AMD Ryzen 9 7950X

[Blueberries]

Okay I need to know, is it even safe to run 95C for extended durations? I understand that AMD has rated their chips this high but everything else in your chassis will also be cooking unless you have some really exotic airflow.

Those are BBQ temperatures. You can cook ribs in there.

 

[ModEl4]

All applications (not the games), equal weight of course


Yeah, many of them have it match or beat 12900K, but with fewer and older games. If you look at my tests, Age of Empires, Watch Dogs, Far Cry 6, RDR2 run very well on Intel. Far Cry 6 is very memory intensive, just like FC5. Not sure what the others are doing that Alder Lake runs them so well. Given that these are recent, highly popular titles, I can't just dismiss them and cherry pick the games that I'd like to use, so that AMD beats Intel. Or should I?

At the end of the day, you should look at multiple reviews. As I said in my conclusion, gaming performance is fantastic onall these CPUs and you'll never notice a difference without FPS counter

Oh i absolutely agree, If you buy at fall 2022 a $700 CPU it just makes sense to test it with newer games, who gives a **** what's the CS:GO's difference?
Regarding applications i guess that doesn't include synthetics correct?

 

[AusWolf]

Okay I need to know, is it even safe to run 95C for extended durations? I understand that AMD has rated their chips this high but everything else in your chassis will also be cooking unless you have some really exotic airflow.

Not necessarily. You only need an AIO / custom watercooling loop with the radiator used as exhaust. In terms of other components, only VRM temps are a bit worrying, though.

Those are BBQ temperatures. You can cook ribs in there.

I'm tempted to test that too.

 

[TheEndIsNear]

Ugghhh I was hoping they wouldn't have the same temp issues as Intel. Guess I'm sticking with what I have plus 4k gaming is virtually no difference with my 12900k. Save for new video card instead

 

[birdie]

Here's the biggest concern @W1zzard has overlooked.

Anyone who uses Ryzen 7000 CPUs will have to deal with a fan spinning at 100% given the CPU maximum temperature.

People will have to learn to edit the fan curve in BIOS settings.

Looks like AMD wanted to look better than 12900K at the cost of the extreme temperatures.

And considering der8auer's video about delidding looks like AMD made a major mistake by retaining cooler compability. Had they gone for a new cooler mount, they could have reached the same performance at far lower temps.

Lastly, I'm not convinced running at 95C 24/7 is safe.

 

[W1zzard]

Does anyone happen to know which motherboards include an eco mode feature / auto uv?

Right now the feature exists on paper. To enable it you have to manually adjust the PBO limits.

In a future AGESA code (which applies to all motherboards), AMD will add a single-option "Eco mode" that sets the options to the right values

Okay I need to know, is it even safe to run 95C for extended durations?

Lastly, I'm not convinced running at 95C 24/7 is safe.

Check the quote I posted in the conclusion

who gives a **** what's the CS:GO's difference?

CSGO players and highest FPS actually makes a difference there

 

[rv8000]

Hi,
When was 16 core+ 32 threads+ ever easy to cool ?

Multicore overclocking has always been a beast to cool
Only solution is leave on default clocks and enjoy with air/ aio cooling

Bar more testing, and potentially agesa/power profile updates, the 7700X is ramming its face into the 95c threshold (I didn’t check the 7600X), my 5800X, 5800X3D and my 3900X might hit the mid 70s (80c in my mitx build). The requirement to have basically the top tier air cooler for a low/midrange cpu like the 7600/7700X is bad imo.

The heat alone in more midrange builds, or mitx systems is going to cost general pc users, and those wanting sff systems a lot of performance. RAM instability, throttling on SSDs, lower GPU clocks.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the 7000 series is bad, but heat is one of the reasons I’ve stayed away from intel since the 8k series. The trend of companies pushing parts to the edge of what’s capable stock has been a bad one if you ask me.

 

[HisDivineOrder]

If Intel had released a CPU that ran at 95 degrees constantly and suggested AIO cooling as basically required at absurd power requirements, you'd hear nothing but how bad it is. I wonder where those people are now that AMD is doing the same but worse, running a CPU at 95 as typical. Imagine the heat load in your room.

Underclocking is going to be the order of the day now that companies think they don't even need to worry about product longevity anymore.

 

[natr0n]

Great Review.

 

[mb194dc]

Far to expensive with board and ram, hot and draws 200w. It's fast but can get last gen for much cheaper. Only really niche use case to bother upgrade.

The 5.1ghz all core clock only sane way to run, stopping it feeding itself crazy voltage, looking at power and temps.

 

[ModEl4]

CSGO players and highest FPS actually makes a difference there

I guess (isn't already at near 500fps or something in 4K Ultra with a 6800XT?)
Anyway, i saw in PCWorld video review some weirdly low 0.1% and 1% scores and also Tech YES city decided to postpone their reviews for exactly the same reason!

 

[W1zzard]

some weirdly low 0.1% and 1% scores

Haven't noticed anything, my frametime charts are included in the reviews

 

[Prima.Vera]

If you only use a CPU for gaming , then the Intel's i5-12600K is still the king of the Price/Performance chart by far.

 

[zlobby]

Far to expensive with board and ram, hot and draws 200w. It's fast but can get last gen for much cheaper. Only really niche use case to bother upgrade.

The 5.1ghz all core clock only sane way to run, stopping it feeding itself crazy voltage, looking at power and temps.

Yeah, you are better with intel.

 

[cadaveca]

The trend of companies pushing parts to the edge of what’s capable stock has been a bad one if you ask me.

If Intel had released a CPU that ran at 95 degrees constantly and suggested AIO cooling as basically required at absurd power requirements, you'd hear nothing but how bad it is.

This sort of temperature loading has been commonplace in the market forever. People seem to forget that these are essentially mobile parts released for desktop. Intel killed their true desktop CPUs, and AMD has threadripper.

Laptops run these temps every day, with lifespans that exceed many years. This "new" thing is hardly something to be concerned about.

 

[zlobby]

Haven't noticed anything, my frametime charts are included in the reviews

As the guys said it could be due to a heap of things. So far it doesn't seem to be widespread.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Okay I need to know, is it even safe to run 95C for extended durations? I understand that AMD has rated their chips this high but everything else in your chassis will also be cooking unless you have some really exotic airflow.

Those are BBQ temperatures. You can cook ribs in there.

Regarding engineering, it’s all about design limits and running accordingly. One thing you get now in modern semiconductors is more temperature sensors, and more accurate temperature readings across the entirety of the chip. That means being able to run that chip at higher limits because the chip is better able to run at any set tolerance and regulate local temps very well. In the old days, there wasn’t even a thermistor on the CPU, so max values had to be quite conservative. There’s also a factor in smaller nodes having hotter temps. Transistor density is high, so the design must account for increased thermal density too.

Besides, reviews have said you can bypass 95C for overclocking and set the new limit at up to 115C. Even 115C must be under the acceptable thermal threshold before chip failure.

 

[Aranarth]

Everyone is all up in arms over 95c temps. Let me explain from my point of view:


So if you have a 200watt cooler and stick a cpu that could output 200wats but wont because it will only output 150watts then you have 50watts of untapped power.
It will run cool and will always run cool but that is bad because you have some wasted performance.

With this cpu it will give max performance on every cpu cooler. It revs to 95c finishes the task and drops back to low power state.

If your cpu cooler can do 100 watts then you get 100 watts of performance and the cpu will boost till it hits 95c and will sit there until the task is complete.
If you have a cpu cooler that can handle 250 watts then the cpu will rev to whatever that limit is until the task is complete.

In essence this cpu is now operating the same as laptop cpu's that can run into heat soak with small coolers.
The cpu is now designed to give you whatever the max performance your heat sink is capable of producing.

In other words you start to see people complaining that they stuck a 100 watt cooler and are not getting the same performance as someon using a water cooling loop not understanding that the cpu is running as fast as it can go with the gimped cooler that has been stuck on it.

In other words the entire cooling narative has been flipped.
Anyone still confused about this?

 

[efikkan]

I do expect the gaming performance to be improved by AMD. But they either don't know how or don't want to do it.
Some games like Borderlands 3 show very large performance gains with the large additional cache in the Ryzen 7 5800X3D.

There is a reason why I said most current games, not all current games, as there are a handful outliers. Some of these are very sensitive to L3 cache, which are the few games which showcased significant gains with 5800X3D, and we can expect the same games to show gains with a Zen 4 with 3D V-cache too. But loads of extra L3 cache did not show significant gains in most games, as sensitivity to L3 cache is a symptom of inefficient instruction cache usage by the software, which in other words mean software bloat. So these few games are experiencing a bottleneck on most current hardware, a sort of "artificial" one.

As to whether AMD knows or wants to do "it", AMD's engineers are very aware of their performance characteristics and shortcomings. And when it comes to gaming overall, their performance is great, at least until we get games which puts very different levels of stress on the CPU's resources.

 

[THU31]

Okay I need to know, is it even safe to run 95C for extended durations? I understand that AMD has rated their chips this high but everything else in your chassis will also be cooking unless you have some really exotic airflow.

Those are BBQ temperatures. You can cook ribs in there.

As someone has already mentioned, that is not how it works. It makes absolutely no difference what the temperature of the CPU is. Whether it is 95* or 50*, the heat output is the same, it is all about how that heat is transferred.

The dies are so small and the IHS is so thick, that the heat cannot be transferred fast enough to the cooler.

If the heat can be transferred quickly, the CPU will be cooler, but other components like the radiator or the water block will be hotter. But it is the same amount of heat.

What happens when you spin up your GPU fans to maximum? The GPU temperature will drop by 10 or 20 degrees, but all that heat will still be inside the case and you need to get rid of it using exhaust fans. And once you exhaust it, all that heat will be in your room.

 

[evernessince]

Right now the feature exists on paper. To enable it you have to manually adjust the PBO limits.

In a future AGESA code (which applies to all motherboards), AMD will add a single-option "Eco mode" that sets the options to the right values

Thank you very much, highly appreciated!

 

[AusWolf]

Everyone is all up in arms over 95c temps. Let me explain from my point of view:


So if you have a 200watt cooler and stick a cpu that could output 200wats but wont because it will only output 150watts then you have 50watts of untapped power.
It will run cool and will always run cool but that is bad because you have some wasted performance.

With this cpu it will give max performance on every cpu cooler. It revs to 95c finishes the task and drops back to low power state.

If your cpu cooler can do 100 watts then you get 100 watts of performance and the cpu will boost till it hits 95c and will sit there until the task is complete.
If you have a cpu cooler that can handle 250 watts then the cpu will rev to whatever that limit is until the task is complete.

In essence this cpu is now operating the same as laptop cpu's that can run into heat soak with small coolers.
The cpu is now designed to give you whatever the max performance your heat sink is capable of producing.

In other words you start to see people complaining that they stuck a 100 watt cooler and are not getting the same performance as someon using a water cooling loop not understanding that the cpu is running as fast as it can go with the gimped cooler that has been stuck on it.

In other words the entire cooling narative has been flipped.
Anyone still confused about this?

That's an interesting train of thought. I've just watched JayzTwoCent's review of the 7950X. He also reached 95 °C with a 360 mm AIO on an open test bench while running 5.1 GHz all-core. Can we assume, then, that you won't be able to get the 5.1 GHz all-core unless you run at least a 360 mm AIO on open air?

 

[Dirt Chip]

As someone has already mentioned, that is not how it works. It makes absolutely no difference what the temperature of the CPU is. Whether it is 95* or 50*, the heat output is the same, it is all about how that heat is transferred.

The dies are so small and the IHS is so thick, that the heat cannot be transferred fast enough to the cooler.

If the heat can be transferred quickly, the CPU will be cooler, but other components like the radiator or the water block will be hotter. But it is the same amount of heat.

What happens when you spin up your GPU fans to maximum? The GPU temperature will drop by 10 or 20 degrees, but all that heat will still be inside the case and you need to get rid of it using exhaust fans. And once you exhaust it, all that heat will be in your room.

But in 7950/7900 case, you need to use good AIO. That is a big difference and pose limitations (both space and cost) on the consumer.
Not cool at all.

 

[THU31]

But in 7950/7900 case, you need to use good AIO. That is a big difference and pose limitations (both space and cost) on the consumer.
Not cool at all.

That is the main problem with the whole Turbo Boost thing on both Intel and now AMD. Reviewers test with the best possible equipment, so their results are not representative.

There have been pre-built PCs with a 12900K where the CPU throttles to 12700K level of performance, because they screwed up the cooling.

Unfortunately, they are selling you a CPU with a base clock. That is what you are paying for. All the boost stuff is optional (even if turned on by default), and they tell you about it in the product sheet or whatever.

 

[zlobby]

But in 7950/7900 case, you need to use good AIO. That is a big difference and pose limitations (both space and cost) on the consumer.
Not cool at all.

Yes, next time AMD will take it into consideration and lower the thermals! /s

It's a top-tier CPU FFS! What are you people expecting? Do you cool your intel 13900 with a stock fan?

If you can cough so much cash for PSU, RAM, CPU and mobo, but the coller is your problem - I have bad news for you...

Unfortunately, they are selling you a CPU with a base clock. That is what you are paying for. All the boost stuff is optional (even if turned on by default), and they tell you about it in the product sheet or whatever.

This guy gets it!