In reality it was. AMD got much hurt due to the 3nm TSMC yields. Yelding rate grew too slow for the Time-To-market AMD needs for win versus Intel. And versus Apple too.None of this is true.
**EDIT: Changed my 230W to from 44.5 to 45.5, unlimited to 46.5K (7/14/24 21:05 US Central Time. Locked in now, let the chips fall where they may!How about a competition? The one who guesses the closest scores for CBR23 for 120w PPT, 230w PPT and unlimited PPT, gets a free CPU benchmark of their choice (terms and conditions apply). Voting stops after 60w result is posted.
Terms and conditions: Nothing that requires uploading to an online database or needs an online profile to run.
And the competition begins with the first screenshot from the super awesome ES user:
View attachment 103040
Oh no I have been found out, you'll never take me alive!and some aren't even humans!
Are you getting ready for a R23 bench maraton, so i we have a comparison for the ES ? 🤣120W: 39,500
230W: 45,000
Unlimited: 46,500
You know itAre you geting ready for a R23 bench maraton, so i we have a comparison for the ES ? 🤣
🙏
1 screenshot per day this is painfulYou know it
In most cases wouldn’t the real life differences be most significant in the non 3D models? And besides benchmarking and fun and giggles, be less than 5% for the 3D models in real life scenarios?
How about a competition? The one who guesses the closest scores for CBR23 for 120w PPT, 230w PPT and unlimited PPT, gets a free CPU benchmark of their choice (terms and conditions apply). Voting stops after 60w result is posted.
Terms and conditions: Nothing that requires uploading to an online database or needs an online profile to run.
And the competition begins with the first screenshot from the super awesome ES user:
View attachment 103040
Considering my 7950X outscored his by quite a lot at the same PPT and core power, it seems less than impressive.Heres my 5900X @60W in R23 for comparison. Just 60W PPT, everything else stock.
5864 @60W. So 97.73 points/W.
The 9950X ES number of 12424 at 40W is 310.6 points/W!
So we are looking at a staggering +318% increase in points per watt efficiency here! Admittedly, my 5900X performance really tanks under about 70W PPT, but apparently the 9950X does much better at that level. Would love to see how that changes if both chips are compared at their most efficient points!
**UPDATE: Did a run at stock settings, scored 19730 @141W. This yields 140 points per watt, an efficiency increase of 43% vs what my 5900X does at 60W. Still less than half of the Zen 5 at 40W, which is impressive, because the 5900X falls off so much at 40W PPT I didnt even bother to run it. I can only imagine the points/watt in the sweet spot of 16 core Zen 5, likely somewhere between 160W and 190W I would guess.
View attachment 103066
42K 230W, 44K unlimited.How about a competition? The one who guesses the closest scores for CBR23 for 120w PPT, 230w PPT and unlimited PPT, gets a free CPU benchmark of their choice (terms and conditions apply). Voting stops after 60w result is posted.
Terms and conditions: Nothing that requires uploading to an online database or needs an online profile to run.
And the competition begins with the first screenshot from the super awesome ES user:
View attachment 103040
The one for CBR23 is stock DDR5-4800 coz that benchmark isn't influenced much by RAM speed anyway.No CO and with memory at DDR5-6000 or DDR5-6400 to get an idea of how this will perform for majority of users?
Gotta estimate 120W score too, to be eligible.42K 230W, 44K unlimited.
The one for CBR23 is stock DDR5-4800 coz that benchmark isn't influenced much by RAM speed anyway.
Last minute panic about max wattage and prices?This is such a weird launch again from AMD. 15th of July today and we know nothing about ZEN5. No prices, no release day. Why they are doing it like this?
I went to start running my suite at the list of PPT tiers and noticed the 40W bench was run at stock/JEDEC, presumably to provide more power to the cores. I was going to run through them all tonight but now that he keeps changing the memory setup I won't waste my time until I know the config for each PPT level. Just ran 40W at stock/JEDEC here but stock on my X670E Aorus Xtreme sets to 2000FCLK, not 1800FCLK as pictured in his screenshot.
Considering my 7950X outscored his by quite a lot at the same PPT and core power, it seems less than impressive.
Lowering my FCLK to 1800 simply increased the power available to the cores and bumped the score a few percent.
Benchmarks:
Fully AUTO (2000FCLK)
View attachment 103079
Manual 1800FCLK
View attachment 103080
I don't think this option is available on AM5 boards, definitely not on Gigabyte ones... my 5800X3D's I/O die just became 32% more efficient (in five minutes)
Oh yes, this is the name we must give it. AMD EAR - Early Adopter "Rewards"but want to "reward" early adopters, if they can?
Besides a small audience of enthusiasts, do the market really care?This is such a weird launch again from AMD. 15th of July today and we know nothing about ZEN5. No prices, no release day. Why they are doing it like this?
It never was on AM4 Gigabyte boards also. Guess which vendor was caught cheating first?I don't think this option is available on AM5 boards, definitely not on Gigabyte ones
I'm not sure I'm supposed to know who "mister dom himself" is and that his "hottest/coldest" temperature delta conclusions are correct, since they're based on peak core temperatures rather than average.Also, found the comparison of delidded vs not delidded by mister dom himself for ya
Det0x , of course.I'm not sure I'm supposed to know who "mister dom himself" is and that his "hottest/coldest" temperature delta conclusions are correct, since they're based on peak core temperatures rather than average.