AMD Ryzen 7 7700X

[AusWolf]

If however they (guru3d) are correct and scaling is minimal at best, that's bad for Zen 4.

Why would that be bad for Zen 4? You can have the same performance even with cheaper RAM. I think it's a positive thing.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Why would that be bad for Zen 4? You can have the same performance even with cheaper RAM. I think it's a positive thing.

Is that sarcasm?

What do you think will happen here?

 

[trparky]

Um... I'm looking at a table of data and I have no idea what it means. Can someone turn the help files on?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Um... I'm looking at a table of data and I have no idea what it means. Can someone turn the help files on?

Those are DDR5-7200 to 7600 speed kits for Raptor Lake.

My point is that if Zen 4 doesn't scale with memory speed past 6000, it's going to be toast for any real enthusiast build, regardless of what what some JEDEC using "review" says. DDR5-7200 / 7600 is real, it's gonna be a thing. This time next year we may be at 10000, that's what Micron predicted when DDR5 came out - 2 years to DDR5-10000 starting from 2021.

 

[trparky]

My point is that if Zen 4 doesn't scale with memory speed past 6000, it's going to be toast for any real enthusiast build

I don't see it that way. The way I see it is if getting faster memory beyond 6000 makes no difference in the performance of the processor that means there's no need to buy faster, more expensive memory. That's a good thing, that's a win for the consumer. There is a thing called the point of diminishing returns, hit that and it doesn't matter what you do.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I don't see it that way. The way I see it is if getting faster memory beyond 6000 makes no difference in the performance of the processor that means there's no need to buy faster, more expensive memory. That's a good thing, that's a win for the consumer. There is a thing called the point of diminishing returns, hit that and it doesn't matter what you do.

I don't think you're getting it, that logic is strange.

Let's say 13900K and 7950X are equal using 6000, lets call that '1'.
Then we had 6400, and 13900K goes to 1.1 and 7950X stays at '1.
Then we had 7200 and 13900K goes to 1.2 and 7950X stays at '1'.
Then we have 7600 and 13900K goes to 1.3 and 7950X stays at '1'.

In what world is this 'good' for Zen 4?

 

[Forza.Milan]

i think this 7700x is the best of all Ryzen 7000 series..

 

[AusWolf]

I don't think you're getting it, that logic is strange.

Let's say 13900K and 7950X are equal using 6000, lets call that '1'.
Then we had 6400, and 13900K goes to 1.1 and 7950X stays at '1.
Then we had 7200 and 13900K goes to 1.2 and 7950X stays at '1'.
Then we have 7600 and 13900K goes to 1.3 and 7950X stays at '1'.

In what world is this 'good' for Zen 4?

Except that 1.3x faster RAM will cost you 2x more. So with Zen 4 and 6000 MHz RAM, you can have a marginally slower system for half the price than a 13900K with 7200 (if B650 lands at affordable levels). The highest enthusiasts of the enthusiast elite will care, but they are not the ones who generate the biggest sales for either company.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Except that 1.3x faster RAM will cost you 2x more. So with Zen 4 and 6000 MHz RAM, you can have a marginally slower system for half the price than a 13900K with 7200 (if B650 lands at affordable levels). The highest enthusiasts of the enthusiast elite will care, but they are not the ones who generate the biggest sales for either company.

Bad math.

You can pay 2x as much for RAM and the upgrade cost won't be 2X.

The TG DDR5-7200 kit is $350 vs $225 for 6000, and a full platform upgrade for a rig that can run that speed is likely going to well north of $1000.

 

[ratirt]

Bad math.

You can pay 2x as much for RAM and the upgrade cost won't be 2X.

The TG DDR5-7200 kit is $350 vs $225 for 6000, and a full platform upgrade for a rig that can run that speed is likely going to well north of $1000.

I is not bad it just lack of understanding from your part. Diminishing returns. Your math with the TG DDR5 kit still show a lot more for a lot less or no difference even (that can also happen)
It is irrelevant by what margin @AusWolf math was wrong since that was not the point. The point is it is still not worth the jump in Mem speed.

I have seen the reviews around and the difference in the performance between the reviews is quite substantial for some reason. Either way it is a huge leap in comparison to the older 5000 series CPUs. I'm curious what Rocket Lake will show and how things will play out for new Zen then. As for Zen's power consumption and efficiency, it is dman great but the temps are worrying and this is not due to excessive power consumption like Intel's Alder Lake but the die size for sure and incapable IHS maybe? I'm not changing to new Ryzen (or any else for that matter) since there is no point for that. The temps are getting higher and both companies will have to look into this because trying to convince people that running a CPU at 95 degrees Celsius is OK is simply put laughable. It is not OK and wont be OK at least for me.

 

[AusWolf]

I is not bad it just lack of understanding from your part. Diminishing returns. Your math with the TG DDR5 kit still show a lot more for a lot less or no difference even (that can also happen)
It is irrelevant by what margin @AusWolf math was wrong since that was not the point. The point is it is still not worth the jump in Mem speed.

Exactly.

@RandallFlagg In your example, you're talking about a $125 difference between the two RAM kits. With Zen 4, you can spend that money on a better motherboard, or better graphics card. Or a birthday gift for your partner. Or 10 pizzas. If you go with Intel and faster RAM, what do you get? A couple percent more in Cinebench? 10 FPS more in CS:GO? A very "enthusiast" way to think, indeed.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

I is not bad it just lack of understanding from your part. Diminishing returns. Your math with the TG DDR5 kit still show a lot more for a lot less or no difference even (that can also happen)
It is irrelevant by what margin @AusWolf math was wrong since that was not the point. The point is it is still not worth the jump in Mem speed.

I have seen the reviews around and the difference in the performance between the reviews is quite substantial for some reason. Either way it is a huge leap in comparison to the older 5000 series CPUs. I'm curious what Rocket Lake will show and how things will play out for new Zen then. As for Zen's power consumption and efficiency, it is dman great but the temps are worrying and this is not due to excessive power consumption like Intel's Alder Lake but the die size for sure and incapable IHS maybe? I'm not changing to new Ryzen (or any else for that matter) since there is no point for that. The temps are getting higher and both companies will have to look into this because trying to convince people that running a CPU at 95 degrees Celsius is OK is simply put laughable. It is not OK and wont be OK at least for me.

Time will tell if 95C is a bad idea for Zen 4. A passively-cooled GF 210 will run at that temp its entire non-idling life, so 95C doesn't seem like an automatic early death sentence. All depends on the silicon.

 

[ratirt]

Time will tell if 95C is a bad idea for Zen 4. A passively-cooled GF 210 will run at that temp its entire non-idling life, so 95C doesn't seem like an automatic early death sentence. All depends on the silicon.

I literally don't understand your statement. Time will tell if 95c is a bad idea? Will it ever be a good idea? If you mean, it is OK to a point because it does not affect the hardware only the temp which can be dissipated if you have a good air cooling or water cooling I would get it. Implying, that Ryzen CPUs reaching 95c might be a good idea is crazy.
I'm not talking about death sentence but the implication of the CPU running at 95c with other components at the same time. For me, it is not good and it is really hard to say 95c for a CPU is a good move for Ryzen cause that's what I get from your post.

 

[AusWolf]

I literally don't understand your statement. Time will tell if 95c is a bad idea? Will it ever be a good idea? If you mean, it is OK to a point because it does not affect the hardware only the temp which can be dissipated if you have a good air cooling or water cooling I would get it. Implying, that Ryzen CPUs reaching 95c might be a good idea is crazy.
I'm not talking about death sentence but the implication of the CPU running at 95c with other components at the same time. For me, it is not good and it is really hard to say 95c for a CPU is a good move for Ryzen cause that's what I get from your post.

I think he meant that time will tell whether constant 95 °C kills a Zen 4 CPU or not.

As a side note, I can't help myself thinking about the series Chernobyl when I read or type "95 °C".

"What is the CPU temperature?"
"95 °C, but that's as high as the..."
"95. Not great, not terrible."

 

[ratirt]

I think he meant that time will tell whether constant 95 °C kills a Zen 4 CPU or not.

As a side note, I can't help myself thinking about the series Chernobyl when I read or type "95 °C".
View attachment 264056
"What is the CPU temperature?"
"95 °C, but that's as high as the..."
"95. Not great, not terrible."

I would not wait to find out it is a bad idea. I think it is too high for comfort.
Love the series

 

[AusWolf]

I would not wait to find out it is a bad idea. I think it is too high for comfort.

I've decided to wait with buying one. 6 months should be a decent enough time to hear news about slight degradation or any other side-effects. Maybe I'll give it a go for my birthday in March. Maybe.

Love the series

Me too!

 

[trparky]

Um... guys, AMD isn't the only one that said that 95c was OK to run at. Intel was famously blasted too for having a TjMax value of 110c.

 

[Arco]

Um... guys, AMD isn't the only one that said that 95c was OK to run at. Intel was famously blasted too for having a TjMax value of 110c.

This is fine. (Insert dog in a burning house.)

 

[RandallFlagg]

Exactly.

@RandallFlagg In your example, you're talking about a $125 difference between the two RAM kits. With Zen 4, you can spend that money on a better motherboard, or better graphics card. Or a birthday gift for your partner. Or 10 pizzas. If you go with Intel and faster RAM, what do you get? A couple percent more in Cinebench? 10 FPS more in CS:GO? A very "enthusiast" way to think, indeed.

No, My example was there to disprove your assertion that the RAM was going to make your upgrade cost twice as expensive.

It won't because the upgrade is not going to just be RAM, it'll make it maybe 15% more expensive on Zen 4.

It's not a smart move to use crappy memory on Zen 4.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

I literally don't understand your statement. Time will tell if 95c is a bad idea? Will it ever be a good idea? If you mean, it is OK to a point because it does not affect the hardware only the temp which can be dissipated if you have a good air cooling or water cooling I would get it.

That's the hypothesis, yes.

Implying, that Ryzen CPUs reaching 95c might be a good idea is crazy.

What's crazy about it? If the chip can run at that temperature for an arbitrary amount of time without negative consequences, what's the issue? Also, see below.

I'm not talking about death sentence but the implication of the CPU running at 95c with other components at the same time. For me, it is not good and it is really hard to say 95c for a CPU is a good move for Ryzen cause that's what I get from your post.

I didn't claim it was a good idea, but that we won't definitively know for several years whether it was a bad one based on whether or not chips start going south. How is the internal CPU temp related to the other components? Presumably they'll be working within their own thermal envelope. 95C on the CPU doesn't mean 95C anywhere else.

 

[AusWolf]

No, My example was there to disprove your assertion that the RAM was going to make your upgrade cost twice as expensive.

It won't because the upgrade is not going to just be RAM, it'll make it maybe 15% more expensive on Zen 4.

It's not a smart move to use crappy memory on Zen 4.

View attachment 264066

OK, you prefer to spend that $125 to gain that extra 5% in Geekbench. I prefer to use the money for something more useful. Let's agree to disagree.

Edit: The only thing I see in your graph is what AMD said: 6000 MHz is the sweet spot. Also, I'm probably not gonna buy a 7950X, so...

 

[ratirt]

No, My example was there to disprove your assertion that the RAM was going to make your upgrade cost twice as expensive.

It won't because the upgrade is not going to just be RAM, it'll make it maybe 15% more expensive on Zen 4.

It's not a smart move to use crappy memory on Zen 4.

It is not a good move to use crappy memory with any mobo and CPU to be fair. It's not such a great argument you know.
We are talking about ram and truly, it is $125 for some meaningless % in benchmarks only. Not worth it and that was his assertion not that the ram is twice expensive.

I didn't claim it was a good idea, but that we won't definitively know for several years whether it was a bad one based on whether or not chips start going south. How is the internal CPU temp related to the other components? Presumably they'll be working within their own thermal envelope. 95C on the CPU doesn't mean 95C anywhere else.

Implying is not claiming. I do understand it can run at that temp and I'm sure AMD has tested it regardless but for me (private opinion) it is high and I would not want to run my CPU at that temp. Besides, I'm pretty sure, high temp will not help any silicon so I'm skeptic about the idea of running the CPU a 95c and be OK with it. Maybe, if the silicon quality for a CPU is in a way lower quality, the 95c for extended time will have an impact on performance. Not sure just saying.

 

[Gica]

Three hours of session, two, at least, in World of Tanks. I can say that it runs cool, but long sessions of 80 degrees or more would trigger the alarm even for a budget processor. Processors come already overclocked from the factory (except Intel non-k) and excessive temperatures can create problems over time.

 

[ratirt]

Three hours of session, two, at least, in World of Tanks. I can say that it runs cool, but long sessions of 80 degrees or more would trigger the alarm even for a budget processor. Processors come already overclocked from the factory (except Intel non-k) and excessive temperatures can create problems over time.

How is it overclocked? 4.6Ghz is its initial speed unless you talk about memory?
I been wondering what are you trying to showcase here. WOT is totally not CPU intensive so no wonder your CPU can handle it well and it is not being used a lot meaning it is cool. Kinda like saying my CPU is cool while Idle when you barely use it. WOT is idle of games in my opinion.

 

[Gica]

I specified that non-k processors are not overclocked, but K and AMD processors are at the limit directly from the factory, the overclocking that brings more performance to them being practically impossible without extreme top cooling. So, high frequencies, mixed with extreme temperatures, should give thought to anyone who plans to keep that processor even after the warranty expires.
In my opinion.