News Early sample of AMD's Ryzen 5 9600X is only 12% quicker than Ryzen 5 7600X in CPU-Z benchmark

[jackt]

The rumor mill said AMD hedged its bets because of TSMC N3 uncertainty. Remember these decisions are made years in advance. I think they will end up with the Zen 5 chiplets on N4 and Zen 5c chiplets on N3. And there's talk of other chiplet variants like a subtly different one for Strix Halo.

The node really doesn't matter. It's a decent enough increase, but it's the same basic design carried over from Zen 2. Zen 6 is set to be a lot more interesting if AMD switches to something like a die-to-die interface (Infinity Links) like High Yield predicts. That's also when we can expect core count increases, and maybe different ways of using L3 cache.

Zen 5 can be cheaper on N4 than N3, so that's a potential point in its favor. We've also heard that AMD might try something different with 3D V-Cache this generation, but no word on what that actually means.

ok thanks. isnt other brands using n3 ? like qualcomm or apple

 

[cp0x]

ok thanks. isnt other brands using n3 ? like qualcomm or apple

n3 came on line 18 months ago.
n3e came on line 6 months ago.
n3p and n3x are not yet on line.

It takes time to design for a given process, and to validate that design. So usually a company like AMD picks a target process long before it actually exists. And they can't easily switch horses after that.

 

[usertests]

ok thanks. isnt other brands using n3 ? like qualcomm or apple

Apple is typically the first to use a TSMC node, but the node is often an introductory version more suited for low power SoCs than desktop chips.

 

[TechyIT223]

🤦😑 Can someone explain to me why Aaron is still employed here??? O__o

Basically every single article he writes is absolutely LOADED with inaccuracies, misinformation, and misinterpretation... It's like he doesn't fact check literally ANYTHING before he hits "post"!

Those CPU-Z results include overclocked chips AND CPU-Z has been a SHOCKINGLY terribly inaccurate benchmark for Zen CPU's since at least Zen 4! (It literally shows a 0% IPC gain from Zen 3 to 4, and has the R9 7950X like ≈-25-30% behind the i9-13900K in single-core perf when the actual gap is ≈-0-10% workload depending, w/ Zen 4 even beating Raptor Lake in ST perf on occasion). Not to mention this "R5 9600X" almost surely being an underclocked engineering sample with an undercooked BIOS and who knows whatever else issues.

Also, an average IPC gain figure is a GEOMEAN!!! 🤦 Aka, there are going to be specific examples with less than a +16% gain and other examples with more. Does Aaron SERIOUSLY not understand how averages work??? 😑

This article is a freaking embarrassment for Tom's Hardware as a long lived PC hardware enthusiast site. This crap showing up on an ALLLLL too often basis these days is legitimately reputation damaging. Aka, it's WELLLLL past time to call an all-hands-on-deck meeting to make some SERIOUS changes about how this site is run Paul, and I DESPERATELY hope that you do... It's time to clean house.

Otherwise, I seriously struggle to see a long-term future for this site outside of being yet another clickbait regurgitation farm for poorly researched trash "articles" like this flaming stinker. 🤷

Can't really disagree with you here though honestly speaking. The author does keep making blunders again and again in his. articles.

 

[je90s]

14%. The numbers showed a 14% gain.

Between 14% and 16%. The numbers posted showed a 14% gain.

14%. Not 12% as the article incorrectly asserted.

14%-16%. Nothing showed 12%. The article was simply wrong, because they did the math backwards.

This is normal behavior on Toms Hardware: AMD gets the short end of the stick, and Intel walks on water. It's been this way for 25+ years here. Still a useful site, but you need a heavy Intel BS filter.

it doesn't matter 12 or 14 the whole concept is stupid, if it was -5% gain the same logic would apply. you don't compare something to an avg and be mad if the avg was not achieved in a single test. never mind comparing something that was not even part of their average. it is like saying the average population per country in europe is 17 million, then you bring the population of canada and say it is not close to the claim of 17 million.

 

[je90s]

Can't really disagree with you here though honestly speaking. The author does keep making blunders again and again in his. articles.

but the number of clicks and engagements that the good metrics

 

[TechyIT223]

but the number of clicks and engagements that the good metrics

Aye sir ! 😀

 

[TechyIT223]

Fyi. The article contents are still not corrected yet though. How unprofessional

 

[Deleted member 2731765]

Fyi. The article contents are still not corrected yet though.

Yup. But doesn't matter much now anyway, since this is an early test result. The scores in themselves are already skewed, be it OC or not. Better wait for proper third party benchmarks !