• 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) ***

Grandmaster Fap! said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

Yep. I feel that even if I go get to a stage where a lot of games are being bottlenecked, it is usually at the higher fps range which I am not as bothered about. As long as I can get at least 60 fps then I am happy to wait for that magic number which for me is doubling in single core performance :D
 
ZP9 said:
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
Click to expand...

The extra cache only makes a difference for gaming.

Personally IMO what AMD did here is quite clever, by working on clock speeds they have managed to make them competitive in MT work loads, while keeping the size and cost down, on top of that with these huge clock boosts they should be quite good at gaming even without the extra cache.
 
Curlyriff said:
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?
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing the contexts. Also intel is more efficient in most workloads at STOCK. No tuning. On top of that, there is a difference between power limiting and manually changing the voltage. The first is fine for stock comparisons since you are using the stoxk voltage curve, the second can lead to instability. But thats offtopic so lets leave it at that.

You can get 4.7 ghz on the 5950x but not at 105w but at 200++. So the 7950x doesnt have 65w more. It has 65w more compared to a 5950x running at 3.9 (in cbr23). So you are saying that its expected with a 65w increase to get from 3.9 to 5 or more? Dunno, seens unreal to me but again, I don't know much about tsmc 5.
 
humbug said:
Oh not again, please....
Click to expand...
It fine I just put on ignore as can't be bothered with the rubbish posted. But that person is wrong about the figures. My 5950x at 100watt does 4.1Ghz stock anyways. It limited by TDC and EDC prior to even getting to 105watt. And turning PBO it pulls 160watt to get 4.5Ghz. Again EDC is limiting factor on this.

So I stand by the fact the new cores are going to be more efficient per core than current gen based on info so getting to say 4.5Ghz at 100watt and 4.7Ghz at 160watt etc. 5.0Ghz at 200watt should be no problem on PBO then. In fact I expect it probably over.
 
I think they should do 5Ghz quite easily, at that the 7950X would score 35,000 R23.

26,000 + 8% IPC = 28,080 + 25% Mhz (4.0 vs 5.0) = 35,100.
 
In fact lets go back to our 1:4 power to Mhz ratio.

62 /4 = 15.5%
32,500 + 15.5% = 37,537 < that's assuming every 1% higher clocks costs you 4% higher power, that's about worst case scenario.

We just keep arriving around that 38,000 mark.
 
Curlyriff said:
It fine I just put on ignore as can't be bothered with the rubbish posted. But that person is wrong about the figures. My 5950x at 100watt does 4.1Ghz stock anyways. It limited by TDC and EDC prior to even getting to 105watt. And turning PBO it pulls 160watt to get 4.5Ghz. Again EDC is limiting factor on this.

So I stand by the fact the new cores are going to be more efficient per core than current gen based on info so getting to say 4.5Ghz at 100watt and 4.7Ghz at 160watt etc. 5.0Ghz at 200watt should be no problem on PBO then. In fact I expect it probably over.
Click to expand...
The only rubbish posted is yours. You said the 5950x can do 4.7 ghz all core and that the 7950x has 65w extra tdp. Obviously thats wrong since the 5950x can't do 4.7 ghz at 105w. The 5950x does 3.9 all core in cbr23 at 105w, and the 7950x has an extra 65w tdp. Im saying I find it impossible to go from 3.9 to 5 with an extra 65w.

Putting me on ignore doesn't change the fact that your figures are wrong
 
@Bencher If Zen 4 has a 25% higher performance per watt vs Zen 3 what would a 16 core Zen 4 score in R23 at 105 watts? Given the 5950X scores around 26,000.
 
TNA said:
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 :cry:
Click to expand...
humbug said:
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.
Click to expand...
A 5800X will only run 4.4-4.5 at stock unless it's optimised.
 
I'm still running Skylake and like to 3D render occasionally so want the higher core counts. My thinking here, cost aside, is that we'll at least get a new chip option on the initial Zen 4 boards where RPL is one and done before ML.

I'll be realistically looking at a 7900X as a minimum. Everything else is gonna be a big upgrade anyway to support my 3080 so will be moving to PCIe 4 M.2 drives, new PSU, new case, new AIO etc. While I may be happy with it for as many years as I've had my 6700k system the option to get a bit more down the line without a whole system upgrade is appealing.

I will be building much a whole new system excluding GPU this time around though so it's gonna sting whatever I choose.
 
humbug said:
We don't know that yet.

The 13600K is rumoured to be $345, the 7700X is rumoured to be $299.
Click to expand...
The 13400 will match the 12600k in mt performance. If the price remains around 200-220 it will also match the 7700x in much lower price. Amd cant compete in MT performance at these low brackets
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom