• 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 5 rumours

Tbf a £115 Asrock B650 HDV would do that chip proud, only PCIE 4.0 but half the price of E boards.

Looks a good board for the money, I'm going to get her a Strix X650E-F board. I used this board for my sons build at Christmas and was really happy with it, it's as good as my board. I'm going to sell her 3800x, X570 TOMAHAWK board, ram and use the the money towards her new board.
 
According to Geekerwan on bilibili (via @9550pro on X), AMD is going to resolve the Zen 5 CCD-to-CCD latency issue. The fix will not come in the form of new hardware steppings but a BIOS update. This suggests that AMD did indeed launch the Ryzen 9000 before the software was fully baked.
 
Ugh, this is ******* reporting.

The person who wrote the original core-core latency test, Ian Cutress while he was at Anandtech, has said that these results rarely if ever directly apply to performance. He tested them because it was interesting to see how the architecture works and what it's potential weaknesses were. People testing them now, e.g. Chips and Cheese, have re-iterated the same thing. It's interesting, but not likely the cause of "lacking performance".

Sure, there may be some workloads under corner cases that benefit by resolving this, but this is not going to miraculously give this processor a 10% performance improvement. If it does it'll be under specific circumstances and not be a general performance uplift.
 
Last edited:
there may be some workloads under corner cases that benefit by resolving this
I suspect many of these workloads could be found in modern games. Games just started to utilise more than 8 cores. And there is a lot of inter-thread communication there

Normal multicore loads, your video encoding and rendering tasks, barely exchange data between threads. Start on a chunk of work, give it back when done. Won't even notice this latency increase

I'm glad that AMD thinks this is fixable. Secretly hope that SMT thread latency increase would be fixed too.
 
Over on HardwareLuxx.de, Andreas Schilling has been busy:
Also tested KB5041587 on Win 11 23H2 and Zen 3 3D. Yes Ryzen 5800X3D seems gains.
In fact, possible the biggest gains if my spreadsheet is correct (looking at their min scores - not the less useful avg FPS):
YhHzlev.png

Actually excluded the Intels has there was no with and without Patch, if I do:
CAOWGfp.png

If even a 9600X can outperform the i9-14900K while using a fraction of the power? Well Intel might as well go home? Certainly explains why they cranked up the power so much with the 14th gen.
 
If even a 9600X can outperform the i9-14900K while using a fraction of the power? Well Intel might as well go home? Certainly explains why they cranked up the power so much with the 14th gen.

Outside of gaming there is a vast gulf between the 14900K and 9600X in application performance and with the kind of settings and resolutions people are realistically running even with a 4090 there is hardly any difference between any of these CPUs in gaming as things stand.

Which is why my money is on the 14700K as it is rarely more than a hair behind the top tier CPUs while costing a lot less.
 
Outside of gaming there is a vast gulf between the 14900K and 9600X in application performance and with the kind of settings and resolutions people are realistically running even with a 4090 there is hardly any difference between any of these CPUs in gaming as things stand.

Which is why my money is on the 14700K as it is rarely more than a hair behind the top tier CPUs while costing a lot less.

It's pretty amusing :cry: will be better with future GPU releases that will be faster

Loving how the 5800x3d is performing for such low power consumption what a gaming beast got mine for £200 over a year ago
 
Outside of gaming there is a vast gulf between the 14900K and 9600X in application performance and with the kind of settings and resolutions people are realistically running even with a 4090 there is hardly any difference between any of these CPUs in gaming as things stand.

Which is why my money is on the 14700K as it is rarely more than a hair behind the top tier CPUs while costing a lot less.

People won't be buying 6 cores for productivity
 
Opps, wrong column used for the AvearageIfs in my spreadsheet.
That was Avg FPS not Min FPS, this is Min:
ytPdzlx.png

Seems to be a couple of anomalous results for the 14700K in there - one the lows are really bad and definitely not correct which is pulling down the overall mins and in another case they seem to have the 14900K and 14700K results switched around.
 
People won't be buying 6 cores for productivity

Point being if they stripped out the 14900K it would probably still giving comparable gaming performance while also having much lower power consumption with comparable application performance to the 9600X...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom