Mindfactory finally sold 10 9700X. 9600X still between 5 and 10
They measure power at the 12V CPU power rail, so that include the VRMs losses wich are about 10-12%, so their CB run is at 65W or so, that s comparable to Computerbase s 60W.
That s the full Soc power since they get about 90W peaks in Blender, previously they always used the CPU package power, wich include the uncore.
Indeed their methodology is curious, they measure the power with Blender at mid test, peak value and minimal value, there s something flawed here because they get the 7700 minimal power at 24W while in all their previous reviews it was about half this value.
Memory bandwidth, yepDoes something prevent it?
People say not enough memory bandwidth but that doesn't matter for Cinebench.
They won't because it doesn't have enough memory bandwidth. X3D and some APUs probably. X3D could have more memory stacks as a potential option for killing it at gaming.Who knows, we'll see. It's just an option, but something will be needed anyway. 4-5 years between Zen4 and Zen6 with nothing else than what we've seen so far just won't do. That is unless we'll see substantial price cuts along the way.
They provide a total system power of 208W but no idle system power number, they should be discarded as they dont help at all, beside it seems that they are not that competent at measuring power :View attachment 104969
AMD Ryzen 7 9700X Review: Zen 5 Arrives
Today we're taking our first look at AMD's new Zen 5 processors, starting with the Ryzen 7 9700X, their latest 8-core / 16-thread CPU designed to replace the 7700X.www.techspot.com
Correction (Aug 7): There was an error in our original power graph showing how the 9700X behaves in CB (208 W is the correct figure, not 221 W)
Bruh....... The 9700X should pull its 88W PPT limit (as indicated by HWI64) in CB 2024. This is entirely consistent with all of the 65W TDP AM5 CPU's. This isn't a mystery that requires autistic levels of investigation.They provide a total system power of 208W but no idle system power number, they should be discarded as they dont help at all, beside it seems that they are not that competent at measuring power :
We would need the idle power to check the delta, what seems sure is that Cinebench R23 fully load the CPU up to 88W and with a 4.4GHz frequency according to Hardwareluxx.
Cinebench 2024 could be a lighter load, this could explain Techspot s 4.8GHz but then at stock Computerbase has only 4.3-4.4GHz in CB 2024, so it s obvious that numbers are all over the place and problematic to sort out.
Also i noticed that Techopowerup "updated " their benches and "unexpectedly" removed a bench, so their averages are actually biaised, here the 14900K review with the browsing perfs :
Intel Core i9-14900K Review - Reaching for the Performance Crown
Core i9-14900K is Intel's new flagship with clock speeds of up to 6 GHz. It's actually clocked even higher than the 13900KS, thanks to an extra 100 MHz when more than two cores are active. Our review confirms that Raptor Lake Refresh is amazing for both applications and gaming, if you can live...www.techpowerup.com
And FI the 9600X review for the same perfs in browsing :
AMD Ryzen 5 9600X Review - The Best Sub-$300 Gaming CPU
The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X excels in energy efficiency and single-threaded performance. It offers great FPS for gamers and solid application performance. Our review confirms: at just $280, the 9600X is a compelling option against the pricier 7800X3D.www.techpowerup.com
Hey, what happened to WebXPRT4 ??
Let see the scores in a CZ review with overclockings for all CPUs to check if there s not something too "bothering" along with Computerbase stock results :
Yes but then power consumption increases massively. Efficiency goes out the window.What if you overclock the 9000 to 105w TDP then compare them again in terms of performance and efficiency? Wouldn't you gain back the 10 ~ 15% performance uplift people were expecting to see? (applications not gaming I know)
I feel like a computerbase did a good job comparing the different skus.
I set the 7700 as a baseline because that was a 65W TDP part and what HUB was using as a comparison. And while yes the 9700X at 65/88 looks good next to the 7700X at 105/142. When compared to the 7700 it’s not overly impressive. 9% better in multi-core. 19% better in single (which is by far its best quality), and 12% better in gaming.
I pointed that out earlier in the thread as well:
Overall, I'm inclined to blame AMD for not giving motherboard makers and/or reviewers better guidance regarding vSOC and other uncore voltages as it appears there is more than the expected variance between mobo makers. 10% MT perf difference is a lot... that's basically minus one generation in performance.
Obviously, I'm expecting less impact on 9950X results simply because an extra 10W uncore usage will have much less impact when your TDP is 170W vs 65W.
don’t fool into thinking zen 5 is more efficient
Zen 5 vanilla is a flop for gaming and higher clocks would have definitely helped and oh N3E
Even if the 9700X cost the same as the 7700X would you even bother swapping it?It will be interesting to see how well 9900X and 9950X move, but this is shaping up to be a terrible launch with regards to volume.
Really striking that Zen 4 sold that well despite $500 minimum motherboard, $300 minimum ram, and a brand new unstable platform sure to cause you hair loss.
Zen 5's poor sales are solely due to the pricing and product delivered.
Zen 5 isn't what we had hoped for from the gaming perspective, but to say "Zen 5" is a flop suggested by some journalists (HUB) is a bit of a stretch.
Sure if you compare it directly with the non X 7000, the efficiency claim is no longer the case. But what if AMD decides to put out a non X 9000 version with let's say, 45w? Wouldn't that "reshuffle" the whole lineup and thus making the claim AMD is trying to hide reviewers from making comparisons with the non X 7000 totally invalid?
What if you overclock the 9000 to 105w TDP then compare them again in terms of performance and efficiency? Wouldn't you gain back the 10 ~ 15% performance uplift people were expecting to see? (applications not gaming I know)
Why haven't I seen any reviewers plotting performance graphs from different wattages to really see where the efficiency gains from Zen 5 is really at? Yes efficiency is certainly thrown out of the window the higher the wattages but maybe at higher TDP is where Zen 5 really excels at. We need EFFICIENCY CURVE against zen 4 parts to know for sure if zen 5 is a flop or not. Those clickbait YT thumbnails is too quick of a judgement because we haven't seen how the higher end Zen 5 performs.
There are many MT workloads that don’t require that much memory bandwidth.They won't because it doesn't have enough memory bandwidth.
Zen5 has amazing .1% lows
Page 4 - Discussion - Zen 5 Builders thread
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.forums.anandtech.com
Well, you could blame AMD/Intel for only officially supporting up to X MT/s kits. Pretty much all OEM pre-built systems would not use higher than officially supported sticks.The computerbase results are skewed by their insistence on using JEDEC memory at "officially supported" speeds. It doesn't invalidate their results, but the gaming results in particular aren't consistent with how most reviewers compare CPU's. It's also not consistent with how most DIY PC builders run their systems. In reality, The gap in gaming between 7700(X) and 9700X is more like 5% (depending on the games tested) with both running @ 6000 MT/s.
Should have released Zen 5 desktop on N3E.
Zen 5 isn't what we had hoped for from the gaming perspective, but to say "Zen 5" is a flop suggested by some journalists (HUB) is a bit of a stretch.
Sure if you compare it directly with the non X 7000, the efficiency claim is no longer the case. But what if AMD decides to put out a non X 9000 version with let's say, 45w? Wouldn't that "reshuffle" the whole lineup and thus making the claim AMD is trying to hide reviewers from making comparisons with the non X 7000 totally invalid?
What if you overclock the 9000 to 105w TDP then compare them again in terms of performance and efficiency? Wouldn't you gain back the 10 ~ 15% performance uplift people were expecting to see? (applications not gaming I know)
Why haven't I seen any reviewers plotting performance graphs from different wattages to really see where the efficiency gains from Zen 5 is really at? Yes efficiency is certainly thrown out of the window the higher the wattages but maybe at higher TDP is where Zen 5 really excels at. We need EFFICIENCY CURVE against zen 4 parts to know for sure if zen 5 is a flop or not. Those clickbait YT thumbnails is too quick of a judgement because we haven't seen how the higher end Zen 5 performs.
Bruh....... The 9700X should pull its 88W PPT limit (as indicated by HWI64) in CB 2024. This is entirely consistent with all of the 65W TDP AM5 CPU's. This isn't a mystery that requires autistic levels of investigation.