Why everyone say Zen 5 is bad ?

[ARF]

I would say WTF AMD, when they cannot provide a competitive solution in this price bracket to even a cheaper 13600K, which is now over 2 years old.

AMD doesn't remember that it still has A LOT of market share to catch to be at a level with intel, in some cases and particular OEMs the AMD options don't exist at all.
Poor business model, and attitude towards everyone.

Only the AM4 support for now remains extraordinary. The AM5 is really low quality.

 

[AusWolf]

AMD doesn't remember that it still has A LOT of market share to catch to be at a level with intel, in some cases and particular OEMs the AMD options don't exist at all.
Poor business model, and attitude towards everyone.

Or maybe they've just run out of ideas? Or maybe they're trying things that don't work. For example, the L1 data cache size has been increased from 32 to 48 kB, even if it adds no performance (11th gen Core?).
Or maybe they're focusing on AI with AVX-512, and can't give a damn about performance in other areas?

The problem here is that we were promised double digit percentage increase on performance which simply isn't there.
The other problem is that reviewers keep comparing the 9700X to the 7700X to say how efficient it is, and not the 7700 which is just as efficient.

The AM5 is really low quality.

As an owner of an AM5 system, I disagree.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

As an owner of an AM5 system, I disagree.

I think what he means is support so far as new cpu upgrades.

I'd say so far it's about the same ryzen 9000 is ballpark ryzen 2000 over it's predecessor so if all we get are some meh 10k series apus and this socket is done AM4 was the substantially better socket.

If Zen 6 skips AM5 nobody will be able to say AMD offers better support than intel becuase we've only really got two cpu gens and one might as well have been a refresh at lower prices.

 

[AusWolf]

I think what he means is support so far as new cpu upgrades.

I'd say so far it's about the same ryzen 9000 is ballpark ryzen 2000 over it's predecessor so if all we get are some meh 10k series apus and this socket is done AM4 was the substantially better socket.

If Zen 6 skips AM5 nobody will be able to say AMD offers better support than intel becuase we've only really got two cpu gens and one might as well have been a refresh at lower prices.

Ah, in that sense, I agree. AMD had better make Zen 6 on AM5, otherwise they'll lose the interest of the "look how many CPU gens AMD has on one socket vs Intel" crowd.

You're right, Ryzen 9000 is basically a Ryzen 7000 refresh. AMD could have called it Zen 4+, Zen 4.5 or something.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Ah, in that sense, I agree. AMD had better make Zen 6 on AM5, otherwise they'll lose the interest of the "look how many CPU gens AMD has on one socket vs Intel" crowd.

You're right, Ryzen 9000 is basically a Ryzen 7000 refresh. AMD could have called it Zen 4+, Zen 4.5 or something.

I obviously will wait for the full cpu stack to be released including X3D to have a full grasp of how this generation stacks up but so far not so good.... And I am not going to listen to the AMD trust me bro about the X3D chips being magically better than usual till I see it.

 

[Carillon]

Ah, in that sense, I agree. AMD had better make Zen 6 on AM5, otherwise they'll lose the interest of the "look how many CPU gens AMD has on one socket vs Intel" crowd.

You're right, Ryzen 9000 is basically a Ryzen 7000 refresh. AMD could have called it Zen 4+, Zen 4.5 or something.

On desktop it does indeed look like a refresh, but it has real improvements for server workloads. Calling it zen4+ would have been too reductive.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

On desktop it does indeed look like a refresh, but it has real improvements for server workloads. Calling it zen4+ would have been too reductive.

Still the biggest problem is pricing vs the outgoing 7000 series if this was the best AMD could offer to consumers the ones I'd argue put AMD back on that map at least make them good price to performance..... Again if the 9700X was named the 9600X instead and priced similar to what the 7600X was at launch it would be viewed by most substantially better.

 

[Zach_01]

Come on guys... I know, "AMD has let down" some users and they are loosing trust to their words by the overhyped releases but you cant possibly thinking that when they say they will support this platform for another 3 years (2027) the Zen5 series could be the last on AM5.
We are making it too big of a deal and they didnt release all their line yet. I do not expect miracles but a bit better than this.
Kind of... I want my promised toy now!
Remember that any of these companies have no obligation to any of us. Only shareholders can say this.

Just a thought of mine in the effort to give them the benefit of a doubt:
I've said it on the 9700X review thread that maybe AMD wants to segment more clearly their regular line with gaming line.
Keep the 6/8core parts for low mid workloads while maintaining efficiency, 12/16core for more heavy stuff for amateurs and semi-pro and have a separate line for gaming, while hammer the workstation/server department were the big money is. EPYC is a very successful product I think, and everything AMD does is to benefit EPYC first.
Of course you can game and do almost whatever work on any consumer part but maybe they want much cleaner lines between them. The only way to do this is by tampering the low/mid end. And still they can do more with PBO and, better with nice cooling and even better with the fastest possible FCLK/DRAM speed with tight timings for those who like to spend and experiment.

Their biggest unforgivable mistake is that they start from "bottom". As always rushed to the market. Quality control issues, unstable BIOSs, no new boards that could play better the memory subsystem... and so on... And it looks to me that Zen5 starves for memory performance. High speed and low latency.

I will agree that they could've priced them both a bit better like 250 and 320 maybe.
Lets be realistic about the current 7000 prices. I wouldn't expect any company to price (MSRP) its new product too close to current price of the previous line.
These parts offering some improvements out of the box (not raw performance) and remember that 80-90% of users are willing to push just one button and nothing more. The "start" button. They dont want any BIOS fiddling stuff. Most of them dont even know what XMP/DOCP/EXPO is. And for sure they dont want to pay much for cooling.

Your wallet is yours. Wait on it.
I remember when 7000 released very few was buying them. They dropped prices within 2-3months. At least in my EU region.

Here is 7600X price on my market
Starting price 360€ and after 2.5months at 260€


7800X3D starting price 550€ and 450€ after 1 month


7700X starting price 470€ and 370€ after 2 months


9700X starting price (yesterday) 420€....

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Come on guys... I know, "AMD has let down" some users and they are loosing trust to their words by the overhyped releases but you cant possibly thinking that when they say they will support this platform for another 3 years (2027) the Zen5 series could be the last on AM5.
We are making it too big of a deal and they didnt release all their line yet. I do not expect miracles but a bit better than this.
Kind of... I want my promised toy now!
Remember that any of these companies have no obligation to any of us. Only shareholders can say this.

Just a thought of mine in the effort to give them the benefit of a doubt:
I've said it on the 9700X review thread that maybe AMD wants to segment more clearly their regular line with gaming line.
Keep the 6/8core parts for low mid workloads while maintaining efficiency, 12/16core for more heavy stuff for amateurs and semi-pro and have a separate line for gaming, while hammer the workstation/server department were the big money is. EPYC is a very successful product I think, and everything AMD does is to benefit EPYC first.
Of course you can game and do almost whatever work on any consumer part but maybe they want much cleaner lines between them. The only way to do this is by tampering the low/mid end. And still they can do more with PBO and, better with nice cooling and even better with the fastest possible FCLK/DRAM speed with tight timings for those who like to spend and experiment.

Their biggest unforgivable mistake is that they start from "bottom". As always rushed to the market. Quality control issues, unstable BIOSs, no new boards that could play better the memory subsystem... and so on... And it looks to me that Zen5 starves for memory performance. High speed and low latency.

I will agree that they could've priced them both a bit better like 250 and 320 maybe.
Lets be realistic about the current 7000 prices. I wouldn't expect any company to price (MSRP) its new product too close to current price of the previous line.
These parts offering some improvements out of the box (not raw performance) and remember that 80-90% of users are willing to push just one button and nothing more. The "start" button. They dont want any BIOS fiddling stuff. Most of them dont even know what XMP/DOCP/EXPO is.

Your wallet is yours. Wait on it.
I remember when 7000 released very few was buying them. They dropped prices within 2-3months. At least in my EU region.

Here is 7600X price on my market
Starting price 360€ and after 2.5months at 260€
View attachment 358282

7800X3D starting price 550€ and 450€ after 1 month
View attachment 358284

7700X starting price 470€ and 370€ after 2 months
View attachment 358286

9700X starting price (yesterday) 420€....

The biggest advantage it has is memory and motherboards aren't nearly as expensive, and Intel being in a weird spot right now.

Still if a 7700 has dropped to 280 usd nobody should realisticly want this unless it was priced within 10% AMD has a history of releasing products to bad press due to pricing recently 7700XT/7900XT/7900X3D you'd think they'd have learned by now.

Also a decent start and then what could have been a refresh isn't really supporting your platform any different than what we've been given intel shit for 10+ years if that's all AM5 gets then you might as well not say you're supporting your platform for X number of years because that isn't any different than what Intel has done for forever and nothing like what AM4 got.

 

[Zach_01]

...you'd think they'd have learned by now.

I can say this

Intel stupidly does not know how to be 2nd
AMD stupidly does not know how to be 1st

...at least in the eyes of the end consumer

 

[Hecate91]

I think what he means is support so far as new cpu upgrades.

I'd say so far it's about the same ryzen 9000 is ballpark ryzen 2000 over it's predecessor so if all we get are some meh 10k series apus and this socket is done AM4 was the substantially better socket.

If Zen 6 skips AM5 nobody will be able to say AMD offers better support than intel becuase we've only really got two cpu gens and one might as well have been a refresh at lower prices.

The upgrade from Zen 3 to Zen 4 didn't make much sense either, except for the X3D versions. I'm looking forward to the 9800X3D myself, hopefully AMD goes for performance more on it than they did with the 9700X.
I don't see why Zen 6 wouldn't be on AM5, AMD promised updates until at least 2027 so it should be Zen 6, it better not be another Zen 5 refresh as Intel would have a chance to overtake AMD even with the issues they're having.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

The upgrade from Zen 3 to Zen 4 didn't make much sense either, except for the X3D versions. I'm looking forward to the 9800X3D myself, hopefully AMD goes for performance more on it than they did with the 9700X.
I don't see why Zen 6 wouldn't be on AM5, AMD promised updates until at least 2027 so it should be Zen 6, it better not be another Zen 5 refresh as Intel would have a chance to overtake AMD even with the issues they're having.

Same, I'm hoping amd isn't full of crap when they say X3D will have larger uplifts than usually they may end up the saving grace of Zen5

If Zen 3 to Zen 4 wasn't a worthwhile upgrade for someone neither is Zen5 they nearly perform the same in gaming and aren't really different enough in applications unless you want to go full raptorlake with one and blast it with 170w even then it ends up 13600k like performance wise at a similar wattage which is also old AF at this point. I bet most 5800X3D owners are saying that's it lol.

 

[R0H1T]

Still the biggest problem is pricing vs the outgoing 7000 series if this was the best AMD could offer to consumers the ones I'd argue put AMD back on that map at least make them good price to performance.

Outgoing how? You know they're still selling 5xxx chips now & 3xxx heck 2xxx in some regions? Zen4 will sell for at least a couple of more years. As the node gets cheaper/has better yields AMD can reduce price on zen4 & zen5 as well. You know why I hated Intel a decade back? Because they never lowered the prices of their (old)chips, they EOL them instead of making them cheaper! Intel 8th(9th?) gen were the first chips to get a discount on MSRP in probably over a decade, let that sink in

As for upgrading on day 1 you obviously don't have to do that & no one does gen on gen upgrades unless they're filthy rich or they're paid to do that. Of all the things to worry about I'd say pricing is not one of them, just get'em on sale & set a price alert on camelcamel

 

[AusWolf]

Same, I'm hoping amd isn't full of crap when they say X3D will have larger uplifts than usually they may end up the saving grace of Zen5

If Zen 3 to Zen 4 wasn't a worthwhile upgrade for someone neither is Zen5 they nearly perform the same in gaming and aren't really different enough in applications unless you want to go full raptorlake with one and blast it with 170w even then it ends up 13600k like performance wise at a similar wattage which is also old AF at this point. I bet most 5800X3D owners are saying that's it lol.

It's funny that the change from Zen 3 to Zen 4 brought bigger gains, but people hated it more than the change from Zen 4 to Zen 5 for some reason. Maybe the platform costs (DDR5)? Dunno...

 

[freeagent]

DDR5 looks pretty cheap. Id hit it. Not sure what I want to do yet as far as an upgrade. I don't think I really need one, unless I just want to keep up with benchmarks.

 

[SL2]

Marketing is marketing, overhyping is "the usual"

NO. I'm talking specifically about AMD and nothing else.

AMD have built a reputation for being accurate in their keynotes for new CPU generations during the last five years or so, maybe more. I'm just pissed that they messed it up, it's so pointless.

Their IPC marketing before launch has been pretty close to real world results earlier.

 

[P4-630]

Platform

upgrade

 

[SL2]

Those gen on gen gains werent sustainable for such frequent releases, it was going to come back down to earth at some point.

Of course, but they could just have said so from the beginning and I'd just shut up here, instead of exaggerating the IPC for the first time in years.

Just a reminder, I'm still primarily going after AMD and review results rather than the CPU, even if they're kind of the same. What do I mean by that? All this could have been avoided if AMD had done their job before launch instead of this mess:

- Hinting at much higher IPC.

- Review results all over the place. PCWorld's results far off (10%) expected numbers according to AMD. They didn't publish their review because of that.

- Now also an SMT that works differently in games. (yeah, we don't know if this could be easily fixed)

 

[agent_x007]

NO. I'm talking specifically about AMD and nothing else.

AMD have built a reputation for being accurate in their keynotes for new CPU generations during the last five years or so, maybe more. I'm just pissed that they messed it up, it's so pointless.

Their IPC marketing before launch has been pretty close to real world results earlier.

Sorry, but I always assume worst (when it comes to ads and marketing, I'm cynical to absolute limits).
I don't care who's marketing it is - to me they lie by default, and have to be proven "not guilty" by independent testers of products they try to sell (but even that isn't sometimes enough... [bought reviews, "guidelines", etc.]).
Raising an eyebrow for being wrong isn't a problem for me (when they are correct), however getting something and being disappointed with it - is.
Having "good and accurate marketing history", doesn't mean anything either since goals can change as easily as new people come for next product launch or company bottom line changes (for whatever reason).
Job of marketing is to hype/color products in best light possible (to help generate sales).
They are payed to do whatever it takes to generate more sales (regardless of people's morals or actual product limitations). Most important part : There are also no consequences for them by being untruthful/wrong/deceiving (financial ones at least, unless someone looses their job by being "scapegoat" but that's marginal I think ?), while getting nice bonuses when everything works (since "it's enough" when success is being just partially attributed to marketing team).
Question of conscience is open, since that's up to individual after all.

 

[SL2]

I may not agree with everything HUB says, but this video is exactly how I think about it.

Good launches since 2022: Ryzen 7000, 7000X3D

Bad launches: almost everything else since Ryzen 7000.

(excluding APU's)

 

[R0H1T]

Their IPC marketing before launch has been pretty close to real world results earlier.

And it is accurate now as well, they said what 16% IIRC? AT shows they've slightly gone above that with 13.15% for Integer workloads, then 25.79% for FP across 2017 SPEC ~ https://www.anandtech.com/show/21493/the-amd-ryzen-7-9700x-and-ryzen-5-9600x-review/4

Overall performance is slightly lower due to less TDP & lower (max?) all core clocks. If you're saying AMD marketed or at least presented this as a gamer's delight then yes that was wrong but I don't read a word of marketing fluff any way!

 

[SL2]

And it is accurate now as well, they said what 16%

See? You had to go to another site to find a better number, which brings us back to my other point:

- Review results all over the place.

Even if SPEC is a good choice here.

I'm not saying reviewer x is better than reviewer y, I'm just expecting it to be more consistent, and it would have been if AMD didn't rush the launch or whatever they did.

 

[R0H1T]

Yes like I said the clocks are marginally down that's why it's looking worse than it probably should. Maybe a BIOS update or two will fix it? This isn't a home run by any means nor is it a failure as some are claiming, just an underwhelming product for now.

 

[SL2]

Was it LTT (sorry) who concluded that the 9700X boosted lower than the 9600X? Even if it should go 100 MHz higher? Just give it a wee bit more power at stock, come on.

Completely unnecessary.

Maybe a BIOS update or two will fix it?

I don't doubt that for a second. It's the sloppiness I have a problem with.

It's not like AMD had to quickly bring out 9000, the 7000 is doing great AFAIK, and competition isn't at the strongest right now. Even if it was, why take the risk?

We've had enough with rushed launches and involuntarily consumer beta testing as it is.

 

[Onasi]

It's not like AMD had to quickly bring out 9000, the 7000 is doing great AFAIK, and competition isn't at the strongest right now. Even if it was, why take the risk?

The release dates for big launches like a CPU generation are set in stone way, way in advance. There is a roadmap and the production is ongoing months before the launch. Intels current issues are only a couple of months new. AMD operated under the assumption that they will compete with Arrow Lake this year. They couldn’t just go “Lol, JK, we decided not to release anything”. That’s even setting aside that the same Zen 5 CCDs will go into EPYCs for which I am sure they already have preliminary orders from customers that are far more important to them than the DIY desktop crowd.