Legit though, why did the 9700X release with such a low TDP/default wattage?

[Dr. Dro]

You can't make a simple 1:1 comparison for temperature between 7700X and 9700X because of the change of location of the temperature sensor and the change in TDP. But once you remove one of the variables - you limit power usage of 7700X to that of 9700X running the same test scenario - you can compare the temperature readouts.

You can still compare TDPs between models and nothing changed in the formula as far as we know. But even then, TDP alone isn't enough:
- 1700X - 95 W
- 2700X - 105 W
- 3700X - 65 W
- 5700X - 65 W
- 7700X - 65 W

IMHO the problem is with situations like this:
View attachment 358571

Granted, 7700X ran at 5200-5100 MHz during this run, which puts it at roughly 100-200 MHz drop compared to TPU frequency plot. But if we look at power use from TPU:

We can see where the frequency difference came from. Over 130 W in blender for 7700X vs 80 W for 9700X.

The 7700X has a higher default power allowance, if you compare it against the 7700, clocks achieved are similar. However, the performance advantage of the 7700X vs. the 7700 is extremely small, the same as running the 9700X as is vs. it power-uncapped. You're easily going to increase power consumption by 80-100% in exchange for 3-5% performance. It's a raw deal even when you are going from 88 W to a still very manageable 165-170. It's simply not worth it.

 

[SL2]

It's simply not worth it.

Exactly.

However, the 9700X boosting lower than a 9600X, when it's expected to be the opposite is just wrong.

Do I want it to have 105 W TDP? Hell no. Just enough to fucking deliver what's promised. Soo incredibly clueless decision.

If anyone thinks "well you don't know why". You're right. I sure would like to tho.

 

[chrcoluk]

The most likely business reason (we will find out later) is there will be no non X model, this is the replacement and it costs more, more $$ for AMD.
They also want to portray an image of being more efficient, perhaps motivated by Intel's current situation. I do think it is a better chip than the 7700X, as its much lower temps with much less power draw. Is it a better product than the 7700X and 7700? Not at the current price point.

The AI thing seems a bit far fetched to me, end of the day business is business, and AMD are a corporate.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Exactly.

However, the 9700X boosting lower than a 9600X, when it's expected to be the opposite is just wrong.

Do I want it to have 105 W TDP? Hell no. Just enough to fucking deliver what's promised. Soo incredibly clueless decision.

If anyone thinks "well you don't know why". You're right. I sure would like to tho.

Why is it expected to be the opposite? The 9600X has 75% of the execution resources but the same power budget. It's no wonder.

 

[PierreJG]

I think you are overthinking this. Ask this question. Who would benefit from high power cpus? People doing productivity, Content Creators, and Enthusiast. Will you buy a CPU with 200w for gaming? Doesn't matter how fast the CPU is, you will settle for a less power-hungry CPU. It depends on what you are going to use the CPU for. I sold my server last year. I had a lot of options for the CPU. She was used as an FTP server. I settled for 2xXeon 6c/12y 65w cpu's. I can guarantee you, that I could have gone a lot bigger as I had 2x700w PSUs installed. But what would that have benefited me?

The point I am making is that the average person will not buy a CPU with more than 125w. We asked a lot why a company does this or that. They try to meet the demands. Why does cpus like Epyc or Xeon exist? Because they have a different market and need more power. An average gaming CPU will never run with a 200w+ CPU as, from a selling point of view, it will be a bad investment. That is my 2 cents