What? The 7950x has less wattage per core and as a result it will have less mt clockspeeds. It doesnt have more headroom but less.7950X has 65 Watts more headroom vs the 7700X, and a cited boost of 5.7Ghz.
The 7700X is cited at 5.4Ghz, it seems to be doing that MT in Cinebench, not saying the 7950X will do 5.7Ghz MT, but holly poo....
-
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 "Zen 4" thread (inc AM5/APU discussion) ***
- Thread starter 4K8KW10
- Start date
By this argument each CDD in the 5950X would run at 2.325Ghz and only score about 16,000. Given it has the same 105 watt TDP.
The 5800X runs at 4.65Ghz MT Cinebench at 120 watts measured at the EPS rails
The 5950X runs at 4.0Ghz MT Cinebench at 120 watts measured at the EPS rails
The 5800X runs 16% higher MT clocks for the same 120 watts, the reason for that is a combination of things, efficiency losses in the power rails, decreasing returns for power to Mhz ratio, the IO die amounts to about 20 watts of that, the 5950X gets the best quality chips, they are binned for power efficiency.
And that doesnt change the fact that what you said is wrong, the 7950 doesn't have more headroom in terms of tdp but less. Whether or not it will make up for that with binning we dont know.
It wont come even close to a 5.7 all core boost. Actually id be amazed if it even hits 5
Its 170 watts vs 105 watts.
10 watts of the TDP is probably the IO die.
That gives you:
160/16 = 10 watts/core for 7950X
95/8 = 11.875 watts/core for 7700X
Not taking into account possible better binning for the 7950X
I said all this to him on post #623, he's completely ignored it....
So you agree with me it has less tdp headroom than the 7700x. Thanks I guess
BTW its 105w for 7700x,but doesnt matter you proved me right even at 95w
Semantically yes - 7700x has more tdp headroom - a whole 1.875 watts/core
It is however a negligible amount that better binning is more than likely capable of overcoming
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 9,918
- Location
- Poland
So, anyone with a 5800X or 5900X looking to upgrade soon?
I have a 5900X and likely will be skipping AM5 and waiting for AM6. It still feels like I upgraded not so long ago so don’t have the itch. Would like to wait and go for another 12 core CPU in 3-5 years time that will at least double single core and multi core performance. As long as things don’t stagnate again I can see us getting there in 5 years or less.
Weird how it goes. I love upgrading my GPU at least once per gen, yet don’t feel the same way about the CPU. My Intel 4770K lasted around 7 years
I have a 5800X and feel no need to upgrade at all, everything i run gets smashed by it and my 6800XT, holding out for another year or two and quite happy to
At 120 Watts if you take off 20 watts for the IO die:
Each 8 core CCD in the 5950X is pulling 50 watts at 4.0Ghz
The 5800X has one 8 core IO die, its pulling 100 watts at 4.65Ghz, 16% higher clocks for 100% more power per CCD, there are a number of reasons for this that i have already cited.
This time the 16 core SKU gets 65 watts more power headroom.
Each 8 core CCD in the 5950X is pulling 50 watts at 4.0Ghz
The 5800X has one 8 core IO die, its pulling 100 watts at 4.65Ghz, 16% higher clocks for 100% more power per CCD, there are a number of reasons for this that i have already cited.
This time the 16 core SKU gets 65 watts more power headroom.
I purposely excluded 10w from both the 105w and 170w, to try and account for the IO die that will be consistent between the two
Thats a 20% difference and I don't think binning can close such difference. I mean how much wattage does the 5950x consume to match the clockspeeds of a 5800x?Semantically yes - 7700x has more tdp headroom - a whole 1.875 watts/core
It is however a negligible amount that better binning is more than likely capable of overcoming
@Bencher one other thing to keep in mind, with negative curve tweaks i can get my CCD to pull about 85 watts at 4.65Ghz in R23, if i then push it up to 4.85Ghz its pulling 100 watts, that's 15 watts for 200Mhz. that's 4.5% more Mhz for 17.5% more power. that's about a 4 to 1 power to Mhz ratio, its well outside its comfort zone.
If you multiply the 16% by that 4 to 1 ratio you arrive at 64, that's 36 percentage points short of the CCD efficiency, which is how much more power efficient the CCD's are in the 5950X vs my 5800X, that's binning.
If you multiply the 16% by that 4 to 1 ratio you arrive at 64, that's 36 percentage points short of the CCD efficiency, which is how much more power efficient the CCD's are in the 5950X vs my 5800X, that's binning.
If you just think about that ^^^^ for a minute its obvious.
Thats manual tuning though and not stock voltage. Anyways, we will see, i just dont think the 7950X will match let alone surpass the 7700x mt clockspeeds. Im clueless about tsmc 5nm but still 5ghz all core for 16 cores sounds more like a miracle to me than reality, even at the increased 170 wattage.
I never said it would, i said "if" but i certainly think its very possible, actually plausible.
Wait a min, you can't argue the manual tuning and not stock after all the rubbish you posted about how Intel is more efficient when everyone stated they were talking about stock and you kept saying about manual tuning. Pick a lane and stick to it.
However it was funny in this context because the whole conversation to start with and the overhead (or not). Not sure why you would be surprised to see 5ghz all core though. You can get 4.7Ghz on the current 5950x so it doesn't seem unreasonable to get the extra 300mhz for the 7950x at the extra 65watt no?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 0
The CB SC score is 5.5 water cooled. Platform is quite temp sensitive again.
So i was 100Mhz out... that is then an 8% IPC gain, that rumour was correct.
Deleted member 209350
D
Deleted member 209350
Why don't AMD just use their X3D chips for all their processors? The technology is there and proven, not sure what the point is releasing regular version of their chips when they can just have the X3D versions of all of them