Korranator
Member
See no reason to upgrade from my 13600k
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Zen5 Review Thread.
- Thread starter Leonidas
- Start date
Yes i know. I said it should have cost the same not $80 more.
Bojji
Member
I like how different can be results from 2 different reviewers using the same GPU:
But that's also medium vs ultra.
Overall 5800X3D is still the beast:
On par with stock 9700X.
Linus results are way higher vs other reviewers but he is using low settings in most games (he also is a shill for every company that pays well so...).
But that's also medium vs ultra.
Overall 5800X3D is still the beast:
On par with stock 9700X.
Linus results are way higher vs other reviewers but he is using low settings in most games (he also is a shill for every company that pays well so...).
marquimvfs
Member
There's no details about X3D yet
winjer
Gold Member
Considering how power efficient Zen5 is, it's likely it will use 65W.
Because the X3D parts have a cache blanket on top of them, it helps having lower power usage, to have better temps.
hinch7
Member
Doesn't even factor in PBO for the 5800X3D either which gives it a slight boost in performance. In either case, not that interesting of a release.I like how different can be results from 2 different reviewers using the same GPU:
But that's also medium vs ultra.
Overall 5800X3D is still the beast:
On par with stock 9700X.
Linus results are way higher vs other reviewers but he is using low settings in most games (he also is a shill for every company that pays well so...).
Will wait it out for DDR6. Thats when there will be a big boost for gaming.
twilo99
Member
65W with 7800x3d levels of performance would be amazing.
Paired with rdna4, or whatever they are calling it, you can build a very efficient system.. like, sub 550W total system power with minimal cooling efficient.
winjer
Gold Member
I like how different can be results from 2 different reviewers using the same GPU:
But that's also medium vs ultra.
Overall 5800X3D is still the beast:
On par with stock 9700X.
Linus results are way higher vs other reviewers but he is using low settings in most games (he also is a shill for every company that pays well so...).
That is normal to happen, as different reviewers will test in different areas of a game. Some will use FE cards, others will use AIB custom cards.
There can be differences in memory. Differences in the OS and the settings it uses.
Guilhermegrg
Member
marquimvfs
Member
Interesting takes, but a poor conclusion.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
After all the reviews here is my opinion:
1. It is VERY underwhelming performance-wise compared to Zen 4.
2. The power efficiency is quite impressive.
Should you upgrade if you already have a Zen 4?
Fuck no. If you have a 7800X3D or even a 7700X, there is simply no reason to even consider a 9700X. None. Save your money.
If you absolutely MUST shave down a few watts of power, you'd be better off buying a stronger power supply.
Who should buy Zen 5?
You might want to consider Zen 5 if you aren't already invested in the AM5 platform. In that regard it's fine...but a 7700X would likely still be a better buy.
If you are doing a mini-ITX build and you can only buy/fit a very low wattage power supply, where cooler size is a consideration and every watt matters then there is simply no better option. There is no a better power to performance option.
1. It is VERY underwhelming performance-wise compared to Zen 4.
2. The power efficiency is quite impressive.
Should you upgrade if you already have a Zen 4?
Fuck no. If you have a 7800X3D or even a 7700X, there is simply no reason to even consider a 9700X. None. Save your money.
If you absolutely MUST shave down a few watts of power, you'd be better off buying a stronger power supply.
Who should buy Zen 5?
You might want to consider Zen 5 if you aren't already invested in the AM5 platform. In that regard it's fine...but a 7700X would likely still be a better buy.
If you are doing a mini-ITX build and you can only buy/fit a very low wattage power supply, where cooler size is a consideration and every watt matters then there is simply no better option. There is no a better power to performance option.
Last edited:
winjer
Gold Member
Nice summary.
I would like to add, that I don't think these will sell very well and AMD will be forced to cut prices in a month or two.
Then it might make sense, compared to Zen4, mostly because of the gains in power efficiency. But only for new buyers. Anyone with Zen4, has no reason to upgrade.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
AMD absolutely needs to fire it's marketing/pricing team. They hyped this up and utterly failed.
If you want to build a mini-PC with one of those tiny GeForce 4060s, then a 9700X is the CPU to get.
I think AMD will likely let 7000 series CPUs sell out and then the prices of the 9000 series will drop.
Guilhermegrg
Member
The power efficiency looks impressive compared to the 7700X. Compared to the 65W 7700 it's about 10% better on average in multi threaded applications and less in gaming.
It's impressive in select applications, since the performance boost is very unevenly distributed.
winjer
Gold Member
Looking at Kitguru's review, makes me wonder if AMD has gone too far into the power saving camp.
At default, the 7700X runs at 5.1Ghz in Cinebench. But the 9700X runs at 4.7Ghz, because it's power constrained. So any IPC gains are negated by the lower clock speed.
But unleashing power usage, the 9700X runs at 5.25Ghz and it's score improves a lot.
Maybe AMD should have chosen a middle ground between power saving and clock speeds.
At default, the 7700X runs at 5.1Ghz in Cinebench. But the 9700X runs at 4.7Ghz, because it's power constrained. So any IPC gains are negated by the lower clock speed.
But unleashing power usage, the 9700X runs at 5.25Ghz and it's score improves a lot.
Maybe AMD should have chosen a middle ground between power saving and clock speeds.
Bojji
Member
Looking at Kitguru's review, makes me wonder if AMD has gone too far into the power saving camp.
At default, the 7700X runs at 5.1Ghz in Cinebench. But the 9700X runs at 4.7Ghz, because it's power constrained. So any IPC gains are negated by the lower clock speed.
But unleashing power usage, the 9700X runs at 5.25Ghz and it's score improves a lot.
Maybe AMD should have chosen a middle ground between power saving and clock speeds.
Yeah it gets decent uplifts in certain applications but in gaming gains are super minimal.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Leo basically said the same thing I did in this post.
Its not a BAD product. It's an underwhelming product, but has value for people not on AM5.
winjer
Gold Member
MSI's AM5 Exclusive Memory Try It & High-Efficiency Mode BIOS Feature Boost AMD Ryzen 9000 CPU Gaming Performance By Up To 10%
MSI's latest AM5 BIOS features deliver up to a 10% performance boost in gaming on AMD's Ryzen 9000 Desktop CPUs.
wccftech.com
Von Hugh
Member
They probably got spooked by the Intel's fiasco and wanted to play it safe (so that people like Leonidas won't get to say "but you guys have stability issues too").Looking at Kitguru's review, makes me wonder if AMD has gone too far into the power saving camp.
At default, the 7700X runs at 5.1Ghz in Cinebench. But the 9700X runs at 4.7Ghz, because it's power constrained. So any IPC gains are negated by the lower clock speed.
But unleashing power usage, the 9700X runs at 5.25Ghz and it's score improves a lot.
Maybe AMD should have chosen a middle ground between power saving and clock speeds.
Or then they are saving the higher performance and clocks for potential 9800X/9800X3D. I don't know.
Watched the HU 9600x it sucks. $280 for the same performance? No thanks. The 7600x for $200 is a lot better. Will continue to watch more reviews. AMD should have named these series Zen 4+. Same performance, better efficiency and same prices. Zen 5? What is AMD smoking?
Last edited:
marquimvfs
Member
That's why I said worst case scenario and, if you really think any professional rendering machine stays at idle like power consumption for long periods of any day I have a bridge to sell to you. Some neighborhood projects can take days to render on weaker machines and the workers have to rely on laptops or second desktops to keep working when the conpanies don't have rendering farms (generally that's the case). Reality is more in the middle ground and, yes, it does matter in the energy bill and yes, that cost alone is able to make up to some other minor bill in any company, like water bill, or internet. Hell, a single gaming pc here in Brazil that's used moderately is capable of affect a house energy bill, imagine 7 that are heavily used.
Last edited:
PeteBull
Member
7700 non x rather
hinch7
Member
I mean they could release a fixed Zen 5 with a refresh thats not so power limited. There has been reports from reviewers of crashes and AMD has recalled them prior so there could be issues with current design.
There's obviously something gone awry with this botched launch. Its giving me RDNA 3 vibes.
Last edited:
BlackTron
Member
It might seem dumb to all of us who are just used to a massive tower and bolting on whatever is necessary, but I look at it this way. AMD gave us extra "in advance" last gen. Now we have to "pay for it" by really just getting a more versatile version of the same thing. We're better off having the the exceptional 7800X3D earlier, and a more efficient version of it later, than just incrementally better CPU's that give more power for same cooling. Especially in this scenario where games are seldom held back by CPU bottlenecks and run samey on almost all good CPUs.
PeteBull
Member
I think they will reduce those cpu's prices in 6 months max, and introduce not only 9800x3d but maybe even r5 9600x3d
Tldr those first zen5 cpu's are for losers who gotta have newest expensive thing no matter if its any good, smart enthusiasts will wait for actual gaming chips which those are not, at least not at those prices.
Tldr those first zen5 cpu's are for losers who gotta have newest expensive thing no matter if its any good, smart enthusiasts will wait for actual gaming chips which those are not, at least not at those prices.
PeteBull
Member
Obviusly, but still, u go price/perf then 7700(x), u got max perf at better perf/wat u go 7800x3d, those are my thoughts till new x3d part comes out at least, then we will see what i will get, 8700k is getting long in the tooth already and i wanna play dragons dogma2 and starfield at stable 60 by then
I found it sus that nobody was comparing these chips to their 65W equivalent chips from the previous generation.
Von Hugh
Member
Bojji
Member
But they don't. Those CPUs are barely more efficient than 7xxx and AMD have messed with their naming.
9700x replaces 7700 (non x), it has higher MSRP and WAY higher price right now. Plus no cooler in the box, so even worse value.
9600x does the same thing to 9600.
There is no equivalent to 7600X and 7700X this time.
AMD claims lower price this time but MSRP is actually higher compared to 7600 and 7700 (non x).
When Intel is on life support AMD is like PS3 era Sony. Bullshit charts for zen 5 and even more bullshit charts for 5900XT (but it started with 7900XTX...).
Other than PS3 emulation (avx-512) these CPUs are not worth it at all right now.
Last edited:
ResilientBanana
Member
Could be undervolted because they are reaching the same limitations Intel is, and are preventing permanent damage. Ohms law has it's limits, I look forward to photonic processors. Imagine, data moving at the speed of light. Each color taking up the same space processing different data at the same time, at room temperature.Looking at Kitguru's review, makes me wonder if AMD has gone too far into the power saving camp.
At default, the 7700X runs at 5.1Ghz in Cinebench. But the 9700X runs at 4.7Ghz, because it's power constrained. So any IPC gains are negated by the lower clock speed.
But unleashing power usage, the 9700X runs at 5.25Ghz and it's score improves a lot.
Maybe AMD should have chosen a middle ground between power saving and clock speeds.
Last edited:
A I5 12400f to 7800x3d would be a huge upgrade. Considering you can git a motherboard, 7800x3d and quality 32 GB of ram for $500 at Microcenter. Based on the 9700x launch, I'm not to excited about the 9700x3d launch. This all depends on your GPU of course. If the GPU is 95% or above, you would need to also upgrade your GPU to be worth it.
hinch7
Member
When a brand new generation of CPU release people expect to see a increase in performance without messing around to get the most out of their processors.
Though the extra efficiency is nice. Enthusiasts aren't looking to save more power for the same performance a couple years ago, plus a few percent. Thats where the disappointment stems from. I think the IPC increase and performance slides AMD projected at its launch didn't help. In any case if you're buying a PC for games - its X3D, or skip.
Productivity and gaming people might be better off served with an Intel setup. Assuming Intel sorts it shit out and/or wait for Arrowlake.
Last edited:
winjer
Gold Member
I really doubt we are at that point with N4X and Zen5.
For example, the 9950X have the exact same TDP and PPT as the 7950X.
But most important, not even the 7950X has anywhere near the same voltages and power usage as something like a 14900K.
Last edited:
Leonidas
AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
14900K at stock is using only 11% more in that test, yet you say it is no where near.
Another example of stretching the truth...
winjer
Gold Member
Yes, because the 7950x ate not degrading and dying, unlike the 14900k.
This alone is a huge difference.
Leonidas
AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
winjer
Gold Member
Oh, that's right, I forgot you are ignoring all the issues withe 13th and 14th gen degradation and oxidation.
Just keep pretending that Intel didn't make a gigantic screw up.
twilo99
Member
They really messed up their marketing campaign, which really makes no sense since they know exactly what they have, so why overpromise?
I understand that in gaming, performance is key, but I believe that simply increasing power for more performance isn't the best approach. Maybe we've become accustomed to the advancements AMD has provided over the past eight years or so? Seems like that is coming to an end.
Intel are struggling more than I thought possible..
Silver Wattle
Gold Member
Don't forget how people were criticising AMD for setting excessive power and thermal limits at the zen 4 launch.
There were a bunch of reviewers going over how dropping power and heat resulted in very minimal performance losses.
londontko
Member
I'm the opposite, who gives a fuck about power draw? Give me performance.
Buggy Loop
Member
Seems like I’m safe from upgrading my 5800x3D for a while still
Best CPU I’ve owned.
Best CPU I’ve owned.
hinch7
Member
What I find most ergious is that they just renamed their X parts to non X. Upped the prices and even removed the coolers, providing even less value. As per Daniel Owen's analysis of the 9600/9700X. So reviewers are conflating efficiency over names and not respective parts.
Wouldn't be suprised if they released the XT 105W+ SKU's sooner rather than later. Man.. its like they've took their GPU handbook or Nvidia's marketing and went fuck it, lol.
Last edited: