8 ms·
The AMD Ryzen 9 7900, Ryzen 7 7700, and Ryzen 5 5 7600 Review: Zen 4 at 65 Watts
- chaimanmeow 4y agoeverything xen https://youtu.be/Ps317u9Rhl0?t=62 https://youtu.be/Ps317u9Rhl0?t=62 ! Almost doubling the TDP for a 25%-30% frequency increase isn't doing most any good (appeals mainly to benchmark obsessed folks with poor sense of scale). But it's the game that marketing people have to play---so hence the 105 watt X-variants. When I upgrade to AM5 I'll go with 65W no doubt.
- automatic6131 4y ago>appeals mainly to benchmark obsessed folks with poor sense of scale I resemble this remark. But I will not change :-)
- 7speter 4y agoThe competition (Intel) allows them to do this considering their k cpus have a tdp of what? 125w? People are still buying Intel so might as well try and convince them that AMD is just as "fast"
- justsomehnguy 4y ago> When I upgrade to AM5 I'll go with 65W no doubt Since C2D days anything over 65W provided diminishing results for a regular user. But then you can't participate in the di^W gigaherz measuring party.
- gcatalfamo 4y agoAgree, but I honestly can't fathom the productivity/gaming benefits of the X models compared to such difference in power draw compared to the "regular" 7900
- ilyt 4y agoGaming performance will be dominated by watts of your GPU tbh.
- tehbeard 4y agoFor the shiny shiny "AAA" releases, sure. There's plenty of 4X / RTS / Simulation games where the CPU will be the bottleneck.
- piaste 4y agoAnd for those games, the X3D series are going to be the gold standard, if they follow up in the footsteps of the 5800X3D. Meaning the X series will be in a bit of an awkward position. Disclosure: I own a 7600X, but strictly because I wanted a new desktop for the Christmas holidays, so I couldn't wait for either the 65W budget option or the X3D high-end (I do play Paradox games a fair bit). Hopefully I'll be able to sell it and upgrade without too much loss, once the full lineup is available.
- ilyt 4y agoYeah I don't care for extra watts there, I want it run fast
- dagw 4y agoDepends who's paying. 15-30% (or more, if compared to Threadrippers) faster compile times or simulation runs can be a real quality of life improvement in many cases, especially if your employer is paying for it.
- em500 4y agoIt should be well known by now that at the high end performance scales very poorly with power consumption (and also with price). (Same reason why you couldn't straightforwardly extrapolate the great laptop performance of Apple's M1 and project them to clobber Intel/AMD on the desktop/server.) But the people who (think that they) really need those extra few % performance also tend to be the ones willing to spend. Personally I think this is fine: the big spenders who buy the top $$$ and TDP parts basically subsidize a lot of the costs for the more price conscious who benefit from all the R&D and still get great performance.
- Dalewyn 4y agoI agree. You buy high end parts either to enjoy it or because you truly need it. You don't buy high end parts to be fiscally efficient, efficiency has always been the realm of mid to low end parts. This applies to nearly everything.
- hayley-patton 4y agoIt didn't seem that the mid-end was efficient when I last went processor shopping (last June). It appeared that of the Zen 3 processors (which were interesting as I already had an AM4 rest-of-the-computer) only the 5600 and 5900X had "good" prices to me, as the 6-core 5700 was only a bit faster than the 5600 for a fairly large jump in price, and the 8-core 5800 had only two more cores than the former processors, while not being _that_ much cheaper than the 12-core 5900X. Given that I hold onto parts for a while, and that moar cores with shared memory is what I was after (for fuzzing and model checking, mostly[1]) I took the plunge and got the 5900X. Another advantage there was that I would not have to build another computer to use two cheaper processors. But that only works as I don't think I am limited by any other factors like memory or disk bandwidth. I did however limit the processor to a 65W TDP to reduce heat output and power usage, which only slowed down my very parallel programs about 10%, and didn't affect less parallel programs at all. (The duplicated other components of two machines would also draw more power, though perhaps not that much in comparison to processors here.) [1] For a fuzzer you could easily give separate machines multiple random seeds, so really that is no issue. But for model checking/exhaustive search there needs to be a proper form of work distribution. I haven't a clue what the network bandwidth requirement of e.g. TLC, so that might also require faster NICs than one gets on motherboards to not stall processors on the network.
- jeswin 4y agoFor my desktop, I value 30% faster compilation far more than I care about the CPU using more watts. It depends on what you do, and it's not all benchmarks.
- mpol 4y agoSure, no problem. Just be aware that the power bill is part of the price too. I used to take the rough calculation; every Watt used 24/7 is 1 Euro per year. That wasn't even true 2 years ago, now it might even be going to 3 or 4 Euro. So a 50 Watt increase can cost up to 200 Euro per year when it is running 24/7. After 3 years, you could have bought quite a different class of CPU at 65 Watt TDP. If you don't run it 24/7, divide the cost by how much you do use it.
- pedrocr 4y agoWe could use more benchmarks about idle power usage for that. I'm speccing a new NAS and those are the watts you end up paying 24/7, not power usage at peak. You'd have to be running constant compiles or be a very avid gamer for the peak load to dominate. These parts are just the X parts with a lower power limit after all, they're not a more efficient process or something like that.
- formerly_proven 4y agoChiplet-based products were never competitive for idle/low load power usage and while Zen 4 improves quite a bit over Zen 2/3, monolithic CPUs will be way superior, regardless of AMD (APU) or Intel. We're seeing the first generation of chiplet-based GPUs and the same thing seems to go for them as well.
- perihelions 4y agoThink about the context. - "I value 30% faster compilation far more than..." It takes 10,000 hours of wall-clock CPU time to reach your 200 euro figure. That tradeoff is against a 30% decrease in compilation time, or 3,000 hours. Say what you will about idle power or whatever; but we're talking about the case of 100% all-core CPU for a programmer who is compiling something, and whether or not they should throttle those CPU cores to save money on power bills. The math is an easy "no".
- minimaul 4y agoI do this even on AM4 - I have a 5800X but I run it in ECO mode which locks it to 65W PTT. Drops on average less than 10% multi core performance and no single core performance at all. Much quieter, cheaper, etc. I also have a 35W 5750GE (8c16t too) and that’s also a very respectable performer compared to the 105W 5800X! We’re so far off the ideal part of the perf/W curve it’s not funny, and I swear being closer to that is part of where Apple et al have done so well. Edit: and from compute benchmarks on my 3090, the best perf/watt - measured in whole system total power drawn to complete a variety of cuda tasks, that card is most efficient around 225W or so… which is crazy considering they’re sold at 350W or more!
- PragmaticPulp 4y ago> Almost doubling the TDP for a 25%-30% frequency increase isn't doing most any good Having 25-30% faster compile times, faster video renders, higher frame rates, snappier responses is huge. I don’t understand why you’re suggesting it’s not doing anyone any good. Our CPUs don’t run at 100% all of the time. If my CPU takes 200W instead of 65W for the small fraction of the day that I’m doing something CPU-intensive, the difference is absolutely negligible. I’m going to use more total power when I cook my dinner, probably. If you are the kind of person willing to give up 1/4 of your performance for slightly lower power consumption under load, then go for those slower chips. You’re not the target market for the premium grade performance parts.
- chaimanmeow 4y agoYou have some good points, *if* the OS and apps that you are using are designed with care and regard for energy efficiency. In my experience it's often not the case. Edge with its sleeping tabs function is a big improvement and example when app writers do care a bit about not wasting loads of energy. But it's really a very mixed bag. Many browsers do not. And there is plenty of nuissance javascript that will peg the CPU and RAM all day long. If you're a Steam user, you know that almost all games, when you idle them in the background, and even in pause mode, peg one or a few CPU threads as well as the GPU. The problem is greatly reduced for those editing their windows power profiles (or for linux users, cpufreq-set) to have their processors run at reduced frequencies. For those it might justify getting 105W X's over the 65W. Now the almost 30% peak perf gain that the X models can sustain are potentially a big advantage. Yet real life usage speedup isn't as big as one might expect from looking at benchmark multithread compute scores; compiling has a lot of waiting on IO. And the single thread differences between the mellow frequency non-X and the souped up X versions are not very big, percentage wise. So you might get 30% speedup for some cases, but probably more typical difference might closer to ~15%. iGPU throttling is an area where the 65W models would be disadvantaged at, sometimes significantly. So in some cases (workstation type usage), especially if running without a dedicated video card, the 105W choice might admittedly make good sense. 65W vs 105W bottom line: I guess it's a case of YMMV.
- pella 4y ago"AMD Ryzen 5 7600 / Ryzen 7 7700 / Ryzen 9 7900 Linux Performance (phoronix.com)" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34310505 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34310505 https://www.phoronix.com/review/ryzen-7600-7700-7900-linux https://www.phoronix.com/review/ryzen-7600-7700-7900-linux All Other tests: AMD Ryzen 7900/7700/7600 non-X Desktop CPU Review Roundup https://videocardz.com/147338/amd-ryzen-7900-7700-7600-non-x-desktop-cpu-review-roundup https://videocardz.com/147338/amd-ryzen-7900-7700-7600-non-x...
- kaelinl 4y agoSince it's in the title, note that the TDP on AMD cores (Intel and the rest too, but especially AMD) is misleading. They engineer the number to fit their marketing; there's no expectation that 65 watts of power is put into nor dissipated out of this chip. It's probably reasonable as a relative comparison point to other recent AMD parts, but that's about it. See e.g.: https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3525-amd-ryzen-tdp-explained-deep-dive-cooler-manufacturer-opinions https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3525-amd-ryzen-tdp-explai...
- __alexs 4y agoPower consumption depends a lot on the specific workload so picking a single number is mostly an exercise in marketing. It seems close enough in practice.
- yrro 4y agoWhat is the purpose of even providing a figure if it's not accurate? (Maybe I'm wrong, I thought the TDP figure is the maximum sustained power that has to be dissipated by the cooling setup, the CPU can output more heat briefly but over a long period of time it'll average 65 W assuming it's fully utilized?)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- greggyb 4y agoIt's made up but does provide rough tiers within a product generation. Also, modern CPUs and GPUs pretty effectively throttle to the capacity of their cooling solution. I would not necessarily recommend it, but you could probably get by without any issue slapping a solution that reliably dissipates 65W of heat on any Ryzen, and have a stable computer. It would just happen to run up to its thermal limit regularly and clock down. If you actually want a lower power/heat setup, you can undervolt and underclock the CPU and not worry about bouncing off the thermal limits.
- yrro 4y ago
- sylware 4y agoAre specter and friends finally fixed in Zen4?
- neogodless 4y agoHave not found anything definitive, but I think it was fixed starting with Zen 3. https://wccftech.com/amd-and-intel-cpus-remain-vulnerable-to-spectre-v2-vulnerabilities-even-after-patches/ https://wccftech.com/amd-and-intel-cpus-remain-vulnerable-to... https://www.amd.com/en/corporate/product-security https://www.amd.com/en/corporate/product-security https://meltdownattack.com/ https://meltdownattack.com/ Likely need to dig into PDFs to get answers.
- sylware 4y agoHow hard would have it be to state clearly "all known specter/meltdown/similar exploits" were fixed from Zen3. I guess it was stated somewhere, and I missed it.
- Symmetry 4y agoSpectre is essentially intrinsic to any out of order CPU that uses caches and needs to be addressed at the software level if you have information that shouldn't be leaking within a software process. Meltdown never affected AMD CPUs in the first place.
- chaimanmeow 4y agoGiven that the number of transistors per square mm is now so ridiculously mind boggling, and how many cores you can easily fit onto a 100mm2 budget die (on 5 or 6nm, more so on 3nm) AMD really needs to get with the times and rethink SMT, and replace it with a more general multithreading that is in tune with the big.little additions to x86 and acorn risc software ecosystem. Little cores (real or logical), with small to no reorder buffer, can be nicely asked to forgo any speculative execution. Browsers worth their salt will take advantage of the fact that high risk threads (such as javascript, wasm, and other interpreted/jit code) can be asked by default to run on little cores. That is, unless a user left clicks on a tab to manually override the default, any scripts arising from said tab is taskset to small cores only. Browsers might also have a whitelist option regarding scripts originating from whitelisted internet domain and their ability to run on big cores. Likewise the OS should allow the user to easily taskset any application to their desired set of cores (unix already does, via taskset command). So instead of SMT2, I'd really like Zen 5 to have MT4, or MT5, where those multithreading schemes have just one big thread (massive reorder buffer) and three to four little threads (no ROB or tiny ROB) with an option to disable speculative execution---the latter keeping all those idle pipelines a little less idle.
- ksec 4y agoI thought the 4nm AMD Zen 4 SoC aka Ryzen 7040 is a much more interesting chip. unfortunately it isn't getting much attention.
- neogodless 4y agoThere aren't any reviews - laptops are expected in March I believe. Still, seeing the desktop at 65-90W should be rather telling as those laptop parts will be "55W" but likely able to pull up to ~80W depending on system.
- krolden 4y agoI really want to see some minipcs with the 7040. The igpu is impressive.
- chaimanmeow 4y agoyup, new denser better 4nm silicon, new navi version/stepping apparently, plus an AI coprocessor co-developed with Xilinx. https://www.pcgamer.com/amds-new-ryzen-7040-series-laptop-apu-has-special-ai-sauce/ https://www.pcgamer.com/amds-new-ryzen-7040-series-laptop-ap... << quick summary on this crazy high tech!
- ksec 4y agoYes the Xilinx part is really the most interesting bit. I was hoping it will set the trend in PC industry where FPGA or NPU are included by default.
- jeffbee 4y agoInteresting that the worst of these chips, a 6-core 65W part, is faster on the 3D particle movement component of the science benchmark compared to the last AVX-512 implementation Intel shipped into consumer parts, the 8-core i9-11980K. It proves the suitability of AMD's half-width execution strategy.
- fxtentacle 4y agoI absolutely love my new AMD Ryzen 9 7950X. It is lying about its TDP a bit, because I see much more draw than the supposed 170W. But draw is still low enough that with a good cooler, it basically never exits that 5.8 GHz boost clock. PopOS never felt so responsive before!
- forbiddenlake 4y agoThe definition of TDP has been mangled and it's not even the same between Intel and AMD. For AMD's case you should also look at PPT (Package Power Tracking).
- josephg 4y agoI feel the same with mine, on Linux mint. Incremental rust compiles are under 1 second, and full builds take about 10 seconds. (16 physical cores for the win). I compiled the same codebase on a home server using a quad core skylake cpu the other day. It took over 2 minutes to build the same code. If you haven’t upgraded for awhile, you’re in for a treat.
- johnklos 4y agoI just upgraded an older Ryzen system from a six core 2600 to an eight core 5700X. Between the additional cores, the additional cache, the higher clock speeds and the IPC improvements, it now compiles the entire OS 178% faster (I chose compiling because it's a real world use, not a synthetic, processor only test - CPU heavy tests show it's more than twice as fast). It's amazing that I can get that kind of improvement without increasing power usage. I often wondered what kind of performance we'd get out of new Ryzens if we limited the power, and now we're starting to find out :)