AMD Ryzen 9000 Zen 5 Single Thread Performance at 5.80 GHz Found 19% Over Zen 4

[mkppo]

I made 2 different claims. Firstly, that out of the box they are more efficient, which is true even for no other reason than that there are 35 and 65w versions. That is a clear cut case no arguing required, it's just true.

Of course you can buy those parts separately, what are you talking about man?

You made the second claim after you realised you lost the first two arguments. You started off with a useless ST power test, then we shifted to MT and this is what you had to say:

No, it just has a lower power limit.

At ISO power limits most Intel CPUs are more efficient than their AMD counterparts in MT. By a lot.

Which is false. At the same ISO power limits AMD CPU's are more efficient. Note that you mentioned nothing about being 'out of the box' or anything to do with price or segment. You simply implied that AMD is inherently more inefficient. Which is, again, false. Your other dubious 'claims' were made later.

And then yes, I also said that in most segments Intel are more efficient at ISO power- which is also correct. Segments - going by MSRP, i5 13600k vs r5 7600x, i7 13700k vs r7 7700x, i7 14700k vs r7 7800x 3d, i9 13900k / 14900k vs 7900x / 7950x. In most of those Intel wins in both ST and MT efficiency, it's only at the top end (7950x) that amd has the edge in MT.

So even in your own graph, 13600k is behind 7600x, 13700k is behind 7700x, 14700k is behind 7800x etc in efficiency. You probably meant non-k CPU's. In that case, we also need the non-x AMD CPU's in the graph. Since those aren't there, there's no real comparison.

Buy yes, your final argument is that Intel actually makes 35W CPU's which are more efficient out of the box than the higher power AMD parts since AMD doesn't make 35W CPU's. That's correct. But don't pretend like that's the argument you started off with. Also, those are OEM only parts, that's what I was talking about. You can buy these, but those are usually pulled from systems and not on the retail channel.

 

[fevgatos]

You made the second claim after you realised you lost the first two arguments. You started off with a useless ST power test, then we shifted to MT and this is what you had to say:



Which is false. At the same ISO power limits AMD CPU's are more efficient. Note that you mentioned nothing about being 'out of the box' or anything to do with price or segment. You simply implied that AMD is inherently more inefficient. Which is, again, false. Your other dubious 'claims' were made later.



So even in your own graph, 13600k is behind 7600x, 13700k is behind 7700x, 14700k is behind 7800x etc in efficiency. You probably meant non-k CPU's. In that case, we also need the non-x AMD CPU's in the graph. Since those aren't there, there's no real comparison.

Buy yes, your final argument is that Intel actually makes 35W CPU's which are more efficient out of the box than the higher power AMD parts since AMD doesn't make 35W CPU's. That's correct. But don't pretend like that's the argument you started off with. Also, those are OEM only parts, that's what I was talking about. You can buy these, but those are usually pulled from systems and not on the retail channel.

You clearly don't understand what ISO power is. Its' fine, wasted too much time already. Google what ISO is and then go figure out how Intel is actually more efficient across the board, ST or MT performance, ISO or out of the box. Or don't, I don't really care. Cya bud

 

[mkppo]

You clearly don't understand what ISO power is. Its' fine, wasted too much time already. Google what ISO is and then go figure out how Intel is actually more efficient across the board, ST or MT performance, ISO or out of the box. Or don't, I don't really care. Cya bud

You're the one wasting time here with shifting arguments and denial of your own mistaken statements. I mean, I quoted two of the. Thanks for the condescending remarks, ISO isn't rocket science so i'm not sure why you think others have a hard time understanding it. ISO power is at the same power level and ISO frequency is at the same frequency.

So yes, at the same power, or ISO power, AMD is more efficient. At the same frequency, or ISO frequency, AMD is more efficient. What's your argument? Oh yeah, intel makes 35W OEM CPU's that are more efficient out of the box and I agreed with it. Because clearly that's your last argument after shifting goalposts a couple of times. How are Intel more efficient 'across the board' again?

Fun fact: Golden Cove requires 900mV to sustain 3ghz. Zen 4 can do it at 600mV, and from what I hear Zen 5 reduces it even further while having a fatter arch.

 

[fevgatos]

You're the one wasting time here with shifting arguments and denial of your own mistaken statements. I mean, I quoted two of the. Thanks for the condescending remarks, ISO isn't rocket science so i'm not sure why you think others have a hard time understanding it. ISO power is at the same power level and ISO frequency is at the same frequency.

So yes, at the same power, or ISO power, AMD is more efficient. At the same frequency, or ISO frequency, AMD is more efficient. What's your argument? Oh yeah, intel makes 35W OEM CPU's that are more efficient out of the box and I agreed with it. Because clearly that's your last argument after shifting goalposts a couple of times. How are Intel more efficient 'across the board' again?

Fun fact: Golden Cove requires 900mV to sustain 3ghz. Zen 4 can do it at 600mV, and from what I hear Zen 5 reduces it even further while having a fatter arch.

You said you understand what ISO power is, yet at the same time claim that in the graph I posted AMD is more efficient at ISO power. Yet the graph I posted doesn't test at ISO power. Something doesn't add up here. Maybe you googled it after the fact.

So you are telling me a 7700x or a 7800x at iso power is faster in MT than a 13700k and a 14700k? Dude, they are much slower than even my 3 gens old 12900k.

Come on now, our opinion is irrelevant, let's face the facts. Computerbasede has tested every possible CPU at every possible power limit in a bunch of MT workloads. The most efficient CPU in their graph is a 13900k @ 35w. Then at same segments the 13700k at 65w is faster than the 7700x at 88w. Same for the 13600k vs teh 7600x. Sadly hasn't tested the 14700k or 7800x 3d that thoroughly yet .

For example, this is their MT test (tests a bunch of MT workloads). 13700k at 88w is faster than a 7700x at 142w. Hell even the i5 at 125w is faster than the 7700x. Even my old 12900k with ddr4 is faster....Why is this so hard for people to accept? It has nothing to do with architecture or whatever, the sheer number of cores that Intel has in the midrange gives them a very easy win in the efficiency department at these MT workloads. Even zen 5 will be behind in the midrange at ISO power, there is no way in hell a 9700x catches up to a 13 or 14700k for example.

 

[mkppo]

You said you understand what ISO power is, yet at the same time claim that in the graph I posted AMD is more efficient at ISO power. Yet the graph I posted doesn't test at ISO power. Something doesn't add up here. Maybe you googled it after the fact.

So you are telling me a 7700x or a 7800x at iso power is faster in MT than a 13700k and a 14700k? Dude, they are much slower than even my 3 gens old 12900k.

Come on now, our opinion is irrelevant, let's face the facts. Computerbasede has tested every possible CPU at every possible power limit in a bunch of MT workloads. The most efficient CPU in their graph is a 13900k @ 35w. Then at same segments the 13700k at 65w is faster than the 7700x at 88w. Same for the 13600k vs teh 7600x. Sadly hasn't tested the 14700k or 7800x 3d that thoroughly yet .

For example, this is their MT test (tests a bunch of MT workloads). 13700k at 88w is faster than a 7700x at 142w. Hell even the i5 at 125w is faster than the 7700x. Even my old 12900k with ddr4 is faster....Why is this so hard for people to accept? It has nothing to do with architecture or whatever, the sheer number of cores that Intel has in the midrange gives them a very easy win in the efficiency department at these MT workloads. Even zen 5 will be behind in the midrange at ISO power, there is no way in hell a 9700x catches up to a 13 or 14700k for example.

View attachment 351956

In your graph, I was talking about your graph of TPU CB efficiency points where the 7700x was ahead of 13600k. That's literally the out of the box efficiency in the TPU chart, but for some reason you say that most intel CPU's are more efficient out of the box.

Then for some reason you claim I said the 7700x is more efficient than 13700k at ISO power when I didn't. I literally said AMD CPU's are more efficient at ISO power for a while with our whole debate around 13900k vs 7950x where I tried explaining why the 7950x is more efficient at ISO power levels and showed you some charts at different power levels. Then I tried explaining to you that since each Zen 4 core is so much more efficient than golden cove, they can really scale this thing out beyond where intel can compete.

But for some reason you brought in MSRP, segmented them and then ranted about how the 7700x is less efficient at ISO power in MT. You're also confident I don't know what ISO power is and that I googled it. Hmm. Also the chart you provided doesn't look too good for 13700k either..an almost 4 year old 5950x is sitting there with a 13700k at the same performance/power. Or that there's a 7900x with the same performance at less power..

We can keep arguing, but it's tiring and you sometimes resort to strangely condescending personal attacks. I'll just agree to disagree at this point.

 

[fevgatos]

In your graph, I was talking about your graph of TPU CB efficiency points where the 7700x was ahead of 13600k. That's literally the out of the box efficiency in the TPU chart, but for some reason you say that most intel CPU's are more efficient out of the box.

Ok, but you said ISO when talking about that graph so you got me confused. Agreed, the 7700x is more efficient than the 13600k out of the box. If you care about out of the box efficiency though you grab the 13600 non k. Which is my point.

What I'm saying is, that besides the 7950x which has a small lead at iso power in MT , intel has a big lead in every other segment in both ST and MT efficiency. Again, that's at ISO power.

The 5950x sitting up there as a 4 year old cpu should tell you more about amd than intel. After all it's not intel that's getting beat by the 5950x, it is amds own new products, lol.

I didn't make the segments, amd did with their pricing and names. Don't you think an r7 7700x is meant to go against the i7 13700k? They literally copied the name 1 to 1 and they launched alongside each other for the same msrp.

 

[mkppo]

Ok, but you said ISO when talking about that graph so you got me confused. Agreed, the 7700x is more efficient than the 13600k out of the box. If you care about out of the box efficiency though you grab the 13600 non k. Which is my point.

What I'm saying is, that besides the 7950x which has a small lead at iso power in MT , intel has a big lead in every other segment in both ST and MT efficiency. Again, that's at ISO power.

The 5950x sitting up there as a 4 year old cpu should tell you more about amd than intel. After all it's not intel that's getting beat by the 5950x, it is amds own new products, lol.

I didn't make the segments, amd did with their pricing and names. Don't you think an r7 7700x is meant to go against the i7 13700k? They literally copied the name 1 to 1 and they launched alongside each other for the same msrp.

For sure, the launch prices and segmentation weren't great which settled over time. But that was close to two years ago.

I wouldn't call the 7950x's lead 'small'. At reasonable power limits, even the 7900x will be right up there against 13900k. My last chart pretty much sums up the whole power range between 30-180.

5950x actually doesn't come close to the 7950x, I saw a 35% gain at around 80W between the two. That's right around the range of power limits where the 7950x extends the lead against their previous gen and anything intel, so much so that 7900x is squarely competing for 2nd. Just fyi, i'm talking about 50 - 100W power limits. If you want some context, just refer to the charts, graphs and reviews I posted earlier.

Don't want to drag this any further, if you think the facts are something else we will just agree to disagree.

 

[fevgatos]

For sure, the launch prices and segmentation weren't great which settled over time. But that was close to two years ago.

I wouldn't call the 7950x's lead 'small'. At reasonable power limits, even the 7900x will be right up there against 13900k. My last chart pretty much sums up the whole power range between 30-180.

5950x actually doesn't come close to the 7950x, I saw a 35% gain at around 80W between the two. That's right around the range of power limits where the 7950x extends the lead against their previous gen and anything intel, so much so that 7900x is squarely competing for 2nd. Just fyi, i'm talking about 50 - 100W power limits. If you want some context, just refer to the charts, graphs and reviews I posted earlier.

Don't want to drag this any further, if you think the facts are something else we will just agree to disagree.

Depends on what you mean small, highest difference is a little bit less than 20% in vray. In cbr23 it's less than 10%. Talking about iso power between 14900k and 7950x. Just for context the 14900k hits 33k @ 125w in cbr23.