AMD Ryzen 7 7700X and Ryzen 5 7600X Cinebench R23 Single-Thread Numbers See it Trade Blows with the Competition

[KV2DERP]

Everything depends how much new processors and boards will costs ...

Yeah budget alder lakes (12400F and below) were quite cheap (neck in neck) compared to zen 3s. But decent B660 is so expensive compared to B550s on the market.

 

[simlife]

It would be more interesting to know the performance in games.

AMD and Nvidia new GPUs will have nothing less than twice the performance of the current gen.. so don't tell me that CPU doesn't make a difference in 4K. I really believe it will be relevant from the near future

your 10000x % right the human eye for any noticable 4k differance needs at least 32 inches the average is lower... my old perents while could afford it are well old and their current pc is a 17 in monitor on what my cell phone is doing... if the 2017 xbox sereis x can do 4k in a few easy titeles then 2k with upscaling will be a joke... in a few years the face ppl praise the 720p-30 fps swtich from 2017 means 2k will be a joke fsr or dlsss aside in a few years i grew up with golden eye on the n64 if udont know look and now you know tech is a dying market my 2016 75 inch tv is partal proof.. cell phones are more powerful then the average pc...

 

[1d10t]

Inb4 "Single threads are most important, who need moar core"

This translates into Zen4 being DOA no matter how AMD prices Zen4. And I'd be really surprised if 6700X MSPR gets sub $250 price tag given the fact that TSMC is rising prices.

Yeah, I can see that

 

[Jimmy_]

Intel always shines when it comes to single-threaded workloads without any doubt!
AMD can/might take the lead in multi-threaded loads but with 8+16 combo it will be tough competition.
Ah!!!! this month of September is getting more and more interesting with leaks and number

 

[HenrySomeone]

Impressive, and not to forget that the Alder/Raptor Lake arches perform best in cinebench. I remember a 20-25% uplift over Zen 3 but most other applications closer to 10-15%. Hope for AMD that scales just as well, if so they could really battle is out with Raptor Lake until Zen 4D launches.

You do realize 3D models have lower single thread, right?

I get the idea of the price comparison, but those motherboards aren't even comparable. You can't overclock CPUs at all on an Intel B660, whereas you can on an AMD B650 which would be in the same price bracket. You can also get DDR5-5600 kits at about $185 according to pcpartpicker.

Oh, but you can: MAG B660M MORTAR MAX WIFI DDR4 (msi.com)
And there will be no B650 boards for several months, meaning you'll have to go for X670 ... or Intel, hehe

It would be more interesting to know the performance in games.

AMD and Nvidia new GPUs will have nothing less than twice the performance of the current gen.. so don't tell me that CPU doesn't make a difference in 4K. I really believe it will be relevant from the near future

For higher refresh rate 4k it already matters, but a lot of so called 4k gamers are still on 60Hz screens and there it really doesn't all that much (at least if you have 8700k or better).

Hmm...
Ryzen 9 5950X CPU-Z MC: 11906
Core i9-13900K CPU-Z MC: 16630 Intel's Core i9-13900K Raptor Lake CPU outperforms Intel Core i9-12900K and Ryzen 9 5950X CPUs in new Benchmark - TechnoSports

40% faster!

Rampage! If this is anywhere near true, then zen4 won't have a single victory, be it single or multi thread!

No AVX512 on Intel.

That pretty much ends the debate for anyone using software that takes advantage AVX512.

I seem to remember AVX512 being completely dismissed when AyyyMD didn't have it...

Inb4 "Single threads are most important, who need moar core"

Yeah, I can see that

Let's see how that goes when the price of the platform will be doubled!

Death to Gnomes was directing HUMOUR at me for my comment of "Intel, oh I love you so much", which was directed at a fan boy. You got the wrong end of the stick. I prefer AMD in reality and rub my bits thinking of a 7950 4DX Twin Turbo with time travel. I'm 41 by the way, not that age has anything to do with juvenile humour, as we can see...

 

[Ahhzz]

Death to Gnomes was directing HUMOUR at me for my comment of "Intel, oh I love you so much", which was directed at a fan boy. You got the wrong end of the stick. I prefer AMD in reality and rub my bits thinking of a 79504DXTwin Turbo with time travel. I'm 41 by the way, not that age has anything to do with juvenile humour, as we can see...

Remove the pic. Stick to the topic.

 

[Hossein Almet]

As far as I'm concerned, 'what's important' is power consumption. Any of the CPU which consumes less power and costs less will have my money? When the frame rates are above 100fps, whether it's 110 or 120fps is meaningless to me.

 

[efikkan]

Impressive, and not to forget that the Alder/Raptor Lake arches perform best in cinebench. I remember a 20-25% uplift over Zen 3 but most other applications closer to 10-15%. Hope for AMD that scales just as well, if so they could really battle is out with Raptor Lake until Zen 4D launches.

Well, Alder Lake does better in Cinebench vs. Zen 3 than most workloads, and the Skylake family members like Comet Lake does the exact opposite. Cinebench is a terrible benchmark to measure overall performance of a CPU, and that's not the intention either. It's actually a benchmark for the professional animation/modelling software called Cinema 4D, so please do not use it to extrapolate general performance. This should really be a disclaimer in any article mentioning Cinebench.

So slightly worse ST performance, nonexistent competition in MT, slightly less power draw? Zen 4 better be priced low to avoid a rout.

We really don't know the actual performance characteristics, do we? (or maybe you do?)
Let's wait to judge it until we see performance, availability, pricing, etc.

I'm more worried about whether they manage to get their firmware in order this time.

 

[ModEl4]

There results are very good regarding ST performance and an indication regarding good gaming increase.
My prediction regarding 720p TPU scores is the following:
7950X 112.45%
7900X 111.9%
7700X 108.65%
7600X 106%
12900K 100%
But if AMD keeps the same Zen3 pricing level it won't be competitive, for example 13900K will at least match 7950X and 13700K will be faster than 7700X (still 13600K at 5.1GHz should have a little bit slower 720p performance vs 7600X) so taking account the multithreading performance and also the need for a good AM5 start regarding competitiveness/buzz/sales I think AMD must deliver also on the pricing level!

 

[efikkan]

There results are very good regarding ST performance and an indication regarding good gaming increase.
My prediction regarding 720p TPU scores is the following:
7950X 112.45%
7900X 111.9%
7700X 108.65%
7600X 106%
12900K 100%
But if AMD keeps the same Zen3 pricing level it won't be competitive, for example 13900K will at least match 7950X and 13700K will be faster than 7700X (still 13600K at 5.1GHz should have a little bit slower 720p performance vs 7600X) so taking account the multithreading performance and also the need for a good AM5 start regarding competitiveness/buzz/sales I think AMD must deliver also on the pricing level!

How can you estimate game performance (which is only indirectly affected by CPU performance) based on performance scaling in a very specific non-gaming benchmark?

 

[Dyatlov A]

There results are very good regarding ST performance and an indication regarding good gaming increase.
My prediction regarding 720p TPU scores is the following:
7950X 112.45%
7900X 111.9%
7700X 108.65%
7600X 106%
12900K 100%
But if AMD keeps the same Zen3 pricing level it won't be competitive, for example 13900K will at least match 7950X and 13700K will be faster than 7700X (still 13600K at 5.1GHz should have a little bit slower 720p performance vs 7600X) so taking account the multithreading performance and also the need for a good AM5 start regarding competitiveness/buzz/sales I think AMD must deliver also on the pricing level!

Finally, someone has the idea what can we expect. Although i think too optimistic and an overclocked intel 12400 can be very close to them.

 

[Ghostbeater94]

These numbers are really disappointing, only trading blows with Alder Lake. Raptor lake will have P+E cores even on a budget i5 13400 and you can use cheap DDR4 and B660 mobo with it. Zen4 is gonna be priced out of the market. That's the price you pay if you 100 % rely on TSCM I guess.

Actually these are pretty promising numbers if you consider that the 6 core part is pretty close with a 14 core part and the 8 core is beating it slightly. If Intel does eat a lot of cost and prices are really low for their lower end models though they could put AMD in a very compromising position and I think it will be a great generation for consumers if one company tries to outprice the other steeply.

These numbers are really disappointing, only trading blows with Alder Lake. Raptor lake will have P+E cores even on a budget i5 13400 and you can use cheap DDR4 and B660 mobo with it. Zen4 is gonna be priced out of the market. That's the price you pay if you 100 % rely on TSCM I guess.

 

[pjl321]

According to that table, 12600k to 13600k is only a 2.4% improvement in single threaded work loads, that's very poor if true.

 

[ModEl4]

How can you estimate game performance (which is only indirectly affected by CPU performance) based on performance scaling in a very specific non-gaming benchmark?

I don't claim that my prediction is safe by any means.
We don't have anything regarding gaming benchmark for Zen4.
The logic that I followed is the below:

I took 7600X as a starting point that has the biggest % PPT increase affecting Zen cores (if you deduct the IOD power consumption- along with 7900X).
One of the easily stand-out improvements of Zen4 architecture is that AMD doubled the L2 cache in relation with Zen 3.
As we have seen in the past cache related improvements depending the architecture have positive effect in gaming apps, and Ryzen core has proved again and again that it's such an architecture.
AMD claims around 8% average IPC increase, so taking account the successful gaming focus strategy of Ryzen that AMD followed the last 2 years and the L2 doubling, I can't imagine why in gaming the IPC increase won't be around the average advertised (8%).
So if you take account the frequency difference and the IPC, I came with around +24% in relation with 5600X.
(for the rest lineup I took as a base 7600X)
If the leaked numbers are correct in CB23 we have same or a little better increase, so the potential at least is there to consider such a scenario.
As you can understand this is a very positive scenario!
But if you read what I posted, you will understand also that what I claimed is that despite using a very positive scenario for AMD, this performance won't be enough to allow AMD to keep the same pricing strategy/level as Zen3 and still be considered competitive enough imo.
If the rumor regarding 7700X is correct ($299 according to 3 leaks) this means that at least in 2 SKUs (7600X also) AMD seems will be competitive enough with Intel.
But the odds based on last year's AMD's pricing strategy are not in favour of such pricing.Fingers crossed?

 

[efikkan]

I took 7600X as a starting point that has the biggest % PPT increase affecting Zen cores (if you deduct the IOD power consumption- along with 7900X).
One of the easily stand-out improvements of Zen4 architecture is that AMD doubled the L2 cache in relation with Zen 3.
As we have seen in the past cache related improvements depending the architecture have positive effect in gaming apps, and Ryzen core has proved again and again that it's such an architecture.
AMD claims around 8% average IPC increase, so taking account the successful gaming focus strategy of Ryzen that AMD followed the last 2 years and the L2 doubling, I can't imagine why in gaming the IPC increase won't be around the average advertised (8%).
So if you take account the frequency difference and the IPC, I came with around +24% in relation with 5600X.
<snip>

Thanks for elaborating.
The IPC estimates is quite possibly fairly accurate, but translating this into gaming performance is not wise. Gaming performance is only indirectly affected by the CPU. Don't get me wrong, the CPU is important, but only up to a point. If you had a CPU with 10x the IPC, you wouldn't see a huge different in today's games, as most games are close to or not being bottlenecked by current fast CPUs. As CPUs get faster, you will first see the average framerate flatten out, then the minimum framerate, and beyond that faster CPUs will not benefit those particular games. This is the reason so many were disappointed by Alder Lake only showing marginal gaming gains (overall) despite a ~40% IPC change over the Skylake family (19% over Sunny Cove).

So I wouldn't expect a lot of gains in gaming, except for edge cases of course. But that doesn't mean the new CPUs will not be great for future games coming down the line, or practically anything non-gaming which benefits greatly from gains in single-treaded performance.

 

[ModEl4]

Thanks for elaborating.
The IPC estimates is quite possibly fairly accurate, but translating this into gaming performance is not wise. Gaming performance is only indirectly affected by the CPU. Don't get me wrong, the CPU is important, but only up to a point. If you had a CPU with 10x the IPC, you wouldn't see a huge different in today's games, as most games are close to or not being bottlenecked by current fast CPUs. As CPUs get faster, you will first see the average framerate flatten out, then the minimum framerate, and beyond that faster CPUs will not benefit those particular games. This is the reason so many were disappointed by Alder Lake only showing marginal gaming gains (overall) despite a ~40% IPC change over the Skylake family (19% over Sunny Cove).

So I wouldn't expect a lot of gains in gaming, except for edge cases of course. But that doesn't mean the new CPUs will not be great for future games coming down the line, or practically anything non-gaming which benefits greatly from gains in single-treaded performance.

First i want to say that in general i agree with you!
I just want to point out also the below in order to keep our minds open to possibilities:

5900X vs 3900X tested resulted in +19% claimed IPC increase from AMD.

5900X single core Turbo 4.8GHz
3900X single core Turbo 4.6GHz
This gives 1.19 X 4.8/4.6 = 1.2417X improvement possibility in ST.

According to TPU the 720p difference between 5900X/3900X is 103.9%/80.2%=1.2955X so higher than ipc x frequency difference! (1.2417 X)
At the same time ST CB23 improved only 1622/1357= 1.1952X way-way less than what was the gaming increase and the ipc x frequency increase.
Even if you replace frequencies with light threaded clocks instead of single core turbo, 5900X in 720p gaming still achieves at least IPC X light threaded clock difference result!
Now there are specific reasons for this result and doesn't mean that it will apply in Zen4 (it won't logically) but like i said i took a very positive scenario in order to make my case of what AMD pricing strategy must be even in this case.
As you see, while in 5900X case ST CB23 score difference vs 3900X was way less than the theoretical difference (claimed IPC increase X frequency difference) here we have exactly the theoretical difference (if the leaks are correct) that's a very good result and the reason i examined this scenario (my original 720p prediction for Zen4 was -1%, -1.5% slower than this positive scenario and still is my preferred scenario) (coincidentally this positive scenario would give around +15% 1080p 7700X/5800X gaming difference in current TPU testbed)
Also don't forget that there is the possibility regarding TPU testbed, that in Q4 maybe W1zzard will change RTX 3080 into something from Ada/RDNA3 series, so another reason to consider also (at launch of course the results will be based on RTX 3080, so slower vs what Ada/RDNA3 will give logically)

 

[efikkan]

5900X vs 3900X tested resulted in +19% claimed IPC increase from AMD.
<snip>
According to TPU the 720p difference between 5900X/3900X is 103.9%/80.2%=1.2955X so higher than ipc x frequency difference! (1.2417 X)

Yes, it's certainly possible that a faster CPU can cause an even larger gains in gaming than their respective IPC gain or rather performance gain. This has everything to do with whether the CPU is a bottleneck in the first place. If the bottleneck was serious enough, you could even see a much larger gain than that, probably by a factor. But the key is this; once you get close to relieving this bottleneck, then this gaming gain disappears very quickly, which is why we see less gains with Alder Lake. And even if we assume Zen 4 is in the territory of Alder Lake in general, we are not likely to see massive gains in games.

If you re-benchmark a new selection of games 2-3 years from now, you will probably see a slight shift and see larger benefits from Alder Lake and upcoming Zen 4.

Lastly, I hope everyone realize that 720p benchmarks are for technical curiosity, as no one should buy a high-end GPU to run 720p. The CPU bottlenecking on 1440p or 4K will be quite a different story.

At the same time ST CB23 improved only 1622/1357= 1.1952X way-way less than what was the gaming increase and the ipc x frequency increase.

Apples and oranges.
A few things to clear up, firstly IPC is a measure of average instructions per clock, not performance. We use performance to estimate IPC, but that doesn't mean you can take clock speed and multiply by IPC gain to calculate gains in individual applications, as applications will stress different parts of a CPU. If one application relies heavily on SIMD and the new CPU mainly gets their IPC gain from frontend tweaks, caches and smaller improvements on the execution side, we can expect lower gains in that application. If another new CPU upgrade is a heavy SIMD upgrade, then we can suddenly see 30% gains in applications even if the CPU just offers 10% higher IPC.

Additionally, it's not unusual that some benchmarks will throttle the CPU too, especially on Intel, the actual clock speed is usually a lot lower than people think.
This is why I always say, performance matters, but IPC is what we use to explain some of it.

 

[ModEl4]

Yes, it's certainly possible that a faster CPU can cause an even larger gains in gaming than their respective IPC gain or rather performance gain. This has everything to do with whether the CPU is a bottleneck in the first place. If the bottleneck was serious enough, you could even see a much larger gain than that, probably by a factor. But the key is this; once you get close to relieving this bottleneck, then this gaming gain disappears very quickly, which is why we see less gains with Alder Lake.

That's why i mentioned Ada/RDNA3 TPU testbed change will give different results between Zen4 vs Zen3 (Alder Lake difference with Zen3 will increase also in that case)

And even if we assume Zen 4 is in the territory of Alder Lake in general, we are not likely to see massive gains in games.

Too general assumption which mean nothing, be more specific and explain your reasoning based on Zen4 technical data if you like.

If you re-benchmark a new selection of games 2-3 years from now, you will probably see a slight shift and see larger benefits from Alder Lake and upcoming Zen 4.

No, it doesn't have to be a new selection, current selection is just fine (or slightly upgraded inevitably if the testbed change comes 3-6 months from now) and when w1zzard upgrades the GPU from RTX 3080 to next gen we will have verification. I'm absolutely 100% certain for this, if you disagree i guess we will just have to wait to see what Zen4/Zen3 difference will be at launch with RTX 3080 and what difference will be in 3-6 months when W1zzard upgrades the testbed, i have patience.

Lastly, I hope everyone realize that 720p benchmarks are for technical curiosity, as no one should buy a high-end GPU to run 720p. The CPU bottlenecking on 1440p or 4K will be quite a different story.

I agree of course.
720p used mostly as an indication regarding how each CPU affecting gaming performance when we make it a limiting factor by lowering the rendered resolution.

Apples and oranges.
A few things to clear up, firstly IPC is a measure of average instructions per clock, not performance. We use performance to estimate IPC, but that doesn't mean you can take clock speed and multiply by IPC gain to calculate gains in individual applications, as applications will stress different parts of a CPU. If one application relies heavily on SIMD and the new CPU mainly gets their IPC gain from frontend tweaks, caches and smaller improvements on the execution side, we can expect lower gains in that application. If another new CPU upgrade is a heavy SIMD upgrade, then we can suddenly see 30% gains in applications even if the CPU just offers 10% higher IPC.

Additionally, it's not unusual that some benchmarks will throttle the CPU too, especially on Intel, the actual clock speed is usually a lot lower than people think.
This is why I always say, performance matters, but IPC is what we use to explain some of it.

in general i agree.
I don't know why you're arguing since i already said that this a very positive/optimistic uptake regarding Zen4 possible gaming outcomes didn't I?
Is this positive scenario the most likely to happen, no, i already explained it, but it can happen anyway and i don't see in your arguments any specific Zen4 technical argument, only general well known (that i agree) facts regarding how each game/engine can potentially be affected or not by SIMD or IPC etc that can be applied to a vast number of CPUs anyway, do you have any argument based on specific Zen4 architecture that makes you exclude the possibility of such outcome?

 

[Mussels]

Looks like the upcoming gens will be fairly equal in performance


Let's hope this results in price cuts for consumers, and not overpriced top end parts that use 200W more for 1% higher performance

 

[efikkan]

Too general assumption which mean nothing, be more specific and explain your reasoning based on Zen4 technical data if you like.

We don't know a lot about Zen 4's architectural changes, beyond higher clocks, ~8% IPC gains, double L2 cache, and >~15% ST performance (and that it will feature AVX-512).

But what we do know is which types of improvements which tends to help gaming performance. Let's look at Intel's two recent generational improvements; Sunny Cove (Rocket Lake) and Alder Lake, which offered +~18% and +~19% IPC gains respectively (and fairly similar clocks), or about ~40% in total over Skylake since Rocket Lake was only a few months on the market before Alder Lake, so it barely counts.

Both of these architectures offered marginal gains in gaming performance, so let's look at some of their improvements;
Sunny Cove:
- Frontend - larger instruction window, better branch pred. etc. (usually affects gaming greatly)
- More L2 cache (can affect games)
- More L1 size/bandwidth (can affect games)
- Larger uop cache and TLB (can affect games)
- Double load/store bandwidth (little effect on games)
- Significantly increased INT MUL/DIV performance (can have some effect on games, but not a lot)
Alder Lake:
- Massive frontend improvements, pretty much every aspect of it, especially decoding, instruction window (usually affects gaming greatly)
- More L2 cache (can affect games)
- Larger uop cache and TLB (can affect games)
- Added another ALU (can have some effect on games, but not a lot)

So both of these architectures should have the foundation to offer much greater gaming performance, but the reason they don't is that most current games are not demanding enough. But they can show greater advantage in the future if new games become more demanding.

Back to Zen 4, with Zen 4 offering ~8% IPC improvements, double L2 cache and higher clocks, we are probably not looking at something which will outperform Alder Lake overall. As for gaming specifically, we can't know for sure, but even if we assume it's a lot of frontend improvements or even if AMD have made a genius improvement, it will still run into the same issue as Alder Lake, as many games get to the point where they basically fully saturate the GPU, especially on 1080p and higher.

No, it doesn't have to be a new selection, current selection is just fine (or slightly upgraded inevitably if the testbed change comes 3-6 months from now) and when w1zzard upgrades the GPU from RTX 3080 to next gen we will have verification. I'm absolutely 100% certain for this, if you disagree i guess we will just have to wait to see what Zen4/Zen3 difference will be at launch with RTX 3080 and what difference will be in 3-6 months when W1zzard upgrades the testbed, i have patience.

You got me wrong, I'm not criticizing Wizzard's game selection. I'm claiming that future games will probably be gradually more demanding, therefore creating a new bottleneck to overcome. So 2-3 years from now, we should expect Alder Lake to look better vs. Comet Lake.

Looking back at games from the past 10+ years you'll see that games are slowly getting more demanding for CPUs, but that demands in GPU performance is growing much quicker. And considering the graphics APIs are focusing on batching operations and offloading this to the GPU, we can expect this trend to continue. This is why until recently Haswell and even Sandy Bridge CPUs have been "good enough" for gaming at realistic resolutions with a new mid-range GPU, some may argue they are still good enough.

 

[ModEl4]

We don't know a lot about Zen 4's architectural changes, beyond higher clocks, ~8% IPC gains, double L2 cache, and >~15% ST performance (and that it will feature AVX-512).

I knew it, that's why i asked you if you have any Zen4 specific technical arguments.
Essentially you are taking historical data from other completely different architectures from other companies and apply the results here based on good assumptions, that i already told you that i agree, i wrote from the start that my hypothesis was a very optimistic Zen4 720p performance outcome, didn't i? So what is the reason for repeated arguements since as far as I'm aware we agree on this.
Unless you want to say that this optimistic scenario that i took isn't just not very likely to happen as as i wrote, but it has 0% chance happening.
in that case i think is unwise knowing so little for Zen4 to make so strong assumptions!

But what we do know is which types of improvements which tends to help gaming performance. Let's look at Intel's two recent generational improvements; Sunny Cove (Rocket Lake) and Alder Lake, which offered +~18% and +~19% IPC gains respectively (and fairly similar clocks), or about ~40% in total over Skylake since Rocket Lake was only a few months on the market before Alder Lake, so it barely counts.


Both of these architectures offered marginal gains in gaming performance, so let's look at some of their improvements;
Sunny Cove:
- Frontend - larger instruction window, better branch pred. etc. (usually affects gaming greatly)
- More L2 cache (can affect games)
- More L1 size/bandwidth (can affect games)
- Larger uop cache and TLB (can affect games)
- Double load/store bandwidth (little effect on games)
- Significantly increased INT MUL/DIV performance (can have some effect on games, but not a lot)
Alder Lake:
- Massive frontend improvements, pretty much every aspect of it, especially decoding, instruction window (usually affects gaming greatly)
- More L2 cache (can affect games)
- Larger uop cache and TLB (can affect games)
- Added another ALU (can have some effect on games, but not a lot)

So both of these architectures should have the foundation to offer much greater gaming performance, but the reason they don't is that most current games are not demanding enough. But they can show greater advantage in the future if new games become more demanding.

I may be wrong, but my understanding regarding Cypress Cove is that is different from Sunny Cove regarding IPC.
My understanding is around 10% IPC improvemens on average for Cypress Cove vs Comet Lake and a little more if you measure SPECrate differences (+1.5% , +2% more) and Golden Cove around +19% IPC improvemens on average vs Cypress Cove (or -1.5%, -2% from that if you measure SPECrate differences.
So Golden Cove around +31% vs Comet Lake IPC (and regarding SPECrate around 28%-28.5%)
But anyway it doesn't matter what other architectures achieve in 720p gaming vs IPCxclock difference, because all your arguments (like that IPC improvements claims don't translate 100% to actual gaming performance increase which in general is valid) could be applied to Zen3 also and fail since 720p gaming performance is higher than IPCxclock difference.
Before you start to explain why Zen3 is different, don't bother, is known quantity, what is unknown is Zen4, another reason i told you for specific Zen4 technical arguments.

Back to Zen 4, with Zen 4 offering ~8% IPC improvements, double L2 cache and higher clocks, we are probably not looking at something which will outperform Alder Lake overall. As for gaming specifically, we can't know for sure, but even if we assume it's a lot of frontend improvements or even if AMD have made a genius improvement, it will still run into the same issue as Alder Lake, as many games get to the point where they basically fully saturate the GPU, especially on 1080p and higher.

You got me wrong, I'm not criticizing Wizzard's game selection. I'm claiming that future games will probably be gradually more demanding, therefore creating a new bottleneck to overcome. So 2-3 years from now, we should expect Alder Lake to look better vs. Comet Lake.

Looking back at games from the past 10+ years you'll see that games are slowly getting more demanding for CPUs, but that demands in GPU performance is growing much quicker. And considering the graphics APIs are focusing on batching operations and offloading this to the GPU, we can expect this trend to continue. This is why until recently Haswell and even Sandy Bridge CPUs have been "good enough" for gaming at realistic resolutions with a new mid-range GPU, some may argue they are still good enough.

From what i wrote you understood that i thought that you criticizing W1zzard?
My argument was that current gen games selection is plenty enough to generate distinctly different results in 720p if the testbed's VGA change from RTX 3080 to 4080, there is no need to look into the future 2-3 years from now to expect Zen4 to look better than Zen3 (or Alder Lake vs Comet Lake) in relation with what 720p difference we have now.

 

[efikkan]

I knew it, that's why i asked you if you have any Zen4 specific technical arguments.
Essentially you are taking historical data from other completely different architectures from other companies and apply the results here based on good assumptions, that i already told you that i agree, i wrote from the start that my hypothesis was a very optimistic Zen4 720p performance outcome, didn't i? So what is the reason for repeated arguements since as far as I'm aware we agree on this.
Unless you want to say that this optimistic scenario that i took isn't just not very likely to happen as as i wrote, but it has 0% chance happening.
in that case i think is unwise knowing so little for Zen4 to make so strong assumptions!

Because you're still not grasping the essential point here; as game performance is only indirectly dependent on the CPU, gaming gains from faster CPUs are dependent on there being a CPU bottleneck. Once you have a CPU fast enough to saturate the GPU, then you will not see gains in games even if you had an infinitely fast CPU. These are essential facts regardless of how amazing Zen 4 may be. And since Alder Lake already seems to overcome the bottleneck and flatten out in many games, we can't expect Zen 4 to do much better. This is called logical deduction. It's much better than taking IPC and Cinebench scores to predict gaming performance(GPU performance), which does not even correlate.

I may be wrong, but my understanding regarding Cypress Cove is that is different from Sunny Cove regarding IPC.

Cypress Cove is just the 14nm version of Sunny Cove with some tweaks. Intel's official figures are 18% and 19% respectively, which seems to match approximations. Rocket Lake did suffer from heavy throttling though, which leads people to think it has lower IPC than it actually has.

 

[ModEl4]

Because you're still not grasping the essential point here; as game performance is only indirectly dependent on the CPU, gaming gains from faster CPUs are dependent on there being a CPU bottleneck. Once you have a CPU fast enough to saturate the GPU, then you will not see gains in games even if you had an infinitely fast CPU. These are essential facts regardless of how amazing Zen 4 may be. And since Alder Lake already seems to overcome the bottleneck and flatten out in many games, we can't expect Zen 4 to do much better. This is called logical deduction. It's much better than taking IPC and Cinebench scores to predict gaming performance(GPU performance), which does not even correlate.

I heard you the first time regarding your assumption that Alder Lake (or Zen4) overcome the bottleneck and flatten out in many games.
That's your assumption, as i replied my assumption is that current TPU games selection isn't at this stage that you assume regarding 720p and the results regarding Zen4/Zen3 difference will prove me right in few months from now when TPU upgrades from RTX3080 to something like RTX4080 or whatever from ada/RDNA3.
We will see in a few months, I won't reply again regarding this, there is no point...

Cypress Cove is just the 14nm version of Sunny Cove with some tweaks. Intel's official figures are 18% and 19% respectively, which seems to match approximations. Rocket Lake did suffer from heavy throttling though, which leads people to think it has lower IPC than it actually has.

I told you i may be wrong, that was my impression i don't won't to research it again from the start, but can you help me point out an Intel's slide claiming Cypress Cove IPC is 18% faster than Comet Lake? (Sunny Cove comparison slides are irrelevant and also irrelevant for example are comments from reviewers using vague wording like Cypress Cove IPC seems to be similar to Sunny Cove etc, Intel slide please?)

 

[nicamarvin]

Impressive, and not to forget that the Alder/Raptor Lake arches perform best in cinebench. I remember a 20-25% uplift over Zen 3 but most other applications closer to 10-15%. Hope for AMD that scales just as well, if so they could really battle is out with Raptor Lake until Zen 4D launches.

Zen3 at ISO Speed has the same gaming performance than Alder Lake. But Intel had the Speed advantage. But now AMD has reached Speed Parity with Intel. So at games I fully expect Zen4 to beat Raptor Lake