Am I living in the same reality as everyone else right now? (7700 non-x)

[tabascosauz]

The 9950X is 170w, I'm sure it'll still have decent performance with a little de-tuning. That's way more efficient than my 14700K and all the cores are the same size too! With extra threads even.

TDP numbers are meaningless to Ryzen for power draw. The default PPT is 230W for AM5 16-core.

Although, who knows. If Intel is getting bogged down in the Raptor Lake fiasco instead of pushing out the real goodies on time, then maybe AMD can afford to sit on its ass for a generation, pull back the clocks, and keep the minimal gains going for the rest of the Granite Ridge lineup.

I have a bit of hope for the 9950x/9950x3d based on the recent reviews of the new lesser core parts but as usual I wait and see.

Stock 7950x peak was 235w
Stock 7950x3d peak was 140w

If I power limit to 200w I shouldn't loose too much performance I hope.

Of course. Even at 140W any of them should still do well. Just don't forget that rest-of-system power draw is not insubstantial.

9950X3D probably has more hope for carrying the efficiency torch.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

TDP numbers are meaningless to Ryzen for power draw. The default PPT is 230W for AM5 16-core.

Although, who knows. If Intel is getting bogged down in the Raptor Lake fiasco instead of pushing out the real goodies on time, then maybe AMD can afford to sit on its ass for a generation, pull back the clocks, and keep the minimal gains going for the rest of the Granite Ridge lineup.



Of course. Even at 140W any of them should still do well. Just don't forget that rest-of-system power draw is not insubstantial.

9950X3D probably has more hope for carrying the efficiency torch.

OK, Bare with me, my Ryzen knowledge isn't up to speed, but familiar on AM4.

So isn't Core Performance Boost and or Performance Boost OverDrive different things, yet both enabled by default? And that's what makes them 230w?
So default Frequency is the advertised wattage. 4.3ghz is 170w for the 9950X.
Would need to disabled either or both of those features correct? CPB/PBO = Disabled.

What's the all core Boost frequency of the 9950X?

Frequency is good. We want that. It reduces memory latencies! :}

 

[tabascosauz]

OK, Bare with me, my Ryzen knowledge isn't up to speed, but familiar on AM4.

So isn't Core Performance Boost and or Performance Boost OverDrive different things, yet both enabled by default? And that's what makes them 230w?
So default Frequency is the advertised wattage. 4.3ghz is 170w for the 9950X.
Would need to disabled either or both of those features correct? CPB/PBO = Disabled.

What's the all core Boost frequency of the 9950X?

Frequency is good. We want that. It reduces memory latencies! :}

CPB is just AMD's equivalent of turbo boost. Turn that off and CPU goes to base clock and stays there. It should be enabled. PBO is the umbrella that all the OC stuff falls under, not a magic fast button, and does not need to be enabled for default performance up to 230W.

All core base clock might happen to come in close to the 170W number, but there is no necessary correlation.

All core boost is no different from any boost on Ryzen, which is all opportunistic and scales depending on the complexity/intensity of load. Fmax is the hard frequency ceiling for boost, usually +50MHz to +150MHz from the advertised number. Can be extended a further +200MHz from override under PBO settings, but it's just a limit, not a guarantee of anything. Neither is the default unboosted Fmax technically a guarantee, just a target.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

CPB is just AMD's equivalent of turbo boost. Turn that off and CPU goes to base clock and stays there. It should be enabled. PBO is the umbrella that all the OC stuff falls under, not a magic fast button, and does not need to be enabled for default performance up to 230W.

All core base clock might happen to come in close to the 170W number, but there is no necessary correlation.

All core boost is no different from any boost on Ryzen, which is all opportunistic and scales depending on the complexity/intensity of load. Fmax is the hard frequency ceiling for boost, usually +50MHz to +150MHz from the advertised number. Can be extended a further +200MHz from override under PBO settings, but it's just a limit, not a guarantee of anything. Neither is the default unboosted Fmax technically a guarantee, just a target.

There could be a correlation. But you'd have to use CPU-Z to find out.

Try it on yours now if you want.

Go to About Tab and enter it. Click "Save Report .TXT"

Open the TXT file in notepad and scroll down and see if there's listed power states. Please copy paste here I would be interested in seeing them!

Oh, your system needs to be at defaults. I'm sorry for that. Save a bios profile hopefully??

 

[tabascosauz]

There could be a correlation. But you'd have to use CPU-Z to find out.

Try it on yours now if you want.

Go to About Tab and enter it. Click "Save Report .TXT"

Open the TXT file in notepad and scroll down and see if there's listed power states. Please copy paste here I would be interested in seeing them!

Oh, your system needs to be at defaults. I'm sorry for that. Save a bios profile hopefully??

CPU happens to list 2 Pstates, the higher one of which is the 42x multiplier. But it doesn't correlate to power, and I don't really see what this has to do with anything. It's not Intel, power limits work differently.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

CPU happens to list 2 Pstates, the higher one of which is the 42x multiplier. But it doesn't correlate to power, and I don't really see what this has to do with anything. It's not Intel, power limits work differently.

Of course it correlates to power because it's literally called POWER STATES. Would also show the V-Core yes??

That is direct correlation I think. https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/desktops/ryzen/7000-series/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d.html

Although I don't know the voltage.

Then you'd disable the boosty stuff. Set the P-State settings of 4.2ghz at it's corrisponding v-core (without droop) to confirm it.

Yeah, AMD does power states 7000 series. They've always used P-States. Since Cool and Quiet became a thing yea.

Still AMD X86 processing. Now with AI Boost!!!!

 

[Launcestonian]

Without using the new curve optimizer settings for Zen 5 yet for end consumers, its a bet that the PBO boost will send 9700X to 5.6GHz easy & if one can get it stable at 10x, all the better. As far as gaming is concerned at 3K or higher, the gpu will be the defining factor of course. I see no discussion of the faster Level 1,2 & 3 caches of Zen5 compared to Zen 4 having anything to do with gaming right? Of course there is the early bios & agesa issues at play as well just like there was with Zen 4 upon release.
Also the peculiarities & quirks of different game engines today, this all adds up to a more complex picture than many seem to realize with Zen 5 current performance at this point in time.

With Intel's SKU dilemma from raptor lake, AMD will be killing them in sales from now on. So the timing of Zen 5 release is just good business acumen from AMD.

 

[AusWolf]

Reviews might not mention it, but there's plenty of us who discuss the 7700 here in the forum.

I've said it in multiple threads: the 9700X is a more expensive, marginally faster 7700 non-X with better AVX-512 support. If you don't need AVX-512, you don't need the 9700X, either.

 

[chrcoluk]

I swear this is different from my last thread, but I can't be the only one who's noticed that there's basically zero discussion of this processor since the 9700X came out. For the same wattage, the gaming performance is super close, and in workstation tasks, minus a couple specific ones, it isn't THAT much of a leap, yet almost univerally I see nothing about this and only people talking about the 7700X. I even see a bunch of SFF people coming out of the woodwork to talk about how they wished they had the 9700X for how cool it runs compared to the 7700X. Did I just imagine that eco mode existed or that the 7700 non-x exists? I swear it was a big talking point last year about how efficient these non-x parts were yet they're only mentioned in passing in most reviews online and are nowhere to be found in YouTube comments or other forums I frequent. Even Hardware Canucks in the comments of their video on the 9700X replied to someone specifically mentioning the non-x with a comment about the 7700X instead and its heat output.

Please tell me I'm not going insane because it feels like I'm in a different timeline.

AMD added the X to the model and its made people compare it to the 7700X not the non X 7700.

It did fool me somewhat. After I thought about it a bit more (thanks to AusWolf for bringing it up with me in the other thread) , now I know why people are not happy as the 7700 is much cheaper than the 9700X.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

Could you overclock a 9700X to 5.7ghz or more? Like with a mean water-loop or something?

 

[Zach_01]

OK, Bare with me, my Ryzen knowledge isn't up to speed, but familiar on AM4.

So isn't Core Performance Boost and or Performance Boost OverDrive different things, yet both enabled by default? And that's what makes them 230w?
So default Frequency is the advertised wattage. 4.3ghz is 170w for the 9950X.
Would need to disabled either or both of those features correct? CPB/PBO = Disabled.

What's the all core Boost frequency of the 9950X?

Frequency is good. We want that. It reduces memory latencies! :}

The all core boost is never given on the specs on any Ryzen CPU. It depends firstly on the type of load and also on all the other limits.
I would say safely that since 7950X and 9950X have the same speed/power specs it will be around the same, whatever it is (dont have one)
It could be a bit higher on the 9950X because of the HS/temp sensor "improvements" since temperature is the primary stopping limit of 7000X series



65W TDP / 76, 88W PPT
95W TDP / 125W PPT
105W TDP / 142W PPT
120W TDP / 162W PPT
170W TDP / 230W PPT

TDP = ThermalDesignPower = minimum cooling capacity for default settings and advertised speed under specific ambient conditions (AMD's description of TDP)
PPT = PackagePowerTracking = default max socket power

PBO operates on top of default PPT and adds more power if there is thermal room until 95C (89C for X3D)

CBP, Core Performance Boost is just regular auto default boosting.
PBO, Precision Boost Overdrive is exactly what it says. Overdrives boost beyond default max boost speed and power if there is no other limit reached first
Also there is another 150MHz, lets say in between CPB and PBO

For example my 5900X has a default (advertised) max boost at 4.8GHz (TDP 105W, PPT 142W)
With PBO disabled (by default) it boost rapidly (bursting occasionally in opportunistic way on the best cores) at 4.95GHz
With PBO enabled and if temp and everything else permits it, it can boost to an additional 200MHz up to 5150MHz (setting in PBO section with 25MHz steps)

Currently I have set 160W PPT, some negative core V/F curves with CO and +50MHz boost overdrive (max boost 5.0GHz) and a max temp limit at 75C
All core boost can vary between 4.4~4.7GHz** depending as I said on load type, current, power, temp

Hogwarts Legacy gaming session


**If I remember correctly at prime95 small ffts, which is a severe load all core boost drops significantly, maybe around 4.2-4.3GHz
I have to run it to confirm
Typically on cinebench is around 4.5-4.6GHz depending ambient temp and version of CB Rxx

 

[ShrimpBrime]

The all core boost is never given on the specs on any Ryzen CPU. It depends firstly on the type of load and also on all the other limits.
I would say safely that since 7950X and 9950X have the same speed/power specs it will be around the same, whatever it is (dont have one)
It could be a bit higher on the 9950X because of the HS/temp sensor "improvements" since temperature is the primary stopping limit of 7000X series

View attachment 358266

65W TDP / 88W PPT
120W TDP / 162W PPT
170W TDP / 230W PPT

TDP = ThermalDesignPower = minimum cooling capacity for default settings and advertised speed under specific ambient conditions (AMD's description of TDP)
PPT = PackagePowerTracking = default max socket power

PBO operates on top of default PPT and adds more power if there is thermal room until 95C (89C for X3D)

CBP, Core Performance Boost is just regular auto default boosting.
PBO, Precision Boost Overdrive is exactly what it says. Overdrives boost beyond default max boost speed and power if there is no other limit reached first
Also there is another 150MHz, lets say in between CPB and PBO

For example my 5900X has a default (advertised) max boost at 4.8GHz (TDP 105W, PPT 142W)
With PBO disabled (by default) it boost rapidly (bursting occasionally in opportunistic way on the best cores) at 4.95GHz
With PBO enabled and if temp and everything else permits it, it can boost to an additional 200MHz up to 5150MHz (setting in PBO section with 25MHz steps)

Currently I have set 160W PPT, some negative core V/F curves with CO and +50MHz boost overdrive (max boost 5.0GHz) and a max temp limit at 75C
All core boost can vary between 4.4~4.7GHz** depending as I said on load type, current, power, temp

Hogwarts Legacy gaming session
View attachment 358267

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. I appreciate that.

So do you guys use Ryzen Master? RM you can adjust PPT and boost on the fly?

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. I appreciate that.

So do you guys use Ryzen Master? RM you can adjust PPT and boost on the fly?

Never been a huge fan sometimes when you delete/reset your settings it goes full retard and will no longer boot requiring a CMOS clear. I much prefer just making changes in the bios.

 

[Zach_01]

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. I appreciate that.

So do you guys use Ryzen Master? RM you can adjust PPT and boost on the fly?

Had it when I first (2019) build this PC with R5 3600. Uninstalled it after a few months
I would say avoid it like the plague.

It has every setting that PBO has but I do not like the idea of not booting with the settings I like/want.
And very often was unstable and hang the system while making adjustments. Other times you get finicky readings.

BIOS is the 100% got to for these settings IMHO.

 

[iameatingjam]

Well I at least admit I think it would have made more sense if the 9700x was just called the 9700. That way the naming would be more consistent. But I guess AMDs notoriously bad at that. But then there'd be room for one with higher tdp and that one could be called the 9700x. Ah w/e. Everybody's either waiting for the 9950x or 9800x3d anyway I'm guessing?

 

[AusWolf]

Well I at least admit I think it would have made more sense if the 9700x was just called the 9700. That way the naming would be more consistent. But I guess AMD'd notoriously bad at that. But then there'd be room for one with higher tdp and that one could be called the 9700x.

It's probably called the 9700X to fool reviewers into comparing its efficiency with that of the 7700X which is a massively overvolted chip by default, instead of the 7700.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Well I at least admit I think it would have made more sense if the 9700x was just called the 9700. That way the naming would be more consistent. But I guess AMD'd notoriously bad at that. But then there'd be room for one with higher tdp and that one could be called the 9700x. Ah w/e. Everybody's either waiting for the 9950x or 9800x3d anyway I'm guessing?

I sure am, the 9950X and 9950X3D are the only cpu's I care about for personal use but it's not like they will have a different CCD or IF the performance of this or lack there of I should say will still have an impact on the other Zen5 parts.

I do a lot of non x3d builds as well so this cpu kinda sucking still annoys me.

It's probably called the 9700X to fool reviewers into comparing its efficiency with that of the 7700X which is a massively overvolted chip by default, instead of the 7700.

Also the msrp.... probably more importantly.

7700 launched at 329 so a more expensive 9700 that isn't much faster would look worse little did they know that pc enthusiasts aren't that stupid to be fooled so easily, at least most of us lol.

 

[AusWolf]

I sure am, the 9950X and 9950X3D are the only cpu's I care about for personal use but it's not like they will have a different CCD or IF the performance of this or lack there of I should say will still have an impact on the other Zen5 parts.

I do a lot of non x3d builds as well so this cpu kinda sucking still annoys me.

If the 9700X (with or without PBO) is anything to go by, then I won't expect miracles there, either. Let AMD prove me wrong, though.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

If the 9700X (with or without PBO) is anything to go by, then I won't expect miracles there, either. Let AMD prove me wrong, though.

Yep it uses this same CCD that isn't much of an improvement..... If this released 12 months after Zen4 and another generation was coming 12-18 months later it honestly wouldn't be that bad. The last time we had gains this bad there was only a 13 month gap between launches 1000 to 2000 series, and 3000 series came about 15 months after that....

 

[Vayra86]

Honestly the only place I've seen it is on TPU. I could be looking in the wrong places though so if you got any links I'd love to see it

Internet herd mentality rulebook says your own sane ideas in a grouphug-based discussion are pretty much irrelevant. Until someone makes a post about it that goes 'viral' so the herd can collectively turn its heads around and run the other direction.

Honestly we see this bullshit every day. Zen 5 is shit, OMG look at Zen 4 now, everyone! Its the hype / soundbite of the day. Every day a new snippet of stupidity that has lost all sight of perspective. Remember, RDNA3 was also going to clock to 3 Ghz all the time, and Zen 5 was going to destroy Intel at last muahahaha... yeah. And then reality struck. Every day must have its own pizzagate. After all, if you overhype something yesterday, you can have yet another underwhelming-day and hype about that. You can wait for the inevitable RDNA4 hype even though AMD told us they barely made a serious effort on it.

I sell trading cards. Its the same there. I just ride the hypes and sell pretty weak cards on the premium wave that follows, where people FOMO-buy shit they don't even need just because they read it somewhere. Its seriously like that. People abandon their own heads entirely and follow the words written.

Blame the internet and the collective stupidity of people that are mainly grouped for clicks and likes instead of more sane media on it like a forum, where every post is just a post and not a popularity contest driven by an ad business. Even a platform like Reddit has a business model in place to drive more clicks and attention to posts, it earns people money.

That's the long and short of it. Money drives this 'news'. We keep acting like every CPU gen the world changes and we have to play along with an upgrade, but its never been like that. Even with Ryzen, you didn't gain double digit IPC every gen, it was always situational except some situations truly suited workloads people run. Oh shit, there is an actual CPU in the last gen similar to the new one. What's new? We can put several dozen Intel gens side by side and be hard pressed to spot the performance gaps too. We could also always tweak CPUs to run at much higher or lower power and efficiency... And it has also happened quite often that different gens really weren't so different, except for the product positioning making new things possible in the product stack. That might be the case here with the 9700X. What's a non X going to do? What's an X3D going to do? And at the end of the day, what have we really got?

 

[AusWolf]

Yep it uses this same CCD that isn't much of an improvement..... If this released 12 months after Zen4 and another generation was coming 12-18 months later it honestly wouldn't be that bad. The last time we had gains this bad there was only a 13 month gap between launches 1000 to 2000 series, and 3000 series came about 15 months after that....

To me, this looks like the Intel quad-core era all over again. It's bad because there's no improvement, but it's good because there's no incentive to upgrade, either.

I just don't understand why it was good for Intel, or why it's good for AMD. Why spend massive amounts of money on R&D and marketing on a new generation of product if it doesn't offer anything extra? They could just keep selling the old stuff for longer until R&D comes out with something that's worth talking about.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

To me, this looks like the Intel quad-core era all over again. It's bad because there's no improvement, but it's good because there's no incentive to upgrade, either.

I just don't understand why it was good for Intel, or why it's good for AMD. Why spend massive amounts of money on R&D and marketing on a new generation of product if it doesn't offer anything extra? They could just keep selling the old stuff for longer until R&D comes out with something that's worth talking about.

Stagnation is never a good thing if Zen 6 takes another 2 years that's almost a half decade of basically the same ball park performance which isn't good for anybody even those that want to stick with existing hardware.

My extra AM5 board I got for free is just gonna collect dust for now lol I was going to stick my 7800X3D in it but a buddy wanted it for what I paid for it.... Should have kept it.