AMD Ryzen 9000 Series "Zen 5" Tested on Windows 11 24H2 Update, Shows Significant Performance Gains

[rodrigorras]

30+% perf. gain in some games ... Or in other words, nearly 1/3 of perf. loss just because of Windows not being optimized properly ...
You even pay for Windows and still get this. What do you pay for, moving taskbar icons from left to center, rounding window corners, and showing ads?

W1zzard, will you re-test 9700X in games and 9950X in applications with Win11 24H2 update?
I know you have lot of work to do but it'd be really good to see the difference (former review vs. newer one).

Anyway, does this "admin bug" also affect Windows 10?

Admin Buff, Win 11 24H2 and VBS off , the three some effect

 

[rodrigorras]

HWU did try it on Intel 14600K with like 4 games. Borderlands 3, Cyberpunk 2077 Phantom Liberty and Far Cry 6 showed no change. In Gears 5 where Zen4/5 had a big uplift, 14600K also got a 25% performance boost.
Very curious about the X3D CPUs as well though.

this was the only game I guess. So the gain is not across the board like AMD

 

[Dr. Dro]

I hope Win10 will get a similar update... And I wonder how it affects performance in applications.

Not going to happen. Windows 10's development cycle finished a couple of years ago. Only security fixes are developed for Windows 10 now.

i wonder if this update also boosts am4 processors? like the mighty 5800x3d

It is reported that it does.

 

[Dyatlov A]

I am always saying use Windows 7 and everything willperforming as meant to be.

 

[MrDweezil]

Interestingly, contrary to AMD's initial claims, the performance gains are not limited to the Zen 5 architecture. The Ryzen 7000 "Zen 4" processors have also benefited from the update

Didn't they specifically say it would benefit Zen 3-5?

 

[HD64G]

the conspiracy is that intel had like 4x more people working on getting their stuff work optimally than amd does.

sneaky sneaky Microsoft and intel keeping amd down with their putting more effort behind it.




shame he didn’t do a reference test with an intel machine to see how that does under the patched up windows

Check the video till the end. Your answer is there.

 

[Dr. Dro]

I am always saying use Windows 7 and everything willperforming as meant to be.

Key information missing: Windows 7 does not run on modern computers such as these

 

[mb194dc]

I hope Win10 will get a similar update... And I wonder how it affects performance in applications.

Has anyone even tested with Windows 10 and the LTSC builds ? Decent probability this is an issue introduced in 23H2 that wasn't there before.

AMD have even said that running as a super admin on 23H2 doesn't show the problem iirc, MSFT broke something in 23H2 I think.

 

[LittleBro]

Regarding Windows 10:

Has the HWU released that video with Windows 10 admin account tests yet?

EDIT: Found this video. User is testing Win10/Win10 + admin, Win11/Win11 + admin and various resolution.

-----------------

Deeper in Reddit discussion one user links to another discussion about Win 11 "admin bug" being already discovered two years ago.
https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/5...ng-as-admin-win-11.445893/page-8#post-6257568 (post regarding Windows 10 performance)
https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/5...ng-as-admin-win-11.445893/page-8#post-6257597 (interesting post)

This Windows bug feature seems to be present from Windows 7/8 era, maybe even sooner:

Is it me or does 'run as admin' improve game performance?

Hey there, I've been having some pretty severe issues with latency spikes (for example in Rocket League) and after contacting my ISP as well as running integrity checks in all affected games I didn't really notice much improvement. So fast forward a bit I got the idea to set the games to run as a...

linustechtips.com

All I had to do was run the game as ADMIN. Real performance boost :: Watch_Dogs General Discussions

Yeah. I think it's stupid and funny. This might help others. I hope. I can run the game smoothly on Ultra now, even if FPS sometimes suddenly drops to 20's during area transfers. Before this, I tried alt tabbing out of the game, and then running task manager, and then setting WatchDog's priority...

steamcommunity.com

That, in fact, might as well close discussions on topic whether this is Zen 5's or Microsoft's fault.

 

[Darc Requiem]

Has anyone even tested with Windows 10 and the LTSC builds ? Decent probability this is an issue introduced in 23H2 that wasn't there before.

AMD have even said that running as a super admin on 23H2 doesn't show the problem iirc, MSFT broke something in 23H2 I think.

Hardware Unboxed did a Windows 10 vs Windows 11 test a few weeks ago. Windows 10 already had an edge in performance over Windows 11.

 

[Vya Domus]

the conspiracy

There is no conspiracy, there have been many well documented cases of software being configured to offer worse performance on non Intel processors.

Just one of the many examples : https://www.reddit.com/r/matlab/comments/dxn38s
Whether it's done specifically to gimp performance on AMD systems is of course debatable, no one will ever admit to doing this on purpose but given Intel's proven track record of bribing companies there is no question that this must be the case at least in some situations.

 

[Patriot]

The reason why I no longer care about what happened 20 years ago is because they were punished for it and the people responsible for it are no longer in the picture and AMD got a cool billion out of it and intel got a 400 million fine on top of it.

So you don't care that they still do it just less directly?
They still have comarketing dollars that are dependent on % of sales relative to competing products... Granted they have much less money past 3 years for those comarketing dollars, but back in 2019 they advertised to their shareholders that 3B in competitive discounts was their adv against amd because they could out market them, and they recently got benchmarks thrown out of spec for cheating. And they have knowingly sold defective chips to consumers for the last year and a half.

All that said... lol. I am excited for their server chips to be competitive again. Competition is good for the market. And AMD keeps Fing launches, bad. Intel is in a bad spot and AMD cant win for winning.

 

[rodrigorras]

who cares, it's a 5% boost, more efficient, and much faster in Rendering/Linux/VideoEdition/Workstation/Linux/Servers 20% boost and now we have an 11% boost in games across the board...
the price will go DOWN soon and this thing never reaches 65C under FULL LOAD. NOT A FLOP! A good processor, stop being Crying babies!

If you need AVX512 you take Zen5, that's pretty much it. As linux users, you already noticed that we didn't care for this batshit crazy show... AMD preformed better with each kernel release, even 6.11 will bring boost even for older CPUs.

not only Linux/video editing/Rendering/Workstation software...compiling/coding etc

IMHO, a rereview could wait until the X870E chipset and Arrow Lake CPUs are released. That will give some time for optimizations and any more problems to be ironed out. We would then see the latest and greatest from AMD and Intel go head to head.

they will have x3d soon, I guess it will be a win for AMD, now with Win11 24H2

 

[ZoneDymo]

thos bar lengths are rediculous

 

[evernessince]

Yeah but ... is there only MS (with Intel's help) to blame? It looks like AMD launched Zen 4 processors, then went into a sleep state for two years. Regardless of the fact that the same chips are used in Epyc and TR series!

Of course I'm assuming here that the crucial parts of the Windows scheduler are written by AMD/Intel/Qualcomm as some kind of "CPU drivers". MS just gets to decide if and when they are included in Windows updates. Is that not the case?

You are making three assumptions here actually. The first being that AMD does actually get to write it's own "CPU driver". The second being that it doesn't also apply to Zen 3. The third being that AMD did nothing to try and address scheduler issues. Even if AMD was aware of the issue, they would not be able to make a public statement about it because they heavily rely on Microsoft for the sale of their CPUs. In that instance Zen 5 might be a blessing is disguise as the public can call out microsoft for something that should never have been acceptable in the first place without AMD having to risk peeving off MS. This is one of the downsides of X86 being ruled by one company same as GPUs being ruled by Nvidia.

The reason why I no longer care about what happened 20 years ago is because they were punished for it and the people responsible for it are no longer in the picture and AMD got a cool billion out of it and intel got a 400 million fine on top of it.

Intel was not punished for it. Not even remotely.

It wasn't the reason why AMD went in the toilet for a decade either, they over stretched them selves by building tons of fabs cause that's what real men do (like intel was enticed in doing) and for some reason they thought it a good idea to waste billions (when those were still considered big numbers) on ATI.
The global financial crisis happened and everyone wanted the money they put in AMD back.
Intel Core was a success after the Pentium 4 debacle and bulldozer was a miserable failure.

AMD couldn't even give away it's CPUs for FREE to OEMs. But sure, keep telling yourself that had no impact on the market. It 100% did. Bulldozer was certainly bad but by that point AMD had been starved of cash for years.

 

[Steevo]

I remember when if your architecture code didn't read "Genuine Intel" a lot of software was forced to run in compatability mode. Changing the string in your system gave the same kind of performance boost as we see here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/e4klj0

 

[sethmatrix7]

Take it with a grain of salt but I do seem to be getting a bit more fps with 24H2 in ghost of Tsushima with 7800x3d and rtx4090. Warhammer 3 “battle benchmark” showed no change. Looking forward to reviewers checking for a difference.

 

[Dr. Dro]

I remember when if your architecture code didn't read "Genuine Intel" a lot of software was forced to run in compatability mode. Changing the string in your system gave the same kind of performance boost as we see here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/e4klj0

Ah, yes. It's a coordinated, orchestrated act of evil against poor AMD; not Windows being complete crap or anything. Microsoft intentionally does this at the behest of Big Processor (AMD is small underdog company and not part of the cabal) and Big Graphics (nGreedia), they just ensure that for their own uses, Big Software (M$FT and Crapple) isn't capped so they can continue buying Epyc chips (Xeon Ruled, So Did Dinosaurs!). Yay, I want to give Lisa Su a foot massage!

...do these redditors even listen to themselves sometimes

Ah, never mind, 5 year old post

 

[docnorth]

the conspiracy is that intel had like 4x more people working on getting their stuff work optimally than amd does.

sneaky sneaky Microsoft and intel keeping amd down with their putting more effort behind it.




shame he didn’t do a reference test with an intel machine to see how that does under the patched up windows

It is reported (via Videocardz) that 14600k also shows some improvements, but was not thoroughly tested.

 

[kondamin]

Intel was not punished for it. Not even remotely.



AMD couldn't even give away it's CPUs for FREE to OEMs. But sure, keep telling yourself that had no impact on the market. It 100% did. Bulldozer was certainly bad but by that point AMD had been starved of cash for years.

how is having to give amd a billion and a 400 million fine not punishment ?


AMD could not offer the same volume intel did
In a magic world where cpu's just pop in to existence it wouldn't have mattered, but this isn't a magic world.
AMD couldn't make enough cpu's as it's a smaller player which is why they went in to debt to make fabs so they could offer higher volumes making them more interesting for large players like dell.

intel also has and had a slew of other products that made creating systems for system integrators far easier

on the server side there is the validation that needs to happen, just switching to AMD because they are a couple percent faster on the fly doesn't happen it takes years to do that.
which is why it took until zen 3 that intel started to see a serious bite in their market share.
AMD had 2 decent generations back then

intel having a marketing department, ... I can sit here all evening writing reasons why intel was doing better than AMD

There is a reason why it was hard for the judge to estimate how much damage Intel caused by it's rebates and less kosher schemes that might have put them in an unfair advantage against their competition.
IMHO AMD would have gone down even if intel had played 'fair'

And FYI I'm writing this on a system with a 7950x, I owned a K6 and K7 when those were the systems that were the best buy.
I'm not writing this out of some sort of fanatic fanboiism.

Yes, progress slowed down a little bit, but as I wrote in my previous post the GFC also happened in that period.
Money dried up for 4 years so it's not just AMD's disapearance that caused this.

We would have had 450mm wafers if that hadn't, double the surface area per wafer over current 300mm wafers...

Nothing happens in a vacume

 

[mkppo]

Intel was bribing OEMs in the 2000s and at a time when AMD was BEATING Intel in gaming and other performance metrics and their star was rising. Had Intel not engaged in their illegal, anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior, AMD could have grown tremendously in that period and altered the course of history forever. Don't act like this was some inconsequential action, it could have cost AMD billions.

What's most disturbing of all is that this LITERALLY hurt YOU as a consumer most and you seemingly don't care.....I try not to assume, but it almost seems like you might be an Intel fan that actually approves of this behavior despite the fact that it literally did not benefit you whatsoever and even hurt you as a consumer by reducing competition and therefore raising prices.

This isn't ancient history either as Intel still has their "joint development fund" where they basically throw cash at OEMs to keep AMD CPUs out of the best laptop models (despite the fact that AMDs mobile options have been far more efficient than Intel's in recent years)....again, this only hurts you as a consumer.

I know it must really annoy Intel fans, but the undeniable fact is that in a duopoly, the best situation for consumers is a 50%/50% split in marketshare. This just so happens to mean that at present, AMD capturing marketshare from Intel is OBJECTIVELY beneficial to ALL consumers, Intel fans included, with the inverse being bad for consumers.

I know a whole lot of shenanigans intel pulled (and continue to, in different ways) because back in the day I used to be in the business of buying/selling PC's and hardware. I actually got into it because i couldn't wrap my head around the fact that most were still only selling inferior Pentium 4's instead of the superior Athlon XP's. After getting into it, I understood why. They were making more money NOT selling P4's than selling Athlons just because of the fat wad of cash intel provided them to not sell AMD. I eventually got out of the business but did manage to sell a shit load of Athlon xp and 64's and basically refuted all of intel's claims that they fed the retailers at the time (AMD bad unstable and hot). Basically a load of crap so it wasn't only money.

Yes they got fined $5.4bn, but they still haven't paid it. They supposedly paid AMD 1.25bn of that but there are question marks over that deal anyway and I can't remember the exact details but remember that there was a dispute over that as well. That also constricted AMD's R&D budget which indirectly eventually led to bulldozer. We all know how that went. IMO Intel's business practices throughout the years have been worse than Nvidia's. That's saying something.

Edit: No, AMD didn't have two decent generations back then. Athlon, Athlon XP and Athlon 64 were all decent. Hell, even the delayed Phenom II was decent, especially Thuban.

 

[Darkholm]

Zen5 is still a flop and still Zen 4.1

 

[Darc Requiem]

how is having to give amd a billion and a 400 million fine not punishment ?

The loss of 1.4 billion is nothing compared to profit they gained for their transgressions. The year the EU intially fined Intel, 2009, their gross profit was 19.561 billion. Intel was guilty of this over several years. Not only did they stifle AMD when they had the superior product. AMD didn't get the money they would have over that time period to put towards R&D to continue to improve their design. They didn't get the increased marketshare and mindshare they would have received if Intel didn't play dirty. Not only did they lose money, they lost an expanded customer base. It created a snowball effect that almost lead to company going bankrupt entirely.

Significantly larger companies use these types of tactics against smaller competitors often. They reason that, even if they get caught, it will be worth the cost. The profit they gained and damage to their competition greatly out ways the penalty. They consider it the "cost of doing business". Sadly, they are right. If the fines were truly punitive, maybe they'd less apt to pull this type of nonsense.

 

[evernessince]

how is having to give amd a billion and a 400 million fine not punishment ?

You do realize that Intel has made 70 billion+ and up to 79 billion per year since 2018 and averaged 55 billion between 2010 and 2017 right?

You do realize that Intel paid Dell 4.3 BILLION in rebates right?

You think Intel was "punished" by a measly 1.4 billion? That's not even a drop in the bucket for them. They earned $79 billion in 2020 alone. Punishment is designed to correct behavior but that's not what a fine this size does. A fine this size encourages anti-competitive behavior because companies know that at best they will get fined a tiny fraction of what they gained.

AMD could not offer the same volume intel did
In a magic world where cpu's just pop in to existence it wouldn't have mattered, but this isn't a magic world.
AMD couldn't make enough cpu's as it's a smaller player which is why they went in to debt to make fabs so they could offer higher volumes making them more interesting for large players like dell.

And all of this is just an assumption based on nothing. Given that we know for a fact that Dell was paid by Intel 3.4 billion to not use AMD, I very much doubt AMD was going into debt to serve a company that wouldn't buy their products to begin with.

It also doesn't really check out either, it's not like Dell can't use a specific processor vendor in an lower volume SKU or in a smaller total number of SKUs. In addition, we know AMD provided the chips for various consoles throughout the years, consoles of which are high volume products. A single console is going to sell vastly more than any single Dell SKU. Clearly they were able to secure wafer contracts that enabled them to scale up volume. Heck to this day Dell essentially had to be strong armed into offering AMD server products by it's customers and even then their customer support constantly tries to sell you Intel only products.

intel also has and had a slew of other products that made creating systems for system integrators far easier

on the server side there is the validation that needs to happen, just switching to AMD because they are a couple percent faster on the fly doesn't happen it takes years to do that.
which is why it took until zen 3 that intel started to see a serious bite in their market share.
AMD had 2 decent generations back then

intel having a marketing department, ... I can sit here all evening writing reasons why intel was doing better than AMD

There is a reason why it was hard for the judge to estimate how much damage Intel caused by it's rebates and less kosher schemes that might have put them in an unfair advantage against their competition.

Nothing but a buch of gishgallop designed to push the conversation off topic and ignore the fact that we know Intel paid Dell 4.3 Billion to not buy AMD. Regardless of whether your arguments above are correct (and many of them are questionable at best), you are ignoring the facts in favor of your unsupported opinion.

If Intel had the above then why did they pay Dell 3.4 billion to not buy AMD? Why did they have a customer sales program for stores that encouraged sales people to push Intel processors over AMD via incentives for those sales people?

Oh yeah Intel had a marketing deparment, a very unethical and anti-competitive one.

IMHO AMD would have gone down even if intel had played 'fair'

I don't put much stock in this opinion given what I've read thus far. Again though, it's really irrelevant to the topic and seems to only act as justification for Intel's illegal behavior. "Oh AMD would have failed anyways", clearly Intel didn't believe that because they would not have engaged in the practices they did if that had been their line of thinking. Intel saw AMD as threat and not just a company that would have failed on it's own.

And FYI I'm writing this on a system with a 7950x, I owned a K6 and K7 when those were the systems that were the best buy.
I'm not writing this out of some sort of fanatic fanboiism.

This is the "I'm can't be racist because I know a black guy" argument. Your PC specs aren't even filled. Of course this is the internet so you can claim whatever you want but you don't seem to realize that owning a product does not suddenly mean you can't be biased against it. Claiming you own an AMD processor is not the get out of jail free card you seem to think it is.

Yes, progress slowed down a little bit, but as I wrote in my previous post the GFC also happened in that period.
Money dried up for 4 years so it's not just AMD's disapearance that caused this.

We would have had 450mm wafers if that hadn't, double the surface area per wafer over current 300mm wafers...

A little? We were getting 3-5% a generation to the point where an entirely new ecosystem of processors outside of x86 was born and was able to catch up.

People were buying Intel's excuse that TIM was superior (whether that be Intel's claim that it lasted longer or that solder caused die cracking in customer's systems, both complete BS) and that there just wasn't much more performance to be had until AMD rolled back in with Zen. Then all of a sudden it's back to solder (because it's vastly better) and performance gains per generation returned to normal.

It's truly amazing to me how people continue to gaslight themselves as to how bad things were in the CPU market.

 

[Steevo]

You do realize that Intel has made 70 billion+ and up to 79 billion per year since 2018 and averaged 55 billion between 2010 and 2017 right?

You do realize that Intel paid Dell 4.3 BILLION in rebates right?

You think Intel was "punished" by a measly 1.4 billion? That's not even a drop in the bucket for them. They earned $79 billion in 2020 alone. Punishment is designed to correct behavior but that's not what a fine this size does. A fine this size encourages anti-competitive behavior because companies know that at best they will get fined a tiny fraction of what they gained.



And all of this is just an assumption based on nothing. Given that we know for a fact that Dell was paid by Intel 3.4 billion to not use AMD, I very much doubt AMD was going into debt to serve a company that wouldn't buy their products to begin with.

It also doesn't really check out either, it's not like Dell can't use a specific processor vendor in an lower volume SKU or in a smaller total number of SKUs. In addition, we know AMD provided the chips for various consoles throughout the years, consoles of which are high volume products. A single console is going to sell vastly more than any single Dell SKU. Clearly they were able to secure wafer contracts that enabled them to scale up volume. Heck to this day Dell essentially had to be strong armed into offering AMD server products by it's customers and even then their customer support constantly tries to sell you Intel only products.



Nothing but a buch of gishgallop designed to push the conversation off topic and ignore the fact that we know Intel paid Dell 4.3 Billion to not buy AMD. Regardless of whether your arguments above are correct (and many of them are questionable at best), you are ignoring the facts in favor of your unsupported opinion.

If Intel had the above then why did they pay Dell 3.4 billion to not buy AMD? Why did they have a customer sales program for stores that encouraged sales people to push Intel processors over AMD via incentives for those sales people?

Oh yeah Intel had a marketing deparment, a very unethical and anti-competitive one.



I don't put much stock in this opinion given what I've read thus far. Again though, it's really irrelevant to the topic and seems to only act as justification for Intel's illegal behavior. "Oh AMD would have failed anyways", clearly Intel didn't believe that because they would not have engaged in the practices they did if that had been their line of thinking. Intel saw AMD as threat and not just a company that would have failed on it's own.



This is the "I'm can't be racist because I know a black guy" argument. Your PC specs aren't even filled. Of course this is the internet so you can claim whatever you want but you don't seem to realize that owning a product does not suddenly mean you can't be biased against it. Claiming you own an AMD processor is not the get out of jail free card you seem to think it is.



A little? We were getting 3-5% a generation to the point where an entirely new ecosystem of processors outside of x86 was born and was able to catch up.

People were buying Intel's excuse that TIM was superior (whether that be Intel's claim that it lasted longer or that solder caused die cracking in customer's systems, both complete BS) and that there just wasn't much more performance to be had until AMD rolled back in with Zen. Then all of a sudden it's back to solder (because it's vastly better) and performance gains per generation returned to normal.

It's truly amazing to me how people continue to gaslight themselves as to how bad things were in the CPU market.

I remeber. I was building and selling cheap PCs like hotcakes using AMD, some people insisted on Intel only and bought Celerons instead of higher performing AMD machines.

eMachines replacements when they would bring in a dead Intel system from being cooked alive in a closed desk above a heat vent in winter were an everyday thing. Bought it at Walmart for $599 and now had family pictures….. could I get them back and how much to repair?

Intel should have gotten 20X the fine, if they did AMD would have had the cash to maybe figure out the ATI and CPU mess 5 years sooner and we would have both brands making superior hardware now. If anyone disagrees they have a blue tongue.

Ah, yes. It's a coordinated, orchestrated act of evil against poor AMD; not Windows being complete crap or anything. Microsoft intentionally does this at the behest of Big Processor (AMD is small underdog company and not part of the cabal) and Big Graphics (nGreedia), they just ensure that for their own uses, Big Software (M$FT and Crapple) isn't capped so they can continue buying Epyc chips (Xeon Ruled, So Did Dinosaurs!). Yay, I want to give Lisa Su a foot massage!

...do these redditors even listen to themselves sometimes

Ah, never mind, 5 year old post

5 Years ago was still 5 years after Intel was caught engaging in monopolistic practices. They still do it today. I’m not saying AMD is a saint. I’m saying Intel does shady things to make money and keep investors happy.

Let go of the tribalism