Core Performance Boost Contributes 14% to Ryzen 5 7600X Cinebench R23 Score

[AM4isGOD]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't want to have to under volt a desktop CPU (especially just 6 cores) to keep the heat down. You should not have to make that sacrifice with a desktop CPU, even if it is a small form factor build.

I'm not knocking AMD cause Intel has been building mini heaters for while now. But everyone says to just under volt the CPU to get rid of the heat. If you need to do that to keep the heat down then dont buy a $300 CPU. Why buy an expensive CPU if your just going to undervolt and slow down the chip. It's like driving a Ferrari with a governor installed to keep you from speeding.

I have undervolted CPUs in laptops before and it made more sense cause I dont like my chip running at +90C for a sustained gaming session. The CPU will lose long term performance to be under that much heat for extended periods of time. I think it is called electromigration, but I bet someone here knows and will correct me if I'm wrong on the terminology.

Just put a less powerful GPU in to lower the CPU heat. I'm running a 12700k which runs really cool gaming as i only have a 1080ti

 

[ZetZet]

To

You're missing the point entirely. These CPUs have extraordinarily high heat density. To cool 110W over a large area is a much easier feat than extracting 110W of heat out of a tiny chiplet, and real estate is a luxury in an SFF build.

That could be true, but the heat spreader is the same, you don't get a bigger one in a bigger case. Of course the temps will be lower with an overkill cooling solution, but I seriously doubt that it would throttle at 92C. And 110W is definitely not hard to cool in a SFF case, even a 120mm rad would be sufficient. Or a medium sized air cooler.

 

[freeagent]

This is my kids 5600X after it choked on a 10GB load from Linpack Xtreme for 10 minutes.. cooled with a "small" Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme Rev B. In a big Define R4 with 4 case fans, nice and quiet. If I stuck some B-Die in it and ramped up the Mem/IF clocks, you would see closer to 130w..

 

[Dyatlov A]

My half expensive (overclocked) Intel 12500 can do easily more scores,

And of corse stays cooler, arround 80C.

 

[AM4isGOD]

What kind of cooling is being used? Looks a bit lowend, or its harder to cool because its a smaller CPU? Boost looks good, power is still lowish, even compared to my 5600X which can do ~130w with PBO/CO and boost override, but of course caps at 4850. What's with all the haters? ADL wont last forever, at least Zen 3 got solid run time.. you should be happy that it was AMD that got Intel to make a better CPU, because they weren't doing it on their own. Now there is good competition between the two brands, they win with money, we win with performance. What's not to like?

Yeah put that in big caps. Might stop all the bullshit tit for tat crap in this forum right now. Amd threads turn into page after page of arguing, Intel threads end up the same. Makes the forum look full of fanboys that just want to argue instead of either agreeing to disagree, or argue because no one will back down.

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.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
From the horses mouth Intel now a amd fanboy

Intel's CEO Pat Gelsinger announced that he expects the company to continue to lose its market share to AMD as the competition has "too much momentum" going for it. AMD's Ryzen and EPYC processors continue to deliver power and efficiency performance figures, which drives customers towards the company.

Intel Expects to Lose More Market Share, to Reconsider Exiting Other Businesses

During Evercore ISI TMT conference, Intel announced that the company would continue to lose market share, with a possible bounce back in the coming years. According to the latest report, Intel's CEO Pat Gelsinger announced that he expects the company to continue to lose its market share to AMD...

www.techpowerup.com

 

[Makaveli]

Hi,
From the horses mouth Intel now a amd fanboy

Can you provide the source of this quote?

 

[Pepamami]

This is not PBO.

I think it is. Coz 7600X is hitting 110W on screenshots, and not limiting to 88-90W or something.

 

[ThrashZone]

Can you provide the source of this quote?

Hi,
Sure

Intel Expects to Lose More Market Share, to Reconsider Exiting Other Businesses

During Evercore ISI TMT conference, Intel announced that the company would continue to lose market share, with a possible bounce back in the coming years. According to the latest report, Intel's CEO Pat Gelsinger announced that he expects the company to continue to lose its market share to AMD...

www.techpowerup.com

 

[MarsM4N]

Same bad power draw as Intel's core boost. 14% performance increase for 50W extra power draw sounds like a very bad tradeoff.

Let's wait & see what propper BIOS tinkering, undervolting & adding EXPO RAM can achieve. Maybe the 7600 non X will be the better pick.

 

[Punkenjoy]

Yeah put that in big caps. Might stop all the bullshit tit for tat crap in this forum right now. Amd threads turn into page after page of arguing, Intel threads end up the same. Makes the forum look full of fanboys that just want to argue instead of either agreeing to disagree, or argue because no one will back down.

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.

One of the underrated benefits of AIO and custom loop water cooling is to run your system on water temperature instead of on CPU.

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.

 

[AM4isGOD]

One of the underrated benefits of AIO and custom loop water cooling is to run your system on water temperature instead of on CPU.

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.

Mine is on water temp as i have a temp sensor in the loop with a USB aqua computer device.

Remember i have 6 120mm fans on two 360 radiators, so they can run very slow and quiet without really compromising the cooling.

 

[Punkenjoy]

Mine is on water temp as i have a temp sensor in the loop with a USB aqua computer device.

Remember i have 6 120mm fans on two 360 radiators, so they can run very slow and quiet without really compromising the cooling.

Nice, i am looking to build my first custom loop this winter. I will either get Lovelace or RNDA 3 and will see between Raptor Lake / Zen 4 X3D.

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.

 

[AusWolf]

If you're able to cool 110W then it won't throttle. Like I said temperature is unrelated. If the person thinks 110W is unacceptable for CPUs when we are heading towards 200W then sure, but again nothing to do with the temperature.

So the problem is cooling 110W. What is the alternative? Intel CPUs use even more power. You could undervolt this CPU and it would use 90W or less. R5 3600 was a 65W TDP and that somehow was a problem for you too.

Have you read a single thing I said? It's not about power! It's about heat dissipation! Why do you think some mobile SoCs run hot even though they consume around the 5 W range? Jesus...

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.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Have you read a single thing I said? It's not about power! It's about heat dissipation! Why do you think some mobile SoCs run hot even though they consume around the 5 W range? Jesus...

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.

They made the surface area of their IHS too small.

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.

 

[freeagent]

Its as large as it needs to be?

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.

 

[R0H1T]

Maybe they'll need to design better coolers for these new chips? Didn't Arctic or some other manufacturer have a slight offset on the last zen (Intel?) based chips for better heat dissipation, saw it on GN but don't remember when

 

[RandallFlagg]

Its as large as it needs to be?

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.

That's flatly false. Surface area matters. The only other thing they can control is the materials which affects the heat transfer coefficient.

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

 

[Naito]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't want to have to under volt a desktop CPU (especially just 6 cores) to keep the heat down. You should not have to make that sacrifice with a desktop CPU, even if it is a small form factor build.

I'm not knocking AMD cause Intel has been building mini heaters for while now. But everyone says to just under volt the CPU to get rid of the heat. If you need to do that to keep the heat down then dont buy a $300 CPU. Why buy an expensive CPU if your just going to undervolt and slow down the chip. It's like driving a Ferrari with a governor installed to keep you from speeding.

I have undervolted CPUs in laptops before and it made more sense cause I dont like my chip running at +90C for a sustained gaming session. The CPU will lose long term performance to be under that much heat for extended periods of time. I think it is called electromigration, but I bet someone here knows and will correct me if I'm wrong on the terminology.

Because voltage is a one size fits all approach when the chips leave the factory. You may be lucky enough to acquire a quality bin for which a lower voltage will not only potentially boost performance, but drop temperatures

 

[thegnome]

IMO the main problem with shrinking die sizes now yet similar power draw is just that the heat density gets too great for any material to transfer the heat properly. Gone are the days of a bit higher than ambient temps on even the most basic coolers. I hope this trend will be solved, even if partially, since you can't exactly shrink dies anymore if you already run into thermal issues at little power, regardless of cooler.

 

[RandallFlagg]

And more on topic -

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1568231095145058304

 

[Oberon]

I think it is. Coz 7600X is hitting 110W on screenshots, and not limiting to 88-90W or something.

The 7600X has a default PPT of 142W.

 

[tabascosauz]

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.

Disabling CPB is AMD's equivalent of disabling Turbo Boost and running exclusively at base clock. It's just not so apparent when base clock is as high as it is for Zen 4 (4.7GHz).

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.

 

[freeagent]

That's flatly false. Surface area matters.

Surface area matters if there is something under the surface. If you are just adding IHS for the sake of it, dontcha think they would have been doing that all this time?

 

[Deleted member 185158]

Surface area matters if there is something under the surface. If you are just adding IHS for the sake of it, dontcha think they would have been doing that all this time?

The IHS plate adds some surface area but also stores some thermals as well.

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.