Zen 5 desktop vs mobile two different tales?

[Paul Siu]

On the mobile space I see reviews of zen5 crushing its competitors. On desktop I see review that performance is disappointing. Why the difference in reviews?

[porina]

While I don't agree with it myself, much of the desktop Zen 5 hate seems to come from the low power limit of the 9700X making its performance appear not so different from its predecessor, and we haven't seen the higher models yet. On mobile, power efficiency is more important and AMD have generally done well in that space in recent years.

[YoungBlade]

For desktop gaming, even at the same power limits, you're looking at a 5% gain on average if you're generous. Considering the price hike, that's pretty bad - you'd never pick either part for a gaming build.

 

However, it is more power efficient, and that actually matters for performance on mobile. A lot of laptop chips are limited to just 28W, which is nothing compared to a desktop part.

 

If you power limited the 7700X and 9700X both to 28W or something insanely low like that, I wouldn't be surprised if the 9700X suddenly wins in gaming by 15-20%. And then, it would look like a great generation.

 

But you're not limited to laptop power levels in a desktop, so the point is kind of moot in that space.

[Paul Siu]

I am not talking about the accuracy of the reviews but was confused by the conflicting reviews like zen5 is faster than expected and zen5 is a dog. After viewing a few I realized the former were mobile.

[jaslion]

Zen 5 is efficiency focused. So since on mobile you are very power and heat limited it pulls ahead EXTREMELY far as the chips suddenly have a TON of headroom to go very hard.

 

On dekstop this matter a lot less since we can manage more power and cooling a lot more easily as a lot of others have said the x should probably not have been added so amd could make the x versions of these chips be allowed to consume more juice.

 

Either way both are great reallt

[starsmine]

4 hours ago, YoungBlade said:

For desktop gaming, even at the same power limits, you're looking at a 5% gain on average if you're generous. Considering the price hike, that's pretty bad - you'd never pick either part for a gaming build.

 

However, it is more power efficient, and that actually matters for performance on mobile. A lot of laptop chips are limited to just 28W, which is nothing compared to a desktop part.

 

If you power limited the 7700X and 9700X both to 28W or something insanely low like that, I wouldn't be surprised if the 9700X suddenly wins in gaming by 15-20%. And then, it would look like a great generation.

 

But you're not limited to laptop power levels in a desktop, so the point is kind of moot in that space.

"Price hike"
7700X launch MSRP was 400
9700X is launching at 360.

Its a price drop, the 7700x also launched with a far more expensive platform. 
the 9700X will be sub 300 in a year. 

I always find it incredibly frustrating when people say a product had a price hike because the old parts, which happens every single time, is now 2/3rds of its launch MSRP. 

I have not payed attention, will there be a zen 5 version of dragon range for laptop? I dont normally look at the 45W space because in my view a laptop is supposed to have battery life and be comfortable to use in your lap. 

[YoungBlade]

29 minutes ago, starsmine said:

"Price hike"
7700X launch MSRP was 400
9700X is launching at 360.

Its a price drop, the 7700x also launched with a far more expensive platform. 
the 9700X will be sub 300 in a year. 

I always find it incredibly frustrating when people say a product had a price hike because the old parts, which happens every single time, is now 2/3rds of its launch MSRP.

Even if the MRSP mattered more than the real price, the 65W 7700 had a launch MSRP of $330. So I can still point to an MSRP of the last gen equivalent product and say that this is a price hike.

 

AMD obviously only called the part the 9700X instead of the 9700 to avoid this exact comparison. It should have been named the Ryzen 7 9700, and given the current market, it should have been priced at no more than $300.

[starsmine]

20 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

Even if the MRSP mattered more than the real price, the 65W 7700 had a launch MSRP of $330. So I can still point to an MSRP of the last gen equivalent product and say that this is a price hike.

 

AMD obviously only called the part the 9700X instead of the 9700 to avoid this exact comparison. It should have been named the Ryzen 7 9700, and given the current market, it should have been priced at no more than $300.

You know damn well that if the 9700X was $300, then the current price of the 7700X would currently cost 260 rather then the 300 it currently is, and you would make the same exact argument. Word for word.

The new generation, better performant product will ALWAYS cost more then the real world price of the old gen product that performs worse that has had multiple price cuts over its lifespan. 

This argument will be repeated again when zen 6 comes out. the "10700X" with an MSRP of 370-400 when the 9700X costs 290-300 real world.