Why everyone say Zen 5 is bad ?

[Darkholm]

AMD PR and Marketing blows this opportunity with this "power savings". 65W vs 105W TDP on previous CPU gen.
I really do hope 9900X (120W TDP) and 9950X (170W TDP) will unleash true power of Zen5 out of the box. Then we could see those 15-18% uplift.

Those 9600X and 9700X should be badged as non-X models. X should be 105W TDP. Or maybe we can expect 9650X/9600XT and 9750X/9700XT in near future with higher TDP.

 

[Zazigalka]

I think it's a really good cpu, but I get the disappointment of people who bought AM5 for the upgrade path.... On am4 upgrading zen1 to zen2 and zen2 to zen3 was a lot better, without the need to wait for the premium x3d versions. It might turn out that the only CPU that's actually worth replacing a 250-300eur 7700 non-x will be a 450-500eur 9800x3d. I don't suppose that's how people who went the 1800x-3800x-5800x route imagined their upgrade path would look, especially after AMD showed IPC +15-20% up on slides.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

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

View attachment 357935

100% but most people who were looking at this cpu probably don't care as much about gaming performance and just want a decent 8 core that is not intel otherwise people could have had this general level of performance for a long time now..... I do find it kinda funny that people look at 170w numbers and go look see it isn't bad.... Yet intel have offered a similar wattage part with similar MT performance for 2 years now and that wasn't ok lol smh........

I thinks it's a really good cpu, but I get the disappointment of people who bought AM5 for the upgrade path.... On am4 upgrading zen1 to zen2 and zen2 to zen3 was a lot better, without the need to wait for the premium x3d versions. It might turn out that the only CPU that's actually worth replacing a 250-300eur 7700 non-x will be a 450-500eur 9800x3d. I don't suppose that's how people who went the 1800x-3800x-5800x route want their upgrade path to look.

My bar was just beat the raptor lake i5 conclusively in gaming/MT I don't feel that is a high bar considering that architecture has been around for 2 years now.....

These parts are replacing parts that have been out for 2 years now even at 88w or whatever is the default it should easily outclass the 7700X at a min..... Even if you just look at gaming vs a 5800X3D it isn't very impressive and the 5950X out does it in MT at 140w while this sucks down 170w so no metric I look at can make me go geez these cpus are good for someone.... Maybe that is harsh but no company that puts this out as it's top mainstream sub 400 usd product should get a pass.

 

[AusWolf]

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

I just ran a test - my 7700X gets 19027 points in CB R23 at 105 W TDP (142 W PPT), and 17258 at 65 W TDP (88 W PPT). That's a 10% performance loss with a 61% power reduction.

I have to add, games rarely eat 88 W on this CPU, so the gaming performance loss is way lower than this (if there is any at all).

100% but most people who were looking at this cpu probably don't care as much about gaming performance and just want a decent 8 core that is not intel otherwise people could have had this general level of performance for a long time now..... I do find it kinda funny that people look at 170w numbers and go look see it isn't bad.... Yet intel have offered a similar wattage part with similar MT performance for 2 years now and that wasn't ok lol smh........

If you just want a decent 8 core that isn't Intel, then a 7700 non-X will do fine. I've got nothing against the 9700X being "just a decent 8-core", but it's too expensive for that kind of recommendation.

Edit: I'm only comparing gaming because that's what I'm interested in. Having both a 7700X and 7800X3D, paying more for Zen 5 seems to make zero sense from my perspective.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

If you just want a decent 8 core that isn't Intel, then a 7700 non-X will do fine. I've got nothing against the 9700X being "just a decent 8-core", but it's too expensive for that kind of recommendation.

I mostly meant that if this was a better product that is the target market...... Now I don't really know who this cpu is good for after reviews I definitely couldn't recommend it.

Even the 7900X3D a cpu I don't really like I would rather have than this shite at around the same price. I much rather have the 7800X3D and even the old 7700X at a 60-70 usd discount sounds more appealing.

 

[AusWolf]

I mostly meant that if this was a better product that is the target market...... Now I don't really know who this cpu is good for after reviews I defiantly couldn't

Even the 7900X3D a cpu I don't really like I would rather have than this shite at around the same price. I much rather have the 7800X3D and even the old 7700X at a 60-70 usd discount sounds more appealing.

Same here. If you're a gamer, get a 7800X3D. If you just want a decent 8-core, get a 7700 non-X. The 9700X seems to be in no man's land in terms of target audience. I guess it'll change when Zen 4 is phased out.

Edit: Am I the only one feeling nostalgic? Intel quad-core era, anyone?

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Edit: I'm only comparing gaming because that's what I'm interested in. Having both a 7700X and 7800X3D, paying more for Zen 5 seems to make zero sense from my perspective.

I do a lot of builds for non gamers so this cpu being meh is a disappointment to me. I am starting to think being stuck at 2000mhz for the IF is likely the real culprit for the poor performance.

Edit: Am I the only one feeling nostalgic? Intel quad-core era, anyone?

Don't give me nightmares bruh we don't need another half decade of that shite.......

 

[JWNoctis]

I do a lot of builds for non gamers so this cpu being meh is a disappointment to me. I am starting to think being stuck at 2000mhz for the IF is likely the real culprit for the poor performance.

I find that quite probable. Some back-of-envelope calculation puts 2000MHz IF at a maximum theoretical bandwidth to 64GB/s. That's quad-32-bit-channel DDR5-4000? Not surprising anything much above that would be pointless, and even less if it damages timing in pursuit of clock.

For a while I thought Zen 5 would go 1:1 IF:memclk. I should have known that to be impossible, not with the same IOD.

Don't give me nightmares bruh we don't need another half decade of that shite.......

It's rule of three for me; If they do Zen 6 and it's still this, then...I'd know when I get there.

 

[chrcoluk]

Zen 5 seems solid for me, AMD have managed to improve performance at the same time as lowering TDP.

I guess the doom mongers, only consider performance as the metric to bother with.

The biggest issue now is if AMD end up becoming a new Nvidia, as right now they basically competing with themselves, that will only lead to ever increasing costs for an AMD platform, the market needs Intel to recover so we can benefit as consumers from healthy competition.

Also logically its best to not upgrade from gen to gen, for people on AM4 its a compelling upgrade.

I am interested when the new boards come out and to see if memory compatibility issues get improved.

 

[AusWolf]

Zen 5 seems solid for me, AMD have managed to improve performance at the same time as lowering TDP.

I guess the doom mongers, only consider performance as the metric to bother with.

Also logically its best to not upgrade from gen to gen, for people on AM4 its a compelling upgrade.

I disagree. There is very minimal (if any) application performance uplift without PBO, and with PBO, power consumption and heat are through the roof. Gaming performance improvement is non-existent either way.

 

[chrcoluk]

I disagree. There is very minimal (if any) application performance uplift without PBO, and with PBO, power consumption and heat are through the roof. Gaming performance improvement is non-existent either way.

Are we looking at the same review? 30C drop in load temps compared to 7700X and a 50W reduction in power consumption on multi core testing.

I personally wouldnt use PBO anyway as its just throwing away efficiency for small gains.

 

[JWNoctis]

The biggest issue now is if AMD end up becoming a new Nvidia, as right now they basically competing with themselves, that will only lead to ever increasing costs for an AMD platform, the market needs Intel to recover so we can benefit as consumers from healthy competition.

Meanwhile, in another related market, AMD still needs to put up a more credible threat to Nvidia so it would stop doing the very same thing you feared.

For a for-profit company, failing to take full advantage of the situation is fiscal irresponsibility. Shame it is the customer who in the end feel the effect and foots the bill.

 

[Carillon]

Are we looking at the same review? 30C drop in load temps compared to 7700X and a 50W reduction in power consumption on multi core testing.

I personally wouldnt use PBO anyway as its just throwing away efficiency for small gains.

Look at the 7700 non-X, that's the closest match

 

[AusWolf]

Are we looking at the same review? 30C drop in load temps compared to 7700X and a 50W reduction in power consumption on multi core testing.

I personally wouldnt use PBO anyway as its just throwing away efficiency for small gains.

Sure, but you can do the same by putting a custom TDP (ECO mode) on the 7700X, or by getting a 7700 non-X, and end up paying way less.

Like I said above, a 65 W TDP (88 W PPT) gives my 7700X a 10% MT performance loss with a 61% reduction in power usage.

Look at the 7700 non-X, that's the closest match

Exactly.

Why AMD gave a 65 W part an "X" designation is beyond me... Wait, it isn't. It's for markleting, to be able to say how much power they saved compared to the 7700X, even though they didn't compared to the non-X.

 

[chrcoluk]

Sure, but you can do the same by putting a custom TDP (ECO mode) on the 7700X, or by getting a 7700 non-X, and end up paying way less.

Like I said above, a 65 W TDP (88 W PPT) gives my 7700X a 10% performance loss with a 61% reduction in power usage.


Exactly.
Why AMD gave a 65 W part an "X" designation is beyond me... Wait, it isn't. It's for markleting, to be able to say how much power they saved compared to the 7700X, even though they didn't compared to the non-X.

I think AMD made a good choice, started to get sick of performance everything at the expense of everything else.

Ultimately your DIY 65W chip will of course be slower than the 9700X doing the same thing at stock.

Also that this chip is not a giant jump in performance, is good news for you, your existing chip will now stay relevant for longer.

I know my view isnt the dominant one, just I found this new gen refreshing with what AMD prioritised.

I kind of did this with my 2600X and also now my 5600G, killed XFR for huge gains in efficiency. The 2600X I disabled XFR fairly quickly, and 5600G I didnt even give XFR a chance.

 

[AusWolf]

I think AMD made a good choice, started to get sick of performance everything at the expense of everything else.

I agree. It's just that there's the 7700 non-X which makes the 9700X irrelevant, imo.

Ultimately your DIY 65W chip will of course be slower than the 9700X doing the same thing at stock.

Yes, by about 10% in Cinebench MT, and around 3% in gaming with a 4090 at 720p. Not to mention, the 7700 non-X is not a "DIY chip", and is even cheaper than the X.

Also that this chip is not a giant jump in performance, is good news for you, your existing chip will now stay relevant for longer.

Oh for sure, I'm not complaining at all.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Why AMD gave a 65 W part an "X" designation is beyond me... Wait, it isn't. It's for markleting, to be able to say how much power they saved compared to the 7700X, even though they didn't compared to the non-X.

It's not beyond me. 65W spec is all this chip needs, considered it will still fail to beat Raptor Lake's P-cores across all benchmarks even when power uncapped. Zen 5 seems very focused on AVX-512, and everything that benefits from wide registers. IMO, its greatest achievement is what no one talked about until now: actually sustainable true 512-bit AVX engine that doesn't chug a billion watts

 

[chrcoluk]

I agree. It's just that there's the 7700 non-X which makes the 9700X irrelevant, imo.


Yes, by about 10% in Cinebench MT, and around 3% in gaming with a 4090 at 720p. Not to mention, the 7700 non-X is not a "DIY chip", and is even cheaper than the X.


Oh for sure, I'm not complaining at all.

I didnt consider the standard 7700, we will have to wait and see how the 9700 fits in or if they will even release a standard 9700 (it might be the intention for the X to replace it now, which would be I guess a kind of stealth price increase which AMD can afford to do with them being the current top brand).

 

[N/A]

Asking a $100 premium for a 4/6nm node and not being a native 16-core is bad.
An $80 6 core would be fine against a 12400F. and 8 core is pretty much useless for most users. let alone asking $360 for it.
Considering that the 4nm ZEN5 6nm IOD die is expected to face the entirely built on 3nm ARL-S plus some SKUs on 2 nm. (very soon, we'll see)

 

[Launcestonian]

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

View attachment 357932

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.


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

View attachment 357935

One game engine, that's nice. Too bad I have no interest in that game.

 

[iameatingjam]

Apparently there's a lot of room to improve performance by increasing power and overclocking. But I understand why they are doing it this way... just look at intel.

People always say they miss they days when they went into the bios to increase performance and not decrease it. Well, here you go.

 

[AusWolf]

One game engine, that's nice. Too bad I have no interest in that game.

I picked the example that shows the biggest difference. I wanted to do the same with the 7700X-9700X comparison, too, but there was nothing.

Apparently there's a lot of room to improve performance by increasing power and overclocking. By I understand why they are doing it this way... just look at intel.

People always say they miss they days when they went into the bios to increase performance and not decrease it. Well, here you go.

That's one way to look at it. At least PBO does something now, and you don't have to run at 95 °C with a midrange cooler out of the box.

 

[3DVCash]

and 8 core is pretty much useless for most users.

Are you posting from the 2030s?

 

[kapone32]

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.

Yep I guess KitGuru are AMD shills. Give me a break. Objectively speaking this is no different than the 1700/2600 change. The difference of course is no 3.0 to 4.0 on PCIe but they are cheaper and more OC than 7600X just like the 2600 vs the 1700. Right now these are just MB drop ins anyway.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Yep I guess KitGuru are AMD shills. Give me a break. Objectively speaking this is no different than the 1700/2600 change. The difference of course is no 3.0 to 4.0 on PCIe but they are cheaper and more OC than 7600X just like the 2600 vs the 1700. Right now these are just MB drop ins anyway.

Where the hell did that publication come from in this argument? I say you give us a break.