AMD Ryzen 9 7900X

[W1zzard]

The Ryzen 9 7900X is a creator's dream. It offers 12-cores and 24-threads that perform fantastic not only in highly-threaded workloads, but single-threaded performance is also there. Priced at $550 it sits right in the middle between Ryzen 9 7950X and Ryzen 7 7700X.

Show full review

 

[P4-630]

I'm all good with my i7 12700K in gaming @ 1440p.

 

[Space Lynx]

W1zzard has it right though, this is a creator's dream chip. Not for me as I am a gamer only, but this is great for creators.

 

[Pumper]

Terrible choice vs. the 5950X. Same price for CPU, but platform price is double at best, but you also get way higher power draw and temps.

 

[HD64G]

So, the power draw is 185W@stock and not 230W. With top notch performance in everything.

 

[lsevald]

Typo in Pros and cons?

• Single CCD design
  
  

 

[W1zzard]

Typo in Pros and cons?

• Single CCD design
  
  

Fixed

 

[ModEl4]

Probably 20% more expensive vs 13th gen i7 with similar overall performance (except gaming, 13700K/KF should be around 10% faster in 1080p high and a little less than that in 1080p Ultra...)

 

[N3M3515]

This is too close to alder lake, intel will win this duel, although in absolute perf, amd will still win in the efficiency department.

 

[SL2]

Dunno if this is posted elsewhere, the other threads are too long..

• Very long boot times

This makes it look like it's a permanent thing, every time you boot, while the conclusion says something else. Shouldn't it be specified that this is about the first boot only?

 

[fybyfyby]

CCD frequency mismatch could be same thing like on Zen3. It was primarily due to binning process. Single core performance was held by first CCD, whereas all core by both CCDs.
It is logical AMD tried to squeeze max perf from both CCDs. Even on MT tasks. I wouldnt be surprised.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I'm all good with my i7 12700K in gaming @ 1440p.

Yeah, 12700K whipped all the Zen 4 in games when it is equipped with similar DDR5-6000. I'm leaning real strongly towards getting 12700K while it's cheap. I just don't know if I should wait for Rocket Lake reviews or not.

 

[W1zzard]

Dunno if this is posted elsewhere, the other threads are too long..

• Very long boot times

This makes it look like it's a permanent thing, every time you boot, while the conclusion says something else. Shouldn't it be specified that this is about the first boot only?

Insanely long at first boot (70+ seconds).
Very long at every single boot (30+ seconds before any monitor output)

I wrote:

To clarify: after a clean system shutdown, without loss of power, when you press the power button, you're still looking at a black screen for 30 seconds, before the BIOS logo appears.

 

[P4-630]

I just don't know if I should wait for Rocket Lake reviews or not.

Enough Rocket Lake reviews on the internet..
Raptor lake you mean..

Since it's not long away, I would wait for the RL reviews, unless you don't mind buying a Z690 motherboard with Alder Lake CPU for now, you could always upgrade later on to Raptor lake then.

 

[Dirt Chip]

The new "95 degree is normal" might be too much for me and AIO is out of the questions.
If that the requirements than sorry AMD but intel will get my money.

I'm going to build a system for video and photo creation and if 13900\13700 will do the same work with less heat and in the same level of coat I see no reason to choose zen4 espacially when I can go with "cheap" (relative to X670\E) Z690 board for RL.

 

[MikeMurphy]

I'd like to know where the efficiency curve is on underclocking/undervolting. I wonder if dialed back to something like 4.9ghz (like the 5900x) what the efficiency looks like against the 5900x.

 

[wNotyarD]

I'd like to know where the efficiency curve is on underclocking/undervolting. I wonder if dialed back to something like 4.9ghz (like the 5900x) what the efficiency looks like against the 5900x.

I wouldn't know especifically about the 7900X and clocks, but in KitGuru's review on the 7950X and 7700X they were both tested with ECO mode enabled on Ryzen Master as to bring their power draw to previous Ryzens levels, and the efficiency skyrockets to unbelievable numbers on MT CineBench R23.
R9-7950X ranges from ~38500 stock to ~35400 ECO-105 (~92% perf/66% power) and ~29500 ECO-65 (~77% perf/41% power). R7-7700X goes from ~20200 stock to ~19300 ECO-65 (~96% perf/64% power).

I can imagine R9-7900X pulling along the same metrics easily.

 

[SL2]

Insanely long at first boot (70+ seconds).
Very long at every single boot (30+ seconds before any monitor output)

I wrote:

Thanks, I read that quote as something else..

 

[Icon Charlie]

I'd like to know where the efficiency curve is on underclocking/undervolting. I wonder if dialed back to something like 4.9ghz (like the 5900x) what the efficiency looks like against the 5900x.

It should be like the 5900OEM. I got lazy and found one online and I Effing LOVE IT. The 65watts is awesome and the performance is great.

The new "95 degree is normal" might be too much for me and AIO is out of the questions.
If that the requirements than sorry AMD but intel will get my money.

I'm going to build a system for video and photo creation and if 13900\13700 will do the same work with less heat and in the same level of coat I see no reason to choose zen4 espacially when I can go with "cheap" (relative to X670\E) Z690 board for RL.

Agree with this 100% There is NO true reason to upgrade from this load up utter crap. I was spot on again on performance, wattage and heat issues. To say that the performance gains for this overall incredibly expensive platform is just laughable.

There are so many negatives on this platform that AMD has basically gave the win to INTEL. Unless INTEL shoots themselves in the foot again.

This is why I made my upgrades the way I did as posted on this platform. I knew that AMD and Dr. Lisa Su, was up to something and with the information given I was correct.

This IMHO is nothing but a cash grab for the noobs and nubs who are tarded enough to fall for this nonsense.

Unfortunately there are many of them in the wild that will by into this

 

[RandallFlagg]

Enough Rocket Lake reviews on the internet..
Raptor lake you mean..

Since it's not long away, I would wait for the RL reviews, unless you don't mind buying a Z690 motherboard with Alder Lake CPU for now, you could always upgrade later on to Raptor lake then.

Yes, that's the thought. This review tells me that Zen 4 doesn't blow AL out of the water or anything, when both are equipped with decent memory. Certainly, for gaming, Zen 4 got clocked. I'm impressed with its app performance though, with just a few holes it's tops at normal day to day (web/java) stuff - which I do pay attention to because I use a lot of intensive web apps day to day - and looks to be very fast at encoding and rendering, winning in most categories there, stuff I don't do but if I did I wouldn't do it on CPU

I'm just shocked it did so poorly in games, as much as AMD hyped that part of it.

So it's now between AL and RL. And it kind of looks like RL will indeed be able to command a $500+ price tag for the 13700K, probably more, so that shoves me back to that $350 12700K and a week of memory tuning. Unless, RL somehow blows AL and Zen 4 out of the water, which might happen.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Yes, that's the thought. This review tells me that Zen 4 doesn't blow AL out of the water or anything, when both are equipped with decent memory. Certainly, for gaming, Zen 4 got clocked. I'm impressed with its app performance though, with just a few holes it's tops at normal day to day (web/java) stuff - which I do pay attention to because I use a lot of intensive web apps day to day - and looks to be very fast at encoding and rendering, winning in most categories there, stuff I don't do but if I did I wouldn't do it on CPU

I'm just shocked it did so poorly in games, as much as AMD hyped that part of it.

So it's now between AL and RL. And it kind of looks like RL will indeed be able to command a $500+ price tag for the 13700K, probably more, so that shoves me back to that $350 12700K and a week of memory tuning. Unless, RL somehow blows AL and Zen 4 out of the water, which might happen.

Looking round all the reviews it doesn't sound as bad as you say.
In compute, it gets it done.
In games it does better in some reviews then others but if you work with your pc it's definitely a winner,, with pretty spot on gaming performance, only the platform price put me off.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Looking round all the reviews it doesn't sound as bad as you say.
In compute, it gets it done.
In games it does better in some reviews then others but if you work with your pc it's definitely a winner,, with pretty spot on gaming performance, only the platform price put me off.

Didn't say Zen 4 was bad. It's very good, especially at productivity including encoding and rendering where it's the best. It's also a cut above on browser benchmarks which is actually pretty important. And, while it loses in the averages on games here, it doesn't lose in all games. It's main weakness seems to be in those bizarre mysql scores, and it regressed in compression tests.

Quite a few games, especially turn based games, Zen 4 does win at. This tells me the chiplet latency thing is still going on, even if muted a lot by the larger cache. Might not be the best choice for e-sports and FPS centered high reaction time games, but yes it is as fast or faster than AL on most everything else.

So in all reality, yes Zen 4 is better than AL overall. Its problem isn't that, it's that it is just not a lot better. It's kind of like parity. I have a feeling that all 3 of these lines - Alder Lake, Zen 4, and Raptor Lake - will be within 20% of each other in almost everything. There's not going to be like, some clear winner.

As for other reviews, most of the reviews I've seen - Tom's, guru3d, and Anand - all cripple AL with DDR5-4800 and pit it against Zen 4 with DDR5-5200. This is the reason other sites are showing some big gains in gaming wins for Zen 4.

It's also why at least IMO, those reviews are irrelevant. DDR5-4800 is just not a realistic configuration for any DIY rig, esp on AL where you could run some cheap DDR4-3200 C16 you bought 3 years ago and probably do just as well.

 

[cadaveca]

There's not going to be like, some clear winner.

The best thing for consumers is a war of parity like you just described. I couldn't be more happy with what I see.


The board prices suck though.

 

[Bwaze]

It's hard to imagine new Intel Raptor Lake will beat Alder Lake for as much as the platform costs will go up. These generations will apparently suck all over the board - it will be like cryptomining, without the wait or hope for cryptomining bubble to burst...

I didn't plan to upgrade my 5900X, it rarely makes sense to upgrade after one generation. But this is really a bad deal.

And we could see it repeated again in graphics cards, perhaps we're judging Nvidia too harshly...

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Didn't say Zen 4 was bad. It's very good, especially at productivity including encoding and rendering where it's the best. It's also a cut above on browser benchmarks which is actually pretty important. And, while it loses in the averages on games here, it doesn't lose in all games. It's main weakness seems to be in those bizarre mysql scores, and it regressed in compression tests.

Quite a few games, especially turn based games, Zen 4 does win at. This tells me the chiplet latency thing is still going on, even if muted a lot by the larger cache. Might not be the best choice for e-sports and FPS centered high reaction time games, but yes it is as fast or faster than AL on most everything else.

So in all reality, yes Zen 4 is better than AL overall. Its problem isn't that, it's that it is just not a lot better. It's kind of like parity. I have a feeling that all 3 of these lines - Alder Lake, Zen 4, and Raptor Lake - will be within 20% of each other in almost everything. There's not going to be like, some clear winner.

As for other reviews, most of the reviews I've seen - Tom's, guru3d, and Anand - all cripple AL with DDR5-4800 and pit it against Zen 4 with DDR5-5200. This is the reason other sites are showing some big gains in gaming wins for Zen 4.

It's also why at least IMO, those reviews are irrelevant. DDR5-4800 is just not a realistic configuration for any DIY rig, esp on AL where you could run some cheap DDR4-3200 C16 you bought 3 years ago and probably do just as well.

I get you except for memory, while it is your choice, if you drop big numbers on a board and CPU you might as well get ddr5.

Options, noice.