Why everyone say Zen 5 is bad ?

[SL2]

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.

We're not even talking about the same scale here, nothing you say contradict what I mean.

AMD DID postpone two CPU's one week, and two CPU's two weeks, I'm pretty sure they could have taken more time for all of them, rather than getting this situation. The current change of date must have been made after the previous date (31 july) was unveiled, which means they can indeed change it at a late point.

Intel wasn't launching anything desktop for two months at least, something that could be weighed in if doing such a change of date, but probably not as a reason alone. I just meant that postponing would be unfeasible if Arrow launched next week or so, but it's not.

Or, maybe AMD realized they couldn't fix this in such a short time even if they wanted to, who knows.

 

[R0H1T]

Tbf a lot of the launches are geared around the never ending hype train, which of course is a feature of politics as well. You want to be in the news all the time everytime & 1 month is perhaps too much for Gen Z or whoever this was aimed for? As long as it's not an absolute trainwreck, it's "fine" for PR.

 

[Onasi]

Or, maybe AMD realized they couldn't fix this in such a short time even if they wanted to, who knows.

Fix what? I genuinely don’t understand why people approach this topic from the assumption that these chips don’t work mostly as intended. AMD made a conscious choice to ship them with lower power limits and, considering those restrictions, they perform as well or, mostly, better than the equivalent previous gen parts that consume more power. So that tracks as a generational improvement. We’ve seen that the changes to the architecture do show big gains in server workloads, as per Phoronix, so that also seems like a solid improvement for the most relevant to AMD market. Okay, what else? They don’t clock as high? I am not going to reiterate what @RandallFlagg has said in several threads now - it’s a direct consequence of the changed architecture. Presumably, AMD found the trade off worthwhile.

Sure, there can be possible AGESA/chipset improvements that will slightly help, but thinking that they will transform these chips is… weird. And if some of Windows/Linux discrepancies are due to the OS scheduler - that’s not on AMD to fix.

So again, I reiterate - what exactly was AMD supposed to fix?

 

[SL2]

Fix what?

If I knew that I'd possibly work for AMD.

I don't, and I don't.

Seriously, I've already answered that.

They don’t clock as high?

They do.

 

[Onasi]

They do.

I asked because different reviewers saw different results. And, by the by, even in TPUs own reviews the 9700X is consistently posting lower all-core boost frequencies than the 7700X and comparable single-core ones.

If I knew that I'd possibly work for AMD.

I don't, and I don't.

Seriously, I've already answered that.

So you are just ASSUMING there’s something to fix since the processors didn’t meet some arbitrary expectations? Okay then. This is s valid point of view, but I think I would agree to disagree on that.

 

[Sound_Card]

This CPU was designed for servers and laptops, so it seems with its major power efficiency gains and various instruction set performance. By consequence, it's a good over-clocker. I would even say that the architecture might be designed with APU's in mind, a more efficient CPU means more potential power for a GPU.

 

[evernessince]

This CPU was designed for servers and laptops, so it seems with its major power efficiency gains and various instruction set performance. By consequence, it's a good over-clocker. I would even say that the architecture might be designed with APU's in mind, a more efficient CPU means more potential power for a GPU.

People need to stop parroting the line the 9000 series saw big efficiency gains. TPUs own charts show the 7700 as more efficient and if you go back and look at TPU's review of the 7700X and their power tuned profiles, it's significantly more efficient than the 9700X. Even if you were to further tune the 9700X for efficiency (which is already is to a degree out of the box), you'd only match or slightly beat last gen. There is certainly no large jump in efficiency.

 

[eidairaman1]

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.

So were you complaining about intels prices during core 2 and later core is?

 

[wheresmycar]

People need to stop parroting the line the 9000 series saw big performance gains. TPUs own charts show the 7700 as more efficient and if you go back and look at TPU's review of the 7700X and their power tuned profiles, it's significantly more efficient than the 9700X. Even if you were to further tune the 9700X for efficiency (which is already is to a degree out of the box), you'd only match or slightly beat last gen. There is certainly no large jump in efficiency.

Yep the man says it like it is.

 

[A&P211]

It's because it doesn't leave Raptor Lake in the dust and the gains over Zen 4 tend to range from non-existent to minor. People are way too caught up with raw performance numbers and seem to forget what's imo most important - this little chip performs amazing while keeping the watts very low. It gives me Core 2 vibes. I'm very impressed.

It's gonna be a great laptop processor

 

[Sound_Card]

I honestly didn't read TTU's review, but I have watched about half a dozen youtube reviews. Holistically, the 9700x uses on average 20 less watts in total system load in games while being 5% faster (1080p). If TTU says otherwise, I think they did something wrong.

Everyone says it oc's better too.

What AMD should have done:
-discontinued the 7700x a month before release
-rename the 9700x just 9700
-lower the MSRP $25

Everyone would rave it as a strong start for things to come.

 

[Zach_01]

I honestly didn't read TTU's review, but I have watched about half a dozen youtube reviews. Holistically, the 9700x uses on average 20 less watts in total system load in games while being 5% faster (1080p). If TTU says otherwise, I think they did something wrong.

Everyone says it oc's better too.

What AMD should have done:
-discontinued the 7700x a month before release
-rename the 9700x just 9700
-lower the MSRP $25

Everyone would rave it as a strong start for things to come.

You cant just discontinue a product just like that when its on the market for less than 2 years and there is nothing wrong with it.

The price yeah they could've shaved off more than 40$. Under 350$ for sure.
About the name it depends on the future parts yet to be released. If there is going to be a 9800Xnon3D then ok-ish.
But again there is no room for a 9700nonX between 9700X and 9600X.

Bottom line it would've been much better to go
9600 (200-220$)
9600X (250-260$)
9700 (320-330$) current 9700X
9700X (370-380$)
9900X (450$)
9800X3D (450$)
9900X3D (550%)
9950X (600$)
9950X3D (650$)

And announce them all at once with prices even if some/most of them are not ready yet for the market.

 

[vMax65]

It's not a bad but the claims were pretty bad and flat out lies and to top it of, they compared the Zen 5 9600x and 9700x 65w parts to the zen4 7600x and 7700x 105w parts to show great effeciiency when the right parts to compare were the non x 7600 and 7700....Jsut madness and was not required, also pricving when compared to the non x parts were in fact higher at launch...Yes you make them perform a lot better but then effeciency gets thrown out of the window and even then on the gaming side it is not that much off an uplift...

 

[jarablue]

Personally I have a 7900X. The 9 series release doesn't exist to me. Wake me up when 9X3D is out and benchmarks show relative gains. Until then it's all a snorefest.

 

[chrcoluk]

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)

Yeah I am not a fan of withholding numbers just because vendor is moaning they too far off, publish whatever you done, and if a mistake was made fix it later. It does feel like these reviews there can be too much hand holding, this and that has to be configured this and that way.

 

[AusWolf]

I honestly didn't read TTU's review, but I have watched about half a dozen youtube reviews. Holistically, the 9700x uses on average 20 less watts in total system load in games while being 5% faster (1080p). If TTU says otherwise, I think they did something wrong.

20 less Watts than what? The 7700X? The 9700X is more like a 7700 non-X replacement than anything else, it should be compared to that. 65 W vs 65 W.

Everyone says it oc's better too.

What AMD should have done:
-discontinued the 7700x a month before release
-rename the 9700x just 9700
-lower the MSRP $25

Everyone would rave it as a strong start for things to come.

And then reviews would have shown that there's no efficiency gain over the 7700, instead of being amazed at how efficient the 9700X is compared to the 7700X, which is not its true predecessor - the 7700 non-X is.

 

[danc]

Mainly from reviewers who looked at gaming scores and simply click EXPO 6000. Zen5 using the same IOD, FCLK configurations limited the FPS gains. Zen5% in games sure. If these gaming reviewers bothered to do even a slight manual tweaks, push the FCLK to 2200, Ram to 8000 2:1, PPT to max, CO to max, they will get the same or better gains as moving from Zen3->4 at full PPT

TBF 9700X should be compared to 7700 in regards to effciency.

 

[AusWolf]

Mainly from reviewers who looked at gaming scores and simply click EXPO 6000. Zen5 using the same IOD, FCLK configurations limited the FPS gains. Zen5% in games sure. If these gaming reviewers bothered to do even a slight manual tweaks, push the FCLK to 2200, Ram to 8000 2:1, PPT to max, CO to max, they will get the same or better gains as moving from Zen3->4 at full PPT

No self-respecting reviewer tests anything under manually tuned settings. It's the CPU that you're testing, not your own ability to overclock/tune. Out-of-the-box/Auto is the only way to go.

Edit: Besides, PBO max with overkill cooling should give you as much performance as possible, and is already shown in the TPU review with meh results.

TBF 9700X should be compared to 7700 in regards to effciency.

That is clear as day, 100% agreed.

 

[Zach_01]

Mainly from reviewers who looked at gaming scores and simply click EXPO 6000. Zen5 using the same IOD, FCLK configurations limited the FPS gains. Zen5% in games sure. If these gaming reviewers bothered to do even a slight manual tweaks, push the FCLK to 2200, Ram to 8000 2:1, PPT to max, CO to max, they will get the same or better gains as moving from Zen3->4 at full PPT

TBF 9700X should be compared to 7700 in regards to effciency.

I'm down for tweaks 100%
But to be 100% honest too AMD send them review kits including CPUs, DRAM and instructions. In them AMD said that 6000 is still the sweetspot for 9000series
I dont know if this 6000 is sweetspot at current time with these boards, AGESA and so, but thats it for now.
If things pick up later, then AMD maybe rushed it on market

If you want to see serious tweaks then

 

[HTC]

A question, if i may (it may have been answered already, as i haven't read the whole thread).

It's true that, relative to the 7700 and 7700X, the performance difference isn't very big and that suggests this CPU isn't as good as we thought it would be ... but ... i was under the impression that both the 7700 and the 7700X were "close to the max" and couldn't overclock much, but it appears that's not the case with the 9700X, as it can overclock better: is this true?

In other words, it seems to me the 9700X has much more "wiggle room" than both the 7700 and 7700X: is this true?

 

[Zach_01]

A question, if i may (it may have been answered already, as i haven't read the whole thread).

It's true that, relative to the 7700X and 7700X, the performance difference isn't very big and that suggests this CPU isn't as good as we thought it would be ... but ... i was under the impression that both the 7700 and the 7700X were "close to the max" and couldn't overclock much, but it appears that's not the case with the 9700X, as it can overclock better: is this true?

In other words, it seems to me the 9700X has much more "wiggle room" than both the 7700 and 7700X: is this true?

That's why a lot saying that this could easily be a 9700nonX because of the conservative road AMD took on this one.
See the video in post #245

 

[HTC]

That's why a lot saying that this could easily be a 9700nonX because of the conservative road AMD took on this one.
See the video in post #245

Just finished watching: was waiting for it to finish to refresh the page.

 

[SL2]

I asked because different reviewers saw different results. And, by the by, even in TPUs own reviews the 9700X is consistently posting lower all-core boost frequencies than the 7700X and comparable single-core ones.

I mean, we don't have to blame architectural design when the TDP is set too low. Randall isn't wrong in general but it doesn't apply here, since the 9600X boosting higher than the 9700X when it should be the opposite hints at lack of power, and it has already been shown that it's also a great overclocker:

Why everyone say Zen 5 is bad ?

For those who want power efficiency and don't care about any other metric these cpu's are pretty decent. I'm surprised you didn't mention overclocking, 25 % faster in CB23 is not expected. AMD can never get it right lol... AMD launches Ryzen 7000. "You're milking every Hertz out of it for...

www.techpowerup.com

So you are just ASSUMING there’s something to fix since the processors didn’t meet some arbitrary expectations?

Don't jump to conclusions before reading my whole reply. I'm sorry if I messed up your head a little. My answer was:

Seriously, I've already answered that.

Yeah I am not a fan of withholding numbers just because vendor is moaning they too far off, publish whatever you done, and if a mistake was made fix it later. It does feel like these reviews there can be too much hand holding, this and that has to be configured this and that way.

Well, it wasn't my intention to make it sound like that. I got the impression that AMD wasn't steering decisions in any direction, just helping out. It's was the reviewer, I'd guess Gordon, who wasn't happy with the results, and didn't want to publish something like that. He didn't blame AMD in any way.

I'm pretty sure reviewers in general are reluctant to publish a review regardless of the result or the experience from doing it.

 

[PierreJG]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I have been with AMD since the early 2000s but my next upgrade may be an Intel. The reason is, Here they are selling the R5 3500 for the same price as I3 14th gen... Yes the AM4 is a good investment but not for the price they ask. I will not go AM5 any time soon as First, I still see them as Beta parts and Second they are hella expensive here also DDR 5 is way overpriced. I may just snag a good deal on facebook market place for an Upgrade

 

[Zach_01]

This a PBO approach on the right direction...
Not just enabling it and let the board apply stupid high limits (The Intel approach )
-15 steps on CurveOptimizer (45~75mV UV) and a 120W PPT