• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

TDP for Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X might change to 105W with next AGESA update

SL2

Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
2,339 (0.34/day)
Yeah, nothing needs to be fixed, it's just a hype train..

This has been rumored since before launch, so not really news, and not confirmed.

 
Joined
May 7, 2020
Messages
126 (0.08/day)
With all these threads the 9700x will soon be a 8 core / 32 threads CPU :p

Anyway I don't think it would be wise (which means it's totally going to happen) to change the TDP of an already sold CPU, somebody might be using the 9700x with the stock cooler of a 7700 and then find it throttling all the time after a BIOS update.
 
Joined
May 3, 2019
Messages
169 (0.08/day)
This whole thing reminds me of the Zen1 launch where people were expecting magical bios update performance boosts months after.
It's a dud guys just let it go.
 

SL2

Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
2,339 (0.34/day)
Anyway I don't think it would be wise (which means it's totally going to happen) to change the TDP of an already sold CPU, somebody might be using the 9700x with the stock cooler of a 7700 and then find it throttling all the time after a BIOS update.
I'm pretty sure that's not how it works with AM5. I hope we'll see a review that tries it out!

Besides, it's not ideal now either, with the 9700X boosting lower than a 9600X when the specs says the opposite. It wouldn't surprise me if AMD could get in trouble for that.
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
12,944 (1.94/day)
Location
Nebraska, USA
System Name Brightworks Systems BWS-6 E-IV
Processor Intel Core i5-6600 @ 3.9GHz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-Z170-HD3 Rev 1.0
Cooling Quality case, 2 x Fractal Design 140mm fans, stock CPU HSF
Memory 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4 3000 Corsair Vengeance
Video Card(s) EVGA GEForce GTX 1050Ti 4Gb GDDR5
Storage Samsung 850 Pro 256GB SSD, Samsung 860 Evo 500GB SSD
Display(s) Samsung S24E650BW LED x 2
Case Fractal Design Define R4
Power Supply EVGA Supernova 550W G2 Gold
Mouse Logitech M190
Keyboard Microsoft Wireless Comfort 5050
Software W10 Pro 64-bit
Hmmm.
...this potential change for parts that have already been thoroughly tested seems surprising. Lower power consumption was highlighted as one of the biggest advantages of the new series over its predecessor.

This sorta reminds me of the new ATX 3.x standards for PSUs. The manufacturers of the newest PSUs claimed they were struggling to stay within the ±5% allowed tolerances on the +12VDC rail. Note that ±5% tolerance had been the accepted industry standard for decades - with the vast majority of PSUs staying within those limits across a full range of loads.

12VDC ±5% equates to a range from 11.4VDC to 12.6VDC and still be acceptable.

However, now the tolerance for +12VDC was been relaxed to -7% up to +5%. This allows the +12VDC to drop as low as 11.16VDC and still meet published ATX standards. 2% for 0.24V may not seem like much but it is significant - especially when dealing with super high-density ICs like processors and memory modules.

The change was made, apparently, because the manufacturers claimed it, all of a sudden after decades of meeting the ±5% standard, would significantly increase the cost to design and manufacture PSUs capable of maintaining output voltages within those tolerances. :confused: :kookoo:

So, instead of sticking to the decades-old standard, the ATX consortium of PSU makers (that's right, they set their own standards) decided to weaken their own standards! :( A classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse, if you ask me.

Why does this matter? Well motherboards, CPUs, GPUs, RAM, and every other component that relies on a good, clean solid +12.0 VDC may now have to deal with, and compensate for, a lower voltage. If this 11.16V is encountered, for example, the regulator circuits will be forced to work harder (and generate more heat) to compensate. In other words, the PSU makers are passing the buck for their inadequate ability (willingness!!!) to "supply" proper power.

So is AMD doing the same thing here? That is, they cannot meet specs so instead of going back to the design table, they change the specs? IDK but it smells like it. :(

Something to think about.
 
Top