If these numbers hold up, this looks very promising. I'm not a fan of the TDP increase, but at least it's slightly more honest than Intel's approach (even if AMD's "TDP isn't PPT" thing is still iffy IMO), and it does look like there's plenty of performance improvement to be had even for those of us more interested in power limited scenarios. +13% IPC is decent, though not spectacular - at least it's not mid-2010s Intel "hey, look, another 5%!" - and the clock increases are impressive. I like that they included gaming tests in their IPC testing suite, even if that is a difficult and somewhat problematic thing to do (introducing variability through how GPU drivers interface with the different architectures) - at least it has the potential to better reflect real-world testing. It's just too bad there's no commonly accepted standard for anything like this.
Pricing is ... okay, I guess? Slightly better than rumored, and hopefully poised to see some aggressive cuts if/when Raptor Lake comes out and delivers some real competition to this. I also like the promise of $125 motherboards, even if that is a rather depressing baseline compared to the $50-75 baseline 5-10 years ago - but that's the cost of high speed I/O.
I also really, really hope AMD gets off their ass and diversifies their offerings quickly here. We can't have another Ryzen 5000 situation of 4 SKUs for ages and ages. The 5600 non-X and lower SKUs need to launch in 6 months or less, ideally with ST performance still being pretty good, without drastic ST clock cuts. Even if we're no longer in the same kind of supply crunch, I kind of hope AMD makes a 4c CCD to get lower end SKUs off the ground quickly and in good volumes. Would that be expensive? Sure. Would it be worth it? Yes.
7950X will be slower than 5800X3D in borderland 3
The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D is the company's new flagship gaming processor. It introduces 3D V-Cache, a dedicated piece of silicon with additional L3 capacity. In our review, we're testing how much the larger cache can help intensive gaming workloads and applications and compare it to the Intel Core...
www.techpowerup.com
so 7950X in any game
sensitive to cache won't be faster than 5800X3D like Microsoft flight simulator.
That's likely true, but then you'll get roughly the same gains with the upcoming 7xxx X3D chips from a 5800X3D as you do for these 7xxx non-X3D chips coming from regular non-X3D. This is expected.
This is unfortunate. My cousin was looking at getting a PC strictly for eSports and Simulator/ "Tycoon" games. Would've been a crapton better with the rdna3 but I guess that will work =[
These iGPUs have never been targeted at performance, only basic display functionality. That has been plenty clear from how they've been spoken of - they're there so that your PC will be usable without a dGPU, but they aren't meant for any kind of high performance 3D.
Concerns.
- Combining the performance and power efficiency comparisons between the 7950X and the 12900K, we can calculate that the 7950X consumes 257W and has a performance per watt 20-30% worse than the 5950X. They claim that perf.per.watt has improved, but I suspect that this is conditional, such as in the case of iso-clock.
PPT for the 170W TDP SKUs is 230W, and it won't go higher than that without manual tuning or some harebrained default auto-OC from the motherboard, so whatever your math is for this, it's wrong. Also,
did you miss their performance scaling/TDP slide?
- They avoided comparing the MT performance of 7600X vs 12600X and 7700X vs 12700K. This is a combination where Alder lake is considered cheaper and better performing.
This is probably true - ADL has an MT advantage due to the E cores, and AMD currently doesn't have a counter to that. It's an interesting reversal from the situation five years ago, but then again this time most end users aren't sitting on 4c4t CPUs, or 4c8t in the best case scenario, but rather 6c12t as pretty much the baseline, so the advantage is less meaningful overall - but still obviously relevant for anyone doing rendering, CPU-based encoding, etc.
- The "IPC uplift" calculation method they use includes the effects of memory access and cache, such as game FPS and Geekbench. Calculated by their method, Raptor lake with DDR5 will get an "IPC uplift" close to 10%.
Where you draw the line for what constitutes IPC is always fluid and ambiguous, but for an implemented CPU architecture, including fixed platform components such as RAM and cache is necessary - you can't control for those across architectures, so they must be included. You could always argue for this not truly being IPC, but at that point you're going to have to look purely at the hardware properties of the chip itself, as any OoO CPU is entirely dependent on its caches and RAM for actual, real-world instruction processing.
The 8 core pricing is totally wrong. I can maybe try to understand the high starting price of the 7600, if it is really a top gaming CPU, but the 8 core is just too expensive.
I think people will avoid buying the 6 core for having too few cores/threads and the 8 core for being too expensive for a x7xx model. 12 core and 16 core models are targeting people who don't count their money, just give them, so there AMD will probably sell. A bunch of E Cores wouldn't stop 7950X from selling like hot cakes to professionals.
Then again those prices could be a move from AMD to not make Intel feel the need to start a price war with it's 13th gen. Or maybe they both agreed on them. With Intel saying that it will increase prices and AMD needing to keep increasing it's profit margins, probably it's in both their interests to not price low. From what I have seen the last many years, all three companies, AMD, Intel and Nvidia target profit margins of over 60%. Nvidia was playing there for many many years, Intel was there in their best or even the "just good" days, while AMD is keep moving slowly in that direction, gaining a point or two every quarter.
Then again the 5800X launched at $450, so this is nominally a gen-over-gen drop. Of course the 5800X was also by far the worst value of the 5000 gen, but that's how things were. If anything, I see that drop as indicative that AMD wants to keep margins high, but are prepared to fight it out with Intel in terms of pricing this time around.
Can't wait for real reviews.
Everything else wouldn't make sense price wise.
