Why everyone say Zen 5 is bad ?

[papas12]

You know, I don't see what the fuss is all about. With 9600X and more importantly 9700X we all get:

• A chip on a new production process (4 nm vs Zen 4's 5 nm);
• Cooler processors with lower power consumption compared to Zen 4 equivalents;
• A brand new architecture;
• 9700X shows roughly the same performance as 7700X or is even faster while working at a base clock speed of 3800 MHz vs 7700X's base speed of 4500 MHz. This is a difference of 700 MHz. Who says then there are no IPC improvements?
• You can use the new processors in your AM5 board with a BIOS update pretty much on day 1 unlike Intel where almost every new chip requires you to buy a new motherboard.
• You even have a choice. You don't like Zen 5? Then stay on AM4, keep your Zen 4 chip or buy a faster one or wait for Zen 6.

And all this is before 9950X and the Zen 5 3D V-Cache models that will be released for sure. In addition I believe AMD will release TDP-relaxed Zen 5 models where the new architecture can really spread its wings.

So what is the fuss all about?

 

[authorized]

So what is the fuss all about?

Probably about AMD's claims about performance improvements that didn't materialize, they were misleading and not by a bit, but by a lot.

All those things you listed are interesting to enthusiasts, but other than that - who cares. In the end, people want faster CPUs for a suitable price, not things like production process or architecture.

 

[Kapone33]

Probably about AMD's claims about performance improvements that didn't materialize, they were misleading and not by a bit, but by a lot.

All those things you listed are interesting to enthusiasts, but other than that - who cares. In the end, people want faster CPUs for a suitable price, not things like production process or architecture.

Were those what we perceived or what they told us. Many people are ragging on the 9700X for Gaming. It does not make sense in a World where X3d rules Gaming period. The people this is aimed at are not Gamers but people who use their PCs for other tasks.

 

[Vayra86]

Probably about AMD's claims about performance improvements that didn't materialize, they were misleading and not by a bit, but by a lot.

All those things you listed are interesting to enthusiasts, but other than that - who cares. In the end, people want faster CPUs for a suitable price, not things like production process or architecture.

Im not sure exactly what didnt materialize because there is an IPC improvement, right? There is also again clockspeed headroom, thermal headroom. So the chips did get faster and they didnt really get slower at the same powerbudget either. Is it earth shattering, no, but it doesnt have to be either.

And sure you wont buy one for gaming. But at the same time; you dont have to buy one for gaming. Pretty great imho, much cheaper than AMD bringing another 5% of gaming perf on a 4090 to 'the masses' that mostly never even see it.

 

[phanbuey]

It’s the same reason people ragged on 11th gen from Intel.

This is AMD's 11th gen moment - but that was a step in the direction of alder lake, which is still a fast chip to this day so... hopefully zen6 is a beast.

 

[AleXXX666]

I kind of frustrated with this.

I get that for example 9700X is on par with performance of 7700X, however is it REALLY enough to claim Zen 5 is "DOA" or "Bad" ?
My point is, it's doing that with lower clock, since all core 9700X = 4480MHz vs. 7700X = 5190MHz, AND a lot lower power usage (9700X = 88W vs. 7700X = 148W).
Relevant tables from GN video :



What is wrong with everyone dumping on CPU that is clearly better than previous one ?
This is similar situation to Core 2 Duo E6300 vs. Pentium Extreme Edition 965 (just not as extreme, since we have very different pricing, but that's just future for you).
Everyone clearly knows which one is better of the two, even if both have similar performance :

So, WTF reviewers ?
From what I see, the only bad part about those new AMD CPUs is price, but that will be adjusted later (as always).
Also, I would love to see overclocking performance and power increase associated with it, however (I guess ?) early BIOSes/AGESA aren't stable enough for it ?

Lastly, I'm really afraid of everyone always expecting performance jumps of 20-25% between generation, when frequency scaling is TOUGH on higher end of the scale. Intel clearly shown where limits of that scale lay (both now, and in Pentium 4 days), and what are consequences of pushing blindly for frequency increases. Seeing frequency regression is really good, when paired with similar performance vs. other stuff.
We really don't need more frequency wars (neither on CPUs, nor on GPUs), and there is more to good CPU than just performance vs. previous gen.

LOL.
The MAIN "BAD" here is "AI"-push. Just like Nvidia RTX BS.

It’s the same reason people ragged on 11th gen from Intel.

This is AMD's 11th gen moment - but that was a step in the direction of alder lake, which is still a fast chip to this day so... hopefully zen6 is a beast.

11 gen trouble was that in 10 gen i9-10900K was perfect i9 with 10 cores, but in 11 gen 11900K was 8 cores, so just OC i7

 

[phanbuey]

LOL.
The MAIN "BAD" here is "AI"-push. Just like Nvidia RTX BS.


11 gen trouble was that in 10 gen i9-10900K was perfect i9 with 10 cores, but in 11 gen 11900K was 8 cores, so just OC i7

11th gen had a new core avx 512 blah blah improvements that added up to nothing. It was also a backported 10nm design on 14nm+++++++++.

but ur right the 10 to 8 core backpedal really murdered it. It would have been DOA anyways but that just added to it.

 

[iameatingjam]

Probably about AMD's claims about performance improvements that didn't materialize, they were misleading and not by a bit, but by a lot.

All those things you listed are interesting to enthusiasts, but other than that - who cares. In the end, people want faster CPUs for a suitable price, not things like production process or architecture.

I get where you're coming from, but the gains are there, they were just put into power savings instead of improved performance. And you can easily turn it into improved performance in the bios. I think this is better than the opposite way of doing things *looks at intel >.>*.

Its good to know the cpu will be safe in the hands of people who just run it at out of the box settings. Maybe AMD could have taken a middle path or something idk. Because this did get them some bad press, but also good press? Its quite the mix it seems.

 

[AnotherReader]

I get where you're coming from, but the gains are there, they were just put into power savings instead of improved performance. And you can easily turn it into improved performance in the bios. I think this is better than the opposite way of doing things *looks at intel >.>*.

Its good to know the cpu will be safe in the hands of people who just run it at out of the box settings. Maybe AMD could have taken a middle path or something idk. Because this did get them some bad press, but also good press? Its quite the mix it seems.

After looking at the overclocking results, I agree. Shipping it with safe settings out of the box is the way to go. If they had called it the 9700 and dropped about $30 off the price, it would have been received better.

 

[phanbuey]

After looking at the overclocking results, I agree. Shipping it with safe settings out of the box is the way to go. If they had called it the 9700 and dropped about $30 off the price, it would have been received better.

What im wondering is if the current settings are actually "safe" - everyone is like it runs 30C cooler, but we all know AMD actually moved the sensor to stop people from crying about temps. If you're now hitting that magic 90C threshold are you really putting 110+ on to the core?

 

[SL2]

My point is, it's doing that with lower clock, since all core 9700X = 4480MHz vs. 7700X = 5190MHz, AND a lot lower power usage (9700X = 88W vs. 7700X = 148W).

You have no point, as there's not point in comparing it with a 7700X. I don't think you're trolling, but I'm not sure.

The 9700X uses 71 W in games.
The 7700 uses 60 W in games.

The 9700X is 3% faster and uses 18% more power than a 7700 in games.

Is that impressive?

It doesn't deliver the performance AMD promised. AMD's keynotes are usually reliable, but not this time. (No, forget about 5000XT)


Back to the 7700X comparison. Tell me, why should we defend such a product? Exactly half the improvement compared to the 2700X (over the 1800X) which was considered small back in the day, how's that a good thing?

A 2% uplift in games, and all you have to say is that we shouldn't expect 25%? How about 6%, is that too much to ask for?

If anyone wants lower power, well that's easily fixed.


It's not a person we're questioning, it's a lifeless commercial product so no need to feel sorry for anyone. Don't treat it, or our intellects, like a baby.

 

[AnotherReader]

What im wondering is if the current settings are actually "safe" - everyone is like it runs 30C cooler, but we all know AMD actually moved the sensor to stop people from crying about temps. If you're now hitting that magic 90C threshold are you really putting 110+ on to the core?

We would never know, but I think we just have to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

 

[Vario]

You have no point, as there's not point in comparing it with a 7700X. I don't think you're trolling, but I'm not sure.

The 9700X uses 71 W in games.
The 7700 uses 60 W in games.
View attachment 358133

The 9700X is 3% faster and uses 18% more power than a 7700 in games.
View attachment 358134
Is that impressive?

It doesn't deliver the performance AMD promised. AMD's keynotes are usually reliable, but not this time. (No, forget about 5000XT)


Back to the 7700X comparison. Tell me, why should we defend such a product? Exactly half the improvement compared to the 2700X (over the 1800X), how's that a good thing?
View attachment 358126
A 2% uplift in games, and all you have to say is that we shouldn't expect 25%? How about 6%, is that too much to ask for?

If anyone wants lower power, well tht's easily fixed. Eco mode,


It's not a person we're questioning, it's a lifeless commercial product so no need to feel sorry for anyone. Don't treat it, or our intellects, like a baby.

Yes, I am hoping that maybe with some bios revisions this particular product will deliver, because as it is now its just not impressive. It reminds me of the "jump" from the i7 2600K to the i7 3770K.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

All i know is that when I get my 9xxxX3D, it's going to be leaps and bounds better than my 9900K.

 

[SL2]

Yes, I am hoping that maybe with some bios revisions this particular product will deliver, because as it is now its just not impressive. It reminds me of the "jump" from the i7 2600K to the i7 3770K.

Maybe, but it's too late, the reviews are already out. The discussion was about reviews, after all.

As for the product itself, only time will tell.

We would never know, but I think we just have to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I hope someone like Der Bauer will check that out.

 

[Zach_01]

What im wondering is if the current settings are actually "safe" - everyone is like it runs 30C cooler, but we all know AMD actually moved the sensor to stop people from crying about temps. If you're now hitting that magic 90C threshold are you really putting 110+ on to the core?

This relocation of the sensor is half the story.
They also claim that they improved the heat transfer from die to HeatSpreader resulting something like 5-7C better temp on the same power level.

 

[SL2]

What im wondering is if the current settings are actually "safe" - everyone is like it runs 30C cooler, but we all know AMD actually moved the sensor to stop people from crying about temps.

If comparing to a CPU with the same power draw, like the 7700, the difference is only 2.6°.

 

[Vayra86]

You have no point, as there's not point in comparing it with a 7700X. I don't think you're trolling, but I'm not sure.

The 9700X uses 71 W in games.
The 7700 uses 60 W in games.
View attachment 358133

The 9700X is 3% faster and uses 18% more power than a 7700 in games.
View attachment 358134
Is that impressive?

It doesn't deliver the performance AMD promised. AMD's keynotes are usually reliable, but not this time. (No, forget about 5000XT)


Back to the 7700X comparison. Tell me, why should we defend such a product? Exactly half the improvement compared to the 2700X (over the 1800X) which was considered small back in the day, how's that a good thing?
View attachment 358126
A 2% uplift in games, and all you have to say is that we shouldn't expect 25%? How about 6%, is that too much to ask for?

If anyone wants lower power, well that's easily fixed.


It's not a person we're questioning, it's a lifeless commercial product so no need to feel sorry for anyone. Don't treat it, or our intellects, like a baby.

Gaming isnt exactly a linear benchmark; even an X3D's gap is just what, 5-7%. The shit is exponentially harder to accelerate the higher you go; that mostly speaks to two things: CPUs arent progressing for gaming because they cant nor need to; and the cpu is not the weakest link in the chain anymore.

Plus, this chip isnt nor wants to be a gaming chip. Thats the problem with these % bar charts, you lose sight of what matters and youre just focused on X% perf increase or it is shit. Its not though. Who knows what a 'conservative' 9700 non X might do?

Im not saying this release is fantastic. But lets keep the comparisons grounded in reality.

Yes, I am hoping that maybe with some bios revisions this particular product will deliver, because as it is now its just not impressive. It reminds me of the "jump" from the i7 2600K to the i7 3770K.

Thats pretty accurate. Why is this bad though, its not like AMD is struggling. They used this gen to get a quality pass over consumer Zen, and the results are marginally better than what came before. Except, this time its a chip that has gained headroom and not lost any a'la Ivy Bridge vs Sandy at the time!

 

[SL2]

Gaming isnt exactly a linear benchmark; even an X3D's gap is just what, 5-7%. The shit is exponentially harder to accelerate the higher you go; that mostly speaks to two things: CPUs arent progressing for gaming because they cant nor need to; and the cpu is not the weakest link in the chain anymore.

Plus, this chip isnt nor wants to be a gaming chip. Thats the problem with these % bar charts, you lose sight of what matters and youre just focused on X% perf increase or it is shit. Its not though. Who knows what a 'conservative' 9700 non X might do?

Im not saying this release is fantastic. But lets keep the comparisons grounded in reality.

I don't see your point, as the results are bad, gaming or not. That's the grounded conclusion from TPU's review.
There's nothing wrong with talking game performance either, since the benchmarks are right there. Otherwise you might just talk to W1zzard about that lol, don't blame the messenger.

We see the smallest improvements for a new AMD desktop CPU outside games for the last ten years or more, and I shouldn't focus on it?

 

[evernessince]

What im wondering is if the current settings are actually "safe" - everyone is like it runs 30C cooler, but we all know AMD actually moved the sensor to stop people from crying about temps. If you're now hitting that magic 90C threshold are you really putting 110+ on to the core?

This is definitely in the conspiracy theory territory. It would be an extremely bad engineering to intentionally avoid measuring the hottest parts of the CPU. Hiding temps at the cost adding an intentional defect to your product that creates a massive amount of liability does not sound good from a business or engineering perspective.

If AMD wanted to hide temps from customers, it makes far more sense that the CPU would simply report with an offset. That way they aren't creating an Intel like massive defect scenario.

Mind you I simply don't think either is happening, the 9700X just uses much less power and the IHS has been improved. It's well known that the 7000 series ran hotter than it needed to due in part to the IHS.

 

[phanbuey]

This is definitely in the conspiracy theory territory. It would be an extremely bad engineering to intentionally avoid measuring the hottest parts of the CPU. Hiding temps at the cost adding an intentional defect to your product that creates a massive amount of liability does not sound good from a business or engineering perspective.

If AMD wanted to hide temps from customers, it makes far more sense that the CPU would simply report with an offset. That way they aren't creating an Intel like massive defect scenario.

Mind you I simply don't think either is happening, the 9700X just uses much less power and the IHS has been improved. It's well known that the 7000 series ran hotter than it needed to due in part to the IHS.

AMD Strikes Back: Zen 5 CPU Architecture Changes & Chipset Differences (X870E vs. X870, B850, B840) | GamersNexus

 

[Kapone33]

I don't see your point, the results are bad, gaming or not. That's the grounded conclusion from TPU's review.
There's nothing wrong with talking game performance either, since the benchmarks are right there. Otherwise you might just talk to W1zzard about that lol, don't blame the messenger.

We see the smallest improvements for a new AMD desktop CPU outside games for the last ten years or more, and I shouldn't focus on it?

It is not that simple. These chips were not released in a vacuum. The thing that makes this weird is that we did not get the Dual CCD chips first. If we saw that the 9950X did this (Efficiency) vs the 7950X it would be celebrated, That is because those chips are for super productivity. Gaming should not be a focus of these chips. If you want a chip for Gaming X3D is the way to go that is why it is the best selling CPU in the world. At 65 Watts these also are great for $99 CAD A620 boards for other things. These might even be good at Crypto Mining. Regardless of how you may feel about this there will be use cases. Only the staunchest enthusiasts are going to look at the other side right now. As far as reviews go they should all be taken with a grain of salt as there is obviously a huge discrepancy in the opinion on the chip.

Looking at as objectively as possible this is no different in CPU performance from going from 1700X to 2700X.. It was mainly IPC improvement and a 200 Mhz jump in Clock speed. The issue is that we are already at 5 Ghz +. What will truly be intersting is how the next X3D chips on this new arch perform.

 

[SL2]

The thing that makes this weird is that we did not get the Dual CCD chips first. If we saw that the 9950X did this (Efficiency) vs the 7950X it would be celebrated, That is because those chips are for super productivity.

The only thing I've heard is that some 9950X didn't pass a revised validation process, and had to be delayed. Who knows if it's true.

Looking at as objectively as possible this is no different in CPU performance from going from 1700X to 2700X..

I've just showed that's not the case, as the 2700X had twice the improvement in Cinebench.

 

[AnotherReader]

The only thing I've heard is that some 9950X didn't pass a revised validation process, and had to be delayed. Who knows if it's true.

I've just showed that's not the case, as the 2700X had twice the improvement in Cinebench.

The 2700X was another case of misleading naming; it should be compared to the 1800X. Moreover, the 2700X consumed significantly more power than its predecessors in multithreaded applications.

 

[NRANM]

This is just sad.

While I can agree with the overall sentiment that Zen 5 could be considered a bit underwhelming from a certain point of view, it is far from the disaster people are making it out to be.
People act as if up until Zen 5 both Intel and AMD managed to double performance every generation, and this is the first time we get small improvements.
People also seem to view Zen 5 exclusively from a gaming perspective as if gaming is the only thing people do on their computers. There are other workloads that a PC can handle, other than gaming.

Also, people seem to have gotten way too overhyped, I suppose, as if they have forgotten how marketing and rumors work. If a person has fallen for the hype, that is on them. PC enthusiasts should know better than to believe every single claim a marketing department makes or to trust any random rumor/leak.
I ignored ALL news regarding Zen 5 and to me these chips seem pretty decent. Maybe just a tad below expectations but still overall fine for what they are. In fact, if the same efficiency is maintained for the 9950X, I just might get one as efficiency is what I value greatly for my needs.

People more and more see things in a black and white mentality. I miss nuance so much...