Why everyone say Zen 5 is bad ?

[igormp]

It's a complete downgrade over A620. And it will cost the same or more, as usual with AMD post Zen3.

Which part exactly is a downgrade?
But yeah, it'll likely be more expensive, which sucks.

 

[GoldenX]

Which part exactly is a downgrade?
But yeah, it'll likely be more expensive, which sucks.

If it doesn't validate PCIe 4.0 or 5.0, you will get the CPUs lanes, but at 3.0.
Welcome back to A320, now with DDR5.

 

[mkppo]

Yeah that B840 has no right to exist. Just..no

Could someone post a link to the article/video regarding Zen CPU BIOS settings (prefetchers, ...)? Thanks.


BTW, 9700X at 105W TDP shows 13.4% improvement over 9700X at 65W and 16.9% improvement over 7700X at 105W in Cinebench R23:
7700X @ 105W: 19 800 (baseline: 100% TDP, 100% perf.)
9700X @ 65W: 20 409 (-38% TDP, +3% perf.)
9700X @ 105W: 23 153 (+0% TDP over 7700X, +16.9% perf. over 7700X) (+61.5% TDP over 9700X 65W, +13.4% perf. over 9700X 65W)
This, indeed, shows that 9700X at 65W should have been released as 9700 without "X" as those models are always much more efficient.

MSI adds "TDP to 105W" mode for Ryzen 9700X and 9600X: up to 13% higher Cinebench performance - VideoCardz.com

MSI first to offer 105W TDP mode for 65W Ryzen 9000 SKUs The updated firmware adds an option to increase TDP over AMD specs. This feature is not officially provided by AMD but is available through the BIOS settings on MSI 600-series motherboards with the latest AGESA 1.2.0.1 firmware. The “TDP...

videocardz.com

This performance gain has nothing to do with branch branch prediction fix and bypassing VBS security. With those two issues fixed the results may be even better.

 

[Ayhamb99]

Zen5 is fine, too expensive compared to retail prices of Zen4.

The disgrace is the B840 chipset. Whoever pitched that should be fired and banned from the hardware industry for life.

I checked and just realised......... Didn't A620 support PCIE Gen 4??? How are they releasing a chipset with PCIE Gen 3 only in 2024 lol that's awful.

 

[chrcoluk]

Here.
View attachment 363680

Is this down to the new memory integrity default, or have Intel got their own scheduler improvements?

This whole thing is interesting, AMD initially trying to pass it all of as zen 5, then it turns out its older Zen as well, and now it seems Intel as well.

 

[Panther_Seraphin]

I checked and just realised......... Didn't A620 support PCIE Gen 4??? How are they releasing a chipset with PCIE Gen 3 only in 2024 lol that's awful.

Because of use case. What machines were the A620 mostly going into? Prebuilts for low end home PC/Office PCs.

Janice is going to know the difference between PCIE 3 and 4 while watching her 1080p antiques roadshow streams.......

 

[phanbuey]

Because of use case. What machines were the A620 mostly going into? Prebuilts for low end home PC/Office PCs.

Janice is going to know the difference between PCIE 3 and 4 while watching her 1080p antiques roadshow streams.......

Janice's kid might when he tried to play fortnite at max settings. We were all that kid once!

e-waste is inexcusable, no matter what the source.

 

[igormp]

If it doesn't validate PCIe 4.0 or 5.0, you will get the CPUs lanes, but at 3.0.
Welcome back to A320, now with DDR5.

I believe the slots that come from the CPU should still be 4.0 capable, like it has been with A620. I'm assuming that the PCIe 3.0 limitation applies to stuff coming out of the chipset itself, as it already was on A620.
I guess we need to wait for the actual launch to see if that's going to be the case, or not. It should be clear once AMD updates their spec page:

https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/chipsets/am5.html

That table that has been going around doesn't really make it clear about the distinction of lanes coming from the CPU and chipset lanes.

I checked and just realised......... Didn't A620 support PCIE Gen 4??? How are they releasing a chipset with PCIE Gen 3 only in 2024 lol that's awful.

No, the chipset itself was 8 lanes of PCIe 3.0. The 4.0 lanes were out of the CPU itself, which has nothing to do with the chipset.

 

[SL2]

Is this down to the new memory integrity default, or have Intel got their own scheduler improvements?

Purely speculating, but I think this have something to do with improving Spectre mitigation (possibly among other things), and that's why multiple generations and both brands are affected.
Those old patches did stop Spectre, but broke something else at the same time/worked less than optimal. This time around they've done it the right way, only took them 5 years lol.

This whole thing is interesting, AMD initially trying to pass it all of as zen 5, then it turns out its older Zen as well,

Seems more like those who tested didn't have the whole picture and used older results for older CPU's.

and now it seems Intel as well.

Well at least it's possible to see why AMD said at ONE POINT that the 9700X was on par with the 14700K in games. HUB shows that the difference between them now matches the improvement for the 14700K when using the 24H2.
Not that I defend AMD though, they should have figured this out by launch. Running different Windows versions is not a good idea (if that's what they did).

 

[Zach_01]

By avg in 42 games the 9700X was 5% behind a 14700K in gaming with 23H2
With 24H2 it’s down to 3%

 

[phanbuey]

By avg in 42 games the 9700X was 5% behind a 14700K in gaming with 23H2
With 24H2 it’s down to 3%

Slower in games and slower in productivity than a 14700k - which is basically the same in games as 13700k. There's a reason no one is buying these. I agree with the conclusion, get a 7700x or just wait for the 9800X3D.

 

[AVATARAT]

If I have to choose between 9700x and 14700k again, I'll choose 9700x again.
Cheaper, cooler, power efficient. With cheaper mobo, RAM and cooling will be the same in gaming.
And I'll just say it has a longer lifespan

And, see, I know what a tuned 14700k can do.

 

[phanbuey]

If I have to choose between 9700x and 14700k again, I'll choose 9700x again.
Cheaper, cooler, power efficient. With cheaper mobo, RAM and cooling will be the same in gaming.
And I'll just say it has a longer lifespan

And, see, I know what a tuned 14700k can do.

I mean it is a 2 year old design on 10nm vs a brand new design on 4nm. It shouldn’t be even close. The fact that it’s beating it is brutal.

at this point the productivity and gaming performance of 9700x is basically close to a 13600k - which is also a 2 year old $245 chip. I don’t think this is AMDs intention.

 

[AVATARAT]

I mean it is a 2 year old design on 10nm vs a brand new design on 4nm. It shouldn’t be even close. The fact that it’s beating it is brutal.

at this point the productivity and gaming performance of 9700x is basically close to a 13600k - which is also a 2 year old $245 chip. I don’t think this is AMDs intention.

Yes I agree, more of the same but at a lower price for those who haven't owned it yet.
If someone wants a few % better at everything - there are plenty of processors on the market.
When I jumped from 7000 to 9000, I just sold my old processor, added a few bucks and got the new one.
If you want to jump to Arrow Lake, you know, mobo+cpu+ram (camm2? ) for a few % more (eventually).
So if you're here to laugh at the 9000, be prepared to laugh a lot more when Arrow Lake is here

Some people like E-cores, others don't, in the end they can add maybe 1% to FPS, e.g. for gaming they are useless.
But for the Cinebench series they are top notch!
And I think you know it very well:

If someone wants more performance, there are much better processors.

 

[phanbuey]

Yes I agree, more of the same but at a lower price for those who haven't owned it yet.
If someone wants a few % better at everything - there are plenty of processors on the market.
When I jumped from 7000 to 9000, I just sold my old processor, added a few bucks and got the new one.
If you want to jump to Arrow Lake, you know, mobo+cpu+ram (camm2? ) for a few % more (eventually).
So if you're here to laugh at the 9000, be prepared to laugh a lot more when Arrow Lake is here

Some people like E-cores, others don't, in the end they can add maybe 1% to FPS, e.g. for gaming they are useless.
But for the Cinebench series they are top notch!
And I think you know it very well:
View attachment 363889
If someone wants more performance, there are much better processors.

I turned them back on now sitting back at 5.4 GHz - just wanted to see if i could hit 6GHZ (i couldn't )

I'm not here to laugh at all, i was excited about buying Zen 5 because right now Im still sitting with 75% usage on GPU and 150-100fps (min) on games (Cyberpunk crowded areas, and Remnant 2) @4k w/DLSS and the 7800x3d is already about to get replaced. I was severely dissapointed since i thought it would be like a 7800x3d with 7900x productivity on 1 CCD (I think alot of people thought this).

I got a new case and was ready to pull the trigger on an AM5 m-atx board... I think the fact that my lightly OC'd 13700K is beating all Zen 5 in gaming and matching the 9900X in most productivity apps is a generally bad thing - my ITX board is sitting in my MATX case waiting either for 9800x3d or arrow lake. And in the meantime I'm running HT OFF, E Core off benching with max clocks to see if I can push the gaming performance further.

I still don't think it's as bad of a launch as the 14th or 11th gen from intel (Lol) but it's one of the worst launches i've seen from AMD in a long time.

 

[SL2]

I mean it is a 2 year old design on 10nm vs a brand new design on 4nm. It shouldn’t be even close. The fact that it’s beating it is brutal.

at this point the productivity and gaming performance of 9700x is basically close to a 13600k - which is also a 2 year old $245 chip. I don’t think this is AMDs intention.

Isn't Intel 10 nm closer to TSMC 7 nm? Or something like that, don't remember. But yeah, there's still a gap there.

AMD makes chiplets that have to work in a lot of products, Intel went full throttle for a consumer only product. We all wanted 9000 to be better, but there's no way it would catch up with Raptor in everything without using a lot more power.

Then we had the AMD numbers that never came true.. The keynote was worse than the product, and just unreliable compared to previous ones.

 

[R-T-B]

Purely speculating, but I think this have something to do with improving Spectre mitigation

Considering 9000 series literally has these mitigations in hardware and doesn't really use the OS side ones, I really doubt it.

 

[SL2]

Considering 9000 series literally has these mitigations in hardware and doesn't really use the OS side ones, I really doubt it.

Soo, maybe MS changed it by removing/disabling mitigations for Zen5 if it wasn't needed? Just guessing.

 

[Zach_01]

Anyone saw this?

Latency drop from 180 to 75... Basically to 7000 levels

AMD Ryzen 9000 inter-core latency significantly reduced with new AGESA 1202 - VideoCardz.com

Intercore latency Ryzen 9000 issue has been reportedly resolved with new AGESA Latency has dropped from 180 ns to 75 ns. One of the issues with the Ryzen 9000 series, as discovered by reviewers, was the relatively high latency between cores. Up until AGESA 1.2.0.1, the latency was measured at...

videocardz.com

EDIT:
Oh yeah... missed it

AMD AGESA 1.2.0.2 Update Fixes Ryzen 9000 Series Inter-Core Latency Issues

According to new latest testing, the latest AGESA (AMD Generic Encapsulated Software Architecture) update, version 1.2.0.2, promises a significant boost in performance for AMD Ryzen 9000 "Zen 5" processors. This update is targeting one of the most crucial aspects of multi-core processing...

www.techpowerup.com