AMD Ryzen 7000 processor announcements (preview)

#6046717 Posted on: 08/30/2022 03:53 PM

---

reminder I run both a 5950x and 12900k computers currently
12900k got the 3090 and yesterday was an almost constant 830W@psu while playing "the ascent" max RT and all...in 1080p (+ video encoding)
to say you could feel the heatwave coming out of the case is an understatement, it's like a fireplace next to you

so I worry....I worry people aren't seeing what I see and that the TDP went from 105W to 170W a 62% increase, a TDP worse than the (fake) 125W TDP of the 12900k
I have no doubt amd is better : my 5950x with a heavy custom loop does 29k cbR23 at 72°C while 12900k barely does 28k but at 93+ a huge difference in cooling and generated heat
but the truth for having did many tests your usual reviewers don't like comparing both at fixed cpu clocks 3.5-4.0-4.5Ghz I know clock is the real heat and wattage problem of Intel not it's nanometers, a same clock Intel actually runs cooler than an AMD...with less performance of course that's where AMD shines clock for clock it's king

still reading 5+Ghz while knowing how much volts amd likes makes me fear for a furnace, I like my 5950x the generated heat/performance is the best I have ever seen in a computer
I hope AMD didn't go the Nvidia route hope I'm wrong

already checking X670 motherboards ^^ currently eying the Meg Ace "lucky me" all the top tier motherboards have the same huge design flaws Z690s had with a "cooler" almost touching the backplate (meaning if you use you gpu you will actively heat your m.2 or vrm block with hundreds of watts) of my current 380w gpu maybe more in the future, that's a huge no-go for me

#6046732 Posted on: 08/30/2022 04:37 PM

---

i will wait for Agners architecture guide.

#6046756 Posted on: 08/30/2022 05:49 PM

---

reminder I run both a 5950x and 12900k computers currently
12900k got the 3090 and yesterday was an almost constant 830W@psu while playing "the ascent" max RT and all...in 1080p (+ video encoding)
to say you could feel the heatwave coming out of the case is an understatement, it's like a fireplace next to you

so I worry....I worry people aren't seeing what I see and that the TDP went from 105W to 170W a 62% increase, a TDP worse than the (fake) 125W TDP of the 12900k
I have no doubt amd is better : my 5950x with a heavy custom loop does 29k cbR23 at 72°C while 12900k barely does 28k but at 93+ a huge difference in cooling and generated heat
but the truth for having did many tests your usual reviewers don't like comparing both at fixed cpu clocks 3.5-4.0-4.5Ghz I know clock is the real heat and wattage problem of Intel not it's nanometers, a same clock Intel actually runs cooler than an AMD...with less performance of course that's where AMD shines clock for clock it's king

still reading 5+Ghz while knowing how much volts amd likes makes me fear for a furnace, I like my 5950x the generated heat/performance is the best I have ever seen in a computer
I hope AMD didn't go the Nvidia route hope I'm wrong

already checking X670 motherboards ^^ currently eying the Meg Ace "lucky me" all the top tier motherboards have the same huge design flaws Z690s had with a "cooler" almost touching the backplate (meaning if you use you gpu you will actively heat your m.2 or vrm block with hundreds of watts) of my current 380w gpu maybe more in the future, that's a huge no-go for me
LMAO what are you bubbling about? My 12700K, 3080 OC system with 55" 4K TV and PC speakers, router connected to wall power monitor in total using ~400W when playing this game in 4K with RT. Yes 12900K is more power hungry than 12700K but not by much in games. And 3090 is like +100W tops over 3080. I call BS on this whole nonsense you posted.

#6046776 Posted on: 08/30/2022 07:46 PM

---

Yes, it's mostly just additional cache increases - the major changes stem from the iodie
Cache increase, new IO die, RDNA graphics, die shrink, DDR5, SIMDs bursting at the seams, etc - that's an incremental change to you? Sure, it isn't the same leap Zen+ was to Zen2, but it's more than a "tick" (if we use Intel's terms).

Many here seem to crave only the 3d cache versions but i don`t think they are anything special.

Sure, they offer a very nice performance bump when gaming, the only reason why i buy good hardware, but that increase becomens minimal when using real resolutions.

Even worse, the price difference between the "normal" versions and the ones with 3d cache is so big that for me is better to buy the cheaper CPU and use the difference to buy a better GPU.

This is just my opinion anyway.

As for the new line up, the 7700x seems perfect but it`s a little more expensive than i want and with the high prices of MBs, i`m asking myself if it`s worth the money.

The problem is that Intel is going to charge the same or even more...
A few counter-arguments:
1. For some, gaming is the only thing they really expect it to do. As I always say: buy what you need. Getting a 13900K or 7950X will likely yield similar performance to something like a 7800X3D yet you will pay a lot more and they'll be more power hungry.
2. Oddly enough, the general-purpose Linux performance was improved by the V-cache, yet gaming performance didn't see much improvement. So for Linux (and probably BSD) users, it might be a good overall upgrade.
3. The cache yields higher framerates despite lower overall clock speeds. While the chip does run hot, it should be able to maintain a more consistent clock speed. This is because, unlike highly-boosted non-V-cache CPUs, this isn't being pushed to the point of instability. I'd rather have a CPU that can more often reach it's maximum potential (or close to it) than one that loses a hefty percentage of its maximum performance under the same temperature.
4. How are you judging the price point? Because from what I recall, the 5800X3D is cheaper than the 5800X at MSRP. Granted, the 5800X was stupidly overpriced, but the point is the X3D model isn't too drastically more expensive considering it can often punch above its class.
5. If you care more about 4K@60HZ and max detail then yeah, spending less on the CPU and more on the GPU is a smarter choice.

Anyway, I agree that the cost of a whole upgrade is looking a bit unappealing. I certainly won't be an early adopter of AM5.

#6046784 Posted on: 08/30/2022 08:23 PM

---

The IO Die aren't CPU improvements though, more like updated northbridge. I'm not denying such changes of course but from the CPU improvements themselves, they are indeed iterative. What have we got? Increased TDP, clockspeed, increased cache and.... AVX-512?