ARFWell, in the case of the AMD IHS, it has been proved that it worsens the cooling capabilities. It is not an optimal solution and needs readjustments, and like mentioned above, not good for cooler change / thermal paste reapply.

ChaitanyaHopefully there will be boards this time around with decent PCIe slot config not the current crappy offerings.

AGlezBI don't think I've ever seen another IHS with some many nooks and crannies still don't know why they designed it like that.

AGlezBDo you really think the only way to design the CPU was the one that required the IHS to have a complex shape?

TomorrowIm hoping for finally dual DIMM boards not these pointless quad DIMM boards. DDR5 standard size is 16GB so most people can get 32GB easily even with two slots (96GB with 48GB DIMM's) but manufacturers insist on putting four slots on every board. And franky let them do it for what i care. Just give same decent memory OC focused boards with two slots. Especially ATX ,not sized down ITX.

AusWolfIn my opinion, it's the offset compute die location combined with its huge thermal density that causes most of the heat issues.

WirkoAs @SL2 said, the CPU would otherwise have to be larger. Larger substrate and larger socket translate to higher price. The IHS, on the other hand, is still a stamped piece of metal. It's not like the "nooks and crannies" are CNC-milled.

ChaitanyaThere also are 64GB modules on the way so with dual slot boards you can get 128GB of RAM. MSI used to offer non overclocking board with 2 RAM slots but seems like they have vanished in recent times.

TomorrowIm hoping for finally dual DIMM boards not these pointless quad DIMM boards. DDR5 standard size is 16GB so most people can get 32GB easily even with two slots (96GB with 48GB DIMM's) but manufacturers insist on putting four slots on every board. And franky let them do it for what i care. Just give same decent memory OC focused boards with two slots. Especially ATX ,not sized down ITX.

DavenMaking changes on the socket side must haven been a no go.

DavenTo save production costs, as much material as possible was removed while minimizing structural and thermal integrity loss.

DavenAMD had to increase the z-height of the IHS to maintain cooler compatibility. Making changes on the socket side must haven been a no go. To save production costs, as much material as possible was removed while minimizing structural and thermal integrity loss. The ‘nooks and grannies’ IHS design was the result. Those with $100 plus CPU cooling solutions are grateful.

kondaminWhy? having 4 slots allows you to just buy a second set of ram when the initial amount is no longer enough without you having to get rid of your first set.

I get by with 32GB right now, but I imagine that by this time next year and some windows updates I'll have to add 32 more to keep my current comfort

kondaminWhy? having 4 slots allows you to just buy a second set of ram when the initial amount is no longer enough without you having to get rid of your first set.

I get by with 32GB right now, but I imagine that by this time next year and some windows updates I'll have to add 32 more to keep my current comfort

JWNoctisThere were stories of how there was supposed to be a vapour chamber in that thick IHS, which got dropped due to cost concerns and lack of efficiency, supposedly in low single digit celsius.

If only they had retained that, for Ryzen 9 79xx and maybe the X3D at least.


Getting to 6000MT/s or even 5000+MT/s is very difficult, if not impossible with 4 slots populated, it seems. The officially supported number for Zen 4 is DDR5-3600, and motherboards go up to 5000+ or thereabouts.

SL2I dunno. Offset mounting lowers the temperature with < 3° C, that's nothing, and the chiplets has been there for five years now.

Take a 3950X, a 5950X, and a 7950X and set them at the same W usage with the same cooler and stress test them. I'm pretty sure the 7950X will be the hottest one.

It's nothing wrong with the irregular lid shape, it's the lid thickness that causes the high temperature, together with clock frequency changing with cooling capacity.

I still don't know why it's so thick. I mean, I know AMD wanted to keep cooler compatibility, but why isn't the socket taller instead?

AusWolfEdit: If the IHS really was an issue, then...
1. it probably would be at low loads as well, and
2. you wouldn't see your CPU cool back to idle temps basically immediately after a heavy workload finished. Heat would be retained in it as it is not conducted to your cooler by theory.

SL2The thick lid acts as a bottleneck only when running the CPU at full load. I think it has to be way thicker to act like you suggest.

All I know is that when Der Bauer delidded a 7900X it dropped over 20° C in CBench, and when he did the same with the 14900K it dropped 10°.
Yes, apples to oranges, and only one CPU of each, but 20+ degrees from delidding is extreme, and AFAIK not a common thing.

dgianstefaniThis is not a DIMM slot issue it's an IO die/IF issue. The chiplet design limits interconnect speed somewhat. Hence why IF speed is still around 2000 MHz on Zen 4, which was also achieved on Zen 3, but DDR speed has gone from 3800/4000 MT to around 6000 MT or 3000 MHz. So the ratio is no longer 1:1.

On Intel motherboards it's true that 1DPC boards overclock much better than 2DPC boards, but I don't think the effect is as pronounced on AMD.

I solved the poor IHS issue by delidding and replacing the socket retaining mechanism and IHS with the upgrade heatspreader from Thermal Grizzly, much better surface area and performance. This is likely too extreme for most though.

The effort and cost mitigated by the looks and performance though.

starfalsSadly as cool as this new stuff will be, i just got a 7800X3D, so im probably good until 2027-8. Oh well, End of july is my birthday ;p

dgianstefaniUnfortunately, the bottleneck is at all levels of load. Hence why a ~50-70 W X3D chip can still touch 89 C at stock

dgianstefani... and can idle in the 60s even on good cooling, depending on silicon lottery.

AusWolfMine runs at 82-83 °C max in Cinebench at 80-85 W under a Dark Rock 4.


What? Mine idles in the low 40s with the aforementioned relatively affordable single-fan single tower.

dgianstefaniDepends on if you have certain power saving features enabled. I lock IF clocks to prevent the sleep bug and clock variation instability. Other low power states/efficiency features are fine though.
Still, low 40s vs low 20s indicates a problem with the IHS.

dgianstefani80 C on a 80 W part under a good air cooler isn't good. It's not terrible, but it's not good.

dgianstefaniUnfortunately, the bottleneck is at all levels of load. Hence why a ~50-70 W X3D chip can still touch 89 C at stock and can idle in the 60s even on good cooling, depending on silicon lottery.

dgianstefaniIf you check out TPU cooler reviews, AMD chips typically have a tested cooler topping out at around 225 W before throttling, while Intel tests can push almost 300 W on the same cooler, and why the 7950X runs hotter than a 14900K, which uses more power on average.

AusWolfSleep bug? Clock variation instability? I probably skipped a few articles recently, but I've never heard of these.

Low 40s vs 20s mostly indicates a 20-25 W idle vs a 2-5 W one. This is what AMD needs to get right in future generations first and foremost, imo.


Yep, agreed. As we keep shrinking our dies, it's only gonna get worse, I'm afraid.

Minus InfinityYou will be disappointed then. 6 months later, so Q1 2025.


If rumours are true, the regular Zen 5 is faster in gaming than Zen 4 X3D. Not sure how believable that is, but I'm expecting Zen 5 to be very strong as it's a large architectural change over Zen 4, just not on the IO. One AMD source once said it's like a Zen 2 -> Zen 3 upgrade in performance. We shall see.