AMD Ryzen 7000 Series "Raphael" Processors to Come with up to 170 Watt TDP for 16-Core SKUs

[freeagent]

You can just use PBO to hit the high peepeetees

 

[PerfectWave]

HIGH TDP COS OF GPU?

 

[mechtech]

This does make sense IMO.

The 5950X and 3950X at work do seem seriously hampered by their 105W TDP. Realistically, my 5800X at home scales linearly with PPT from 85W up to about 125W before the diminishing returns kick in which means that a 5950X needs a 250W PPT, which translates to around an 185W TDP just to reach the sweet spot.

Our render nodes with the 16C chips use NH-U14 coolers and I set a manual PBO with a 200W PPT limit, and a 90C thermal throttle point. They are all temperature-limited and pull about 175W according to Ryzen Master when rendering on 32T.

Id take an 8c-16t cpu at 150W if it had a nice clocked RDNA2 with 1280 shaders Probably be bottle-necked but whatever. I will just wait for reviews, probably the same as now 65W and 105W 6/8 cores, so 170W 16 core doesn't seem far off at all, especially if an igpu is present.

 

[ModEl4]

170W TDP is kinda surprising for me, i was expecting no more than 150W.
Why the 12 core part has only 105W but the 16 core has 170W? Are there going to be 2 12core models and the 105W concerns the lower clocked one? or AMD is trying to artificially segment the gaming performance delta between the 12core and 16core parts (unlike 5950X vs 5900X) in order to push the demand of the 16core part to the gaming crowd and to also differentiate the gaming performance of Zen4 models in similar way Intel does it in order the product placement to be more in line with Intel competition regarding gaming performance deltas?

 

[user556]

What do you expect when reviewers put out headlines like 12900KF at 5.5 GHz crushes the 5950X at stock?

 

[johnspack]

not good enough... 32 cores and 280w tdp please.....

 

[Deleted member 24505]

not good enough... 32 cores and 280w tdp please.....

Soon my pretty.

 

[sillyconjunkie]

170W TDP is kinda surprising for me, i was expecting no more than 150W.
Why the 12 core part has only 105W but the 16 core has 170W? Are there going to be 2 12core models and the 105W concerns the lower clocked one?

Pretty sure the desktop parts, initially, are not going to have an iGPU.

My guess is the 16c part is going to have an updated scheduler and down-clocking to offer P & E core-like features. Something, something "power and efficiency in a single core" was mentioned.

If the scheduler is fast (needs to be), some funky stuff needs to happen on-package to address voltage changes on the cores. Too slow to change on the board so..

A core normally wants x voltage then the scheduler turns it into an "efficiency" core which only needs y voltage/clocks. The excess core voltage is still on-package. Long, efficiency runs could actually lead to a hotter cpu.

Has nothing to do with clock improvements. That's the uplift going from 7nm to 5nm on a solid design (ryzen) and process node (tsmc).

It's gonna be a little janky but I'm excited. 12 core parts won't have updated scheduler.

 

[ModEl4]

Pretty sure the desktop parts, initially, are not going to have an iGPU.

My guess is the 16c part is going to have an updated scheduler and down-clocking to offer P & E core-like features. Something, something "power and efficiency in a single core" was mentioned.

If the scheduler is fast (needs to be), some funky stuff needs to happen on-package to address voltage changes on the cores. Too slow to change on the board so..

A core normally wants x voltage then the scheduler turns it into an "efficiency" core which only needs y voltage/clocks. The excess core voltage is still on-package. Long, efficiency runs could actually lead to a hotter cpu.

Has nothing to do with clock improvements. That's the uplift going from 7nm to 5nm on a solid design (ryzen) and process node (tsmc).

It's gonna be a little janky but I'm excited. 12 core parts won't have updated scheduler.

I don't know, you may be right, but does it make sense what you suggesting?
I mean, since mobile is covered with Rembrandt and then supposedly it will be succeed with Phoenix, why does Raphael (which going to be AM5 only according to leaked roadmaps) needs to have advanced downclocking features and offer something like P & E cores? And why only on the 16core part like you suggesting?
Are they addressing only the miniscule $700-800 CPU market with these efficiency features? (Which is the only market that probably will not care about advanced downclocking features) also how someone is going to see value vs i9 13900K at 170W with advanced downclocking features and someone else isn't going to see value for the 12core 105W part vs i7 13700K? (as far as value affected from energy efficiency-consumption characteristics)

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

I wonder how will it perform against the 12900K? That should be an interesting one.

 

[Melvis]

not good enough... 32 cores and 280w tdp please.....

Intel has you covered with less cores....

 

[Cutechri]

You can just use PBO to hit the high peepeetees

View attachment 241162

My CPU on stock is a beast, let alone PBO which pushes it to 5.35 ST / 4.9 MT. A true 5900XS lol

 

[TheDeeGee]

Why is everyone so worried?

You will never see these numbers unless you're doing heavy workloads.

My 11700 doesn't even get past 45 Watts during gaming.

 

[chrcoluk]

So from the replies the lower core counts still have same TDP as before?

 

[Chrispy_]

Sounds like they just gave it a more accurate rating, TBH

Not just a more accurate rating but also more intelligent default power settings that don't require people to mess with manual PBO to get what you paid for.

An upshot of this is that AM5 motherboards now have to reach a higher minimum bar to claim 7950X compatibility (or whatever the 16C AM5 part will be named). It should mean that cheapo boards with underwhelming VRM design and inadequate cooling won't exist for the AM5 generation because in order to safely delivery 170W TDP compatibility, the VRMs must be capable of PPTs in the region of 225W and EDCs in the region of 200A without releasing the magic smoke that makes them all work!

For the rest of us buying more popular 105W CPUs, that means lots of headroom for OC and/or cooler-running motherboards with better voltage stability.

 

[progste]

People need to remember that AMD's TDP does not equal power consumption. In AMD speak, 105w TDP means 142w PPT. Using the same numbers, 170w TDP will equal 230w PPT.

I couldn't care less either way, but the the hypocrisy of 'Intel power consumption=bad, and AMD power consumption=just dandy' is rampant in this thread already.

Inaccurate.
People bash intel for having huge power and thermals demands to achieve performance comparable with the much cooler AMD equivalent parts.
Just like people used to bash AMD FX processors for the same reason.
Power consumption is not just somethign that happens in a void, otherwise everyone would be praising ARM CPUs and x86 wold not sell.

 

[Mussels]

Ooof.... it better be an accurate TDP and not an intel where reality is 250W+


For a 16 core baby threadripper sure.... but still ouch. High.

People need to remember that AMD's TDP does not equal power consumption. In AMD speak, 105w TDP means 142w PPT. Using the same numbers, 170w TDP will equal 230w PPT.

I couldn't care less either way, but the the hypocrisy of 'Intel power consumption=bad, and AMD power consumption=just dandy' is rampant in this thread already.

Not correct

It's 105W with 142W max via PBO - not the same thing at all

 

[Minus Infinity]

Not really surprising, Raphael will run at higher clocks than Vermeer so 20W higher TDP than 5950X is minimal. I'm not really fussed as I am still expecting to stay at 8 cores, but may consider 7900X. I always get the biggest cooler that will fit my case. I'd rather my CPU be cooler than hotter, less thermal load for the case.

Anyway, can't wait to see Zen 4 vs Raptor Lake, as I have a 1700X system that will be replaced early 2023.

 

[Deleted member 202104]

Ooof.... it better be an accurate TDP and not an intel where reality is 250W+

The TDP on the 5950x is 105w. Its PPT is 142w (where the processor easily hits with PBO disabled). So AMD doesn't report TDP correctly either. This is nothing new, it's been hashed out 1000x here on the forums. If this rumor turns out to be accurate, and the TDP is actually 170w for this new CPU, the PPT will be around 230w.

Not correct

It's 105W with 142W max via PBO - not the same thing at all

Yes, it is correct. Maybe you're confusing Core Performance Boost (you know, the normal stock setting for the CPU to boost above it's base clock) with Performance Boost Overdrive where, when enabled, the 5950x can easily exceed 230w. See the posts above by @freeagent with his 5900x heating the room.

Either way, as I stated before, the power consumption doesn't really matter if the performance is there.

 

[harm9963]

The TDP on the 5950x is 105w. Its PPT is 142w (where the processor easily hits with PBO disabled). So AMD doesn't report TDP correctly either. This is nothing new, it's been hashed out 1000x here on the forums. If this rumor turns out to be accurate, and the TDP is actually 170w for this new CPU, the PPT will be around 230w.



Yes, it is correct. Maybe you're confusing Core Performance Boost (you know, the normal stock setting for the CPU to boost above it's base clock) with Performance Boost Overdrive where, when enabled, the 5950x can easily exceed 230w. See the posts above by @freeagent with his 5900x heating the room.

Either way, as I stated before, the power consumption doesn't really matter if the performance is there.

223 watts with PBO
121 watts stock
169 watts with ASUS DOCS , no PBO , higher score ,lower temps and watts.

 

[sillyconjunkie]

I don't know, you may be right, but does it make sense what you suggesting?
I mean, since mobile is covered with Rembrandt and then supposedly it will be succeed with Phoenix, why does Raphael (which going to be AM5 only according to leaked roadmaps) needs to have advanced downclocking features and offer something like P & E cores? And why only on the 16core part like you suggesting?
Are they addressing only the miniscule $700-800 CPU market with these efficiency features? (Which is the only market that probably will not care about advanced downclocking features) also how someone is going to see value vs i9 13900K at 170W with advanced downclocking features and someone else isn't going to see value for the 12core 105W part vs i7 13700K? (as far as value affected from energy efficiency-consumption characteristics)

Can't say I disagree w your points. Speculation on my part.

My reasoning: The base Ryzen architecture is starting to age. I think AMD believed they had more time with chiplets as they're implementing them today.

Intel surprised them w a revised core architecture and faster package interconnects between cores, cache, etc. Moar chiplets and/or stacking isn't going to compete long term. The number of slow copper interconnects between cores & IO is the same story.

AMD most likely has changed designs for upcoming releases but it's going to slow down time-to-market. So..we get AM5, DDR5 step and, imo, they're going to work on a revised scheduler for upcoming releases so we get a bit of a franken-cpu.

I'd bet a dollar..

 

[mama]

I wonder how will it perform against the 12900K? That should be an interesting one.

I think you mean the 13900K.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

I think you mean the 13900K.

You must be tired, it clearly states 12900k.............oh wait you have a AMD system.

 

[mama]

You must be tired, it clearly states 12900k.............oh wait you have a AMD system.

True, I presently have an AMD system but I am certainly not welded to any company products. Pretty sure that AMD's Raphael is going up against the as yet unreleased Intel Raptor Lake CPUs (including the 13900K - assuming they maintain the numbering sequence).

 

[eidairaman1]

It's sound bad.....The worlds today have fuel crisis, mean while it-productions still sleepings beauty...

Blind

What do you expect when reviewers put out headlines like 12900KF at 5.5 GHz crushes the 5950X at stock?

Yup because it needs 5.5 to do it lol.

Inaccurate.
People bash intel for having huge power and thermals demands to achieve performance comparable with the much cooler AMD equivalent parts.
Just like people used to bash AMD FX processors for the same reason.
Power consumption is not just somethign that happens in a void, otherwise everyone would be praising ARM CPUs and x86 wold not sell.

Speaking of FX, they have had a Renaissance since 2018/2019.

It took intel 6 core i revisions and endless lga swaps to finally catch up to AM4.