Stop, Intel’s Already Dead!

[Plouffe]

AMD’s Zen 5 processors are here, starting with the Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X. Is it worth it to upgrade from first gen 3D V-Cache, let alone the 7000 series chips? Time to find out!

 

Buy an AMD Ryzen 7 9700X CPU: https://geni.us/npap08

Buy an AMD Ryzen 5 9600X CPU: https://geni.us/Tp11V

Buy an AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D CPU: https://geni.us/kAM9L

Buy an AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D CPU: https://geni.us/Eul7

Buy an AMD Ryzen 7 7700X CPU: https://geni.us/T59BTB

Buy an AMD Ryzen 5 7600X CPU: https://geni.us/vFke

 

Purchases made through some store links may provide some compensation to Linus Media Group.

 

 

 

[Gat Pelsinger]

Guys look they turned Eminem into Linus.

[anirudthelinuxwIzard]

I disagree with the start; AMD has clearly got complacent like Intel back in the 14nm++ days because they know intel can’t compete 

[MadAnt250]

Meh

Hopefully this means the prices for Ryzen 7000 series will get cheaper.

[Geneleco]

I found the editing and pacing pretty confusing and hard to follow in this video, jumping all over the place. I think got the overall message, but it could have been alot better imo.

[Gat Pelsinger]

There are 2 things that Linus should have specifically emphasized on.

 

1) Intel 14th gen is not even the competitor to Ryzen 9000. Yeah sure, it is Intel's fault for still not releasing Arrow Lake, and you need products to compare right now, but yeah in my opinion, directly comparing the newly released product with the competitor's last gen product, without at least mentioning that the competitor's product is not even their latest, which will be launching soon, is necessary. There is a reason we don't see first party reviews, because AMD themselves will never miss the opportunity to compare their products with Intel's last gen if they aren't released yet. But not mentioning that upon the leaked reviews, Arrow Lake isn't actually better than Ryzen 9000 and all, but like, that is a complete different story.

 

2) This had to be mentioned and reminded, especially in the multi-threaded benchmarks that you are comparing a R5 and R7 with 6 and 8 cores respectively, with a 8+16 core i9. Some people might actually think AMD loses terribly here.

[Gat Pelsinger]

13 minutes ago, MadAnt250 said:

Meh

Hopefully this means the prices for Ryzen 7000 series will get cheaper.

You are not supposed to upgrade from 7000 to 9000, unless you have the money luxury, or you really need the efficiency gains for some reason. But this series is good for people who are upgrading from an older platform. But yes, it is a meh. CPU innovation in basis of performance (and not efficiency) has stalled a bit. It has been like this since a year.

[nether1234]

23 minutes ago, MadAnt250 said:

Meh

Hopefully this means the prices for Ryzen 7000 series will get cheaper.

I have seen some sales and a lot of bundles at both Micro Center and New Egg this week for the 7000 series CPUs 

[Deadpool2onBlu-Ray]

This is a flop of biblical proportions. The 9700x is 3% faster than the 7700x in gaming and 17% slower than the 7800x3d. The 7700x I have seen as cheap as like $230 bucks open box

[CyberneticTitan]

AMD should have just given up the efficiency narrative and just let them draw more power; they are already leagues ahead of Intel 13/14th for efficiency.

 

Otherwise at the price point who in their right mind would buy this over 7700X/7800X3D for gaming.

[Monkey Dust]

The drop in power consumption is pretty impressive. SFF builders rejoice! Anything over a small air cooler is probably a waste of money. Also pretty nice for those of us in Europe, where electricity is rather expensive.

 

Will be interesting to see if the higher end chips will follow these chip's modest performance gains, but huge efficiency gains? Or if the more expensive chips skew a little more towards performance?

[Brian McKee]

1 hour ago, anirudthelinuxwIzard said:

I disagree with the start; AMD has clearly got complacent like Intel back in the 14nm++ days because they know intel can’t compete 

AMD is still competing, it's just not with intel and it's not in the desktop market.

[Deadpool2onBlu-Ray]

21 minutes ago, CyberneticTitan said:

AMD should have just given up the efficiency narrative and just let them draw more power; they are already leagues ahead of Intel 13/14th for efficiency.

 

Otherwise at the price point who in their right mind would buy this over 7700X/7800X3D for gaming.

Nobody. 3% faster than 7700x for like over 100 bucks more

[Deadpool2onBlu-Ray]

14 minutes ago, Monkey Dust said:

The drop in power consumption is pretty impressive. SFF builders rejoice! Anything over a small air cooler is probably a waste of money. Also pretty nice for those of us in Europe, where electricity is rather expensive.

 

Will be interesting to see if the higher end chips will follow these chip's modest performance gains, but huge efficiency gains? Or if the more expensive chips skew a little more towards performance?

I wouldn't even call the performance uplift modest. It's worse than Zen to Zen+. It's literally DOA for gaming

[Brian McKee]

3 minutes ago, Deadpool2onBlu-Ray said:

Nobody. 3% faster than 7700x for like over 100 bucks more

60 dollars more than a sale priced 7700x while using 40% less power, or getting good power leads at the same power.

[anirudthelinuxwIzard]

4 minutes ago, Brian McKee said:

AMD is still competing, it's just not with intel and it's not in the desktop market.

WTF. If you mean mobile it makes sense, but not in servers. Are you suggesting AMD has ditches us? Genuinely oblivious, could you evaluate.

[Gat Pelsinger]

28 minutes ago, CyberneticTitan said:

AMD should have just given up the efficiency narrative and just let them draw more power; they are already leagues ahead of Intel 13/14th for efficiency.

No, I don't think that it works like that.

 

Processors have an efficiency range and a curve. The further you go from the efficiency range in terms of clock speed, the power usage doesn't increase linearly but exponentially. As stated in the video, enabling PBO increased the power usage over 70%, for a clock speed gain of 5.7% (wait, with PBO, it will only boost till 5.5, right?) which translates to 10% performance increase in purely synthetic multi-threaded benchmark like Cinebench. Now yes, 150 watts is still manageable, and 10% performance increase in multi-threaded workloads does sound good, and that is why, PBO is a thing that you can enable it yourself.

 

That is why, according to AMD's measurements and calculations, either 88 watts is the peak in the performance per watt graph, or in the graph of "performance per watt, but more emphasis on performance".

[Brian McKee]

Just now, anirudthelinuxwIzard said:

WTF. If you mean mobile it makes sense, but not in servers. Are you suggesting AMD has ditches us? Genuinely oblivious, could you evaluate.

The competition for server isn't quite there (yet) but it will be. And the competition for mobile is very real. They have to push efficiency as far as it can go.

 

Not to mention outside of North America there's quite a power crisis going on, 40% less power would be a huge boon in these regions.

[Gat Pelsinger]

Wait a second... This is Zen 5? I have been hearing about Zen 5 from such a long time and how awesome it is going to be. This is just mediocre in performance, and quite good in efficiency. 

[Deadpool2onBlu-Ray]

4 minutes ago, Brian McKee said:

The competition for server isn't quite there (yet) but it will be. And the competition for mobile is very real. They have to push efficiency as far as it can go.

 

Not to mention outside of North America there's quite a power crisis going on, 40% less power would be a huge boon in these regions.

Run a 7700x in Eco mode vs 9700x. That's a better test. Or a Ryzen 7700 vs 9700x. In real world usage, the 9700x is barely any more power efficient, especially if you run 7700x in Eco mode or have a 7700. This is literally a COLOSSAL flop. It's worse than 10700k vs 11700k

[lieutent]

I feel like Intel's degradation issue was glossed over in this video as a consumer-responsible "overclocking issue." Feels like LMG are avoiding Steve at GN even when he's covered incredible ground around the issue. They didn't even bypass him by going only to Wendell from L1T like they did in the TL episode. It very much felt like high end consumer Intel was still in consideration for this video when it really feels like no one should be recommending Intel until they fix their issue.

[Brian McKee]

5 minutes ago, Deadpool2onBlu-Ray said:

Run a 7700x in Eco mode vs 9700x. That's a better test. Or a Ryzen 7700 vs 9700x. In real world usage, the 9700x is barely any more power efficient, especially if you run 7700x in Eco mode or have a 7700. This is literally a COLOSSAL flop. It's worse than 10700k vs 11700k

I'm not gonna say what's better one way or the other in absolutes because I don't own either of the chips and I don't know anyone who has run a 7700x in eco mode to get power numbers, but I think it'd likely be worse than the 9700x with the other architectural improvements.

 

Also I find it quite funny that you compare this to the 10700k vs 11700k when in reality 10th gen has kind of suffered due to missing out on the updated igpu and the huge improvement to QuickSync.

[igormp]

Those 9000 CPUs got a really heavy AVX-512/FP boost, and the 9700x compile tests are even able to match my 5950x. I'm really curious to see how the 9950x will perform, and might grab one if 64GB UDIMMs ever become available.

 

For folks who only care about gaming, yeah, ignore this and wait for the x3D versions.

[Monkey Dust]

9 minutes ago, Deadpool2onBlu-Ray said:

I wouldn't even call the performance uplift modest. It's worse than Zen to Zen+. It's literally DOA for gaming

For gaming, you'd probably wait for the X3D chips anyway. Or, if on a budget, sticking with AM4 and the 5800/5700X3D.

5 minutes ago, anirudthelinuxwIzard said:

WTF. If you mean mobile it makes sense, but not in servers. Are you suggesting AMD has ditches us? Genuinely oblivious, could you evaluate.

Energy efficiency is pretty big in the server world. Both for the energy consumed by the chip itself, and the thermal management. 

[Agall]

2 hours ago, anirudthelinuxwIzard said:

I disagree with the start; AMD has clearly got complacent like Intel back in the 14nm++ days because they know intel can’t compete 

The major difference between Intel and AMD being on top is that AMD isn't responsible for their own fabs. What likely caused Intel to stagnate was the nature of being their own fab with how expensive it is to retool.

 

Its hard to argue spending millions/billions to upgrade fabs with steady profits and little competition to board. Whoever ultimately decided at Intel to not upgrade to 10nm then to 7nm in a timely fashion clearly underestimated AMD's Ryzen architecture and TSMC and was likely blindsided by 3D v-cache.

 

Even if we ended up with Zen5+++++, it would at least be better than Intel's 6th-11th gen since it would likely end up on newer/smaller manufacturing processes. Still, AMD is far more willing to do crazy stuff that doesn't require new nodes to be amazing, like 3D v-cache and massive APUs.