8381 / 774 = 10.82
That is some serious HT performance increase
Previous gen 5800x is like 10.1 in ST to MT ratio

Something funky about this wording:

"The submission includes a CPU-Z Bench run for the processor, which puts the single-threaded performance at 774 points, and the multi-threaded performance of the 8-core/16-thread processor at 8381 points. The single-threaded performance is around 20% higher than that of the previous-gen flagship Ryzen 9 5950X, and about 1% faster than the Core i9-12900K ("Golden Cove" P-core)."

but also:


It gets destroyed in CPU-z ST by alder lake. Did you mean 1% faster in ST in geekbench? That 16 thread comparison is misleading - ADL has 20 threads on the 12700K and gets around 9.4k in MT. - it beats it in both ST and MT. Dividing the MT score by 16 in this case doesn't really work -- that's why you have an ST portion of the bench.

If it's 7700x 5.4Ghz all core boost against 12700k base capped to 16T then yeah, maybe, but that's kind of misleading since you're purposely ignoring the ST score to divide it out on the MT side against a higher thread count part running on partial threads but at low boost.

With higher CPU prices, much, much higher motherboard prices, and expensive "optimal" DDR5, this is actually underwhelming. I don't think many Ryzen 5000 buyers will be tempted to upgrade. Especially if the gaming benchmarks trail behind 5800X3D, or just match it.

BwazeWith higher CPU prices, much, much higher motherboard prices, and expensive "optimal" DDR5, this is actually underwhelming. I don't think many Ryzen 5000 buyers will be tempted to upgrade. Especially if the gaming benchmarks trail behind 5800X3D, or just match it.

True prices will be high. I'm actually more interested in what RDNA 3 is going to do I would considering upgrading to that this year. And then look at Zen 4 again after the X3D model launch. Looking forward to the reviews and to see many different workloads tested in the next few weeks.

BwazeWith higher CPU prices, much, much higher motherboard prices, and expensive "optimal" DDR5, this is actually underwhelming. I don't think many Ryzen 5000 buyers will be tempted to upgrade. Especially if the gaming benchmarks trail behind 5800X3D, or just match it.

7900x3d is the real part to wait for, I would bet money these won't beat the 5800x3d.

phanbueySomething funky about this wording:

"The submission includes a CPU-Z Bench run for the processor, which puts the single-threaded performance at 774 points, and the multi-threaded performance of the 8-core/16-thread processor at 8381 points. The single-threaded performance is around 20% higher than that of the previous-gen flagship Ryzen 9 5950X, and about 1% faster than the Core i9-12900K ("Golden Cove" P-core)."

but also:

It gets destroyed in CPU-z ST by alder lake. Did you mean 1% faster in ST in geekbench? That 16 thread comparison is misleading - ADL has 20 threads on the 12700K and gets around 9.4k in MT. - it beats it in both ST and MT. Dividing the MT score by 16 in this case doesn't really work -- that's why you have an ST portion of the bench.

If it's 7700x 5.4Ghz all core boost against 12700k base capped to 16T then yeah, maybe, but that's kind of misleading since you're purposely ignoring the ST score to divide it out on the MT side against a higher thread count part running on partial threads but at low boost.

I think the test was deliberately comparing 1T and 16T to check their HT behaviour.
As you can see in the test
7700X = 774 / 8381 = 10.83
12900K = 817 / 8279 = 10.13

So it is either the Zen4 CPUs have a very highly boost HT performance vs AlderLake P-core
or something is wrong in CPU-Z test.

phanbuey7900x3d is the real part to wait for, I would bet money these won't beat the 5800x3d.

There are reports that Ryzen 7000 run extremely hot on stock settings, even with adequate cooling they boost right up to 95 degrees C. Could that be a problem for integrating 3D cache?

We know 5800X3D had much lower boost clocks, and actually lost to regular 5800X in non-cache sensitive workloads. And 5800X wasn't that hard to cool, until they glued a layer of cache on it. Could this be a problem for Zen 7000 3D cache parts?

phanbueySomething funky about this wording:

"The submission includes a CPU-Z Bench run for the processor, which puts the single-threaded performance at 774 points, and the multi-threaded performance of the 8-core/16-thread processor at 8381 points. The single-threaded performance is around 20% higher than that of the previous-gen flagship Ryzen 9 5950X, and about 1% faster than the Core i9-12900K ("Golden Cove" P-core)."

but also:


It gets destroyed in CPU-z ST by alder lake. Did you mean 1% faster in ST in geekbench? That 16 thread comparison is misleading - ADL has 20 threads on the 12700K and gets around 9.4k in MT. - it beats it in both ST and MT. Dividing the MT score by 16 in this case doesn't really work -- that's why you have an ST portion of the bench.

If it's 7700x 5.4Ghz all core boost against 12700k base capped to 16T then yeah, maybe, but that's kind of misleading since you're purposely ignoring the ST score to divide it out on the MT side against a higher thread count part running on partial threads but at low boost.

Above all, the article misplaces the market segment of this SKU. It reads that 7700X "launches in the same market segment as the i7-12700K". This is silly. The market segment for 7700X is 13600K. The market segment for 7900X is 13700K and the market segment for 7950X is 13900K. Could tech journalists get this right finally?

Tek-CheckAbove all, the article misplaces the market segment of this SKU. It reads that 7700X "launches in the same market segment as the i7-12700K". This is silly. The market segment for 7700X is 13600K. The market segment for 7900X is 13700K and the market segment fir 7950X is 13900K. Couyld tech journalists get this right finally?

The 7700x is more expensive than the 13600k, so why do you think they are in the same market segment

Tek-CheckAbove all, the article misplaces the market segment of this SKU. It reads that 7700X "launches in the same market segment as the i7-12700K". This is silly. The market segment for 7700X is 13600K. The market segment for 7900X is 13700K and the market segment fir 7950X is 13900K. Couyld tech journalists get this right finally?

fevgatosThe 7700x is more expensive than the 13600k, so why do you think they are in the same market segment

Depends on how the stack is priced, not the part number. Fact is, AMD does have sufficient tiers above it to place it there.

Tek-CheckAbove all, the article misplaces the market segment of this SKU. It reads that 7700X "launches in the same market segment as the i7-12700K". This is silly. The market segment for 7700X is 13600K. The market segment for 7900X is 13700K and the market segment fir 7950X is 13900K. Couyld tech journalists get this right finally?

You comper segments by $$$, not by cores/threds.
This is a very basic notion.

Dirt ChipYou comper segments by $$$, not by cores/threds.
This is a very basic notion.

True, but this will go badly for AMD as the 7700X will get trounced by the 13700K in most cases and needs to be priced closer to the 13600K as the RL cpus have moved up a tier essentially. 13700K is a higher clocked 12900K with more cache and enhanced P and E cores.

If and when it will happen then comper it to 13600k, not before...

AMD will not reduce it's top cpu price so fast.

fevgatosThe 7700x is more expensive than the 13600k, so why do you think they are in the same market segment

An option for that is that one is being offended that the amd cpu is slower than it's same tier competitor, so he try to find a way around it.

fevgatosThe 7700x is more expensive than the 13600k, so why do you think they are in the same market segment

Did Intel reveal the pricing of Raptor Lake already? Or are we taking i5 12600K as an indication of potential 13600K pricing? As far I recall, Intel wants to increase prices in Q4 this year, though I am not sure if they can do that aggressively since AMD seems to be deliberately making it difficult for them.

I don't deny that it makes sense to tier them based on pricing, but I don't believe Intel designed the i5 12600K or even the 13600K to compete with the Ryzen 5, when you factor in the core count deficit. Again the design of the i7 12700K and i9 12900K is really meant to compete with the top 2 Ryzen chips, which are the x900 and x950 series. Otherwise, I cannot think of the Intel equivalent of the Ryzen 9 5900X/ 7900X.

watzupkenDid Intel reveal the pricing of Raptor Lake already? Or are we taking i5 12600K as an indication of potential 13600K pricing? As far I recall, Intel wants to increase prices in Q4 this year, though I am not sure if they can do that aggressively since AMD seems to be deliberately making it difficult for them.

No they didn't reveal the pricing but there is no way in hell the i5 is hitting 400 msrp

BwazeWith higher CPU prices, much, much higher motherboard prices, and expensive "optimal" DDR5, this is actually underwhelming. I don't think many Ryzen 5000 buyers will be tempted to upgrade. Especially if the gaming benchmarks trail behind 5800X3D, or just match it.

No sane person should upgrade every generation to begin with.

So real IPC uplift is between 0 and 20%?
CPUZ is known to break with L2 changes and Geekbench is known to favor memory performance
Nice "leak" AMD

marios15So real IPC uplift is between 0 and 20%?
CPUZ is known to break with L2 changes and Geekbench is known to favor memory performance
Nice "leak" AMD

1-39% based on the launch slides ;)

That Geekbench result could've been higher if only two RAM sticks were used. As it is already mentioned, AMD CPU slows down the speed of 4 RAM sticks considerably.
Knowing that Geekbench likes fast memory, the real result could be even higher.

These new CPU seems to get higher in temp, mostly because of the much higher silicon density. This will be a problem that needs to be solved with a cooling solution specifically made for this type of CPUs.
Intel might get in the same trouble.

AMD is not covering the lower price segment and that could be a bad thing from a marketing point of view. Maybe AMD wants first to sell what is left from AM4. Because let's be honest, they are still good CPUs, not future proof, but still good for the next 2.4 years. Same for Intel 12th generation.

As for myself, I am planning to get something new in 2024, by that time things will be clearer, the revisions will come, or even the next series. Made a mistake when went with TR 1950x (it got old very fast), but I still can do my job in great comfort, do not need to think about how many applications are open, and just have a blast. I am staying with AMD, as supporting them does not mean getting way worse hardware (compared to like 6-7 years ago).

By the way, there is one result on Userbenchmark for AMD 7600x. It is interesting:

cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-12900K-vs-AMD-Advanced-Marketing-Devices-7600X/4118vsm1898605

CapNemo72[snip]

All platforms spec a lower RAM speed with four sticks populated. It's not unique to AMD or even just Zen 4, and it doesn't actually mean anything for the RAM speeds actually being run. I know of at least one X670E board with a kit on its QVL rated for 6000 MT/s on four DIMMs. Also, GB5 ST scores don't care about RAM speed at all. (I'm pretty sure this has already been covered in this thread.)

I could be wrong. I do not know.

Anyways, we will soon have a lot of benchmark data with many configurations to be able to have a better picture on all of this.

CapNemo72That Geekbench result could've been higher if only two RAM sticks were used. As it is already mentioned, AMD CPU slows down the speed of 4 RAM sticks considerably.
Knowing that Geekbench likes fast memory, the real result could be even higher.

These new CPU seems to get higher in temp, mostly because of the much higher silicon density. This will be a problem that needs to be solved with a cooling solution specifically made for this type of CPUs.
Intel might get in the same trouble.

AMD is not covering the lower price segment and that could be a bad thing from a AI marketing point of view. Maybe AMD wants first to sell what is left from AM4. Because let's be honest, they are still good CPUs, not future proof, but still good for the next 2.4 years. Same for Intel 12th generation.

As for myself, I am planning to get something new in 2024, by that time things will be clearer, the revisions will come, or even the next series. Made a mistake when went with TR 1950x (it got old very fast), but I still can do my job in great comfort, do not need to think about how many applications are open, and just have a blast. I am staying with AMD, as supporting them does not mean getting way worse hardware (compared to like 6-7 years ago).

By the way, there is one result on Userbenchmark for AMD 7600x. It is interesting:

cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-12900K-vs-AMD-Advanced-Marketing-Devices-7600X/4118vsm1898605

As a consumer, I appreciate AMD outperforming Intel in games. As an industry professional, I want to be able to purchase AMD machines that look like they belong in the business world for my employees and customers. I want to be able to buy AMD servers without having to worry about ignorant people thinking that AMD means there will be compatibility issues. I'm looking for simple, reliable black boxes - laptops and desktops - that don't scream 'I'm the cheaper version of an Intel equivalent.'

AMD is already well positioned to do well with gamers in the future. At this point, I would be almost entirely focused on improving my business image. I'd venture to guess Intel is assisting OEMs in selling the 'AMD is only for gaming' angle. It boggles my mind that the most productive HEDT processor in existence is only available from major OEMs as a gaming machine with over-the-top gaming styling (Alienware), which I'm sure even the most ardent gamers scoff at.

DavidSAs a consumer, I appreciate AMD outperforming Intel in games. As an industry professional, I want to be able to purchase AMD machines that look like they belong in the business world for my employees and customers. I want to be able to buy AMD servers without having to worry about ignorant people thinking that AMD means there will be compatibility issues. I'm looking for simple, reliable black boxes - laptops and desktops - that don't scream 'I'm the cheaper version of an Intel equivalent.'

AMD is already well positioned to do well with gamers in the future. At this point, I would be almost entirely focused on improving my business image. I'd venture to guess Intel is assisting OEMs in selling the 'AMD is only for gaming' angle. It boggles my mind that the most productive HEDT processor in existence is only available from major OEMs as a gaming machine with over-the-top gaming styling (Alienware), which I'm sure even the most ardent gamers scoff at.

Well, Intel is more likely to bully OEMs to not use AMD. Let's take Dell for example:
They do not have Threadripper workstation. They still have some old platform 5820 series instead. We went and are buying a custom-made PC with Threadripper.
We do have both Intel and AMD-based Dell servers, but the offer is like 80% on the Intel side.

I think no one acknowledges that if there was no AMD Zen family of CPUs, you would be getting very expensive (maybe 8 cores) CPUs from Intel.
The fact that we have such a great choice is thanks to AMD. Of course, they didn't do that because they simply love us and want to give us something for nothing.
But the reality is they did improve the average CPU performance on all levels including gaming and servers.
If we lose the competition in this field, we lose the leverage on both price and performance/price as customers. No one wants to come back to the monopoly of one company.
Do not believe? Ask how much is upgrade from 256Gb to 1Tb SSD on Apple laptop?

My usual choice is performance per USD IF the platform is stable for serious work and performance is actually useful.
At the moment AMD is more than covering this condition. With rising prices for energy, their chips will be even more important for data centers.
But the client needs to ask for a solution based on them, not just be passive. OEMs will figure it out, as, in the end, they all want to make more money. and have happy custoimers.

CapNemo72My usual choice is performance per USD IF the platform is stable for serious work and performance is actually useful.
At the moment AMD is more than covering this condition. With rising prices for energy, their chips will be even more important for data centers.
But the client needs to ask for a solution based on them, not just be passive. OEMs will figure it out, as, in the end, they all want to make more money. and have happy custoimers.

It's technically true if you go by after market prices. Not MSRP though.

CapNemo72I think no one acknowledges that if there was no AMD Zen family of CPUs, you would be getting very expensive (maybe 8 cores) CPUs from Intel.

WHAT? The only one that sells very expensive 8 core cpus is AMD themselves, lol. 400€ for an 8 core cpu in 2022-2023, yikes. Not only amd didn't increase core counts, they actually reduced the number of cores you get for your money. 300$ would you get an R7 with 8 cores back in 2017. Now you only get 6 :roll: :roll:

In the meanwhile, Intel is selling you 10 for less money :O