Potential Ryzen 7000-series CPU Specs and Pricing Leak, Ryzen 9 7950X Expected to hit 5.7 GHz

[ratirt]

"Core i9 actually outscores the Ryzen 9 by 40 percent when the integrated graphics (IGP) are enabled and by 6 percent when it’s off. For this test, we show power consumption when the IGP is off."

Yeah... because it's using hardware encoding/decoding of the IGP? That's a pretty good example of misinterpreting the results.
That 6% win, is the CPU performance difference.

As to what gamers do with their PC's?
They game. On anything but a 5950x.

Where you'll find that everyone talking about AMD being more efficient at gaming still holds up
View attachment 258243View attachment 258248

Doesn't matter if its power consumption over time measured in never-ending tasks

Or tasks that benefit from finishing the job faster
View attachment 258244



It's strange the ways people reach to describe this stuff - no gamer needs or wants a 5950x or a 12900K/F.
The gaming performance difference between them is tiny.

When you're looking at options that perform within 6% (Per your claim)

or 1.5-10% (TPU's claims)
View attachment 258245View attachment 258246

At low resolutions when not GPU limited, intel have a performance advantage.
That's when their power consumption goes up.
Anything that prevents the CPU from reaching those high turbo states and the high power consumption, also prevents that performance advantage. They happen together, or not at all.


The argument that "My 12th gen intel isn't bad with power consumption because it's GPU limited" is just so... strange.
Because you can get that exact same performance from a CPU that wont suddenly triple in power usage any time the CPU actually has work to do.

Anything beyond a 12600K, is simply not power efficient by any metric - single threaded, multi threaded, or total consumption for a task like rendering.


You can get a 5600x or a 12600K and unless you're running at 1080p 360Hz with a 3090Ti, the higher end CPU's from AMD and Intel literally just throw away power for no gains.
Running GPU limited or with a frame cap reduces that, but if you *rely* on that you might as well underclock the CPU because you're relying on low enough load do automatically do it for you.

It's buying a 3090Ti, gaming at 720p 30Hz with Vsync on and claiming it's the most power efficient GPU of all time.

If you don't care about cinebench, rendering or multithreaded workloads why would you buy anything greater than a 6 core CPU?

Here is a good example of those claims that 12900K uses 50watts while gaming.

From the reads here in few CPU demanding games the power usage jumps a to 140w in some cases for the 12900K.
Not to mention, the CPU is being utilized in 60% or something around. (Death Stranding for instance or Cyberpunk)

 

[RandallFlagg]

Here is a good example of those claims that 12900K uses 50watts while gaming.

From the reads here in few CPU demanding games the power usage jumps a to 140w in some cases for the 12900K.
Not to mention, the CPU is being utilized in 60% or something around. (Death Stranding for instance or Cyberpunk)

Here's a good example, from the same channel using the same games, of the 12900K vs the 5950X showing it being a toss up in gaming.

Most of the time you're getting 5% more FPS for 0-10% less power on the 12900K.

Example :

 

[neatfeatguy]

I'd like to say that I'm impressed by all the fanboy-ism here between what's slightly better in terms of performance/power usage of the 12900k and AMD's offerings, but all I see here is:

I don't even know what this thread is about anymore.....

 

[ratirt]

Here's a good example, from the same channel using the same games, of the 12900K vs the 5950X showing it being a toss up in gaming.

Most of the time you're getting 5% more FPS for 0-10% less power on the 12900K.

Example :
View attachment 258294


View attachment 258295

That is exactly the problem with you Intel forever guys. You can't just settle on one thought you always have to expand and compare to AMD. It's like if someone makes a remark about Intel, it burns you like a hot flame. You are comparing to a 2yo processor that is one thing. Second, utilization of a game is mediocre to any full load. That is what your problem is. You argue about gaming and people been saying their CPU 12900k is using 50W of power in a game. That depends and on a game and workload of the CPU. Because the utilization of the CPU is low in a game which is not demanding enough for the CPU the power needed is low. Get the utilization higher and your power sky rockets. But, you disregard it. 12600k is a good CPU for gaming. What I'm saying here is, 12900k in your example is not power efficient across the board but only in low load scenarios which this processor is not designated for. Few frames difference isnt a huge difference and remember you are comparing to a 2yo CPU.
BTW nice cherry pick here is mine. Your 12900K is running at 4.9Ghz which is conservative and does not boost to 5.2Ghz. It is limited. Let it boost to 5.2 and the 132W will become 190W or so.

 

[JustBenching]

Its already established that alderkale >> comet lake > zen 3 >> rocketlake in gaming efficiency. Zen 3 beats rocket lake and that's about it, it loses to everything else.

 

[Arc1t3ct]

Its already established that alderkale >> comet lake > zen 3 >> rocketlake in gaming efficiency. Zen 3 beats rocket lake and that's about it, it loses to everything else.

This!

 

[JustBenching]

If you don't care about cinebench, rendering or multithreaded workloads why would you buy anything greater than a 6 core CPU?

Uhm, you realize you don't have to run the CPU at the stock 240w right?

Also every review that test's gaming efficiency has the alderlake far far (and I mean FAR, like up to 70% far) ahead of Zen 3 except the 3d.

Here's a good example, from the same channel using the same games, of the 12900K vs the 5950X showing it being a toss up in gaming.

Most of the time you're getting 5% more FPS for 0-10% less power on the 12900K.

From your video there are games that the 5950x consumes 55% more power for similar performance (ms fs for example).

 

[pavle]

If I may post a question on topic - why not 6.0 GHz, are manufacturers hitting some sort of material limit (or is it too big of a chip)?
Ages ago some people had pentium4 running @ ~8.0GHz on liquid nitrogen cooling (10 or more generations of intel CPUs back).

 

[HenrySomeone]

If I may post a question on topic - why not 6.0 GHz, are manufacturers hitting some sort of material limit (or is it too big of a chip)?
Ages ago some people had pentium4 running @ ~8.0GHz on liquid nitrogen cooling (10 or more generations of intel CPUs back).

Intel's Core i9-13900K Raptor Lake CPU outperforms Intel Core i9-12900K and Ryzen 9 5950X CPUs in new Benchmark - TechnoSports
This seems to indicate that 6.0 and even over will indeed be possible for the first time (without extreme cooling).

 

[JustBenching]

If I may post a question on topic - why not 6.0 GHz, are manufacturers hitting some sort of material limit (or is it too big of a chip)?
Ages ago some people had pentium4 running @ ~8.0GHz on liquid nitrogen cooling (10 or more generations of intel CPUs back).

6 ghz on all cores? You cant cool the chip, especially now at 7 and 5 nm. 6 ghz on a single core? Alderlake can hit 5.6 to 5.8 pretty easily, even on air cooling

 

[kapone32]

Intel's Core i9-13900K Raptor Lake CPU outperforms Intel Core i9-12900K and Ryzen 9 5950X CPUs in new Benchmark - TechnoSports
This seems to indicate that 6.0 and even over will indeed be possible for the first time (without extreme cooling).

If you have a 420MM AIO and active cooling over the VRMs maybe.

 

[HenrySomeone]

If you have a 420MM AIO and active cooling over the VRMs maybe.

Even if, that's a huge milestone; it's been 14 years since 5.0 was doable (E8600).

 

[JustBenching]

If you have a 420MM AIO and active cooling over the VRMs maybe.

Why would the vrms out of all things require active cooling? Even affordable mobos have overkill vrms

 

[InVasMani]

If you have a 420MM AIO and active cooling over the VRMs maybe.

Which is fairly extreme not to mention the MB's won't be cheap or light weight. Though it'll be possibly the first crack at it with conventional 24/7 cooling options.

Why would the vrms out of all things require active cooling? Even affordable mobos have overkill vrms

Many of which have active cooling for example the EVGA Z690 CLASSIFIED.

 

[Valantar]

If I may post a question on topic - why not 6.0 GHz, are manufacturers hitting some sort of material limit (or is it too big of a chip)?
Ages ago some people had pentium4 running @ ~8.0GHz on liquid nitrogen cooling (10 or more generations of intel CPUs back).

There are always limits, and they don't follow our human desires for things aligning with numbering or ordering systems - that's just life. Those extra 300MHz might not be attainable at all, or might require an inordinate amount of power, or might drive thermal density higher than what can reasonably be cooled, or something else. Just the fact that we're seeing stock clock speeds come close to 6GHz is damn impressive, and speaks to the capabilities of these new production processes - but they follow the rules of physics and the specific traits of the silicon design, and clocks have to be set accordingly. The luxury of that aligning with "round number good" thinking is rare and essentially random.

 

[kapone32]

6 ghz on all cores? You cant cool the chip, especially now at 7 and 5 nm. 6 ghz on a single core? Alderlake can hit 5.6 to 5.8 pretty easily, even on air cooling

Alderlake or AMD it is the same (depending on the application). The perceived differences are subjective but a 10400F is about the best you can get in terms of price/performance and Z490 is nice but it's 2 generations old. I could get a 12400F but that would mean a new MB. Yes B650 boards are not as expensive as they could be in some instances but that is still the case. If Intel can have the 13th chip achieve the performance you are touting it would also need extreme cooling. The only problem is we don't know yet.

Why would the vrms out of all things require active cooling? Even affordable mobos have overkill vrms

Do you have any idea what the power draw will be at 5.7 GHZ? Is the TDP on the chip not 240 Watts? There are some borads that already have it too. It doesn't matter how substantial the heat sink would be pulling 240 Watts through the VRMs would produce heat period.

 

[HenrySomeone]

Alderlake or AMD it is the same (depending on the application). The perceived differences are subjective but a 10400F is about the best you can get in terms of price/performance and Z490 is nice but it's 2 generations old. I could get a 12400F but that would mean a new MB. Yes B650 boards are not as expensive as they could be in some instances but that is still the case. If Intel can have the 13th chip achieve the performance you are touting it would also need extreme cooling. The only problem is we don't know yet.

Have you read the link? They are using an AIO, which might be considered "extreme" by some, but in this context, that's a gross misuse of the term, since it means phase change / dry ice / LN2. It is enthusiast cooling though, but that's to be expected and AIOs aren't all that rare anymore anyways.

Do you have any idea what the power draw will be at 5.7 GHZ? Is the TDP on the chip not 240 Watts? There are some borads that already have it too. It doesn't matter how substantial the heat sink would be pulling 240 Watts through the VRMs would produce heat period.

A $250 Tomahawk handles 240 watts just fine. Direct a 120 mm fan at vrm heatsinks if you are using an AIO and it will also handle 350.

 

[JustBenching]

Alderlake or AMD it is the same (depending on the application). The perceived differences are subjective but a 10400F is about the best you can get in terms of price/performance and Z490 is nice but it's 2 generations old. I could get a 12400F but that would mean a new MB. Yes B650 boards are not as expensive as they could be in some instances but that is still the case. If Intel can have the 13th chip achieve the performance you are touting it would also need extreme cooling. The only problem is we don't know yet.


Do you have any idea what the power draw will be at 5.7 GHZ? Is the TDP on the chip not 240 Watts? There are some borads that already have it too. It doesn't matter how substantial the heat sink would be pulling 240 Watts through the VRMs would produce heat period.

Even at 500w the mobo you would put a 13900k wouldnt have an issue. 240w tdp is easily handled by any z690. The cheapest z690 a pro from msi can handle it just fine

Also because of the massive size of the chip its easy to cool 240w. I have my 12900k on a u12a and its doing just fine. The 13900k will be even easier to cool

Which is fairly extreme not to mention the MB's won't be cheap or light weight. Though it'll be possibly the first crack at it with conventional 24/7 cooling options.



Many of which have active cooling for example the EVGA Z690 CLASSIFIED.

View attachment 259424

The motherboards with active cooling are the ones that need it the least

I remember my z690 ace having active cooling while its vrms were rated for 1800 amps .

 

[InVasMani]

Even at 500w the mobo you would put a 13900k wouldnt have an issue. 240w tdp is easily handled by any z690. The cheapest z690 a pro from msi can handle it just fine

Also because of the massive size of the chip its easy to cool 240w. I have my 12900k on a u12a and its doing just fine. The 13900k will be even easier to cool


The motherboards with active cooling are the ones that need it the least

I remember my z690 ace having active cooling while its vrms were rated for 1800 amps .

Kind of stronger VRM's aid in peak efficiency by distributing power delivery and heat. A good VRM setup means less VID voltage for CPU stability generally speaking and in turn less heat. Why do you think that boards less aimed at extreme overclocking need better VRM's and active cooling!!? I mean this is about pushing for a hypothetical 6GHz on next gen hardware. The VRM's are still going to get toasty in that scenario.

I mean are you trying to argue a weaker entry level board should be trying to OC to 6GHz with fan attached and rubbish VRM design like I don't get it!!? The board itself will probably be coupled with weaker bios options as well and fewer PCB layers. Good luck with that compared to the person using a higher end MB. Call me nuts, but I think the person with the better MB will have a easier time at it.

You make good point on the size of the chip and cooling in terms of that versus concentrated heat. AMD needs to find a means to utilize the X3D cache to better disperse heat concentration further though 5800X3D is actually really good on efficiency. I think the picture frame approach is the best way possibly along with a slower larger TSV L4 cache underneath. They've got two options for that inside out or outside in and they could also invert it between connected chiplets for varied cache and chiplet designs. I can see that being a real ACE in tandem with big LITTLE approach.

They could 3D Stack inside 8 CPU cores in a smaller amount inside or outside a chiplet in larger amount for L3 cache though slower larger L4 underneath all of it that they mount to like pictures on a wall would make a lot of sense. I have my doubts that will happen with Zen 4 and stacked cache still be relatively new, but for Zen 5 maybe they've got time enough to consider the pro's and con's of it.

If they utilize a smaller L3 stacked cache latency will be better for the L3 and less voltage getting in the way frequency scaling for the L3. A larger L3 is good for capacity though so it too could be good depending on usage. Perhaps we may see something akin to it with Zen 5. It might not be quite in the form of a picture/frame arrangement, but eventually I see it serving as good interconnect ring/mesh cache bezel between chiplets and pretty flexible one.

 

[JustBenching]

Kind of stronger VRM's aid in peak efficiency by distributing power delivery and heat. A good VRM setup means less VID voltage for CPU stability generally speaking and in turn less heat. Why do you think that boards less aimed at extreme overclocking need better VRM's and active cooling!!? I mean this is about pushing for a hypothetical 6GHz on next gen hardware. The VRM's are still going to get toasty in that scenario.

I mean are you trying to argue a weaker entry level board should be trying to OC to 6GHz with fan attached and rubbish VRM design like I don't get it!!? The board itself will probably be coupled with weaker bios options as well and fewer PCB layers. Good luck with that compared to the person using a higher end MB. Call me nuts, but I think the person with the better MB will have a easier time at it.

You make good point on the size of the chip and cooling in terms of that versus concentrated heat. AMD needs to find a means to utilize the X3D cache to better disperse heat concentration further though 5800X3D is actually really good on efficiency. I think the picture frame approach is the best way possibly along with a slower larger TSV L4 cache underneath. They've got two options for that inside out or outside in and they could also invert it between connected chiplets for varied cache and chiplet designs. I can see that being a real ACE in tandem with big LITTLE approach.

They could 3D Stack inside 8 CPU cores in a smaller amount inside or outside a chiplet in larger amount for L3 cache though slower larger L4 underneath all of it that they mount to like pictures on a wall would make a lot of sense. I have my doubts that will happen with Zen 4 and stacked cache still be relatively new, but for Zen 5 maybe they've got time enough to consider the pro's and con's of it.

If they utilize a smaller L3 stacked cache latency will be better for the L3 and less voltage getting in the way frequency scaling for the L3. A larger L3 is good for capacity though so it too could be good depending on usage. Perhaps we may see something akin to it with Zen 5. It might not be quite in the form of a picture/frame arrangement, but eventually I see it serving as good interconnect ring/mesh cache bezel between chiplets and pretty flexible one.

I dont know what you are replying to. All im saying is even the cheapest z690 will easily drive any cpu at whatever frequencies you are trying to achieve. Active vrm cooling is useless nowadays, you will have trouble cooling the cpu way before your vrms can even get mildly hot.

Thats even more true for amd, how many amps can you cool on those tiny chiplets?

 

[kapone32]

Even at 500w the mobo you would put a 13900k wouldnt have an issue. 240w tdp is easily handled by any z690. The cheapest z690 a pro from msi can handle it just fine

Also because of the massive size of the chip its easy to cool 240w. I have my 12900k on a u12a and its doing just fine. The 13900k will be even easier to cool


The motherboards with active cooling are the ones that need it the least

I remember my z690 ace having active cooling while its vrms were rated for 1800 amps .

We don't know what they will do as no one has a 13900K for use. I know that they have been doing overkill on VRMs for the last few generations but it still does not take away from the fact that you are talking about a CPU pulling 500W having no issues seems like a pipe dream as that is a trememdous amount of heat generated in that die space.

I dont know what you are replying to. All im saying is even the cheapest z690 will easily drive any cpu at whatever frequencies you are trying to achieve. Active vrm cooling is useless nowadays, you will have trouble cooling the cpu way before your vrms can even get mildly hot.

Thats even more true for amd, how many amps can you cool on those tiny chiplets?

Are you trying to tell me that this board could easily handle 500W through the CPU.

ASRock Z690 Phantom Gaming 4 LGA 1700 DDR4 ATX Intel Motherboard - Newegg.com

Buy ASRock Z690 Phantom Gaming 4 LGA 1700 Intel Z690 SATA 6Gb/s DDR4 ATX Intel Motherboard with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!

www.newegg.ca

 

[JustBenching]

We don't know what they will do as no one has a 13900K for use. I know that they have been doing overkill on VRMs for the last few generations but it still does not take away from the fact that you are talking about a CPU pulling 500W having no issues seems like a pipe dream as that is a trememdous amount of heat generated in that die space.

Youll have trouble cooling the cpu way before your vrms will need any attention. You cant really cool 300w cpus at normal ambients with any off the shelf method. Im not even sure you can do it with custom loops unless you are putting rads on the balcony.

Are you trying to tell me that this board could easily handle 500W through the CPU.

ASRock Z690 Phantom Gaming 4 LGA 1700 DDR4 ATX Intel Motherboard - Newegg.com

Buy ASRock Z690 Phantom Gaming 4 LGA 1700 Intel Z690 SATA 6Gb/s DDR4 ATX Intel Motherboard with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!

www.newegg.ca

Are you telling me you are going to pair that mobo with a 13900k, and on top of that try to oc it? You are just not being reasonable.

The z690 pro a from msi can handle 300w just fine without any active cooling, and it's one of the cheapest z690 mobos.

I dont know why you are stuck at 500w, if you are making your cpu pull 500w your problem isnt the vrms. Its cooling that chip which is impossible

 

[kapone32]

Youll have trouble cooling the cpu way before your vrms will need any attention. You cant really cool 300w cpus at normal ambients with any off the shelf method. Im not even sure you can do it with custom loops unless you are putting rads on the balcony.


Are you telling me you are going to pair that mobo with a 13900k, and on top of that try to oc it? You are just not being reasonable.

The z690 pro a from msi can handle 300w just fine without any active cooling, and it's one of the cheapest z690 mobos.

I dont know why you are stuck at 500w, if you are making your cpu pull 500w your problem isnt the vrms. Its cooling that chip which is impossible

This is what you said "Even at 500w the mobo you would put a 13900k wouldnt have an issue. 240w tdp is easily handled by any z690." I showed you a board I provide you with "any" moniker and you respond with a board from another vendor?

 

[JustBenching]

This is what you said "Even at 500w the mobo you would put a 13900k wouldnt have an issue. 240w tdp is easily handled by any z690." I showed you a board I provide you with "any" moniker and you respond with a board from another vendor?

Exactly. I said any mobo you would put on a 13900k. Is that a mobo you would? Why? It barely costs less than alternative options that are better.

 

[kapone32]

Exactly. I said any mobo you would put on a 13900k. Is that a mobo you would? Why? It barely costs less than alternative options that are better.

No you said any Z690. Please keep it above board. Unless you are an Intel engineer you cannot tell me anything concrete about the 13900K like it will be easier to cool than the 12900K. Anyone who may know anything is most likely under NDA so it doesn't matter.

Furthermore this is a thread about the performance of AMD's next Gen so please take your thoughts to the Intel 13th Gen thread. In regards to the thread

I feel that the 7000 series chips will be faster than 5000 how much I don't know. What I can say with confidence though is if my 5950X ran at 5.7 GHZ on even a single core I would be very happy. We are in a really interesting time and both Companies HAVE to try hard to get our dollars so they will both have compelling products. AMD has to maintain the 15-20% increase in performance.