Read, watch and learn dude, from reviewers and other members here. Don't embarrass yourself out of ignorance and/or arrogance. It's not worth it. There's a lot of heat from new CPUs and GPUs and each company deals with it in a slightly different way. Nvidia has even more heat to deal with on optimized 4 nm node, and so new GPUs are gigantic for this very purpose. As regards to CPUs, AMD has more elegant solution for thermal and power management this time around and Intel uses brute force on i9 to let us know that unrestricted power use beyond 253W will bring you a few petty percentages of performance, but also enormous amount of power and heat to deal with.I also want to see the miracle of how a 7950X, reached 95 degrees (maximum allowed), "self-regulates" without losing performance.
It seems that you also missed the lesson on heat dissipation, the W/mm2 chapter.
7950X hits 95 degrees immediately when MT workload starts and all-core frequency is very stable throughout tests. See GN below.
Watch GN review of 7950X
Both temperature and core behaviour are by design on Zen4 and choice of coolers will make much smaller difference for 7950X/7900X than for i9 and i7 CPUs that suck wapping ~300W in similar workloads. And so, GN found i9 to be the worst power efficiency CPU on the market for continuous MT workloads.
Watch GN review of 13900K
It is i9 that is hardest to cool precisely because it uses insane amount of power in those workloads. In HUB review, i9 was not able to finish a test without thermal throttling because cores hit 100 degrees soon, so soon that it throttles just after a few seconds into the test, even with 420 mm AIO cooler! It loses ~8% of performance in those workloads, which professionals who need strong MT systems for daily workloads will certainly think about very, very carefully, indeed.
This means that if 7950X can save them 20-30 minutes per 8 hours, day-by-day, to do the same job over 13900K, just imagine how many hours of work could be saved over several months of usage. Marginal gains are important in this field, as faster jobs done mean more jobs done over longer period of time. And time is money for them. Plus, it's easier to deal with 355W of system power consumption, than with almost 500W with 13900K. See HUB below.
Watch HUB review of 13900K
How much performance does 7950X lose, you asked? Here is another watch for you, to show that 360 mm AIO makes little difference to 120 mm or air cooler in most cases. If you are on the edge of saving time because you run multiple-hour workloads, 360 mm will save precious seconds and minutes. If not, good air cooler will do the job too. Other members here posted for you more explanations and links regaridng cooling of Zen4. Pretty simple stuff.
HC review of 7950X cooling requirements
Enjoy it and let us know what you think, after digesting relevant information.
Price-wise, agreed. Intel wants us to think this way and pick up lower in stack Zen4 CPU to compare with higher in stack RPL. Of course 7700X looks worse than 13700K. No doubt. However, once prices change, 7700X will compare with 13600K, as it should.I agree with all of your other points, but this one seems iffy. Based on pricing, the 13700k squares off against the 7700x, and the 13600K squares off against the 7600x. These aren't favorable match ups for AMD; the 7600x and 7700x compete well in gaming, but lose hugely in productivity workloads to Raptor Lake at analogous price points.
In terms of power efficiency, core count and workload purpose, I disagree. It's amazing what Zen4 CPUs can do with less cores than Intel parts. 16-core CPU matches 24-core CPU in productivity workloads. The same for 12-core 7900X against 16-core i7. Those are high-end consumer CPUs, so they have broader application, far beyond gaming and casual MT. 7700X loses in productivity only ~5% to 13600K, which is negligible. That's why I suggested to compare the top three Zen4 with top three Raptor Lake, rather then falling into a price trap comparison. 7700X needs to be $320-330 to be very competitive with i5 on price.
If I was a professional who uses MT system daily, 8-10 hours a day over entire year, I'd buy 7900X over 13700K and 7950X over 13900K system, for simple reasons. Easier to cool, definitely more power efficient and future-proof platform. More expensive initially, true, but gains come over time and initial investment pays off. I only need to slot in a single CPU at Zen5 and/or Zen6 point and call it a day, rather than buying entire system again.
Agreed.And if the low-to-mid range Zen 4 CPUs* are going to hang their hats on gaming perf, well, they also lose pretty convincingly to AMD's own 5800x3d, based on platform cost. AMD needs to release some non-X SKUs, or something. I'm sure AM5 will come into its own eventually, but it ain't there yet.
Agreed.Gaming enthusiasts who don't plan to buy an extremely expensive graphics card are almost always best off buying a CPU in the $150-200 range. Frankly, an R5 5600 or an i5-12400 still offers vastly better value for most gamers than any of the new shiny stuff from either AMD or Intel.)