Friday, September 9th 2022
Core Performance Boost Contributes 14% to Ryzen 5 7600X Cinebench R23 Score
AMD Ryzen 5 7600X "Zen 4" 6-core/12-thread processor is shaping up to be a speed-demon for purely gaming builds, with the company claiming higher gaming performance than Intel current flagship Core i9-12900K. A combination of high clock speeds (4.70 GHz nominal, 5.30 GHz max boost), high power limits from 105 W TDP (130 W limit), the "Zen 4" IPC, and the fact that all that power headroom is available to just 6 cores, means that the chip is able to sustain boost frequencies better. But what when Core Performance Boost (CPB) is disabled? VideoCardz scored screenshots of a Cinebench R23 run to answer just that.
With CPB disabled (in the motherboard BIOS), the Ryzen 5 7600X scores 1681 points in the single-threaded test, and 13003 points in the multi-threaded one. With CPB enabled (which is the default setting), the 7600X bags 1920 points single-threaded, and 14767 points multi-threaded, which is a 14% performance increase just from the processor's boosting algo. Disabling CPB is generally seen as a silver-bullet against high temperatures for AMD processors, and even here, we see the chip running under 60°C, and pulling 60.2 W peak, as measured by HWinfo; whereas with CPB enabled, the chip can run as hot as 92.1°C, pulling up to 110 W, pushing clock speeds up to 4.45 GHz.
Source:
VideoCardz
With CPB disabled (in the motherboard BIOS), the Ryzen 5 7600X scores 1681 points in the single-threaded test, and 13003 points in the multi-threaded one. With CPB enabled (which is the default setting), the 7600X bags 1920 points single-threaded, and 14767 points multi-threaded, which is a 14% performance increase just from the processor's boosting algo. Disabling CPB is generally seen as a silver-bullet against high temperatures for AMD processors, and even here, we see the chip running under 60°C, and pulling 60.2 W peak, as measured by HWinfo; whereas with CPB enabled, the chip can run as hot as 92.1°C, pulling up to 110 W, pushing clock speeds up to 4.45 GHz.
116 Comments on Core Performance Boost Contributes 14% to Ryzen 5 7600X Cinebench R23 Score
And of corse stays cooler, arround 80C.
Truth is, true, we all win, as both Intel and AMD have interesting and powerful CPU's out now(or soon) who cares if they run a bit hotter, get better cooling for your high end CPU. £400+ CPU/£100 or less cooler, yeah, expensive CPPU cheap out on the cooler. My custom loop cost £600, guess what, i have no trouble cooling any CPU, and with just a CPU block change, i can switch it from AMD to Intel and vice versa.
From the horses mouth Intel now a amd fanboy :laugh:www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/intel-expects-to-lose-more-market-share-to-reconsider-exiting-other-businesses.298712/
Sure
www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/intel-expects-to-lose-more-market-share-to-reconsider-exiting-other-businesses.298712/
Let's wait & see what propper BIOS tinkering, undervolting & adding EXPO RAM can achieve. Maybe the 7600 non X will be the better pick.
If you run a CPU heatsink on CPU temperature, you will have to have the maximum fan speed at those temps (90+ °C). Those temperature matter a bit more with those kind of fans, Even more if they get loud quickly. (Or if the motherboard is a bit too intense on varying the speed).
With an AIO, the water just settle at a some temperature after some time and the fans speed can vary very slowly.
Remember i have 6 120mm fans on two 360 radiators, so they can run very slow and quiet without really compromising the cooling.
Taking my time and buying piece by piece in order to have a completely separate PC in the end. This is really captivating. I know some people don't like that but researching and building new PC is just so fun for me.
But right now i have a 360 AIO and i have plugged a fan hub on it so that all my fans are controlled with water temp. Thing stay very quiet like that and fan speed raise very slowly and smoothly.
The R5 3600 was a problem not because it was hungry, but because it couldn't dissipate its heat in a small case with limited airflow, while the i7 11700 can. The 3600 got to 90 °C at around 80 W, which is not even the default power limit (it's 88 W - read about PPT). The 11700 needed 130 W to reach that temperature with the same cooler.
If you still don't get it, I don't know how else you would.
The amount of heat you can x-fer, all else being equal, is going to be directly proportional to the surface area you have to transfer it through. I couldn't find the actual numbers on a quick search, but from visuals Intel's LGA 1700 chips have probably 1/3 to 1/2 more surface area for the IHS. This means they can transfer 1/3 to 1/2 more 'power' as heat provided the cooling solution can dissipate it.
Having a larger IHS just for the sake of having one is not going to help it dissipate any quicker.
I know its called an IHS, but really its there so people don't crush their cores when mounting up.
Think about the logical conclusion of what you just said. Can you transfer just as much heat through 1 square millimeter as 100 square millimeters?
Well yes you can - all else being equal, the temperature difference between the two surfaces would need to be 100 times greater to transfer the same heat.
Q = h A ΔT
Q = the rate of heat transfer
h = convection heat transfer coefficient
A = the exposed surface area, and
ΔT = the difference in temperature
Not sure where this silver bullet idea comes from. Literally nobody does this. You don't buy a 12700K to run it at 3.6GHz either.
All I see here is that the aggressive power limiting and undervolting practices for 5800X and 5800X3D are about to become the inevitable norm, for all Zen 4 owners.
AMD is clearly pushing the envelope of N5 hard. 4.7GHz for 1681pt is an appreciable step up in IPC but not much at all over Zen 3 (~4.85GHz for 1600pt), although the temps and power are an impressive demonstration of V-F curve on N5 (I/O die and Fabric still take a chunk of power, out of the Package Power). Doesn't sound like AGESA is ready yet.
They still are relying on pushing clockspeed to get the performance they want. Every time they've done this, the launch processors don't clock up to expectations. Hopefully not the case this time.
Thermal storage is a good thing to an extent, it gives the cooler additional time to transfer and dissipate heat.
The problem is the storage capability of a 40mm square IHS plate is not that large.
Thermal paste slows the transfer a lot though.
Direct die cooling doesn't seem effective because of the slow transfer of thermal pastes. So LM is a thing, just as good as solder, but there are risks involved, such as the delid it's self and of course LM spillage.
At this point the cooler is the heat spreader. The die surface area doesn't change though, the draw back of processors, the small die area.
Even still, in my opinion, current IHS plates are 2 times too small to actually be effective in a positive manner.
I can exemplify this with past TEC cooling experiments where I'm trying to transfer cold thermals to the cpu rather than remove thermals from the cpu. The plate I had to use is almost 3 times the size of an IHS plate and stores quite a bit more btus.