have too many variables to pin-point the exact reasons for the specific power consumption - is the workload CPU or GPU bound, is there a GPU driver issue loading or keeping the CPU idle or other driver overhead that differs between CPU architecutres, does the game behave differently on AMD or Intel CPUs, does the game run at a higher FPS on one, requiring more CPU power to keep up, etc. You can't control for this in a game - there are too many variables - which means you can't actually test for anything resembling CPU architectural efficiency in games. Really? As you have said time and time again: there are tons of benchmarks out there. So far I've only seen Cinebench from you? You seem to have the time and resources to do at least some benchmarking, so I'd recommend diversifying that workload a bit.