The slide where amd says it's 47% faster than the 12900k is running stock setting - at stock the 7950x can't exceed 220w. The slide where AMD says it's 62% faster than 12900k is where they have overclocked the 7950x by enabling PBO and this will increase the power draw beyond 220w
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD to unveil Zen 4 CPUs at CES 2022
- Thread starter Cromulent
- Start date
- Status
The slide where amd says it's 47% faster than the 12900k is running stock setting - at stock the 7950x can't exceed 220w. The slide where AMD says it's 62% faster than 12900k is where they have overclocked the 7950x by enabling PBO and this will increase the power draw beyond 220w
Isn't the 12900k around 240w so how is 240 vs 220 equal power usage as stated in the slide.
Soldato
Just ignore AMDs slides the same way you should ignore Intels. It’s looking good but let’s wait for third party/customer tests. Some of the bar charts are the usual hilarious marketing from the big companies.
Caporegime
The 5900X is 133 watts.
TDP is Thermal Design Power, it is simply a guide to manufactures for cooling requirements, what it is not is a measure of power consumption, having said that its physics, when energy is used it does not simply disappear into the aether, it is converted in to another form of energy, in this case heat and 1 watt of energy used is converted in to 1 watt of heat, so a 100 watt CPU requires a 100 watt cooler to keep it at a constant temperature, the efficiency or inefficiencies of said cooling dictate what that temperature is, if you put an 80 watt cooler on a 100 watt CPU the temperature will never reach equilibrium, it will keep getting hotter and hotter....
AMD, contrary to what Steve Burke says, calculate that about as correctly as one can, there is inevitably some assumption involved in the calculation, for example one must assume the efficiency of the case cooling, which can vary hugely, so you see there is no proper way to do it, i'm looking at you Steve Burke.
However AMD's is about as close as you can get, certainly is much much closer than Intel, who really do take the pee with the fact that a TDP rating is not a measure of power consumption, looking at you again, Steve Burke.
So with all of that said if AMD say its around 170 watts, and it is only an approximation, then its around 170 watts, roughly.
Associate
@Gibbo you able to give any indication as to when pre-orders will go up or will it be a case of All x670 and 7000 series just go live on the 27th September
7600X + V-cache would be pretty cool. Can't quite see it happening though (CPU cache is expensive to produce).
V-cache in general is just looking unaffordable for all but the high end market.
5800X launch pricing was just too high for many, same story with the 7700X (but they priced it a bit lower cause of it being named 7700X, not 7800X).
V-cache in general is just looking unaffordable for all but the high end market.
5800X launch pricing was just too high for many, same story with the 7700X (but they priced it a bit lower cause of it being named 7700X, not 7800X).
Caporegime
Core count on its own is not relevant, 10 years ago most people didn't think 8 cores was worth $140.
The 8 E cores in a 12900K are useless in gaming, worse than useless, if the game uses them you get all kinds on nasty performance stuff going on.
Its about the right balance, because in the here and now you can't make 2 cores as fast as 8 Zen 3 cores you have to use 8 Zen 3 cores, if you want a faster CPU than that you can either add 4 more cores, in which case you end up with a 5900X, or you make those 8 cores as fast as you can, faster than your previous generation core.
So if you can get you 8 core to be as fast as your previous generation 12 core that's better than just adding those 4 cores and rebadging it the 7700X, because you get higher per core performance, which from a consumer perspective is good in multiple ways, and good from AMD's point of view because the CPU is still only as big as, well, an 8 core.
So if the performance is there, then yes its worth it, if not, then no, its not.
Yup but the prices came down a lot for 8 cores, for Zen 3.
Maybe they could release an 8 core '7700' (non X), that would sit more comfortably with me.
Many would prefer pricing of £300-£350 for an 8 core, but AMD can charge more for a year or so, so they definitely will, to recoup their investment in Zen 4 on 5nm EUV.
Maybe they could release an 8 core '7700' (non X), that would sit more comfortably with me.
Many would prefer pricing of £300-£350 for an 8 core, but AMD can charge more for a year or so, so they definitely will, to recoup their investment in Zen 4 on 5nm EUV.
Caporegime
I paid £440 for my 5800X, that was full price at the time.
AMD have a problem now, that problem is in the form of Intel, with them around spoiling AMD's party they can't charge £440 for a 5800X, so they no longer do.
They have made the calculation that they can charge £400 for the 7700X, the 12700K is currently £420.
If you don't think its worth it, then you buy the blue one, if everyone does the same then AMD will think again about that price.
My personal view, i don't know yet, i do think the price is steep, but, AMD are not competing with themselves, i mean there is an alternative and AMD's job, just as it is Intel's, is to make their products as attractive as they can, for as much return on their investment as they can so they can keep reinvesting in to R&D to make better things for us, again the same goes for Intel.
This is one of the things that i get a little annoyed about, its a flaw of mine, i know, if we want them to keep developing shinier things we have to be reasonable to them, both AMD and Intel.
Caporegime
Agreed.
Atleast it's cheaper than the 5800X at launch but is still a $100 mark up over the 5700X which is quite a steep increase for generational upgrade although the naming don't really mean anything for AMD CPUs and it may as well be a 5800X replacement due to the TDP.
Its interesting that the 7600X is now going to be a 105w part, we went from the 1600X, 2600X and 3600X being 95w then came the 5600X at 65w and now the 7600X at 105w so it does seem a little all over the place although atleast the price is staying the same as the 5600X (which was already high) it will no doubt lose the box cooler so that will be an additional cost for buyers.
I do think that AMD should really have had a 65w part at release and a cheaper SKU like a 7600 price at around $240 would have fit the bill and provided a reasonable entry level to AM5 ecosystem. There is no excuse this time for just 4 SKUs at release as 5nm isn't being used for consoles so supply should be much better so let's hope we don't have to wait a year this time for some cheaper parts.
So regarding the amd EXPO thing, it sounds like Intel XMP ddr5 kits will still work. And at least at first there will be XMP kits with higher frequency than EXPO kits.
So why use EXPO then? It seems like those kits are pre validated for AMD configurations and that may be why the frequencies are lower - they may be lower but you have a gaurantee that you will achieve the advertised speed if your board and zen4 was tested for it where as XMP isn't gauranteed and even voids an Intel CPU's warranty (thanks Intel).
The other thing with EXPO is that it's designed to be one click configuration in windows; for example Corsair is integrating it into icue so you can just stick your new ram kit in, boot up the pc, open icue and press the expo button and now it's running overclocked. Corsair also says icue will allow application profiles, so you can have the memory automatically change its frequency and timings based on what you want for each app, game etc
So why use EXPO then? It seems like those kits are pre validated for AMD configurations and that may be why the frequencies are lower - they may be lower but you have a gaurantee that you will achieve the advertised speed if your board and zen4 was tested for it where as XMP isn't gauranteed and even voids an Intel CPU's warranty (thanks Intel).
The other thing with EXPO is that it's designed to be one click configuration in windows; for example Corsair is integrating it into icue so you can just stick your new ram kit in, boot up the pc, open icue and press the expo button and now it's running overclocked. Corsair also says icue will allow application profiles, so you can have the memory automatically change its frequency and timings based on what you want for each app, game etc
This might be quite relevant as some DDR5 Adata Caster modules can do 7000 MT/s (but are sold as DDR5 6400 modules - XMP3.0 support, but no EXPO support).
On the other hand, if the IMC can only be ran at 3000mhz or less, it won't be beneficial to go above this in most cases.
I suppose you could run these modules at 6000 MT/s with a Zen 4 CPU, then increase it to 7000 MT/s if the IMC is improved with Zen 5.
Should I presume that XMP3.0 won't be supported on any AM5 motherboards?
It ought to be possible to just copy the XMP3.0 timings in the BIOS to get the same performance and stability, correct?
On the other hand, if the IMC can only be ran at 3000mhz or less, it won't be beneficial to go above this in most cases.
I suppose you could run these modules at 6000 MT/s with a Zen 4 CPU, then increase it to 7000 MT/s if the IMC is improved with Zen 5.
Should I presume that XMP3.0 won't be supported on any AM5 motherboards?
It ought to be possible to just copy the XMP3.0 timings in the BIOS to get the same performance and stability, correct?
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 2,509
I can’t begin to stress how bad of an idea this is. But good luck…
I agree but not specifically for any technical reasons but simply for usefulness. I can't think of a situation where personally would want different frequency and timings in different applications. The only use case I can think of is laptops - being able to have the ram overclocked when gaming and go down to stock when not gaming in order to save battery life since the higher frequencies require higher voltage.
Soldato
He is a giant Intel fan boy. Half the info he talks about is salt without substance and yeah they ran SAM because they have it. Otherwise you might as well say, "hey turn off your Velocity boost Intel, AMD don't have that!" etc. The point is using what is there with what it comes with out box.
Edit: With that said I thought the side of things from AMD was pretty average. The price of the 7600x and 7700x was too much, especially the 7700x which is about $100 more because of the different time release but if they had stuck to$299 for the 7700x and dropped the 7600x to around $239 that would have been much more palatable. Nice to see a drop for the 7950x compared to the 5950x.
I do think AMD are segmenting their product stack too much. Hopeful come Zen5 they drop the separation of 3D Cache and just have a single product stack tbh.
Edit: With that said I thought the side of things from AMD was pretty average. The price of the 7600x and 7700x was too much, especially the 7700x which is about $100 more because of the different time release but if they had stuck to$299 for the 7700x and dropped the 7600x to around $239 that would have been much more palatable. Nice to see a drop for the 7950x compared to the 5950x.
I do think AMD are segmenting their product stack too much. Hopeful come Zen5 they drop the separation of 3D Cache and just have a single product stack tbh.
- Status