News AMD Ryzen 9 7900, Ryzen 7 7700, and Ryzen 5 7600 Review: Zen 4 Gets More Affordable

[-Fran-]

So what exactly is it that you agree with?!
If intel brought out a 2022 CPU compatible with the sandy bridge socket you would keep the mobo you have now and put a new cpu in it?
Even if it would only use 4 cores and only up to 4Ghz or so?!
You are agreeing with planeinthesky here, saying that you build a system and that's it until you worked it to the ground and then you go for a new system.

Funny you mention that, because I would have done exactly that: If Intel would've made an 8-core LGA1155 that was a drop-in replacement for Sandy/Ivy, I would have just swapped the CPU and saved a ton of money. If you think about it, in terms of power usage, even at 14nm, Intel could've made an 8-core that fits the power delivery of LGA1155.

Plus, I'm not actually in need of any of the new inter-connectivity stuff and PCIe3 (edit: Z boards only had PCIe2.0) and DDR3 was just good enough in terms of bandwidth and latency. I'm using PCIe3 still and with a Vega64, so this GPU would still be working perfectly well with Sandy/Ivy's platform. Hell, the motherboard even had USB3, so there wasn't even a problem with connectivity. If I wanted more, I had the option via PCIe card expansions for USB-C or NVMe if needed. Maybe native NVMe would be the only thing I'd miss, since those boards only had sATA and IDE. NVMe caught on later, but I can still get them as PCIe adapters.

Regards.

 

[PlaneInTheSky]

I actually think like that, I always build my PC with the next 5-6 years in mind, your myopic view is not a shared among everyone, so stop spamming every AMD thread with the same posts and act like your word is gospel.

The large majority of people find AM5 mobo too expensive.

If you want to complain about people complaining, take it up with AMD. AMD promised things, they didn't abide by their promises. And if tech sites won't point out their baloney, users will.

AMD promised $125 AM5 mobo. Yet AM5 mobo are $250+.

AM5 will need drastic price cuts because your average user is not going to buy $250-$600 mobo. When you can buy a decent $89 Intel B610 mobo that supports Intel's latest 13th gen, and keep using your existing DDR4, AMD has a big problem.

 

[-Fran-]

The large majority of people find AM5 mobo too expensive.

If you want to complain about people complaining, take it up with AMD. AMD promised things, they didn't abide by their promises. And if tech sites won't point out their baloney, users will.

AMD promised $125 AM5 mobo. Yet AM5 mobo are $250+. AM5 will need drastic price cuts because your average user is not going to buy $250-$600 mobo.

It works both ways though. You're saying "$250+", but it is well known and demonstrable they start at around $160.

Regards.

 

[PlaneInTheSky]

It works both ways though. You're saying "$250+", but it is well known and demonstrable they start at around $160.

As if.

 

[TerryLaze]

Funny you mention that, because I would have done exactly that: If Intel would've made an 8-core LGA1155 that was a drop-in replacement for Sandy/Ivy, I would have just swapped the CPU and saved a ton of money.

Yeah if that would be possible it would be nice but we have seen from amd and ryzen that even with the same amount of cores you still get incompatibilities...
On intel we have seen hacked bios to support newer cpus on older mobos and they lost igpu and some other stuff.

You will never get a very old mobo that will be able to fully support a much newer cpu.

 

[-Fran-]

As if.

Yeah if that would be possible it would be nice but we have seen from amd and ryzen that even with the same amount of cores you still get incompatibilities...
On intel we have seen hacked bios to support newer cpus on older mobos and they lost igpu and some other stuff.

You will never get a very old mobo that will be able to fully support a much newer cpu.

Uh... That will only depend on whether or not AMD/Intel (or whomever else) wants to support and build around the old platform. Just because the platform is old it doesn't* makes it completely useless for new CPU architectures. The only limiting factor would be how much backwards compatible stuff you want to drag out and how much you want to squeeze your consumer base.

There's arguments both ways, but the only reason Intel was changing platforms almost per-CPU gen was because they could and justified it on incompatibilities that, as you say, most of the time were dubious at best.

Would Raptor Lake make sense in LGA1155? Not much given the amount of stuff they now support (including power delivery changes), but if they backport the uArch to fit into a CPU that fits LGA1155, I think it would be a surprising competitor using old tech, heh. To phrase it differently: Intel and AMD decide to move forward without supporting old platforms. That is a decision and not an obligation. The point now is: AMD is deciding to support AM5 for 3+ gens and decided to support AM4 for 4+ gens. Intel is doing about 2 full gens per platform/socket.

So now the questions are: do we need DDR5? PCIe5? NVMe x1/x2/x8/x16 (it's usually x4)? Where is the "good enough" point for a fully operating system? Is anyone using PCIe3 feeling clogged by lacking more bandwidth? Anyone using DDR3? DDR4? Etc.

The shoe has to fit as many feet as possible, but we all know all feet are different and get squeezed differently.

Regards.

 

[alceryes]

Ryzen at 65W TDP will use 88W , intel at 65W TDP will use 65W TDP.

This will be on a board by board basis. It's up to the motherboard manufacturer to stay within spec or not, not AMD.
At a PPT limit of 125W my 7950X still goes over, but only a smidgen at 128W.

 

[-Fran-]

This will be on a board by board basis. It's up to the motherboard manufacturer to stay within spec or not, not AMD.
At a PPT limit of 125W my 7950X still goes over, but only a smidgen at 128W.

No, that's actually set by AMD's "TDP" shenanigans. TDP is not power consumption on neither AMD nor Intel, which is fairly stupid.

AMD should start reporting Max Power Limit instead of TDP, or both, in all slides.

Regards.

 

[alceryes]

The large majority of people find AM5 mobo too expensive.

If you want to complain about people complaining, take it up with AMD. AMD promised things, they didn't abide by their promises. And if tech sites won't point out their baloney, users will.

AMD promised $125 AM5 mobo. Yet AM5 mobo are $250+.

Hahaha! You'll get it with the A620 chipset around Q2 of this year.

I agree. AMD went the greedy route, releasing expensive chipset after expensive chipset, all while showcasing the "$125 motherboards" headline from the beginning.

It used to be just the flagship chipset and then the chipset for everyone else. Now, there's a midling chipset (that can do 99% of what the flagship can do) that is still expensive, and those really wanting to move to AM5 on a budget have to wait almost a year for the budget boards. I'm also fearful that the A620 will be so barebones that it won't really showcase AM5 well. Why must the manufacturers (AMD/Intel) continue to shoot themselves in the foot?

 

[alceryes]

No, that's actually set by AMD's "TDP" shenanigans. TDP is not power consumption on neither AMD nor Intel, which is fairly stupid.

AMD should start reporting Max Power Limit instead of TDP, or both, in all slides.

Regards.

Oh, I see what you mean. That's another 'AMD stepped in it,' moment.
Yeah, I'm just using PPT to avoid that mess.

 

[ottonis]

So what exactly is it that you agree with?!
If intel brought out a 2022 CPU compatible with the sandy bridge socket you would keep the mobo you have now and put a new cpu in it?
Even if it would only use 4 cores and only up to 4Ghz or so?!
You are agreeing with planeinthesky here, saying that you build a system and that's it until you worked it to the ground and then you go for a new system.

My point was that that a system that provides excellent upgradeability can be used over very long periods of time. Despite being such an old system, I upgraded the RAM (replaced 8 GB with 32 GB), the storage (replaced 1 HDD with 3 SSDs), the graphics (replaced original ultra-slow card with GTX 1060) and did have an almost up-to-date system for the most part of the decade.

Frankly, Intel's upgrade-policy up until recently was desastrous: There was no substantial performance benefit from upgrading a Sandy Bridge CPU to a Broadwell, Haswell, Skylake or Kaby Lake CPU, so staying with the same CPU and mobo from 2011 up until 2018 was just smart.

AMD, on the othe other hand provided huge performance gains from Zen 1 up to Zen 3, so having a mobo that could take higher-specced CPUs and that would provide regular BIOS-updates was worth having and paying for.

In my personal experience, if you want to squeeze the best price-to-performance ratio and have a system that would be flexible enough to serve your needs for a long time, there are three rules of thumb:

1. never buy the very first iteration of a new system, but wait until the first bugs have been eliminated
2. never buy into a system at the end of its life-cycle, but rather midterm.
3. Buy into a platform that promises quite a few years of support and a solid upgrade path.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Ryzen at 65W TDP will use 88W , intel at 65W TDP will use 65W TDP.
Also the clock numbers each company states for base power are based on completely different metrics using completely different software.
So you can't really compare them, we would need to find a benchmark that actually shows real clocks when running different apps to see what's really going on.
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3491-explaining-precision-boost-overdrive-benchmarks-auto-oc


Mobile needs specialized things especially from the iGPU, since most of them have a dual GPU setup the inbuild GPU for power saving has to actually be useful for power saving and quicksync destroys in power efficiency.
Also since most of them have a dual GPU setup the actual gaming performance of the iGPU is pretty useless.
Only the models that don't have an extra GPU are good candidates for ryzen but in those models they want the cheapest chips possible.

Zen is a MUCH more efficient uarch than Core. Anandtech took the 7950X and 13900K and set them to different TDPs to see how they performed. More times than not Intel needed at least a 105W TDP to equal the performance of AMD at 65W. In fact there were multiple times that Core couldn't out perform Zen until the TDP was set to "stock" on the Intel platform. Basically Intel had to crank up the power to compete with Zen, however, Core does do a better job scaling as power level increases. That said needing that much more power to compete also shows how inefficient Core is.

 

[Amdlova]

My pc is a asus x99 a2 with a xeon e5 2698v3 @ 3.6ghz 64gb ram and cost less than a 7600. The second system is a lenovo 70q with a 10500t and cost less than a am5 motherboard... AMD today is for rich people.

 

[Elusive Ruse]

The large majority of people find AM5 mobo too expensive.

If you want to complain about people complaining, take it up with AMD. AMD promised things, they didn't abide by their promises. And if tech sites won't point out their baloney, users will.

AMD promised $125 AM5 mobo. Yet AM5 mobo are $250+.

AM5 will need drastic price cuts because your average user is not going to buy $250-$600 mobo. When you can buy a decent $89 Intel B610 mobo that supports Intel's latest 13th gen, and keep using your existing DDR4, AMD has a big problem.

Nice misdirection. When caught with pants down; distract!

 

[TerryLaze]

Zen is a MUCH more efficient uarch than Core. Anandtech took the 7950X and 13900K and set them to different TDPs to see how they performed. More times than not Intel needed at least a 105W TDP to equal the performance of AMD at 65W. In fact there were multiple times that Core couldn't out perform Zen until the TDP was set to "stock" on the Intel platform. Basically Intel had to crank up the power to compete with Zen, however, Core does do a better job scaling as power level increases. That said needing that much more power to compete also shows how inefficient Core is.

They test a grand total of two different things, 3d rendering and video encoding, both of which grandly favor wide (Big) cores more than anything else....

The same bench you link to shows how much more power ryzen draws in comparison to intel at each tdp for intel and ppt limit for ryzen.
At 105w ryzen draws 145W the same as intel at 125W, this is 38% more then what they say, intel draws 12% more than what they claim, ryzne still draws like 20% more power than intel do they also run 20% faster?

If you recalculate the benches with the real power draw results will be pretty different.
And really they would have to make power measurements for each test they make because ycruncher uses different amounts of power than rendering or anything else does you can't go by max peak alone.

Starting with the peak power figures, it's worth noting that AMD's figures can be wide off the mark even when restricting the Package Power Tracking (PPT) in the firmware. For example, restricting the socket and 7950X to 125 W yielded a measured power consumption that was still a whopping 33% higher. By comparison, the 13900K exceeded its set limits by around 14% under full load. In all cases though, this is still a significant power reduction versus their stock settings, especially in the case of the power-hungry i9-13900K.

 

[jeremyj_83]

They test a grand total of two different things, 3d rendering and video encoding, both of which grandly favor wide (Big) cores more than anything else....

The same bench you link to shows how much more power ryzen draws in comparison to intel at each tdp for intel and ppt limit for ryzen.
At 105w ryzen draws 145W the same as intel at 125W, this is 38% more then what they say, intel draws 12% more than what they claim, ryzne still draws like 20% more power than intel do they also run 20% faster?

If you recalculate the benches with the real power draw results will be pretty different.
And really they would have to make power measurements for each test they make because ycruncher uses different amounts of power than rendering or anything else does you can't go by max peak alone.

PPT includes the ENTIRE package, as in Infinity Fabric and other things that account for power draw. They also tested games and the differences in performance with their RX6950 were minimal from their tests. Don't forget that yCruncher is also AVX-512 enabled. That said if on a lot of test the AMD using 90W is faster than the Intel at 118W or even 143W that says the Ryzen is MORE efficient.

 

[MergleBergle]

AM5 is a complete no-go for anyone on a budget. The chips are expensive, the mobo are expensive, and you're required to buy expensive DDR5. For people who already own DDR4, this is a huge wasted cost.

AMD seems completely uninterested in providing good value at this point.

AMD has no answer at all to the i3 13100 and i5 13400, which both support DDR4.

It would be fair to mention though that AM4 is a dead end chipset, and DDR4 is on its last legs. Smart move by Intel to offer hybrid options for their current chipset. But I'd bet good money those days will be over with their next chipset.

 

[MergleBergle]

But, if you've got the funds, are on a few generations old Intel system, and are eyeing a full system upgrade, picking up an LGA 1700 platform would be a big mistake in terms of future upgradability.

That's exactly where I am. I'm running on an i5 4590 (lol). I've upgraded everything I could and it's time for a new system. That 7700 vanilla looks super tempting, on an ecosystem that will last way longer than my current one (I've squeezed every ounce of performance out of this that I can, realistically), with future CPU upgrades MUCH easier. For folks like me, all in for a few bucks more just makes sense. Next system is AM5.

 

[baboma]

My point was that that a system that provides excellent upgradeability can be used over very long periods of time. Despite being such an old system, I upgraded the RAM (replaced 8 GB with 32 GB), the storage (replaced 1 HDD with 3 SSDs), the graphics (replaced original ultra-slow card with GTX 1060) and did have an almost up-to-date system for the most part of the decade.

You do realize that any motherboard can upgrade EVERYTHING you mentioned above, right?

RAM/storage/GPU upgrade is par for everyone. What you're arguing is "upgrading" the CPU while keeping the board, which is basically nonsense, as it pertains only to a small minority who upgrade their CPUs every year or every other year.

The vast majority of PCs have an avg of 5-8 years lifespan (http://goo.gl/search?average+pc+lifespan). People may upgrade the RAM/storage/GPU, but they don't upgrade CPU by itself. If anything, the motherboard needs more of an upgrade than the CPU does, for better connectivity (faster NVMe/PCIe/USB/Thunderbolt/HDMI/etc). After 5+ years, they get a new box. Or, they get a new board/CPU/RAM, then transfer the old parts over.

I understand the "upgrade path" beeswax is the go-to argument for AMD defenders, since it's the only thing AMD can lay claim to that isn't being trounced by Intel parts, at least for this gen. Find something worthy to argue about, rather than this idiotic knee-jerk argument. AM5 does have some merits. I'll give you some below.

AMD said the AM5 socket is supported until 2025+. AMD fans take the 'plus' and tack on how ever many years they want to that, and claim WIN. A more realistic take is that AM5 support is good for 3 years, from now to end of '25. If AMD extends support, that's fine, but it's not something you can claim as a given.

AM5 is on par with RPL for gaming, which is the main use case for home users. It has a slight edge in power efficiency, but nobody really cares about that, or they wouldn't be clamoring for 300W+ GPUs. AM5's pricing for motherboard is getting better, to be basically par with Intel B760 boards.

The bottom line is that for home users (who mainly game and don't need MT performance), both platforms (AM5 and RPL) are now roughly equal. It doesn't really matter which you buy.

 

[TJ Hooker]

ou want something that will be valid for years AND has upgrade options 5 years down the road. LGA 1700 will not - period.

AM5 launched fall 2022, and AMD's only statement about longevity (that I'm are of) is that they'd support it "at least through 2025". Stating as fact that AMD will be releasing new CPU gens in 5 years when they've only commited to 3 years of support seems overly optimistic, to the point of being misleading.

 

[-Fran-]

You do realize that any motherboard can upgrade EVERYTHING you mentioned above, right?

RAM/storage/GPU upgrade is par for everyone. What you're arguing is "upgrading" the CPU while keeping the board, which is basically nonsense, as it pertains only to a small minority who upgrade their CPUs every year or every other year.

The vast majority of PCs have an avg of 5-8 years lifespan (http://goo.gl/search?average+pc+lifespan). People may upgrade the RAM/storage/GPU, but they don't upgrade CPU by itself. If anything, the motherboard needs more of an upgrade than the CPU does, for better connectivity (faster NVMe/PCIe/USB/Thunderbolt/HDMI/etc). After 5+ years, they get a new box. Or, they get a new board/CPU/RAM, then transfer the old parts over.

I understand the "upgrade path" beeswax is the go-to argument for AMD defenders, since it's the only thing AMD can lay claim to that isn't being trounced by Intel parts, at least for this gen. Find something worthy to argue about, rather than this idiotic knee-jerk argument. AM5 does have some merits. I'll give you some below.

AMD said the AM5 socket is supported until 2025+. AMD fans take the 'plus' and tack on how ever many years they want to that, and claim WIN. A more realistic take is that AM5 support is good for 3 years, from now to end of '25. If AMD extends support, that's fine, but it's not something you can claim as a given.

AM5 is on par with RPL for gaming, which is the main use case for home users. It has a slight edge in power efficiency, but nobody really cares about that, or they wouldn't be clamoring for 300W+ GPUs. AM5's pricing for motherboard is getting better, to be basically par with Intel B760 boards.

The bottom line is that for home users (who mainly game and don't need MT performance), both platforms (AM5 and RPL) are now roughly equal. It doesn't really matter which you buy.

Why can't CPUs be treated in a similar manner to GPUs? What is preventing that?

How many GPUs you can upgrade per platform cycle? Why can't AMD or Intel allow several CPUs per platform instead of forcing everyone to upgrade motherboards and, sometimes, RAM as well?

Regards.

 

[alceryes]

AM5 launched fall 2022, and AMD's only statement about longevity (that I'm are of) is that they'd support it "at least through 2025". Stating as fact that AMD will be releasing new CPU gens in 5 years when they've only commited to 3 years of support seems overly optimistic, to the point of being misleading.

They also made a tacit mention about supporting AM5 for as long as they have AM4. This is normal for them to make these kinds of inclinations without making an official statement.

Heck, they didn’t make any 3+ year commitment statement when AM4 came out and look what happened there. If anything, they now have some positive feedback to show how much staying with a a chipset/platform means to the enthusiast/builder base.

If I was to guess, I'd say that they will have a full 3 generations on AM5, at a minimum, not counting 'refresh' models (or X3D).

 

[TJ Hooker]

They also made a tacit mention about supporting AM5 for as long as they have AM4. This is normal for them to make these kinds of inclinations without making an official statement.

Heck, they didn’t make any 3+ year commitment statement when AM4 came out and look what happened there. If anything, they now have some positive feedback to show how much staying with a a chipset/platform means to the enthusiast/builder base.

If I was to guess, I'd say that they will have a full 3 generations on AM5, at a minimum, not counting 'refresh' models (or X3D).

Do you have a link for this "tacit mention"? Regardless, the length of time from 1st gen Ryzen release to Ryzen 5K release is roughly 3.5 years.

And yes, they did make a statements (repeatedly) that AM4 would be supported until at least 2020, starting in 2017.

AMD’s moment of Zen: Finally, an architecture that can compete

Intel's architecture is still better, but AMD has significantly narrowed the gap.

arstechnica.com

Regardless of chipset, AMD intends to use the same socket, Socket 1331, and the same platform, AM4, until 2020 [...]

And the last gen of AM4 CPUs (Zen 3/Ryzen 5K) came out at the end of 2020.

 

[cryoburner]

The Ryzen 7 7700 has eight cores and twelve threads for $329, which is a curiously small savings compared to the Ryzen 7 7700X’s $349 street price.

That should be "sixteen" threads.

The energy efficiency of Zen4 is ahead of Intel's current processors, though neither exactly run cool, and aside from efficiency, I don't really see the value in AMD's current lineup. These new lower prices are not quite as bad as the initial offerings were relative to Intel, but that only applies to the processors themselves. For anyone seeking value, the higher motherboard costs and the requirement for DDR5 kind of kills the deal. DDR5 prices are not as bad as they were before, but between the motherboard and 32GB of RAM, you still might be paying an extra $100 or so over a comparable or better-performing Intel system.

At least they gave the 7700 a decent-enough bundled cooler, though it's not really enough of a value to justify the price difference. Especially with Intel's cheaper locked processors arriving soon. With the 13600K generally outperforming the 7700, the 13600 (non-K) may offer similar performance to the 7700, but at a $75 lower MSRP. And again, there's the big platform cost difference in addition to that.

Those 13th gen Intel chips you mentioned are the last generation of chips to grace the LGA 1700 socket. 14th gen and beyond will NOT work on any Intel board you purchase today - dead end.

The problem with that argument is that even if someone were to upgrade their CPU several years down the line while reusing the same motherboard (which tends to be relatively uncommon), nothing would really be gained due to the significantly higher cost of AMD's current ecosystem. Between the higher cost of a 7700 compared to something like a 13600, and the higher cost of the motherboards, you may be paying roughly as much extra now as what a new motherboard with a more modern feature-set will cost then. And again, for the vast majority of people that likely won't upgrade their CPU again until DDR6 is out, they can save another $50 or so by going with DDR4 over a similar-performing kit of DDR5.

The promise of longer-term socket support was more of a selling point with AM4, as the platform cost, overall, tended to be lower than Intel to begin with. You were already getting more processor for your money, so the possibility of extended motherboard support was a nice extra to consider. Now though, the situation is largely reversed, with Intel arguably providing better value. AMD isn't offering more multithreaded performance for your money, as they were then, nor are they offering better prices. So while the promise of at least some level of support for future CPUs might be nice, it's not something worth paying an extra $100+ for. For that, you might as well buy a new motherboard when the time comes. We don't even know whether or not AMD's CPUs will be competitive several years down the line, or whether they will be a worthwhile upgrade over current offerings.

 

[alceryes]

Do you have a link for this "tacit mention"?

Dr. Lisa Su said it herself. There are several articles quoting her. Here's one - https://dotesports.com/hardware/news/amds-new-am5-platform-will-be-supported-for-as-long-as-am4

Regardless, the length of time from 1st gen Ryzen release to Ryzen 5K release is roughly 3.5 years.

5800X3D, released April 2022, puts the AM4 lifespan at 5 years 7 months. You need to count to the end of the 5K chips release.

And yes, they did make a statements (repeatedly) that AM4 would be supported until at least 2020, starting in 2017.

AMD’s moment of Zen: Finally, an architecture that can compete

Intel's architecture is still better, but AMD has significantly narrowed the gap.

arstechnica.com

That's not a quote from an AMD representative, as far as I can tell.