News AMD Launches Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 CPUs, Launches September 27

[-Fran-]

Expensive... As I imagined, DDR5 is the sore sticking point here and specially true for the 7600X. Good to see B650 coming rather soon and some lower MSRPs on some models (even if they left the place holders for VCache, lol), on the few positives. Higher power (already known) and higher entry price point on the platform are just annoying. Performance wise, which is the meat of everything, looks decent if AMD's numbers are to be believed (so far, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt).

Looks like the were being very conservative (which is nice) in their initial reveal, so it's nice to see more accurate numbers now.

Just a few weeks away from actual independent reviews. Hard to wait

Regards.

 

[PCWarrior]

1. AMD included gaming benchmarks in their IPC calculation to inflate the IPC uplift. And the gaming uplift is skewed by the RAM used and its overclocking/tuning as they used AMD EXPO Technology to achieve 6000C30 to get the results they did. They also handpicked some of the synthetic benchmarks including outliers of course. And the number of benchmarks was also such that the effect of the outliers was significant. Without the gaming benchmarks and the two 30+% outliers the geomean is 9.4% which is in line to what AMD said the IPC uplift was going to be back in June. Now they just included a bunch of gaming benchmarks and outliers to skew the results and present the result as the outcome of optimisations. What a scam!

2. AMD conveniently compared their overpriced 7600X versus the 12900K in gaming (and who knows the bias and the meddling in the testing). They did so to justify the pricing of $300 for a pure 6-core in 2022-2023. To say “hey look it is better by 5% than a $600 cpu, so you get something better at half the price, what a steal!”. But in gaming their $700 7950X is only 5.7% faster than the $300 7600X (and 11% faster than the 12900K). So if pricing is to be extrapolated from gaming performance then the 7950X should only cost $317. Make up your mind AMD. Either the 7600X is overpriced or the 7950X. You can’t have it both ways.

3. What I see is AMD being very eager to announce-present Zen 4 as early as they could even though they aren’t ready for launch and even in one month when they will be launching it will be a soft/paper launch. There is a reason for that. They had to announce it before Intel announces Raptor lake. That way they only had to compare Zen 4 against Alderlake and be able to present some big wins. They know fully well that against Raptor lake their big wins will be converted to losses or very narrow unimpressive wins. Reminds me when Intel launched 10000 series HEDT to avoid being compared to 3000 series Threadrippers. Back then the AMD fboys were attacking Intel. Now of course its fair play. Total hypocrites.

 

[escksu]

The price at the bottom end is disappointing, I may as well wait for the 3d version and the price and speed of DDR5 to improve before taking the leap.


Good round up thank you.

If you think the price is disappointing, wait till you see board prices... Then you will realize it simply makes no sense to buy 7600x.

 

[escksu]

Expensive... As I imagined, DDR5 is the sore sticking point here and specially true for the 7600X. Good to see B650 coming rather soon and some lower MSRPs on some models (even if they left the place holders for VCache, lol), on the few positives. Higher power (already known) and higher entry price point on the platform are just annoying. Performance wise, which is the meat of everything, looks decent if AMD's numbers are to be believed (so far, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt).

Looks like the were being very conservative (which is nice) in their initial reveal, so it's nice to see more accurate numbers now.

Just a few weeks away from actual independent reviews. Hard to wait

Regards.

Expect B650 to be expensive...coupled with expensive ddr5 (lack of 16gb kits make things worse). Then 7600x simply makes little sense to buy...

Imagine us$300+ for board and $300+ for rams... Now another $300 for 7600x. It's already over $900...

The price gap between 5600x and 7600x is too big due to board and ram.

 

[Wisecracker]

I am old and in the way, but I see all types of value in the "Others" CPU categories. Throw in a Radeon RX 6600/6650 XT (or nVidia GPU) with 'reasonable' mobo and RAMs . . . and off yah go.
https://www.microcenter.com/search/...4294966995+4294819840+4294820689&myStore=true

 

[rluker5]

I’ve got a friend who is intending to go for the 7900x. So that should be interesting to see what performance it has. Meanwhile I’m still rocking my old AsRock ab350 pro 4 board with a 3600. Though I just picked up a 5600x on eBay for 165 with shipping, should be able to sell the 3600 for just under 100. So I figure that will hold me over until I feel like jumping.

Your 5600x will likely run cooler (a luxury comparable to a quiet car imo), with less bugs (because the platform is already very mature) and you will still be gpu limited in games. Right now the 5600x is fast, efficient, reliable and cheap. Those are a lot of benefits for not chasing #1.

Because of the Infinity Fabric pretty much the only memory you should get is DDR5 6000 with as low a latency as you can afford. That memory is in the $300 range for 2x16GB. That is a big cost when the competition can slap DDR4 3200 for $200 less.

Considering how close to Alder this Zen4 seems in games I imagine 4800c40 cheapo DDR5 will be slower than Alder with DDR4. Fast ram with fast Zen may be faster in games. Reviews will say more. Which will come when?
Might be a bitter pill when sales open up one day before Intel gets to announce how much faster Raptor is than Alder.

 

[rluker5]

Expect B650 to be expensive...coupled with expensive ddr5 (lack of 16gb kits make things worse). Then 7600x simply makes little sense to buy...

Imagine us$300+ for board and $300+ for rams... Now another $300 for 7600x. It's already over $900...

The price gap between 5600x and 7600x is too big due to board and ram.

I've heard that 8GB DDR5 sticks aren't so good: MSI Global - The Leading Brand in High-end Gaming & Professional Creation
Maybe the small number if ICs act like a small capacity of nand chips on an SSD?

Probably get better performance with 16GB DDR4.

 

[alceryes]

Anyone know when the review embargo gets lifted?
Hopefully not the same day they go on sale. 😕

 

[alceryes]

I've heard that 8GB DDR5 sticks aren't so good: MSI Global - The Leading Brand in High-end Gaming & Professional Creation
Maybe the small number if ICs act like a small capacity of nand chips on an SSD?

Probably get better performance with 16GB DDR4.

Yes, there is a technical reason why 8GB DDR5 sticks will not just be 'not good' but will actually suck! Buildzoid literally say just buy good DDR4 instead.

Whole video is great but specifically about 8GB DDR5 starts around the 4 minute mark -

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtGXAZznKSc

 

[RodroX]

I wonder if it will run Crysis?

 

[-Fran-]

Expect B650 to be expensive...coupled with expensive ddr5 (lack of 16gb kits make things worse). Then 7600x simply makes little sense to buy...

Imagine us$300+ for board and $300+ for rams... Now another $300 for 7600x. It's already over $900...

The price gap between 5600x and 7600x is too big due to board and ram.

The boards will start at $125, allegedly. And 32GB DDR5-5200 can be had for about ~$200 in order to get less-than-bottom quality. Not quite $900, but still ~$650 starting price is a lot. You can still spec a good Alder Lake and AM4 alternative for that much and have some left for the GPU/disks. That's AMD's biggest problem here.

Regards.

 

[jeremyj_83]

My initial not-completely-awake thought . . I can't say I'm thrilled with AMD closing the gap with Intel in the power consumption department...

I think it all depends on efficiency. If I am getting 50% better performance for the 50% increase in power...then I'm not mad. If I am getting 5% better performance for a 50% increase in power then that doesn't make sense.

 

[digitalgriffin]

In all honesty it was a bit of a yawner. But as I heard from my own sources, it's about what I expected. The essential core is built upon Zen 3 with scheduler tweaks, and a new improved memory subsystem (DDR5, and cache) It was sort of a tick tock strategy.

That gains are nice overall. A nice advancement and work well done by AMD. However I have a strong suspicion Raptor Lake will rip Zen 4 to shreds.

 

[alceryes]

However I have a strong suspicion Raptor Lake will rip Zen 4 to shreds.

In multi-core synthetic benchmarks, yes. Because that's just about the one thing the E-cores are good for.

In games...? I'm not so sure about that, we'll see. Exciting times!

 

[digitalgriffin]

Expect B650 to be expensive...coupled with expensive ddr5 (lack of 16gb kits make things worse). Then 7600x simply makes little sense to buy...

Imagine us$300+ for board and $300+ for rams... Now another $300 for 7600x. It's already over $900...

The price gap between 5600x and 7600x is too big due to board and ram.

That is a reasonable expectation. But you can't expect Intel to be any better. In fact Intel hid the true cost of owning an Intel platform, by shifting the cost to the chipset (which was required) You have to look at motherboard & CPU to determine true value.

 

[digitalgriffin]

In multi-core synthetic benchmarks, yes. Because that's just about the one thing the E-cores are good for.

In games...? I'm not so sure about that, we'll see. Exciting times!

Agreed

MOST games don't use more than 6 cores. Seeing P core increases will be the determining factor. But the rumblings I hear are impressive in terms of IPC and clock boost.

I'm in a hold pattern until Intel and AMD show their full hand (CPU + motherboard cost vs perf)

 

[Amdlova]

in terms of performance the amd will be good but costly wise not. True motherboards can do pci5 or pci 4 will be insanely costly. If you want screw your data buy the cheapest one. It's time to add ecc on pci nvme ssd. Only a true pcb Japanese will do the perfect job. Those motherboards with dual chipset is only for "cheat on bad pcb's" for software or implementation will be a nightmare. Keep with old ryzens or go with intel this time.

 

[alceryes]

I'm in a hold pattern until Intel and AMD show their full hand (CPU + motherboard cost vs perf)

+ a minimum of a half dozen 3rd party reviews.

 

[digitalgriffin]

For gaming, AMD shows 7600X going up against 12900K with a 17% BEST advantage (5.6% average boost). This kind of shows that excess core counts are not needed for most gaming now. This means you only need P-Cores on Intel's Raptor Lake to make a 5.6% boost to match Zen 4 under just about all gaming scenarios. This is why I suspect Intel will hold the crown for gaming. But as always it's Price : Performance.

 

[alceryes]

For gaming, AMD shows 7600X going up against 12900K with a 17% BEST advantage (5.6% average boost). This kind of shows that excess core counts are not needed for most gaming now. This means you only need P-Cores on Intel's Raptor Lake to make a 5.6% boost to match Zen 4 under just about all gaming scenarios. This is why I suspect Intel will hold the crown for gaming. But as always it's Price : Performance.

You'll also need to factor in that the 7600X only boosts to 5.3GHz (if they stayed within spec) while the top-tier AMD chips will peak at 5.7GHz.
This is a single core boost, but single core boost does matter in gaming. I also suspect multi-core boost to be higher on the top chips too. We shall see.

 

[TerryLaze]

You'll also need to factor in that the 7600X only boosts to 5.3GHz (if they stayed within spec) while the top-tier AMD chips will peak at 5.7GHz.
This is a single core boost, but single core boost does matter in gaming. I also suspect multi-core boost to be higher on the top chips too. We shall see.

But nobody benches true pure single core games anymore...
Single core speed remains important even though all games use plenty of cores and that is the only thing we don't know about zen 4 yet, if they can hold single core on one or two cores during high load on all cores.

 

[gamr]

isnt one of the nice things about amd, is that you dont need to buy a 1000 watt 80 plus titanium psu for your build?

 

[jeremyj_83]

In all honesty it was a bit of a yawner. But as I heard from my own sources, it's about what I expected. The essential core is built upon Zen 3 with scheduler tweaks, and a new improved memory subsystem (DDR5, and cache) It was sort of a tick tock strategy.

That gains are nice overall. A nice advancement and work well done by AMD. However I have a strong suspicion Raptor Lake will rip Zen 4 to shreds.

Raptor Lake's IPC won't be much higher than Alder Lake since it is the same core. Using Intel's old naming, Raptor Lake is a "tick," however, Meteor Lake will be a "tock" and that is where we might see some huge gains.

 

[RodroX]

Also to keep in mind all this numbers are at 1080p with a top of the (current) line GPU.

Many owners of midrange systems with a midrange GPU and CPU wont probably see a huge difference in gaming by upgrading to a newer CPU (I mean 10th gen core i5 or zen 2 Ryzen 5 owners with something in the range of like a RTX 2060 Super), unless of course they play really old FPS with competitive settings.

And it will probably be even a lower gain for people with those kind of systems playing at 1440p or 4K.

Lots of gamers, me included, are still using oldish GPU so it will be interesting to see new CPU + oldish GPU benchmarks.

 

[jeremyj_83]

isnt one of the nice things about amd, is that you dont need to buy a 1000 watt 80 plus titanium psu for your build?

These will still use less absolute power than the Intel chips. The biggest question will be efficiency of that extra power. If we are only getting 5% better performance for an increase of 50% in power then that is worthless. If we are getting 50% for 50% then that is worth while.