AMD Ryzen 9000 Zen 5 CPUs Set for Power Boost, AGESA Update Increasing TDP up to 105W

[Nomad76]

Recent reports suggest that AMD's Zen 5 desktop processors may soon receive a significant power upgrade. The upcoming AGESA 1.2.0.1A Patch A is rumored to increase the default power limits (TDP) from 65 W to 105 W for certain models, specifically the 8-core Ryzen 7 9700X and the 6-core Ryzen 5 9600X. This development comes as a surprise given that the first reviews of the Ryzen 9000 series were published just last week, with lower power consumption praised as a major advantage over previous generations. The potential TDP increase, while not as high as the 120 W initially rumored for the 9700X, still represents a substantial boost in power allocation.

The rationale behind this significant TDP increase appears to be addressing the lower than expected performance of the Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 5 9600X compared to their predecessors. Initial testing showed that both CPUs performed similarly to earlier models, especially in gaming scenarios, with notable improvements only visible when using Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO). Even at 65 W, the Ryzen 7 9700X struggled to outpace the 7800X3D in gaming performance, highlighting the need for improved power delivery.





While users prioritizing efficiency can still opt for the default 65 W TDP mode, those seeking higher performance will have access to the new 105 W TDP mode. The performance gains from this update remain to be seen, but given the substantial increase in power allocation, expectations are high for noticeable improvements. A 105 W TDP is expected to allow the chips to reach up to 142 W in terms of Package Power Tracking (PPT).

It's worth noting that AMD has not officially confirmed these changes, and it's unclear whether they will be included in the final BIOS release. The new TDP update is expected to be provided in the official, non-beta release of the AGESA 1.2.0.1A Patch A BIOS for all AM5 motherboards.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Vayra86]

I really hope they didn't think that was going to be a successful attempt to paint Zen 5 off as super efficient chips. Why wasn't this done at launch if it mattered? WTF

 

[n-ster]

with notable improvements only visible when using Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO)

No? Most testing shows basically no gains from PBO in gaming. The issue with these new CPUs is how they were marketed, they shouldn't have promised unattainable gaming improvements and focus on marketing productivity or something. Reviews should have compared them to 65W Zen 4 ones not 105W, which also brings to light the other issue, price increase and loss of stock cooler compared to them.

I really hope they didn't think that was going to be a successful attempt to paint Zen 5 off as super efficient chips. Why wasn't this done at launch if it mattered? WTF

Zen 5 is very efficient, problem is that 65W Zen 4 or 65W ECO Mode enabled Zen 4 is just as efficient

 

[Pumper]

If it's not an optional "anti-ECO" mode buried in the BIOS settings, it's pretty much just false advertising no different to when games add microtransactions and invasive DRM after reviews are posted online.

 

[freeagent]

105w is good, you will be able to pump it up and have full curve control, very appealing.

 

[Punkenjoy]

if it's just using more power for the sake of using more power, i dont have much expectation. With PBO max you can already use that much power for not much gain. If it also change the Voltage/Frequency curve to allow the cpu to boost more with less voltage and reach higher boost frequency leading to higher perf, then nice.

i just dont have a lot of expectaction

 

[trsttte]

This is very stupid, people who care about it can set the power limits themselves, AMD could just keep the more efficient and stable default power level as reviewed and that's that. They don't really gain anything from this but computers will become bigger power hogs and less efficient as a consequence - I understand many don't care about it, but they're free to raise the power levels, the opposite will not be so common.

If it's not an optional "anti-ECO" mode buried in the BIOS settings, it's pretty much just false advertising no different to when games add microtransactions and invasive DRM after reviews are posted online.

It's not as bad as security patches and stability updates that degrade performance well after the review cycle but yeah, still pretty bad. They were reviewed and publicized as 65W cpus, cool and quiet, and now suddenly they're becoming relative power hogs at 105W.

 

[mukumi]

No? Most testing shows basically no gains from PBO in gaming. The issue with these new CPUs is how they were marketed, they shouldn't have promised unattainable gaming improvements and focus on marketing productivity or something. Reviews should have compared them to 65W Zen 4 ones not 105W, which also brings to light the other issue, price increase and loss of stock cooler compared to them.

Which ryzen 7000 had a stock cooler? My 7700x came with none.

 

[sethmatrix7]

This is very stupid, people who care about it can set the power limits themselves, AMD could just keep the more efficient and stable default power level as reviewed and that's that. They don't really gain anything from this but computers will become bigger power hogs and less efficient as a consequence - I understand many don't care about it, but they're free to raise the power levels, the opposite will not be so common.



It's not as bad as security patches and stability updates that degrade performance well after the review cycle but yeah, still pretty bad. They were reviewed and publicized as 65W cpus, cool and quiet, and now suddenly they're becoming relative power hogs at 105W.

People who care about it can also lower the power limit.

 

[Sarajiel]

Which ryzen 7000 had a stock cooler? My 7700x came with none.

All boxed "65W" (88W PPT) Ryzen 7000 CPUs, 7600, 7700 & 7900, come with a stock cooler. The 7600 gets the cheap one, the other two have a more expensive flavor.

Even the Ryzen 7500F is available as MPK, aka multipack, version that comes with a stock cooler for system integrators without fancy packaging. Although those are hard to find over here in Europe, and are usually more expensive than the 7600 boxed version.

People who care about it can also lower the power limit.

You guys are aware that the 65W parts are mostly intended for cheap OEM gaming PCs and office PCs? Dell even sticks cost-optimized coolers with LGA 1700 mounting brackets onto some of their proprietary AM5 motherboards.
The number of DIY buyers for these CPUs seem to be a tiny minority, judging from data points like those infamous Mindfactory sales numbers, or the fact that I bought a boxed 7700 with perfect seal and all that stuff about 18 months after they were released, and its batch number indicated a manufacturing week even before launch!

While I wouldn't be too surprised about AMD's marketing department screwing this train wreck of a product launch even more up, I really doubt that they fancy releasing more 65W SKUs for OEMs at a later date.
Maybe we see a R7 9800X with a 95W or 105W TDP, but that seems only likely, if the X3D parts come later next year, or the drama queens on YouTube don't move to the next thing quickly.

 

[Nordic]

People who care about it can also lower the power limit.

People who cared about it could also set the power limit higher. 65w tdp / 88w ppt, or otherwise moderate power limit, should be the default for most models mid-tier models. We don't need mid-tier cpu's pushed to the limit.

 

[NoneRain]

If true, these CPUs are really not ready... What's the point of releasing them like that if an AGESA fix was in the making?

 

[trsttte]

People who care about it can also lower the power limit.

It's the same old opt-in vs opt-out discussion and opt-out is again, as it is most often, the wrong option.

 

[thesmokingman]

Ppl complain cuz it was low power. Now they complain it uses too much power.

 

[evernessince]

Ppl complain cuz it was low power. Now they complain it uses too much power.

Zen 5 provides hardly any performance uplift and really no efficiency improvements. Neither 65w or 105w configuration are going to save it from this.

 

[DaemonForce]

You guys are aware that the 65W parts are mostly intended for cheap OEM gaming PCs and office PCs?

You are aware that a lot of 65W parts end up on tables and boards like mine as high value mid-range workstations, yes?
This just made the 9600X interesting to me and I'm still on Ryzen 3000.
As it stands, I do NOT need much CPU for this and that.
Anything server duty goes straight to my AM2 chips.
If I need to render or encode something from my FX-8370, it can obviously go MUCH faster on my Ryzen 3600 at single thread.
105W sounds like a barrier lift from the usual 88W ceiling that I've consistently seen from these 65W parts.
Given my instant choice of water cooling, I can take it.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Lol, damage control.

Zen 5 provides hardly any performance uplift and really no efficiency improvements. Neither 65w or 105w configuration are going to save it from this.

Yeah, I don't understand the point of this they won't magically look much better and in gaming might actually look worse efficency wise anyways vs the zen 4 parts.

 

[HTC]

If proven true, a jump from 65W to 105W seems excessive: wouldn't ... say ... 85W make more sense from both a performance AND efficiency standpoint?

With 105W, they'll likely boost the performance noticeably, but they'll "kill" the efficiency.

 

[Carillon]

Ppl complain cuz it was low power. Now they complain it uses too much power.

That's because it's a post sell change, if it was a different product there would be no problem.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Ppl complain cuz it was low power. Now they complain it uses too much power.

I don't really care if it consumes 50w or 300w as long as the perfomance justifies it and you can scale it back without losing a ton of perfomance from 300w.

These parts can gain up to 20% but it takes 80-90% more power so it's not justified imho.

 

[Nordic]

Ppl complain cuz it was low power. Now they complain it uses too much power.

Different people complain about different things.

 

[Random_User]

No? Most testing shows basically no gains from PBO in gaming. The issue with these new CPUs is how they were marketed, they shouldn't have promised unattainable gaming improvements and focus on marketing productivity or something. Reviews should have compared them to 65W Zen 4 ones not 105W, which also brings to light the other issue, price increase and loss of stock cooler compared to them.


Zen 5 is very efficient, problem is that 65W Zen 4 or 65W ECO Mode enabled Zen 4 is just as efficient

AMD themselves have clearly stated, that the "regular" non-3D V-Cashe CPUs, aren't going to rival their X3D counterparts in gaming. And that was long before the launch.

If proven true, a jump from 65W to 105W seems excessive: wouldn't ... say ... 85W make more sense from both a performance AND efficiency standpoint?

With 105W, they'll likely boost the performance noticeably, but they'll "kill" the efficiency.

Indeed. Let's hope, this is all about the "unlocking" the upper limit, and not the "default" thermal envelope shift.

 

[Assimilator]

Source: Wccftech, quoting a random Twitter dude. Yeah, totally legit

 

[A&P211]

Different people complain about different things.

Its not complaining, its about AMD saying its this amount of % better than zen 4 but it doesnt show. Its false marketing. Zen 5 is a dud.

 

[phints]

With all the AGESA tweaks AMD made to Zen 3 and Zen 4 this should surprise no one. Good to see but waiting for that beastly 9800X3D release before thinking about a new build.