AMD Ryzen 7 7700X

[ratirt]

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.

Yeah I can see your point but then I don't understand the pc come overclocked. Nothing comes overclocked. The K version have different spec.
Well, it makes sense AMD and Intel K come with the boost options and automated overclocking.
With the AMD processors, the situation is a bit different. There is no throttle. Obviously the performance may be lower if inadequate cooler is being used but I have seen the charts for various AMD Zen 4 CPUs and it does not look bad to be fair. Obviously with wraith cooler the 7950x will not do awesome.
With Intel the throttle was more profound in my opinion but with AMD the CPUs are hot since these are tiny so the die area has a lot of work with the heat. there is a correlation between heat and performance but to a lesser extent.

 

[AusWolf]

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.

What do you mean "Intel K and AMD are at the limit"? By default, my 11700 non-K runs at 2.8 GHz in Cinebench R23, scoring around 9k points due to the 65 W power limit. It's 300 MHz above base clock. With power limits unlocked, it runs at its 4.4 GHz all-core boost all day and night, scoring around 14k, but it eats about 160-170 W. A 125 W limit is somewhere in the middle, and that's what K CPUs come with by default. It's around 3.8 GHz, which is below max all-core boost, but above the base clock of the 11700K and 11900K as well, and it's easily coolable with a low profile Be Quiet Shadow Rock LP. I don't know what limit you mean that Intel K CPUs are at. Power?

 

[Gica]

Can you overclock 11700K to get at least 10% performance boost in all applications?
Giving this example, you cannot consider overclocking successful a processor that can no longer reach the maximum speed set in the factory.
You probably haven't caught the times when a processor could be overclocked even over 50%.
As a special note:
Ryzen 1000: decent overclock
Ryzen 3000, 5000 and 7000: overclock... it's better to stay with the factory settings.
The pre-ryzen era

 

[AusWolf]

Can you overclock 11700K to get at least 10% performance boost in all applications?
Giving this example, you cannot consider overclocking successful a processor that can no longer reach the maximum speed set in the factory.
You probably haven't caught the times when a processor could be overclocked even over 50%.
As a special note:
Ryzen 1000: decent overclock
Ryzen 3000, 5000 and 7000: overclock... it's better to stay with the factory settings.
The pre-ryzen era

You still haven't defined what you mean by overclocking. Also, what do you mean by "maximum speed set in factory"? Is it the base clock? Is it the maximum boost clock? As far as I'm concerned, the base clock is guaranteed, and the max boost is an "up to" value.

Like I said, even K chips don't run at their advertised boost clocks when you have factory power limits enabled. That's why those clocks are "up to" values. You can reach them under certain conditions with good enough cooling and raised power limits. It's the same with non-K chips and AMD as well. So basically, you can choose to complain about not reaching max boost clocks, or about exceeding TDP values. Your choice.

Your link is quite irrelevant, to be honest, as the tested CPU maintained its boost clocks in all circumstances, except for AVX, which is 1. Known to use a ton of power, so it's more dependent on motherboard power delivery that the CPU itself, and 2. Intel has clock offsets for it to make sure the CPU doesn't fry itself. Every Intel CPU that I've seen (including my non-K 11700) runs around 200 MHz lower than standard when using AVX. It's normal.

Also, what's with this obsession with manual overclocking? Would it be better to have 3 GHz CPUs by default that you have to fiddle with to get up to 5 GHz? Personally, I prefer it the way it is now. Just like your car's ECU, the CPU knows what it needs better than you do.

 

[Wirko]

Any plans to measure the idle power consumption? It would depend on IGP activity so more than one data point would be needed (IGP disabled, enabled, multi-monitor - in case it behaves like dGPUs and draws more power when more than one monitor is connected).

 

[Tyl3n0L]

I can provide idle power cosumption for my 7700x I also have the Corsar Hxi that tells power figures

 

[Gica]

You still haven't defined what you mean by overclocking. Also, what do you mean by "maximum speed set in factory"? Is it the base clock? Is it the maximum boost clock? As far as I'm concerned, the base clock is guaranteed, and the max boost is an "up to" value.

Like I said, even K chips don't run at their advertised boost clocks when you have factory power limits enabled. That's why those clocks are "up to" values. You can reach them under certain conditions with good enough cooling and raised power limits. It's the same with non-K chips and AMD as well. So basically, you can choose to complain about not reaching max boost clocks, or about exceeding TDP values. Your choice.

Your link is quite irrelevant, to be honest, as the tested CPU maintained its boost clocks in all circumstances, except for AVX, which is 1. Known to use a ton of power, so it's more dependent on motherboard power delivery that the CPU itself, and 2. Intel has clock offsets for it to make sure the CPU doesn't fry itself. Every Intel CPU that I've seen (including my non-K 11700) runs around 200 MHz lower than standard when using AVX. It's normal.

Also, what's with this obsession with manual overclocking? Would it be better to have 3 GHz CPUs by default that you have to fiddle with to get up to 5 GHz? Personally, I prefer it the way it is now. Just like your car's ECU, the CPU knows what it needs better than you do.

1. The silicon lottery.
2. In the past we have been warned that processors can be destroyed by overclocking, but these processors had huge overclocking potential. And now we are warned, but you can hardly get a few extra megahertz. Isn't it a sign that the processors are pushed to the limit from the factory?
1+2=3. If they are pushed to the limit from the factory, shouldn't extreme temperatures worry you? No man-made machine can work permanently pushing the limits.
Technically, one megahertz above the reference is called overclocking, but what advantages does it bring you? What advantages does a 2-3% extra performance with 20-30% extra power consumption bring you? Sometime, you managed to get a minimum of 10% extra performance even with the decrease in consumption. Sometime.

To determine exactly if these processors wear out over time, the entire platform of the first test, hardware and software, must be kept unaltered. You only use it when testing (1-2 years) these processors. Otherwise, you are tempted to blame program updates and technological progress on performance losses and the growing gap with new devices. But no one has availability and you need thousands of samples to prove it. But we have material physics, right?

 

[JustBenching]

Yeah I can see your point but then I don't understand the pc come overclocked. Nothing comes overclocked. The K version have different spec.
Well, it makes sense AMD and Intel K come with the boost options and automated overclocking.
With the AMD processors, the situation is a bit different. There is no throttle. Obviously the performance may be lower if inadequate cooler is being used but I have seen the charts for various AMD Zen 4 CPUs and it does not look bad to be fair. Obviously with wraith cooler the 7950x will not do awesome.
With Intel the throttle was more profound in my opinion but with AMD the CPUs are hot since these are tiny so the die area has a lot of work with the heat. there is a correlation between heat and performance but to a lesser extent.

Remember when I was telling you the 7950x will be less efficient than the 5950x out of the box? Do you see it now?

 

[W1zzard]

Any plans to measure the idle power consumption? It would depend on IGP activity so more than one data point would be needed (IGP disabled, enabled, multi-monitor - in case it behaves like dGPUs and draws more power when more than one monitor is connected).

CPU-only idle power is pretty much 0 on any modern CPU. Are you asking about whole system power?

 

[Solid State Brain]

CPU-only idle power consumption strongly depends on the enabled (and active) C-states. In might be in the order of ~0.5W or less in the best case scenario, or more commonly around 2W, or perhaps 15-20W or more with all C-states disabled (only C0/C1 enabled, but not C1E and above), which some overclockers configure that way. Sometimes the deepest C-states may not be available if PCIe devices are present, etc.

 

[AusWolf]

1. The silicon lottery.

What do you want with the silicon lottery?

In the past, you had to manually overclock until you got random freezes, restarts or blue screens before you got anywhere near the temperature or power limit of your CPU. For some people, it was 4 GHz. For others, it was 4.1 or 4.2 on the same chip. That's silicon lottery.

These CPUs run up to their temperature limits way before you hit the limit imposed on you by silicon lottery. With a better cooler, you have more performance. With liquid nitrogen, you can achieve way above 6 GHz on any Zen 4 chip. With an identical motherboard, PSU and cooler, everybody has the same clock speed. What's this if not a massive win on the silicon lottery?

2. In the past we have been warned that processors can be destroyed by overclocking, but these processors had huge overclocking potential. And now we are warned, but you can hardly get a few extra megahertz.

Let me reiterate that everything above base clock (not max boost clock) is technically overclocking. A 5.7 GHz max boost clock doesn't mean you should run your CPU at 5.7 GHz all day and night.

Isn't it a sign that the processors are pushed to the limit from the factory?

They are. So what? If you don't like it, just turn on the damn Eco mode. If I ever upgrade to a Zen 4 system in the future, I sure will.

1+2=3. If they are pushed to the limit from the factory, shouldn't extreme temperatures worry you? No man-made machine can work permanently pushing the limits.

See above.

Technically, one megahertz above the reference is called overclocking, but what advantages does it bring you? What advantages does a 2-3% extra performance with 20-30% extra power consumption bring you? Sometime, you managed to get a minimum of 10% extra performance even with the decrease in consumption. Sometime.

Again, see above. I'd gladly sacrifice 2-5% performance for 30% lower power consumption and heat.

CPU-only idle power consumption strongly depends on the enabled (and active) C-states. In might be in the order of ~0.5W or less in the best case scenario, or more commonly around 2W, or perhaps 15-20W or more with all C-states disabled (only C0/C1 enabled, but not C1E and above), which some overclockers configure that way. Sometimes the deepest C-states may not be available if PCIe devices are present, etc.

Disabling C-states is stupid, imo. Most of our home PCs spend a huge chunk of their time at idle. It only makes sense to properly configure the system for that.

 

[Gica]

Do you see how you prove me right, although your intention is different?
It is your right to go for long sessions at 90-95 degrees with processors pushed to the limit from the factory.

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.

 

[Wirko]

CPU-only idle power is pretty much 0 on any modern CPU. Are you asking about whole system power?

I mean CPU-only DC power. Pretty much zero would be something that's negligible compared to 1T consumption. Like 1-2W. With IGP on, I don't think it can get that low. There are several parts of the SoC that can't go to sleep - the bus, the IMC (or L3 and its controller, not sure if the frame buffer ever goes to cache).

 

[Gstorm CZE]

I boot from pressing Power button until Windows 10 show up whole 8seconds with my i3-10100f.

Also knowing those 80USD price I payed for it 2y ago and just 25perc more fps possible with even most powerfull CPUs around at 1440p, I find my i3 really still great value.
Just about to upgrade my GPU.

 

[Gica]

I mean CPU-only DC power. Pretty much zero would be something that's negligible compared to 1T consumption. Like 1-2W. With IGP on, I don't think it can get that low. There are several parts of the SoC that can't go to sleep - the bus, the IMC (or L3 and its controller, not sure if the frame buffer ever goes to cache).

Intel
Idle (cores+igp+rest of chip): 0.8 W minimum in this session
In a test with furmark, igp consumed 11.2 W and increased the consumption of the entire processor (CPU Packpage Power) to 15.3W
At AMD, it seems that idle means at least 13 W even for processors that do not have igp included.

 

[jackka]

Am I missing something here? Or do the graphs show that overclocked setting is using less power, running slower, and colder than stock setting?
It looks like the OC and Stock numbers are switched in those graphs? I don't understand.

 

[AusWolf]

Am I missing something here? Or do the graphs show that overclocked setting is using less power, running slower, and colder than stock setting?
It looks like the OC and Stock numbers are switched in those graphs? I don't understand.

These modern CPUs at stock allocate their voltage and frequency headrooms to give you as much performance as your cooling and power delivery allow. They also dynamically change voltage and frequency depending on the specific workload. That's why turbo speeds are "up to" levels. Manually changing voltage and frequency to a fixed value will never be as effective as the built-in algorithm. If you want to over-/underclock, you should play with power and temperature limits, and leave the stock voltage/frequency algorithm alone.

Edit: Let's say your CPU can run up to 5.5 GHz in single-core and 4.8 GHz in all-core workloads. If you can OC it to a fixed 5.1 GHz with moderate voltage, you're gaining a little bit in efficiency, but you're losing performance in lightly threaded workloads.

 

[jackka]

These modern CPUs at stock allocate their voltage and frequency headrooms to give you as much performance as your cooling and power delivery allow. They also dynamically change voltage and frequency depending on the specific workload. That's why turbo speeds are "up to" levels. Manually changing voltage and frequency to a fixed value will never be as effective as the built-in algorithm. If you want to over-/underclock, you should play with power and temperature limits, and leave the stock voltage/frequency algorithm alone.

So the OC setting in this review is effectively an underclock and that’s why it shows lower temp lower fps and lower power use?

Also, stock setting means PBO enabled?

 

[AusWolf]

So the OC setting in this review is effectively an underclock and that’s why it shows lower temp lower fps and lower power use?

Yes. The 7700X's 5.4 GHz turbo is a single-core value. It cannot sustain such speeds in all-core workloads, so a fixed OC will naturally have to be lower than this, resulting in lower performance in some cases.

 

[jackka]

Yes. The 7700X's 5.4 GHz turbo is a single-core value. It cannot sustain such speeds in all-core workloads, so a fixed OC will naturally have to be lower than this, resulting in lower performance in some cases.

I guess I’ll just have to get used to “OC” and “Stock” not meaning what I think they mean.

 

[AusWolf]

I guess I’ll just have to get used to “OC” and “Stock” not meaning what I think they mean.

Well, "OC" used to mean anything above stock. But since stock literally means base clock nowadays, any kind of turbo behavior is technically an automatic way of "OC-ing". It's only that the CPU does it a lot more intelligently on its own than if you set it manually. Zen 4 is configured to run as fast as your cooling allows straight out of the factory, which manual OC can only make worse.

 

[jackka]

Well, "OC" used to mean anything above stock. But since stock literally means base clock nowadays, any kind of turbo behavior is technically an automatic way of "OC-ing". It's only that the CPU does it a lot more intelligently on its own than if you set it manually. Zen 4 is configured to run as fast as your cooling allows straight out of the factory, which manual OC can only make worse.

Yeah. In this particular review, stock seems to mean PBO enabled. Makes it a bit confusing since PBO is an auto-overclock.

 

[AusWolf]

Yeah. In this particular review, stock seems to mean PBO enabled. Makes it a bit confusing since PBO is an auto-overclock.

Everything is an auto overclock on these CPUs. You can only manually OC by disabling PBO, disabling turbo, disabling power and temperature limits, and maybe also disabling power saving features, which is a very stupid thing to do, in my opinion. You're much better off leaving everything as is, and maybe setting your power and/or temperature limits to levels that you consider acceptable. For example, I'm running my 7700X with a manual power limit of 100 W with PBO on. It still boosts to 5.5 GHz in single-core and 4.8 GHz in all-core workloads, which I think is plenty. It's only a 500 point loss in Cinebench R23 all-core compared to stock, but it never exceeds 80 °C in return.

 

[jackka]

Everything is an auto overclock on these CPUs. You can only manually OC by disabling PBO, disabling turbo, disabling power and temperature limits, and maybe also disabling power saving features, which is a very stupid thing to do, in my opinion. You're much better off leaving everything as is, and maybe setting your power and/or temperature limits to levels that you consider acceptable. For example, I'm running my 7700X with a manual power limit of 100 W with PBO on. It still boosts to 5.5 GHz in single-core and 4.8 GHz in all-core workloads, which I think is plenty. It's only a 500 point loss in Cinebench R23 all-core compared to stock, but it never exceeds 80 °C in return.

If that’s the case, not sure why “OC” numbers are included in this review where overclock apparently means underclock, and is a stupid thing to do.

Other reviews post numbers for PBO enabled and PBO not enabled, and sometimes manual overclocks that push beyond PBO. Makes much more sense imo.

 

[AusWolf]

If that’s the case, not sure why “OC” numbers are included in this review where overclock apparently means underclock, and is a stupid thing to do.

Other reviews post numbers for PBO enabled and PBO not enabled, and sometimes manual overclocks that push beyond PBO. Makes much more sense imo.

True. I never look at OC numbers, to be honest. I consider the whole concept of OC-ing a huge waste of time 99% of the time.