AMD Ryzen 7000 Series Reviews

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,694
Are there any reviews which compare the new chips against previous AMD chips at the same clock frequency (ie. IPC like we used to do)?

I am more interested if there are any proper architectural gains/improvements outside of the double-pumped (read: half-assed) AVX-512 or if this gen is just higher clocked and more densely packed.

Techpowerup.com has tables showing several older models.
 

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,508
I'll personally be far more interested if motherboard prices come down. AM5 motherboard prices are insane right now. DDR5 is moving in the right direction, but I have no idea how the jump in cost from a comparable AM4 board could be justified.
That's going to be a while since early adopter tax is a real thing and we're right at the beginning, if not before the beginning. The R&D costs are front-loaded like mortgage interest in a loan.

I know you know. :)
 
Last edited:

RC-Heli-3D

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 12, 2018
Messages
194
I will throw in my 2 cents, you all better read it! LOL! J/K I noticed the price dropped on an MSI micro ATX with B550M chipset , AMD Zen3 5600G/factory heatsink 65watts, Zalman I3 RGB case and DDR4 G-skill 16GB 3200mhz. This is a nice work station platform without needing to buy a GPU. It plays the old games such as COD4/MOHAA just fine. I get the cool stuff that is more modern than my Gen1 1700X system and costed under $390! The data transfers and SSD using these newest Gen 3 PCI-e system is amazing! The mobo supports dual monitors! We should be seriously thankful and not be so critical of the newest stuff. Designing and implementation of technology are not easy and carries large risks to manufacturers! Personally, I am thankful and excited to see new things! Going forward with AMD Zen4 with IGP is a good idea! There are many benefits of IGP!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Axman
like this

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,461
No, there is no reason to upgrade at all. NONE. There is, literally no reason to go out an spend a shitload of money to upgrade to this. The 7600X looks good, if you had some old rig or were on a budget. But even then, you will likely be able to pickup a 5800X3D in a month's time for nearly the same price and everything else in that system will be much cheaper.
I think you're being very optimistic with a 5800x3d to be $300 in a month, but whatever lets say that's true. The one thing that will do is put you in a technological bottleneck, you're already at the max of what AM4 and can't get any better. Now I don't know how many generations AM5 will support, AMD may not be so ballsy to say it'll do 3 gens worth like AM4, but chances are there will be better down the line. Yeah it's more expensive to get into, but as you said if you had an old rig it may not be that much more expensive and you'll be set up for an easier upgrade path if you so choose during the AM5 timeline. Ultimately if you need everything new, motherboard/ram/cpu then you're maybe spending an extra $100 with the AM5 vs AM4, depending on things like how much ram you want and how much the B650 boards come out at (they've only shown off x670 boards I think?)
 

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,508
I think you're being very optimistic with a 5800x3d to be $300 in a month, but whatever lets say that's true. The one thing that will do is put you in a technological bottleneck, you're already at the max of what AM4 and can't get any better. Now I don't know how many generations AM5 will support, AMD may not be so ballsy to say it'll do 3 gens worth like AM4, but chances are there will be better down the line. Yeah it's more expensive to get into, but as you said if you had an old rig it may not be that much more expensive and you'll be set up for an easier upgrade path if you so choose during the AM5 timeline. Ultimately if you need everything new, motherboard/ram/cpu then you're maybe spending an extra $100 with the AM5 vs AM4, depending on things like how much ram you want and how much the B650 boards come out at (they've only shown off x670 boards I think?)
Yeah I foresee the 5800X3D holding its price for a while, especially because this 7000 series launch seems to be giving it lots of new exposure. I'm seeing lots of "how did I not know about this CPU?" comments from gamers as the 5800X3D is looking so strong on Ryzen 7000 benchmarks.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
61,225
So runs hotter than an i5 12th Gen but performs roughly the same in gaming while costing more. I'm not sure what the appeal is here? This doesn't get my hopes up for RDNA3.

Generally AMD has over delivered and under promised when it comes to it's CPUs. When it comes to GPU architectures it's often quite the reverse. I wouldn't get my hopes up.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,517
Generally AMD has over delivered and under promised when it comes to it's CPUs. When it comes to GPU architectures it's often quite the reverse. I wouldn't get my hopes up.
I expect AMD to focus on yield for RDNA 3 and release lots into the upper middle end, they can let Nvidia take the top with the 4080 and 4090, but they could release a lot of chips targeting people who would be going after the 3060-3090 at much better margins because they can get there on a relatively small die size compared to Nvidia. Go after market share (which investors love) and really hammer Nvidia over the 3000 series oversupply, that is not an area Nvidia can compete for this round without competing against themselves which does them no good.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
964
I think you're being very optimistic with a 5800x3d to be $300 in a month, but whatever lets say that's true. The one thing that will do is put you in a technological bottleneck, you're already at the max of what AM4 and can't get any better. Now I don't know how many generations AM5 will support, AMD may not be so ballsy to say it'll do 3 gens worth like AM4, but chances are there will be better down the line. Yeah it's more expensive to get into, but as you said if you had an old rig it may not be that much more expensive and you'll be set up for an easier upgrade path if you so choose during the AM5 timeline. Ultimately if you need everything new, motherboard/ram/cpu then you're maybe spending an extra $100 with the AM5 vs AM4, depending on things like how much ram you want and how much the B650 boards come out at (they've only shown off x670 boards I think?)
FYI - I'm just talking about value, not bleeding edge tech adoption. If I had nothing, I would possibly consider the 7000 series. However, the 5800X3D makes a lot of sense from a value perspective. AMD has said they intent to Support AM4 and the 5000 series (looks like their newly introed 4000 series ones too) chips for a long time.

I've seen the 5800X3D as low as 389 dollars, a month ago. Even if it doesn't hit 300 bucks, its a better value than the 7600X at 400.

Technological Bottleneck? How many generations of CPUs have people been sitting on their 2600K's? It's still a viable processor at 11 years old. The 5800X3D is, in many respects, faster than the 7000 series chips (until they release their X3D variants). There are currently no PCI-E 5.0 video cards, no currently released PCI-E 5.0 M.2 drives, yet. There is simply no need for a PCI-E 5.0 graphics card on the consumer end of the spectrum. PCI-E 4.0 hasn't even been fully maxed out yet. The 5000 Series AMD lineup will perfrom well and be viable for a long time.

Whenever all Graphics Cards move to PCI-E 5.0, that's where you might consider upgrading. Maybe it will be next generation (after this upcoming one). But any of these systems will still be very competent for many years to come.

There is such a thing as ROI, which people hope they will get out of their purchases. While the 2600K is long in the tooth, the 5000 Series AMD processors aren't.
 
Last edited:

chameleoneel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
6,121
Hopefully the reviewer comments about boot times also get boardmakers to lower boot times on Intel systems. A lot of Alder Lake DDR5 boards are pretty dang slow to boot.
 

Ikasu

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,295
Seeing a lot of negativity, although justified to a certain extent. But from a standpoint on how it's designed to hit 95C at full load, stay there, and not throttle often. It's quite impressive. For a gaming standpoint, the processor doesn't serve as a massive uplift for the majority of you on a gaming standpoint. But from a creative standpoint, for my uses in 3d rendering, these numbers are a staggering improvement. I'm torn that I would have to buy an expensive x670 board, and DDR5 with it's price premium over DDR4...

Still going to wait for intel's offering before I make my mind on what I'm planning to do. Running a 5950x ATM. Happy with it, but those multicore rendering numbers are truly impressive, and considering I'm sitting at 100% cpu usage when running simulations in houdini, the time save looks to be worth it...at the expense of bump in power. But you guys gotta keep in mind this is basically a PBO cpu from the get go. Where as my 5950x, yea can draw between 110-140 watts. The PBO wattage would shoot up to above 200 for a minor bump in clockspeed. So it's not that far off from the power consumption of a PBO'ed 5950x. Which when you factor that aspect in, with the massive boost in 3d rendering performance...A bit of a win when you compare that as apples to apples. But yea, for gaming, not as grand of a boost, but still a decent boost overall although more scaled to it's 3D rendering benefits.

So yea, I know the temps and power draw seem like a huge disappointment to everyone. Which in some regards it is, but from an engineering standpoint, for the fact that it aims at that temp and maintains without throttling hard, you got to give them some kudo's on that imo. Now the true questions is, how will intel's 13th gen hold up. Looking forward to the NDA release and reviews hitting to get a comparison. The appeal of going intel and staying with my ddr4 ram is nice....But considering leaked benchmarks show a need for ULTRA POWER mode of 350+ watts to compare to the ES 7950x....makes it a bit eh...
Even though temps are high on zen 4 + power consumption...As long as I know that it is techincally a PBO'ed cpu, I'm honestly not that disappointed....Where leaks show intel already above this at stock with 250w, and require even more power to beat zen 4 based on ES leaks at 350W.

If intel does manage to stay competitive though, while offering cheaper prices on boards, and for the fact I can use my DDR4 memory...if the performance difference isn't massive based on DDR4/5 comparisons for the platform...Might actually end up nabbing intel. Still 50/50 at this point though. TIme will tell when we get a full comparison.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,517
Hopefully the reviewer comments about boot times also get boardmakers to lower boot times on Intel systems. A lot of Alder Lake DDR5 boards are pretty dang slow to boot.
DDR5 has some memory boot protections that prevent various spill over attacks that are needed in the enterprise space, and they more than triple boot times, but the average consumer will never really need to worry about that sort of attack and it can be safely disabled there and it greatly improves boot times. Many AIBs shipped the boards with those protections turned on and did not offer a means of disabling them. I believe that has been corrected but I don't have an AM5 system to play with to determine that but my initial Intel systems with DDR5 had the same issue.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,517
Worth it 32 gig ddr5 kit alone would be more than a good ddr4 one I would have thought no ?
No, the best DDR5 stands on par with the average DDR4. DDR5 makes some very big changes to how the memory is accessed and how it is stored, it's all really cool but we are a few years out before DDR5 is going to be hands down better than DDR4 because the software really hasn't caught up, and the manufacturing costs are still so high. But on the consumer side where DDR4 reasonably maxes out at 64GB per stick where DDR5 can handle up to 256GB with built-in EEC, and other features that DDR4 had to specialize, so when DDR5 does take over as the majority in the market I expect some good things like 128gb as a normal amount or ram in a gaming PC, and better utilization of the low latency mini memory channels of the subdivided DDR5, and hopefully more memory channels as well, 2 in the consumer space is stagnant 4 with the subdivide up to 8 would be awesome.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
20,037
Looking at a handful of the reviews and benchmarks I find myself somewhat interested in the 7900X. I primarily play at 3440x1440 and while that resolution probably won't sure much difference between the 5800X I currently have and any of the higher-end chips from either company there is something mentioned in Brent's review that made me stop and think. I regularly turn on DLSS in games that offer it so that I can push settings higher or just eek out a few extra frames if I'm not happy with where the performance is sitting at native res. Even running DLSS on Quality settings that pushes the resolution down to far more CPU limited territories where other chips will show a more noticeable advantage. I know some (most?) people would just tell me to grab a 5900X or a 3800X3D but neither of those are all that compelling to me. They'd be upgrades and the X3D might even be faster over-all by a few percentage points but AM4 is a dead-end platform. For me, I almost feel like making the jump to AM5 could be worth the extra cost so I'll be on a platform where I can simply update the BIOS and toss in a new CPU over a few years. That said, I'm not doing anything until next year and with Intel launching new chips soon as well this could all end up being an entirely moot point.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
3,060
No, the best DDR5 stands on par with the average DDR4. DDR5 makes some very big changes to how the memory is accessed and how it is stored, it's all really cool but we are a few years out before DDR5 is going to be hands down better than DDR4 because the software really hasn't caught up, and the manufacturing costs are still so high. But on the consumer side where DDR4 reasonably maxes out at 64GB per stick where DDR5 can handle up to 256GB with built-in EEC, and other features that DDR4 had to specialize.
I meant already more than $100 difference claimed in that message.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,872
FYI - I'm just talking about value, not bleeding edge tech adoption. If I had nothing, I would possibly consider the 7000 series. However, the 5800X3D makes a lot of sense from a value perspective. AMD has said they intent to Support AM4 and the 5000 series (looks like their newly introed 4000 series ones too) chips for a long time.

I've seen the 5800X3D as low as 389 dollars, a month ago. Even if it doesn't hit 300 bucks, its a better value than the 7600X at 400.

Technological Bottleneck? How many generations of CPUs have people been sitting on their 2600K's? It's still a viable processor at 11 years old. The 5800X3D is, in many respects, faster than the 7000 series chips (until they release their X3D variants). There are currently no PCI-E 5.0 video cards, no currently released PCI-E 5.0 M.2 drives, yet. There is simply no need for a PCI-E 5.0 graphics card on the consumer end of the spectrum. PCI-E 4.0 hasn't even been fully maxed out yet. The 5000 Series AMD lineup will perfrom well and be viable for a long time.

Whenever all Graphics Cards move to PCI-E 5.0, that's where you might consider upgrading. Maybe it will be next generation (after this upcoming one). But any of these systems will still be very competent for many years to come.

There is such a thing as ROI, which people hope they will get out of their purchases. While the 2600K is long in the tooth, the 5000 Series AMD processors aren't.
Except the 58003D is no clean sweep. I get it uses more power, but it's no where near the 12000 series. So not seeing the problem on this one.
1664222203219.png
 

Ikasu

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,295
My 5950X can use up to 250W and hit over 85C if I go full PBO even with a 420mm rad, so the 7950X hitting 95C doesn't actually surprise me at all.
This exactly. I'm in the same exact boat. When you factor in experience with PBO, the temps and power on zen 4 is a non issue imo, and not much of a shocker considering the massive bump in clock speeds.
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
21,371
Looking at a handful of the reviews and benchmarks I find myself somewhat interested in the 7900X. I primarily play at 3440x1440 and while that resolution probably won't sure much difference between the 5800X I currently have and any of the higher-end chips from either company there is something mentioned in Brent's review that made me stop and think. I regularly turn on DLSS in games that offer it so that I can push settings higher or just eek out a few extra frames if I'm not happy with where the performance is sitting at native res. Even running DLSS on Quality settings that pushes the resolution down to far more CPU limited territories where other chips will show a more noticeable advantage. I know some (most?) people would just tell me to grab a 5900X or a 3800X3D but neither of those are all that compelling to me. They'd be upgrades and the X3D might even be faster over-all by a few percentage points but AM4 is a dead-end platform. For me, I almost feel like making the jump to AM5 could be worth the extra cost so I'll be on a platform where I can simply update the BIOS and toss in a new CPU over a few years. That said, I'm not doing anything until next year and with Intel launching new chips soon as well this could all end up being an entirely moot point.

It's all rumors at this point, but there are lots of "insiders" claiming that there will be a 3D versions of one or more Zen4 CPU's coming early next year. The same folks say an announcement will coming later this year - possibly rather soon depending on what Intel has in store.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
964
Seeing a lot of negativity, although justified to a certain extent. But from a standpoint on how it's designed to hit 95C at full load, stay there, and not throttle often. It's quite impressive. For a gaming standpoint, the processor doesn't serve as a massive uplift for the majority of you on a gaming standpoint. But from a creative standpoint, for my uses in 3d rendering, these numbers are a staggering improvement. I'm torn that I would have to buy an expensive x670 board, and DDR5 with it's price premium over DDR4...

Still going to wait for intel's offering before I make my mind on what I'm planning to do. Running a 5950x ATM. Happy with it, but those multicore rendering numbers are truly impressive, and considering I'm sitting at 100% cpu usage when running simulations in houdini, the time save looks to be worth it...at the expense of bump in power. But you guys gotta keep in mind this is basically a PBO cpu from the get go. Where as my 5950x, yea can draw between 110-140 watts. The PBO wattage would shoot up to above 200 for a minor bump in clockspeed. So it's not that far off from the power consumption of a PBO'ed 5950x. Which when you factor that aspect in, with the massive boost in 3d rendering performance...A bit of a win when you compare that as apples to apples. But yea, for gaming, not as grand of a boost, but still a decent boost overall although more scaled to it's 3D rendering benefits.

So yea, I know the temps and power draw seem like a huge disappointment to everyone. Which in some regards it is, but from an engineering standpoint, for the fact that it aims at that temp and maintains without throttling hard, you got to give them some kudo's on that imo. Now the true questions is, how will intel's 13th gen hold up. Looking forward to the NDA release and reviews hitting to get a comparison. The appeal of going intel and staying with my ddr4 ram is nice....But considering leaked benchmarks show a need for ULTRA POWER mode of 350+ watts to compare to the ES 7950x....makes it a bit eh...
Even though temps are high on zen 4 + power consumption...As long as I know that it is techincally a PBO'ed cpu, I'm honestly not that disappointed....Where leaks show intel already above this at stock with 250w, and require even more power to beat zen 4 based on ES leaks at 350W.

If intel does manage to stay competitive though, while offering cheaper prices on boards, and for the fact I can use my DDR4 memory...if the performance difference isn't massive based on DDR4/5 comparisons for the platform...Might actually end up nabbing intel. Still 50/50 at this point though. TIme will tell when we get a full comparison.
I wasn't approaching the processors from your standpoint and I will admit that you make a compelling argument. I suppose the best way to look at these processors is to buy the best one for your use case.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
964
Except the 58003D is no clean sweep. I get it uses more power, but it's no where near the 12000 series. So not seeing the problem on this one.
View attachment 513961
I don't care about 1080P. Honestly, I haven't cared about it for several years. Whenever someone brings this up I keep thinking "who gives a shit other than hardcore competitive gamers?" You can max out most displays refresh rates with a Ryzen 5 3600-5600 depending on the refresh of your monitor. Assuming you are using a 3090Ti....

I don't know how many people have actually adopted 4K as their standard resolution, but I would suspect that the number of us is growing. I have been running at 4K for almost a decade now. It makes everything look better (assuming the games format to the resolution properly, some old ones don't).

Most of the processors run nearly the same in 4K, because its mostly GPU limited at that point.

I play a handful of games in 1080P like Sword of the Stars and... anything that is unplayable in 4K due to the UI not sizing properly.

But if we're gonna argue, the 5800X3D is almost 200 dollars less than the 12900K. It's about 100 more than the 7600X. The platform price is almost 1/2 the cost of the 7600K & 12900K (maybe, you can get cheap intel boards) for the 38KX3D.


It's 11 FPS off of the 12900K and it's 8 FPS slower than the 7600K.

No one needs those 11 or 8 FPS.
 
Last edited:

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
3,060
Except the 58003D is no clean sweep. I get it uses more power, but it's no where near the 12000 series. So not seeing the problem on this one.
You posted an imagine that seem to clearly indicate otherwise no ? even with a very expensive DDR-5 version of the 12900K, it seem to be only 5% faster at 1080p, that more than near, it is possibly impossible for someone to distinguish in a blind test.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,872
I don't care about 1080P. Honestly, I haven't cared about it for several years. Whenever someone brings this up I keep thinking "who gives a shit other than hardcore competitive gamers?" You can max out most displays refresh rates with a Ryzen 5 3600-5600 depending on the refresh of your monitor. Assuming you are using a 3090Ti....

I don't know how many people have actually adopted 4K as their standard resolution, but I would suspect that the number of us is growing. I have been running at 4K for almost a decade now. It makes everything look better (assuming the games format to the resolution properly, some old ones don't).

Most of the processors run nearly the same in 4K, because its mostly GPU limited at that point.

I play a handful of games in 1080P like Sword of the Stars and... anything that is unplayable in 4K due to the UI not sizing properly.

But if we're gonna argue, the 5800X3D is almost 200 dollars less than the 12900K. It's about 100 more than the 7600X. The platform price is almost 1/2 the cost of the 7600K for the 38KX3D.

It's 11 FPS off of the 12900K and it's 8 FPS slower than the 7600K.

No one needs those 11 or 8 FPS.
You know why we use 1080P for benchmarking CPUs. Let's not rehash that testing methodology here.

As for the total platform cost, yes it's cheaper using older platforms. That's not new. However, the reason why you upgrade is performance uplift plus the knowledge you're going to be able to upgrade later. You have no upgrade path with the AM3. The 7600x is performing at the level of a 5800 in productivity and a 58003D in gaming at $100 bucks less but at the same price of a 5600x. That's value no matter how you slice it. The "no one needs those 11 or 8 FPS" is quite an interesting take on a site like this. The higher numbers be damned is kind of the mantra usually unless the path to get there is insane. But it's not in this case. You have people buying 12900Ks with insane power draw but the extra 10 - 15 FPS difference was worth it to them at the time of it's release. That's just how it is. So it's the same in this regard. Especially considering the 12900k can chew up 150w more for the same work which is something Gamer Nexus bullet times around and barely mentions.

Is it more efficient than the Zen 3? Yeah. Except you'll lose at almost every benchmark compared to Zen 4. These are really different arguments to make when you're not at extremes. You'll be excited to know that Celerons are REALLY efficient. Want one?

1664224396988.png
 
Last edited:

Ikasu

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,295
Y'all are too gaming focused. I read these reviews, like the one on Anandtech, and my jaw is on the floor that AMD managed to take this big of a generational leap.
Precisely the first set of reviews I looked at as well....I mean just look at these numbers.

Rendering benchmarks

Insanely impressive. Yea the gaming benchmarks weren't as massive as an uplift, but it was still quite impressive on that front as well. With X3D variants waiting in the wings, to satiate those looking for more gaming orientated benefits....I have to admit, I'll take zen 4 as a win. These numbers are enormous.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
964
Y'all are too gaming focused. I read these reviews, like the one on Anandtech, and my jaw is on the floor that AMD managed to take this big of a generational leap.
I'm not gaming focused. If I get 60FPS I am happy. I think al lot of people use the 1080P charts to try to show the "speed" of a generation. But it's just bored the shit out of me for years now. Like

Ikasu said, however, the new processors represent different values for different people. Good for AMD, I just don't see the point in upgrading (in my use case).​

 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,872
You posted an imagine that seem to clearly indicate otherwise no ? even with a very expensive DDR-5 version of the 12900K, it seem to be only 5% faster at 1080p, that more than near, it is possibly impossible for someone to distinguish in a blind test.
The 12900 is 50% more expensive than the 7600x for the CPU alone.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
964
You know why we use 1080P for benchmarking CPUs. Let's not rehash that testing methodology here.

As for the total platform cost, yes it's cheaper using older platforms. That's not new. However, the reason why you upgrade is performance uplift plus the knowledge you're going to be able to upgrade later. You have no upgrade path with the AM3. The 7600x is performing at the level of a 5800 in productivity and a 58003D in gaming at $100 bucks less but at the same price of a 5600x. That's value no matter how you slice it. The "no one needs those 11 or 8 FPS" is quite an interesting take on a site like this. The higher numbers be damned is kind of the mantra usually unless the path to get there is insane. But it's not in this case. You have people buying 12900Ks with insane power draw but the extra 10 - 15 FPS difference was worth it to them at the time of it's release. That's just how it is. So it's the same in this regard. Especially considering the 12900k can chew up 150w for the same work which is something Gamer Nexus bullet times around and barely mentions.

Is it more efficient than the Zen 3? Yeah. Except you'll lose at almost every benchmark compared to Zen 4. These are really different arguments to make when you're not at extremes. You'll be excited to know that Celerons are REALLY efficient. Want one?

View attachment 513972
I guess I will just stick with my Celeron 5900X for an extra generation or so and not lose any sleep or productivity over it.

If your goal is to piss money away, your arguments are valid.

I recall a discussion on the [H] a couple years back, it all boiled down to the one thing everyone understood and respected. Purchase the processor and platform that suits your use case.
 

Dreamerbydesign

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
5,762
Yawn. I’ll be interested in what Intel has to bring next also. Perhaps next gen we will some faster CPU’s, better efficiency and better DDR5 offerings.

The early adopter fee is heavy on this. If you have a high end AM4 setup or a decent Intel 12 gen setup, I can’t see the point in switching platforms. Not even for e peen points honestly. It’s hard to imagine (since I upgrade often) but I’ll be sitting this round out and seeing how the cards fall.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
964
Yawn. I’ll be interested in what Intel has to bring next also. Perhaps next gen we will some faster CPU’s, better efficiency and better DDR5 offerings.

The early adopter fee is heavy on this. If you have a high end AM4 setup or a decent Intel 12 gen setup, I can’t see the point in switching platforms. Not even for e peen points honestly. It’s hard to imagine (since I upgrade often) but I’ll be sitting this round out and seeing how the cards fall.
I thought all the people with reason left the room.
 

Dreamerbydesign

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
5,762
I thought all the people with reason left the room.
The sad thing is, for an average user / gamer such as myself, there is no point. If anything was PCIE-5, if ddr5 made any sense, if the CPU’s didn’t run 95*c BY DESIGN, I mean come on guys, what is there to be excited about?

I was excited when AMD introduced 16 core CPU’s at a time when Intel thought a 6 core was super high end. I was excited when DDR3 came out and mopped the floor of DDR2 performance. Hell I was excited when video cards finally adopted PCIE as a standard or when ISA slots finally were retired.

But this? I just don’t see the hype train. Some happy tech tubers and fancy charts aren’t enough. I’ll be onboard when it makes more sense.

And I’m on a 12700k platform, not some old guy hanging on to a 2600k who “doesnt see any reason to upgrade”
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,872
Why are you comparing it to a 12900 when it just matches a 12600 in cost per frame?

View attachment 513980
Because I'm not making the same argument as you. I'm looking at top game performance and comparing the 7600x to that. You're looking at the most economical chip (cost per frame) in gaming specifically. As someone below you said, you could make the same argument with a 5600x. But that's an entirely different metric.
 

Ikasu

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,295
The sad thing is, for an average user / gamer such as myself, there is no point. If anything was PCIE-5, if ddr5 made any sense, if the CPU’s didn’t run 95*c BY DESIGN, I mean come on guys, what is there to be excited about?

I was excited when AMD introduced 16 core CPU’s at a time when Intel thought a 6 core was super high end. I was excited when DDR3 came out and mopped the floor of DDR2 performance. Hell I was excited when video cards finally adopted PCIE as a standard or when ISA slots finally were retired.

But this? I just don’t see the hype train. Some happy tech tubers and fancy charts aren’t enough. I’ll be onboard when it makes more sense.

And I’m on a 12700k platform, not some old guy hanging on to a 2600k who “doesnt see any reason to upgrade”

I don't see a hype train anywhere either. Heck, the majority of the posts in this thread have all shared your sentiment. Stating it runs hot, takes more power, and doesn't offer much in a bump in performance...

Which is true, on the gaming side, of things...Looks like up to a 20% bump depending on title. But for those in the creative field, 3d specifically. It's anywhere from a 50 to 100% bump in performance. Which is massive. I haven't watched all the tech tubers vids yet, but if they are shouting it's praises, it will mostly have to do with the performance uplift in the creative side, which funnels right into their uses as well....Content creation.

If you are just gaming, and already have a recent system. I would just pass on zen 4, and wait to see if intel makes any significant gains in the gaming field. But from a workstation perspective....Zen 4 is MIGHTY impressive.
 
Top