Thursday, August 4th 2022
![AMD](https://tpucdn.com/images/news/amd-v1723816949774.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
I mean at this point im not sure, are we past the point of debating whether tpus review is wrong? Cause it absolutely is and if we can't even agree with that then this is all pointless.
Yes igors tested with pbo auto but in the case of the 5600x it reported a total package power of 90w, which if im not mistaken is the default PPT of the cpu, right? So it was basically running stock afaik. So the efficiency comparison between these 2 cpus (12400 and 5600x) were valid (assuming, again, the default ppt of 5600x is 90). The rest werent, thats why i didnt use them as a comparison point, a thing you have now accused me 3 times, claiming im lying when im absolutely not.
If you still wish to keep talking about how great 12900K and other Intel products are, or maybe specifically about the issues you have with W1zzard's review make a separate thread and stop flooding this, AMD 7000 series CPUs with your Intel stuff over and over since this is getting really annoying. You are in literally every AMD CPU related thread talking about how great Intel 12th gen is.
When i have 3 4 people quoting me, you dont expect me to reply?
b) I'm a tad dubious about those Club386 numbers simply because of the test setup: they don't differentiate between PL1 and PL2, instead just talking about "TDP" across all platforms, which makes it impossible to know what the actual settings are. That doesn't mean their numbers are wrong, it just means I don't know the power level they were actually achieved at.
There's also the issue of your consistent denial towards there being any kind of issue with extrapolating MSDT GC performance into your theoretical 16c CPU, despite the indisputable fact that this would necessitate major reconfigurations of its internal fabric and other aspects crucial to performance. I've accepted long ago - explicitly, in posts directed at you - that there might be something wrong with that testing. The problem is, until we know what went wrong and how, and have equally stringently tested data saying otherwise, we're none the wiser. And sadly the reviews you've linked showing different results are much less thorough, or have issues of their own - the Club386 thing above, Igor's Lab running AM4 with an auto OC. The Techspot 12700 review has the same issue as Club386 - I love that they test at both "unlimited" (their board's stock behaviour) and "65" settings, but ... what are those 65W? PL1? PL2? What's Tau set to? Without detailing this, the data becomes a lot more murky.
Test methodology is crucial, and presenting that methodology clearly and with the necessary level of detail can make or break the quality of the conclusions derived from testing. There's a reason why everyone isn't a hardware reviewer: it's difficult, and takes a lot of care and attention, as well as the development of a mode of presentation that maintains this data while still making it readable and understandable to the audience. That's hard. No. PBO boosts all cores higher than stock, pushing voltages and thus core power higher than stock. I've shown above from my own testing how letting Zen3 boost too aggressively will hurt performance, tanking efficiency. Why? Because it doesn't scale higher in terms of clocks, but in terms of thermals it can take more power if you'll let it - you just get nothing in return. That's why you don't test with an auto OC mode enabled.
As for lying: you literally said "I don't use Igor's Lab for efficiency comparisons", then admitted in the next sentence that you had indeed done so. And this is the core of the problem here: you don't consider your words before posting. Heck, I'm not necessarily sure that you're entirely wrong about things here, but you seem fundamentally unable to present things in a reasonable, measured, well-supported way, instead blurting out grandiose statements that you then have to walk back when challenged. Your way of discussing forces people to constantly be correcting you or desperately try to shove some nuance back into your simplifications, which is why we're in this quasi-hostile mode of discussing in the first place. Things would get a lot, lot better if you took some more care with how you phrased things, thought things through a bit more, corroborated your statements with data or sources consistently, and made nuanced arguments rather than black-and-white statements.
I dont see anything wrong with igorslab review either. Yes zen were run with pbo but that's irrelevant, what matters is the 12900k perfromance at 125w. Since in the blender test it matches a pboed 5900x and slaps the 12600k, there is no way in cbr23 it gets matched by the 12600k.
Club365 used xtu to power limit, they even have a picture of their settings in the first page. And since the numbers perfectly match the ones i observed with 3 cpus tested witb 4 different motherboards, i have no reason to doubt them. The cpu is running at 4.3 ghz for the pcores
www.club386.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Power-Limiting1-1068x530.jpg
Today im back, i can show you the 29900 score and all that, but i find it irrelevant cause, how can i show you im running a u12a? I might as well have a custom loop for all you know.
Regarding what went wrong with tpu, fixed voltage is by far the most likely explanation. Msi boards are quite reknown (mine included) for doing shaenaningans, although he uses an asus hero, and as far as my experience with the asus apex goes, it wasnt doing any weird stuff when plimited,but who knows, maybe the hero does.
What i find really weird is how he himself didnt get puzzled with the results. That's by far my biggest surprise.
Respect a subject of a conversation in a thread. Fairly simple.
That's in "Handbrake power efficiency - x264 renders per hour"
as well as "Handbrake power efficiency - x265 renders per hour"
Here is in the "blender bmw27 power efficiency". Compare the y-axis height of these pairs (12900k vs 5950x) (12700k vs 5900x) (12600k vs 5800x).
Only 12600k beats 5800x in efficiency, other pairs lose by a big margin. This shows both the strengths of 12600k (sweet spot with P cores) and weakness of 5800x (bad energy efficiency compared to the rest of the zen 3 lineup).
as well as the "blender koro power efficiency".
Pretty much the same thing continues as in previous example. In this example 12600k does consume a little less power at the expense of being a little slower than 5800x, which puts their efficiency at about the same level or slightly in 12600k's favour.
Needless to say, in those first 2 examples 5950x (best amd's zen3 efficiency processor) compared to 12900k (one of the worst intel's 12th gen efficiency processor), it comes out with 50% better efficiency.
And this is as you say in the Tom's hardware's own benchmark which supposedly is making fun of TPU's benchmark results.
I'd advise you to put your money where your mouth is. Look at the benchmarks of the site you were citing before making such claims. This site (Tom's review) gave exactly the different results to what you were saying it did.
I never - ever - ever - ever - EVER - EVER EVER suggested that the 12900k at stock is more efficient than the the 12600k or the 5950x in MT workloads. Ever. Never ever. Actually, quite the contrary, I've said multiple times that at stock power limits it's extremely inefficient in these MT workloads. If you understood something different then the problem lies with you
Either way case is closed. If you really wanna talk about 12th gen Intel please make your own thread.
Either way.
I think 7000 series AMD will top the charts with the frequency 5.7Ghz if true. that is a substantial bump.
It's not more efficient at any wattage.
It's mostly less efficient at any wattage, and in some biased scenarios specifically Intel's Alder Lake undervolted and underclocked vs stock zen3 with PBO on, then intel's AL is more efficient than zen 3.
Then again, that's not really a fair comparison, as zen 3 can also be undervolted and underclocked, which still results in AL being less efficient, which corresponds to the stock values as well.
I have a Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-9980HK CPU on my work Macbook and a Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-12700H CPU in my work Dell XPS laptop.
One is running a Mac OS and the other a Ubuntu linux, so sadly I cant post any scores. Also these being laptop CPUs and as such not comparable to the desktop counterparts.
www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/cinebench-r23-efficiency-race.297551/#post-4811927
Stock for stock, zen 3 in this review is about 50% more efficient than Alder Lake which is consistent with the other reviews (TPU and Tom's).
Which pretty much show exactly the opposite of what you have been claiming this whole time.
All I care is bang for the buck, and lately (last few years) this has been sometimes in AMD's favour, sometimes in Intel's favour. This: