13 ms·
AMD Launches Ryzen 7000 Series Desktop Processors with Zen 4 Architecture
- thesuperbigfrog 4y agoModel Cores/Threads Boost10 / Base Frequency Total Cache PCIe TDP SEP (USD) AMD Ryzen 9 7950X 16C/32T Up to 5.7 / 4.5 GHZ 80MB Gen 5 170W $699 AMD Ryzen 9 7900X 12C/24T Up to 5.6 / 4.7 GHZ 76MB Gen 5 170W $549 AMD Ryzen 7 7700X 8C/16T Up to 5.4 / 4.5 GHZ 40MB Gen 5 105W $399 AMD Ryzen 5 7600X 6C/12T Up to 5.3 / 4.7 GHZ 38MB Gen 5 105W $299
- ZuLuuuuuu 4y agoInteresting that TDP increased from 65W on Ryzen 5 5600X to 105W on Ryzen 5 7600X, even though 7600X uses a newer process.
- KSS42 4y agoPartially due to PCIe5 and DDR5.
- baobob 4y agoThe entire chip is probably just one giant fully utilized vector unit by now
- neogodless 4y agoConnect all the data points: * Zen 4 is more efficient (up to 74% more efficient at 65W) * Zen 4 will be used for desktop, server and mobile chips * Ryzen 7000 is clocked a good bit higher than Ryzen 5000 * On the desktop, higher maximum clock speeds for single and multi-core workloads are desired * The higher TDP is to allow for higher clock speeds for single and multi-core workloads on the desktop
- pier25 4y ago> Zen 4 is more efficient (up to 74% more efficient at 65W) So the TDP doesn't scale linearly?
- neogodless 4y agoTDP isn't something that scales. > TDP stands for Thermal Design Power, in watts, and refers to the power consumption under the maximum theoretical load. [0] It's basically a ceiling. [0] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000055611/processors.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000...
- pier25 4y agoYeah very poorly phrased on my part, sorry. Since you mentioned "up to 74% more efficient at 65W" what I meant is if the perf per watt (and hence the temp) doesn't scale linearly with the amount of work. The 7700X has about double the TDP of the 3700X but about a 50% increase in perf.
- neogodless 4y agoThat is correct. I think it's always been the case that as clock speeds increase, power draw and heat generation accelerate (diminishing returns). When you're comparing 7700X to 3700X, are you talking about performance at the same TDP limits, the same clock speed, or maximum performance?
- pier25 4y agoI'm comparing max perf and TDP.
- qball 4y agoNot when it comes to clock speed. Note that the total power a CPU draws is proportional to its capacitance (fixed) * its frequency * the square of its voltage + some other stuff that's generally the same across CPUs of the same generation. But that doesn't quite tell the whole story, either; as you increase the frequency you also have to feed more voltage to the CPU to keep it stable for signal-processing reasons (a higher voltage means more difference between 0 and 1, and when you're right on the edge of it not working that will make the difference between a successful compute and a crash). As such, when you're trying to make a CPU and want to chase clocks, you get bit twice: first by the increased frequency due to physics, and twice by the (square of the) increased voltage requirements for stability. So running at 6 GHz and requiring 1.2V to get there is significantly more expensive power-wise than running that same processor at 4 GHz and only needing 0.8V. The only real way to fix that is microarchitecture, of course; the trick with Intel in particular is that they've been milking the same architecture they came up with in 2007 and aside from adding some Atom cores to its latest models have done basically nothing but shrink the die so it's natural that they're falling behind now.
- sliken 4y agoAMD could cap the 7600X at 65 watts, would that make you happier? Perf/watt has substantially improved, as have capability (like double the memory speed, double the memory channels, and double the PCIe bandwidth). Sure if power and cooling are available it clocks up higher, but you don't have to. Most BIOS will let you control the clock speed if you want.
- Tuna-Fish 4y ago> AMD could cap the 7600X at 65 watts, would that make you happier? Even more, you can cap the 7600X at 65W. All AMD cpus have configurable TDP, the advertised number is the default. Going above is overclocking, but dropping it is within spec. If you do it, your cpu will just use less power under load and be a bit slower.
- sliken 4y agoIndeed, the nice thing is power use grows quickly with clock, so even something like 5GHz vs 5.5GHz can allow a chip to run a fair bit cooler, and since there's various bottlenecks like memory latency that the performance difference will be less than 10%.
- account42 4y agoIt seems we are stuck at 16C/32T for desktop CPUs for a bit longer. I guess most things that scale beyond run even better on GPUs. But not all! I wonder if we will get non-"Pro" Threadrippers this generation?
- slimginz 4y agotbf, a lot of things still haven't been optimized for when AMD introduced >4 cores with first gen Ryzen. I'm running a 5950x and unless I'm doing something like 3D rendering I rarely notice more than ~8 of my cores ramping up at a time.
- tadfisher 4y agoSounds like you need to install Gentoo. Excellent replacement for space heaters in winter time.
- account42 4y agoUnfortunately most packages spend more time during the configure step or other ~single threaded parts than actually compiling stuff in parallel when you have that many cores. You can compile multiple packages in parallel but doing that without running out of memory when you do get to a couple of big packages is tricky. Ideally, portage would take memory (including ramdisk) requirements of packages into account when scheduling builds (some packages do check for free memory) and ask as a make jobserver [0] (with patches for non-make build systems to support jobservers) to always fully use the available resources. [0] https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Job-Slots.html https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Job-Slots...
- nabakin 4y agoThere's really no point in going beyond 16 core CPUs. Games only use 4 cores, maybe 6 cores max. Which means for games, you want to maximize performance-per-core and don't care about having more than 8 cores. More than 8 cores is only useful for very few use cases where the task is very parallelizable or you care about power consumption efficiency and some of those cores are efficiency cores.
- pier25 4y agoThe TDP of the 7700X is almost double the 3700X I own but from the benchmarks it seems there's about a 50% perf increase in SC and MC. The 7700X is about 20% faster than Apple's M2 in SC perf in Cinebench R23. https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu_benchmark-cinebench_r23_single_core-15 https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu_benchmark-cinebench_r23_si... https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu_benchmark-cinebench_r23_multi_core-16 https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu_benchmark-cinebench_r23_mu...
- nabakin 4y agoI wish they had an 8 core option that maximized the performance-per-core possible. I don't have much use for a 16 core CPU.
- neogodless 4y agoI'm confused. Why wouldn't the 7700X 8-core CPU work for what you're suggesting?
- nabakin 4y agoLower boost clock speed than the 7950X
- tadfisher 4y agoThe 7700X is one 8-core CCD, which won't clock all cores as high as two 8-core CCDs with half the cores disabled. Personally I think the trade-off in cross-CCD computation is worse than the slightly lower all-core clock for the kind of workloads that benefit most from 16 threads, but I could see the benefits of higher all-core clocks for desktop use cases like gaming.
- Tuna-Fish 4y agoThere will almost certainly be a 7800X3D before spring, that will probably be pretty close to what you want.
- bearjaws 4y agoSoon I will relocate my PC outdoors, power consumption has skyrocketed over the last couple years and its now both CPUs and GPUs increasing YoY. The era of smaller form factors and increased efficiency is over for now.
- thesuperbigfrog 4y ago>> Soon I will relocate my PC outdoors, power consumption has skyrocketed over the last couple years and its now both CPUs and GPUs increasing YoY. I don't understand. Why will you relocate your PC outdoors? To help dissipate heat somehow?
- rat9988 4y agoBecause it makes his room too hot I guess.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- sph 4y agoThey still sell low powered CPUs, you know?
- Latty 4y agoThis is just obviously untrue. You can run these chips with more power, but they automatically scale, so if you limit them, they'll still outclass current low TDP options. You might pay more for the privilege and leave potential performance on the table, but these are actively more efficient than past options, not less, you just can drive them for more performance rather than more efficiency if you want. Of course, having higher performance can actually be more efficient in some workloads, as there are cases where running for a short time at higher power draw and then reverting to a very low power idle state is better than running for longer periods of time at more limited power draw to do the same work. They explicitly list a 25% performance-per-watt gain. They push more power to get even more performance, but you can choose if you want to do that. They claim at 65w TDP Zen 4 is 74% more performant than Zen 3.
- gnufied 4y ago> The switch to 5 nm gives "Zen 4" 62 percent lower power for the same performance, I know this is a desktop launch and all but I wonder how much does this update catches upto Apple M1/M2s. With 6000U series CPUs the gap was already closer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOSQIUGGdYE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOSQIUGGdYE but it looks like this will get it pretty close. Obviously getting Laptops on new 7000 series will take time. AMD's achilles heel has always been availability when it comes to Laptops.Many paper launched SKUs of 6000 series Laptops are still not available in US market. Heck, you will be hard pressed to find a 99W laptop with AMD only CPU (basically Apple's flagship 16inch configuration).
- bcrl 4y agoFor Zen 4 a good part of the power reduction is that the i/o die went from the Global Foundries 12nm process to TSMC's 6nm process. That probably accounts at least partly for the large drop in power for the same performance, making it unlikely that Apple will see the same drop.
- gigatexal 4y agoYeah the M1/M2 chips are amazing. In this one test the 5950X is about 50% slower than the M1Max so perhaps the 7950X will close the gap even more: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=149829&sid=d80706cabedc57eb53aec2c6005be37b#p800285 https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1498...
- ben-schaaf 4y agoEncoding is usually done by hardware accelerators (located on the GPU) and is generally unrelated to the performance of a processor. Additionally in the video they're comparing hardware accelerated video encoding to software encoding; it's honestly surprising it's only half as fast. Here's a comparison showing the rtx3090 ahead of the Mac Studio in encoding: https://youtu.be/f-mbtSRz2nk?t=550 https://youtu.be/f-mbtSRz2nk?t=550
- gigatexal 4y ago
- morjom 4y agoI think I'll stick with the 5800X3D. I was expecting these new CPUs having the same cache tech but apparently not.
- philliphaydon 4y agoI’m willing to bet that’s their ace up their sleeve for Intels 13th Gen. Wait till around Jan and AMD will pull the rug out from under Intel.
- Latty 4y agoIt's in their roadmap as the next release with distinct SKUs.
- allenrb 4y agoFairly sure AMD has already indicated that an "extra cache" model(s?) of Zen 4 consumer chips will appear down the road.
- sitkack 4y agov-cache hbm is coming to the 7000 line, but they will stagger the launch for MBA reasons.
- Tuna-Fish 4y agov-cache and HBM are two entirely distinct technologies, there are currently no products that use both and there are not even any rumors of any products that would use both. v-cache is AMD:s branding for attaching additional SRAM cache directly on top of the die using TSMC hybrid bonding, HBM is a JEDEC standard for DRAM. They have literally nothing to do with each other.
- sitkack 4y agoThat makes v-cache that much more impressive. Do you know if the GPU cores will be able to read directly from v-cache?
- pdimitar 4y agoSo far sounds pretty good. I wonder how good will the 7950X be for workstations.
- retinaros 4y agodoes anyone have any idea why amd is not making a cpu like the 3700X anymore? the 65W TDP for the perf was something to be seen
- pizza234 4y agoBecause Intel hasn't been able to keep the edge on architecture for a long time, so they started a race to the bottom, abusing the TDP. Unfortunately, the market seems not to care much, so I "can't blame them" (well, I do blame them for the effect). This is even more perplexing considering the laptop market, where power efficiency is crucial, and Intel should be dead now (Alder Lake hasn't been as efficient as hoped, and on Linux, the matter is even worse due to suboptimal support), yet, it's still the most common platform.
- trotFunky 4y agoThey do[0]. It was released much later in the lifecycle of Zen 3 than the 4 "headline SKUs" that were launched here as well. I think we can expect the same for Zen 4. [0] https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-7-5700x https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-7-5700x
- pizza234 4y agoThe 7600x and 7700x have already been announced, and they're rated 105W. The 5x00 lineup has a few models with lower clock (5500, 5600, 5700), but they consume as much as their higher clocked counterparts (5600x, 5700x). The hope is for a 7500 with lower TDP, which is a possibility.
- trotFunky 4y agoYou're right, I misspoke ! For Zen 3 they announced the 5800X and released the 5700X later (with the same TDP as the GP's 3700X), whereas for Zen 4 they announced the 7700X and the 7800X will probably be released later. Indeed every CPU announced here has a higher TDP than the previous generation, which isn't the best. Hopefully lower TDP SKUs come out as you mention.
- gigatexal 4y agoThe 7950X looks amazing and is 50 bucks cheaper than the 5950X's MSRP at launch! This isn't even the Threadripper Zen4 line -- if the desktop line is this good the HEDT line is going to be even more amazing-er.
- pizza234 4y agoIt looks great, although I was a bit disappointed - I was really looking forward 24 cores :)
- 988747 4y agoMSRP will remain theoretical - due to supply chain disruptions I expect that average consumer will have to pay at least 50% more, if they are lucky enough to find those processors in stock.
- virtuallynathan 4y agoAMD said they are not expecting to be supply constrained.
- machinekob 4y agoBut you need new motherboard and worst of all its only DDR5 which is still not worth it for workstations.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- capableweb 4y ago> Support for new and evolving technologies like PCIe® Gen 5 and DDR5 memory empowers users to grow with their Socket AM5 solution, which AMD will support with platform longevity through 2025 Does it seem like sockets are getting less and less years of support? Just 3 years of "longevity" doesn't seem that long, I probably upgrade my CPU once per 3 years and that would mean if I now move to AM5, I'm gonna have to yet again get a new motherboard when AM6 gets launched in ~2026.
- Latty 4y agoIntel have been doing two generations of support for absolutely ages. AMD doing four generations on AM4 was the outlier rather than the norm, and it sounds like they are giving themselves wiggle room this time to do similarly, but potentially cut it a bit shorter if they feel they need to. Given how many reviews talked about AM4 chips being a no-brainer upgrade choice if you had an existing board, they have incentive to do it. AM4 being on DDR4 and older motherboards being PCIe 3 really limited it. Given DDR5 is new and PCIe 5 is brand new, it feels like AM5 has plenty of potential to go longer, but I can understand not wanting to tie themselves too far ahead. I think it's more a matter of target: Intel probably care most about the pre-built market where people just buy a new computer, so there isn't much value. AMD focused on taking the enthusiast crowd and getting the mindshare that way, and long socket support definitely benefited them there.
- mort96 4y agoAM4 being supported for that long caused more trouble than it was worth IMO. When buying a new CPU+motherboard, you had to make sure you got a motherboard with a new BIOS, since BIOS updates were required to support new CPUs. AMD would even send out older CPU models just to help consumers update their BIOS of necessary. A lot of cheaper motherboards didn't have enough flash memory to support both the last and the first CPUs, so you had to make sure not to install the wrong BIOS update or your CPU wouldn't work anymore. Intel's approach, which means you can always count on the BIOS supporting your CPU if the CPU physically fits, and which meant a BIOS update would never remove support for your CPU, is honestly arguably the more consumer friendly approach.
- KingOfCoders 4y agoI wish AMD would add more cache for faster speed and lower energy consumption Ryzen 5xxx L1 32/32, L2 512, L3 32768 Ryzen 7xxx L1 32/32, L2 1024, L3 65536 M2 L1 192/128, L2 16384, SL 8192 M1 Ultra L1 192/128, L2 49152, SL 98304 [edit: see comment about latency cache comparison below]
- loeg 4y ago> I wish AMD would add more cache for faster speed and lower energy consumption Ryzen 5xxxX3D: 96 MB of L3? https://www.anandtech.com/show/17337/the-amd-ryzen-7-5800x3d-review-96-mb-of-l3-3d-v-cache-designed-for-gamers https://www.anandtech.com/show/17337/the-amd-ryzen-7-5800x3d...
- KingOfCoders 4y agoYes, which boosted performance, and I think the X3D is not on the die, so easier to increase.
- loeg 4y agoProbably also worth noting that the M1 Ultra is a 20C CPU so the cache per core ratio on 5800X3D (8C) is much higher despite similar total L3.
- pizza234 4y agoThey did that with the 5800X3D; the results were overall positive, although uneven. The cost was significant though - around 100$ more than the 5800X (which was $350).
- sundvor 4y agoWhere it really mattered, the results are staggering. E.g. Star Citizen, with everything depending on its rather complex entity streaming. There, the 96MB of cache which I believe is for the 5800X3D's single CCD blows all other CPUs out of the water.
- 4y ago
- retskrad 4y agoYikes... those are some power hungry chips. Why would a person still buy x86? Compared to ARM, it's inefficient and outdated technology. Buying computers with AMD and Intel chips is like buying a gasoline car when electric cars are the future.
- pythonaut_16 4y agoBecause lots of people need more flexibility or lower cost than Apple Silicon. GPU, RAM, storage configurations, etc. Apple Silicon is great but doesn't serve every need.
- kennend3 4y agoWhy does your beloved apple still sell Intel based systems if this is like a "gasoline engine"? https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/mac-pro https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/mac-pro https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/mac-mini https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/mac-mini Maybe not everyone wants/needs to be locked into the apple Ecosystem? PS. Electric cars are the past as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicl...
- Macha 4y agoBut seriously, why do they sell the Intel Mac Mini? The Intel Mac Pro still exists because they haven't made a modular apple silicon machine and their remaining large scale video production customers would leave them if they were told just to to migrate to M1 Studio machines. I don't see a similar argument for the Mini, especially as it's still on 8th gen. I'm honestly surprised Intel is still supplying Skylake CPUs for it
- kennend3 4y agoI have the exact same thoughts as you.. While you can sort of see the Mac pro's place, the intel mini makes zero sense? Perhaps they have a warehouse of these somewhere and they are still trying to unload them? I see Intel based iMac's for sale at Costco yet they are not on Apple's site?
- dvfjsdhgfv 4y agoIt's funny, whenever they refer to "competition", they mean Intel, whereas they should worry about Apple, too, especially as far as efficiency is concerned.
- dagmx 4y agoAs great as the Apple chips are, they’re not competition for AMD. AMD sell chips, Apple doesn’t. Apple is a package deal and as such doesn’t cut into AMD’s market for console chips, servers or gaming systems.
- ssizn 4y agoApple can’t run Windows programs and games reliably so they are not a contender.
- nottorp 4y ago... and not all Linux programs any more, sadly. Due to the switch to ARM I had to get a separate x86 box for some of my work (namely yocto builds and the like).
- dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago> ... and not all Linux programs any more, sadly. Historically, it's never been a problem. One of my first distros was Yellow Dog Linux. There will be many more in the future.
- microtonal 4y agoMost distributions have an AArch64 build. Secondly, macOS Ventura will have Rosetta 2 for Linux as well.
- nottorp 4y agoMost stuff I can do natively. I am not messing with a yocto build except on their recommended platform though. Too complex to be worth the effort of trying it on something else if not needed.
- sylware 4y agoAMD should eat the bullet: add an on-die a gigabit ethernet controller and an HDA codec if the EM allows it. Will need AM6 socket for the new pins though.
- tiffanyh 4y ago> AMD Ryzen 7950X processor enables single-core performance improvement of up to +29% It appears that the new micro architecture is not providing any performance increase itself since 4.5Ghz is 32% faster than the previous 3.4Ghz clock ... and AMD is measuring a 29% IPC increase. All of the performance gains must be purely from going to 5nm (vs 7nm). For reference, the previous chip (5950X) had a base clock of 3.4Ghz [0] and this new 7950X has a base clock of 4.5Ghz. [0] https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-9-5950x https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-9-5950x EDIT: I'm confused, why the downvotes? Why not just message below if you don't agree with something and we can have a discussion about it.
- KuiN 4y agoYeah there are no major microarchitectural changes that we're aware of for these chips. Bigger L2$, support for AVX-512 (kinda ... double pumping 256bit units), possibly wider front-end but not a huge amount more; it's primarily the new process making the difference.
- adrian_b 4y agoThe support for AVX-512 is not "kinda". AVX-512 at the Ice Lake level is supported. The most widespread Intel CPU with AVX-512 support is Tiger Lake and its support is no better than that of Zen 4, it also provides one 512-bit pipeline for FMA or multiplication and two 512-bit pipelines for simple operations, the same as Zen 4. What happens is that Zen 4 has the same execution units as Zen 3, so any program which can keep all the execution units busy is accelerated on Zen 4 only by the greater clock frequency. However Zen 4 has a new frontend for instruction fetching and decoding and for branch prediction. Many programs will be executed more efficiently than on Zen 3, with a better utilization of the execution units, leading to the claimed IPC improvement of 13% on average. Additionally, rewriting a program to use AVX-512 can also improve the utilization of the execution units, leading to a speed-up greater than the clock frequency ratio. Support for a certain ISA does not imply anything about the speed of the CPU, even if sometimes the CPU vendors change in the same generation both the ISA and the microarchitecture, resulting in greater throughput. In this case AMD has postponed the improvement of the execution units for Zen 5. Even if the support for AVX-512 does not improve the maximum possible throughput, it improves the average throughput over many programs. The same is true for most of the Intel CPUs that support AVX-512, except for the top models of server or workstation CPUs, because they have one of the 512-bit FMA units disabled, which results in the same maximum throughput as on Zen 4 or on the older CPUs, since Haswell.
- neverrroot 4y agoA pity the TDP went up a lot, but in order to compete with Intel, they likely had to do that.
- jessermeyer 4y agoI'm confused by this image on this point too: https://images.anandtech.com/doci/17552/Ryzen%207000%20Tech%20Day%20-%20Keynote%2029.jpeg https://images.anandtech.com/doci/17552/Ryzen%207000%20Tech%... Is the intention that some will cap the voltage at the wall?
- dagmx 4y agoThey’re showing the performance difference at different points along the power curve, since it’s non linear.
- neogodless 4y agoYou can limit the maximum boost clocks to reduce power draw and thermal dissipation. Some have reported that they have set this in the motherboard settings. At any rate, this demonstrates how much more efficient the Zen 4 cores at lower power when compared to Zen 3. If you need high clock speed across cores, you won't gain as much of the efficiency, but the potential here for laptops based on Zen 4 is extremely promising. In those cases, chips are often configured for a maximum TDP between 15W and 65W depending on use case (though some high end workstations and gaming machines are set even higher.)
- nfriedly 4y agoNot at the wall, but I'm sure some folks will limit the TDP in BIOS/UEFI to lower noise/temperature/power draw. I also expect some vendors to sell smaller computers that force the CPU to lower TDP due to insufficient cooling. But, I expect the main reason for that slide is to draw attention away from the huge TDP increase.
- Tuna-Fish 4y agoAMD allows the user to set the TDP for their CPU. The branding they use for this is "Configurable TDP" or "cTDP". You can set it in your bios, or possibly using some AMD-specific cpu tuning program directly from windows.
- neogodless 4y agoDiscussion from last night based on Anandtech's coverage: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32644878 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32644878 (66 comments)
- neogodless 4y agoThe Anandtech article[0] includes some more details about efficiency, particular at any given TDP. > Interestingly, AMD offered performance figures for three different TDPs: 65W, 105W, and 170W. The greatest performance gains are actually at the lowest TDPs, where the 7950X saw a 74% increase in Cinebench R23 MT performance. These advantages actually decreased as TDPs went up, dropping to 37% at 105W, and finally 35% at 170W. [0] https://www.anandtech.com/show/17552/amd-details-ryzen-7000-launch-up-ryzen-7950x-coming-sept-27 https://www.anandtech.com/show/17552/amd-details-ryzen-7000-...
- tiffanyh 4y ago> AMD Ryzen 9 7950X 16C/32T Up to 5.7 / 4.5 GHZ 80MB Gen 5 170W $699 With ECC, this will be an amazing perf/cost server that can handle substantial load. Besides Hetzner & OVH (who both offer AMD 59xx series chip), does anyone else offer these variant chips for dedicated hosting needs?
- roesel 4y agoIt looks like good competition on the high end, but these numbers would indicate AMD is not much ahead of Intel in performance/price around the 12600k tier. Alder Lake i3/i5 buyers in the last year are probably pretty happy with their purchases.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Sunspark 4y agoAMD should make a CPU for home-users without the PSP.
- Kukumber 4y agoTDP starting at 105W, i'll pass
- bitwize 4y agoCan I drop it into my ASUS Prime B350 PLUS mainboard from four years ago?
- microtonal 4y agoNo, these CPUs use the new AM5 socket.
- richliss 4y agoAny confirmation that these include Pluton?