Why everyone say Zen 5 is bad ?

[SL2]

For those who want power efficiency and don't care about any other metric these cpu's are pretty decent.

I'm surprised you didn't mention overclocking, 25 % faster in CB23 is not expected.

AMD can never get it right lol...

AMD launches Ryzen 7000.
"You're milking every Hertz out of it for nothing! It runs too hot! Zero overclocking potential!!!"

AMD launches Ryzen 9000.
"It's weak and boring! Add more juice! My head hurts!"

AMD launches mobile Ryzen 7000.
"Idiotic names, we need a decoder to figure it all out??!"

AMD launches mobile Ryzen ÄÏ 300.
"Go fuck yourselves, I hate the ÄÏ's!11"

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I'm surprised you didn't mention overclocking, 25 % faster in CB23 is not expected.

View attachment 357904

AMD can never get it right lol...

AMD launches Ryzen 7000.
"You're milking every Hertz out of it for nothing! It runs too hot! Zero overclocking potential!!!"

AMD launches Ryzen 9000.
"It's weak and boring! Add more juice! My head hurts!"

AMD launches mobile Ryzen 7000.
"Idiotic names, we need a decoder to figure it all out??!"

AMD launches mobile Ryzen ÄÏ 300.
"Go fuck yourselves, I hate the ÄÏ's!11"

That would be very impressive if all aspects were uplifted by 20+% but even then at 170w I find it pretty meh a 13600K is ball park in MT while consuming similar power and is almost 2 years old at this point I didn't care for a 170-180w part at that performance tier 2 years ago I surely don't care for it in 2024..... Again lucky for AMD intel is currently having issues.....

 

[mäggäri]

I'm surprised you didn't mention overclocking, 25 % faster in CB23 is not expected.

View attachment 357904

AMD can never get it right lol...

AMD launches Ryzen 7000.
"You're milking every Hertz out of it for nothing! It runs too hot! Zero overclocking potential!!!"

AMD launches Ryzen 9000.
"It's weak and boring! Add more juice! My head hurts!"

AMD launches mobile Ryzen 7000.
"Idiotic names, we need a decoder to figure it all out??!"

AMD launches mobile Ryzen ÄÏ 300.
"Go fuck yourselves, I hate the ÄÏ's!11"

*yawns in under 40k pathetic*

I wish one day AMD would make significantly faster products than others. Seems like that day never comes. Pathetic wattage even when tuned with 7000-series GPUs vs those 4000-series from nvidia. Some Russian "efficiency" there with 7900GRE/XT/XTX, sky high watts

pröööööööt

 

[JohH]

Trolls are like "Wow, AMD sucks!"
The 7800X3D is still the fastest gaming processor. They must've forgot that's also by AMD. Cheaper and more efficient than Raptor Lake S 8P+16E. Its teething issues were fixed in two weeks instead of still unresolved after 2 years.

 

[SL2]

That would be very impressive if all aspects were uplifted by 20+% but even then at 170w I find it pretty meh a 13600K is ball park in MT while consuming similar power and is almost 2 years old at this point I didn't care for a 170-180w part at that performance tier 2 years ago I surely don't care for it in 2024..... Again lucky for AMD intel is currently having issues.....

You were obviously talking about "those", as in not yourself, so I just added to that list. I'm not trying to sell you anything.

I'm just saying that we didn't see that kind of overclocking performance in any benchmark the last time.

 

[3DVCash]

Meh. I certainly wouldn't say it's "bad" but it doesn't really move the needle. If you wanted this level of performance, it's been available for 2 years now.

And the pricing is just not competitive with its own 7000 products.

 

[mäggäri]

Trolls are like "Wow, AMD sucks!"
The 7800X3D is still the fastest gaming processor. They must've forgot that's also by AMD. Cheaper and more efficient than Raptor Lake S 8P+16E. Its teething issues were fixed in two weeks instead of still unresolved after 2 years.

nope it's not fastest, Intel best fps/w when UV&OC ez ram 8000mhz c28 247

I have both, 7800x3d and 13600k, and Intel wins everytime, in everything. Just learn to use correctly and no need to use 1.5x stock Vcore lol. With 1.2V comes efficiency that AMD can only dream of. Was proven already with 13900k vs 5800x3d in Derbauer's video.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

You were obviously talking about "those", as in not yourself, so I just added to that list. I'm not trying to sell you anything.

I'm just saying that we didn't see that kind of overclocking performance in any benchmark the last time.

I watched every review and honestly thought about it for 4-5 hours before actually coming to a conclusion on how I felt about 9000 series to this point.

Is it a terrible product, nope, but it definitely isn't for me. I am also disappointed with the general performance uplift after 2 years.

Just for context I have owned every generation of Ryzen since 2000 and this might be the first I skip.... Every previous generation offered me something worth owning..... I hope the 9000X3D parts are way more impressive I already have a board in the closet for one if so.


Now we have to wait for Arrow Lake to pass judgement on how bad these chips are..... AMD did not set the bar very high for intel I will just say that....

 

[Gucky]

The 9700X is simply named wrong.
It should have been named the 9700 without an X.

And that price is not good. AMD has their own 7700 as a direct competitor.
In Germany the 9700X is 400€, the 7700 is 220€ without cooler (tray). Double the price for <15% more performance.
Even the 7900X, 7800X3D and 7900X3D are cheaper...

I have both, 7800x3d and 13600k, and Intel wins everytime, in every thing. Just learn to use correctly and no need to use 1.5x stock Vcore lol

Depends on the game. Some prefer the cache, some prefer the higher clockspeed of Intel.

 

[R0H1T]

nope it's not fastest, Intel best fps/w when UV&OC ez ram 8000mhz c28 247

And when it kills itself after the "extended" warranty expires or better still Dell expires it for you? Maybe you can hang the 8000Mhz c28 memory alongside that expensive Z790 mobo as a keychain albatross around your neck

 

[esserpain]

IMO, Zen 5 is far from bad - it's just not interesting unless you put in work overclocking. AMD's focus this time around was in the server market, and that's fine IMO. The real problem was AMD's marketing, but that's business as usual. They really need to rein that in sooner rather than later, though.

Really, I think the efficiency gains are the biggest story here. Those are genuinely impressive since we're getting around the same to slightly more gaming performance as compared to before. But that's more of a theoretical improvement for the enthusiast market, and it becomes more interesting to people who like deep-dives into CPU architectures. That is, it's more of an engineer's curiosity than anything else.

But even as compared to the efficiency bumps on desktop, Strix Point still has an edge in the laptop market. I truly think people need to pay more attention to that side of the story. Having a genuine competitor to Apple's M-series that isn't a shoddy attempt at ARM is a huge deal.

 

[AusWolf]

Personally, I'm not saying that it's bad. It's just not exciting compared to Zen 4. The 9700X isn't just as fast as the 7700X in gaming, but its gaming power consumption is similar as well. As a 7700X V2, it's fine, but as a torch bearer of a new generation, it's underwhelming, that's all.

 

[JWNoctis]

I must say, I'm beginning to feel that vibe of "manufactured consensus," knowing that everything everyone write here and elsewhere would probably be trained and distilled into the next generation of LLMs, so that when you ask your next favourite AI assistant the same question, say, six months from now, they'd respond with something, like, "Zen 5 did not represent a significant generational performance increment over the previous generation, and failed to match the performance of competitor's existing parts at release."

It'd be sufficiently RLHFed to not outright lead with "Zen 5 is bad," yes.

The 9600X/9700X looked interesting. Now I just wonder how much the carried-over IOD and IF infrastructure might be bottlenecking performance for memory-intensive applications and whether an improvement there would do good.

 

[thesmokingman]

I must say, I'm beginning to feel that vibe of "manufactured consensus," knowing that everything everyone write here and elsewhere would probably be trained and distilled into the next generation of LLMs, so that when you ask your next favourite AI assistant the same question, say, six months from now, they'd respond with something, like, "Zen 5 did not represent a significant generational performance increment over the previous generation, and failed to match the performance of competitor's existing parts at release."

It'd be sufficiently RLHFed to not outright lead with "Zen 5 is bad," yes.

The 9600X/9700X looked interesting. Now I just wonder how much the carried-over IOD and IF infrastructure might be bottlenecking performance for memory-intensive applications and whether an improvement there would do good.

No way!

 

[AusWolf]

I must say, I'm beginning to feel that vibe of "manufactured consensus," knowing that everything everyone write here and elsewhere would probably be trained and distilled into the next generation of LLMs, so that when you ask your next favourite AI assistant the same question, say, six months from now, they'd respond with something, like, "Zen 5 did not represent a significant generational performance increment over the previous generation, and failed to match the performance of competitor's existing parts at release."

It'd be sufficiently RLHFed to not outright lead with "Zen 5 is bad," yes.

The 9600X/9700X looked interesting. Now I just wonder how much the carried-over IOD and IF infrastructure might be bottlenecking performance for memory-intensive applications and whether an improvement there would do good.

I don't know about any consensus. I just looked at the graphs in the TPU review and formed an opinion. I didn't read or watch any other review, I didn't even read any comments anywhere.

 

[Ruru]

Because it lacks cores.

That was a good one. Luckily InHell has as much as 8 high-performance cores.

What is wrong with everyone dumping on CPU that is clearly better than previous one ?

I guess that people were waiting for a similar uplift as like with Zen2 -> Zen3 or Zen3 -> Zen3 X3D or something.

 

[Hyderz]

What surprises me is that limitation has been put in place, I thought x CPUs should have higher tdp but the 9700x is limited to 65w

 

[SL2]

Nice overclocking.

 

[eidairaman1]

Marketing pulled a fast one on us by focusing on IPC. According to Gamers Nexus's review, clocks might be lower than Zen 4 in all core workloads. An IPC uplift with reduced clocks is in line with the results that we see.

Pulling an Athlon K6, Athlon XP, Athlon 64 out of their hat

I kind of frustrated with this.

I get that for example 9700X is on par with performance of 7700X, however is it REALLY enough to claim Zen 5 is "DOA" or "Bad" ?
My point is, it's doing that with lower clock, since all core 9700X = 4480MHz vs. 7700X = 5190MHz, AND a lot lower power usage (9700X = 88W vs. 7700X = 148W).
Relevant tables from GN video :
View attachment 357853
View attachment 357854

What is wrong with everyone dumping on CPU that is clearly better than previous one ?
This is similar situation to Core 2 Duo E6300 vs. Pentium Extreme Edition 965 (just not as extreme, since we have very different pricing, but that's just future for you).
Everyone clearly knows which one is better of the two, even if both have similar performance :

So, WTF reviewers ?
From what I see, the only bad part about those new AMD CPUs is price, but that will be adjusted later (as always).
Also, I would love to see overclocking performance and power increase associated with it, however (I guess ?) early BIOSes/AGESA aren't stable enough for it ?

Lastly, I'm really afraid of everyone always expecting performance jumps of 20-25% between generation, when frequency scaling is TOUGH on higher end of the scale. Intel clearly shown where limits of that scale lay (both now, and in Pentium 4 days), and what are consequences of pushing blindly for frequency increases. Seeing frequency regression is really good, when paired with similar performance vs. other stuff.
We really don't need more frequency wars (neither on CPUs, nor on GPUs), and there is more to good CPU than just performance vs. previous gen.

The secret is to run the hardware you want and not care what everyone else thinks

 

[Dr. Dro]

I think we are seeing who Intel's gives the most sponsorship money. It is very crazy how some of them are so negative.

Or just maybe they aren't religiously devoted to AMD and actually state things objectively for what they are.

Hardware Unboxed has an especially good track record on this regard.

 

[Launcestonian]

They jump to these negative conclusions based on early bios revisions & even chipset driver maturity. Remember how when Zen 4 first came out & then subsequent bios revisions improved its performance? its the same old game again here too. I'll be getting on Zen 5 asap - 16 threads is nice for gaming in 2024.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Or just maybe they aren't religiously devoted to AMD and actually state things objectively for what they are.

Hardware Unboxed has an especially good track record on this regard.

This is all on AMD honestly....

First mistake: power limits aren't realistic vs the outgoing 7700X

Second mistake: Being vague with reviewers about what performance they should expect.

Third mistake: Showing only best case scenarios in their marketing slides I get that most hardware makers really fudge this but past cpu launches from amd have been pretty ballpark.

Fourth mistake: If this is the best you got don't hold back X3D chips and lower the 9600/9700X a tier in pricing that way they will be compared to previous gen chips a tier lower and actually look favorable.

 

[Pumper]

I get that for example 9700X is on par with performance of 7700X, however is it REALLY enough to claim Zen 5 is "DOA" or "Bad" ?
My point is, it's doing that with lower clock, since all core 9700X = 4480MHz vs. 7700X = 5190MHz, AND a lot lower power usage (9700X = 88W vs. 7700X = 148W).

Compare it to 7700 non-X, and Zen5 loses it's only advantage. If you are interested in the lower power draw in low temps, just save yourself the money and get a 7600, 7700 or a 7900 (a 12 core that is using less power than the 8 core 9700X, is faster than overclocked 9700X in rendering, and is the same price as 9700X).

It's because it doesn't leave Raptor Lake in the dust and the gains over Zen 4 tend to range from non-existent to minor. People are way too caught up with raw performance numbers and seem to forget what's imo most important - this little chip performs amazing while keeping the watts very low. It gives me Core 2 vibes. I'm very impressed.

Zen4 already did that with eco CPUs, so it's a non-achievement. That's the problem.

I think it should be pretty obvious that AMD will be releasing higher TDP XT variants in 2025 as a refresh.

 

[AsRock]

As somebody mentioned in the other thread, the 9700x has the same TDP as the 7700 non-X. And it's not much better!
If you limit the 7700x to the same TDP it will have the same efficiency as the 7700 non-X.
All the efficiency improvements of the 9700x vs the 7700x are just because it's sitting on a more sane point on the voltage/frequency curve, and the small node advancement.

But when you do that to the 7700X it looses performance. Just people not being happy with power savings is all.

Although would be nice to see a 7750X with a 140w or if they tried it or not.

 

[AusWolf]

They jump to these negative conclusions based on early bios revisions & even chipset driver maturity. Remember how when Zen 4 first came out & then subsequent bios revisions improved its performance? its the same old game again here too. I'll be getting on Zen 5 asap - 16 threads is nice for gaming in 2024.

No, it's not the same. This is from the original 7700X review here on TPU:

There was a massive gaming performance uplift compared to Zen 3, which we're not seeing here. Zen 4 was crapped all over because of platform issues like long boot times, which did get sorted with later BIOS versions. The performance was fine. Now, with Zen 5, performance is not fine, which I highly doubt that later BIOS versions will improve.

First mistake: power limits aren't realistic vs the outgoing 7700X

Unfortunately, power limits don't solve the lack of gaming performance improvement. Other than that, I agree.