AMD Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 Series Update: 8–10% IPC Uplift, 25% More Perf-Per-Watt, More than 35% Overall Performance Gain, 5.5GHz & V-Cache Chips Coming

[KaitouX]

1 hour ago, cmndr said:

Both AMD and intel have healthy per-unit margins right now. This means that price is pretty flexible. Both companies will aim to price to optimize a good balance of per-unit profit and market share.

There's no reason to think that there will be a huge gap in prices relative to performance unless there's some sort of VERY interesting "specialization" or edge case that favors a high value customer segment.

 

Also part of the reason why ADL is cheaper is that its complementary goods (motherboards) are more expensive. In practice consumers buy platforms.
I suspect that AM5 motherboards will cost a bit more than AM4 boards, so you can expect prices to level out somewhat.

Motherboards prices are extremely variable, but even currently there are (still) huge gaps in price/performance when comparing ADL and Zen 3, the 12700F being the same price as the 5800X, slightly more than the 5700X while performing close to the 5900X in MT and being faster in games and ST is a great example. Other CPUs got covered a bit better, with the 5950X having similar price to the 12900, and the 12600K which was kinda of a bad deal from the start compared to the 12700F getting covered by the 5800X with price cuts.

Assuming current MB prices in the US, B550 isn't that much cheaper than B660, and while you can use B450 and lower with Zen 3, I personally wouldn't recommend it if you're buying new. Zen 3 prices seems to rely heavily on the "Upgrade to Zen 1/2 users without MB change", so I would expect AMD to price Zen 4 better, but still have my reservations if they're going to actually do it.

[cmndr]

20 minutes ago, KaitouX said:

Motherboards prices are extremely variable, but even currently there are (still) huge gaps in price/performance when comparing ADL and Zen 3, the 12700F being the same price as the 5800X, slightly more than the 5700X while performing close to the 5900X in MT and being faster in games and ST is a great example. Other CPUs got covered a bit better, with the 5950X having similar price to the 12900, and the 12600K which was kinda of a bad deal from the start compared to the 12700F getting covered by the 5800X with price cuts.

Assuming current MB prices in the US, B550 isn't that much cheaper than B660, and while you can use B450 and lower with Zen 3, I personally wouldn't recommend it if you're buying new. Zen 3 prices seems to rely heavily on the "Upgrade to Zen 1/2 users without MB change", so I would expect AMD to price Zen 4 better, but still have my reservations if they're going to actually do it.

The value propositions are VERY close for both with current pricing if you segment by CPU + board price brackets. 6-12 months ago Zen 3 was definitely priced a bit too high for my tastes.

 

Reasonably priced ADL boards with dual channel memory support (the lowest chipset only supports a 64 bit memory interface) cost around $150ish.
I'm still using a B450 board (albeit gifted to a parent) that cost $80 (did get a $140ish x570 system for my current system but had used B450 before with 0 issues). If you don't need PCIe 4.0 you're paying more for a lot of nothing.

And with Zen 3 you'd probably want to compare a 5700x and a cheap board vs a 12400 since costs are pretty comparable.
Similar story with 5900x ($400 + 80-150) and 12700[F, K, FK]($320-400 + 150-220). At that level you're also likely very focused on use case.

You really want to compare TCO and what areas you're trying to optimize for.
I will point out that a 12600k (non-k has no E cores FYI) does seem like the sweet spot right now.

[KaitouX]

2 hours ago, cmndr said:

Reasonably priced ADL boards with dual channel memory support (the lowest chipset only supports a 64 bit memory interface) cost around $150ish.
I'm still using a B450 board (albeit gifted to a parent) that cost $80 (did get a $140ish x570 system for my current system but had used B450 before with 0 issues). If you don't need PCIe 4.0 you're paying more for a lot of nothing.

And with Zen 3 you'd probably want to compare a 5700x and a cheap board vs a 12400 since costs are pretty comparable.
Similar story with 5900x ($400 + 80-150) and 12700[F, K, FK]($320-400 + 150-220). At that level you're also likely very focused on use case.

I guess this is the difference, for me the absolutely lowest boards I would consider running the 5900X with are around $100 to $120, and the lowest for the 12700F are in the $130 to $150. Example of the minimum I would consider for each:

 

 

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: Intel Core i7-12700F 2.1 GHz 12-Core Processor  ($309.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: MSI MAG B660M BAZOOKA DDR4 Micro ATX LGA1700 Motherboard  ($139.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $449.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2022-06-11 03:49 EDT-0400

 

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 5900X 3.7 GHz 12-Core Processor  ($395.99 @ Adorama)
Motherboard: ASRock B550 Pro4 ATX AM4 Motherboard  ($104.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $500.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2022-06-11 04:01 EDT-0400

[porina]

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

Also I pay more attention to 1% and 0.1% lows than averages, personally I'd rather lose out a bit in average for a smaller distribution of frame times, but that's just me.

Gotta agree with that. In one title I spend a lot of time in, I do wonder if it is CPU, ram, GPU, something else, but I get averages in the 80's but 9x% (whatever nvidia driver reports) around 60fps. Would a platform upgrade help with that? Gonna be expensive to find out.

 

In part I also wonder if we are looking for a hardware solution to what may be a software problem. I suspect at least part of these variations are due to asynchronous things going on in game engines.

 

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

Also 4K remains in my opinion a silly resolution that doesn't give any benefit, gives the 3090's of the world a purpose though heh.

Since I moved my main gaming to a 4k TV a couple years ago or so, it is hard to go back to lower. I only managed to get a 3070 for a reasonable-ish price so there are occasional compromises in settings to help frame rate. I still prefer it over my previous setup (which I still have) of 1440p on a comparatively tiny monitor. 1080p on my laptop feels like a blurry mess even trying DSR to perk it up a bit.

[leadeater]

9 minutes ago, porina said:

I still prefer it over my previous setup (which I still have) of 1440p on a comparatively tiny monitor.

1440p on a 27" monitor still looks great, how good the panel is and how well it's calibrated is actually really important to image quality. That's why cheap monitors of the same resolution actually looks more blurry as well as being a mess of colours. 

 

Comparing the good 1440p and 2560x1600 (which I use at home) at work to the 4K ones there isn't any detail advantage going for the 4K ones and then you have to deal with all the problems that exists with 4K because not everything in PC/Windows works well with 4K yet sadly.

 

Maybe on the 40" monitors seeing a difference might be more possible but all the 40" ones at work are 4K so can't compare to anything, largest of lower resolution is 30". 40" monitors are horrific to use btw, honestly think anyone using something that large needs their head checked lol. Great for watching videos on though.

[porina]

 

10 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Comparing the good 1440p and 2560x1600 (which I use at home) at work to the 4K ones there isn't any detail advantage going for the 4K ones and then you have to deal with all the problems that exists with 4K because not everything in PC/Windows works well with 4K yet sadly.

I think this is the missing detail. I would agree, 4k at typical monitor sizes would only offer a marginal (gaming) difference to 1440p. Try 4k on a 55" TV, it makes a noticeably difference. That's at typical viewing distances too, not going up to the screen to pixel peep. Windows scaling really sucks, and where the PPI allows I'd like to leave it off (100%). From a gaming perspective, Windows scaling doesn't matter.

 

 

Ok, I'm struggling to reference future CPUs in this post so I hereby declare myself off topic and will stop there.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, porina said:

Try 4k on a 55" TV, it makes a noticeably difference.

Well yes but we're talking about gaming and GPUs, sizes that large are super edge case. Otherwise I'd just start brining up my projector in my home theatre 

 

I don't think I needed to specify that large TV for watching movies was not included in my comments in a discussion about GPUs and monitors, not TVs. Since generally when talking about TVs you use that term not monitor.

[Montana One-Six]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

Comparing the good 1440p and 2560x1600 (which I use at home) at work to the 4K ones there isn't any detail advantage going for the 4K ones and then you have to deal with all the problems that exists with 4K because not everything in PC/Windows works well with 4K yet sadly.

Before I made the switch to 4K I looked at different 1440p and 4K monitors and compared them to each other. One thing I found out is that even at 27"/28" 4K looks noticeably better than 1440p when gaming, especially in terms of picture clarity and details.

So far the only issues with Windows and 4K are a result of windows scaling and can be solved by disabling it.

[leadeater]

44 minutes ago, Montana One-Six said:

So far the only issues with Windows and 4K are a result of windows scaling and can be solved by disabling it.

We have a bunch of applications are work that use legacy window libraries, they don't scale with 4K or re-size in any proper way for that resolution, it's quite hilarious.

 

45 minutes ago, Montana One-Six said:

Before I made the switch to 4K I looked at different 1440p and 4K monitors and compared them to each other. One thing I found out is that even at 27"/28" 4K looks noticeably better than 1440p when gaming, especially in terms of picture clarity and details.

How much did you control for graphical settings and did you check the game didn't scale asset quality with resolution, some do that. Ultra 1440p != Ultra 4k and that is really dumb in my opinion.

 

I've got a Dell U3014 (2560x1600) and I've never seen a 4K monitor of a smaller size or same size actually look any better in the games I play most often. I expect a $1500 monitor to actually be good and look good though heh.

[Zodiark1593]

6 hours ago, porina said:

 

I think this is the missing detail. I would agree, 4k at typical monitor sizes would only offer a marginal (gaming) difference to 1440p. Try 4k on a 55" TV, it makes a noticeably difference. That's at typical viewing distances too, not going up to the screen to pixel peep.

I often use my tv as a monitor, and 4K does make a pretty big difference at my regular viewing distance, even with a middling (big by my standard) 42” panel. For emulation, the high resolution also sees use, as the CRT Royale shader I favor works very well at 4K. 
 

 

[Montana One-Six]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

How much did you control for graphical settings and did you check the game didn't scale asset quality with resolution, some do that. Ultra 1440p != Ultra 4k and that is really dumb in my opinion.

I just tested games I played at the time which were Shadow of the Tomb Raider, AC Odyssey and Cities Skylines. I used custom max settings without any adaptive options only changed resolution and tested different AA options. I don't know if these games use asset scaling based on resolution nor do I care. In the end the results I got were pretty much consistent across all games. I only tested 27/28 inch models.

[tim0901]

On 6/9/2022 at 11:24 PM, BiG StroOnZ said:

*snip*

Hey AMD, quick question... WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST SHOW US THIS THE FIRST TIME??

 

This is good! This should be at the very least competitive! But why did you downplay everything so much?

 

Please. Just hire a functional goddamn marketing department.

 

All I hope for now is that they make a third presentation about Zen 4 to clarify the AVX512 stuff, where they introduce another ambiguous marketing point. That iGPU looks ripe for the picking...

[starsmine]

why is zen 4 vcache have a check over it....

If thats coming out the same quarter or even a quarter later I guess ill wait for that, because its effect on Final Fantasy was so crazy high. 

If zen 4 vcache is 30% faster then zen 4 and the costs are the same (450 vs 300 or whatever the price difference will be), It might be worth it for me. 

[Mihle]

I really like my 4k 32" monitor, but yes, windows scaling sucks, especially for older programs.

[BiG StroOnZ]

Not sure if this slide was posted anywhere yet, but they confirmed 5.5GHz:

 

 

https://www.pcgamer.com/amd-provides-new-zen-4-details-and-touts-a-greater-than-25-performance-per-watt-gain/

 

Added to OP.