That's very unlikely, as long as ZEN5s power draw isn't massively up from ZEN4. 7700X needslike 70W in gaming, 9700X can draw 88W. Ryzen 9 SKUs are even further away from TDP limitations at gaming.Or it could be that the lower TDPs mean the chips are not boosting as high as Ryzen 7000 in games.
Problem is that the last years have taught us that Gaming isn't that much about the arch but more about Cache size and latency. I mean look at Rocket Lake. You can say what you want about it, but the IPC uplift definitely was there. In Gaming however, nothing. Why? L3 reduction from 20MB to 16MB and worse latencies.Looking at the core itself (as the platform is the same), there is no reason for Zen 5 to show mediocre uplift in games.
What's the deal with the invasion of freshly created accounts like this?I would not bother to take what he said serious half of his posts are "Is zen5 good yet?" "So is it good yet?" "I've not recovered from the 32% hangover ." "So what's the consensus here, is zen 5 good yet?"
RAM timings are quite important for gaming, especially when there is no 3D Cache. AMD results were obtained with good DDR5-6000 modules, IIRC. Also platform differences (I.e. different motherboards) may account for a few % in performance.My source is a VAR channel which focuses on professional applications. Ram timing might play a role but I wasn't informed of that. Performance is exactly what amd has advertised minus a few percent.
so what do we think? I think an ~5% gaming uplift is definitely possible.
CB tests with Spec RAM, and that is 5200MT for 7700X. AMDs test of 9700X was with 6000MT EXPO and most outlets that test like this (HUB for example) measured the 7700X to be around 8% faster than 5800X3D. That's why I said 4-5% with same RAM.At Computerbase they have the 5800X3D 1% faster than the 7700X, so for you a 12% uplift over the 5800X3D would be only 5% above the 7700X..?..
What kind of math is this.?.
AMD also tested with 7900XTX instead of 4090 used by most outlets. Keep in mind this can also skew results.AMDs test of 9700X was with 6000MT EXPO and most outlets that test like this (HUB for example) measured the 7700X to be around 8% faster than 5800X3D. That's why I said 4-5% with same RAM.
Biggest difference is that Computerbase is at 720p while HUB is at 1080p, beside the 7950XTX more or less give the same results as a 4090, so you are just doing some hasardous speculations based on things like this :CB tests with Spec RAM, and that is 5200MT for 7700X. AMDs test of 9700X was with 6000MT EXPO and most outlets that test like this (HUB for example) measured the 7700X to be around 8% faster than 5800X3D. That's why I said 4-5% with same RAM.
Have you first hand infos about Zen 5 cache latencies..?.Problem is that the last years have taught us that Gaming isn't that much about the arch but more about Cache size and latency.
This re-usability was what saved then struggling AMD at the beginning of the Ryzen era. They designed just one die. And then they built Ryzen 1000 with it. Then they combined up to four of them to bring EPYC Naples. And when they realized there was demand for HEDT, they also combined two and later four of them to bring Threadripper. That's all the very same piece of silicon, called Zeppelin. What a marvel of cost effectiveness.That's been a core part of the Zen strategy from the beginning - reusing dies.
We've got AIDA64 GNR latency numbers, the latency is in line with Zen 4.The rumored changes to boost L3 density? Maybe latency got worse and DRAM tuning plays greater role
What's the deal with gatekeeping on a public forum?What's the deal with the invasion of freshly created accounts like this?
Start of rant...Biggest difference is that Computerbase is at 720p while HUB is at 1080p, beside the 7950XTX more or less give the same results as a 4090, so you are just doing some hasardous speculations based on things like this :
Start of rant...
I don't understand the point of measuring CPU game performance at 720p or 1080p. This doesn't rule out driver deficiencies or GPU performance variations for resolutions no gamer uses. IMHO that's completely pointless and I'd prefer reviewers spend time analyzing results they get on purely CPU bound results rather than just listing useless figures with no or little analysis.
Not easy, I know, but testing a high-end CPU with a high-end GPU on stupidly low resolutions is of no use to me.
According to the Mike Clark Interview with CnC, the first one is true. The Decoder indeed gets statically partitioned when two threads are allocated to one core.Anyway I was wondering are decoders in Zen5 statically partitioned between SMT threads, so when SMT threads is enabled each thread ends up with 4 wide decoder and only if you disable SMT in the BIOS it might happen that both decoders will be trying to decode the same instruction stream?
I'm really looking forward to any AMD docs detailing the constrains (non-align stuff, max length, etc.). The Family 1Ah SoG might be interesting.According to the Mike Clark Interview with CnC, the first one is true. The Decoder indeed gets statically partitioned when two threads are allocated to one core.
The latter is not the case. According to him, one thread is able to make use of the full 2x4 decoders and there is no need to disable SMT in the BIOS. Of course, further constraints or limitations might apply.
Ha yes that's so obvious, I had never thought of that 😅 /sThe lower the resolution the more you ll be CPU bound, that s why Computerbase test at 720p, at 1080p/1440p CPUs differences s will be compressed.
Yepp, indeed. As I might not have the endurance to read through all that stuff, I am hoping for a nice summary by CnC, garnished with some nice micro-benchmarking 😉I'm really looking forward to any AMD docs detailing the constrains (non-align stuff, max length, etc.). The Family 1Ah SoG might be interesting.
You’re a CPU designer?Ha yes that's so obvious, I had never thought of that 😅 /s
You didn't address anything at all about my post.
As a gamer, I don't care how a new CPU performs at 720p/1080p on a 4090. I want to know how it will perform at resolution most gamers now play with a GPU that doesn't cost three times more than the CPU.
As a CPU designer and as a user of purely CPU bound software, I want to know how a new CPU performs on benchmarks that don't involve GPU or any other unrelated piece of hardware (NPU, etc.). I want deep analysis from a knowledgeable person, not some trash data dumped by a clown doing videos.
I wouldn't care about these 720p/1080p results with a $2k GPU if reviewers also spent time trying to understand their results. My feeling is that most of them just pile up results and are not able to analyze and understand what they get.
Ha yes that's so obvious, I had never thought of that 😅 /s
You didn't address anything at all about my post.
As a gamer, I don't care how a new CPU performs at 720p/1080p on a 4090. I want to know how it will perform at resolution most gamers now play with a GPU that doesn't cost three times more than the CPU.
As a CPU designer and as a user of purely CPU bound software, I want to know how a new CPU performs on benchmarks that don't involve GPU or any other unrelated piece of hardware (NPU, etc.). I want deep analysis from a knowledgeable person, not some trash data dumped by a clown doing videos.
I wouldn't care about these 720p/1080p results with a $2k GPU if reviewers also spent time trying to understand their results. My feeling is that most of them just pile up results and are not able to analyze and understand what they get.
Interestingly enough, HUB just uploaded a Video basically comparing the RAM they (amd AMD) test with, with the one CB tests with on an 7700X. With 6000 EXPO, 7700X is a whopping 12% faster. Doesn't look good for 9700X, right?
Oh and why can't I put Screenshots directly in my comments?
He won't which company he designs CPUs at , though I have some good guesses...You’re a CPU designer?
Interestingly enough, HUB just uploaded a Video basically comparing the RAM they (amd AMD) test with, with the one CB tests with on an 7700X. With 6000 EXPO, 7700X is a whopping 12% faster. Doesn't look good for 9700X, right?
Oh and why can't I put Screenshots directly in my comments?
Testing at random JEDEC specs is even less useful, CB tests are just pure garbage from practical point of view. No one sane uses these settingsGPU on stupidly low resolutions is of no use to me.
Depending on the games tested, it can be from 15% slower to 50% faster, it's absolutely impossible to gauge a new CPU performance from median / average values, you can only do that on per-game basis (and currently there is only data for the games that AMD picked for their Computex keynote).7700X to be around 8% faster than 5800X3D
Performance is exactly what amd has advertised minus a few percent.
No need to guess:lol, what does that even mean? Im still saying the betting line should be ~+10% faster in gaming, SKU vs SKU, not necessarily clock for clock, vs Zen 4. I really believe the Zen 5 core is capable of more, but zero improvements in memory speed vs Zen 4 will definitely hold it back.
So, ~10% better than vanilla Zen 4, 5%-8% slower than Zen 4 X3D on average. This is a big reason why I think AMD should (and likely will) price Zen 5 more competitively at launch than Zen 4.
Oh sorry, I will edit it. CB=Computerbase. Didn't even think about Cinebench at the moment I wrote it.I'm not sure what you are trying to say when you say CB then link a screenshot showing game averages.