News Ryzen 9 7950X Soars To 6.5 GHz, Shattering Two CPU Records

It does show that the 7950x draws 270W maximum under LN2 meaning that AMD is pushing it very far by using a tpp of 230.
Basically going for the highest overclock a average 7590x will be able to reach without exploding.
So much for innovation I guess.
 

Fates_Demise

Distinguished
Sep 28, 2015
48
10
18,535
0
That’s all very well but, what a CPU can do when cooled by LN2, is irrelevant for almost all potential customers.
Actually it's not irrelevant, it directly correlates with performance possible at lower cooling solutions also. If this gets 16% on LN2 over a 12900ks, your likely to push around 16% if both were on water/or air.
 
Sep 24, 2022
17
14
15
0
It does show that the 7950x draws 270W maximum under LN2 meaning that AMD is pushing it very far by using a tpp of 230.
Basically going for the highest overclock a average 7590x will be able to reach without exploding.
So much for innovation I guess.
i9 13900K consumed 400W to reach the same frequency on LN2.
Thats 30% more power than 7950X (270W)..!
 

TCA_ChinChin

Distinguished
Feb 15, 2015
510
171
19,290
33
It does show that the 7950x draws 270W maximum under LN2 meaning that AMD is pushing it very far by using a tpp of 230.
Basically going for the highest overclock a average 7590x will be able to reach without exploding.
So much for innovation I guess.
I mean if I'm understanding your comment correctly, isn't that a good thing? People will be able to get the most performance out of the box without overclocking themselves since AMD has tuned the chips to boost to their maximum potential already? I mean manual overclocking on the AMD side has been on the decline for a couple of gens now I believe, with several versions of PBO, auto-overclocking, etc. (I don't have any Ryzen chips so I can't remember or say from personal experience). I guess it sucks for people who like overclocking themselves, but I imagine for a lot of people its probably a net positive. Seems pretty innovative IMO.

Power draw definitely seems to be higher than previous generations but it should be similar to 12/13th gen Intel.
 
i9 13900K
That's the 12900 unless you found info on the 13900k, if you did please link.
i9 13900K consumed 400W to reach the same frequency on LN2.
Thats 30% more power than 7950X (270W)..!
But it means that the 240W PL2 that intel allows is about half the power the CPU can survive.
While everybody was saying that intel is pushing them to the limit to be able to compete...
Now AMD is pushing it to the actual limit and everybody will say that it's a good thing.
I mean if I'm understanding your comment correctly, isn't that a good thing?
Yes if AMD does it it's a good thing, all this time where intel was allegedly doing it everybody was saying that it's a bad thing that only shows in how bad a situation intel is in.
 
Reactions: KyaraM

Friesiansam

Distinguished
Feb 9, 2015
181
86
18,670
2
Actually it's not irrelevant, it directly correlates with performance possible at lower cooling solutions also. If this gets 16% on LN2 over a 12900ks, your likely to push around 16% if both were on water/or air.
I'm sure there will be some who care, many likely to be those who buy one so they can say they have the best. Most who are buying one because they have a good usage case for a 16C 32T $700 CPU, are not going to care what extreme overclockers can do with it.
 
Sep 24, 2022
17
14
15
0
I mean if I'm understanding your comment correctly, isn't that a good thing? People will be able to get the most performance out of the box without overclocking themselves since AMD has tuned the chips to boost to their maximum potential already? I mean manual overclocking on the AMD side has been on the decline for a couple of gens now I believe, with several versions of PBO, auto-overclocking, etc. (I don't have any Ryzen chips so I can't remember or say from personal experience). I guess it sucks for people who like overclocking themselves, but I imagine for a lot of people its probably a net positive. Seems pretty innovative IMO.

Power draw definitely seems to be higher than previous generations, but it should be similar to 12/13th gen Intel.
AMD have been trying to make it easier and less risky for overlockers, which is a good thing tbh. I don't see the 7950x pushing beyond 200w for the normal end user and those who won't overclock, only in certain extreme conditions and only if there's a powerful cooling solution.
Anyways, you can still overclock to get a higher all-core boost.
 
Reactions: TCA_ChinChin
Sep 24, 2022
17
14
15
0
That's the 12900 unless you found info on the 13900k, if you did please link.

But it means that the 240W PL2 that intel allows is about half the power the CPU can survive.
While everybody was saying that intel is pushing them to the limit to be able to compete...
Now AMD is pushing it to the actual limit and everybody will say that it's a good thing.

Yes if AMD does it it's a good thing, all this time where intel was allegedly doing it everybody was saying that it's a bad thing that only shows in how bad a situation intel is in.
The Core i9-13900K was allegedly overclocked to 6.2GHz at 1.5V and 400W total package, insanely power hungry. Intel is winning by only increasing the core count and powerrrr
 
Reactions: TCA_ChinChin

jp7189

Distinguished
Feb 21, 2012
164
60
18,660
0
I mean if I'm understanding your comment correctly, isn't that a good thing? People will be able to get the most performance out of the box without overclocking themselves since AMD has tuned the chips to boost to their maximum potential already? I mean manual overclocking on the AMD side has been on the decline for a couple of gens now I believe, with several versions of PBO, auto-overclocking, etc. (I don't have any Ryzen chips so I can't remember or say from personal experience). I guess it sucks for people who like overclocking themselves, but I imagine for a lot of people its probably a net positive. Seems pretty innovative IMO.

Power draw definitely seems to be higher than previous generations but it should be similar to 12/13th gen Intel.
I have both a 5950x and 12900k. Intel overclocking is pretty much the same as ever and straightforward. AMD overclocking is primarily done by curve optimization which is harder to understand vs simple multiplier tinkering, but ultimately is a more elegant solution for those that want to put the time in to it. For me, it's a fun hobby and I do enjoy pushing things to the max.

Both chips are allowed to use unlimited power for an unlimited duration. They perform similarly in the workloads i throw at them with the 12900k doing better in lightly threaded. Some things I run do not schedule well across P and E cores and in those cases the 5950x is far better. However the 5950x maxes out at 140-150 watts whereas the 12900k uses over 300. I say over because it will happily use more, but once it gets that high thermal throttling becomes the limit. Incidentally, the 12900k will still go over 300w with just 8P cores, E cores disabled.

Both chips are on the same large, shared water loop and are fed the same temp water (never higher than 30C) and both use EK waterblocks.

From my experience AMD is the more innovative, elegant, and efficient of the two.
 
Reactions: TCA_ChinChin

M42

Commendable
Nov 5, 2020
89
43
1,560
0
From my experience AMD is the more innovative, elegant, and efficient of the two.
I have a 5950x, 12900k, and 12900ks systems. In my experience, my 12900ks and 12900k are at least 20% faster in applications that rely on single-threaded processing, like most operations in Solidworks and Photoshop.

As for innovation, I see Intel as the clear leader, first with PCIe5 support, a choice of DDR4 or DDR5, and a mixture of large and small cores. The most innovative thing AMD has done recently was adding more cache to its 5800X3D. And I believe Intel uses their own fabs for their CPUs instead of contracting out a third-party to build them. Most of the low-power innovation came from the process nodes that TSMC invented, not AMD.
 
Reactions: cyrusfox

jp7189

Distinguished
Feb 21, 2012
164
60
18,660
0
I have a 5950x, 12900k, and 12900ks systems. In my experience, my 12900ks and 12900k are at least 20% faster in applications that rely on single-threaded processing, like most operations in Solidworks and Photoshop.

As for innovation, I see Intel as the clear leader, first with PCIe5 support, a choice of DDR4 or DDR5, and a mixture of large and small cores. The most innovative thing AMD has done recently was adding more cache to its 5800X3D. And I believe Intel uses their own fabs for their CPUs instead of contracting out a third-party to build them. Most of the low-power innovation came from the process nodes that TSMC invented, not AMD.
I completely agree with you on the platform side. My comment was in regards to core clocking. AMD's curve optimization is more innovative and elegant that Intel's multiplier method.
 
Reactions: TCA_ChinChin
Sep 24, 2022
17
14
15
0
I have a 5950x, 12900k, and 12900ks systems. In my experience, my 12900ks and 12900k are at least 20% faster in applications that rely on single-threaded processing, like most operations in Solidworks and Photoshop.

As for innovation, I see Intel as the clear leader, first with PCIe5 support, a choice of DDR4 or DDR5, and a mixture of large and small cores. The most innovative thing AMD has done recently was adding more cache to its 5800X3D. And I believe Intel uses their own fabs for their CPUs instead of contracting out a third-party to build them. Most of the low-power innovation came from the process nodes that TSMC invented, not AMD.
Not true. Since 7nm, TSMC nodes started underperforming and no longer offer a meaningful power or performance improvements. This tells why companies started to push the power higher bc its no longer good enough or convincing to offer a competitive performance and a gen to gen upgrade for the end user.
 

cyrusfox

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2009
218
73
18,790
8
The most innovative thing AMD has done recently was adding more cache to its 5800X3D
Recently I think is the right term, But AMD's longstanding innovation of Gluing chips together has been a winning strategy that Intel has yet to match. The underlying innovation being AMD's Hypertransport which is now known as Infinity Fabric. This has been key to their disruptive ability enabling AMD to ship 32-64 cores to Server and bring consumers up to 8-16 cores while Intel could only club together 18-28 core to Server and 8-10 cores to consumer as an immediate response. Intel is still playing catchup on cores as it can't make dies that big and Intel seems to still be readying a proper response to die disaggregation(Coming up with there own glue tech:geek:).

On the competition front for consumer they are clearly neck and neck. And the 13900k may actually win in both multi-threading and I think no one is expecting them to lose in single thread. Server market Intel is going to lose anywhere they are not using an accelerator or custom solution (e.g. Optane) due to efficiency and core counts AMD brings. But like in sports your best ability is your availability and AMD is still breaking in and lacks the volume to do much damage.

Fun time to be on the sidelines and a good time to get in and build a PC with GPU prices dropping.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY