Question How in the world has AMD got the Ryzen 7600X and 7700X priced same when they are inferior even in P cores only compared to 13600K and 13700K

[Wolverine2349]

I mean the Ryzen 7700X is an 8 core CPU and Ryzen 7600X is a 6 core CPU. And the 7700X is $399 and 7600X is $299.

Intel has the Core i7 13700K priced at $399 and Core i5 13600K priced at $399. And those CPUs have better P cores being 8 and 6 core counterparts with slightly better IPC than Zen 4 and can clock as high or higher with similar power usage. And for those who do not like e-cores (I am one of them, but I love Intel P cores) can disable them and you get better 6 and 8 core CPUs form Intel Raptor Lake than AMD Ryzen. And for those who want e-cores you get then as well for the same price and better P cores of equal core counts.

SO what is AMD thinking and they still have not budged on the prices of the 7600X and 7700X. They are pricing the like their 6 and 8 Zen 4 cores are better than Intel's Raptor Cove cores of equal count even though they are not any better and in fact not as good?? Or is that debatable??

The Ryzen 7900X and 7950X prices make more sense as then you get more than 8 strong cores and AMD has those by the balls who want more than 8 cores and do nit want to go hybrid route. SO yeah 7900X and 7950X prices make sense.

But 7600X and 7700X are almost a ripoff unless you just have not have AMD as they do nothing better than 13600K and 13700K for exact same price and have slightly weaker P cores and no additional e-cores for those that like the e-core options (And for those that do not it is easy peasy to disable and you get the better 6 and 8 core chips for the same price)

Its puzzling to me AMD is behaving as if they are still superior in all ways like they were with Ryzen 5000 from November 2020 to November 2021 when Intel was of no competition on core count nor per core IPC performance which was only for 1 year. I mean AMD is still much smaller and was underdog for years and hard to believe they think they can act they are premium brand in the 6 and 8 core CPU segment when the 7600X and 7700X are worse than Intel counterparts even with the e-cores off.

Your thoughts

 

[lopri]

It has been my observation that on this forum, the loudest voices against hybrid (or the E-cores in general) are based on an entirely emotional rejection of the concept, not because of any particular workload complaint. And frankly, I think that's because it's something Intel currently has that AMD doesn't, and that alone is enough for certain people to hate it. They'll mysteriously start accepting the idea around the same time AMD includes it.

I don't like E cores because I don't really need them and they reduce the ring frequency! My 13700K has E cores AND HT disabled. 8 cores are just what I need.

It is possible that desktop software ecosystem will evolve to take advantage of little cores in the future, like they do in mobile sphere. Then maybe I will change my mind. As of now it has nothing to do with AMD.

 

[Exist50]

I don't like E cores because I don't really need them and they reduce the ring frequency! My 13700K has E cores AND HT disabled. 8 cores are just what I need.

It is possible that desktop software ecosystem will evolve to take advantage of little cores in the future, like they do in mobile sphere. Then maybe I will change my mind. As of now it has nothing to do with AMD.

What is your workload that you benefit noticeably from a few extra bins of ring frequency, don't benefit from the extra MT of E-cores or HT, but do benefit from having 8 P-cores?

 

[Markfw]

What is your workload that you benefit noticeably from a few extra bins of ring frequency, don't benefit from the extra MT of E-cores or HT, but do benefit from having 8 P-cores?

Says the defender of e-cores and Intel to the Recent AMD buyer

 

[Exist50]

Says the defender of e-cores and Intel to the Recent AMD buyer

What? They literally just said they have a 13700k. And I'm plenty familiar with your inanities about them.

 

[Markfw]

What? They literally just said they have a 13700k. And I'm plenty familiar with your inanities about them.

See Zen 4 builders thread. Oh, and I just dumped my 12700F on someone who also did not need e-cores.

We know your agenda....

 

[Exist50]

See Zen 4 builders thread.

What about it?

Oh, and I just dumped my 12700F on someone who also did not need e-cores.

You "dumped" it on someone who wouldn't need >8 cores at all. So by that logic, the 7900X and 7950X are also both useless products. Somehow I don't see you spamming every thread with that claim...

We know your agenda....

Ah yes, it's now an "agenda" to pop your little fantasy about E-cores, lol. And I find it particularly amusing to be lectured on having an "agenda" by someone who used to claim Gracemont was incapable of running a cursor without stuttering. Or that calls people trolls for reading articles.

But you're doing an excellent job of demonstrating my point about this "criticism".

 

[Markfw]

What about it?

You "dumped" it on someone who wouldn't need >8 cores at all. So by that logic, the 7900X and 7950X are also both useless products. Somehow I don't see you spamming every thread with that claim...

Ah yes, it's now an "agenda" to pop your little fantasy about E-cores, lol. And I find it particularly amusing to be lectured on having an "agenda" by someone who used to claim Gracemont was incapable of running a cursor without stuttering. Or that calls people trolls for reading articles.

But you're doing an excellent job of demonstrating my point about this "criticism".

Trolls will be trolls.....

 

[Hans Gruber]

You can see why I said that was important for AMD to release the 3D v-cache at release or close to the release of Zen 4. The AMD crowd will say I told you so when 3D- v-cache chips are released. Intel people will say that is cheating. People who see the big picture know that Intel 4 is where things could take a turn for Intel. The true 7nm silicon. I think Intel says because of their silicon density. Intel 7nm silicon is equivalent to TSMC 3 or 4nm silicon. You can fit more transistors on Intel Silicon than TSMC silicon.

AMD should really be stepping up their execution of Zen 5. Intel has already promised they are stepping up their cadence of releasing new CPU generations.

AMD would be looking very good if they simply kept the TDP the same as Zen 3 and had 3D c-cache standard on Zen 4 CPU's. People rightly boast about how their Ryzen CPU's sip power. This includes the EPYC server people who run servers for businesses.

 

[TheELF]

No. It looks like TPU is reporting it that way, though.

How?! I mean what are they looking at to get that figure? Are they adding different readings together without telling?
Hwinfo shows 'CPU SoC Power' very separated from core power and from individual core power for example and it is pretty much 20W ,at least for the 3900x

https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/gv0quu

 

[TheELF]

Personally, I wish Intel would release something that's just e-cores so that they'd have a chip that could compete against Threadripper. Strip out the GPU and they could make something with 64-cores that doesn't take up too much more space than Raptor Lake does right now. No one is going to care if a chip like that doesn't have graphics on board or doesn't clock terribly high. The raw performance would be there and it wouldn't cost Intel a fortune to make.

They would do that if it would be worth it for them...
Xeon Phi was scrapped for a reason, anything that uses CPU power in that way can use arm or gpu cores so there is no sense in making expensive x86 cores to do the same thing. It's just not economically feasible.Also that's why intel is now trying to make a workstation GPU division take off.

 

[Exist50]

Trolls will be trolls.....

No baiting, flaming, trolling, thread crapping, cussing or insulting. So if you have an opinion you can state without insulting people, do so, stating it as an opinion. If you have FACTS on a thread, link to a reputable source and state your summation.

Funny how easily that gets ignored.

 

[Markfw]

Funny how easily that gets ignored.

Pot calling the kettle black. You have done nothing here but call me out (even though I and others have proved you wrong), argue with everybody, insult me and troll this thread. Go find an Intel thread to insult someone.

 

[Exist50]

Pot calling the kettle black. You have done nothing here but call me out (even though I and others have proved you wrong), argue with everybody, insult me and troll this thread. Go find an Intel thread to insult someone.

You call people trolls for saying anything you find inconvenient. You've even called people trolls merely for reading articles that you refuse to. I call this out behavior, yes. These are not the same thing.

And in case you weren't aware, this thread is as much about Intel as it is about AMD. But it's not like you care. Most of your comments these days across all threads are about how much you hate Intel. And anyone who doesn't share your delusions is a "troll".

 

[Ranulf]

I'd argue at this point given recent sales on "last gen" stuff, the new gen isn't worth the hassle at all. Certainly for gaming anyway.

 

[TheELF]

And in case you weren't aware, this thread is as much about Intel as it is about AMD.

No this is mostly an Intel thread making fun about how fast AMD CPUs, that where just released a month prior, dropped massively in value as soon as 13th gen released.

This is how we got into the decade long rut of treading on the spot in the first place, AMD having to sell their CPUs at a price they can't make any profit on and so can't invest into better CPUs for the future.
Now everybody hopes that the 3d cache versions are good enough to keep AMD lucrative enough.

 

[Exist50]

No this is mostly an Intel thread making fun about how fast AMD CPUs, that where just released a month prior, dropped massively in value as soon as 13th gen released.

This is how we got into the decade long rut of treading on the spot in the first place, AMD having to sell their CPUs at a price they can't make any profit on and so can't invest into better CPUs for the future.
Now everybody hopes that the 3d cache versions are good enough to keep AMD lucrative enough.

AMD doesn't need V-Cache to make a profit. Even with the price cuts, they should be making plenty on Ryzen 7000. It's merely the difference between monopolistic and competitive pricing.

I'd imagine that even with the price cuts, AMD's probably making competitive or better client margins than Intel. Though TSMC does take quite a cut.

 

[cortexa99]

I don't like E cores because I don't really need them and they reduce the ring frequency! My 13700K has E cores AND HT disabled. 8 cores are just what I need.

It is possible that desktop software ecosystem will evolve to take advantage of little cores in the future, like they do in mobile sphere. Then maybe I will change my mind. As of now it has nothing to do with AMD.

What is your workload that you benefit noticeably from a few extra bins of ring frequency, don't benefit from the extra MT of E-cores or HT, but do benefit from having 8 P-cores?

There were some reports that thread detector didn't work well, like when user minimizing the tasks, the P cores suddenly idle and the tasks switched to use E cores instead. The thread detector still has a long way to go, I don't see these problems would get fixed anytime soon.

 

[Hulk]

The thread detector still has a long way to go, I don't see these problems would get fixed anytime soon.

Your statement here makes it seem like Intel's hybrid CPU's are pretty much unusable. Could the TD be better? Yes? I've been using 12700K/13900K for two years now and haven't noticed any issues that make me think the TD has "a long way to go."

What issues are you noticing with your ADL or RPL CPU?

 

[DrMrLordX]

You can see why I said that was important for AMD to release the 3D v-cache at release or close to the release of Zen 4.

Not really. Genoa is the main event. Desktop is a high-profile afterthought. Plus there's the issue of when Raphael-X would actually be ready. It's questionable as to whether AMD could have launched it at all in 2022.

How?! I mean what are they looking at to get that figure?

Probably CPU package power.

 

[Hulk]

Your statement here makes it seem like Intel's hybrid CPU's are pretty much unusable. Could the TD be better? Yes? I've been using 12700K/13900K for two years now and haven't noticed any issues that make me think the TD has "a long way to go."

What issues are you noticing with your ADL or RPL CPU?

I will note in the interest of transparency that the one application I use that is better without the E cores is Presonus Studio One V4, which is an audio DAW if you don't know. When "rendering" a song with the E cores it's 6.7 times faster than real time. Without the E cores 7.7 times faster than real time. I use the scroll lock to shut them down when working in Studio One. Unfortunately that application is not well MT optimized. I even tried the version 6 of the app but no better with core usage. They won't get an upgrade from me until they get MT working better.

That is definitely a Thread Director issue albeit a relatively minor one.

 

[Exist50]

There were some reports that thread detector didn't work well, like when user minimizing the tasks, the P cores suddenly idle and the tasks switched to use E cores instead. The thread detector still has a long way to go, I don't see these problems would get fixed anytime soon.

People can chime in if they have actual data to include, but the only real criticism I've heard thus far is about how it pushes background rendering-type tasks entirely to the E-cores, and leaves the P cores available for foreground tasks. And this seems like more of a deliberate design choice that you can either like or dislike depending on your particular usage, rather than a clear flaw. Certainly the data doesn't back up the hysteria some people are trying to push.

 

[coercitiv]

People can chime in if they have actual data to include, but the only real criticism I've heard thus far is about how it pushes background rendering-type tasks entirely to the E-cores, and leaves the P cores available for foreground tasks. And this seems like more of a deliberate design choice that you can either like or dislike depending on your particular usage, rather than a clear flaw. Certainly the data doesn't back up the hysteria some people are trying to push.

It's definitely a design choice, still holds true for Win11 today. It's not a bug, and not faulty, just a debatable trade-off. There were some issues with SMT on hybrids that one forum user observed last year, but AFAIK they did not apply to stock configs, only when E cores were disabled.

 

[Wolverine2349]

It's definitely a design choice, still holds true for Win11 today. It's not a bug, and not faulty, just a debatable trade-off. There were some issues with SMT on hybrids that one forum user observed last year, but AFAIK they did not apply to stock configs, only when E cores were disabled.

There is a bug with e-cores disabled?? Like how. It should be a non-hybrid CPU with e-cores disabled right?

Or wait with WIN11 only because of the thread director but has no impact on WIN10.

Is this what you are referring to:

Core i7-12700K review revealing that E-cores hurt P-cores, but without them, everything is only worse

A review of the Core i7-12700K reveals that the presence of E-cores negatively impacts the performance of P-cores, but without them, the overall performance is even worse.

fox-laptop.com

If only the thread director could be disabled in WIN11 then it would be a normal 8 core 16 thread CPU with e-cores off like it is in WIN10 which thread director is off as WIN10 has no awareness of it.

 

[OneEng2]

You can see why I said that was important for AMD to release the 3D v-cache at release or close to the release of Zen 4. The AMD crowd will say I told you so when 3D- v-cache chips are released. Intel people will say that is cheating. People who see the big picture know that Intel 4 is where things could take a turn for Intel. The true 7nm silicon. I think Intel says because of their silicon density. Intel 7nm silicon is equivalent to TSMC 3 or 4nm silicon. You can fit more transistors on Intel Silicon than TSMC silicon.

AMD should really be stepping up their execution of Zen 5. Intel has already promised they are stepping up their cadence of releasing new CPU generations.

AMD would be looking very good if they simply kept the TDP the same as Zen 3 and had 3D c-cache standard on Zen 4 CPU's. People rightly boast about how their Ryzen CPU's sip power. This includes the EPYC server people who run servers for businesses.

From here: https://www.granitefirm.com/blog/us/2021/12/28/tsmc-process-roadmap/

Intel 4 is about equal in transistor density to TSMC 5nm. It isn't even close to TSMC 3nm.

Of course, it is impressive to me that Intel has managed to make Raptor Lake on Intel 7 that competes well with AMD's 5nm Zen4 ..... except in power (all markets) and server markets. Still, it has to be costing them a fortune to build everything on their most advanced node (not yet having tiles)..... but then again, one would think that Intel's 10nm process would be at quite high yields by now.

I have a feeling that AMD can make more money per Zen4 processor than Intel can on its 14K series. AMD can certainly afford to make much more powerful server chips than Intel can. My guess is that this isn't going to change for another 2 years ..... assuming that Intel can really perform 3 die shrinks in 3 years.

 

[Hans Gruber]

From here: https://www.granitefirm.com/blog/us/2021/12/28/tsmc-process-roadmap/

Intel 4 is about equal in transistor density to TSMC 5nm. It isn't even close to TSMC 3nm.

Of course, it is impressive to me that Intel has managed to make Raptor Lake on Intel 7 that competes well with AMD's 5nm Zen4 ..... except in power (all markets) and server markets. Still, it has to be costing them a fortune to build everything on their most advanced node (not yet having tiles)..... but then again, one would think that Intel's 10nm process would be at quite high yields by now.

I have a feeling that AMD can make more money per Zen4 processor than Intel can on its 14K series. AMD can certainly afford to make much more powerful server chips than Intel can. My guess is that this isn't going to change for another 2 years ..... assuming that Intel can really perform 3 die shrinks in 3 years.

I reread what I wrote. I meant to say that Intel would say their CPU node density is close to TSMC 3 or 4nm once they get to 7nm. I think it may be better than the 5nm TSMC silicon by a bit. It should take Intel two more nodes to catch up to AMD efficiency at the server level. Probably the 20A (5nm) silicon. Intel says their 5nm silicon is equal to 1nm.

I just want to say TSMC silicon is good stuff. But it seems they are not punching above their weight class going forward. Hot spotting is going to be a problem with 3nm TSMC. There is no performance uplift other than energy efficiency. People can argue the clocks are higher with 5nm. But others could argue that is due to a higher TDP. Basically AMD is doing what Intel has always done with upping the power to increase the clock speed.

AMD has always had a good thing going with energy efficiency. Why ruin a good thing? With 3d V-cache standard. AMD would have been in a really good spot. My only other complaint. AMD really needed a 20,24, or 32core Zen 4 CPU. That way the 13900k would get smoked in a core war.