Intel 13th Gen VS AMD Ryzen 7000 (Why you may want to WAIT)

[WallacEngineering]

Hey guys, been a while since Ive been on this forum

 

Currently running an AMD Ryzen 3700X + Red Devil 5700-XT + 32GB RAM + ASUS B550-F Build.

 

I am considering the possibility of upgrading to one of the new generation of CPUs, but man have there been issues from both AMD and Intel this year.

 

Like probably most of you, I just got done watching the reviews of Intel's new 13th Gen CPUs from Linus, Jays2Cents, Hardware Unboxed, and Gamers Nexus, to get the pros and cons from multiple angles.

 

While Intel may have just taken back the gaming crown, and at a lower price than comparable AMD chips, I realized something watching these videos and realized - maybe neither is the best option...

 

You see there are issues with both the new AMD 7000 and Intel 13th Gen platforms, and they are not small issues but rather quite large ones that have me disappointed with both companies.

 

When you dig deeper into the AMD Ryzen 7000 design, its clear that someone at AMD R&D wasn't thinking clearly. Im not sure if you guys of heard, but the reason Ryzen 7000 is compatible with Ryzen 5000 Cooling Solutions is simple - AMD employed a massive, super-thick IHS on the CPUs to give them the extra height needed to clear the new CPU retention mechanism and make contact with existing coolers.

 

While this does work, the super-thick IHS traps heat insanely badly, and thats why everyone is constantly sitting at 95°C regardless of cooling solution. How dumb is that? Instead of just having cooling solution manufacturers sell us a new mounting bracket kit for Ryzen 7000, AMD decided that trapping the heat was a better option. This is easily the dumbest decision AMD has ever made in its CPU design, especially with power consumption and heat output soaring ever higher with recent generations.

 

Jays2Cents and Der Bauer have already demonstrated that in order to get any sort of decent thermal performance out of Ryzen 7000, you are forced to void your warranty and do one of two things - LAP the CPU, removing about 1.0mm of IHS and then use a mounting bracket mod to make up for the lost space. Jay showed this rather successfully in a recent video on his channel and without even properly finishing the job was able to go from having the 7950X constantly pinned at 94-95C to more like 85-86C. He was even able to overclock it to 5.4GHz All-Core without hitting the 95C Limit. And remember, this is NOT removing the IHS. The IHS is still perfectly intact, its just been shaved down so its not so thick.

 

The other option is delidding - far more risky and could cost you your CPU, but if done correctly using the soon-to-be available Der Bauer De-Lidding kit, you can achieve an almost unbelievable 20C drop in temps.

 

Now some of you might say "well AMD designed the new Ryzen 7000 to run at 95C, its perfectly safe". That is true, they did. But its pretty obvious why they did it - to account for this idiotic IHS design- thats why. Plus like I said, Jay was able to achieve 5.4GHz All-Core OC without even properly finishing the job. This means that anyone who just buys a Ryzen 7000 chip and wants to just run it and keep the warranty - is just leaving performance on the table. There simply isn't any way to avoid the fact that to get the most out of Ryzen 7000, you HAVE to void the warranty. Its just so incredibly stupid.

 

Now lets talk Intel. Sure, they took the gaming crown back today. Awesome, good for you Intel. But guess what, this absurd game of "chasing horsepower" and just not giving a crap about power draw has pushed the new i9-13900K to an absolutely stupid level. Hardware Unboxed reported that while the 7950X draws about 180W under full load, the 13900K now draws up to 330W!!! Are you joking??? Thats the kind of power HEDT ThreadRipper Chips consume, its absolutely bonkers.

 

Of course this means rediculous temps for Intel as well. Hardware Unboxed reported Thermal Throttling in ALL FULL-LOAD TESTS!!! Literally all of them, even when he decided that fairness no longer matters and boosted the Intel system up to a 420mm AIO Liquid Cooler, it STILL thermal throttles at 100C in like 20 seconds LOL . What are these R&D people doing at these companies? This is complete insanity across the board, absolute morons, all of them.

 

So that being said, where will I end up? Well, considering AMDs pricing will surely come down after this walloping from Intel today, I think my smartest move would be to wait for the Ryzen 7800X3D. 3D Cache has a massive impact on a lot of games. So much so that the old-gen 5800X3D is beating the new Ryzen 7000 and even the new 13900K in a fair number of games.

 

Since Intel's win today was by an overall small margin, and this should bring the cost of Ryzen 7000 down, this likely means that the 7800X3D will not only likely take back the gaming crown, but it will do so at a fantastic value. Then Ill probably shave 1.0mm from the IHS so I can use my Noctua D-15 without thermal throttling (probably no CPU overclocking this time around just due to heat, maybe PBO + target 90C and call it a day). This way I don't need expensive liquid cooling and can get a reasonably riced system thats both fantastic at gaming and decently good at multi-thread workloads as well. Its not like 16 Threads is weak.

 

So in conclusion, Ill say this: I think buying either Ryzen 7000 or Intel 13th Gen right now, is just not a great idea. With the costs involved in going DDR5 with the issues associated with the new generations, it just doesn't make any sense unless you are bored with a butt load of cash burning a hole in your pocket.

 

So what do you guys think? What route are you going to go? Either way Im disappointed in design and heat management this time around, no matter who you are, its just absurd.

 

EDIT: In case you were wondering, this is how profound of an effect that 3D Cache can have in gaming. This makes sense on a game like Factorio, and the same sort of boost (although not as profound, Factorio is just one of the best examples) happens quite often, especially in similar RTS or similar style games with thousands of units on screen. These large unit quantities throw a huge load at the CPU cores that game is using and eat up cache for breakfast, thus giving you the biggest gains. However, gains are also found in a fair number of AAA games using this same technology.

 

[IkeaGnome]

11 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

With the costs involved in going DDR5 with the issues associated with the new generations, it just doesn't make any sense unless you are bored with a butt load of cash burning a hole in your pocket.

Good DDR4 out performs good DDR5 even on the 13600k. Makes the 13600k a whole lot more palatable. Under $600 for a good solid cpu, mobo and ram combo.

 

[Coolmaster]

The chips being at 95C isn't that big a deal, laptop CPUs are almost always at 95. They still are faster than previous generations even if they are thermally throttling. Honestly they should let cpus draw as much power as they can without frying themselves, as long as they have thermal headroom and the motherboard and PSU can supply it, otherwise they're just leaving performance on the table. And when gaming they draw ~100W, which isn't a problem for any decent cooler. The only mistake I see is AMD's thick IHS, which there may be other engineering considerations for.

[WallacEngineering]

7 minutes ago, Coolmaster said:

The chips being at 95C isn't that big a deal, laptop CPUs are almost always at 95.

 

Ya but laptops are known for running like garbage compared to desktop without a laptop cooler at the very least.

 

95C may not be the biggest deal and sure, it may not degrade the CPU enough to get the average consumer to notice. However we enthusiasts all know better - constant 95C or 100C in Intel's case, day in and day out 24/7 WILL degrade these chips over long periods of time - of course we are talking years here.

 

Its just the fact that the two giants of the CPU industry even allowing this to happen is absurd. There were far better solutions and both AMD and Intel know it. They are either being lazy or short-sighted, period.

 

[Coolmaster]

3 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

 

Ya but laptops are known for running like garbage compared to desktop without a laptop cooler at the very least.

 

95C may not be the biggest deal and sure, it may not degrade the CPU enough to get the average consumer to notice. However we enthusiasts all know better - constant 95C or 100C in Intel's case, day in and day out 24/7 WILL degrade these chips over long periods of time - of course we are talking years here.

 

Its just the fact that the two giants of the CPU industry even allowing this to happen is absurd. There were far better solutions and both AMD and Intel know it. They are either being lazy or short-sighted, period.

 

Laptops run worse compared to desktops because their power limits are lower, even if they were provided with all the cooling in the world they would perform worse compared to desktop. These desktop chips perform very well even though they are thermally throttling. 

 

The degrdation in performance is really tiny over a long time with modern cpus. Most laptops and OEM systems run really hot all the time with no real issues.

[WallacEngineering]

11 minutes ago, Coolmaster said:

Laptops run worse compared to desktops because their power limits are lower, even if they were provided with all the cooling in the world they would perform worse compared to desktop. These desktop chips perform very well even though they are thermally throttling. 

 

The degrdation in performance is really tiny over a long time with modern cpus. Most laptops and OEM systems run really hot all the time with no real issues.

 

Oh Im fully aware of the lower power and things like that of course. However a lot of laptop designs just don't have ample cooling and just sit there and thermal throttle all day. Ya, again it may not hurt them, it may not degrade for years. But why would you leave that performance on the table, intentionally just wasting the potential of your hardware when it can be easily corrected?

 

In the case of Laptops, you are either careful to buy one with twin-fan cooling and decent heat pipes, or buy a laptop cooler.

 

In the case of AMD, just let cooling solution companies sell us a $10 new mounting bracket for AM5 instead of designing your chips with absurdly thick IHSs that trap the heat and then you end up with performance left on the table.

 

Intel - just stop making absurd power draw CPUs. We already had those to begin with - they are called HEDTs/Xeons.

 

Im not saying you are wrong or that the issues are so bad that the average consumer won't enjoy the new CPUs, Im saying there was never any reason to let these issues ever happen to begin with.

 

But you know what they say - Hindsight is a bitch lol .

 

[Coolmaster]

Just now, WallacEngineering said:

Oh Im fully aware of the lower power and things like that of course. However a lot of laptop designs just don't have ample cooling and just sit there and thermal throttle all day. Ya, again it may not hurt them, it may not degrade for years. But why would you leave that performance on the table, intentionally just wasting the potential of your hardware when it can be easily corrected?

How can it be easily corrected? CPU makers would love for their chips to use as little power as possible, but you can't do that and expect good performance. The chips already draw the max power for their cooling solution, so they don't leave any performance on the table. This is especially important in laptops, since if they overbuild a cooling system so it doesn't run at the thermal max the laptop is unecessarily thick and heavy. 

[WallacEngineering]

9 minutes ago, Coolmaster said:

How can it be easily corrected? CPU makers would love for their chips to use as little power as possible, but you can't do that and expect good performance. The chips already draw the max power for their cooling solution, so they don't leave any performance on the table. This is especially important in laptops, since if they overbuild a cooling system so it doesn't run at the thermal max the laptop is unecessarily thick and heavy. 

 

Well it can't be corrected now, its too late. The CPUs are here, flaws and all. Its not like they would do a physical re-design after the fact, of course not.

 

Intel could have done better with their power draw for sure, especially if they just put money into the fabs and dropped from 10nm transistors to 7nm. Maybe that will come with 14th Gen, who knows.

 

Some people care about the cooling of their hardware, Im one of them. When I had a laptop, I lugged around and ASUS ROG thick desktop-replacement laptop, not an ulta-light. Why? Well even an ROG is still about 1 billion percent better in portability than any desktop. Sure it weighs a few pounds more, but I just threw it into a big backpack. Nice and comfy and unobtrusive.

 

And when I got to my destination - bam, all of a sudden I have a high-end gaming laptop that runs like a dream and never overheats.

 

And thats just it. You may not care about cooling - well I don't care about bulkiness. Lets just agree to disagree.

 

But the last time I checked - Enthusiast-Built PCs have owners who care about performance and cooling. Its why we build the systems ourselves, to be better than OEM garbage. Otherwise, why does it even exist?

[Coolmaster]

7 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

Some people care about the cooling of their hardware, Im one of them. When I had a laptop, I lugged around and ASUS ROG thick desktop-replacement laptop, not an ulta-light. Why? Well even an ROG is still about 1 billion percent better in portability than any desktop. Sure it weighs a few pounds more, but I just threw it into a big backpack. Nice and comfy and unobtrusive.

 

And when I got to my destination - bam, all of a sudden I have a high-end gaming laptop that runs like a dream and never overheats.

There is zero performance benefit to running below 95C, if the cooler is capable of exactly disapating the power draw of the cpu. Every degree cooler it runs is just unecessary weight, size, and cost of materials. You can have a ginormous laptop that has a cpu at 70C, and a smaller laptop running the chip at 95C with the exact same performance. And liekwise if you have a cooler design that isn't running at 95C you could increase the power and get more performance out of your machine.

[WallacEngineering]

10 minutes ago, Coolmaster said:

There is zero performance benefit to running below 95C, if the cooler is capable of exactly disapating the power draw of the cpu. Every degree cooler it runs is just unecessary weight, size, and cost of materials. You can have a ginormous laptop that has a cpu at 70C, and a smaller laptop running the chip at 95C with the exact same performance. And liekwise if you have a cooler design that isn't running at 95C you could increase the power and get more performance out of your machine.

 

Except that this is exactly 100% WRONG. Im sure you are aware that on modern CPUs, thermal overhead means the CPU can boost higher and maintain those higher boost clocks for longer. This was been shown thousands of times, its common knowledge.

 

The same truth remains for these new CPUs. As Jay demonstrated in his video, he was able to get a fairly big difference of 200 MHz out of his 7950X after Lapping the 0.8mm of IHS material off to make a more direct connection to the heat source.

 

As the 13900K hits TJ-Max, it throttles, limiting boost clocks. This is of course lower performance than if you can tame the heat and keep it from throttling.

 

Im surprised I even have to say this, but yes my laptop ran faster than an equivalent thin one with the same CPU. My laptop NEVER once in its life ever limited boost clocks due to temperature.

 

Im not even sure why you would even attempt to make that argument. Im sure you are well aware that it isn't true.

[Coolmaster]

3 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

Except that this is exactly 100% WRONG. Im sure you are aware that on modern CPUs, thermal overhead means the CPU can boost higher and maintain those higher boost clocks for longer. This was been shown thousands of times, its common knowledge.

Yes, the CPUs boost almost constantly under load, if boosting fully and they are exactly at 95C, it makes no difference if the cpu is cooler.

5 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

The same truth remains for these new CPUs. As Jay demonstrated in his video, he was able to get a fairly big difference of 200 MHz out of his 7950X after Lapping the 0.8mm of IHS material off to make a more direct connection to the heat source.

His cooler is not sufficient for that cpu and so it thermally throttles, increasing cooling of a thermally throttling cpu will increase performance. And AMD made a sacrifice to cooling with their thick IHS. I do not disagree with you on these points.

 

7 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

Im surprised I even have to say this, but yes my laptop ran faster than an equivalent thin one with the same CPU. My laptop NEVER once in its life ever limited boost clocks due to temperature.

Yes a thermally throttling cpu will perform worse than a non-thermally throttling one. If there was a laptop with a cooler in the middle of your overkill one and the underkill one that would cool the cpu to exactly 95C, there would be no difference in performance between the laptop with the cooler in the middle and your overkill cooler. Or if your cpu consumed more power until it reached 95C it would perform better than the middle cooler.

[WallacEngineering]

27 minutes ago, Coolmaster said:

Yes a thermally throttling cpu will perform worse than a non-thermally throttling one. If there was a laptop with a cooler in the middle of your overkill one and the underkill one that would cool the cpu to exactly 95C, there would be no difference in performance between the laptop with the cooler in the middle and your overkill cooler. Or if your cpu consumed more power until it reached 95C it would perform better than the middle cooler.

 

Thats somewhat true, except that on modern CPUs, they employ dynamic scaling. As the CPU approaches 95C, it does throttle back a tiny bit, just to keep from fully throttling. Its a tiny change, a bin or two, but the difference is there.

 

And of course with my overhead, I was able to overclock, pushing the performance well beyond what an ultralight and thin laptop could ever do.

 

And thats the point Ive been making again and again this whole time. Sure, you wanna run at 95C the whole time, be my guest, but I would rather have my performance any day of the week.

 

Also, you would have to be pretty lucky for a CPU to hit exactly full boost and rise to 93-95C without going over and throttling back. In reality that basically never happens.

 

 But thats beside the point. If I can get a Ryzen 7800X3D to run at full bost with a bit of mild OC - say 5300-5400MHz and sit around 90C instead of limiting boost clocks by hitting that 95C wall at 5200 MHz (as tested by Gamers Nexus on the 7700X stock), then why wouldn't I just do that and reap the benefits?

 

I built my PC for performance, and thats the only reason I will continue to build my own PCs - its that simple, otherwise I would just buy a Pre-Built. Its just that this time, to get that extra edge, Im going to have to modify my CPU IHS. Whatever, thats fine.

 

Also, Jays cooler was plenty sufficient. Its was a 360mm Liquid cooler lol, there isn't even much better you can do without going full custom loop. Thats just the reality of this new generation of CPUs. They are so power hungry and hot that they cannot be tamed with standard cooling solutions currently available.

 

Speaking of which, the 13900K is an especially bad place when it comes to cooling. As stated, it thermal throttled under the absolute largest class of standard AIO liquid available - 420mm (3 x 140mm), hitting 100C in about 20 seconds and then throttling. So basically on the new 13900K, you are either going to need to de-lid or run chilled water below ambient temp to get the thing to stop throttling. I don't care who you are - thats a problem LOL

[Coolmaster]

6 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

And of course with my overhead, I was able to overclock, pushing the performance well beyond what an ultralight and thin laptop could ever do.

 

PBO and other overclocking technologies are effectively just increasing the power draw of the cpu. You did exactly what I posited in my previous comment.

 

23 minutes ago, Coolmaster said:

if your cpu consumed more power until it reached 95C it would perform better than the middle cooler.

Having an effectively infinite power budget for a cpu lets the cpu's thermal throttling effectively overclock itself to whatever is the most performance it can with what cooling you have. If you weren't able to overclock your cpu you'd be leaving performance on the table with the cooler you have and it would've been better to get the hypothetical middle laptop that cools the cpu exactly.

9 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

And thats the point Ive been making again and again this whole time. Sure, you wanna run at 95C the whole time, be my guest, but I would rather have my performance any day of the week.

I built my PC for performance, and thats the only reason I will continue to build my own PCs - its that simple, otherwise I would just buy a Pre-Built. Its just that this time, to get that extra edge, Im going to have to modify my CPU IHS. Whatever, thats fine.

Having an exactly correct cooler for the job performs the same as an overkill one, I am not arguing that a thermally throttling cpu performs the same as oen that is not.

 

13 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

Thats somewhat true, except that on modern CPUs, they employ dynamic scaling. As the CPU approaches 95C, it does throttle back a tiny bit, just to keep from fully throttling. Its a tiny change, a bin or two, but the difference is there.

That is true, but the additional performance from having more power to consume makes up the difference.

[WallacEngineering]

1 minute ago, Coolmaster said:

PBO and other overclocking technologies are effectively just increasing the power draw of the cpu. You did exactly what I posited in my previous comment.

 

Ya but I don't care if it draws a bit more power. Who cares about that? What I care about is getting my full performance, which you literally CANNOT do on the new 13900K if you re-read the previous comment. It literally creates too much heat for any currently available standard cooler, liquid or air. How do you consider that not a problem? Lol

 

Look man Im done talking to you, this is so dumb, you are on an enthusiast forum. What we care about is getting maximum performance, we do not care about letting our CPUs intentionally run at max temperature and loose performance - why again? Whats the benifits of being an enthusiast of purposefully limiting performance? Im lost at this point, ur the kind of guy who would buy a Ferrari and then eco-mod it for better fuel economy. Wow dude dumbest argument in history, I can't even stop laughing Im dying here

[Coolmaster]

1 minute ago, WallacEngineering said:

 

Ya but I don't care if it draws a bit more power. Who cares about that? What I care about is getting my full performance, which you literally CANNOT do on the new 13900K if you re-read the previous comment. It literally creates too much heat for any currently available standard cooler, liquid or air. How do you consider that not a problem? Lol

 

Look man Im done talking to you, this is so dumb, you are on an enthusiast forum. What we care about is getting maximum performance, we do not care about letting our CPUs intentionally run at max temperature and loose performance - why again? Whats the benifits of being an enthusiast of purposefully limiting performance? Im lost at this point, ur the kind of guy who would buy a Ferrari and then eco-mod it for better fuel economy. Wow dude dumbest argument in history, I can't even stop laughing Im dying here

Are you deaf? I keep saying the same thing and you don't understand. You understand PBO makes the CPU draw more power for better performance, if you extrapolate this fully you should draw as much power as your cooler can handle and therefore get the best performance, having an unlimited power budget lets the cpu draw as much power (and therefore have the best performance) until it hits a thermal limit. It doesn't matter if it's a crappy OEM cooler or an enthusiast one. They can't magically make it draw less power and have the same performance, so why not let it draw as much power as it can and have the best performance it can with the given cooler. AMD or Intel making these chips and forcing everyone to use eco mode would have worse performance, having the high tdp lets them get the best performance possible even if no current cooler can cool their current max power budget.

[Chiyawa]

Well, I didn't expect price hike so dramatically, so this is way beyond the budget I set. But meh, my Ryzen 5 3600 still serve me well, and I don't play lots of triple A titles that is pretty much just meh except the visual, so I think I'll let the dust settle down first, maybe wait another generation or 2 for new system.

 

And games price, even if it was 10 years old, still sell like they are brand new, because it's 'remastered' and the old one no longer working. So, yeah, I'll shut my wallet up. I have plenty of indie games to play with unique mechanics and runs well even using potato PC or Genshin Impact which to my surprise even far better than what EA, Ubisoft, Koei Tecmo, and Square Enix churn out.

[WallacEngineering]

30 minutes ago, Coolmaster said:

Are you deaf? I keep saying the same thing and you don't understand. You understand PBO makes the CPU draw more power for better performance, if you extrapolate this fully you should draw as much power as your cooler can handle and therefore get the best performance, having an unlimited power budget lets the cpu draw as much power (and therefore have the best performance) until it hits a thermal limit. It doesn't matter if it's a crappy OEM cooler or an enthusiast one. They can't magically make it draw less power and have the same performance, so why not let it draw as much power as it can and have the best performance it can with the given cooler. AMD or Intel making these chips and forcing everyone to use eco mode would have worse performance, having the high tdp lets them get the best performance possible even if no current cooler can cool their current max power budget.

I completely understand, I understood from the start. What you don't understand is that I DONT CARE lol . I never said anything about drawing less power except that Intel shouldn't have made the 13900K a freaking 300W chip because its literally impossible to cool properly through ANY standard means on the market today. Im pretty sure that even a custom loop with twin 360 rads will still throttle.

 

And when it throttles, you will loose performance until the loop cools down a bit and it can boost back up, which is garbage behavior. Hardware Unboxed agrees AMD did it in a mich better way by targeting 95C and dynamically boosting so it never actually throttles.

 

Yes an enthusiast cooler matters, now more than ever in fact. Its the same as installing a turbocharger on a car. The effect is the same. If I get 150 BHP out of a 2-Litire thats Naturally Aspirated then Ill get over 200 BHP with a turbo on it.

 

Same concept - very easy to understand: If I buy a 13900K, and it throttles down to probably around 4.2GHz on the P-Cores on a stock Intel/OEM cooler, then that is NOT MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE!

 

Instead I can "Turbo-Charge" My PC with high-end liquid cooling and get 5.3-5.5GHz on the P-Cores.

 

I completely understand how the technology works. Intel and AMD have simply targeted max temperature regardless of the fact that its a dumb idea and are just allowing basically unlimited boost until it either reaches max temperature or hits the power limit of what the CPU can physically handle, its not rocket science.

 

But guess what, that means the absolute MOST important thing for the performance of your system is the COOLING, as crap cooling means boosting to 4.2GHz while good cooling means boosting to as high as 5.5 GHz. Thats a MASSIVE difference in performance ALL THANKS TO THE COOLING.

 

Oh in case you weren't aware - yes better cooling does mean less power draw as well - at a given frequency anyways. All electronics, not just CPUs, require more power to do the same work when they are hot than when they are cool. Granted, its a minor difference, but its thermodynamics and unavoidable, so whatever I guess.

[Coolmaster]

1 minute ago, WallacEngineering said:

Yes an enthusiast cooler matters, now more than ever in fact. Its the same as installing a turbocharger on a car. The effect is the same. If I get 150 BHP out of a 2-Litire thats Naturally Aspirated then Ill get over 200 BHP with a turbo on it.

 

Same concept - very easy to understand: If I buy a 13900K, and it throttles down to probably around 4.2GHz on the P-Cores on a stock Intel/OEM cooler, then that is NOT MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE!

 

Instead I can "Turbo-Charge" My PC with high-end liquid cooling and get 5.3-5.5GHz on the P-Cores.

I am not saying maximum performance, I am saying the best performance. If they lower their power budget and their maximum performance, yes it would be easier to reach, but if they have the maximum performance and power consumption raised higher you can get better performance.

 

3 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

But guess what, that means the absolute MOST important thing for the performance of your system is the COOLING, as crap cooling means boosting to 4.2GHz while good cooling means boosting to as high as 5.5 GHz. Thats a MASSIVE difference in performance ALL THANKS TO THE COOLING.

I am not saying cooling doesn't matter, I am saying that not fully utilizing your cooling isn't optimal. If you had a cooler that could cool 200W and a cooler that could cool 300W, if the power draw is less than 200W the performance will be the same, if the power draw is higher than 200W you will get better performance with a 300W cooler. Why would you want Intel and AMD to set their power limit to 200W if you could get better performance with a 300W cooler.

[Coolmaster]

7 minutes ago, Coolmaster said:

If you had a cooler that could cool 200W and a cooler that could cool 300W, if the power draw is less than 200W the performance will be the same, if the power draw is higher than 200W you will get better performance with a 300W cooler. Why would you want Intel and AMD to set their power limit to 200W if you could get better performance with a 300W cooler.

Likewise if you were using the 300W cooler and you have a cpu with a max power draw of 300W and one with a max power draw of 500W, you would be getting the same performance. So why wouldn't you want the max power draw to be as high as possible.

[WallacEngineering]

9 minutes ago, Coolmaster said:

I am not saying cooling doesn't matter, I am saying that not fully utilizing your cooling isn't optimal. If you had a cooler that could cool 200W and a cooler that could cool 300W, if the power draw is less than 200W the performance will be the same, if the power draw is higher than 200W you will get better performance with a 300W cooler. Why would you want Intel and AMD to set their power limit to 200W if you could get better performance with a 300W cooler.

 

Yes and again, I understood that from the beginning. But again, as the CPU reaches close to maximum 95C, I believe on the new Ryzen 7000 series this behavior actually begins at 90C, the boost clock begins dynamically slowing down a bit, so it can slowly reach the 95C target and not accidentally go beyond it and then have to throttle.

 

This is what makes AMDs approach to thermal control so much better than the 13900K. AMD accelerates to 65 MPH on a 70 MPH highway and then for the last 5 MPH accelerates more gently, slowly getting to the exact 70 MPH speed. Ah, nice, comfy driving. Meanwhile Intel Floors it straight to 80 MPH, realizes he overshot and slams on the brakes back to to 60 MPH and then speeds up past 70 MPH straight to 80 again, like an idiot.

 

But of course if you have better cooling with either system you can ramp up those clocks faster and also boost dynamically higher too. Say a Noctua D-15 runs a Ryzen 7600X right up to its typical max boost clock of 5.2GHZ All-Core at about 94C. Respectable, it works, ur hitting about max default boost clock and thats fine. However even AMDs default behavior will go a bit above this if you let it, you just need the cooling to back it up.

 

Now lets upgrade the cooler by one level. D-15 with both fans is about equivalent to a 240mm AIO so lets step it up to 320mm AIO. Now the CPU is maxing out around 90-91C, and you notice the clock speeds are higher by a few bins - 5225MHz or maybe even 5250MHz. Your system will last a bit longer and feel ever so slightly snappier as the CPU doesn't have to worry so much about thermals and it ramps up harder and faster when you need it.

 

These CPUs these days ARE this intelligent. They know when you are cooling better than what is required. Its not a whole lot above the default behavior but it will feel snappier as the CPU can just pin full throttle instead of having to let off a little tiny bit here and then to ensure it doesn't go over 95C.

 

Well, CPUs are that intelligent except the 13900K that just rams the barrier at full speed and just explodes through it with tremendous power and then has to slam on the brakes and figure it out, LOL

[Coolmaster]

The behaviour you're describing sounds like a bad fan curve on a liquid cooler, since the coolant takes longer to heat up and cool down the fans will ramp up and down in this bad behaviour. From the reviews with air coolers the frequency has a peak right at the beginning when the benchmark starts, since the chip isn't hot yet and can the vrms and cpu can handle for a short bursts, then settle at a frequency and power draw at the max the cooler can handle.

[TexasBulldog74]

I wouldn't go with Intel today for the simple fact that the 13th gen is the final stage of its socket so there is not upgrade path.  Im going with the 7900x for the simple fact that there is a CPU upgrade path for the next 2-3 years already planned out so I will take this generation increase and likely upgrade again in another 2-3 years to the x3d variant while still being able to use the same mobo and DDR5.

 

I will sand down the IHS on the amd and modify my coolers mounting setup to match but i don't think i have the balls or the budget to delid and go direct die cooling for maximum performance.

 

 

[GoodBytes]

All I want to say is don't expect that AMD will make a thinner IHS for the X3D variation. The 8000 series CPU, maybe.... but the X3D one, nope. These IHS are mass ordered, and they are stuck with a crap load of them ready to be installed on newly made CPUs.

 

I think AMD logic was that, DDR5 memory is costly and so is implementing PCIe 5.0 for motherboard manufactures to make (It will drop in manufacturing price as time goes on as DDR5, obviously), and so to save consumers money if they upgrade from AM4 to AM5, there is about $50-100 save by doing this, as most heat sink manufacturers aren't Noctua ready to send out upgrade kits.

 

The problem is that if they wanted to do this, they could have supported DDR4 memory, and not have to push PCI 5.0 on motherboards. PCIe 5.0 isn't a selling feature today. We don't even have premium storage on PCIe to even consider, and GPUs aren't fast enough today nor tomorrow to take advantage of it. Heck the 4090 is finally using PCIe 4.0 bandwidth, but there is plenty of head room. Cheaper options (using PCIe 4.0 only) could have been made to help consumer save money. 

 

Or another option... reduce the CPU price. Crazy I know, but hey, guess what, they'll need to do it regardless thanks to Intel being less expensive, and apparently AMD Ryzen 7000 series aren't selling well either. I am not surprised by this news, as I also noticed that besides the 12 and 16 core variants, I have not seen any retailers being sold out of them... and even the 12 and 16 core that was ONLY on the first week. It's been in stock all this time. And I start to see retail bundles being made to try and help push the sale of them... the product just got released.

[WallacEngineering]

5 hours ago, Coolmaster said:

The behaviour you're describing sounds like a bad fan curve on a liquid cooler, since the coolant takes longer to heat up and cool down the fans will ramp up and down in this bad behaviour. From the reviews with air coolers the frequency has a peak right at the beginning when the benchmark starts, since the chip isn't hot yet and can the vrms and cpu can handle for a short bursts, then settle at a frequency and power draw at the max the cooler can handle.

I mean thats what has been happening with the new 13900K. While the AMD chips dynamically boost, the 13900K just goes until it throttles, and then dials back.

 

Hardware Unboxed showed that even on a 420mm Liquid AIO, the 13900K throttles even in gaming loads, doesn't even have to be an All-Core load, just playing CyberPunk 2077 is enough to throttle on the 13900K.

 

Perhaps the behavior is garbage because the heat just ramps up too quickly and dynamic boosting just doesn't work? Keep in mind that if you run a 7950X stock out of box, it pulls around 180 Watts and the 13900K pulls over 300 Watts.

 

Yes you read that correctly, the new 13900K is such a power hog that it consumes nearly DOUBLE the power of AMDs most powerful 16C/32T Chip. No wonder the damn thing throttles. Everyone is already struggling to properly cool Ryzen 7000 series, how exactly is the system supposed to perform when a 180W CPU is already maxing out your cooling solution and now all of a sudden you are asked to somehow deal with another 75% of wattage/heat load.

 

 

[PaulFCB]

1 hour ago, WallacEngineering said:

I mean thats what has been happening with the new 13900K. While the AMD chips dynamically boost, the 13900K just goes until it throttles, and then dials back.

 

Hardware Unboxed showed that even on a 420mm Liquid AIO, the 13900K throttles even in gaming loads, doesn't even have to be an All-Core load, just playing CyberPunk 2077 is enough to throttle on the 13900K.

 

Perhaps the behavior is garbage because the heat just ramps up too quickly and dynamic boosting just doesn't work? Keep in mind that if you run a 7950X stock out of box, it pulls around 180 Watts and the 13900K pulls over 300 Watts.

 

Yes you read that correctly, the new 13900K is such a power hog that it consumes nearly DOUBLE the power of AMDs most powerful 16C/32T Chip. No wonder the damn thing throttles. Everyone is already struggling to properly cool Ryzen 7000 series, how exactly is the system supposed to perform when a 180W CPU is already maxing out your cooling solution and now all of a sudden you are asked to somehow deal with another 75% of wattage/heat load.

 

 

 How does it pull 300W? You are just mixing numbers up.

 

 It might peak at 360W if you stress test it and in those situatios the 7950X would go above 300 itself. But in gaming I’m pretty sure it doesn’t pull anything close to that, techpowerup measured an average at 118W at stock in 12 games. 
 

 Also, doubt it throttles in gaming, that must be a bad mount or ill intentioned review there.