SiSoftware Tests the Ryzen 5 7600X, Ryzen 7 7700X and Ryzen 9 7950X

[Valantar]

I think this is the best under-reported item.

It'll be very interesting to see Anandtech's review (if they have one - the slow death of that site makes me so sad!), as they test core-to-core latencies between every core of the CPU. IIRC they were already significantly ahead of the latest Intel architectures per CCD though.

Look what they have posted and what they called it.

So, you didn't visit their website. Let me help you and your welcome.
View attachment 262939

I'd still be inclined to say that isn't a review as the word is commonly used. Crucially, they haven't actually tested the chips themselves:

the products have not been directly tested by SiSoftware and thus the accuracy of the benchmark scores cannot be verified; however, they appear consistent and do not appear to be false/fake.

(from the 7600X source link.)
It'd be more accurate to call it an analysis of (unverified but seemingly trustworthy) third party benchmark data. Without running the tests themselves it's impossible to control for all the variables involved.

 

[gruffi]

Man this generation is depressing me on both CPU and GPU sides. Nvidia barely lifted the performance/price (debatable if they did at all). And at the price 7600X comes in I would have hoped that it would demolish 12600K, not just match it for the most part. 12600K has already come down in price AND you can save a lot with DDR4.

The 12600K came down in price? Good joke. It's more expensive than it was after launch. It costs ~320 EUR here in Germany. At that price I would definitely go with Ryzen 7600X. Sure, the 12600K might still be somewhat competitive under full load because it has 67% more cores. But how important is that? Not very much for most people. Most daily tasks utilize up to only a few cores. The 7600X will be faster and more power efficient then.

 

[ZetZet]

The 12600K came down in price? Good joke. It's more expensive than it was after launch. It costs ~320 EUR here in Germany. At that price I would definitely go with Ryzen 7600X. Sure, the 12600K might still be somewhat competitive under full load because it has 67% more cores. But how important is that? Not very much for most people. Most daily tasks utilize up to only a few cores. The 7600X will be faster and more power efficient then.

That's just EUR dropping compared to USD. You can't blame Intel for the collapsing economy. 7600X will cost around 370 EUR.

 

[gruffi]

The 4090 has twice the performance of the 3090ti

Yeah, like the 3080 had 2x the performance of 2080. At least according to Nvidia. Until reviews debunked that bold claim, showing only ~40-70% depending on the resolution. ^^ I wouldn't give anything about Nvidia's cherry picking. 2x+ maybe in selected games with gimmicks like DLSS and RT. If I look at the specs I would rather expect more like 50-70% uplift in general. I'm also unsure if I would use DLSS3 to boost performance. Some DLSS3 images I've seen so far show awful quality. Much worse than native rendering. The latency issue with DLSS3 might be another disappointment. Which definitely has to be examined. Pure fps is not everything.

That's just EUR dropping compared to USD.

I think it's not just because of that. Intel's client margins dropped to a disastrous level. They need to increase prices. They actually sold Alder Lake under value. And Raptor Lake will be even more expensive because it uses an almost 25% larger chip.

I am quite sure that 99.9% of the users don't need AVX-512. Even moreso, when intel doesn't support it and doesn't see the need to include it.

Intel actually DOES support it on the p-cores. But with their awful hybrid design it's probably a hassle to use it in a reasonable way. Because the e-cores don't support it.

It better be. Jumping from 105-watt straight to 170-watt is a serious business and better you have a justification for that ugly and terrible move.

It's not ugly or terrible. It's necessary for upcoming designs with more cores, like Zen 5. Ugly and terrible is only the 350W unlimited mode of Raptor Lake. Which is pure desperation from Intel. Because they know they have no chance against Zen 4 at the same power limit. Even with more cores.

 

[Frick]

Look what they have posted and what they called it.

So, you didn't visit their website. Let me help you and your welcome.
View attachment 262939

They can call it what they will.

Also, what does this mean?

"The article contains only public information (available elsewhere on the Internet) and not provided under NDA nor embargoed. At publication time, the products have not been directly tested by SiSoftware and thus the accuracy of the benchmark scores cannot be verified; however, they appear consistent and do not appear to be false/fake."

 

[ZetZet]

I think it's not just because of that. Intel's client margins dropped to a disastrous level. They need to increase prices. They actually sold Alder Lake under value. And Raptor Lake will be even more expensive because it uses an almost 25% larger chip.

No it really is. 12600k is now around 280 USD and it's around 340 in the EU. That's pretty much exactly just VAT. Considering lots of EU countries have tariffs on imported electronics Intel is probably making LESS money from EU sales.

 

[gruffi]

I wasn't talking about VAT. That's another topic.

 

[ZetZet]

I wasn't talking about VAT. That's another topic.

It's not. You complained about Intel prices in EU. They look like they went up because EUR lost value. VAT was always there. The price went down, just the currency went down faster.

 

[Valantar]

Intel actually DOES support it on the p-cores

Architecturally, yes, but any BIOS update past a launch Z690 BIOS will disable it through microcode, so it hardly matters that it's there.

 

[docnorth]

I don't agree. Platform longevity is a major factor. AM5 is at the start of the journey. Raptor Lake is the final hurrah for the platform. While Raptor Lake has a more mature platform with conceivably fewer teething issues, if one is putting together a new build then AM5 offers the 7000 generation and several further generations on the same platform which from an economic and eventual stability perspective is the better choice. While I always wait for reviews, those advocating for people to wait for Raptor Lake before jumping have discounted the wider view.

That’s why I expressed my own opinion and way to choose. In case my choice is not so wise or my needs change unexpectedly, I can sell CPU and motherboard (a CPU always needs a mobo, right?) and buy a new combo. It’s a bigger hassle for one day (for other people only a couple of hours), but provides FULL compatibility and functionality in the long-run.

 

[HD64G]

They can call it what they will.

Also, what does this mean?

"The article contains only public information (available elsewhere on the Internet) and not provided under NDA nor embargoed. At publication time, the products have not been directly tested by SiSoftware and thus the accuracy of the benchmark scores cannot be verified; however, they appear consistent and do not appear to be false/fake."

I have seen much worse "reviews" that were paid in advance to show products being better or worse than they were. Sisoft got the results from someone who got those CPUs and tested them with their software. And they gathered those results in an article that was named as a review which isn't wrong by definition (review=a critical appraisal of a book, play, film, etc. published in a newspaper or magazine). As I see it, those results if the CPUs were tested in stock power limits and not excessive cooling equipment are valid. In a day or so we will be sure.

 

[trsttte]

Probably AMD use same CCDs for servers and users

Intel does too (workstation, not necessarily server, but same difference), they just choose the aproach of "it's not validated for consumer use" after the bashing they got on 11th gen because of the very high power consumption under avx512 workloads.

That sounds likely. What confuses and even baffles me is why Intel included it in the Golden Cove cores - when each CPU is monolithic and is not reused among multiple segments. If the hybrid architecture was to maximize core counts in a given die area, why in thunder did they add the space-hog of AVX-512

They also reuse the CPU in other segment, Xeon for example. The Golden Cove cores are absolutely to increase core count, avx512 is for workstation because they choose to not have it on consumer (as I said above, probably to avoid another round of bashing for high power consumption)

 

[Xajel]

So, intel doesn't use AVX-512, and somehow AMD thinks it will make use of it? How? When? Why?

Intel promoted it for consumers, And some intel fans were all over the world for this "advantage" over AMD. Now intel is disabling this for consumers.

AVX-512 can do things for consumers, among AV transcoding & AI/ML with the later getting more attention lately. The main reason intel is disabling it is because it caused some issues with their Hybrid architecture, they might get it back when they fix the issues.

It better be. Jumping from 105-watt straight to 170-watt is a serious business and better you have a justification for that ugly and terrible move.

Going to higher TDP is a market trend, the demand for more performance is stronger than the work on new process technologies and increasing the uArch efficiency, this has been happening since computers were invented, Intel has been increasing their power consumption earlier than AMD but they're doing it behind the scenes because their TDP definition helps them, their CPUs has been consuming a lot of power, 11900K consumed 205W while the newer 12900K is a little bit better at 197W (or 172W with DDR4 instead of DDR5). While the 5950X consumed 101W stock or 149W with PBO.

So you can expect Ryzen 7950X to be around 170W stock or around 230W with PBO if the rumors are true. AMD's definition of TDP always came closer to the actual consumption until you enable PBO, while intel actual consumption is higher than the TDP when in load, even at stock settings. Just a different TDP definition between the two companies where intel goes for Typical Design Power and AMD goes for Thermal Design Power.

 

[ADB1979]

SiSoft Sandra has been a joke for longer than many of the readers here have been alive.

On the plus side, today's youngsters can laugh as SiSoft Sandra making typo's today

 

[ARF]

Going to higher TDP is a market trend, the demand for more performance is stronger than the work on new process technologies and increasing the uArch efficiency, this has been happening since computers were invented, Intel has been increasing their power consumption earlier than AMD but they're doing it behind the scenes because their TDP definition helps them, their CPUs has been consuming a lot of power, 11900K consumed 205W while the newer 12900K is a little bit better at 197W (or 172W with DDR4 instead of DDR5). While the 5950X consumed 101W stock or 149W with PBO.

So you can expect Ryzen 7950X to be around 170W stock or around 230W with PBO if the rumors are true. AMD's definition of TDP always came closer to the actual consumption until you enable PBO, while intel actual consumption is higher than the TDP when in load, even at stock settings. Just a different TDP definition between the two companies where intel goes for Typical Design Power and AMD goes for Thermal Design Power.

Obviously, but they can't do it no more because there are physical laws and we have no means to remove that heat.
I am not going to buy a 170-watt CPU. EVER!! Whoever does, is not ok, either.

What do you mean by "market trend"? Someone has to accept the responsibility for these execution failures.
The society now demands LESS power, not more power. There are strict environmental/ecological regulations, there is a global warming to fight.
And these shenanigans because they are so incompetent, prefer to increase, not decrease the power consumption.

Honestly, I prefer that these boxes collect dust on the stores shelves, while their makers declare bankruptcies!

 

[zaku49]

So even if raptor lake happens to be a tad faster than the current Zen cpus coming out you know the 3D versions are going to come out later and be much faster where when it comes to intel the current line is what you get, end of support.

 

[Arkz]

Wow they can't even fill in a name properly. I'll wait for actual tests and reviews with various software and games.

 

[Patriot]

This is not very impressive if it's only trading blows with Intel's last-gen part.

You're joking, right?

ARF is just a troll, don't feed it. Doesn't respond to anyone that proves them wrong, moves goal post etc etc.
Talks about not wanting a 170w cpu, tells people to wait for the 350w cpu. Sad really.

 

[1d10t]

7600X can only stretch its legs to 12600K, looks unimpressive but they've done it with fewer cores.

 

[catulitechup]

AVX-512 Patch Brings 30% Performance Uplift to PlayStation 3 Emulator | Tom's Hardware (tomshardware.com)

However i like see zen 4 avx 512 performance because amd avx 512 implementation are different than intel implementation because zen 4 avx 512 i think use 2 fma x 256bit meanwhile avx 512 on intel use 1 fma x 512bit

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1564392210828857345

thats remind me a similar problem with old ryzen with avx 2, in this time dont run enough good avx 2 because amd implementation use 2 fma x 128bit i think meanwhile intel avx 2 implementation use 1 x fma x 256bit

maybe zen 4 have same problem like old ryzen, dont can use full implementation because this use many space on chip aka cheap solution

 

[Prima.Vera]

Where are the games tests man??

 

[Valantar]

Where are the games tests man??

Not in the SiSoft Sandra test suite, that's for sure.

 

[Patriot]

Where are the games tests man??

In the TPU reviews release After NDA today? Summery Wait for X3d or go raptorlake.
For production workloads that 7950x is a beast, runs hot, needs delidding, see debaur for that.