AMD Ryzen 5 7600X

[MarsM4N]

AMD sent that G.SKILL DDR5-6000 CL30 kit to all reviewers and requested that it is used for testing, because it is the best case for them. I used the same memory I've been using on previous Intel reviews. The difference is like 1%, full data is in the 7950X review

Looks like the Ryzen 7000's are scaling good with memory OC (DDR5-6400) in some games. 4 vs 2 sticks could also give some percents.

 

[W1zzard]

Keep in mind, you're arguing with a brand new user who is accusing the sites admin of being intel biased. Smells a little....you know, smelly?

I think he has every right to be sceptical, and it's my job to explain what I did, why and how the results can be interpreted

 

[bug]

Looks like the Ryzen 7000's are scaling good with memory OC (DDR5-6400) in some games. 4 vs 2 sticks could also give some percents.

Memory scaling benchmarks incoming, you can be sure of that
Too bad Zen4 is DDR5 only. We won't know what we're gaining/losing because of DDR5.

 

[catulitechup]

Resuming in my case:

-95c that is terrible (short life cpu?) and dont possible justify

-runs hotter with Noctua NH-U14S, that is rally bad for who likes air cooling

-price is a big joke for cost of another parts required like mainboard, memories and cooling

At simple seek amd put very high turbo frecuencies for seems have better turbo than i5 13600k aka raptor lake but this up temperatures too much, maybe X3D parts will be more interesting and with more moderate clocks for example turbo at 5.0ghz that sound ok

But mainboards prices are very expensive and memories (good memories 6400mhz and beyond) are expensive too

However stay waiting for zen 4 for am4 (some months ago appear information about exist examples for am4), this maybe more interesting because mainboards and memories have better prices

 

[Chrispy_]

No, it’s about how many watts are being dissipated into an environment, it appears AMD made a stronger IHS that prevents the socket from flexing but doesn’t help thermal transfer.

Yeah, I'm not worried about mITX with Zen4. Sure, the core temps will be higher but as long as you set the PBO values to levels that your CPU/case cooling can handle, the fan noise will be the same.

Sure, temperatures will read higher, but that's irrelevant since the new Zen4 boost algorithm won't pull back until temps reach 95C now; For Zen2 and Zen3 the boost algorithm would start to lower clocks around 75C so there was a good reason to keep temps lower than this but with Zen4, a 93C CPU temperature isn't a problem even in a tiny mITX case.

Sure, you're probably not going to want to use a 170W TDP option with a low-profile air cooler or slim 240mm radiator using quiet fans, but with PBO you can still set your PPT to a reasonable 135W or something like that and know that the CPU is going to run as fast as it can within that 135W envelope provided your cooling can keep it under 95C. The laws of thermodynamics still apply - if the socket is only providing 135W to the CPU, the most heat the cooler needs to deal with is 135W. The smaller, more concentrated die area, and the thicker IHS are bound to result in higher core temperature readings but the 20-25C higher start of clock throttling under the new boost makes up for that and more.

Memory scaling benchmarks incoming, you can be sure of that
Too bad Zen4 is DDR5 only. We won't know what we're gaining/losing because of DDR5.

DDR5 is better, period.
We're only now approaching speeds and timings of DDR5 that are better than the best available DDR4, but you also have to remember that good, fast DDR4-3600 CL14 is outrageously expensive.

Whilst it's true that DDR5-6000 CL36 isn't quite as fast in some situations as the best DDR4, it's also true that something like 32GB of Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600 CL14 only comes in 8GB modules, so you're looking at 16GB total with reduced timings for 4 sticks. It's silly expensive (about 50-60% more expensive than even DDR5-6000 CL36) and availability is patchy as hell (I'm guessing it relies on an ever-dwindling stockpile of binned Samsung B-die).

So yeah, the very very very best DDR4 you can possibly run is a little bit faster, situationally, that garden-variety, mass-produced mainstream RAM from several major vendors. Faster/tighter speed grades are coming out every couple of months, and pricing/availability is improving slowly.

If you want to compare budget platforms, compare cheap DDR4-3200 CL16 or DDR4-3600 CL19 against cheap DDR5 5200 CL36. DDR5 looks much better then and it's only going to get better and cheaper as DDR4 is stuck where it is and will start to get more expensive as more manufacturing transitions to DDR5.

 

[catulitechup]

If you want to compare budget platforms, compare cheap DDR4-3200 CL16 or DDR4-3600 CL19 against cheap DDR5 5200 CL36.
DDR5 looks much better then and it's only going to get better and cheaper as DDR4 is stuck where it is and will start to get more expensive as more manufacturing transitions to DDR5.

For now ddr5 5200mhz dont seem cheap still with lower prices like microcenter

ddr5 5200mhz cas 40 in 160us

Corsair Vengeance 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR5-5200 PC5-41600 CL40 Dual Channel Desktop Memory Kit 32GX5M2B5200C40 - Black - Micro Center

Get it now! CORSAIR VENGEANCE DDR5, optimized for Intel motherboards, delivers the higher frequencies and greater capacities of DDR5 technology in a high-quality, compact module that suits your system.

www.microcenter.com

ddr4 3600mhz cas 18 in 95us

TeamGroup T-FORCE VULCAN Z 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4-3600 PC4-28800 CL18 Dual Channel Desktop Memory Kit TLZGD432G3600HC - Gray - Micro Center

Get it now! Designed for complete protection and enhanced heat dissipation, the heat spreader is formed by punch press process with a 0.8mm thick, one-piece alloy aluminum to reinforce the body structure.

www.microcenter.com

sadly ddr5 now is uttertrash for frecuency and latency offered in price compared ddr4

ddr5 5200mhz cas 36 in 170us

G.Skill Flare X5 Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR5-5600 PC5-44800 CL36 Dual Channel Desktop Memory Kit F5-5600J3636C16GX2-FX5 - - Micro Center

Get it now! Flare X5 series DDR5 memory is designed and optimized for the latest DDR5-enabled AMD Ryzen platforms, and supports AMD EXPO overclocking profiles to enable easy memory overclocking by simply enabling the EXPO profile in the BIOS with a compatible motherboard and processor.

www.microcenter.com

personally in this case prefer put 30us more for this kit

ddr4 3600mhz cas18 64gb

G.Skill Ripjaws V 64GB (2 x 32GB) DDR4-3600 PC4-28800 CL18 Dual Channel Desktop Memory Kit F4-3600C18D-64GVK - Black - Micro Center

Get it now! SKILL Ripjaws V series high performance memory is built with the newest DDR4 standard in a sleek, redesigned heat spreader that is ideal for powerful gaming rigs, professional workstations, or daily computing tasks. Tested under G.

www.microcenter.com

However with this frecuencies but cheaper maybe can buy around in 18 months when stay in market 8xxxmhz frecuencies

from ddr4 3600mhz cas18 to ddr5 7200mhz with cas around 36 or 38 but with 1.35v wiil be ok

 

[bug]

DDR5 is better, period.

Not at the moment, but it will be, given time.

We're only now approaching speeds and timings of DDR5 that are better than the best available DDR4, but you also have to remember that good, fast DDR4-3600 CL14 is outrageously expensive.

I doubt that. I got me 32GB of CL16 3600 DDR4 because it was dirt cheap. Granted, it was back in 2019, but how much more expensive it could be today?

Be that as it may, the point of DDR4 vs DDR5 isn't (entirely) about which is faster. It's about being able to reuse your current RAM sticks. Or not.

 

[RandallFlagg]

DDR5 is better, period.
We're only now approaching speeds and timings of DDR5 that are better than the best available DDR4, but you also have to remember that good, fast DDR4-3600 CL14 is outrageously expensive.

Whilst it's true that DDR5-6000 CL36 isn't quite as fast in some situations as the best DDR4, it's also true that something like 32GB of Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600 CL14 only comes in 8GB modules, so you're looking at 16GB total with reduced timings for 4 sticks. It's silly expensive (about 50-60% more expensive than even DDR5-6000 CL36) and availability is patchy as hell (I'm guessing it relies on an ever-dwindling stockpile of binned Samsung B-die).

So yeah, the very very very best DDR4 you can possibly run is a little bit faster, situationally, that garden-variety, mass-produced mainstream RAM from several major vendors. Faster/tighter speed grades are coming out every couple of months, and pricing/availability is improving slowly.

If you want to compare budget platforms, compare cheap DDR4-3200 CL16 or DDR4-3600 CL19 against cheap DDR5 5200 CL36. DDR5 looks much better then and it's only going to get better and cheaper as DDR4 is stuck where it is and will start to get more expensive as more manufacturing transitions to DDR5.

Yeah but the thing is, a whole bunch of people already have DDR4-3600 C16 or C18 and such. For the most part those people are going to get absolutely nothing going with DDR5-5200.

IMO if you are coming from a kit like that, unless you can go for at least DDR5-6000 then there's no point in switching. And for those with b-die 3600 C14, you may see performance regression. That's not exactly a great thing when that DDR5-6000 will still cost $225 or so even with discounts today.

 

[nexxusty]

This is a terribly done review.

The 12900k is literally just missing in some graphs.

SMH.

Wait this is not what was advertised... Seems disappointing, especially for the platform cost.

It's pathetic. Raptor Lake is going to make Zen 4 look like a joke.

Then Zen 4 3D will come out. Should have been out day 1.

 

[Wasteland]

DDR5 is better, period.
We're only now approaching speeds and timings of DDR5 that are better than the best available DDR4, but you also have to remember that good, fast DDR4-3600 CL14 is outrageously expensive.

Whilst it's true that DDR5-6000 CL36 isn't quite as fast in some situations as the best DDR4, it's also true that something like 32GB of Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600 CL14 only comes in 8GB modules, so you're looking at 16GB total with reduced timings for 4 sticks. It's silly expensive (about 50-60% more expensive than even DDR5-6000 CL36) and availability is patchy as hell (I'm guessing it relies on an ever-dwindling stockpile of binned Samsung B-die).

So yeah, the very very very best DDR4 you can possibly run is a little bit faster, situationally, that garden-variety, mass-produced mainstream RAM from several major vendors. Faster/tighter speed grades are coming out every couple of months, and pricing/availability is improving slowly.

If you want to compare budget platforms, compare cheap DDR4-3200 CL16 or DDR4-3600 CL19 against cheap DDR5 5200 CL36. DDR5 looks much better then and it's only going to get better and cheaper as DDR4 is stuck where it is and will start to get more expensive as more manufacturing transitions to DDR5.

All of this is true, but it highlights my one complaint about that otherwise excellent Hardware Unboxed review: the value comparisons at the end of the video assumed that older platforms would be running ludicrously expensive B-Die DDR4, and unnecessarily expensive motherboards, to boot.

This speaks to the peculiar niche, or the lack thereof, of this 7600x CPU. As of this moment, using HUB's numbers, the 7600x platform (CPU/Mobo/RAM) would cost $870, and then you'd also need a cooler, and not one from the bargain bin, either. For that money, you could buy an i5-12400 (which comes with a cooler), a decent B660 motherboard, 32 GB of DDR4-3600 CL16 (or you could go ~$30 cheaper with DDR4-3200 at CL16; the locked SA voltage on the CPU might even encourage this choice), and you'd have about $500 leftover for a GPU. This is a shocking disparity; the performance uplift from the Zen 4 part, even with the benefit of superior DDR5, doesn't begin to justify it.

Granted, DDR5 will continue to decline in price. Granted, B650 is coming, though FWIW Steve from GamersNexus expressed concern about the low end AM5 boards, based on his less than rosy appraisal of the high-end boards he's already seen. The essential components for these new boards are apparently just very expensive.

(We've already seen a lot of price creep in the motherboard space over the last ~3 years, presumably due in large part to the increased cost of e.g. PCIe 4.0--but at least LGA1700 and late-stage AM4 offered some pretty nice products in the new "low end" mobo segment at ~$100-150. Now we're onto PCIe 5.0, DDR5 DIMM connectors and power delivery, and in the case of AMD, a more expensive socket type. Hopefully those extra costs won't force the cheapest AM5 motherboard models to cut every conceivable corner.)

Anyway, it feels like AMD has abdicated the low-to-middle range for the time being, and although natural pressures will improve AM5's value proposition, it's hard to imagine the overall appraisal will drastically change soon, certainly no sooner than the launch of Intel's 13th gen, which will complicate things (and which can still use the cheaper LGA1700 platform). The 7600X is therefore in a weird spot--its platform way, way too expensive for the casual/gamer use case, and its productivity bona-fides too weak to appeal to anyone else at its price point. Serious computational workers/hobbyists will most likely spring for the higher end parts.

 

[bug]

All of this is true, but it highlights my one complaint about that otherwise excellent Hardware Unboxed review: the value comparisons at the end of the video assumed that older platforms would be running ludicrously expensive B-Die DDR4, and unnecessarily expensive motherboards, to boot.

That's what all reviews have to do: use the same platform for all reviewed parts. And in order not to hold back high-end parts, that platform has to be high-end itself. Of course real users won't go for "extreme everything and the kitchen sink" motherboard or the most exotic of RAM sticks to go with a $100 CPU, but it's our job to extrapolate from reviews. There are usually memory scaling benchmarks/reviews and specific motherboard reviews to help you with that.

 

[Wasteland]

That's what all reviews have to do: use the same platform for all reviewed parts. And in order not to hold back high-end parts, that platform has to be high-end itself. Of course real users won't go for "extreme everything and the kitchen sink" motherboard or the most exotic of RAM sticks to go with a $100 CPU, but it's our job to extrapolate from reviews. There are usually memory scaling benchmarks/reviews and specific motherboard reviews to help you with that.

Yes, the benchmarks have to be consistent, and I understand why HUB would be inclined to carry that consistency over to the value comparison section of the video--but it was a discrete section of the video. It is misleading to act as if DDR4 is B-Die or bust when you're making an explicit comparison between, among other things, the cost of memory for each platform. (The B-Die in question, at the stock speeds he ran it, isn't even noticeably faster than CL16 kits that cost about half as much.)

And he could have assumed a cheaper motherboard, too. I happen to know that HUB gave rave reviews to a $140 B660 motherboard (The MSI Pro B660-A). The point is that the AM5 platform is absurdly more expensive than some of the alternatives, at the moment. A reviewer might at least mention that instead of downplaying the disparity.

Techpowerup was much less bullish on this CPU's value proposition.

 

[R0H1T]

-runs hotter with Noctua NH-U14S, that is rally bad for who likes air cooling

Well temps will be an issue with RPL as well, just as they were with ADL but bigger, because that things gonna be toasty!

Intel started this $hit with 9900k & AMD's joined in the fun, remember Intel's TDP

 

[Aquinus]

We won't know what we're gaining/losing because of DDR5.

Oh, oh, I do! Die space on the IO die.

 

[bug]

Yes, the benchmarks have to be consistent, and I understand why HUB would be inclined to carry that consistency over to the value comparison section of the video--but it was a discrete section of the video. It is misleading to act as if DDR4 is B-Die or bust when you're making an explicit comparison between, among other things, the cost of memory for each platform. (The B-Die in question, at the stock speeds he ran it, isn't even noticeably faster than CL16 kits that cost about half as much.)

And he could have assumed a cheaper motherboard, too. I happen to know that HUB gave rave reviews to a $140 B660 motherboard (The MSI Pro B660-A). The point is that the AM5 platform is absurdly more expensive than some of the alternatives, at the moment. A reviewer might at least mention that instead of downplaying the disparity.

Techpowerup was much less bullish on this CPU's value proposition.

I'd argue it's questionable to use B-die as a reference for anything these days, seeing as it's discontinued and everything (yes, I know you can still get some kits). He should've compared with DDR5-7600 because he saw it in lab or something...

Oh, oh, I do! Die space on the IO die.

Not even that. I imagine AMD would have built different IO dies for DDR4 and DDR5. A low-hanging fruit, if ever there was one.

 

[Aquinus]

Not even that. I imagine AMD would have built different IO dies for DDR4 and DDR5. A low-hanging fruit, if ever there was one.

It's not low hanging fruit if it cuts into the capacity for the DDR5 variant. It also goes against the reusability of their silicon since now you have two I/O dies that would be special purpose essentially. One way or another, the world will move to DDR5, just as we did with DDR4 and just about everything that preceded it and I think AMD knows that. The whole advantage of the chiplet design is the same parts used for everything. You negate that advantage by doing as you suggest. There are a lot of costs and not many benefits (for AMD that is.)

To me, this is a case of AMD keeping it simple and planning for the future, which I think is the right move for the sake of DDR5 adoption.

 

[Chrispy_]

This speaks to the peculiar niche, or the lack thereof, of this 7600x CPU. As of this moment, using HUB's numbers, the 7600x platform (CPU/Mobo/RAM) would cost $870, and then you'd also need a cooler, and not one from the bargain bin, either. For that money, you could buy an i5-12400 (which comes with a cooler), a decent B660 motherboard, 32 GB of DDR4-3600 CL16 (or you could go ~$30 cheaper with DDR4-3200 at CL16; the locked SA voltage on the CPU might even encourage this choice), and you'd have about $500 leftover for a GPU. This is a shocking disparity; the performance uplift from the Zen 4 part, even with the benefit of superior DDR5, doesn't begin to justify it.

Exactly. Please refer to my first post in this thread.

Yeah but the thing is, a whole bunch of people already have DDR4-3600 C16 or C18 and such. For the most part those people are going to get absolutely nothing going with DDR5-5200.

IMO if you are coming from a kit like that, unless you can go for at least DDR5-6000 then there's no point in switching. And for those with b-die 3600 C14, you may see performance regression. That's not exactly a great thing when that DDR5-6000 will still cost $225 or so even with discounts today.

True, but if you already have a late-gen DDR4 platform, chances are your system is already decent and you're not in the market for an upgrade to a 7600X. If you're bailing on Ryzen 5600X or an i5-10400F then it's likely you're needing big gains to justify doing the upgrade at all, at which point DDR4 isn't really an option. I'm sure there's some edge-case arguments you could make that are reasonable, but for the most part, if your system was built with RAM that's only been on the market at that speed grade for 3 years, and only affordable for 2, your system is unlikely to be old enough to really be an upgrade candidate that re-uses only RAM but not motherboard. That's pretty niche (or impatient and frivolous, IMO).

Be that as it may, the point of DDR4 vs DDR5 isn't (entirely) about which is faster. It's about being able to reuse your current RAM sticks. Or not.

You want to reuse your RAM but not your old board and CPU?

Valid - but ineffective IMO; If you reuse the old platform for yourself or friends/family you need that RAM anyway, and when I'm buying used I look for a complete platform because it's waaay better value - easier to buy a bundle and easier to sell a bundle. You could sell your CPU and board separately but it's twice the effort for you and the market for individual parts is smaller (over here at least) because each individual part incurs its own packaging and shipping costs.

 

[Juventas]

Which is what we're seeing here: with the same cooler (and presumably fan speeds), the Ryzen due to its higher thermal density and thicker IHS reaches equilibrium at ~70°C where it's able to dissipate its ~45W power, while the Intel chip (due to its much lower thermal density, and thinner IHS) reaches its equilibrium at a lower ~55°C for transferring 50W.

Thanks for the answer. Do we know that Ryzen has a significantly thicker IHS? Why would they use a thicker IHS if it negatively effects cooling?

 

[Valantar]

Thanks for the answer. Do we know that Ryzen has a significantly thicker IHS? Why would they use a thicker IHS if it negatively effects cooling?

Because it allows them to maintain cooler compatibility with AM4 coolers, as otherwise the change from PGA to LGA socket would have lowered the Z-height of the CPU (height from the motherboard PCB to the top of the IHS) significantly, breaking compatibility with most cooler mounting systems. Der8auer in his delidding video measured about 1.5mm of "unnecessary" copper thickness in the IHS - which is quite a lot at these small scales, and will have a significant effect on thermals.

 

[Gameslove]

Cheapest in the Germany on the AM5:

ASUS PRIME X670-P - 248 EUR (238 $) (with 100 EUR bonus)

ASUS PRIME X670-P, Mainboard schwarz/silber

Das ASUS PRIME X670-P basiert auf dem AMD-X670-Chipsatz und unterstützt AMD-Prozessoren für den Sockel AM5. Es verfügt über vier DDR5-Slots für bis...

www.alternate.de

AMD Ryzen 5™ 7600X - 379 EUR (363 $)

AMD Ryzen™ 5 7600X, Prozessor Boxed-Version

Der AMD Ryzen™ 5 7600X Prozessor ist eine 6-Kern-CPU für den Sockel AM5 mit 4,7 GHz Taktfrequenz und 32 MB L3-Cache. Der Ryzen™ 5 7600X Prozessor b...

www.alternate.de

Kingston FURY DIMM 32 GB DDR5-4800 Kit - 130 EUR (2 days discount) 125 $

Kingston FURY DIMM 32 GB DDR5-4800 (2x 16 GB) Dual-Kit, Arbeitsspeicher schwarz, KF548C38BBK2-32, FURY Beast, INTEL XMP

Das Kingston KF548C38BBK2-32ist ein Kit aus zwei 16-GB-DDR5-4800-Speichermodulen (PC5-38400) aus der Fury Beast Serie. Die Gesamtkapazität beträgt ...

www.alternate.de

Rig on the AM4:

ASUS PRIME B550-PLUS - 132 EUR - 127 $

ASUS PRIME B550-PLUS, Mainboard schwarz/silber

Das ASUS PRIME B550-PLUS basiert auf dem AMD-B550-Chipsatz und unterstützt AMD-Prozessoren für den Sockel AM4. Es verfügt über vier DDR4-Slots für ...

www.alternate.de

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D - 457 EUR - 438$
https://www.amazon.de/dp/B09VCJ2SHD...763f08e3807ba326fce06c3dd16772b729&th=1&psc=1

Kingston FURY DIMM 32 GB DDR4-3200 Kit - 89 EUR (2 days discount) - 85 $

Kingston FURY DIMM 32 GB DDR4-3200 (2x 16 GB) Dual-Kit, Arbeitsspeicher schwarz, KF432C16BB1K2/32, Beast, INTEL XMP

Das Kingston FURY KF432C16BB1K2/32 ist ein Kit aus zwei 16-GB-DDR4-3200-Speichermodulen (PC4-25600) aus der Beast Serie. Die Gesamtkapazität beträg...

www.alternate.de

Ryzen 7 5800x3d vs Ryzen 5 7600X
AM5 investing: 726 $
AM4 investing: 650 $

 

[catulitechup]

Some memes

 

[W1zzard]

The 12900k is literally just missing in some graphs.

This is the 7600X review, all competing CPUs in our test group are included? I typically allow +25% and -25% in relative performance. 12900K is way out of that range, twice as expensive, kinda irrelevant for comparisons?

 

[wheresmycar]

Tom's used DDR5-4800 on Alder Lake, and DDR5-5200 on Zen 4. TPU used DDR5-6000 C36 on all systems, plus some runs with DDR5-6000 C30 for AMD. You can start there. I think it obvious, no one doing DIY is using DDR5-4800.

Another aspect is that Tom's is most likely re-using old benchmarks for comparison, TPU did a complete refresh with Win 11 and new drivers for all test configs. Most sites don't do this, they show you what the chips performed like 1, 2 years ago when released - buggy BIOS, drivers, OS and all.

When you cripple the memory on both rigs like that to the 4800/5200 offical spec, the 5800X3D absolutely crushes all of the Zen 4 and Alder Lake rigs.

Thing is, I don't know a single person using that kind of memory. Everyone I've talked to the last week who is upgrading is using 6000Mhz or 5600Mhz. Nobody is using 4800 or even 5200. I'd expect Zen 4 to be the same, the cost of upgrading is so large why skimp on something like memory to save $50 on your $1000 upgrade, especially to go so far down as 4800. This makes those reviews pretty irrelevant for people upgrading in the way people actually upgrade.

Okay that makes sense but I believe the larger difference in performance is down to the type of games tested as some fare better on intel and others on AMD.

Hupe jump in productivity tasks, head to head now with Intel's top dogs. In gaming a bit underwhelming. Still a big step up, though.
But lets wait & see what the X3D variants bring to the table. Or upcomming Intel's chips.



Benchmark results differ mostly by game selection. You can create some pretty bias benchmark results by selecting games/engines that are badly optimized on AMD.
So it's always wise to check differnt sources.

The other thing is the OS. I wouldn't do benchmarks on the "Beta OS" Win11 (which TPU did). Adoption is still very low and most still use Win10.
Windows 11’s 2022 Update is wreaking havoc with PC gamers, but there’s a fix

About "Value", yea it's bad. Upcomming B Series boards bring it down a lot, but there is still the DDR5 price problem. And that was very predictable. Prices didn't drop as fast as they hoped.
Tbh. AMD should have partnered up with some RAM companies & ship their CPU's with RAM discount coupons. Or just buy a RAM company & produce their own, lol.

I do feel upped-up Windows versions (/beta) or major updates are initially better tuned for Intel CPUs. I've seen some reports in the past with issues concerning cache, core scheduler, windows configured power presets, etc. Therefore unless the reviewer always opts for the latest updates with each CPU review, i believe it would be better to stick with previously produced benchmarks. I can see why the counter argument would be credible too for a more contemporary analysis , but if you think about it we haven't allowed the newer CPU's enough time to achieve their maximum performance yield with memory optimizations/OS updates/BIOS updates/etc - hence making the review too early to fathom real-world performance differences.

About the "value" drawback.... i don't know if its justified or not, but not happy with AMD this time around at a time when I finally thought "yeah lets give AMD a shot on its fresh AM5 sock". Even looking at other reviews, the performance mark-up is too small for the excessive platform asking price. Even with B-series boards I suspect the total cost for an upgrade won't be exciting enough to pull the trigger. AMD already and now widely no longer maintains the value-king flag, something Ive always admired whilst willingly bolstered on Intel (im currently running 9700K+7700K) - hence the Zen 4 launch is a little disappointing for me. Let's see what happens in the coming months... i do like the through-2025/+ forward support vehicle with AM5 which should be eventually rewarding but if RPL proves exceptionally worthier by current standards i might just stick with my 3600/16 DDR4 memory kits, snap up a non-k ADL chip on a reasonably priced B-series board and put a blue flag on my desk.

I have to thank the community for that. Over the years you people asked for better memory speeds, so I kept pushing them further and further.

I think what also matters a lot is test selection. Look at the individual performance results, there's games like Far Cry 6 and Watch Dogs, which run much better on Intel than on AMD. For Far Cry 6 I know that it does complex stuff with memory and inter-thread communication.
Should I kick out one of the most popular games for that? Don't think so.
Does my test suite feel a bit biased towards Intel? I suspect so, even though I never intended that. I really just picked popular games. The target was 10, I ended up with 12.
Will I look at switching out the games in the future? Absolutely, yes.
Are other reviewers wrong? Definitely not. Look at their results, try to understand them, ask them about test configs and in the end come to your own conclusions based on what you've learned and what's relevant for you.

And as always, feel free to AMA

W1zzard if anyone assumes you're intentionally drawing favour for Intel... just slap them down with some harsh words. We've got your back!!!

I suppose I'm partially to blame with the earlier reviewer comparison - but this was purely in good faith to better grasp the benched technicalities.

Your willingness to switch out games for a more balanced appraisal is testament in itself for top-notch reviews. Its great that we have a large selection of reviewers as the most important game performance comparison for me is individual game benchmarks, games which I play. Thats the real stat i'm looking for and the rest is just a nice-to-know comparison for bragging rights for my next upgrade.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

And he could have assumed a cheaper motherboard, too. I happen to know that HUB gave rave reviews to a $140 B660 motherboard (The MSI Pro B660-A).

No doubt HUB plans to give a ~$150 B650 motherboard a rave review as well. They just are not out yet.

The point is that the AM5 platform is absurdly more expensive than some of the alternatives, at the moment. A reviewer might at least mention that instead of downplaying the disparity.

I thought the same thing with ADL. The cheapest motherboard at launch was ~$300+ and the first B660 boards were a good $200. The only real worry is the RAM support as far as I can see.

 

[wheresmycar]

Because it allows them to maintain cooler compatibility with AM4 coolers, as otherwise the change from PGA to LGA socket would have lowered the Z-height of the CPU (height from the motherboard PCB to the top of the IHS) significantly, breaking compatibility with most cooler mounting systems. Der8auer in his delidding video measured about 1.5mm of "unnecessary" copper thickness in the IHS - which is quite a lot at these small scales, and will have a significant effect on thermals.

Good to learn something new (everyday on TPU)!!

So technically 7000-series has/had the potential of being more efficient. I thought it was primarily due to the crenels and merlons design language and the usual AMD opportunistic-volting. speaking of power consumption... are there any reviews on undervolting without harming "gaming" performance? I'd like my next upgrade to achieve a level of efficiency without having the fans ramped up, ultimately to achieve a dead-silent build without crossing the 80c mark (i understand its harmless at this range but its just one of things i can't shake off - gotto max @ ~79c or i'm willing to lose performance)