We put AMD's Ryzen 7 5700X through the wringer in our expanse set of benchmarks.
AMD Ryzen 7 5700X Review: A Price Cut Disguised as a New Chip : Read more
AMD Ryzen 7 5700X Review: A Price Cut Disguised as a New Chip : Read more
DDR4-3800 in Coupled mode (fabric at 1800 MHz)
wouldnt that be decoupled for 3800?
1900 would be coupled?
Looks to be the same with the 5800 being OEM only.Is there any difference at all between the Ryzen 7 5700X and the OEM-only Ryzen 7 5800 found in the Alienware R10, or did they just rename it and make it available to consumers?
According to AMD the specs are the same: https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-7-5800
Clarification question: Are you running the Intel CPUs with the stock coolers?
Most tests I've seen use water cooling setups for the Intel chips, while most users use the bundled inadequate air coolers. Has this been addressed? Thanks.
They made more money with the lot more expensive 5800X, that's the reason.Nice review.
Definitively too little too late, I wonder what was the reason for them taking so long, besides waiting for supply issues.
I'd still snatch one of these for light workstations if they're available, or a 5700G if I needed integrated graphics.
Nice review.
Definitively too little too late, I wonder what was the reason for them taking so long, besides waiting for supply issues.
I'd still snatch one of these for light workstations if they're available, or a 5700G if I needed integrated graphics.
Are you ever going to access the fact that Intel ships CPUs with higher TDPs than their bundled coolers can dissipate?We put AMD's Ryzen 7 5700X through the wringer in our expanse set of benchmarks.
AMD Ryzen 7 5700X Review: A Price Cut Disguised as a New Chip : Read more
You don't need that 120 bucks cooler, though. Most Intels can be comfortably cooled by a cooler you get for less than 40. For gaming alone, that goes even for the 12700K (same for the high-end AMDs, btw, so your point is utter bs), which doesn't even come with a stock cooler, and the new Intel cooler keep the smaller Alder Lakes in check really well for being a free cooler. Hell, a good air cooler also costs less than 100 here and does the job very well. And it's not like the situation is really different for AMD... I wouldn't use either stock cooler. They are all garbage.Are you ever going to access the fact that Intel ships CPUs with higher TDPs than their bundled coolers can dissipate?
Articles keep saying, "Intel has the performance crown", then show a test of an Intel system with a $120 cooler that most users won't have that beats AMD chips by only 5%. Then in real life, the Intel chips throttle and lose by 5%. I've seen benchmarks where Intels throttle and lose 30%+ of their performance, supposedly in realistic environments.
If I'm wrong, at least do a test that investigates this. That's all I want to see.
Because it looks like Intel is gaming the system. They can put out chips with 250W TDP, knowing that reviewers use open benches and water coolers. Then AMD puts out chips that perform the same inside a user's system and they get penalized by all the media outlets.
I feel the important thing to take away is that proprietary coolers are better than stock for both, yes. You can get something like a BeQuiet! Pure Rock 2 for about 30-40 bucks. That's pretty reasonable and there are other, cheaper options available as well that will keep those CPUs in check, too. That's why I feel naming the cooler as a reason for performance differences in end-user systems is highly misleading. It takes two seconds to Google it. The issue existed with AMD processors as well. Claiming that using an overpowered cooler changes anything when a cheap, affordable cooler is enough already is what actually misleads people. Especially when considering that the test here even shows performance with stock cooler for the 12400...I think the issue of cooling is probably a little more nuanced. Intel's approach seems to be predicated upon the CPUs being used in a "bursty" workload (e.g. editing photos one after the other has frequent idle periods for user input), which seems to be a reasonable assumption for the majority of office/home office users. However, if you use a motherboard which allows "infinite turbo" (or sets it by default), the 65W bundled cooler is inadequate for long-running tasks - from personal experience, an i5-11400 will hit 90C quite quickly in this case.
On the other hand, AMD's approach seems to be more based upon something closer to peak power draw, so doesn't (from memory) suffer from this issue as much. Having said that, the Ryzen 7's don't come with a cooler, and most after-market coolers (even the cheaper ones) should provide better cooling performance and acoustics than the AMD and Intel stock coolers, so are probably very much worth considering (in my opinion ).
Turbo is, by design capable and supposed to, push the system up to 100 degrees, if you get lower temps than that you are either not using all of the performance or are cooling "too hard" / loosing value by spending more than you have to on cooling.the 65W bundled cooler is inadequate for long-running tasks - from personal experience, an i5-11400 will hit 90C quite quickly in this case.
Intel® Adaptive Boost Technology kicks in when the CPU is below the ICCMax limit (maximum current) and a temperature limit of 100°C. That means it can remain active even at temperatures above 70°C, the threshold for Thermal Velocity Boost.
Yes, I was aware how turbo boost works - my old work laptop (i7-4600U) didn't have great cooling and so spent a lot of time running at 90C+, which resulted in performance issues due to the CPU running ~500MHz below maximum turbo whilst at 100% load due to the lack of thermal headroom.Turbo is, by design capable and supposed to, push the system up to 100 degrees...If it helps your psyche to have a cooler CPU then sure, no problem, but it's not an issue for the CPU.
Ah yes but see, that's not what intel is advertising, that's not what the stock cooler is meant for.In the case of the 11400 I mentioned, when using the stock cooler with the power limits switched off (the default state for the motherboard used)
I'd agree, were it not for the fact that this is default behaviour for many basic motherboards. If Intel didn't intend that this be the case, then the spec should preclude defaulting to this behaviour (i.e. require the user to say, "yes, please").that's not what intel is advertising, that's not what the stock cooler is meant for...Of course going above the rated CPU/cooler TDP will cause issues.
But a CPU needs the mobo to boot up, how is intel possibly going to be able to circumvent the mobo settings until you agree when the mobo starts first and then boots up the CPU?I'd agree, were it not for the fact that this is default behaviour for many basic motherboards. If Intel didn't intend that this be the case, then the spec should preclude defaulting to this behaviour (i.e. require the user to say, "yes, please").
I mean. If a vendor keeps to Intel's specs or does provide more to have a leg up over the competition, be it power draw defaults or connectivity options (as long as they at least provide the minimum specs from Intel), is up to them.I'd agree, were it not for the fact that this is default behaviour for many basic motherboards. If Intel didn't intend that this be the case, then the spec should preclude defaulting to this behaviour (i.e. require the user to say, "yes, please").
I mean, Intel doesn't seem to have an issue telling mobo makers what to do when it comes to things like preventing non-K overclocking, alder lake AVX512, etc. I'm sure if they cared, they would enforce it. But it mostly benefits them (by improving performance results), so they don't.But a CPU needs the mobo to boot up, how is intel possibly going to be able to circumvent the mobo settings until you agree when the mobo starts first and then boots up the CPU?
The only alternative would be for intel to forbid it outright which would kick off a huge crap storm.
Yes mobo makers should be forced to make it very clear what kind of settings they use but I don't think that it's intel's responsibility, it should be handled by the gov like any other consumer right, like the 14 day cool-off period, that's not left to each manufacturer separately either, it's a common law.
Oh I see, non-k and avx wouldn't improve performance for them...I mean, Intel doesn't seem to have an issue telling mobo makers what to do when it comes to things like preventing non-K overclocking, alder lake AVX512, etc. I'm sure if they cared, they would enforce it. But it mostly benefits them (by improving performance results), so they don't.