Question Zen 4 builders thread

[Markfw]

I know its early, but as someone pointed out, I better get my ram now before the scalpers are all over it.

To go with a 7950x, what do you think of this ram:

https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb-288-pin-ddr5-sdram/p/N82E16820374369?Item=N82E16820374369

(edited for my best recommendation, 12/5/2023)

 

[Hotrod2go]

DetOx have you tried this with MaxxMem2?

 

[Det0x]

DetOx have you tried this with MaxxMem2?

Yeah but it seems like this program is somewhat buggy.. Will only read the hardware after ive opened and closed the programs 3 times.
And i think its only getting the bandwidth numbers from a single CCD. (Hence 2:1 mode is wasted here since 6400MT/s 1:1 is enough to saturate a single CCD)

 

[biostud]

Yeah but it seems like this program is somewhat buggy.. Will only read the hardware after ive opened and closed the programs 3 times.
And i think its only getting the bandwidth numbers from a single CCD. (Hence 2:1 mode is wasted here since 6400MT/s 1:1 is enough to saturate a single CCD)
View attachment 83482 View attachment 83483

I've had problems if TPM is enabled in windows.

 

[Hotrod2go]

Yeah but it seems like this program is somewhat buggy.. Will only read the hardware after ive opened and closed the programs 3 times.
And i think its only getting the bandwidth numbers from a single CCD. (Hence 2:1 mode is wasted here since 6400MT/s 1:1 is enough to saturate a single CCD)
View attachment 83482 View attachment 83483

Yes, there is definitely bug in this program. If I run 5200CL36 & compare with 6200CL36 on a single CCD (7700), the write speed is literally the same with UCLK=MEMCLK. I've used it with 2 different sets of RAM & not once has it been able to read the major timings on both sets. This app has been around for many yrs already & was last updated in 22'.

 

[biostud]

As bios v1.28 AGESA 1.0.7.0B went out of beta I upgraded my bios. Definitely longer memory training, although it is not too bad with 32GB. I still enabled memory context restore though.

Sometimes my computer would not power on the keyboard, so I had to unplug and plug it in again, and then everything was fine. Let's see if the problem persists.

Otherwise everything seems to be as expected.

 

[eek2121]

As bios v1.28 AGESA 1.0.7.0B went out of beta I upgraded my bios. Definitely longer memory training, although it is not too bad with 32GB. I still enabled memory context restore though.

Sometimes my computer would not power on the keyboard, so I had to unplug and plug it in again, and then everything was fine. Let's see if the problem persists.

Otherwise everything seems to be as expected.

I updated yesterday without issue. Performance appears to be improved and the system is rock solid (so far). I have not tried to tweak things yet. I just redid my old settings.

 

[biostud]

I updated yesterday without issue. Performance appears to be improved and the system is rock solid (so far). I have not tried to tweak things yet. I just redid my old settings.

I just loaded my saved Buildzoid timings, and let it be with that. The keyboard not turning on persists, though.

 

[igor_kavinski]

The keyboard not turning on persists, though.

Try a different keyboard?

 

[Fjodor2001]

Hello,

I'm about to build a desktop PC which mainly will be used for compiling source code, machine learning, and transcoding movies when in active use. Gaming is not in focus.

A lot of the time the PC will be idling or using very low CPU resources. So I'd like the complete system to have very low idle power consumption.

Based on this, is there any motherboard + CPU combination you'd like to recommend? With regards to CPU, I'm considering AMD 7950X / 7950X3D, or Intel 13900K.

I vaguely remember that current top-of-the-line AMD based systems consume lower power when in active use, but Intel based systems consume lower power in idle mode? Is this correct? And if so approximately how much would the idle power consumption differ between an AMD vs Intel based system, if the same components are used except for CPU & motherboard and they are chosen with low idle power consumption in mind?

 

[igor_kavinski]

Based on this, is there any motherboard + CPU combination you'd like to recommend? With regards to CPU, I'm considering AMD 7950X / 7950X3D, or Intel 13900K.

For your particular use cases, 7950X3D all the way.

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D Linux Performance Review - Phoronix

www.phoronix.com

You can see that 7950X3D wins easily with lowest power consumption and almost similar performance to 7950X. 13900K is just plain bad news for your power bill with the sort of all core workloads you would be doing.

 

[A///]

13900k rapidly loses the efficiency game at higher wattages when doing the same tasks. a good analogy would be intel's processors are like big hulking midsize saloons that have an eco mode that don't use much petrol when driving within the eco range, but soon as you lead foot the sucker it guzzles fuel and your mpg goes out the window. fault amd for what you want but they know a thing or two about using their power envelope efficiently. this is intel's mo historically.

 

[Markfw]

The few watts saved on the 13900k at idle are very quickly eliminated when you actually use the chip. I vote for the 7950x, but set the power down to about 150 watts. Depending on the bios, this is done in many ways. For several of mine it amounts to setting the curve optimizer to -25. You get 950% if the performance at max(250 watt) and idle just a few watts about Intel. Intel has to go well ver 250 watt to equal the 7950x at 142.

 

[cellarnoise]

I have found a 7950x without an external GPU will idle around 20watts-ish. Add a GPU and idle CPU watts is over 30 like in the chart above. This is in windows 10.

 

[A///]

I wish I was talking about the idle. Completely forgot about that simply because few are idling due to the way windows will engage cores on the fly when left alone. up to gaming use and mild work they're within a sneeze distance of one another but once you get past that in loads the intel processor starts channeling away at higher power use while trying to deliver an equal experience. my analogy was what this signified because at idle or very near it is not a significant use of one person's time and is relatively unrealistic when it's better off to go into standby modes if not for saving more power than idle but to avoid any reason for the os to engage the hardware and kick itself out of low power idle. the way most background software works today it simply doesn't have real world use behind it. even if intel came up with next gen power sipping features and they will they'd make up that gain with expenditure to zero out the good will they'll gain by pushing processors even more. in the early 2000s there used to be an american style sitcom of a family man often making himself a fool by making things more powerful and burning a portion of his house down. that to me is intel and has been for a good 20 years now if you avoid the core 2 era and up to the 4th gen intel core processors before they began making a backward breast stroke into idiocy.

 

[igor_kavinski]

that to me is intel and has been for a good 20 years now if you avoid the core 2 era and up to the 4th gen intel core processors before they began making a backward breast stroke into idiocy.

Yeah. To me, their last really interesting CPU before Alder Lake was the i7-5775C. Really wish they hadn't abandoned eDRAM cache. If they had kept improving it iteratively, they would have had at least a passable answer to V-cache. At the very least, CPU shootout articles would have been a tad bit more interesting to read.

 

[A///]

Yeah. To me, their last really interesting CPU before Alder Lake was the i7-5775C. Really wish they hadn't abandoned eDRAM cache. If they had kept improving it iteratively, they would have had at least a passable answer to V-cache. At the very least, CPU shootout articles would have been a tad bit more interesting to read.

Expensive and yield issues would have stopped it, intel would have more on their plate than they did a few short years later bumping their heads against a cinder wall.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Thanks everyone for the info ans suggestions.

Based on this info I'm leaning towards 7950X3D. But in the end it will depend on how much of the time the system will stay in idle vs at full load when comparing it to 13900K, to determine if the lower idle power consumption on the 13900K will compensate for its much higher power consumption at load.

An option could be to go for 7950X and limit the power to ~150W, but I guess it will be somewhat slower than 7950X3D then, so is the only advantage over 7950X3D that 7950X will be cheaper?

Also, just wondering if it is known why the current Intel CPUs have lower total system power consumption at idle than AMD CPUs? Is it e.g. due to the different accompanying chipset, or some architectural difference in the CPUs? IIRC, the APU-style CPUs from AMD like 5700G have lower idle power consumption that the "regular" ones like 5800X, so maybe there is some clue in that?

 

[igor_kavinski]

Also, just wondering if it is known why the current Intel CPUs have lower total system power consumption at idle than AMD CPUs?

AMD 65W Zen 4 Review: Ryzen 7600, 7700, and 7900 CPUs Tested

The new AMD Ryzen 65W processor SKUs open the door to small form factor PC gaming systems built on Zen 4. Here's our look at the new CPUs.

www.tweaktown.com

7900 consumes 20W idle, if that will work for you.

 

[Abwx]

An option could be to go for 7950X and limit the power to ~150W, but I guess it will be somewhat slower than 7950X3D then, so is the only advantage over 7950X3D that 7950X will be cheaper?

142W limited 7950X is the same speed as the stock X3D counterpart, also the difference in idle power for a full system with a 13900K is only 8W, the MB has surely some influence.

Ryzen 9 7950X3D im Test gegen 5800X3D und 13900K(S): Leistung in Anwendungen, Einrichtung und Fazit

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D im Test: Leistung in Anwendungen, Einrichtung und Fazit / Leistung und Effizienz in Anwendungen

www.computerbase.de

 

[moinmoin]

the MB has surely some influence.

I'd say the choice of MB is actually the definite factor. There are boards that waste a lot in idle and others that are frugal. Looking closer it's their default setup and support for putting connected hardware into energy saving modes. Some manufacturers are just bad at it it seems, and in general mobile system are way better at it than desktop systems, though with Intel the difference is not as stark as with AMD (higher highs and lower lows). Unfortunately there aren't that many benchmarks or such testing power consumption of specific boards with specific setups/settings.

 

[Fjodor2001]

AMD 65W Zen 4 Review: Ryzen 7600, 7700, and 7900 CPUs Tested

The new AMD Ryzen 65W processor SKUs open the door to small form factor PC gaming systems built on Zen 4. Here's our look at the new CPUs.

www.tweaktown.com

7900 consumes 20W idle, if that will work for you.

It says 22W for 7900 in the article you linked to, but that's just for the CPU as I understand it, not total system idle power consumption? See chart below:

But anyway, going by that chart the difference in idle CPU power consumption seems very small between e.g. 7950X vs 13900K (only 24W vs 21W). So if that chart is accurate, then I guess it must be the accompanying chipset and/or motherboards used for AMD vs Intel that mainly accounts for the higher idle system power consumption on AMD compared to Intel?

 

[igor_kavinski]

AMD Ryzen 9 7900 CPU Review: Performance, Thermals & Power Analysis - Hardware Busters

Hardware Busters - AMD Ryzen 9 7900 CPU Review: Performance, Thermals & Power Analysis - CPU

hwbusters.com

Seems the X parts have more problems. The 7900 is only about 5 watts more than the 12900KF.

 

[igor_kavinski]

AMD Ryzen 9 7900

A value version of an already value-angled AMD processor

me.pcmag.com

Here, the 7950X idle is only 3 watts higher than 13900K. So I guess yes, it depends on mobo. So if you go with the mobo in this review, 7950X should be your choice. 13900K is again the worst choice ever. 633W watts just for a CPU intensive workload! And the CBR23 figure is more than 100W extra! Yabba dabba YIKES!

 

[Fjodor2001]

142W limited 7950X is the same speed as the stock X3D counterpart, also the difference in idle power for a full system with a 13900K is only 8W, the MB has surely some influence.

Ryzen 9 7950X3D im Test gegen 5800X3D und 13900K(S): Leistung in Anwendungen, Einrichtung und Fazit

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D im Test: Leistung in Anwendungen, Einrichtung und Fazit / Leistung und Effizienz in Anwendungen

www.computerbase.de

Hmm.... there seems to be different results in different tests.

1. From this one here which igor_kavinski linked to previously, I get the impression that 7950X gets 51.46 and 7950X3D gets 49.90 (so about equally as fast) when both are running at their default power setting (i.e. 7950X3D @ 120W and 7950X @ 170W):

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D Linux Performance Review - Phoronix

www.phoronix.com

So if the power setting for 7950X is changed from 170W to 142W, I'd assume it'll have lower performance than 7950X3D at 120W?

2. But then there is the test which you linked to, where 7950X and 7950X3D gets roughly the same performance when operating at the same TDP (e.g. performance index 93 vs 91 when both @ 142W, and 80 vs 82 when both @ 88 W). Extracted from this diagram:

Ryzen 9 7950X3D im Test gegen 5800X3D und 13900K(S): Leistung in Anwendungen, Einrichtung und Fazit

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D im Test: Leistung in Anwendungen, Einrichtung und Fazit / Leistung und Effizienz in Anwendungen

www.computerbase.de

 

[igor_kavinski]

Just go with 7950X with the Asrock Taichi. I don't think you will be disappointed.