Wednesday, August 24th 2022
![AMD](https://tpucdn.com/images/news/amd-v1723816949774.png)
AMD Ryzen 7 7700X "Zen 4" Cinebench R20 Score Leaked
The Cinebench R20 score of an AMD Ryzen 7 7700X "Zen 4" processor (possibly engineering sample), was allegedly leaked to the web by "Extreme Player Hall," a video-format tech news published on Bili Bili, as discovered by 9550pro on Twitter. The 8-core/16-thread processor was shown scoring 773 points in the single-thread test, and 7701 points in the multi-threaded one. These numbers put it 25-30 percent faster than the current Ryzen 7 5800X, as pointed out by Greymon55. The multi-threaded performance of this chip is roughly on par with that of the 5900X, which means AMD is overcoming a 50% CPU core-deficit on the backs of higher IPC and memory bandwidth.
The 25% single-core performance gain over the 5800X, if extrapolated to other less-parallized workloads such as gaming, could put this processor about 5-10% ahead of the 5800X3D, and about 4-9% ahead of the Core i9-12900K. The 7700X could face an uphill task measuring up to "Raptor Lake" in multi-threaded tests, given that Intel is doubling down on its Hybrid Architecture, with more E-cores across the lineup. AMD may still have a crack at matching Raptor Lake's gaming performance with future variants that have 3DV Cache.
Sources:
Extreme Player (Bili Bili), HXL (Twitter)
The 25% single-core performance gain over the 5800X, if extrapolated to other less-parallized workloads such as gaming, could put this processor about 5-10% ahead of the 5800X3D, and about 4-9% ahead of the Core i9-12900K. The 7700X could face an uphill task measuring up to "Raptor Lake" in multi-threaded tests, given that Intel is doubling down on its Hybrid Architecture, with more E-cores across the lineup. AMD may still have a crack at matching Raptor Lake's gaming performance with future variants that have 3DV Cache.
44 Comments on AMD Ryzen 7 7700X "Zen 4" Cinebench R20 Score Leaked
Intel supposedly has some too, but with the opposite cause - they added more E cores, instead of faster with less
Im going to go cry now, you definitely defended AMD's honor good job. I'll let Lisa know you're the best AMD fan out there. Maybe you can get a sticker.
13900KS $799 (+$60)
13900K $649 (+$60)
13700K $459 (+$50)
13600K $319 (+$30)
13400. $219 (+$27)
With these prices AMD just can't compete with the Zen3 era margins/SRPs.
Regarding Alder Lake's margins I won't even comment...
Maybe AMD will attempt to price them high, but probably within one month from Raptor's Lake launch there will be a correction regarding street prices.
We will see!
As one person put it. "I can buy a quality Intel CPU and motherboard and be of equal performance and cost less than AMD has.
You are going to get screwed over by AMD's motherboard prices. Again from what I heard DOUBLE the price on most motherboards.
If that is true then I'll go the Intel Route.
I'm not a AMD fanboi. Nor an Intel one as well.
I go for the best bang for the buck. If AMD is going to screw me over on the cost of the mother board, I'll take my money, like many that will and buy something else.
So for them it’s always intel vs AMD with same performance but cheaper.
@phanbuey I'm sure its powerful and not an issue at all for most tasks, but theres no way at 5.2GHz that it fits the definition of "efficient" which is what this seems to be about
The only thing seperating it from a 12900K is two P cores, so its power consumption simply isn't that much lower
Single threaded, or the stock 125W power limit and it's certainly efficient enough - but not with an all core OC, the moment the thread counts go up in applications that performance comes at a wattage cost that just destroys the efficiency.
TPU's review only did 4.9GHz and it added 100W over stock
And uhh... it didn't do so hot, this is the chart you want to be at the bottom of, not the top.
TPU did run at 1.45V to achieve this, so your specs claimed 1.235v should be significantly better - but i cant find reports of anyone else achieving that speed at less than 1.35v, with most needing 1.35v+ to even reach 5GHz.
If you do have a golden chip, that explains your love for it and efficiency claims - but anything other than that and you have one of the least energy efficient CPU's in existence :/
This is why people argue and it turns into fanboy wars.
If anyone is going to comment in a news thread about your superior hardware, post some screenshots and proof or it will only be interpreted as fanboyism or trolling. Show HWinfo64 with the wattages and clock speeds to backup the claims, otherwise we have to google and hunt down info and no one's gunna believe it.
They've got great ST performance, and they can have great MT performance - but it's a direct choice between that performance, or the power efficiency as it's not possible to have both at the same time.
Why would anybody want that.
I get 50MHz less from my 3090 with 110W less power consumption by undervolting it.
I've got a 3090 and top tier gaming PC that doesn't even use 300W of power.
Why would I ever, ever consider making it use more power for no performance gains?
Heres 4K 140FPS gaming, DX12 - Unreal engine 4 specifically
No specs hidden or misleading information, it's a 3090 at 1.7GHz and a 5800x at 4.6GHz
And it uses 400W, with two monitors connected to that UPS.
GPU and CPU run under 40C and 60C, silently, always.
Am i meant to think my GPU wattage is a score? Do i need to crank this to the stock 375W to enjoy it?
Oh no, 6% more performance for 46% more wattage, how will i ever sleep at night
Especially with my 99% minimum FPS dropping... oh no, wait it's higher underclocked since the boost algorithm runs into TDP throttles. Nevermind.
It also gets worse as time goes on and the GPU heats up, this is custom loop with an active backplate with 15C ambients - they dont sustain those clocks at all on air, or in summer.
You have undervolted your 3090, how many 3090 user you think have done the same. Some people throw money at their rig to have a high end rig to show off on their favourite forum without a care for how much it uses.
By hunting power i did not mean watts, but i guess you did not get my meaning, i meant performance. You really thought i meant power as in watts?
I get wanting as much performance as possible with as little power. My point was trying to be that most high end components are not really designed to be efficient, but i guess belittling my post was more important to you. Guess you ignored this-I do get the wanting a powerful rig without the massive power use.
Slowly but surely this turns out the same as nvidia did after the 9xx series, which raised the price to get the expected improvements.
Totally off topic but here's some efficiency numbers for this sample:
Thread based boost is a lie | TechPowerUp Forums
By the way the difference between a 4.9Ghz uv and 5.2Ghz OC performance wise is not noticeable in real life. ADL, like your 3090, undervolts great and you lose very little performance per watt (I also undervolt my 3080 because that extra 50% power consumption for nothing makes no sense) :toast:
Overclocking is for low end hardware to get more performance. High end hardware has no headroom, you undervolt or throw power at nothing.