• 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.

Bojji

Gold Member


Nice summary of 9900x/9950x launch. Looks like AMD fucked up latency between CCDs and you need core parking software to not get worse results than on Zen 4. Latency is over 2x higher than on Z4.

Looks like they didn't care about gaming at all designing this thing...
 

FireFly

Member
Cause it is. A barely above average 7700X sample will outperform a 9700X in a lot of workloads due to the higher TDP and clocks. Meanwhile a cheaper 7800X3D (currently $340) will curb stomp it in gaming.
The 9700X is going to 105W though.
 

Leonidas

AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
The way how everyone is reacting, one would think Zen5 is 5× worst than Zen4.
When its coming 2 years later and offering no real upgrade for Zen4 for most users, its abysmal.

Zen has always had nice gaming upgrades, with each new version. And now Zen5 comes out with 2-3% better gaming.

No getting around it. It's abysmal.

If Arrow Lake launches and is only 2-3% faster than Zen4 in gaming, I would say it is abysmal as well.
 

LiquidMetal14

hide your water-based mammals
On the bright side, you could be in the shitter like Intel right now. And a hot shitter to boot.

I did see what Leonidas posted earlier and those are great results for that chip. Must be a hell of a bin.
 

Leonidas

AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)

I did see what Leonidas posted earlier and those are great results for that chip. Must be a hell of a bin.
I don't think its any thing special for Raptor Lake... I tested more than one Raptor Lake CPU on my rig and they produced simlilar (within error margins) low idle power numbers.

I think what's more likely is that people don't realize how efficient Raptor Lake is when doing light tasks, compared to modern Ryzen CPUs.
 

analog_future

Resident Crybaby

Cool to see we should see a boost in performance, not just on 9000 series processors but previous gen processors as well.
 

Leonidas

AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)


Yikes! HUB calling BS on AMD. I'll wait to see the testing but HUB doesn't seem to think its going to amount to much...

At the end of the day, even if the update reaches AMDs best case, it will still only match Raptor Lake in gaming. When Arrow Lake's launch is right around the corner.
 

winjer

Gold Member

AMD said that it's working with Microsoft to bring the "correct" branch prediction behavior seen in admin mode to regular Windows 11 user accounts. These updates will be incorporated in the retail release of Windows 24H2, although you won't have to wait until then. Microsoft will release this as an "optional update" sooner than that, so it could be implemented on Windows 11 23H2. Here's the best part—it turns out that the admin mode discrepancy even affects "Zen 4" and "Zen 3" processors, which means even Ryzen 5000 thru Ryzen 7000 series processors should get a performance uplift in regular Windows 11 user accounts.

o5ItOTO.jpeg



AMD released a blog post to address discrepancies in Zen 5's gaming performance benchmarks following the launch of its Ryzen 9000 series. Various reviewers reported differing results, leading to confusion among users. AMD attributes these inconsistencies to different test methodologies, hardware configurations, and software settings. The company has updated its internal benchmark suite, including a revised list of game titles, and shared adjusted performance projections.

AMD has updated its performance expectations for the Ryzen 9000 series. Initially, AMD claimed these processors were 6% faster than Intel's similar offerings. However, after applying optimized settings for Intel chips, AMD now reports that both brands deliver comparable gaming performance. AMD still expects the Ryzen 9000 series to outperform the earlier Ryzen 7000 series. AMD also discussed a Windows feature called the "Admin" profile, which enhances performance through branch prediction optimizations. This benefit will soon extend to all Windows 11 users via an update.

Issues with AMD’s chipset drivers were acknowledged, with a fix currently in development. The chipset driver’s core parking feature, which boosts performance in specific Ryzen models, poses challenges if processors are changed, potentially requiring a complete system reinstall to resolve. AMD clarified that their performance benchmarks vary significantly based on the game mix and settings chosen. The company has updated its benchmarks to include more recent games, offering a clearer view of current performance levels.Intel's stability problems also affected initial comparisons. After Intel corrected these issues, AMD reassessed its Ryzen 9000 series performance with more robust settings, finding them equivalent to Intel’s chips under optimal conditions. AMD adjusted its previous claims regarding the Ryzen 9000’s performance over the Ryzen 7000 series, now estimating a 5-8% improvement in 1080p gaming. The company also noted the performance boost of using an Admin account for benchmarking due to specific optimizations that will soon be standard with a Windows update. Additionally, the impact of Virtualization-Based Security (VBS) on gaming was discussed; it can decrease performance, and variations may occur based on its use in testing.

Overall, AMD’s blog post clarified that while the Ryzen 9000 competes closely with Intel in gaming, it excels in productivity and AI tasks. The full impact of the forthcoming Windows update on performance will be assessed through further testing.
 
Last edited:

marquimvfs

Member
At the end of the day, even if the update reaches AMDs best case, it will still only match Raptor Lake in gaming.
That's precisely what they are claiming. Extracted from their blog post:
When comparing to the competition using optimal settings, higher memory speed and extreme power delivery profile for the competition and Windows 11, version 24H2 for both (see details below), we see a double-digit lead for Ryzen 9000 Series in productivity and creator applications, ~30% lead in AI workloads, and parity in gaming using the most popular games included in the reviews.
Emphasis in "parity in gaming".

I get what you are saying, but, as of right now, Intel haven't launched their new platform yet. We will certainly be able to see some reviews when they launch, but it will be almost next year when the masses will be able to put their hands in Core U. We can only wait. Maybe it's the second coming of Jesus, or maybe it's also meh.

Like others have said in here, people are bashing Zen 5, but it's a perfectly fine platform for what it is. I, personally, see no reason to call AMD on anything besides not being a soo good upgrade in gaming, and that alone doesn't justify the level of criticism I've seeing.
 
Last edited:

Celcius

°Temp. member

Leonidas

AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
I wonder why AMD is being more dodgy this time than I've ever seen them. I knew their first party numbers were off because of their test setup, but they were off by even more than I was expecting.

I don't see why they didn't just delay the launch by a month or two. They should have delayed it till everything was ready, including the X870 boards.

I wonder if people inside AMD know about Arrow Lake's true performance so they decided to push this out before it was ready, in an attempt to get sales before their competitor (could) launch a better product.

This launch really has me wondering about a lot of thngs...


X3D coming in January
My prediction of Arrow Lake taking the 2024 gaming crown increases even further :messenger_sun:
 
Last edited:

Zathalus

Member

X3D coming in January
Guess I’m waiting until January to see if anything is worth upgrading from my 13900k. I’m thinking probably not for gaming at 4k.
 

Leonidas

AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
That's precisely what they are claiming. Extracted from their blog post:

Emphasis in "parity in gaming".
I know, and that's not good for a 2024 CPU, to only reach parity with a 2022 architecture in gaming. I thought new things were supposed to be faster, not reach the same performance as old CPUs in gaming.

All it does is make me think, damn, my ~2 year old 2022 CPU is still doing well, trading blows with a 2024 CPU.

I, personally, see no reason to call AMD on anything besides not being a soo good upgrade in gaming, and that alone doesn't justify the level of criticism I've seeing.
The criticism comes from the BS marketing, which even baffled most reviewers. I've never seen a CPU that falls so short of their claims.
The criticism is justified. I'm surprised Gamers Nexus hasn't went after AMD for their marketing claims, if it were Intel who fell way short and misrepresented AMD, you can bet your ass GN would have had a multi-series investigation out by now.
 
Last edited:

peish

Member
Zen5 problem is found
In summary, older zen cpus have some security flaws, to mitigate it on OS levels, amd gave MS the permission to constantly flush branch prediction buffers

Zen5 fixed the flaw in hardware and has also much larger forward looking branch prediction. MS old buffer flusher needed to updated!

We are back, it was all in the tools/software!

Intel shares dropped on this leak yesterday


 

marquimvfs

Member
I know, and that's not good for a 2024 CPU, to only reach parity with a 2022 architecture in gaming. I thought new things were supposed to be faster, not reach the same performance as old CPUs in gaming.

All it does is make me think, damn, my ~2 year old 2022 CPU is still doing well, trading blows with a 2024 CPU.


The criticism comes from the BS marketing, which even baffled most reviewers. I've never seen a CPU that falls so short of their claims.
The criticism is justified. I'm surprised Gamers Nexus hasn't went after AMD for their marketing claims, if it were Intel who fell way short and misrepresented AMD, you can bet your ass GN would have had a multi-series investigation out by now.
If your criticism had roots in bullshit marketing, you weren't an Intel fanboy. GN wasn't going to loose their time because there's nothing to investigate. AMD benchmarks were released, and they did their own, results compared, reviewed launched, what else did you want? An wasted series of bashing AMD just for the clicks? An coverage similar to Intel failure just because you're not happy with the results? Grow the fuck up.
 

Von Hugh

Member


Yikes! HUB calling BS on AMD. I'll wait to see the testing but HUB doesn't seem to think it the end of the day, even if the update reaches AMDs best case, it will still only match Raptor Lake in gaming. When Arrow Lake's launch is right around the corner.


I know, and that's not good for a 2024 CPU, to only reach parity with a 2022 architecture in gaming. I thought new things were supposed to be faster, not reach the same performance as old CPUs in gaming.

All it does is make me think, damn, my ~2 year old 2022 CPU is still doing well, trading blows with a 2024 CPU.


The criticism comes from the BS marketing, which even baffled most reviewers. I've never seen a CPU that falls so short of their claims.
The criticism is justified. I'm surprised Gamers Nexus hasn't went after AMD for their marketing claims, if it were Intel who fell way short and misrepresented AMD, you can bet your ass GN would have had a multi-series investigation out by now.

I am now convinced you are an AI.
 

Leonidas

AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)


Why can't people accept the reality?

Which straw will be grabbed at next. Wonder if Intel will see gaming improvement in the new version of Windows as Intel also sees improvements using Admin Mode on Windows.
 

Loxus

Member


Why can't people accept the reality?

Which straw will be grabbed at next. Wonder if Intel will see gaming improvement in the new version of Windows as Intel also sees improvements using Admin Mode on Windows.

AMD would just release the X3D variants.
 

winjer

Gold Member


Why can't people accept the reality?

Which straw will be grabbed at next. Wonder if Intel will see gaming improvement in the new version of Windows as Intel also sees improvements using Admin Mode on Windows.


You still don't understand that people don't care about first party benchmarks.
That's why we always want independent reviews.
But you are so obsessed with your Intel vs AMD fanboy attitude, that all you can think is about some useless powerpoint slides.

And to make it just the more hypocritical of you, let us remember that you completely ignored the issues that Intel is having with CPUs degrading, RMAs not being granted, tray CPUs not being included in the extended warranty program, the biggest loss in Intel's stock value in it's history, thousands of jobs being cut, Intel selling assets to pay it's own restructuring, tech events being cancelled to save some money, lawsuits from shareholders and consumers, and let's not forget that the powerpoint slides that Intel presented for Arrow Lake only had synthetic benchmarks and not one single game nor real world program.
Talk about grasping for straws, when the company you shill for is in so much trouble.

So what if some powerpoint slides from AMD failed the AMD by a few percent. It's the kind of crap we expect from first party numbers and why we all want independent benchmarks.
Intel has done much worse in it's history, from manipulating compilers, used a hidden chiller during a presentation to pretend their CPUs could clock higher, hired Principled technologies to falsify publish benchmarks, and so much more.
Even ARM did this a few months ago, claiming that the X1 would be better than any X86 CPU. Then it released and it was a dud, with performance failing by a big margin.

I'm going to say to you, something I have told you many times already, what matters are the independent benchmarks.
What matters are independent, verifiable, third party reviews.
 

Leonidas

AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
I'm going to say to you, something I have told you many times already, what matters are the independent benchmarks.
And those don't match up with the 1st party numbers. Why can't AMD just admit that they were wrong, and that their numbers were misleading, and update the numbers to something more realistic...
 

winjer

Gold Member
And those don't match up with the 1st party numbers. Why can't AMD just admit that they were wrong, and that their numbers were misleading, and update the numbers to something more realistic...

Because they are always wrong. Be it from AMD, Intel, Nvidia, ARM, Apple, QUALCOMM, etc.
These companies always pad their numbers. I've been following tech for over 2 decades, so I already expect it, every time. And why I repeat so many times that we need independent reviews.
You need to stop being so naïve, and just distrust all these first party powerpoint slides.

But at least this time we got a positive note, because a bug in Windows was found and when fixed, will bring a bit extra performance.
 

Leonidas

AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
Because they are always wrong.
Scott "we're going to kick Nvidia's fucking ass" Herkleman at least came out and said that they missed the mark when AMDs internal numbers were off.

Why can't they just come out and do the same here?
 
Last edited:

Leonidas

AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
Because it doesn't matter. What matters are the independent benchmarks. Always, the f****** independent benchmarks.
The marketing numbers do matter to a degree as they set expectations, and reviewers always test against them to see if they misrepresent the product, which AMD has done here...
 

winjer

Gold Member
The marketing numbers do matter to a degree as they set expectations, and reviewers always test against them to see if they misrepresent the product, which AMD has done here...

Only for people that are too naïve to understand that these powerpoint slides are always padded.

But now I ask you how do you deal with this case.
Intel claims in their powerpoint slides that Lion Cove has a 14% IPC improvement. With only synthetic benchmarks. One of them is made by Intel.
But in the thread you created, you said that you expect a 5% improvement for single core. Do you trust Intel numbers or not.
Why didn't you say a 14% improvement, like Intel claims?

In my case, my answer is very simple, I never trust these powerpoint slides.
I always wait for independent reviews.

OGNO5rf.jpeg
 

Leonidas

AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
Only for people that are too naïve to understand that these powerpoint slides are always padded.
A lot of AMD fans fall in that camp. I see a lot of AMD fans disappointed that AMD basically lied to them about the performance of these products.

This could have been avoided if AMD had been a bit more honest with their numbers.
 

winjer

Gold Member
A lot of AMD fans fall in that camp. I see a lot of AMD fans disappointed that AMD basically lied to them about the performance of these products.

This could have been avoided if AMD had been a bit more honest with their numbers.

It doesn't matter. Neither Intel, nor AMD fanboys.

And you didn't say how you deal with Intel's claim that Lion Core will improve by 14%, while you say it's going to improve by 5%.
Who is wrong, you or Intel? And do you put any stock into results from only synthetic benchmarks?
 

Von Hugh

Member
A lot of AMD fans fall in that camp. I see a lot of AMD fans disappointed that AMD basically lied to them about the performance of these products.

This could have been avoided if AMD had been a bit more honest with their numbers.

Good job in ignoring 90 % of the points winjer's post just had.

You truly are an 10/10 Intel shill. Ignore the facts, cherrypick the positives of Intel and negatives of AMD, rinse and repeat.
 

Leonidas

AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
It doesn't matter. Neither Intel, nor AMD fanboys.
Even if one person falls for the numbers, it does matter. And lots of AMD fans fell for it.

And you didn't say how you deal with Intel's claim that Lion Core will improve by 14%, while you say it's going to improve by 5%.
Who is wrong, you or Intel? And do you put any stock into results from only synthetic benchmarks?
Intel never published gaming results for Arrow Lake. I'll compare the reviews to Intel's 1st party when they publish them, as reviewers will do.

I don't recall saying its going to improve by 5%. If I did, that was a prediction. Just like my prediction that Arrow Lake will (probably) beat Zen5 in gaming.
 

Leonidas

AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
AMD benchmarks were released, and they did their own, results compared, reviewed launched, what else did you want?
It would be nice if AMD stopped grasping at straws and face the reality that the CPUs did not perform as they said, and for AMD to come out and say that they will do better next time (like Scott Herkleman did with the 7900XTX). And for them to actually, do better next time. That is what I would like to see.
 
Last edited:

winjer

Gold Member
Even if one person falls for the numbers, it does matter. And lots of AMD fans fell for it.

You concern for the AMD fanboys is truly heart-warming.

Season 9 Lol GIF by The Office


Intel never published gaming results for Arrow Lake. I'll compare the reviews to Intel's 1st party when they publish them, as reviewers will do.

I don't recall saying its going to improve by 5%. If I did, that was a prediction. Just like my prediction that Arrow Lake will (probably) beat Zen5 in gaming.

You voted on the 5% performance improvement, on the thread that you created. Unless you have gone there and change it.
But you still haven't answered my question. Do you think Intel is lying with their IPC claim?
 

Leonidas

AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
You voted on the 5% performance improvement, on the thread that you created. Unless you have gone there and change it.
But you still haven't answered my question. Do you think Intel is lying with their IPC claim?
An IPC number from many non-gaming scenarios does not translate to gaming performance, that type of thinking is why your CPU gaming predictions are always so far off, with you predicting Zen5 as being 20-30% faster than Zen4, before we knew the final IPC.
 

winjer

Gold Member
An IPC number from many non-gaming scenarios does not translate to gaming performance, that type of thinking is why your CPU gaming predictions are always so far off, with you predicting Zen5 as being 20-30% faster than Zen4, before we knew the final IPC.

We were all wrong. Remember you voted 10-15%. Which is basically what AMD had in their PowerPoint slides.
Does that make you now an AMD fanboy?
 

Leonidas

AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
We were all wrong. Remember you voted 10-15%. Which is basically what AMD had in their PowerPoint slides.
Does that make you now an AMD fanboy?
I just never thought AMD would release a CPU in 2024 that performed worse in gaming than Intel did in 2022. I did not think about IPC.
 

winjer

Gold Member
I just never thought AMD would release a CPU in 2024 that performed worse in gaming than Intel did in 2022. I did not think about IPC.

Well that's because you trust too much in powerpoint slides.
You still don't believe in me when I say that what matters are independent reviews.
You are too fixated in tech companies powerpoint slides.

On the other hand, AMD did not make a CPU for gamers, it made a CPU for AI, workstations and servers.
And in those markets, there are +30% performance improvements over Zen4.
 

Leonidas

AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
Well that's because you trust too much in powerpoint slides.
I was the first on this forum to call BS on AMDs slides, so I'm not sure how you can say that.

And I got tons of shit for it, despite being right...
 

Leonidas

AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
You got tons of shit because you claimed that only AMD slides were wrong.
I knew AMDs slides were wrong because they blatantly skewed the results with their testing method.

If Intel does it with Arrow Lake I'll call them out too.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom