AMD Announces Ryzen 7000 Series "Zen 4" Desktop Processors

[HD64G]

Lower prices than the leaks suggested for the 12 and 16-core CPUs, normal for the 6 and 8-core ones, considering the launch prices of Zen3 ones. Th eplatform will be more expensive due to PCIE5 and DDR5 but that was expected as every time such a change in platform and RAM tech happened it was the same jump in costs. Perfomance and efficiency seem better than most expected (awaiting reviews to form a conclusion), cooling is a question with the new IHS design (hoping to be much better than anything in past as the changes can be very effective). And last but not least the announced support of the platform to 2025+ beyond was the promise most needed to invest for long in the AM5 platform.

 

[Valantar]

I wonder who will get 10900K++ CPU and play at 1080p. I think most has moved to at least 1440p or more. Imo those CPU are kinda pointless. We need more GPU power at this point.

That's the thing, CPU upgrades for gaming are pretty much useless past the ~6 tier of CPUs regardless of resolution - as long as you're buying a high clocking new gen CPU, it'll be fast. Intel's main advantage with ADL has been better performance down the stack compared to Zen3, and judging by these Zen4 clock speeds it seems that AMD is trying to strike back at that precise point. Which is great news for gamers.

 

[JustBenching]

No one here seems to be worried about power requirements about Zen 4.
No more “65W” TDP CPUs.
Even the 6 core 7600X is a ”105W” TDP model.

My man, what exactly is stopping you from getting the 7600x and power limit it to the 65w the 5600x was? I really don't get the point of posts like yours. We already know that at same wattage, zen 4 will crap all over zen 3, so what is the point of your complaint??? You don't like the stock power limits - change them!?!?

@Valantar See it is posters like the above that make me sound like a broken record. Yes, usually it's Intel that gets flamed for their cpus being "inefficient" cause of the huge power limits, but now it is amds turn and here I am defending amd. Even they themselves tested efficiency at same wattage. It seems very likely all of zen 4 will be less efficient than zen 3 out of the box, thanks to the increase in TDP, and so posters like the above won't understand that actually the CPUs are more efficient - but they are just pushed higher.

I wonder who will get 10900K++ CPU and play at 1080p. I think most has moved to at least 1440p or more. Imo those CPU are kinda pointless. We need more GPU power at this point.

They are very relevant for people that plan on keeping their CPU? If you don't test at 720p, how will you know which CPU is faster and therefore will last you longer?

 

[mahirzukic2]

I wonder who will get 10900K++ CPU and play at 1080p. I think most has moved to at least 1440p or more. Imo those CPU are kinda pointless. We need more GPU power at this point.

Just as it has always been, buy the CPUs or other components as well for that matter for your specific needs or wants if you have money to burn and don't mind to do so.
If you need the high cores for whichever type of work you will be doing, then go for that.
If you need the low cores for cheap price but high(ish) fps, then go for that.

That's the whole point, there's a whole lineup of new CPUs being announced from AMD today (and coming from Intel very soon) that you go and pick whichever suits you the best.
If for some reason your circumstances change in the future, you can sell your existing hardware and upgrade/downgrade depending on where you start from and go to.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I wonder who will get 10900K++ CPU and play at 1080p. I think most has moved to at least 1440p or more. Imo those CPU are kinda pointless. We need more GPU power at this point.

Actually GPUs have caught up with CPUs. The limiting factor has switched, even at 1440P. For most of the past decade, we got +20-30% improvement in GPU performance every 2 years, while we only had +5% on the CPU side.

That caught up with the CPU side of the equation when Turing showed up, where higher end Turing models showed some fairly big gaps with even current model CPUs.

With Ampere and AMDs RX 6000 line - well, a lot of perfectly good CPUs from 3 years ago will now go CPU limited with anything over a 3060 Ti or 6700 XT. A lot of people didn't seem to notice this change, probably because nobody could afford $700 3060 Ti's in 2020 and 2021.

That is going to get a whole lot more pronounced with this next generation of GPUs. That IMO is going to drive enthusiast PC sales over the next couple of years in the CPU space, and I suspect this next gen of GPUs will be the one that shows up how GPUs have caught and passed the ability of many CPUs to keep up.

The days of seeing something like this, where a top SKU i7 and a bottom line i3 effectively perform the same, are pretty much over.

CPU scaling 11 years ago:

CPU scaling 2 years ago (RTX 3080):

 

[gffermari]

BF3 at 1200p back then is like testing CP2077 at 4K today and expect to see differences in cpus.

 

[BorisDG]

CPU scaling 11 years ago:

View attachment 260013

CPU scaling 2 years ago (RTX 3080):

View attachment 260014

But when you see now the top 3 it's kinda the same again. I mean it's obvious that 4770K is not revalent anymore for gaming that's why the difference. Also we are in a handheld era and devs have to take that into consideration. From what I wanted to say is, if you have 9900K or newer era of CPU and you are at 1440p+ those new CPU's are not like a big need.

 

[efikkan]

The most important question though; will their firmware be stable at launch this time? (or at least fairly quickly?)
It took about 3 months for Zen 2 and ~5 months for Zen 3, so let's not hope they continue that trend.

I hope reviews will uncover whether these boost clocks are obtainable at stock in most workloads, or if the typical boost is much lower like with Intel since Coffee Lake.

Oh my and v-cache models are shipping Q1 next and will bring another 30%+ gaming uplift on the already large increase in regular Zen 4.

3D V-Cache didn't cause a >30% performance uplift for Zen 3 in gaming (overall), and it's not likely to do for Zen 4 either, if anything the relative gain will probably be less.

Interesting the 13% IPC uplift is way higher than MLiD and others like greymon55 have been insisting will be 8-9% even last week. I couldn't less what cRaptor Lake brings on it's dead end MB. These cpu's will trade blows and in the end it won't make one bit of difference to user experience. Socket AM5 will be here for 5 years meaning Zen 6 will most likely work on it.

I've seen the slide saying 8%, but I haven't confirmed whether it's official or a fan-made fake. (if it originates from that YouTube guy then we know the answer)
But it's worth mentioning that IPC doesn't change though, not unless they disable features etc., and it certainly doesn't improve. AMD have known the IPC since before tapeout.
But if their "IPC" estimate is based on those benchmarks in there, then that's not IPC at all. A bunch of those are games. You can never approximate IPC through a non-CPU workload. :facepalm:

 

[RandallFlagg]

But when you see now the top 3 it's kinda the same again. I mean it's obvious that 4770K is not revalent anymore for gaming that's why the difference. Also we are in a handheld era and devs have to take that into consideration. From what I wanted to say is, if you have 9900K or newer era of CPU and you are at 1440p+ those new CPU's are not like a big need.

Or you could look at a more recent chart and find out that is wrong.

FWIW I think a good rule of thumb on Zen 3 / Alder Lake / Gen 10 is that unless you have more than a 3070, it doesn't matter as long as you have a 10600K / 5600X or better.

However, the 3060 Ti was roughly equivalent to a 2080 Super.

If we get that again, the 4060 Ti will be roughly equivalent to a 3080 Ti.

That means that for upper middle tier gamers for example, the 4000 Nvidia cards will make this chart relevant.

I would bet that when we see this type of test on a 4080, the delta will become dramatic. Think about the fact that there's not even a Zen 2 on this chart - probably a reason for that no? Zen 2 generally performed about like a 10400, which would mean there is a 20% delta in FPS at 1440P with a 3080 vs a top line Alder Lake (and probably more vs Zen 4).

Napkin math - with 4000 series GPUs, there will be a 20%+ delta between 3 year old CPUs using a 4060 Ti.

Take note, this is also at 1440p, it's worse at 1080p.

 

[wheresmycar]

The AM5 2025+ gen~gen support and finally integrated graphics on its own is compelling enough hence the typical increase in IPC is workable for me. I hope these 105w rated parts are not hot cookers whilst gaming. I have to admit i was hoping the 7600X would go for around $250... @$300 i can't see the $200 5600/5600X dropping in price

Now can't wait to see independent benchmarks (TPU YES PLS)!! Please add real-time gaming power consumption+temp findings to the review too. Synthetic or non-gaming workload specific benchmarks are boring for us gamers.

 

[mama]

Pretty much, as with nearly all launches, upgrading from the previous - or even second previous - generation just doesn't make much sense overall. And IMO that's not a goal to be working towards either - the longer our hardware stays useful for, the better. It's good that things get faster so that more can be done with them, but we still need to combat our tendency to fetishize hardware for its own sake - that just drives monetary waste, environmental waste, general overconsumption, and has a bunch of knock-on effects, none of which are particularly good.

On the other hand, if AMD is saying they will support AM5 to 2025+ then getting in from the get go might be okay - other than the early adopter tax and settling issues. It's a balance I guess. If you're building a new rig anyway it seems logical.

 

[ratirt]

My man, what exactly is stopping you from getting the 7600x and power limit it to the 65w the 5600x was? I really don't get the point of posts like yours. We already know that at same wattage, zen 4 will crap all over zen 3, so what is the point of your complaint??? You don't like the stock power limits - change them!?!?

Why limit? You don't like the power don't get that CPU get a different one. If you want the 20W power CPU and a performance of a 12900K full speed or 5950x full speed you are delusional. You can;t get that. There is a correlation between power and performance. The problem is, when you hit certain threshold, power increase gives negligible or no performance gains and vice versa, decrease in power at certain point will not make the CPU more efficient. We all know that you can limit the CPU or undervolt it. If you dont lose performance that is a good tweak but what you suggest is losing the performance and you have not paid for limiting capability to play with but for performance in this power bracket. You pay for performance not tweaking capabilities. Any CPU you get and limit it or power constrain it to certain degree will be efficient. You may argue if the CPU you buy is efficient enough considering the power usage and the performance but that is it.

 

[Minus Infinity]

-we get used to count cores and value a product while we should check on the performance only. Why does anyone care if the 7600X is a 6/12 cpu if in the apps they use it performs better than a 5800X or a 12600K?

that’s why the prices don’t look good. At least for the 7600 and 7700.

-it seems that raptor lake will be the leader in performance no matter the consumption levels but it will be pricey…

-the 5800X3D cannibalizes the entire 7000 lineup in gaming.

-the 2024+ support is probably the most positive thing said on the event.

Sort of a glass 1/4 full person.

Looks like a way better cpu than Zen 3 and v-cache models are coming earlier than expected in Q1 2023 and will boost perforamnce even more than it did with 5800X3D and there will be no (or only a small) clock penalty (100MHz). The v-cache in Zen 4 is much more advanced.

Personally can't wait for 7900X3D.

 

[big_glasses]

Or you could look at a more recent chart and find out that is wrong.

FWIW I think a good rule of thumb on Zen 3 / Alder Lake / Gen 10 is that unless you have more than a 3070, it doesn't matter as long as you have a 10600K / 5600X or better.

However, the 3060 Ti was roughly equivalent to a 2080 Super.

If we get that again, the 4060 Ti will be roughly equivalent to a 3080 Ti.

That means that for upper middle tier gamers for example, the 4000 Nvidia cards will make this chart relevant.

I would bet that when we see this type of test on a 4080, the delta will become dramatic. Think about the fact that there's not even a Zen 2 on this chart - probably a reason for that no? Zen 2 generally performed about like a 10400, which would mean there is a 20% delta in FPS at 1440P with a 3080 vs a top line Alder Lake (and probably more vs Zen 4).

Napkin math - with 4000 series GPUs, there will be a 20%+ delta between 3 year old CPUs using a 4060 Ti.

Take note, this is also at 1440p, it's worse at 1080p.

View attachment 260018

it's an issue here, that both you and Boris have here, you've both forgotten the FPS-target.
Doesn't matter, if there is a 20% relative difference, as long as it can keep your target. For "future-proofing", sure it matters.
If your target is 1440p@60
Borderlands 3, being the lowest performing game in the 5700X review, still have over 60fps (1440p).
If your target is higher than 60, then fewer and fewer processors are "good enough"

from 5700X review. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5700x/16.html

 

[JustBenching]

Why limit? You don't like the power don't get that CPU get a different one. If you want the 20W power CPU and a performance of a 12900K full speed or 5950x full speed you are delusional. You can;t get that. There is a correlation between power and performance. The problem is, when you hit certain threshold, power increase gives negligible or no performance gains and vice versa, decrease in power at certain point will not make the CPU more efficient. We all know that you can limit the CPU or undervolt it. If you dont lose performance that is a good tweak but what you suggest is losing the performance and you have not paid for limiting capability to play with but for performance in this power bracket. You pay for performance not tweaking capabilities. Any CPU you get and limit it or power constrain it to certain degree will be efficient. You may argue if the CPU you buy is efficient enough considering the power usage and the performance but that is it.

That's like saying you are "losing performance on the 5600x because it is at 65w". No you are not. The 7600x costs the same as the 5600x did. So if you want to stay at the 65w tdp (because of your cooler for example) , you can. Whats the problem, I don't know.

 

[ratirt]

That's like saying you are "losing performance on the 5600x because it is at 65w". No you are not. The 7600x costs the same as the 5600x did. So if you want to stay at the 65w tdp (because of your cooler for example) , you can. Whats the problem, I don't know.

Losing performance is related to what you have paid for the product. If 5600x is limited to 65w by a company, it is priced accordingly because of the performance not because the wattage. Of course you may argue if it is worth the price or not and that is your right. Advising to buy a CPU advertised as 170w with a given performance and limit it to a 65w due to high power consumption is silly in my opinion and make absolutely no sense. You get the 65w no doubt but you lose performance by a significant factor which you have paid for. Why not buy a chip that is 65watts? I'm really surprised you dont understand the difference between buying a chip I thought it is clear as a spring water.
It is different when you have a 170w CPU you under-volt it (I did that with my 6900xt for instance) you don't lose performance but due to your good chip bin, you get same performance or 1% lower for a decent decrease in power consumption lets say 150w from 170w, lowering heat output at the same time. That is a different case than getting a 105w CPU and limit it to 65w. Power consumption will go down noticeably and performance as well.

 

[JustBenching]

Losing performance is related to what you have paid for the product. If 5600x is limited to 65w by a company, it is priced accordingly because of the performance not because the wattage. Of course you may argue if it is worth the price or not and that is your right. Advising to buy a CPU advertised as 170w with a given performance and limit it to a 65w due to high power consumption is silly in my opinion and make absolutely no sense. You get the 65w no doubt but you lose performance by a significant factor which you have paid for. Why not buy a chip that is 65watts? I'm really surprised you dont understand the difference between buying a chip I thought it is clear as a spring water.
It is different when you have a 170w CPU you under-volt it (I did that with my 6900xt for instance) you don't lose performance but due to your good chip bin, you get same performance or 1% lower for a decent decrease in power consumption lets say 150w from 170w, lowering heat output at the same time. That is a different case than getting a 105w CPU and limit it to 65w. Power consumption will go down noticeably and performance as well.

Because the 7950X at 65w is going to be way way faster than the 7600 (assuming they will release that) at 65w. So asking me why im buying the 7950X and limiting it to 65w instead of the 7600 is kind of a silly question.

What you are saying really really makes no sense to me. Cause the same way, limiting the 7600x to 105w also means you lose performance compared to someone limiting it at 200w. So what?

 

[Solid State Brain]

Worth pointing out if it wasn't obvious already that more cores will always lead to better multithreaded performance per watt, and that performance does not scale linearly with power (watts).

Power limiting high-end, high-TDP CPUs makes sense if for example you want a silent system without using a water cooler, or you care about processor efficiency.

 

[Valantar]

@Valantar See it is posters like the above that make me sound like a broken record. Yes, usually it's Intel that gets flamed for their cpus being "inefficient" cause of the huge power limits, but now it is amds turn and here I am defending amd. Even they themselves tested efficiency at same wattage. It seems very likely all of zen 4 will be less efficient than zen 3 out of the box, thanks to the increase in TDP, and so posters like the above won't understand that actually the CPUs are more efficient - but they are just pushed higher.

And the discussion after you wrote this perfectly illustrates why your stance is problematic if seen as generalizeable in any way. I completely agree that underclocking and undervolting modern CPUs is sensible - I do so myself! - but it's not what the majority do. Not even close. Which makes arguing as if this is an expected widespread behaviour just fundamentally misunderstood. Any kind of CPU tuning is a very niche activity already - as I've said before, most people don't even enable XMP! - and most people tuning their CPUs do overclocking. The idea of reducing performance being a good thing is really counterintuitive to a lot of PC enthusiasts, and non-enthusiasts have neither the knowledge, time, patience or interest to do so.

I love that AMD has built-in Eco Mode settings for all their CPUs - 65W for anything 105W TDP; 45W for anything 65W TDP, etc. But these are very rarely enabled - again, enthusiasts would most likely prefer hand tuning (if interested in reducing power at all), and other users don't know about them. But at least it saves them from Intel's massive SKU overload. It'll be interesting to see what Eco Mode settings these 170W chips will have though.

 

[JustBenching]

And the discussion after you wrote this perfectly illustrates why your stance is problematic if seen as generalizeable in any way. I completely agree that underclocking and undervolting modern CPUs is sensible - I do so myself! - but it's not what the majority do. Not even close. Which makes arguing as if this is an expected widespread behaviour just fundamentally misunderstood. Any kind of CPU tuning is a very niche activity already - as I've said before, most people don't even enable XMP! - and most people tuning their CPUs do overclocking. The idea of reducing performance being a good thing is really counterintuitive to a lot of PC enthusiasts, and non-enthusiasts have neither the knowledge, time, patience or interest to do so.

I love that AMD has built-in Eco Mode settings for all their CPUs - 65W for anything 105W TDP; 45W for anything 65W TDP, etc. But these are very rarely enabled - again, enthusiasts would most likely prefer hand tuning (if interested in reducing power at all), and other users don't know about them. But at least it saves them from Intel's massive SKU overload. It'll be interesting to see what Eco Mode settings these 170W chips will have though.

Well sure but the user I quoted, should supposedly know how to power limit a cpu. In which case he has absolutely no reason to complain about the fact that zen 4 is less efficient than zen 3 out of the box since you can fix it with a button. Yet here he is, complaining...

 

[ratirt]

Because the 7950X at 65w is going to be way way faster than the 7600 (assuming they will release that) at 65w. So asking me why im buying the 7950X and limiting it to 65w instead of the 7600 is kind of a silly question.

What you are saying really really makes no sense to me. Cause the same way, limiting the 7600x to 105w also means you lose performance compared to someone limiting it at 200w. So what?

It is a different CPU what did you expect? 7950x is 16c processor of course it would be faster? But still you pay for certain performance level and this one has to use more power than a 6 core processor since this one has 16 cores and it is clocked higher. Physics is a bitch and you can do nothing about it. So, it is logical that the 16c must use more power. Also, if you think playing games will be ok with it while limited to 65w (I know this is where you steer this conversation) than you are right, because most games are not demanding and with modern CPUs being so fast, even limiting them will do fine but..... 7600x can easily do it and there is absolutely no need for going 7950x and especially limiting it to 65w while paying 2 times more. You would not even see the difference. Your approach to the subject is a misunderstanding what this CPU is for and a waste of its potential. This CPU is not to play games but crunch data, rendering etc. for people who need it and it would require more performance than what a 65watt can give but it would still work. 7600x has only 6 cores and more power will be delivered to those cores unlike 7950x if both are capped at 65w.
AMD has presented a chart, where 7950x is 67% more efficient than a 5950x when both capped at 65w. That is great and in a laptop environment it will do wonders though but it will still be slower than a desktop 7950x with advertised 170w. Like I said, any CPU limited or capped with power will be more efficient but that is not what you paid for. Your limiting factor is huge and you will lose a lot of performance to achieve your power goal. It is not worth it and simply silly approach to prove some a point or something.

 

[JustBenching]

It is a different CPU what did you expect? 7950x is 16c processor of course it would be faster? But still you pay for certain performance level and this one has to use more power than a 6 core processor since this one has 16 cores and it is clocked higher. Physics is a bitch and you can do nothing about it. So, it is logical that the 16c must use more power. Also, if you think playing games will be ok with it while limited to 65w (I know this is where you steer this conversation) than you are right, because most games are not demanding and with modern CPUs being so fast, even limiting them will do fine but..... 7600x can easily do it and there is absolutely no need for going 7950x and especially limiting it to 65w while paying 2 times more. You would not even see the difference. Your approach to the subject is a misunderstanding what this CPU is for and a waste of its potential. This CPU is not to play games but crunch data, rendering etc. for people who need it and it would require more performance than what a 65watt can give but it would still work. 7600x has only 6 cores and more power will be delivered to those cores unlike 7950x if both are capped at 65w.
AMD has presented a chart, where 7950x is 67% more efficient than a 5950x when both capped at 65w. That is great and in a laptop environment it will do wonders though but it will still be slower than a desktop 7950x with advertised 170w. Like I said, any CPU limited or capped with power will be more efficient but that is not what you paid for. Your limiting factor is huge and you will lose a lot of performance to achieve your power goal. It is not worth it and simply silly approach to prove some a point or something.

Again, what you are saying makes no sense. A 7600x at 200w will be faster than a 7600x at 105w. Does it mean that If you leave it at 105w you dont get what you pay for?

A 7950x at 105w is way more efficient than a 7950x at 170w,so by limiting it i lose performance but get efficiency. So if i care about efficiency, i get more for what i paid for, since it's more efficient at 105w!!

 

[ratirt]

Again, what you are saying makes no sense. A 7600x at 200w will be faster than a 7600x at 105w. Does it mean that If you leave it at 105w you dont get what you pay for?

A 7950x at 105w is way more efficient than a 7950x at 170w,so by limiting it i lose performance but get efficiency. So if i care about efficiency, i get more for what i paid for, since it's more efficient at 105w!!

That is nonsense. The benefit of raising the power does not translate always to increased performance or the performance is negligible and it makes no sense.
Dude, you can't focus on efficiency only or on power consumption only. It is like comparing CPUs' performance by frequency only.
What do you mean you get more? You get less performance for less power usage. How is that more? Your problem is you focus on TDP or power consumption not performance. You pay for a 7950x for instance which will crunch data (blender) that fast. You limit it and you didnt achieve more performance but less but obviously it will use less power.
For me this is simple but you just don't understand, that CPUs are not for efficiency but performance and efficiency is just accompanying the performance it delivers.

 

[Valantar]

Well sure but the user I quoted, should supposedly know how to power limit a cpu. In which case he has absolutely no reason to complain about the fact that zen 4 is less efficient than zen 3 out of the box since you can fix it with a button. Yet here he is, complaining...

... because the general expectation among enthusiasts is stock performance or higher. Sure, tuning for efficiency is only going to get more useful - and popular - especially alongside the growth of SFF, but it's still a tiny niche within a niche, and is mostly limited to people who can buy hardware so expensive they don't actually need all of its performance (a bar that's becoming lower in recent years, at least for CPUs). But it's a tiny niche, and not a normal expectation or behaviour. Hence why stock settings matter - they're the default, the benchmark that everything is measured by, and the behaviour and characteristics seen by the vast majority of users. I advocate a lot for tuning for efficiency, but I don't expect others to start from that POV - that's just delusional.

 

[Solid State Brain]

What do you mean you get more? You get less performance for less power usage. How is that more?

Modern CPUs are the most efficient (joules for the work accomplished) at the frequency that minimizes operating voltage. Of course, to lower voltage you have to decrease frequency and by extension, power.

To help understanding the idea, here is a graph I made with my i7-12700K at default frequencies, but optimized voltages (my motherboard gives plenty of voltage with default settings). With the settings it has at the moment, the CPU won't require more than 150W, but under overclocked conditions it could take up to 250W or more if cooling allows. Two things are clear from the graph: increasing power yields progressively diminishing performance returns and increases the energy (Joules) required to perform the same work (here, a render test similar to that used in TPU reviews).

All CPUs both from Intel and AMD will exhibit a behavior along these lines.