AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D

[Bagerklestyne]

Any ideas what the boost clocks were on the cached CCX @W1zzard ?

This is really strange. Why is slower than 5800X3D ?
Three :
5800x3d is 12% faster than 5800X but 7950x3d is on par with 7950x ,Reason ? also what's up with 7700X as top cpu on this chart?

I think the reason the 5800X3D was better in CP2077 was because it was a single CCX, so depsite architectural advances, a lower temp limit plus sharing with a higher clocked CCX under the same ihs means it's going to hit thermal barriers at lower clocks.

Not sure the 7800X3D will have the same issues but even with a lowered TJ max it's likely to boost better than the 7950X cached CCX.

 

[Xuper]

These look like some scheduler issues with more than 8 cores, because:

https://tpucdn.com/review/ryzen-7800x3d-performance-preview/images/doom-eternal-1280-720.png

https://tpucdn.com/review/ryzen-7800x3d-performance-preview/images/bannerlord-1280-720.png

The image you posted is for RT off?

Sorry , I fixed Link , It's RT On.

 

[W1zzard]

Any ideas what the boost clocks were on the cached CCX @W1zzard ?

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D Review - Best of Both Worlds

The Ryzen 9 7950X3D is the spearhead of the AMD Zen 4 X3D lineup. In our performance review we test AMD's new 16-core flagship with dozens of applications and 14 games at up to 4K, to see whether AMD can take the performance crown from Intel, how power consumption is affected, and what can be...

www.techpowerup.com

up to 5.25 with light loads, around 5.0 with heavy loads, well below 5, sometimes below 4 with games, probably because they dont put as much load on the cores and they switch off dynamically many times per second

 

[Mussels]

Interesting no 7900x3d reviews out. FYI my local microcenter has 50% more 7900x3d vs 7950X3D in stock. 24 vs 16 respectively.

because of the new ability to set games to the cores they belong on, gaming results shouldnt be any different and synthetic MT results should be predictable
I want to know if these new drivers fix the issues of the non 3D processors, and get games set properly onto one CCX

Imaging having your processor be 50% efficiency cores while the competition is 100% performance cores and you still use 3 times the power.

That "efficiency" is just a marketing name, and they're extremely inefficient to win cinebench benchies since Zen came out swinging with a lot of cores

It's sad, AMD are releasing all these smashing gaming oriented chips, workload oriented chips and now combo chips - while intel seem to think 6 P cores is all anyone wants, why no 8P 0E gaming CPU?

 

[ratirt]

That "efficiency" is just a marketing name, and they're extremely inefficient to win cinebench benchies since Zen came out swinging with a lot of cores

It's sad, AMD are releasing all these smashing gaming oriented chips, workload oriented chips and now combo chips - while intel seem to think 6 P cores is all anyone wants, why no 8P 0E gaming CPU?

I only hope Intel will keep on releasing Pores with ecores. Maybe at some point they decide there is no need for Pcores anymore. It is way easier for me to think of that scenario rather than no ecores just pcores.

 

[JustBenching]

I only hope Intel will keep on releasing Pores with ecores.

They will. If you have a core design that offers more performance per die, it would be unspeakablhy stupid not to use it.

 

[ratirt]

They will. If you have a core design that offers more performance per die, it would be unspeakablhy stupid not to use it.

I hope they will. For me it is easier to believe no pcores than no ecores scenario.

 

[Spunjjatron]

Τhe picture posted said 35w for both, which was clearly misleading since not both cpus were drawing the same power

Several people have explained this to you now, but I'm going to give it one last go:
Anandtech know about the difference between TDP and PPT. They accounted for it in the test you're referring to - the power draw in that chart is the actual measured power draw, not the TDP, as is explained in Anandtech's testing notes (and as several people have been trying to tell you).
The Intel and AMD processors were drawing the same amount of power in that test, which is the opposite of what you're claiming.

EDIT: Turns out that despite using PPT and not TDP as their metric, Anandtech used the targets in their chart, not the actual measured power draw. Intel and AMD both exceed the PPT target, but AMD do so by more.

It's worth noting that even if we read those numbers as TDP and not PPT, the AMD CPU would still be showing higher efficiency in that test - just not to the same extent as it actually is.

I hope they will. For me it is easier to believe no pcores than no ecores scenario.

They're likely to do this for low-end processors, and possibly for some server-oriented designs, but not for their mainstream performance CPUs. The end result would be to surrender their hard-won single thread performance advantage, not to mention a significant drop in gaming performance. Hence, the only markets the E-core-only designs will be aimed at are ones where those metrics don't matter.

 

[T1beriu]

No changes to the IGP, should be the same performance

You might wanna have a look at that.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/11f20g7

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D Review

AMD's Ryzen 9 7950X3D is a speedy AM5 processor, but its added cache doesn't do enough to justify its effective price premium. Current Core i9 chips, and AMD's own 7950X, tamp down its relative value.

www.pcmag.com

 

[ratirt]

You might wanna have a look at that.

Damn. Just because of the Vcache the iGPU gets better results? Not that this is unexpected but the difference with the vcache is huge.

 

[Daven]

Several people have explained this to you now, but I'm going to give it one last go:
Anandtech know about the difference between TDP and PPT. They accounted for it in the test you're referring to - the power draw in that chart is the actual measured power draw, not the TDP, as is explained in Anandtech's testing notes (and as several people have been trying to tell you).
The Intel and AMD processors were drawing the same amount of power in that test, which is the opposite of what you're claiming.

It's worth noting that even if we read those numbers as TDP and not PPT, the AMD CPU would still be showing higher efficiency in that test - just not to the same extent as it actually is.

I went to the trouble of creating a new account (lost the password for my old one, Spunjji) to point this out, because watching you respond in a hostile manner to people trying to correct you was quite painful.


They're likely to do this for low-end processors, and possibly for some server-oriented designs, but not for their mainstream performance CPUs. The end result would be to surrender their hard-won single thread performance advantage, not to mention a significant drop in gaming performance. Hence, the only markets the E-core-only designs will be aimed at are ones where those metrics don't matter.

There is no point trying to talk to this person. He or she constantly high jacks these threads and will never change position no matter what anybody says. Intel is the hill this person wants to die on for whatever reason.

The rest of us can tell the value of products based on a product’s merits. This person has chosen not to in the case of CPU products.

Damn. Just because of the Vcache the iGPU gets better results? Not that this is unexpected but the difference with the vcache is huge.

Just imagine if AMD were to also attach a tiny slice of infinity cache on top of the IOD.

 

[lightning70]

Exceptional performance in terms of power consumption. Half of 13900k.

 

[R0H1T]

Just imagine if AMD were to also attach a tiny slice of infinity cache on top of the IOD.

It would simply be an L4 cache in that case, or closer to the x3d Vcache here unless you meant something like HBM?

 

[JustBenching]

Several people have explained this to you now, but I'm going to give it one last go:
Anandtech know about the difference between TDP and PPT. They accounted for it in the test you're referring to - the power draw in that chart is the actual measured power draw, not the TDP, as is explained in Anandtech's testing notes (and as several people have been trying to tell you).
The Intel and AMD processors were drawing the same amount of power in that test, which is the opposite of what you're claiming.

It's worth noting that even if we read those numbers as TDP and not PPT, the AMD CPU would still be showing higher efficiency in that test - just not to the same extent as it actually is.

I went to the trouble of creating a new account (lost the password for my old one, Spunjji) to point this out, because watching you respond in a hostile manner to people trying to correct you was quite painful.

No it isn't, it absolutely isn't. You can tell by their graph in the last page. You my friend are absolutely wrong, sorry.

Intel is the hill this person wants to die on for whatever reason.

Nope, truth and facts are the hills I want to die on.

No reason to buy Intel anymore after the 7950x 3d,great cpu.

Happy? Now can we stop lying about that Anand tech graph?

 

[R0H1T]

Probably start rereading those graphs yourself?
Besides the fact that y cruncher is basically a power virus ~ Intel chips themselves will not adhere to their "TDP" strictly 100% of the time

 

[JustBenching]

Probably start rereading those graphs yourself?
Besides the fact that y cruncher is basically a power virus ~ Intel chips themselves will not adhere to their "TDP" strictly 100% of the time

Yes, I'm reading those graphs. Do you realize that at the supposed 65w limit amd is using 50% more power? Lol.

 

[A Computer Guy]

No it isn't, it absolutely isn't. You can tell by their graph in the last page. You my friend are absolutely wrong, sorry.

Are you saying that despite setting power for the target wattage the CPU isn't actually being constrained by that power target?

 

[JustBenching]

Are you saying that despite setting power for the target wattage the CPU isn't actually being constrained by that power target?

I'm saying that for amd cpus, tdp isn't actual power consumption. PPT is. So setting tdp to 65w means it will consume 90w.

 

[R0H1T]

For AMD TDP ≠ power consumption, has not been for at least half a decade now! And your claim that TDP = power consumption, for Intel, is also patently false, wanna try that again?
Power consumption will ultimately depend on your task or workload. In that it's fair to say that you can make Intel a lot more efficient but that's about it. Don't pretend even for a second that Intel's more truthful with their "TDP" numbers!

 

[JustBenching]

For AMD TDP ≠ power consumption, has not been for at least half a decade now! And your claim that TDP = power consumption, for Intel, is also patently false, wanna try that again?

For intel pl2 = power consumption under tau. The CPU cannot draw more power than the pl2 setting you put in the bios. Period.

But that's all irrelevant. The point is you can't use that graph to compare efficiency since the cpus are drawing vastly different amounts of watts than what the graph shows

 

[A Computer Guy]

I'm saying that for amd cpus, tdp isn't actual power consumption. PPT is. So setting tdp to 65w means it will consume 90w.

Rereading the article they are clearly aware of PPT vs TDP and I am lead to believe they are using PPT to properly set the power targets accordingly (for AMD).

 

[Avro Arrow]

Well, I have to give kudos to W1zzard because he's one of only two reviewers to have had the presence of mind to test this APU with one CCX disabled to simulate the R7-7800X3D (the other being Steve Walton). I didn't realise that he had also done this test because at that point, I had only seen YouTube videos about it. Having read his review, my suspicions have been confirmed.

This APU is just ridiculous. I mean, I realise that AMD made it so that they could the i9-13900K off of the gaming throne and they succeeded in that, but otherwise, these R9 X3D APUs are UTTERLY POINTLESS!

Nobody who wants productivity is going to pay more money for less productivity. Nobody who wants gaming performance is going to pay WAY MORE money to buy a 12 or 16-core APU just so they can have 6 or 8 unused cores sitting there eating power for no reason while hoping that Windows doesn't screw up and use the wrong CCX.

This APU should never have been made because the R7-7800X3D is going to have even better gaming performance than it does as we have seen. Since the 3D cache mitigates the advantages of higher clocks and RAM speeds in gaming, this WILL come to pass, even if the R7-7800X3D has a lower clock speed than the R9-7950X3D.

The R7-7800X3D will be $250 less than this Frankenstein processor and is guaranteed to be a huge success because it makes sense to put the 3D cache on an APU that gamers will actually be interested in buying. OTOH, putting their 3D cache, a technology that was demonstrated on the R7-5800X3D to be beneficial for gaming but detrimental for productivIty on 12 and 16-core productivity APUs is insane. Some fools tried to defend it by asking the question "What if someone wants to do BOTH?". This question is ridiculous because prosumers ALWAYS proritise productivity over gaming and the R9-7950X already games as well as the i9-12900K, so it's not exactly lacking in the gaming department to begin with.

This is the stupidest decision that I've ever seen AMD make (and I've been using AMD since the Phenom II X4 940). To release two R9 X3D APUs that no gamer will buy while NOT releasing an R5 X3D APU that would guarantee AMD's undisputed dominance of PC gaming over Intel is so stupid that I cannot describe just how stupid because there are no accurate words that can be used in polite company.

This decision will haunt AMD for years to come as they have successfully blown hundreds of millions of dollars in both production and lost sales by making these R9 X3D abominations. The only one who will truly benefit from the existence of this product is Intel.

 

[JustBenching]

Rereading the article they are clearly aware of PPT vs TDP and I am lead to believe they are using PPT to properly set the power targets accordingly (for AMD).

And then you look at the last page where they measure the actual power consumption and you notice that amd draws 50% extra power. At 65w it draws 90.

 

[R0H1T]

The point is you can't use that graph to compare efficiency since the cpus are drawing vastly different amounts of watts than what the graph shows

And the graphs show AMD's still more efficient at almost every power/TDP/PPT level, vastly so.

 

[A Computer Guy]

And then you look at the last page where they measure the actual power consumption and you notice that amd draws 50% extra power. At 65w it draws 90.

Ok I see it now. With yCruncher all the CPU's are blowing past their power targets. Is this a yCruncher specific behavior because I don't see that happening with AMD running Cinebench for example? It's kind of concerning in a way because when you set PPT you would expect the CPU to enforce that limit.