Beyond games there's GB 6.3. Interestingly in ST, Linux is about 4% faster, while it's 8% faster in MT despite poor scaling of some of the subtests. Linux scheduler looks definitely better.Ryzen 7 9700X im Linux-Test: Schneller als unter Windows? [Update]
Nachdem der Ryzen 7 9700X und Ryzen 5 9600X unter Windows nicht ganz das halten konnten, was AMD versprochen hat, muss sich der 9700X unter Linux beweisen.www.pcgameshardware.de
They only test a handful of games but every game has a performance improvement in lows and averages on Linux with Proton vs Windows 11. An issue with scheduling is beginning to look more likely to me as a major culprit for the performance differential from official figures to actual reviews.
What is the memory scaling like for the 7000 series?L1 tech has 2133/6400 vs 5600 in of the 1080p game-charts
But these are also just junk EXPO timings vs EXPO timings
View attachment 105167
But as ive said many times already, if your looking for a gaming cpu --> wait for X3D
I have a >2700 Geekbench PC and still feel the browser and Excel slow. I'll happily take any ST boost I can pay for - unless it's a Mac.Probably? There are some rumours that Zen 6 DT client will be different from server.
Here's a hot take from me: I personally believe that all CPUs post-Alder Lake are a vast freaking overkill for gaming. It's really not that relevant whether CS2 runs at 600 fps or 750.
There are some games that hammer the CPU (Starfield comes to mind), but it's really mostly devs' fault.
What I'd like to see improved is single-core power consumption. It'd be hella nice to see top-end laptop chip top out at 15W @ single-core at most.
Keep an eye out for Qualcomms Gen 2 X Elite. It should have the best ST on a PC laptop. (well, i hope it does)I have a >2700 Geekbench PC and still feel the browser and Excel slow. I'll happily take any ST boost I can pay for - unless it's a Mac.
Crazy-good content. It's a must watch.I recommend these two videos from skatterbench as beginner CO tuning guide
I just built a 9950 (except the processor) otherwise I would. Thanks for the link. Also, for this buch, I would love the see at least one Turin review.Do we have any takers here?
There's that.. but overall there is inconsistency in testing methodologies across a LOT of PC enthusiast sites with Zen 5. Never have I seen so many shenanigans over a product launch before.of course he is doing it on a purpose, he´s secret Intel agent and so did HWU with their testing , I am getting feeling, that everybody want´s to hurt poor AMD
Reviewers shouldn't have use an old agsea for Zen4, its AMD fault if Zen5 isnt up to par for gaming. Zen4 is mature and cheaper and for most gamers presents the best value right now.A quick common discrepancy that comes to mind is testing against Zen 4, why don't they test that with its early release bios & agesa so as to compare with current situation with Zen 5 today?
I get the simplistic view that reviewers should just run benchmarks and call it good. Sometimes in the moment that is all that matters.Reviewers shouldn't have use an old agsea for Zen4, its AMD fault if Zen5 isnt up to par for gaming. Zen4 is mature and cheaper and for most gamers presents the best value right now.
Now that may change with Zen5X3D but i still think on AM5 the 7800X3D will be the value king for a long while.
There's that.. but overall there is inconsistency in testing methodologies across a LOT of PC enthusiast sites with Zen 5. Never have I seen so many shenanigans over a product launch before.
A quick common discrepancy that comes to mind is testing against Zen 4, why don't they test that with its early release bios & agesa so as to compare with current situation with Zen 5 today?
No, I already have two Zen 4s, not investing in another one. Doesn't make sense to invest in another nearly 2 year old design when the new ones have just been released & will only get better from here on just like Zen 4 did when it first came out.Reviewers shouldn't have use an old agsea for Zen4, its AMD fault if Zen5 isnt up to par for gaming. Zen4 is mature and cheaper and for most gamers presents the best value right now.
Now that may change with Zen5X3D but i still think on AM5 the 7800X3D will be the value king for a long while.
Not pricey for me, I already have had a mid range B650 board sitting here since last year spare with nothing to do. Everyone's situation is different, taking into account the basics ( cpu, ram, board) does not apply to all users of Zen 4 already.Sure, that would be nice I guess...but that just makes the 9000 chips look even worse on price. Like they were on release compared to zen3, pricey parts all around (cpu, mobo, ram) and early teething issues. It is all down to price/perf as usual. I mean, if power efficiency is that important to your computing purposes then by all means, pay $80-100 more to save some power. For some server or productivity apps maybe it is worth it to you. Probably a small market though because most will want to go with 12-16 core parts.
Gaming or just general office use, the 9000 chips are pointless until they drop in price. All for 3-5% in gaming performance with a few anomolies on either side, positive and negative. I know I would be more impressed if AMD had priced these chips $50 less each recognizing the reality of the current market. My 12700k was $260 last year and by TechPowerup's numbers, is only 7% slower than a 9700x in games. But it will use less power I guess, yay. I'm not seeing much better in productivity benchmarks either. Not for $100 more a year later.
If I've learned anything from AMD since Ryzen 1st gen (or even hawaii and polaris gpus), if you care about bang for your buck and not dealing with early adopter issues avoid the first gen AMD part.
Perhaps they’ll gain some performance, but probably low single digits. And won’t be worth it until it’s only slightly more expensive than their predecessors.No, I already have two Zen 4s, not investing in another one. Doesn't make sense to invest in another nearly 2 year old design when the new ones have just been released & will only get better from here on just like Zen 4 did when it first came out.
That shows how sensitive the results are: use fast memory, IOD uses more power, lose some watts for the core power, get low scores in benchmarks that don't rely on memory speed. It's crazy that the power budget for the cores can vary by more than 20% just by using different RAM.
That's not how DiY desktop CPU reviews shake out, though.Most office type work is also what home PC is used for. Web browsing, MS Office, etc.
Zen 5 looks decent enough, at least compared to the jumps from Intel 4th to 11th generation.Most of the gaming ones should be a long sigh, but I'm really really curious about how far the bars on Phoronix' benchmarks will go.
Sure, Michael greatly exaggerated how "good" Zen 5 is, it's not nearly that good, but one the server-side parts where it shines, it shines very bright. It will set a very serious bar in server for Intel to overcome.
How so? Skylake era was ~10% a year wasn't it?Zen 5 looks decent enough, at least compared to the jumps from Intel 4th to 11th generation.
If that does happen, it will be fascinating to see how EPYC handles it. If truly 16 cores start being too much for AMD, then how is the server memctrl going to take in 192 or 256 cores??If theory holds, Phoronix's benchmarks, at least the ones that have a notable degree of memory throughput, should start to hit limits due to the RAM configuration with twice as many cores. It would be interesting to see the memory access profile of the benchmark processes and find the ones that are hitting that wall.