At this point I'm waiting for good folks like you to do actual third-party reviews. Too much rumor mill nonsense floating around to give any of credit.
I hope AMD didn't go Intel temperature wise or that if they did you have enough margin to throttle it down to reduce temps
despite my 3x360mm custom loop the temps I get on a 12900k vs a 5950x are not acceptable to me 85-95° at 100% cpu usage vs 65-72°C on AMD, for lower scores in everything but pure gaming
8 days to go don't disappoint AMD !
This isn't real surprising.
AMD had some very odd picks for measurements on their presentation on "IPC", and about 4% of their score in Geekbench ST can be attributed to AVX-512.
Many of the comparisons like on videocardz were not using equivalent data, comparing the GB 'averages' for alder lake to Zen 4 on a $400 motherboard with $250+ memory. The 'average' Alder Lake is probably using DDR4-3200 C16 on a $200 motherboard, many scores are even on B660 or H610.
This shows up when you look at the GB charts and find the top 7950X ST score on page 100+. There are about 6000 results ahead of it, all Alder Lake rigs of varying degrees of tune / setup.
I'm sure Zen 4 will do better as more people learn to tweak their rigs and so on, but the people doing those Zen 4 submissions aren't newbies or average consumers either, nor are they using low end hardware.
The quoted temperature is pointless without knowing the ambient, the voltage, the cooling solution etc. my 3800x ran hot as a mofo when all the voltages and settings were at stock
Well, since Intel did share a slide touting that Raptor Lake is capable of operating at 6GHz at stock settings being the first CPU to do so I expect it will have an increase of performance over last gen and also AMD...
I have some questions like is 6GHz achieved on air cooling? because this would really be something and also will this speed will be available at the standard power mode?
I start to like Intel - there seems to be fresh air in their CPU division - gone are the refresh++ times which is good for them and also for us because we have two real competitors in the market and much to gain for us, consumers.
I also like the fact that they kept DDR4 memory support for low cost builds - this is new from them. AMD goes full on DDR5 and there is some market to stole from them here.
YAWN
i've been touting RL over AL since the launch of AL - intel fanboys please notice.
i've used many descriptors for AL, and they have all been proven true.
but there are far too many self-interested parties looking to score hits or likes which are far from impartial.
i will be highly interested in the reviews of both Ryzen 4 and RL.
but i'm far more interested at the 7900X3D than the 7900X as that would hit my productivity and gaming sweet spots.
regardless i'll be buying the desktop of one and the mobile of the other depending on the shakedown.
and btw...ddr 5 is selling at roughly the same price as ddr4 (depending on your love of bling) where i'm at.
it is in no way causing me sticker shock. HOWEVER, i'll not be buying PCIe 5.0 memory as the memory is backwards compatible...i typically use a small volume M.2 as boot anyway, so i will stick with small volume PCIe 4.0 and large volume PCIe 3.0 (for the cost savings)
This isn't real surprising.
AMD had some very odd picks for measurements on their presentation on "IPC", and about 4% of their score in Geekbench ST can be attributed to AVX-512.
AVX512 has only very small impact on GB5. 11900K was measured with +2% ST and +0% MT. And because Zen 4 is implementing 256-bit double pumping to support AVX512 the impact on Ryzen 7000 might be even smaller.
CPU-Z is simply a very bad benchmark to compare different processor families. It run very well on the original Ryzen, beating Skylake at the same clock speed. Then the CPU-Z devs decided to throttle down Ryzen. So they updated the benchmark engine with CPU-Z 1.79. Which is still the current benchmark engine. Since then it seems Ryzen runs weaker and weaker with every generation. Which means CPU-Z is highly affected by some architecture specifics that don't represent real world performance very well.
AMDs own slides showed that CPU-Z has only 1% higher performance compared to 5000 series if the clocks are the same.
So they have already warned us that CPU-Z benchmarking is not indicative of game or production performance.
AMDs own slides showed that CPU-Z has only 1% higher performance compared to 5000 series if the clocks are the same.
So they have already warned us that CPU-Z benchmarking is not indicative of game or production performance.
The CPU-Z benchmark doesn't seem to be indicative of anything as far as I'm concerned.
uncompetitive with intel? I dunno about that seems about right on the mark,the cpuz is being run at 5.2ghz via what appears to be a manual overclock with 5.2ghz on ccd 0 and 5.0 on ccd 1, an extrapolated score at ~5.8ghz(amd's claimed max single core boost) would put it a ~850 points.
[spoiler]
https://www.techpowerup.com/img/oAqlBXk9zUhToaTd.jpg
[/spoiler]
There's no pictures in the main post, attaching the picture below
5900X is around 680/10200 ST/MT on CPU-Z, how much of an improvement are we talking about? If i upgrade it's mostly for the multithreaded workload.
[SPOILER]
Well, since Intel did share a slide touting that Raptor Lake is capable of operating at 6GHz at stock settings being the first CPU to do so I expect it will have an increase of performance over last gen and also AMD...
I have some questions like is 6GHz achieved on air cooling? because this would really be something and also will this speed will be available at the standard power mode?
I start to like Intel - there seems to be fresh air in their CPU division - gone are the refresh++ times which is good for them and also for us because we have two real competitors in the market and much to gain for us, consumers.
I also like the fact that they kept DDR4 memory support for low cost builds - this is new from them. AMD goes full on DDR5 and there is some market to stole from them here.
For me, the big problem is not being forced to buy DDR5 memory, the big problem is the absurd prices of decent boards.
To make matters worse, intel based boards are also expensive as hell, even the ones that support DDR4...
There's no pictures in the main post, attaching the picture below
5900X is around 680/10200 ST/MT on CPU-Z, how much of an improvement are we talking about? If i upgrade it's mostly for the multithreaded workload.
[SPOILER]
[/SPOILER]
So MT 5.2ghz 7900x is roughly same as 6.2 / 4.2 RL.
Tho guessing 5.8ghz Ryzen should be near 900+ points st or something
We'll see...when these CPUs are actually selling and the NDA is removed. Thanks XenthorX for posting the bar chart! But I don't see a multi-core score there for the Intel CPU. The Intel CPU has been shipping for awhile now, with what should be mature bios versions, so we'll see what's what in a month or so. Most people are not going to buy a multicore CPU to run single-threaded software...so It's definitely premature to say that AMD "is not competitive". That doesn't seem supported by the data here, seems a bit premature.
I suspect Zen 4 is still a 4-wide design like Zen 3 and its predecessors. I bet the doubled L2 cache might be responsible for most of its IPC gains. But at least it does have AVX-512 now.
I bet the doubled L2 cache might be responsible for most of its IPC gains.
Why bet? AMD published a breakdown of the IPC improvements. The doubled L2 cache is only a small part of it. Most comes from the new front end and improved load/store and branch prediction.
[/SPOILER]