News AMD announces Zen 5 Ryzen 9000 processors launches in July — four new Ryzen 9, 7, and 5 processors with a 16% IPC improvement

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I think there is something about Zen 5 preventing them from reliably operating at the higher frequencies the (assumed) N4P node could permit over N5, so they get to fully benefit from the decreased power consumption instead. So it is trivial to drop the TDPs on the 12-core and 8-core without sacrificing performance.

As for the lower base clocks, if you have sufficient cooling and a demanding workload, you'll hit higher clocks instead. They have lowered them to flex on Intel in power efficiency charts. This is just a theory. It could be that Zen 5 has major problems, or the press release had incorrect information.
Of course they need to avoid heating up the product that is the reason the scale and density of the chip makes it harder to cool it efficient as it less much less contact to cool it.
Pumping up the MHZ does not make any product better is you can not cool it enough, hence the 14x00 intel cpu line.
As i already stated before many reviewers advise to go for the 13x00 series as it outperforms the insane hot headed 14x00 series, hence the higher prices for the 13x00 series
 
Of course they need to avoid heating up the product that is the reason the scale and density of the chip makes it harder to cool it efficient as it less much less contact to cool it.
Pumping up the MHZ does not make any product better is you can not cool it enough, hence the 14x00 intel cpu line.
As i already stated before many reviewers advise to go for the 13x00 series as it outperforms the insane hot headed 14x00 series, hence the higher prices for the 13x00 series
Cooling a CPU is a product of the heat being generated, die size, and the coolers abilities. The new server CPUs are going to have close to 500W TDPs and still be able to be air cooled. The reason is the larger surface area on the dies spread out the heat making it easier to remove. Desktop CPU dies are so small that you are now getting an insane level of heat per mm2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peksha and bit_user
Of course they need to avoid heating up the product that is the reason the scale and density of the chip makes it harder to cool it efficient as it less much less contact to cool it.
Your post doesn't elucidate why base clocks are dropping several hundred MHz between Zen 4 and Zen 5. The node did change but TSMC N5 and N4whatever are in the same 5nm FinFET family.
 
But then the difference between PPT and TDP will be even higher than it is now...

I don't know, many articles say 3nm for zen5 and the numbers are closer to the n3 numbers than the n4p numbers.
its N3 for EPYC, for desktop its N4(P, X, E still unclear), IPC is usually unrelated to node change per se, clocks and power draw are the direct perf areas attached to node improvement, as IPC is mostly dependent on uarch changes/improvements/optimizations (aside from small perf gains in cache speeds etc due to the node).
 
I'm running an ancient Intel system , the 9700x looks RIGHT in my wheelhouse for finally building a new setup. Bonkers to think it'll be a bajillion times faster, AND more energy efficient.
if i were you i'll wait for 2 things, one 9800X3D (if you game much) and 2, Intel "Official LAUNCH"(in stores), of ARL, as it will more likely than not force a price reduction on current Zen5 lineup, plus never buy products at launch date, its always safe to wait 3-6 months and give chances for kinks and bugs to be fixed/polished (plus the price reduction)
 
I feel like when AMD said they would extend supporting the AM5 socket to beyond 2027 from 2025, they really meant to switch over to the AM6(?) by 2025 while keeping general support of AM5 sort of like newer CPU released in 2026 or after will require the AM6(?) but they’ll release very minor improved 10700XT/XT2 beyond 2025, etc. So it doesn’t really matter as all the newest features like PCIe 6.0, NVMe 3.0 USB 4 Gen2, etc. will require the AM6(?). It’s not like the Ryzen 9 11900X will be supported to work with AM5 or anything so I’ll curtail my expectations.
Not saying it isn’t a good thing that they try to keep at least minimal backward support for so many years but just saying, people should be cautious with their optimism.
i feel they'll release Z6 for AM5, Z5 is looking more like Z3 was to Z2, an optimization rather than a full grounds up uarch. i think they backed down and pushed the big changes to Z6 with the new N3-N2 node and new packaging etc for the last AM5 hurrah, they need to up the memory channels count in desktop since Zen3, they got away already with 2 gens holding back and probably a 3rd with Z6 but past that the bottleneck of not doing it is massive.
So my guess is AM6 for Z7 (or whatever they name the new arch) with segmented MB memory channel support, ej: BX4 2ch fixed, B series 2ch base up to 3ch (AIB segmentation choice), X series 3ch base up to 4ch (AIB's choice), plus wait for DDR6 which should come around late 2026-2027.
They've already used all justifications for not upping the core count 3 gens in a row after Z2(as Intel did back then).
 
I've shown proof - not just screenshots but videos - numerous times of eg. 12900k beating 7800x 3d in gaming, 14900k capped at 90w in games being faster then the 3d etc. People just don't believe it cause "random youtuber" or what have you, they prefer graphs made on excel than actual in game footage. What can you do man.

If you think that the 7950x score 31k at 65w in CBR23 okay, im not going to try to change your mind. Believe away
they have shown you further proofs from multiple sites/reviews plus the overall tech community accepted perf numbers, you just keep moving/bending the goalpost, cherry picking test and outliers test results , while just outright misunderstanding what is being said or stated and making a fuss about it trying to falsely disprove known performance numbers, at 65w TDP= 88w PPT for AMD; and for intel go figure what its PL2 is at 105w TDP, 2nd, at 65w TDP for both 7950X and 13900K AMD wins overall, at 105w TDP intel starts to stretch its legs, but under that they simply lose. What jeremy told you was simply this, that below 105w TDP (not PPT or PL MAX) AMD wins, and above it, Intel wins, and that at 65w "TDP" AMD usually ties and sometimes wins vs 13900K at 105w "TDP" more often than not. at no point he claimed AMD wins all (TDP is not the usual max power draw for either of them).

Overall this just goes to show how useless and shady the "TDP" rating has turned out over time from both (the 3 companies actually, NV included) companies, is actually useless as actual Power draw usually far exceeds rated TDP even on power constrained devices like laptops and handhelds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bit_user
Where do you get a degree of professional reviewing? I'm more knowledgeable than a lot of those professionals "unboxed cough cough".

And no, if these people are objective they will be out of a job. Lots of reviewrs have actually said exactly that, that unless their videos praise amd and poop on everything else, they are not getting clicks and views. They have to be as amd biased as humanly possible to get revenues.
you just shooted yourself in the foot right here, of the 3 the one with the least amount of media power is by far (but REALLY REALLY FAR) AMD, media power, industry power, mindshare, of the 3 even now compared to intel AMD still loses, the fact you directly just made it about review bias just discovered your true intentions and obvious bias against AMD.
How come no one aside from AMD "fanboys" are making a big fuss about Intel 13K and 14K melting from overpower?, how come no one questioned intel shady tactics of forcing all AIB's to run the cpu's at maximum TB featured speeds/power?. Intel used the perf numbers with the maximum clocks/power in all their slides and even official boxes, but now its all the AIB's fault, and nothing happens?.
The biggest failure of all of you AMD blind haters is attacking were theres nothing to attack, when there are way more obvious areas and places to ditch on AMD rightfully so (mobile naming scam, desktop APU's scam, desktop core count stagnation, memory channel stagnation, Z4 and apparently Z5 useless DT IHS just to keep AM4 coolers compatibility, lack of oversight and control into AIB's implementing AMD's limits guidelines leading to 7800X3D blown up by ASUS etc etc).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bit_user
something that most are overlooking, is the added up power usage of IF at 2400mhz (20% perf increase)plus IMC higher speeds (~10%JEDEC-EXPO ) plus the L1 and L2 cache speed up (~50-100%), maybe by their own they arent as important but put together they could have eaten up the efficiency gained from the optimized node, add to that the alleged full avx 512, thats enough for same boost clocks at same power, while lower base clocks is also somewhat justified by this, specially if like bit_user said, its tied to worse case workload (avx512) pegging all the cores to the max, and the more "efficient" ones are usually single CCD sku's with no die to die coms over IF.
We'll have to wait for an in depth review with boost tables compared between Z4 and Z5 across multiple workloads at same TDP (PPT) and with same everything else (specially cooler). hoping phoronix gets down on EPYC Z5 soon enough, his test suite should tell the real overall IPC geomean gain over a horde of different workloads against previous gens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bit_user
you just shooted yourself in the foot right here, of the 3 the one with the least amount of media power is by far (but REALLY REALLY FAR) AMD, media power, industry power, mindshare, of the 3 even now compared to intel AMD still loses, the fact you directly just made it about review bias just discovered your true intentions and obvious bias against AMD.
How come no one aside from AMD "fanboys" are making a big fuss about Intel 13K and 14K melting from overpower?, how come no one questioned intel shady tactics of forcing all AIB's to run the cpu's at maximum TB featured speeds/power?. Intel used the perf numbers with the maximum clocks/power in all their slides and even official boxes, but now its all the AIB's fault, and nothing happens?.
The biggest failure of all of you AMD blind haters is attacking were theres nothing to attack, when there are way more obvious areas and places to ditch on AMD rightfully so (mobile naming scam, desktop APU's scam, desktop core count stagnation, memory channel stagnation, Z4 and apparently Z5 useless DT IHS just to keep AM4 coolers compatibility, lack of oversight and control into AIB's implementing AMD's limits guidelines leading to 7800X3D blown up by ASUS etc etc).
I didn't attack anyone, I just quoted the content creators themselves which said that unless they praise AMD, they are done. Hardwareunboxed is a prime example, he made 30 videos about Intel degrading power limits etc. and 0 videos about the zen 4 parts imploding due to high cache voltage. Nough said i think
 
I didn't attack anyone, I just quoted the content creators themselves which said that unless they praise AMD, they are done. Hardwareunboxed is a prime example, he made 30 videos about Intel degrading power limits etc. and 0 videos about the zen 4 parts imploding due to high cache voltage. Nough said i think
oh yeah enough said, i already understood what are your intentions, no point in wasting any more time reading you at all....
PD: "attacking AMD" which you are in every single post you make, trying to turn around the entire tech world consensus and distorting it to fit your fake narrative.
I gave you several "attacking" points, real points worthy of being addressed, you just ignored them all, you dont care about truth, you only care about the money Intel pays you to trash talk AMD and invent fake numbers/project Intel failures as AMD and project AMD accomplishment's as Intel's. The levels of reality twisting and bending you try to get away with are insane to be honest, not even in wccfkek comment section have i seen such attempts, they are close tho...
PD2: AMD is more efficient than intel period, Zen3 is far more efficient than ADL specially at lower power, thats the only reason AMD keeps cleaning the floor with XEON in servers, if not, Intel would not be in the sorrowful state they are now, begging for money to everyone that even looks at them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bit_user
oh yeah enough said, i already understood what are your intentions, no point in wasting any more time reading you at all....
PD: "attacking AMD" which you are in every single post you make, trying to turn around the entire tech world consensus and distorting it to fit your fake narrative.
I gave you several "attacking" points, real points worthy of being addressed, you just ignored them all, you dont care about truth, you only care about the money Intel pays you to trash talk AMD and invent fake numbers/project Intel failures as AMD and project AMD accomplishment's as Intel's. The levels of reality twisting and bending you try to get away with are insane to be honest, not even in wccfkek comment section have i seen such attempts, they are close tho...
PD2: AMD is more efficient than intel period, Zen3 is far more efficient than ADL specially at lower power, thats the only reason AMD keeps cleaning the floor with XEON in servers, if not, Intel would not be in the sorrowful state they are now, begging for money to everyone that even looks at them.
I'm just quoting what the content creators are saying man. Why are you so aggressive and making personal attacks?

No, amd is not more efficient and especially zen 3 is nowhere near ADL, lol. In the server market space AMD is pushing high core counts, in the desktop they are not, they are still shoving 6 cores down our throats for 300$.
 
its N3 for EPYC, for desktop its N4(P, X, E still unclear),
Isn't the Zen 5 CCD made on N4P, while the Zen 5C CCD is made on one of the N3 nodes?

IPC is usually unrelated to node change per se, clocks and power draw are the direct perf areas attached to node improvement, as IPC is mostly dependent on uarch changes/improvements/optimizations (aside from small perf gains in cache speeds etc due to the node).
IPC is one of the ways designers reinvest dividends from the node change to get more performance (the other way is just to increase clock speeds). Rocket Lake provides a good example of what can happen when using a bigger & more complex uarch without a node change.

never buy products at launch date, its always safe to wait 3-6 months and give chances for kinks and bugs to be fixed/polished (plus the price reduction)
Grossly exaggerated. Millions of people buy these products before that window and most of them do just fine. Not everyone has the same risk tolerance (or lack thereof) as you seem to.

It's a simple cost/benefit tradeoff. If you can easily afford to wait, the benefit is less risk of ending up with some nasty surprise that only comes to light shortly after launch. However, I think these products don't undergo the same degree of post-launch revisions that they once used to (i.e. both CPUs and motherboards). The designers and test engineers have better tools, a lot more issues can now be dealt with in firmware, and companies would really rather the engineers move on to the next generation than respin current/previous ones. This is especially true, when you consider how short product cycles have gotten, these days.

Now, having said that, I can tell you I'm happy I got a B2 stepping, but those didn't start rolling out until a whole year after the 5000 series launched! Also, I'm guessing AMD did that more for EPYC customers, and consumers just got them as a side-effect.
 
Last edited:
they are still shoving 6 cores down our throats for 300$ 200$.
Fixed that, for you. The R5 7600X is currently $200 on Newegg. I know you just can't seem to let go of "launch prices", but as soon as Black Friday rolled around (only 1.5 months after launch), it dropped to as low as $234 and the best price never rose about $250, after that. The first time it hit $200 was almost a year ago!
 
Fixed that, for you. R5 7600X is $200 on Newegg. I know you just can't seem to let go of "launch prices", but as soon as Black Friday rolled around (only 1.5 months after launch), it dropped to as low as $234 and the best price never rose about $250, after that. The first time it hit $200 was almost a year ago!
The reason the price dropped is fierce competition. Check zen 3 prices, the 5600x was over 300 for more than a year, intel had to drag them kicking and screaming with alder lake to drop prices and give support to older motherboards. I had to wait for exactly 2 years to get support for my b350, at that point it would be just stupid to get a zen 3 cpu. The best option was the 450$ 5800x 3d, but with that money I could buy a 12700f + a brand new motherboard. Amd prices are just wack man.
 
The reason the price dropped is fierce competition. Check zen 3 prices, the 5600x was over 300 for more than a year, intel had to drag them kicking and screaming with alder lake to drop prices and give support to older motherboards. I had to wait for exactly 2 years to get support for my b350, at that point it would be just stupid to get a zen 3 cpu. The best option was the 450$ 5800x 3d, but with that money I could buy a 12700f + a brand new motherboard. Amd prices are just wack man.
I suppose I shouldn't point out that the 10600K/11600K were ~$280-300 6 core CPUs and that the only reason they dropped in price is that the 5600X was better? It would almost seem like both AMD and Intel are publicly traded companies who try to maximize profits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bit_user
I suppose I shouldn't point out that the 10600K/11600K were ~$280-300 6 core CPUs and that the only reason they dropped in price is that the 5600X was better? It would almost seem like both AMD and Intel are publicly traded companies who try to maximize profits.
Those dropped because they are 3-4 generation old CPUs....retailers are the ones that want to get rid of the last of them they still have around.
The 7xxx ryzen CPUs are the current generation, that will be replaced soon granted, but still current.
 
I suppose I shouldn't point out that the 10600K/11600K were ~$280-300 6 core CPUs and that the only reason they dropped in price is that the 5600X was better? It would almost seem like both AMD and Intel are publicly traded companies who try to maximize profits.
No, you shouldn't. You should point out that the 10600k was launched alongside the cheap 6core models, like the 10400f (173$ msrp), the 10400 (200$ msrp), the 10600kf (260$).

AMD didn't do that, they skipped the 5600 (and the 7600) for so long to upsell you the expensive models that nobody really wanted.

And the you are telling me you people ain't biased. Yeah, right
 
No, you shouldn't. You should point out that the 10600k was launched alongside the cheap 6core models, like the 10400f (173$ msrp), the 10400 (200$ msrp), the 10600kf (260$).

AMD didn't do that, they skipped the 5600 (and the 7600) for so long to upsell you the expensive models that nobody really wanted.

And the you are telling me you people ain't biased. Yeah, right
I know engaging with you is a waste of time because you love moving goalposts and refuse to admit when you're flagrantly wrong but let's do it anyways.

You're saying that Intel's lower models somehow matter when you're talking about AMD's pricing and competition. Let's use the 5600 as an example: it's faster than the 10600K/11600K so AMD never would have sold it at $200 had it launched the same time as the 5600X. If they had their shareholders would have rightly been very angry as they would have flushed profits down the drain for no good reason since nobody would have bought the 5600X.

Somehow you're incapable of grasping that profits and market position matter and I'm not sure why. AMD did with Zen 3 what Intel did with everything before 10th Gen: kept prices near MSRP because there wasn't any competition and then dropped them when there was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bit_user
I know engaging with you is a waste of time because you love moving goalposts and refuse to admit when you're flagrantly wrong but let's do it anyways.

You're saying that Intel's lower models somehow matter when you're talking about AMD's pricing and competition. Let's use the 5600 as an example: it's faster than the 10600K/11600K so AMD never would have sold it at $200 had it launched the same time as the 5600X. If they had their shareholders would have rightly been very angry as they would have flushed profits down the drain for no good reason since nobody would have bought the 5600X.

Somehow you're incapable of grasping that profits and market position matter and I'm not sure why. AMD did with Zen 3 what Intel did with everything before 10th Gen: kept prices near MSRP because there wasn't any competition and then dropped them when there was.
The 5600 isn't faster than the 11600k but whatever, that's besides the point. Having a better product doesn't mean you have to increase the prices, you can release the damn cpu on time and at the usual 199$ msrp and the competition, if it's worse, has to drop prices.

That has been the case with the other cpus before zen 3. The r5 1600 had 50% more cores and 300% more threads than the competition, it was still released on time and at 199. But amd in 2020 just decided to start milking.

I've been on the pc space for a long time, never do I remember such an extreme case of price increases within such a small amount of time. We went from 199 to 299 for 6 cores within a year. Intel with basically 0 competition kept their prices steady from 2010 all the way to 2017.

But as youve said, engaging with fans is a waste of time, they just won't budge no matter what the facts are.