News Ryzen 9000 Zen 5 CPU trails Core i9-14900K in leaked benchmark — Granite Ridge 5.8 GHz CPU shows Core i9-13900K-like single-threaded performance in...

[TerryLaze]

While technically possible, 170W 8-core would be a huge departure from previous generations.
8-core 8700G or 7700 are rated at 65W.
The 7800X3D is the only one at 120W. The 7800X at 105.
170W is a ridiculous amount for 8-core and only Intel has pushed the consumption so high for low-core count CPUs, and precisely to achieve this 3.5% advantage in single core.

What's missing in this article is the power consumption indeed when running single-core bench. Intel so far has a slight advantage but burning >2X the power.

Meanwhile back on Earth...
The 7950x with PBO and with enough cooling was using the same amount of power as the 12900k ~250W even just with expo for fast ram it was the same.
The 7900x is still using 185W

TDP is not the power draw, PPT is, and that is limited to 230W but mobos try to go above that hence why we have more like 250W here.

 

[TerryLaze]

The point is that results 942 points of 14900k is with unstable bios settings. In fact with intel baseline profiles single thread performance is around 8-10% lower which means 942 - 9% (85) = 857. AMD is clear winner now

Multithread performance is lowered by the new defaults, single thread uses so little power in comparison that it is never unstable and is not changed at all.

 

[Plukovnik]

Multithread performance is lowered by the new defaults, single thread uses so little power in comparison that it is never unstable and is not changed at all.

Really? https://wccftech.com/gigabyte-basel...core-i7-multi-thread-gaming-performance-loss/

Edit: You probably right. In synthetic ST tests like CPU-Z, performance drop is small. Can´t say the same about MT or gaming.

 

[Amdlova]

Only thing I want know it's price, new chipsets and new boards. Wait another five months because amd need early adopters.

Will keep intel cpu for another year or two. For that kind of IPC keep my 35w cpu I think that not will be 4x times faster power/price

 

[P1nky]

Fake.

 

[-Fran-]

How?!
Look at cinebench single vs multi results for the 7950x.
Single can be 10% off while multi will still be the same.
You can't draw ANY conclusion just from this one number.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-7950x/7.html

I can draw some high level conclusions, yes.

I've already said how and what. I won't delve into the details, because I'm lazy and have things to do.

If you don't agree, that's fine.

Regards.

 

[suryasans]

170 watt!? Ok, I'm waiting the 65 watt parts.

 

[sparrow2]

CPU-Z ver 2.09 is from jan. and don't know about Granite Ridge! (at least the update notes don't say anything about it)

 

[sherhi]

Well as I sit here with my cursed 105w 5950X (that won't boost worth crap, 4.49ghz all core and 4.68ghz single core in CPU-Z test even with removed PBO limits) scoring 632/12593 ST/MT in the bench vs the "reference 5950X" of 648/11906, and the 647 ST score mentioned in the article, I wouldn't say it's exactly consistent, and it also doesn't -mean- anything.

I'm also struggling to come up with a sales pitch. Sure it's faster than Zen 3 by a couple dozen percent, but is it really worth having to also buy a new motherboard and RAM as well? Same with Zen 4, it may be 15% faster but unless you're rocking a 4080 or 4090 are you really going to notice any difference in games, if then? Similarly, if someone is rocking a pre-Pandemic system what's the argument to sway them to Socket AM5 vs AM4 or Intel LGA whatever the last generation or so was?

Its for people with older computers, just like with any product on the market.

 

[gruffi]

Meanwhile back on Earth...
The 7950x with PBO and with enough cooling was using the same amount of power as the 12900k ~250W even just with expo for fast ram it was the same.
The 7900x is still using 185W

"Is using" is the wrong characterization. You can cut the power limit of the 7950X in half without losing much performance. OTOH the 12900K loses quite significant amounts of performance at lower power limit. Way more than the 7950X. Anandtech had an article back then which proved that. 170W TDP is simply too much for Zen 4 and not necessary at all.

 

[Pierce2623]

How are we supposed to trust a benchmark where the 14900k shows a 40% single thread advantage over a 7950x ?

 

[TerryLaze]

Way more than the 7950X.

Yeah, because you set the TDP while the PPT is still high.
At every single power level (TDP) ryzen uses a lot more power (ppt) than what intel uses, except for the unlimited because intel can actually go above the top setting while the 230W limit of ryzen actually is the top limit for ryzen.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/17641/lighter-touch-cpu-power-scaling-13900k-7950x/3

 

[gruffi]

With AMD Excavator lineup to Zen 1: There was roughly 52% IPC Increase

• Zen 1 -Zen+: 3% IPC Increase
• Zen --Zen 2: 15% IPC Increase
• Zen --Zen 3: 19% IPC Increase
• Zen 3 -- Zen 4: 13% IPC Increase
• Zen 4 -- Zen 5: ~10-15% IPC increment ? (speculation)

Despite the fact that the leak is likely fake, don't forget that Zen 4 had only 1% more IPC than Zen 3 in that benchmark. So, 19% would indicate significantly more improvement than Zen 4. Which is logical. Zen 5 is the biggest architecture overhaul since the first Zen. My speculation is more like 25-30% higher IPC on average compared to Zen 4. And there are two serious points to back this up. First, Zen 5 is much wider than any Zen design before. That's why it also should improve IPC more then before. Except the first generation, of course. But more than Zen 3 did. And second, remember the prediction of Jim Keller a while ago? He predicted 30% more than Zen 4. His prediction was based on servers. But the desktop derivatives shouldn't be that far off.

 

[spongiemaster]

While technically possible, 170W 8-core would be a huge departure from previous generations.
8-core 8700G or 7700 are rated at 65W.
The 7800X3D is the only one at 120W. The 7800X at 105.
170W is a ridiculous amount for 8-core and only Intel has pushed the consumption so high for low-core count CPUs, and precisely to achieve this 3.5% advantage in single core.

14900k pulls about 35W in single core benchmarks. Less than the high end AMD CPU's. Let's try to argue facts.

 

[gruffi]

Yeah, because you set the TDP while the PPT is still high.

Utter nonsense. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. PPT is defined as 1.35 x TDP. And the Anadtech diagram is completely in line with that. They just forgot to clarify that they are showing TDP numbers. Except the "stock" bar, which is 170W TDP.

AMD is very transparent with it. You just have to know that actual maximum power draw is based on PPT. While TDP is a more important metric for the motherboard manufacturers. Intel is the opposite. I cannot see much transparency. What does their "base power" value mean? Not much. But many sellers use it as TDP. And Intel knows that. They do this on purpose to make their processors look less power hungry. Which is very misleading for customers because actual maximum power draw can be easily twice as high.

 

[spongiemaster]

So, we are now preemptively trashing another AMD product even before launching?

Ok, fine, i’ll bite, how much faster is your beloved intel?

3.5%…..aaannnd thats it?

This is sad.

What's sad is your lying. We're looking at a 2 year release cadence for AMD. Intel has never produced a 3.5% increase over a 2 year stretch. 14900k is about 25% faster than the 2 year older 12900k.

 

[TerryLaze]

Utter nonsense. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. PPT is defined as 1.35 x TDP. And the Anadtech diagram is completely in line with that. They just forgot to clarify that they are showing TDP numbers. Except the "stock" bar, which is 170W TDP.

Yes, every review always "forgets" to clarify that, so in every review that only shows TDP ryzen really uses 35% more power than what is shown...

 

[bolshevik420]

This is fake, per Alexander Yee on twitter. Real Ryzen 9000 would have AVX-VNNI and this doesn't.

 

[jxdking]

Utter nonsense. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. PPT is defined as 1.35 x TDP. And the Anadtech diagram is completely in line with that. They just forgot to clarify that they are showing TDP numbers. Except the "stock" bar, which is 170W TDP.

AMD is very transparent with it. You just have to know that actual maximum power draw is based on PPT. While TDP is a more important metric for the motherboard manufacturers. Intel is the opposite. I cannot see much transparency. What does their "base power" value mean? Not much. But many sellers use it as TDP. And Intel knows that. They do this on purpose to make their processors look less power hungry. Which is very misleading for customers because actual maximum power draw can be easily twice as high.

Ryzen 7000 starts thermal throttling beyond 230W PPT anyway, thanks to its thick IHS. 170W TDP is about accurate.
In contract, 13900K(14900K) can pull 400W PPT easily while it is listed as 125W.

 

[Pierce2623]

I will be going Zen 5 from Zen 3 I've been on my build for 5 years now. I want to flip before the resale value is totally down the drain.

And looks like I will be getting a 30% ipc increase in the jump so well worth it. I'm already good on gpu for now so this upgrade is only CPU / Ram / Motherboard rest of my build stays the same.

Aside from the 30% IPC increase, you’ll get about a 20-25% max clocks boost too depending on the model.

 

[gggplaya]

Well as I sit here with my cursed 105w 5950X (that won't boost worth crap, 4.49ghz all core and 4.68ghz single core in CPU-Z test even with removed PBO limits) scoring 632/12593 ST/MT in the bench vs the "reference 5950X" of 648/11906, and the 647 ST score mentioned in the article, I wouldn't say it's exactly consistent, and it also doesn't -mean- anything.

I'm also struggling to come up with a sales pitch. Sure it's faster than Zen 3 by a couple dozen percent, but is it really worth having to also buy a new motherboard and RAM as well? Same with Zen 4, it may be 15% faster but unless you're rocking a 4080 or 4090 are you really going to notice any difference in games, if then? Similarly, if someone is rocking a pre-Pandemic system what's the argument to sway them to Socket AM5 vs AM4 or Intel LGA whatever the last generation or so was?

AMD had a great run on AM4. My 7800x3D keeps boost around 4.7-4.8ghz when using all cores. There are certain games like Star Citizen that do use most of the CPU threads and benefits greatly from a newer cpu without having a 4080. AM5 is worth the upgrade if you have the need. DDR5 has gotten much cheaper.

 

[Silas Sanchez]

This release is for people like me. I'm stuck on an ancient Elitebook with a i7 8665u quad core. It's slow AF and it's time for something modern. So I am excited and ready for Ryzen 9000 to build an AM5 based PC. And not everyone is using CPUs for gaming. So that point is moot as well.

The AM5 system is the best thing going today, in fact id say its kind of a freak of nature that doesn't happen often and even the 7950x is good enough. It never ceases to amaze me the sheer multitasking power of this thing while consuming only 180 to 200watts. Imo the 7950x is arguable the best CPU for its time and I have a sneaking suspicion the Zen5 is going to disappoint

 

[NinoPino]

How?!

With a bit of brain...😀

 

[NeoMorpheus]

How are we supposed to trust a benchmark where the 14900k shows a 40% single thread advantage over a 7950x ?

The results are irrelevant, only thing that matters is trashing AMD to protect our beloved Intel.

Or something like that.

 

[blkspade]

Meanwhile back on Earth...
The 7950x with PBO and with enough cooling was using the same amount of power as the 12900k ~250W even just with expo for fast ram it was the same.
The 7900x is still using 185W

TDP is not the power draw, PPT is, and that is limited to 230W but mobos try to go above that hence why we have more like 250W here.

That power draw is only in all core, and in nearly any realistic All-core work load (longer than a single CB23 run) Intel's chip throttle way more to the point it falls to parity if not behind AMD. AMD isn't really throttling at its Tj Max of 95C, as it'll maintain an all core of 5.1-5.4. Intel will throttle much harder on any cooler that lets it hit 100C. At "stock" settings in the same scenario the 7950X hits 250w, the 14900k will be at 286w and still typically lose to the 7950x. In tasks that justify a 16+ core CPU. I'm not sure why you're referencing the 12900K since the 7950X blows it out of the water at that same power. Of course you later went on to mention power draw at lower settings which is cute, because the 7950X is still more efficient. At 35w it's using 28% more than the setting, but completes work 53%+ faster than the 13900K at the same setting. I see you going for a masters in cherry picking, as all this data is in the article you linked. Performance per watt is still on AMD's side. It can afford to pull a few more watts if its doing so for significantly less time.