6 ms·
Model 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
by thesuperbigfrog 4y ago
Model 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.