AMD Ryzen 9 7950X

[InVasMani]

What's it look in terms of performance, temps, and boosts if you disable the second CCX similar to E cores being disabled. I can see that as a reasonable reason to consider doing so actually while gaming or doing lighter tasks especially if you can just do it easily with software from the desktop rather than venturing into the bios to do so. I'm not sure if AMD has them setup to be disabled from the desktop software or not though they've done quite a lot with software so I wouldn't doubt it.

Provided you can still access the full L3 cache with 1 of the 2 CCX disabled I really don't see a issue with it at all and if anything it could even provide some better performance depending on application and system usage. Perhaps AMD can work with Microsoft on Windows scheduler to determine what's best based on usage at when the other CCX is basically effectively idle disable them until it needs to be activated or assign it to background time slice tasks only, but not foreground tasks.

 

[phill]

Thank you @W1zzard for amazing reviews of the new AMD line up...

I'll be sticking with my Threadripper 3970X and 5950X for now, but maybe 8 series We'll see !! Interesting times ahead!!

 

[jesdals]

In stock in Denmark - but a decent setup with 32gb memory will cost 35% more than a 5950x setup

 

[Colddecked]

I think he mentioned 50 MHz gain.

He noted there was alot more head room for tweaking. Anyways, the way Ryzen boosts, lower temps automatically equals more performance.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I'm pretty impressed by this.

Ryzen 9 7950X vs Core i9: Can ECO Mode save you money?

AMD says the Eco Mode on its new top-of-the-line Ryzen processor can beat Intel, even running at full power. It's time to put it to the test.

www.pcworld.com

When AMD talked about 65W performance still being good I kinda just expected it to match or slightly lose to the stock 5950X in this configuration boy was I wrong. SFF builders seem to really have a winner here 12900k like performance at less than half the total system power...

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

@W1zzard you mentioned that AVX-512 was disabled for your PS3 emulator test. Are there any plans for testing this compared to an AVX-512 enabled 12900K (P-cores only, early sample) to see the performance difference between Intel's and AMD's implementations? Just curious, really.

---

I would absolutely love to try milling the drastically thick IHS (on any of the 7k series) into an integrated waterblock. Extreme variants, anyone? Do I have a buyer?

 

[R0H1T]

AVX 512 is disabled by Intel for quite a while now, unless you have an old board & older OS or get the 11900k?

 

[Chrispy_]

I'm pretty impressed by this.

Ryzen 9 7950X vs Core i9: Can ECO Mode save you money?

AMD says the Eco Mode on its new top-of-the-line Ryzen processor can beat Intel, even running at full power. It's time to put it to the test.

www.pcworld.com

View attachment 263233View attachment 263234


When AMD talked about 65W performance still being good I kinda just expected it to match or slightly lose to the stock 5950X in this configuration boy was I wrong. SFF builders seem to really have a winner here 12900k like performance at less than half the total system power...

so ECO 105 is the same power limit as a 5950X and that's still a 34% improvement in performance at the same TDP.

In stock in Denmark - but a decent setup with 32gb memory will cost 35% more than a 5950x setup

and it's 34% faster!

 

[R0H1T]

It's even more efficient at 65W mode. These chips would be real beasts in laptop or other SFF devices!

 

[Shatun_Bear]

I'm pretty impressed by this.

Ryzen 9 7950X vs Core i9: Can ECO Mode save you money?

AMD says the Eco Mode on its new top-of-the-line Ryzen processor can beat Intel, even running at full power. It's time to put it to the test.

www.pcworld.com

View attachment 263233View attachment 263234


When AMD talked about 65W performance still being good I kinda just expected it to match or slightly lose to the stock 5950X in this configuration boy was I wrong. SFF builders seem to really have a winner here 12900k like performance at less than half the total system power...

Intel needs to get off of 10nm (Intel 7) asap. It's so inefficient, this will be driven home like excalibur through a rock with Raptor Lake. If you thought the 12900K drew a lot of power, wait until you see how much power the 13900K needs to match the 7950X in productivity apps.

 

[JustBenching]

Intel needs to get off of 10nm (Intel 7) asap. It's so inefficient, this will be driven home like excalibur through a rock with Raptor Lake. If you thought the 12900K drew a lot of power, wait until you see how much power the 13900K needs to match the 7950X in productivity apps.

What? The 13900k at 245w will probably tie or be really close to the 7950x at 230w. So what are you freaking talking about?

 

[Shatun_Bear]

What? The 13900k at 245w will probably tie or be really close to the 7950x at 230w. So what are you freaking talking about?

'Tie' in what?

 

[JustBenching]

'Tie' in what?

In heavy mt workloads like cbr23? I mean considering the 12900k already scores 28k, the 13900 with 8 ecores extra will have to score at least 35k...so,what are you talking about??

 

[R0H1T]

You have a serious habit of embellishing facts, with 8 more E cores, higher clocks & possibly higher temps (leakage) you think 13900k will be more efficient? And where are you pulling that 245W number from

 

[oxrufiioxo]

In heavy mt workloads like cbr23? I mean considering the 12900k already scores 28k, the 13900 with 8 ecores extra will have to score at least 35k...so,what are you talking about??

Yes, but the 7950X can score 28k at 65w and 34k+ at 105w so if raptor lake needs to nearly double wattage to slightly beat zen4 that's a pretty epic fail considering it has what intel want's to call 16 efficiency cores.

Obviously people need to wait for real reviews done by reputable reviewers regardless not random internet leaks as plausible as they may be.

 

[Valantar]

Those +90°C at full load from just the cpu will transform the room in an oven during summer months.
Imagine this thing paired with one or two 4090 and using both gpu and cpu for rendering.

No, this is a misunderstanding. It will be pumping out however many watts of heat is being produced, regardless if the core temperature is 95°C or 30°C - the temperature of the core is not directly linked to heat output, but in a very complex, multi-factor relation to it. Heat output is (over time) equal to the amount of electrical energy consumed.

Did he test the performance improvement after the delid? If there is none or just minor it's pretty pointless.

At least +50MHz oc stability, - 15W power from less leakage, definitely more OC headroom and room for manual tuning, but he didn't explore it much. Probably room for increasing voltages more due to lower leakage.

Yes of course it pumps out heat. A poorly phrased question perhaps but the idea behind it is maybe you can't use your older cooling solution because you had a CPU that didn't pump out so much heat consistently. If the cooling was inadequate what would happen to an AIO in that scenario if you pushed it too far?

But that only applies if your cooler can't handle the thermal energy (i.e. power draw) put out by the chip, and doesn't directly relate to the absolute temperature of the chip.

 

[A Computer Guy]

... doesn't directly relate to the absolute temperature of the chip.

Indeed, like I said a poorly phrased question none the less some great replies by participants in the thread offering much clarity on the issue.

 

[zlobby]

@W1zzard you mentioned that AVX-512 was disabled for your PS3 emulator test. Are there any plans for testing this compared to an AVX-512 enabled 12900K (P-cores only, early sample) to see the performance difference between Intel's and AMD's implementations? Just curious, really.

---

I would absolutely love to try milling the drastically thick IHS (on any of the 7k series) into an integrated waterblock. Extreme variants, anyone? Do I have a buyer?

This is an idea I was thinking of a long time ago! I'd surely buy one if it turns out to be of good quality.

Indeed, like I said a poorly phrased question none the less some great replies by participants in the thread offering much clarity on the issue.

TPU is still one of the very few remaining strongholds of sanity and normal (whatever that means) community. Not possible without a heavy moderation anyway.

No, this is a misunderstanding. It will be pumping out however many watts of heat is being produced, regardless if the core temperature is 95°C or 30°C - the temperature of the core is not directly linked to heat output, but in a very complex, multi-factor relation to it. Heat output is (over time) equal to the amount of electrical energy consumed.

At least +50MHz oc stability, - 15W power from less leakage, definitely more OC headroom and room for manual tuning, but he didn't explore it much. Probably room for increasing voltages more due to lower leakage.

But that only applies if your cooler can't handle the thermal energy (i.e. power draw) put out by the chip, and doesn't directly relate to the absolute temperature of the chip.

Power draw doesn't automatically mean heat. The missing thing here is the efficiency, which tells us what part of the consumed energy went for useful work and what as heat.

 

[W1zzard]

@W1zzard you mentioned that AVX-512 was disabled for your PS3 emulator test. Are there any plans for testing this compared to an AVX-512 enabled 12900K (P-cores only, early sample) to see the performance difference between Intel's and AMD's implementations? Just curious, really.

Not even sure if I can find such an old BIOS to flash back to enable AVX-512. Maybe when I have spare time .. next year after all the upcoming launches

Kinda surprised more outlets didn't test this cpu at 65w it still seems to beat a stock 12900k in a lot of workloads which is kinda crazy.

and yet AMD didn't release the productlike that, instead they chose to go overboard with the clocks and voltages, but have several times requested press to show the eco mode, which currently doesn't exist in the BIOS. You have to emulate it by manually adjusting PBO settings

 

[oxrufiioxo]

and yet AMD didn't release the productlike that, instead they chose to go overboard with the clocks and voltages, but have several times requested press to show the eco mode, which currently doesn't exist in the BIOS. You have to emulate it by manually adjusting PBO settings

They did boast about it at the Ryzen 7000 reveal though and personally I thought it was just marketing BS.

I know you tech reviewers have a ton on your plate covering 4 different cpus and possibly having to re run previous generation to validate data I can't even imagine how much work goes into the in depth coverage you provide definitely more than my 40 hour work week.

I wasn't trying to criticize yours or anyone else coverage of these cpus I was just surpised more outlets didn't validate amd claims of performance at lower wattages. Thanks for clarifying it isn't a simple toggle that's definitely something AMD should add.

 

[Shatun_Bear]

In heavy mt workloads like cbr23? I mean considering the 12900k already scores 28k, the 13900 with 8 ecores extra will have to score at least 35k...so,what are you talking about??

How on earth is Cinebench a 'productivity workload' or even a workload? Come back to the real world and read the review, Wizzard did all the tests for no reason it seems...

Look at the above. In Blender, the 7950X draws 235W, the 12900K draws 257W. The 13900K has 8 more cores than the 12900K and is clocked even further past the limit on the same aging 10nm process node. It will offer around the same performance as the 7950X in productivity apps on average yet the power draw is going to be what, 300W+? For the CPU alone, that is rather obscene.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

How on earth is Cinebench a 'productivity workload' or even a workload? Come back to the real world and read the review, Wizzard did all the tests for no reason it seems...

Look at the above. In Blender, the 7950X draws 235W, the 12900K draws 257W. The 13900K has 8 more cores than the 12900K and is clocked even further past the limit on the same aging 10nm process node. It will offer around the same performance as the 7950X in productivity apps on average yet the power draw is going to be what, 300W+? For the CPU alone, that is rather obscene.

They are claiming 41% avg MT performance uplift vs stock 12900K at about 260w which would still be impressive if true.

Just like Amd claims I'll believe it once @W1zzard and other reputable sites review it.

My guess is if it does blow past 300w they'll blame boardmakers.

 

[R0H1T]

It's not possible at 260W, that's simply not going to happen!
Just like AMD, or you could argue beginning with Intel, the efficiency will be much worse at those abominable clocks & so will power consumption/temps ~

Spoiler

 

[Shatun_Bear]

They are claiming 41% avg MT performance uplift vs stock 12900K at about 260w which would still be impressive if true.

Just like Amd claims I'll believe it once @W1zzard and other reputable sites review it.

My guess is if it does blow past 300w they'll blame boardmakers.

I think there is little chance of that, which would be a massive leap in performance per watt. It's the same node, and not meant to be a huge departure from Alder Lake.

Certainly in the test I quoted, Blender multi-thread, it will not draw only 260W. Let's wait and see.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I think there is little chance of that, which would be a massive leap in performance per watt. It's the same node, and not meant to be a huge departure from Alder Lake.

Certainly in the test I quoted, Blender multi-thread, it will not draw only 260W. Let's wait and see.

Personally excited to see the results us consumers need both companies to do well so I'm hoping their claims are true.

AMD massively improved performance per watt on 7nm going from RDNA 1 to RDNA 2 and also improved it going from Zen 2 to Zen 3 so it's possible.