AMD Announces Ryzen 7000 Series "Zen 4" Desktop Processors

[fevgatos]

View attachment 261456
is this one also translated wrong....?
Pic from TPU 5800X3D review, power efficency.

Thats not autocad is it? Maybe if you read the discussion before replying you would know whats going on.

 

[ratirt]

What do you mean "even if" it was true. It is true. You can actually check the review.

But you are right, zen 3 was competing with 10th and 11th. Now with zen 4 amd increased power consumption by a huge amount to compete with raptorlake, even though half their skus fail to even compete with alderlake.

Yes even if it is true because it is a huge stretch from your side my friend.
About Zen4 again wrong. TDP is not power consumption.

 

[fevgatos]

Yes even if it is true because it is a huge stretch from your side my friend.
About Zen4 again wrong. TDP is not power consumption.

No, power consumption is higher than tdp
Let me put it this way are you saying zen 4 will draw the same or less power than zen 3? Im saying its going to draw way more.

 

[ratirt]

No, power consumption is higher than tdp
Let me put it this way are you saying zen 4 will draw the same or less power than zen 3? Im saying its going to draw way more.

power consumption can be higher than TDP, because TDP represents something different than power consumption. AMD's TDP - Thermal designed power/point is the amximum heat that the chip will generate while operating. It is not power consumption of the chip. You also bring up, AL in gaming is very efficient. So is Ryzen. My 5800x while gaming, does not go above 50w. (yes I choose a game and it can still go lower than that) and yet default TDP is 105w. See, very efficient. That is sarcasm from my side of course but that is your way of thinking which is wrong.

 

[fevgatos]

power consumption can be higher than TDP, because TDP represents something different than power consumption. AMD's TDP - Thermal designed power/point is the amximum heat that the chip will generate while operating. It is not power consumption of the chip. You also bring up, AL in gaming is very efficient. So is Ryzen. My 5800x while gaming, does not go above 50w. (yes I choose a game and it can still go lower than that) and yet default TDP is 105w. See, very efficient. That is sarcasm from my side of course but that is your way of thinking which is wrong.

And I'm asking you, to you think power consumption will be lower on zen4? I think its going to be considerably higher.

Your cpu drawing 50w doesnt make it efficient. Efficiency has to do with how much performance it gets at those 50w. I bet a 12900k gets more fps at 50w than your 5800x, therefore it's more efficient.

 

[Valantar]

Another graph that i feel people cant understand because "less is better" isn't in big bold letters

the 11th gen do pretty well there, and then 12th just... flops horribly :/


People are mixing and matching their data, but the simple fact is intel fell behind in power efficiency something fierce - they wanted to win in performance no matter the cost

Wow, that is really confusing. It says "points per watt", but also "less is better" - so is it actually watts per point? If so, that's a rather dramatic reversal of what it's showing. Though looking at the benchmark data, the Intel chips generally score higher and are recorded at lower or similar power, so I think the "less is better" is the error here.

Now with zen 4 amd increased power consumption by a huge amount to compete with raptorlake, even though half their skus fail to even compete with alderlake.

I don't think I'll ever lose my fascination with people who can't grasp the simple concept of waiting for reviews before making hard conclusions. I mean, you're not couching your statements whatsoever here - you're talking as if these are established facts. They aren't, and won't be until we see actual reviews. Until then, what we have are first party benchmarks and rumors, neither of which are entirely trustworthy.

 

[fevgatos]

Wow, that is really confusing. It says "points per watt", but also "less is better" - so is it actually watts per point? If so, that's a rather dramatic reversal of what it's showing. Though looking at the benchmark data, the Intel chips generally score higher and are recorded at lower or similar power, so I think the "less is better" is the error here.


I don't think I'll ever lose my fascination with people who can't grasp the simple concept of waiting for reviews before making hard conclusions. I mean, you're not couching your statements whatsoever here - you're talking as if these are established facts. They aren't, and won't be until we see actual reviews. Until then, what we have are first party benchmarks and rumors, neither of which are entirely trustworthy.

The graph from igors is score per watt.

Of course I'm waiting for reviews, im saying with the info we have right now the most likely scenario is that powet consumption has increased, by a lot. Id be happy to be wrong

 

[Dyatlov A]

I think as soon as this became known back in January, they began to sell out fast in the US, or maybe Intel told them to stop selling them here who knows.

B&H Photo and Newegg don't have them in stock, can't find one on Amazon either. Ditto for Microcenter. E-Bay has them for like $260-$300 stateside. Beyond that it's international, and if doing a budget build there's the ASRock PG Riptide at ~$150.

As i checked this mentioned Asus B660-f still widely available in EU. However a friend of my obtained one recently from a Hungarian store and what i can see it is still manufactured in 2021/11 month as mine. So possible EU warehouses still have stock from the beginning and the manufacturer doesn’t even produce them anymore. US stock could have run out earlier.

 

[Valantar]

Of course I'm waiting for reviews, im saying with the info we have right now the most likely scenario is that powet consumption has increased, by a lot. Id be happy to be wrong

With the risk of sounding like a broken record: if that's the basis of your information, you need to change how you word your statements. Leaving out the fundamental insecurity around any of this through formulating things as factual statements is how rumors and stupid misunderstandings spread.

 

[fevgatos]

With the risk of sounding like a broken record: if that's the basis of your information, you need to change how you word your statements. Leaving out the fundamental insecurity around any of this through formulating things as factual statements is how rumors and stupid misunderstandings spread.

To me it's obvious that when im talking about a yet unreleased product, im basing my statements on the rumors. With that said though, i think its extremely likely that power consumption will go up, and by a lot. You can tell even by amds own graphs

 

[Valantar]

To me it's obvious that when im talking about a yet unreleased product, im basing my statements on the rumors. With that said though, i think its extremely likely that power consumption will go up, and by a lot. You can tell even by amds own graphs

It might be obvious to you, but that doesn't mean it's obvious to anyone else - we can't read your thoughts. That's what words are for. Please use them when attempting to communicate, as evidence for successful telepathy is rather scarce.

 

[Mussels]

Nope, the translation is wrong. It's scores per watt, therefore higher is better. Zen 3 flips horribly. You would know if you bothered to read the actual review where igors comments on how ahead intel is in efficiency.

Zen 3 fell behind in power efficiency cause they wanted to win in performance apparently.

No, it's not backwards. TPU's charts agree with the order of CPU's in that graph.

View attachment 261456
is this one also translated wrong....?
Pic from TPU 5800X3D review, power efficency.

Hah i got beaten to it

 

[fevgatos]

No, it's not backwards. TPU's charts agree with the order of CPU's in that graph.

Yes, it is backwards, you can actually read the review. I don't know why you insist on something that you are clearly wrong on. TPUs charts are completely irrelevant cause they didn't test Autocad. This is what the actual REVIEWER has to say about this particular graph

The Core i9-12900KF is even 71 percentage points more efficient than the Ryzen 9 5950X. I’d rather not even write anything about the Core i5-12600K.

Yeah, clearly backwards

 

[big_glasses]

Thats not autocad is it? Maybe if you read the discussion before replying you would know whats going on.

you where talking about MT efficiency, then linked, sorry posted a picture of AutoCad...? It's barely considered a MT application.
Or where you referring to efficiency "in this specific application"? Quite frankly, I didn't quite followed why you posted it saying "here explain this" and then posted a low parallelization task.

Unfortunately, AutoCAD is extremely CPU-intensive and there is very little parallelization to be done in the normal workspace. It is often what a few cores are capable of that counts

Core i9-12900KF, Core i7-12700K and Core i5-12600 in a workstation test with amazing results and an old weakness | Part 2 | Page 2 | igor´sLAB

So today I’ll get serious and show you where Alder Lake S can really score aside from colorful gaming pixels. Gaming what? Completely overrated if you look at at least some of today’s results.

www.igorslab.de

but sure, 12xxxx is more efficient in low parallelization/high CPU use tasks, like your (unlinked, I ain't gonna hunt for your random pictures) review showed

And since you mentioned Phoronix:

For multi-threaded workloads is where Alder Lake isn't compelling at all with its power consumption... We recorded the Core i9 12900K hitting a power consumption as high as 258.57 Watts during testing. The Core i5 12600K saw a peak CPU power consumption of 125.57 Watts. Throughout the same set of benchmarks, the Ryzen 9 5950X had ap eak power consumption of 154 Watts.

Quote from, my bolding: https://www.phoronix.com/review/intel-12600k-12900k/12

 

[Valantar]

you where talking about MT efficiency, then linked, sorry posted a picture of AutoCad...? It's barely considered a MT application.
Or where you referring to efficiency "in this specific application"? Quite frankly, I didn't quite followed why you posted it saying "here explain this" and then posted a low parallelization task.

Core i9-12900KF, Core i7-12700K and Core i5-12600 in a workstation test with amazing results and an old weakness | Part 2 | Page 2 | igor´sLAB

So today I’ll get serious and show you where Alder Lake S can really score aside from colorful gaming pixels. Gaming what? Completely overrated if you look at at least some of today’s results.

www.igorslab.de

but sure, 12xxxx is more efficient in low parallelization/high CPU use tasks, like your (unlinked, I ain't gonna hunt for your random pictures) review showed

And since you mentioned Phoronix:

Quote from, my bolding: https://www.phoronix.com/review/intel-12600k-12900k/12

Yep, it's just a confirmation of what we've known for quite a while now:
- In low threaded workloads that aren't power virus like in their loading, ADL is very efficient
- In low-to-mid threaded workloads that draw more power, Zen3 can eke out a win (dependent on the tradeoff between ADL's high per-core boost power and Zen3's high base uncore power)
- In mid-to-high threaded workloads, Zen3 is generally more efficient - unless ADL is power limited below K stock power, at which point it's a bit of a toss-up depending on the workload, its specific parallelization scaling, and specific power limits in play.

 

[fevgatos]

you where talking about MT efficiency, then linked, sorry posted a picture of AutoCad...? It's barely considered a MT application.
Or where you referring to efficiency "in this specific application"? Quite frankly, I didn't quite followed why you posted it saying "here explain this" and then posted a low parallelization task.

Core i9-12900KF, Core i7-12700K and Core i5-12600 in a workstation test with amazing results and an old weakness | Part 2 | Page 2 | igor´sLAB

So today I’ll get serious and show you where Alder Lake S can really score aside from colorful gaming pixels. Gaming what? Completely overrated if you look at at least some of today’s results.

www.igorslab.de

but sure, 12xxxx is more efficient in low parallelization/high CPU use tasks, like your (unlinked, I ain't gonna hunt for your random pictures) review showed

And since you mentioned Phoronix:

Quote from, my bolding: https://www.phoronix.com/review/intel-12600k-12900k/12

I already conceeded that in heavy mt workloads at same wattage the 12900k is usually less efficient than the 5950x,but not by much. But its also true that its way more efficient at mixed workloads.

 

[Mussels]

I already conceeded that in heavy mt workloads at same wattage the 12900k is usually less efficient than the 5950x,but not by much. But its also true that its way more efficient at mixed workloads.

so post some direct proof of that, with a proper comparison

 

[fevgatos]

so post some direct proof of that, with a proper comparison

I did, and you said the graphs were upside down

 

[Mussels]

I did, and you said the graphs were upside down

Sure, because they seem to be - when TPU's graphs matched your "upside down" view

 

[fevgatos]

Sure, because they seem to be - when TPU's graphs matched your "upside down" view

Even though the reviewer himself said about that particular graph that the 12900 is 70% more efficient.

So yeah, its pointless. No amount of data will change your mind cause you dont care about the data.

 

[bket007]

I just found this information