AMD Zen 5 rumours

[Bencher]

Exactly this.

The first 16 core mainstream CPU was the 3950X.
R23 score: 24,050

5950, again 16 cores.
R23 score: 28,600 (+19%)

7950X, again 16 cores
R23 score: 38,700 (+35%) or vs 3950X +60%

It looks like the 9750X? is 16 cores again but another 35% jump, so....
R23 score: 52,250 (+35%) or vs 3950X +117%

So since 2019, and in 3 generations we have increased performance by 117%, more than doubled it, that is not stagnation, anyone who thinks that is stagnation needs to think again i don't think we have ever seen that level of generation performance upgrade in that length of time, at least not since the last time AMD was pushing technology forward.

And i think we can all agree that increasing per-core performance higher is far better than just adding cores.

That only aplies to the high end. In the most popular 300 euro price point it's an absolute poop show. The 5600x was slower than the 3700x and the 7600x is barely any faster in MultiThreading performance. That's worse than Intel's worst years actually, lol.

How much did we get in 3 generations, 10%?

 

[jigger]

That only aplies to the high end. In the most popular 300 euro price point it's an absolute poop show. The 5600x was slower than the 3700x and the 7600x is barely any faster in MultiThreading performance. That's worse than Intel's worst years actually, lol.

How much did we get in 3 generations, 10%?

Remember when Intel was selling 8-10 cores for £1800? ‘‘Twas a pretty bad time, that Intel hope’s to see return. £180 per core seems laughable today.

 

[humbug]

That only aplies to the high end. In the most popular 300 euro price point it's an absolute poop show. The 5600x was slower than the 3700x and the 7600x is barely any faster in MultiThreading performance. That's worse than Intel's worst years actually, lol.

How much did we get in 3 generations, 10%?

Intel's chip's, especially in the low end are pretty decent. you can get some good chips from Intel for little money.

I'm not going to argue with that and i will say AMD need to do better.

Having said that, looking forward, remember what i said about increasing per-core performance being far better than adding cores, well it looks like in the short term at least all Intel are doing is keep piling on those half cores to match AMD MT score in Cinebench.

 

[jigger]

Intel's chip's, especially in the low end are pretty decent. you can get some good chips from Intel for little money.

I'm not going to argue with that and i will say AMD need to do better.

Having said that, looking forward, remember what i said about increasing per-core performance being far better than adding cores, well it looks like in the short term at least all Intel are doing it keep piling on those half cores to match AMD MT score in Cinebench.

I was impressed with the 40watt i7 versions of Skylake at £70~ and 10~ watts per core.

Now Intel offer chips pulling close 8x the power that are people are barley able cool.

 

[Bencher]

Intel's chip's, especially in the low end are pretty decent. you can get some good chips from Intel for little money.

I'm not going to argue with that and i will say AMD need to do better.

Having said that, looking forward, remember what i said about increasing per-core performance being far better than adding cores, well it looks like in the short term at least all Intel are doing is keep piling on those half cores to match AMD MT score in Cinebench.

I agree that st performance is more important, and it's the main reason people upgrade their cpus. The problem is you can only get so much improvement in ST per year. It's much easier to up the number of cores and get a huge improvement. That's kind of what intel is doing right now and we end up with some very completing products in the 200-300 price spot.

 

[Bencher]

I was impressed with the 40watt i7 versions of Skylake at £70~ and 10~ watts per core.

Now Intel offer chips pulling close 8x the power that are people are barley able cool.

Uhm, what? Intel offers 24 cores at 35w (13900t). You can buy that if you are interested in out of the box efficiency, since it's the most efficient cpu on planet earth. Wtf are you talking about? If you buy an unlocked CPU that is pushed to 300w you can't complain that it draws 300 watts, that's what it was meant to do,lol

 

[jigger]

Uhm, what? Intel offers 24 cores at 35w (13900t). You can buy that if you are interested in out of the box efficiency, since it's the most efficient cpu on planet earth. Wtf are you talking about? If you buy an unlocked CPU that is pushed to 300w you can't complain that it draws 300 watts, that's what it was meant to do,lol

I said remember when Intel was selling 8-10 cores for £1800.

I fell for the promise of the 12700t once. Never again. I take it you haven’t yet.

 

[Bencher]

I said remember when Intel was selling 8-10 cores for £1800.

I fell for the promise of the 12700t once. Never again. I take it you haven’t yet.

This is an amd thread, please don't fill it with your Intel hatred. Go post your stuff on Intel threads.

Eg1. And yes I have used the 12900 at 35w. Insanely good cpu, scored 15k in cbr23 at 35 watts. Very efficient

 

[jigger]

This is an amd thread, please don't fill it with your Intel hatred. Go post your stuff on Intel threads.

Eg1. And yes I have used the 12900 at 35w. Insanely good cpu, scored 15k in cbr23 at 35 watts. Very efficient

I don’t hate Intel though. It’s your own bias that’s the reason you can’t hold a conversation and people take what you post with so much salt.

 

[Bencher]

I don’t hate Intel though. It’s your own bias that’s the reason you can’t hold a conversation and people take what you post with so much salt.

Of course you do, lol

 

[humbug]

I agree that st performance is more important, and it's the main reason people upgrade their cpus. The problem is you can only get so much improvement in ST per year. It's much easier to up the number of cores and get a huge improvement. That's kind of what intel is doing right now and we end up with some very completing products in the 200-300 price spot.

ST has been pretty good so far


3950X: ST, 1371
5950X: ST, 1644 (+20%)
7950X: ST, 2072 (+26%

9900K: ST, 1284
10900K: ST 1382
11900K: ST 1686 (+22%)
12900K: ST 1997 (+19%)
13900K: ST 2231 (+12%)

ST on the 9750X is probably another 25%, so 2600.

14'th gen as i understand it is another refresh trying to push much past 6Ghz, so 5.8Ghz to 6.4Ghz, 10%, so ST 2450. and a boat load of more half cores, another 8 to bring it to 24 of them.

15'th gen might be a new core, it will need much higher IPC to avoid falling behind AMD, or do they think they can get 8Ghz?

Zen 6 is probably yet another complete rework.

Everything is moving at break-neck speed, these are good times. its the 1990's - early 2000's all over again, its good, its all good.

 

[FredFlint]

ST has been pretty good so far


3950X: ST, 1371
5950X: ST, 1644 (+20%)
7950X: ST, 2072 (+26%

9900K: ST, 1284
10900K: ST 1382
11900K: ST 1686 (+22%)
12900K: ST 1997 (+19%)
13900K: ST 2231 (+12%)

ST on the 9750X is probably another 25%, so 2600.

14'th gen as i understand it is another refresh trying to push much past 6Ghz, so 5.8Ghz to 6.4Ghz, 10%, so ST 2450. and a boat load of more half cores, another 8 to bring it to 24 of them.

15'th gen might be a new core, it will need much higher IPC to avoid falling behind AMD, or do they think they can get 8Ghz?

Zen 6 is probably yet another complete rework.

Everything is moving at break-neck speed, these are good times. its the 1990's - early 2000's all over again, its good, its all good.

You just keep comparing the high end, hardly anyone gets high end CPU’s. The low-end CPU’s have more impact for base line PC performance. Historically, the low-end CPU/GPU per generation uplift felt bigger and cheaper than the high end. This was good as the highest % of the user base got the most benefit. AMD has cut the chips down and reduced clocks but kept the price high so the high-end chip offer the best value, and they are also saying they can produce them cheaper at the same time due to chiplets. Seems they have forgotten the users that pulled them out of the fire.

 

[humbug]

You just keep comparing the high end, hardly anyone gets high end CPU’s. The low-end CPU’s have more impact for base line PC performance. Historically, the low-end CPU/GPU per generation uplift felt bigger and cheaper than the high end. This was good as the highest % of the user base got the most benefit. AMD has cut the chips down and reduced clocks but kept the price high so the high-end chip offer the best value, and they are also saying they can produce them cheaper at the same time due to chiplets. Seems they have forgotten the users that pulled them out of the fire.

Yeah i agree, i alluded to it with @Bencher

Product segmentation, its nothing new, if a Ryzen 7600 has the same per core Mhz as the 7700X then they will result identical performance in all most all games, so you're not buying either of those CPU's for MT, its for gaming, be that as it may why would you buy the 7700X over the 7600 if they are the same in what you do want them for.

One of the best budget gaming CPU's you can buy right now is the i5 13400, £200 and it has 6 P-Cores, great.... but its locked to 65 watts.
Compare that with the £300 13600K, also 6 P-Cores, that's 125 watts, i like the 13400, i think its a great little chip for £200, better than anything AMD have for £200. that being the 7600.
But its also deliberately segmented, that 65 watt cap artificially strangles it in a lot of games compared with the more expensive 125 watt 13600K.

Intel also have CPU's like the 13100, 4 P-Cores and about £120, another CPU that i'm impressed by, perfect for a casual gamer with an old RTX 2060 they picked up for £140 somewhere.
AMD don't have anything like that, there is no sub £150 Zen 4. What a shame, well that's less sales for them then...

In the context of this i used the high end to make the point about generational advancement over the years, you have to compare apples to apples and that needs to be the highest end

 

[Bencher]

Yeah i agree, i alluded to it with @Bencher

Product segmentation, its nothing new, if a Ryzen 7600 has the same per core Mhz as the 7700X then they will result identical performance in all most all games, so you're not buying either of those CPU's for MT, its for gaming, be that as it may why would you buy the 7700X over the 7600 if they are the same in what you do want them for.

One of the best budget gaming CPU's you can buy right now is the i5 13400, £200 and it has 6 P-Cores, great.... but its locked to 65 watts.
Compare that with the £300 13600K, also 6 P-Cores, that's 125 watts, i like the 13400, i think its a great little chip for £200, better than anything AMD have for £200. that being the 7600.
But its also deliberately segmented, that 65 watt cap artificially strangles it in a lot of games compared with the more expensive 125 watt 13600K.

Intel also have CPU's like the 13100, 4 P-Cores and about £120, another CPU that i'm impressed by, perfect for a casual gamer with an old RTX 2060 they picked up for £140 somewhere.
AMD don't have anything like that, there is no sub £150 Zen 4. What a shame, well that's less sales for them then...

In the context of this i used the high end to make the point about generational advancement over the years, you have to compare apple to apples and that needs to be the highest end

You can remove power limits on all cpus btw.

 

[humbug]

You can remove power limits on all cpus btw.

With a budget motherboard?

 

[Bencher]

With a budget motherboard?

Yes. I don't know if every mobo can do it but most can. I had a power unlimited 1090k on a 40 euros mobo

If you mean the vrms not being good enough you won't have an issue in games, I don't think a 13400 even completely unlimited will pull more than 80w in games.

 

[humbug]

Yes. I don't know if every mobo can do it but most can. I had a power unlimited 1090k on a 40 euros mobo

If you mean the vrms not being good enough you won't have an issue in games, I don't think a 13400 even completely unlimited will pull more than 80w in games.

That's fair enough, you realise why i asked, i would not consider this a valid argument if the capable motherboard costs as much as the CPU, or more.

again, fair enough....

 

[Bencher]

That's fair enough, you realise why i asked, i would not consider this a valid argument if the capable motherboard costs as much as the CPU, or more.

again, fair enough....

I agree, but in this case you really need to buy something terrible to have a vrm issue, assuming you don't put the power limit to 200w and try to run prime95 you should be fine.

 

[humbug]

I agree, but in this case you really need to buy something terrible to have a vrm issue, assuming you don't put the power limit to 200w and try to run prime95 you should be fine.

I dislike power virus apps like that, and i used to use them, i was one of those people who used to bark "its not stable unless you run SmalFT for at least 24 hours straight"
And then found my system NOT STABLE after running SmalFT for 24 hours, because they don't stress the CPU's range of functions, its literally just a tool to boil your CPU for a whole day for no sense or reason.

 

[FredFlint]

Yeah i agree, i alluded to it with @Bencher

Product segmentation, its nothing new, if a Ryzen 7600 has the same per core Mhz as the 7700X then they will result identical performance in all most all games, so you're not buying either of those CPU's for MT, its for gaming, be that as it may why would you buy the 7700X over the 7600 if they are the same in what you do want them for.

I would be surprised if anyone buys a 7700X over a 7600X for a small frequency bump, think they probably want the extra cores and the ones that don’t know the hardware just see 7700 is bigger than 7600. The frequency drop might be to do with silicon quality.