Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)

[Vattila]

Except for the details about the improvements in the microarchitecture, we now know pretty well what to expect with Zen 3.

The leaked presentation by AMD Senior Manager Martin Hilgeman shows that EPYC 3 "Milan" will, as promised and expected, reuse the current platform (SP3), and the system architecture and packaging looks to be the same, with the same 9-die chiplet design and the same maximum core and thread-count (no SMT-4, contrary to rumour). The biggest change revealed so far is the enlargement of the compute complex from 4 cores to 8 cores, all sharing a larger L3 cache ("32+ MB", likely to double to 64 MB, I think).

Hilgeman's slides did also show that EPYC 4 "Genoa" is in the definition phase (or was at the time of the presentation in September, at least), and will come with a new platform (SP5), with new memory support (likely DDR5).

What else do you think we will see with Zen 4? PCI-Express 5 support? Increased core-count? 4-way SMT? New packaging (interposer, 2.5D, 3D)? Integrated memory on package (HBM)?

Vote in the poll and share your thoughts!

 

[Markfw]

And upgrade potential. But Intel is anyway quite competitive and better in the low end compared to AMD offerings.

The video I just saw in the Raptor lake thread showed AMD ahead by over 6%. Not much, but still faster and more efficient.

 

[aigomorla]

The video I just saw in the Raptor lake thread showed AMD ahead by over 6%. Not much, but still faster and more efficient.

Steve at GN states intel went the bulldozer route with massive power draw to win a lot of the charts.
Yes, in half the productivity charts the 7950 comes out ahead with it being a lot more efficient, but the other half, and especially the single core performance, the 13900K beats it.

I think in gaming it dominated the charts at being first place in over 80% of the titles.
The cpu is ideally better aimed at content creators, and gamers.

But again... it's not the "superior" arch, route, but more so the old prescott style, lets get over 5ghz so hyperthreading actually works approach.
And with that route, comes the cost of power, and a CPU temperature that will probably turn your room into a Sauna...
GN recorded on average 300W for the CPU.... Geebez... 300W is massive.... no longer can we recommend Gaming PSU's less then 850W now.

But hey they launched it right near winter.... need a heater? no problem, grab a 13900K and your set.

But anyhow enough rambling about intel in this thread...
The 250W draw on the 7950 vs 300W on the 13900K....
Shows we no longer care about what is called efficiency anymore, but who is at the king of the hill.
This to me looks very bleak.... as we are back in the 60's with muscle cars, and not caring about the how much gas they guzzle.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

It depends on how often someone upgrades as well, many people hold onto systems for like 5 years, and just get an entirely new system then, instead of upgrading every 1 or 2 years by bits and pieces.
I agree with your conclusion though.

This is an Intel centric mindset, it needs to die.

First example: I have an ASRock Fatality X370 Gaming X that can run a 5800X 3D. The latest BIOS is only 5 months old. The board was bought 5yrs ago. With the 3D it will be a very capable gamer for another 5yrs. That's (and I emphasize) TEN YEARS of gaming on the same platform. All for the cost of $350 which is what I can get it for NIB right now.

Second Example: I build AM5 now. I will be able to swap for a Zen5 3D, possibly Zen6, stretching it's life another 5 yrs minimum.

AMD and Intel are not the same when discussing longevity.

 

[aigomorla]

Second Example: I build AM5 now. I will be able to swap for a Zen5 3D, possibly Zen6, stretching it's life another 5 yrs minimum.

This is what intel said at S1155.... Then they went oops the cpu a different pinout ... and we got S1150 ... then they went OOPS we need more pins and got S1151....

Meaning with how zen is ever changing, i don't expect AMD to be able to keep the same pin layout more then 1 gen unless its a refresh, (tock cycle), before requring a different pin layout, which will require a new socket, especially since they moved the pins to the board now like how intel did.

 

[A///]

This must be a language barrier issue. Those are not cheap budget solutions for gaming, not by a long shot.

Nope. English is my first language.

It is the budget solution. Either processor paired with a Z690 and DDR4 is cheaper than going with AM5 and DDR5. There's some terrific Z690 boards in the $170-200 range. These are full fledged boards with decent OC ability. There's a gap in game FPS when this combo is paired with a 4090 where DDR5 aids in higher FPS per some reviews from yesterday. B650 and B650 exist, but their current pricing doesn't make them palatable. Most people who are budget conscious are going to realize they will get more with a 13600K and a Z690 motherboard, a motherboard chipset that's mature. They're not missing out on much apart from the differences on the board.

They would be looking at the following:

13600K $330
Z690 $180
16-32 GB DDR4 $? Take your pick.

For less than $650 you're looking at a terrific build assuming you score a 32 GB DDR4 kit for sub $100. For $500 on the AMD side you're getting the 7600X and a $200 B650 motherboard that will likely have one or two features that put it ahead of the Z690 but is a wash. A 32 GB DDR5 kit for that is going to be at least another $200 for a decent Hynix kit.

And posted in a Zen4 thread is trolling at best.

Except it isn't trolling. You can ask @Markfw if I'm a troll or not since we talk in private quite a lot about AMD. If you are budget conscious, the Intel solutions are more affordable than AMD's unless you spend a long time waiting and hunting for a deal. I am aware Microcenter did or still is offering free DDR5 with applicable Zen 4 purchases, but Microcenter only has about 26 locations and isn't present in every state. That deal they offered on their own accord doesn't help most people who don't have one close by or in the same state.


The issue is AMD seems to be banking on Raptor Lake sales being as poor as Alder Lake. Whether this was due to everyone buying a computer in 2020 and early 2021 that Alder Lake didn't make sense to them or Zen 3 was that popular it stole sales from Intel.

Longevity wise, AM5 is the winner. 13th gen is straight trash when it comes to thermals and power consumption. It's a tippy-toe situation of whether the end consumer wants marginally better performance for a cheaper cost via the above setup while dealing with higher power usage or the higher upfront cost of going with AM5 and upgrading later with Zen 4 3D, Zen 5, Zen 5 3D or Zen 6 and Zen 6 3D.

 

[maddie]

And yet AM5 has had relatively slow sales because of higher platform costs and high CPU costs, despite people knowing that they can upgrade down the line. The higher upfront cost is hard to swallow for many, even if in some cases it is irrational to do so. It was so bad at one point that Microcenter legit started bundling free ddr5 to get sales going! You also see this in recent public opinion polls such as the 3dcenter.org one, zen 4 has less than HALF the interest to buy percentage than zen 3!

I think the MB costs are outrageous presently. Cheaper ones in a few months should correct this. Also, to get the best from RTL, you would need DDR5 anyhow, so it's down to MB.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

This is what intel said at S1155.... Then they went oops the cpu a different pinout ... and we got S1150 ... then they went OOPS we need more pins and got S1151....

Meaning with how zen is ever changing, i don't expect AMD to be able to keep the same pin layout more then 1 gen unless its a refresh, (tock cycle), before requring a different pin layout, which will require a new socket, especially since they moved the pins to the board now like how intel did.

What is Raptor, it's a refresh. So you got a refresh a year later and done. LOL. Zen 5 3D should it be the last CPU for AM5, will provide much better longevity.

 

[maddie]

Steve at GN states intel went the bulldozer route with massive power draw to win a lot of the charts.
Yes, in half the productivity charts the 7950 comes out ahead with it being a lot more efficient, but the other half, and especially the single core performance, the 13900K beats it.

I think in gaming it dominated the charts at being first place in over 80% of the titles.
The cpu is ideally better aimed at content creators, and gamers.

But again... it's not the "superior" arch, route, but more so the old prescott style, lets get over 5ghz so hyperthreading actually works approach.
And with that route, comes the cost of power, and a CPU temperature that will probably turn your room into a Sauna...
GN recorded on average 300W for the CPU.... Geebez... 300W is massive.... no longer can we recommend Gaming PSU's less then 850W now.

But hey they launched it right near winter.... need a heater? no problem, grab a 13900K and your set.

But anyhow enough rambling about intel in this thread...
The 250W draw on the 7950 vs 300W on the 13900K....
Shows we no longer care about what is called efficiency anymore, but who is at the king of the hill.
This to me looks very bleak.... as we are back in the 60's with muscle cars, and not caring about the how much gas they guzzle.

Good thing we can set power targets. No one is forced to max it out.

 

[maddie]

This is what intel said at S1155.... Then they went oops the cpu a different pinout ... and we got S1150 ... then they went OOPS we need more pins and got S1151....

Meaning with how zen is ever changing, i don't expect AMD to be able to keep the same pin layout more then 1 gen unless its a refresh, (tock cycle), before requring a different pin layout, which will require a new socket, especially since they moved the pins to the board now like how intel did.

Why would you think that? Is it so hard to imagine they have planned the socket for future gens?

 

[A///]

That's half the product stack, and the 7900X is very much not great either. 7950X is really the only appealing Raphael CPU, and the 13900K is still incredibly competitive against it. What makes Raphael the premium product here? AMD clearly wanted it to be, but they didn't deliver premium performance. It's no Vermeer vs Comet Lake/Rocket Lake situation. At similar price points, it has slightly inferior ST performance, significantly lower MT performance, lower gaming performance, worse OC potential, etc. The only thing it has is a rather marginal efficiency lead and AVX-512.

Terrific, you know how to count. The 7900X is a decent processor for those wanting cores without dealing with the nuances of the E cores and how they behave. It isn't the fastest, but it's good. The 7950X did deliver on premium performance. The 13900K is a new processor. I'm not sure what's wrong with younger techies but that is the way product stacks worked when I was your age. Intel would release a product that was fast, AMD released a product 2 months later and trampled said product, and back and forth.

That 13900K needs 24 cores with HT on 8 of them to get where it's at, not to mention the wild thermals and power usage compared to AMD's 16 cores. You Intel guys may count it as a win but to anyone with logic it's ridiculous Intel needs that many cores and frequency to achieve what the 7950X did and more to put a gap between them. The 13900K does well in gaming but W11H2 is hobbling the performance of that processor. I'd like to see some retesting once that issue is fixed. Intel's answer is e-core spam and pushing their silicon has high as it can go ignoring thermals and power draw.

I'd have been impressed by the 13900K if it had a 16/32 setup and beat AMD's 7950X while using similar or slightly more power. As it stands, the 13600K and 13900K are fast and decent budget options if opting for DDR4 and a Z690 motherboard flashed to use 13th gen. Otherwise, overall it's a dumpster fire of a generation. I predict 13th gen not doing well in countries where energy costs are skyrocketing due to various reasons. Gaming doesn't use a lot of power, but people use their computer for more than just gaming.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Nope. English is my first language.

It is the budget solution. Either processor paired with a Z690 and DDR4 is cheaper than going with AM5 and DDR5. There's some terrific Z690 boards in the $170-200 range. These are full fledged boards with decent OC ability. There's a gap in game FPS when this combo is paired with a 4090 where DDR5 aids in higher FPS per some reviews from yesterday. B650 and B650 exist, but their current pricing doesn't make them palatable. Most people who are budget conscious are going to realize they will get more with a 13600K and a Z690 motherboard, a motherboard chipset that's mature. They're not missing out on much apart from the differences on the board.

They would be looking at the following:

13600K $330
Z690 $180
16-32 GB DDR4 $? Take your pick.

I can build a 5800X 3D for less and get overall better gaming without any concerns about which OS I am using. Both are dead sockets. It is a drop in upgrade for all of us DIYers with AM4 builds, HINT: That's the majority the last few years, no need to buy a new board and CPU.

 

[aigomorla]

What is Raptor, it's a refresh. So you got a refresh a year later and done. LOL. Zen 5 3D should it be the last CPU for AM5, will provide much better longevity.

Yeah but i don't think getting a 3d version is a justifiable upgrade if you have the regular one.
If your getting a new gen, like a zen 3 -> zen5 then yeah... the 3D is very worth it.
But if your already on the Zen5, i don't think the 3D is worth it, unless you highly intend on recycling the old cpu somewhere.

Why would you think that? Is it so hard to imagine they have planned the socket for future gens?

Because looking at pricing lately, AMD is no longer a consumer friendly supplier on the CPU side.
On the GPU side, yes, they are very consumer friendly and price conscience, but lately, the CPU prices have gotten a bit astronomical, especially on Thread Ripper, where they utterly smashed the 1500 dollar wall intel had on HEDT for consumers.

Meaning with how things are going and how new boards and sockets are more profitable, i would not hold it to AMD to stay consumer first much longer, but take a more competitive and profitable approach with things like how intel was.

History always repeats, and AMD will probably try to play it out like how intel has, as it was very profitable when they could call all the shots.

 

[A///]

I can build a 5800X 3D for less and get overall better gaming without any concerns about which OS I am using. Both are dead sockets. It is a drop in upgrade for all of us DIYers with AM4 builds, HINT: That's the majority the last few years, no need to buy a new board and CPU.

That is true, but there are people who won't use AMD. Even when AMD was dragging Intel by the scruff of their neck the last few years those people stayed on Intel. I know plenty of people our age (See:Old) and younger people who were interns that prefer Intel no matter what. It's like the people who used Pentium 4s when Athlon was kicking Intel's ass 20 years ago. The Pentium diehards would stick their head in the sand and ignore the reality of AMD pounding on Intel's door.

The small USB bug on X570 that got blown way out of proportion has instilled enough ignorance in these people to not touch AMD motherboards and processors, even if they're damn good. I can see why you down voted me but the sad reality is that many people won't touch an AMD system. It echos what @VirtualLarry said in the GPU section. I had some strong opinions from a few years ago about AMD's cards but I recently had a 2 month loan of a 6800XT XFX card and it blew me away at how good it was compared to the 3060, 3070 and 3080. It reminded me of the amazing AMD cards I had a decade ago.

I don't really expect Intel's current lead to hold. Once the X3D processors land then it's game over for Intel in terms of gaming. I don't believe the cache benefits non-gaming workloads much. I don't expect Intel to offer up a competitive product in 2024. I expect them to fail in mobile with 13th gen. This will be an easy win for AMD. They'll continue to bleed out in datacenter.

I have about much faith in Intel as Santa coming to real life.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Yeah but i don't think getting a 3d version is a justifiable upgrade if you have the regular one.
If your getting a new gen, like a zen 3 -> zen5 then yeah... the 3D is very worth it.
But if your already on the Zen5, i don't think the 3D is worth it, unless you highly intend on recycling the old cpu somewhere.

There is no way for us to know what kind of performance uplift for gaming, or lack there of, will occur with Zen 5. Besides very few people upgrade every gen. AM5 sales aren't slow only because of pricing. Most AMD users are waiting for the 3D in the next 4 months or so. It will also mean cheaper DDR5. We have learned from history, and know when to pull the trigger, and that ain't now.

With Intel you either upgrade every gen, or need a new board.



Injecting a little humor.

 

[exquisitechar]

Terrific, you know how to count. The 7900X is a decent processor for those wanting cores without dealing with the nuances of the E cores and how they behave. It isn't the fastest, but it's good. The 7950X did deliver on premium performance. The 13900K is a new processor. I'm not sure what's wrong with younger techies but that is the way product stacks worked when I was your age. Intel would release a product that was fast, AMD released a product 2 months later and trampled said product, and back and forth.

Aside from Raphael X3D, which is irrelevant outside of gaming, there won't be much of a back and forth. I might be behind on the rumors, but Raphael and Raptor Lake should compete for what's left of 2022 as well as all of 2023. Raptor Lake launching slightly later than Raphael is irrelevant.

That 13900K needs 24 cores with HT on 8 of them to get where it's at, not to mention the wild thermals and power usage compared to AMD's 16 cores. You Intel guys may count it as a win but to anyone with logic it's ridiculous Intel needs that many cores and frequency to achieve what the 7950X did and more to put a gap between them. The 13900K does well in gaming but W11H2 is hobbling the performance of that processor. I'd like to see some retesting once that issue is fixed. Intel's answer is e-core spam and pushing their silicon has high as it can go ignoring thermals and power draw.

I'm not an "Intel guy". If anything, I have a bit of a preference for AMD, but being a cheerleader for either one of them is stupid. Anyway, I don't see why the number of cores or their frequency matters. In fact, the AMD and Intel CPUs are running at similar frequencies this time around and performance per clock is similar too, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about. All that matters is performance/power/area and Intel is doing quite well there despite being a node behind. Yes, the power these CPUs draw out of the box is stupid and motherboards taking it up a notch further and going against specifications doesn't help either, but Raptor Lake is actually very efficient at reasonable wattages. All of the reviews that properly tested performance at different wattages show that the 13900K is not terribly behind the 7950X. E-core spam works.

I'd have been impressed by the 13900K if it had a 16/32 setup and beat AMD's 7950X while using similar or slightly more power. As it stands, the 13600K and 13900K are fast and decent budget options if opting for DDR4 and a Z690 motherboard flashed to use 13th gen. Otherwise, overall it's a dumpster fire of a generation. I predict 13th gen not doing well in countries where energy costs are skyrocketing due to various reasons. Gaming doesn't use a lot of power, but people use their computer for more than just gaming.

Once again, the difference in efficiency is nowhere near big enough to warrant calling 13th gen a dumpster fire of a generation when you don't run these CPUs at 300 W.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

That is true, but there are people who won't use AMD.

You could have stopped typing right there. Some of them are in this thread. This is an AMD thread, which makes the suggestion of $300 and above Intel CPUs for cheap budget gaming come off like trolling. I hope you can see how it can look that way.

 

[Markfw]

Steve at GN states intel went the bulldozer route with massive power draw to win a lot of the charts.
Yes, in half the productivity charts the 7950 comes out ahead with it being a lot more efficient, but the other half, and especially the single core performance, the 13900K beats it.

I think in gaming it dominated the charts at being first place in over 80% of the titles.
The cpu is ideally better aimed at content creators, and gamers.

But again... it's not the "superior" arch, route, but more so the old prescott style, lets get over 5ghz so hyperthreading actually works approach.
And with that route, comes the cost of power, and a CPU temperature that will probably turn your room into a Sauna...
GN recorded on average 300W for the CPU.... Geebez... 300W is massive.... no longer can we recommend Gaming PSU's less then 850W now.

But hey they launched it right near winter.... need a heater? no problem, grab a 13900K and your set.

But anyhow enough rambling about intel in this thread...
The 250W draw on the 7950 vs 300W on the 13900K....
Shows we no longer care about what is called efficiency anymore, but who is at the king of the hill.
This to me looks very bleak.... as we are back in the 60's with muscle cars, and not caring about the how much gas they guzzle.

I agree at stock. But (as recommended by someone earlier in the Zen 4 builder thread I think) I just set the CO option of PBO (I think thats it) to -25, and it uses 142 watts, and I can't tell the difference in performance. I am sure you can do the same with RL, but it loses more performance than Zen at lower power, and still only has 8 strong cores.

 

[A///]

Aside from Raphael X3D, which is irrelevant outside of gaming, there won't be much of a back and forth. I might be behind on the rumors, but Raphael and Raptor Lake should compete for what's left of 2022 as well as all of 2023. Raptor Lake launching slightly later than Raphael is irrelevant.

Most DIY is gaming, so it's very relevant. X3D is due either in Q1 or Q2 2023.

I'm not an "Intel guy". If anything, I have a bit of a preference for AMD, but being a cheerleader for either one of them is stupid. Anyway, I don't see why the number of cores or their frequency matters. In fact, the AMD and Intel CPUs are running at similar frequencies this time around and performance per clock is similar too, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about. All that matters is performance/power/area and Intel is doing quite well there despite being a node behind. Yes, the power these CPUs draw out of the box is stupid and motherboards taking it up a notch further and going against specifications doesn't help either, but Raptor Lake is actually very efficient at reasonable wattages. All of the reviews that properly tested performance at different wattages show that the 13900K is not terribly behind the 7950X. E-core spam works.

It does matter. Recall Intel saying more cores was useless and that "glue" was useless? Despite them increasing core counts and having used "glue" in the past and will be in the near future if their tile based approach comes to fruition.

If frequency didn't matter then Intel wouldn't tout frequency in their pressers. Intel fans wouldn't cite frequency. Intel needs that higher frequency both on 1-2 cores and their all core plus those additional e-cores to get where they're at. I'd love to see benches done on Raptor Lake where 8 of the e-cores are disables and frequency is locked to AMD's. Which chip has the better architecture? Which chip uses less power to do their tasks. How close are the scores. If frequency and e-core spam didn't matter, then Intel wouldn't have had to increase the chip's frequency and add e-cores. Couldn't all mighty Intel design an architecture that blew AMD away outside of the recent piddling they did on AMD's parade?

You say e-core spam works at the end of that yet you said it didn't matter in the beginning of your jumbled nonsense.

Once again, the difference in efficiency is nowhere near big enough to warrant calling 13th gen a dumpster fire of a generation when you don't run these CPUs at 300 W.

Most people are going to want to get the performance they paid for. You overestimate the amount of people who use eco mode on Ryzen Master or BIOS restrictions on Intel.

 

[A///]

There is no way for us to know what kind of performance uplift for gaming, or lack there of, will occur with Zen 5. Besides very few people upgrade every gen. AM5 sales aren't slow only because of pricing. Most AMD users are waiting for the 3D in the next 4 months or so. It will also mean cheaper DDR5. We have learned from history, and know when to pull the trigger, and that ain't now.

With Intel you either upgrade every gen, or need a new board.

View attachment 69600

Injecting a little humor.

Also the small issue of Meteor Lake very likely being delayed until mid or late 2024. No one is releasing a major processor in 2023 except minor refreshes like X3D or the KS SKUs. RPL may hold the small lead they have in production but will likely lose the gaming crown to the X3D processors. No idea what SKUs will get it. I believe that AMD will have put enough effort into them to put a large gap between RPL and those X3D SKUs that it may cause Intel users that mostly game to question their purchases.

 

[A///]

You could have stopped typing right there. Some of them are in this thread. This is an AMD thread, which makes the suggestion of $300 and above Intel CPUs for cheap budget gaming come off like trolling. I hope you can see how it can look that way.

Yeah, I guess I can. My apologies dude. I didn't mean to troll but I did want to poke some humor into those saying AMD was expensive when Intel isn't too far behind even with a DDR4 kit. I still maintain it's cheaper and a bit better performing, but you're giving up thermals and power use. Most people are going to be doing more than running a game and that extra stuff in the background takes up power.

We had some light frost this last week and I had my feet propped up above my tower. The heat from my 10th gen on radiator warmed them up nicely. Intel's pricing has been steady for as long as I can remember. But I also remember when Athlon had the lead, AMD was charging very high figures for some of their processors back then.

If I had to buy a new setup today, 100% AMD. I wouldn't even question it. I wouldn't question dropping a new top end processor into the socket every 14-24 months.

 

[exquisitechar]

If frequency didn't matter then Intel wouldn't tout frequency in their pressers. Intel fans wouldn't cite frequency. Intel needs that higher frequency both on 1-2 cores and their all core plus those additional e-cores to get where they're at. I'd love to see benches done on Raptor Lake where 8 of the e-cores are disables and frequency is locked to AMD's. Which chip has the better architecture? Which chip uses less power to do their tasks. How close are the scores. If frequency and e-core spam didn't matter, then Intel wouldn't have had to increase the chip's frequency and add e-cores. Couldn't all mighty Intel design an architecture that blew AMD away outside of the recent piddling they did on AMD's parade?

You say e-core spam works at the end of that yet you said it didn't matter in the beginning of your jumbled nonsense.

Really? The one posting jumbled nonsense is you, and that's a poor attempt at a gotcha. You said:

You Intel guys may count it as a win but to anyone with logic it's ridiculous Intel needs that many cores and frequency to achieve what the 7950X did and more to put a gap between them.

My response was, it doesn't matter how you get to a certain level of performance, what matters is what power and how much area it takes. Meaning, if a hypothetical 8P+8E core CPU matched a 12 core CPU in everything at the same power, same area, and ran at a higher frequency than the 12 core CPU, it would not be any worse just because it has more cores or clocks higher. It's irrelevant that the 13900K has more cores, the performance it offers is what it is. Moreover, what you said about the frequency doesn't make sense because Intel doesn't even have a significantly higher frequency on 1-2 cores without overclocking.

 

[Geddagod]

Also the small issue of Meteor Lake very likely being delayed until mid or late 2024. No one is releasing a major processor in 2023 except minor refreshes like X3D or the KS SKUs. RPL may hold the small lead they have in production but will likely lose the gaming crown to the X3D processors. No idea what SKUs will get it. I believe that AMD will have put enough effort into them to put a large gap between RPL and those X3D SKUs that it may cause Intel users that mostly game to question their purchases.

Lmao what since when was MTL being delayed until mid or late 2024 "very likely"
I agree I doubt nothing major will release in 2023 though other than X3D
I also highly doubt AMD would take the gaming crown by a margin >10%, unless they improve x3d tech drastically, and if they do take the crown, they will most likely price that at a premium.
I doubt RPL buyers who just game will be questioning their purchases, unless they bought the 13900k for just gaming, because they prob would have gotten their platforms for much cheaper than what a potential x3d sku would have been released at. On top of not having to have waited for a x3d launch. And if you bought a 13900k for just gaming, I have no sympathy for you regretting your purchase regardless hahah

 

[A///]

Really? The one posting jumbled nonsense is you, and that's a poor attempt at a gotcha. You said:

My response was, it doesn't matter how you get to a certain level of performance, what matters is what power and how much area it takes. Meaning, if a hypothetical 8P+8E core CPU matched a 12 core CPU in everything at the same power, same area, and ran at a higher frequency than the 12 core CPU, it would not be any worse just because it has more cores or clocks higher. It's irrelevant that the 13900K has more cores, the performance it offers is what it is. Moreover, what you said about the frequency doesn't make sense because Intel doesn't even have a significantly higher frequency on 1-2 cores without overclocking.

Not sure why you can't understand simple logic here.

13900K single or two core boost alternate is 5.8. All core speeds are higher than the 7950's on the P cores. Intel still needs 24 cores to put that gap between it and the 7950x. It needs more power and gets warmer. The closest Intel got to a 16 core was the 12900K. If for some reason do you think it'd make sense to proclaim Arrow Lake the winner in the future when it combines 32 E-cores with 8 P-cores when it'll be using even more power and putting off more heat against whatever 16 core processor AMD has then?

If Intel stuck with 8P+8E and improved clocks while reining in power while beating the 7950X as they have now I would have been more impressed. To do what they've done they had to increase E-core count by 8 to a total of 16 among several other changes, none of which come free, to get where they are now. Either the E-cores are weak and should be discarded or they're incredibly powerful, but the scores don't suggest that. The 8 extra E-cores alone would be an older but still powerful processor generation. Yet they add little here.


Let me say this in another manner. In an example situation Zen 5 still tops out at 16 cores, which is very likely, yet gains 40-60% IPC increase over Zen 4 which isn't possible but let's say it happens. Intel releases Meteor Lake after with another 8 cores added onto it for 8+24, and then Arrow Lake with 8+32. Neither of which manage to beat AMD. At what point are people going to say these E-cores are weak and useless being added while increasing power envelopes?

Either Intel can't design a mainstream processor with 16 or more cores or this E-core nonsense is a stop gap for them until they come out with their next killer design.

 

[Geddagod]

Most DIY is gaming, so it's very relevant. X3D is due either in Q1 or Q2 2023.


It does matter. Recall Intel saying more cores was useless and that "glue" was useless? Despite them increasing core counts and having used "glue" in the past and will be in the near future if their tile based approach comes to fruition.

If frequency didn't matter then Intel wouldn't tout frequency in their pressers. Intel fans wouldn't cite frequency. Intel needs that higher frequency both on 1-2 cores and their all core plus those additional e-cores to get where they're at. I'd love to see benches done on Raptor Lake where 8 of the e-cores are disables and frequency is locked to AMD's. Which chip has the better architecture? Which chip uses less power to do their tasks. How close are the scores. If frequency and e-core spam didn't matter, then Intel wouldn't have had to increase the chip's frequency and add e-cores. Couldn't all mighty Intel design an architecture that blew AMD away outside of the recent piddling they did on AMD's parade?

You say e-core spam works at the end of that yet you said it didn't matter in the beginning of your jumbled nonsense.


Most people are going to want to get the performance they paid for. You overestimate the amount of people who use eco mode on Ryzen Master or BIOS restrictions on Intel.

A lot of the stuff in the middle here is 'jargon'. Just as easily as people say "oh Intel needs e-core spam L+bozo", others can say "ha AMD even on a better node can't beat Intel's last gen in gaming". Like, what's the point? In the end it's just products that matter. And yes, I also agree on saying Intel 13th gen is a dumpster fire is just hilariously biased and not at all what reviewers are saying about the product line as a while.
Also I think it's kinda funny how you switched your position on the importance of gaming. When the other guy said X3d won't help much outside of gaming, you said most of DIY is gamers so yes it does matter. But when talking about power draw, you concede that the differences in power draw in gaming isn't much, but people use their computers for more than just gaming.

 

[A///]

A lot of the stuff in the middle here is 'jargon'. Just as easily as people say "oh Intel needs e-core spam L+bozo", others can say "ha AMD even on a better node can't beat Intel's last gen in gaming". Like, what's the point? In the end it's just products that matter. And yes, I also agree on saying Intel 13th gen is a dumpster fire is just hilariously biased and not at all what reviewers are saying about the product line as a while.
Also I think it's kinda funny how you switched your position on the importance of gaming. When the other guy said X3d won't help much outside of gaming, you said most of DIY is gamers so yes it does matter. But when talking about power draw, you concede that the differences in power draw in gaming isn't much, but people use their computers for more than just gaming.

Power draw in a pure gaming scenario isn't much. That is correct. Those who stream at the same time will see increased power usage. Your processor will still get some use even if you use your GPU to stream. Running more than a game contributes to more power use. Not all games are equal in power draw. Some take 50-80 watts, some may take even more.

It's a dumpster fire in that it needs more cores to put a gap between it and the 7950X in gaming, and it needs more cores and more power in production workloads. The X3D helps in gaming, but not in all games.

FWIW, I used to always say gamers were a minority in the DIY scene. I was corrected often that gamers were the majority. I'm still not sure what to believe. Like I said, the 13th gen processors are good performers and budget friendly compared to the Ryzen 7000 series. If you're only looking to upgrade every 4-5 years then it's a great option, especially if you're not worried about the heat or extra power usage. AMD makes a lot more sense if you plan on upgrading every generation or every other generation including X3D refreshes.