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

 

[Carfax83]

It does not matter ever if they win for a few minutes. They will never touch Zen 4 for longer than 10 minutes@100%.

For what you use your CPU for perhaps, but you are a minority of a minority. How many people do you think actually run distributed computing on a regular basis like you?

And replying to a troll thread has just killed your reputation in my opinion.

So does this mean you killed your own reputation? Because you replied to this thread before me, and you also replied to the OP. I never replied to the OP, I just corrected @Abwx's assertion that the 7700x had better perf/clock in multithreaded apps against Alder Lake and Raptor Lake.

I don't know why Computerbase.de decided to use DDR4 for the 12900K system, but that clearly had an impact in multithreaded performance.

Edit: And just so you know, I have an alderlake CPU, and it does not win by 2% or even close. Its on a tie with a 5950x for its 8 p-cores (meaning loses by 100%), and Zen 4 just kills it by like 30% more core for core. This is at full load 100% indefinitely, p-cores only. e-cores can't save it.

Edit2: Here it is barely winning against a 3950x 1:42 to 1:44 for a task, one p core to one Zen 2+ (or zen 3??) core. All the e-cores are disabled, and the HSF is more than 1/2 of the 5950x, and its takes more power than 1/2 the 5950x.:

Again, you are using your preferred workload to determine superiority across the entire spectrum, which is just bad logic. Distributed computing is just one type of workload. But for you, Zen 4 is likely always going to be better unless Intel brings back HEDT CPUs again with no efficiency cores and higher performance core counts.

 

[alexruiz]

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

You are the alt account for whom?

Assuming you are not an alt:
Yes, RPL is offering better value for the money right now, but as far as "better P cores" I don't think so. "clock as high or higher with similar power usage" don't think so either.
AM5 is a new socket, very immature at the moment, but even in its state of immaturity it is already showing flashes of its power

The 7600x natural target should be he soon to be launched 13400, the 7700x natural target should be the 13600k, and the 7900x natural target should be the 13700k.
The MSRPs for Zen 4 are very similar, if not better than Zen 3 launch MSRPs. What is throwing everything out of whack is the fact that RPL got priced very aggressively.
Not, intel is not a company known for offering value for the money. If they have the better product, they will price it accordingly.
They are pricing RPL lower than Zen4, as they know than once the noise starts to dissipate, AM5 reaches certain maturity and most reviewers get the hang on how to setup Zen4; not even the shady youtube channels will be able to hide the fact that Zen 4 is faster.
Yes, I am looking at you certain forum members who come and claim "RPL 95% faster as shown by this obscure youtube channel. please subscribe"

AMD will adjust prices not because their CPUs are too expensive, the competition got theirs too cheap.
AMD will position Zen 4 against CPUs on the blue camp with similar number of threads.

 

[Markfw]

For what you use your CPU for perhaps, but you are a minority of a minority. How many people do you think actually run distributed computing on a regular basis like you?



So does this mean you killed your own reputation? Because you replied to this thread before me, and you also replied to the OP. I never replied to the OP, I just corrected @Abwx's assertion that the 7700x had better perf/clock in multithreaded apps against Alder Lake and Raptor Lake.

I don't know why Computerbase.de decided to use DDR4 for the 12900K system, but that clearly had an impact in multithreaded performance.



Again, you are using your preferred workload to determine superiority across the entire spectrum, which is just bad logic. Distributed computing is just one type of workload. But for you, Zen 4 is likely always going to be better unless Intel brings back HEDT CPUs again with no efficiency cores and higher performance core counts.

Distributed computing stresses CPUs more than anything. I made my point, and you just confirmed it. Raptor lake may one in the short term, but not in the long term. And even in the short term takes more power, so in my book still loses. Me replying to this thread is just to prove the OP is totally wrong, and nobody here has been able to prove otherwise. You are just trolling now.

 

[Carfax83]

Distributed computing stresses CPUs more than anything.

If you say so. Lots of applications will peg CPU cores to 100% all day long though.

I made my point, and you just confirmed it. Raptor lake may one in the short term, but not in the long term. And even in the short term takes more power, so in my book still loses.

And I already said, if Zen 4 works well for you great, but you always project your own experience onto everyone else and act like it's the DeFacto standard of PC performance.

People use their computers for different things.

Me replying to this thread is just to prove the OP is totally wrong, and nobody here has been able to prove otherwise. You are just trolling now.

I was just pointing out how illogical that statement was. I never even replied to the OP's question, I just corrected an incorrect assertion from another poster and that was it.

 

[NTMBK]

Yup ! I only look at the 7950x, but yes....

BTW, does this seem like a troll post to you ? We have proved they are faster core-for-core, they take less power, they run cooler, and now less expensive ! So in what way is Raptor lake better ? Aside from faster for a few seconds before they melt with the 13900k. Mine run 100% for 24/7/365. Raptor lake would melt first. And 107C ??? Kaluan nailed it also. This DOES seem like a troll thread.

You're right, it does seem like a troll thread! Now we just need some moderators, so they can lock it...

 

[Abwx]

That's against the 12900K with DDR4 memory while the 7700x obviously had DDR5, so no wonder the 12900K is slightly behind the 7700x, and by slightly, I mean 2%. In the 13th gen review, the 13700K is ahead of the 12900K by 12% and that was equipped with DDR5. So no, the 7700x does not have slightly better perf/clock in multithreaded apps against either Alder Lake or Raptor Lake.

Using DDR5 for 12 or 13th gen is important for boosting multithreaded performance.

They made the same tests with DDR5, in this case 7700X is 1% faster/clock than 12900K P cores and 13900K P cores, i guess that too much people took Cinebench as a generality.

The tests are done at 3.6GHz to mitigate the RAM influence.

Besides with the 12900K DDR5 CL32 provide 2% better perf than DDR4 CL14 at stock CPU frequency.

Core i9-13900K, i7-13700K & i5-13600K: Gaming-Könige im Test

Intel Raptor Lake ist da. Im ausführlichen Test treten Core i9-13900K, i7-13700K und i5-13600K gegen AMD Ryzen 7000 mit Zen-4-Kernen an.

www.computerbase.de

Edit : In the RP review they use only CB and POV Ray for MT IPC comparison, wich greatly favour RPL, while on the 7950X and 12900K reviews they use a broader range of softs.

FI in Handbrake 7700X has 10% higher IPC, 9% in CB R15, 14% in Digicortex, and as much as 21% in 7 ZIP.

8 P cores have 5% better IPC in CB R20, 2% in Agisoft, POV Ray, while Corona and Blender are a tie.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

You're right, it does seem like a troll thread! Now we just need some moderators, so they can lock it...

Once we post in threads as members, we do not moderate those threads. If you think it should be locked, use the report feature.

My hot take is that it will die on its own. By taking so long to fire shots, they all turned to blanks. Besides, with the Intel layoffs happening now, just in time for the holidays, they are short staffed.

Since this thread is garbage, I will leverage garbage time.

Intel didn't care about Cinebench when they were getting murked. Your browser speed and Excel were suddenly very important. I know because people here told me they were. Cinebench has suddenly become very important again, it's crazy right?

When Alder launched it was very important that you realize AM4 was a dead socket. Very important, again, I know because people here told me so. The 3D rekt that talking point. The supposedly dead platform is neck and neck with the latest flagships for gaming. LULZ. For MS flight sim and a few other games, it is next level, beyond them.

Now that 1700 is a dead socket, only value for your money matters again. Suddenly, I am told everyone keeps their build for many years then replaces the whole thing. Weird how fast that changed after all the chatter about how you shouldn't buy AM4 because it's dead, even when it wasn't.

We go through this every time Intel releases a new generation. Teh usual suspects explain why it is the best choice. A few years later it doesn't even appear in benchmarks from major reviewers anymore because they don't want old boards taking up storage space. Meanwhile reviewers include Ryzen back to the OG because they can use the same board for every generation.

We are in the part of the cycle where I remind the audience at home that Intel once again is a dead socket. Tick tock baby tick tock. If you don't mind getting milked, good for you. But don't try to hustle the rest of us with your talking points, they are hot garbage.

Fact is, AM5 is the only platform with a future. With the price cuts the talking points against it get Thanos snapped. Besides, I have seen what the DIY market looks like when Intel controls it, NO THANKS!

 

[KompuKare]

Funnily enough, there is another bunch of X vs Y threads in the GPU section where I keep wondering if someone is driving this narrative and driving them to such an extend that you'd almost suspect a marketing department was involved somehow.

 

[maddie]

Funnily enough, there is another bunch of X vs Y threads in the GPU section where I keep wondering if someone is driving this narrative and driving them to such an extend that you'd almost suspect a marketing department was involved somehow.

The us post was significant for me.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Funnily enough, there is another bunch of X vs Y threads in the GPU section where I keep wondering if someone is driving this narrative and driving them to such an extend that you'd almost suspect a marketing department was involved somehow.

If they are, they need to be fired for wasting money. Who are you influencing in tired old tech forums? Ones of potential customers?

As to Intel, they are in AMD's old spot. Forced to sell at razor thin margins and compete on value. Oh how the mighty have fallen. AMD price drops will squeeze them even harder. How much lower can Intel afford to go? Poorly constructed troll threads won't change any of that.

 

[KompuKare]

If they are, they need to be fired for wasting money. Who are you influencing in tired old tech forums? Ones of potential customers?

As to Intel, they are in AMD's old spot. Forced to sell at razor thin margins and compete on value. Oh how the mighty have fallen. AMD price drops will squeeze them even harder. How much lower can Intel afford to go? Poorly constructed troll threads won't change any of that.

Speaking of which, has anyone read a good comparison of the transistor counts used by ADL/RPL P-cores vs Zen 3 and Zen 4?

Not that we can then just those figures and throw them at a wafer/die calculator as while we can guess at TSMC's wafer prices, Intel's are a big unknown.

Intel's current approach is a bit brute force I feel and I keep thinking that they've thrown lots of transistors at their problem. Hence why Intel e-cores are not like those found in mobile where the idea was to save power - Intel e-cores are there to save Intel transistors. Efficient in die space rather power usage.

Not that throwing transistors at problem is necessarily wrong. Apple sometimes get accused of that with their cores yet their performance is pretty impressive.

 

[jpiniero]

As to Intel, they are in AMD's old spot. Forced to sell at razor thin margins and compete on value. Oh how the mighty have fallen. AMD price drops will squeeze them even harder. How much lower can Intel afford to go? Poorly constructed troll threads won't change any of that.

If anything cutting prices is seriously bad news for AMD. Their client business is going to be unprofitable for awhile.

Server is another story... if it wasn't for Intel screwing up so bad in Server, AMD would be in serious trouble right now.

 

[Carfax83]

They made the same tests with DDR5, in this case 7700X is 1% faster/clock than 12900K P cores and 13900K P cores, i guess that too much people took Cinebench as a generality.

The tests are done at 3.6GHz to mitigate the RAM influence.

And they used DDR5 4800 for both AL and RL, which is my point. The IPC test for MT is really a comparison between AL and RL and not RL and Zen 4, as Zen 4 was configured with faster DDR5 5200.

Also, RL's stock memory speed is supposed to be DDR5 5600.

Edit : In the RP review they use only CB and POV Ray for MT IPC comparison, wich greatly favour RPL, while on the 7950X and 12900K reviews they use a broader range of softs.

But RL is crippled due to using DDR5 4800 rather than 5600. Multithreaded apps scale with memory bandwidth, unlike single threaded apps.

Also, RL is ahead of the pack in the single threaded tests. And in the gaming IPC test, RL has a 10% lead over Zen 4, and a whopping 23% lead over Zen 3 when locked to 4.4ghz and using below stock DDR5 5200.

That Zen 3 5800x3D though is a gaming beast I have to say.

FI in Handbrake 7700X has 10% higher IPC, 9% in CB R15, 14% in Digicortex, and as much as 21% in 7 ZIP.

8 P cores have 5% better IPC in CB R20, 2% in Agisoft, POV Ray, while Corona and Blender are a tie.

Again, this is against the 12900K with DDR4. You can't make a valid comparison in MT apps when you restrict AL to using DDR4.

The 7zip scores would have gone up significantly just from using DDR5 due to the bandwidth increase.

 

[KompuKare]

If anything cutting prices is seriously bad news for AMD. Their client business is going to be unprofitable for awhile.

Server is another story... if it wasn't for Intel screwing up so bad in Server, AMD would be in serious trouble right now.

While having AM5 a DDR5-only platform must be costing them a lot of sales, I don't think their margins are bad for mainstream AM4 or AM5 IOD and CCD products.

I did some napkin maths on the AMD has dropped 5000 & 7000 series CPU pricing thread (and it keeps getting voted down by vote-and-runners - no idea why), and for Zen3 the CCD is ~$15. Obviously there's the IOD and Zen4 is on the more expensive 5nm but still, even if a 8 core 7700X sold for $150, they'd still be making good margins as max cost of an 7700X is still under $50.

 

[inf64]

We have been through this IPC nonsense before - both the SPEC and Geekbench (which is a good IPC measuring tool according to DR Cutress) are showing a neck even IPC in common desktop workloads. We also have composite ST scores such as Expreview's which also confirm this as a fact. There are workloads where both intel and AMD parts outperform greatly but also where they lag behind noticeably (so it all evens out in the end). Gaming is slightly better on intel vs non X3D parts because of AMD's chiplet design. Once AMD launches Zen 4 with Vcache this will be a non issue and Ryzen will again sit on top in basically every desktop workload. End of story.

 

[maddie]

We have been through this IPC nonsense before - both the SPEC and Geekbench (which is a good IPC measuring tool according to DR Cutress) are showing a neck even IPC in common desktop workloads. We also have composite ST scores such as Expreview's which also confirm this as a fact. There are workloads where both intel and AMD parts outperform greatly but also where they lag behind noticeably (so it all evens out in the end). Gaming is slightly better on intel vs non X3D parts because of AMD's chiplet design. Once AMD launches Zen 4 with Vcache this will be a non issue and Ryzen will again sit on top in basically every desktop workload. End of story.

End of story? Oh, you optimistic man.

 

[Abwx]

............................

And they used DDR5 4800 for both AL and RL, which is my point. The IPC test for MT is really a comparison between AL and RL and not RL and Zen 4, as Zen 4 was configured with faster DDR5 5200.

Also, RL's stock memory speed is supposed to be DDR5 5600.



But RL is crippled due to using DDR5 4800 rather than 5600. Multithreaded apps scale with memory bandwidth, unlike single threaded apps.

Also, RL is ahead of the pack in the single threaded tests. And in the gaming IPC test, RL has a 10% lead over Zen 4, and a whopping 23% lead over Zen 3 when locked to 4.4ghz and using below stock DDR5 5200.

That Zen 3 5800x3D though is a gaming beast I have to say.



Again, this is against the 12900K with DDR4. You can't make a valid comparison in MT apps when you restrict AL to using DDR4.

The 7zip scores would have gone up significantly just from using DDR5 due to the bandwidth increase.

For ADL vs Zen 4 it s here, and there s no difference between RL and ADL as demonstrated by the other review :

AMD Ryzen 7000 im Test: So schnell sind 7950X und 7700X

AMD Ryzen 7000 ist da. Im ausführlichen Test treten Ryzen 9 7950X und Ryzen 7 7700X mit Zen-4-Kernen gegen Ryzen 5000 und Intel Core an.

www.computerbase.de

At 3.6GHz RAM has little impact on perfs, and the softs where RL is better are not RAM dependent, that is, CB and Povray where it wins by 5/4/2% in R23/R20/Povray, on the other hand Zen 4 has better difference in the rest of the softs.

Also in ST IPC they use only CB and Povray, if they added the other softs that would be quite a different picture.

In games RL has an advantage, though, as long as games are at 8 threads at most.

 

[inf64]

Also, Raptor Lake pushes the P cores higher in both ST and MT scenarios ( up to 5.8Ghz vs 5.7Ghz for ST, and up to 5.5Ghz vs 5.1-5.2Ghz for MT). So the clock difference plays a major part in this wrong notion that Raptor Lake has a higher IPC, while in reality when they are clock normalized and use the same DDR5, they are basically neck even. Oh and yes, Zen 4 supports AVX 512 with no downclocking compromises, something that intel parts cannot do (at all). This is mostly improtant on Linux as we don't have many Windows workloads that can utilize AVX 512 (as of now).

 

[jpiniero]

While having AM5 a DDR5-only platform must be costing them a lot of sales, I don't think their margins are bad for mainstream AM4 or AM5 IOD and CCD products.

I did some napkin maths on the AMD has dropped 5000 & 7000 series CPU pricing thread (and it keeps getting voted down by vote-and-runners - no idea why), and for Zen3 the CCD is ~$15. Obviously there's the IOD and Zen4 is on the more expensive 5nm but still, even if a 8 core 7700X sold for $150, they'd still be making good margins as max cost of an 7700X is still under $50.

Keep in mind that it's not like AMD sees the entire price you pay at retail... the retailer and the distributor takes a big chunk. Then you have the packaging, shipping, warranty, etc... it adds up. Not to mention the R&D in designing it in the first place.

Zen 3 is a lot cheaper because I assume that GloFo's prices are very low... at least compared to TSMC and their price hikes.

 

[Captante]

Simply shocking to discover that the "best" CPU is really determined by WHAT YOU PLAN ON USING IT FOR more than anything else. (derp)

All this thread has "accomplished" is to remind me why I usually avoid the CPU and Video forums completely.

{redacted... apologies}

Anyone loyal to a brand simply based on the label/name itself has zero credibility with me.






Use of the word fanboys/fanbois is prohibited in the tech forums.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[Kocicak]

... 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 ...

Well this did not age well, 7700X and 13600K are almost the same price now. 7950X and 13900K also cost almost the same now.

 

[biostud]

Pricing of a CPU by it self is in many cases really not representing of what you will actually spend in real life when you buy a new CPU.
Unless you can do a drop in upgrade, you will buy a cpu and a motherboard, and in many cases also new memory. So if we are looking at the total cost of these parts (7600X, B650E mboard, 32GB DDR5) then we are in the price range around $650, then going for a 7700X will add $100, but now it is only 15% more of the total upgrade cost, compared to 40% if looking at the CPU price. When I'm going to do a total upgrade at some point my budget will be around $2000, and it will not be $100 price difference that will decide if I choose a 7700X or a 7800X3D, because that is only 5% of my total budget.

 

[Carfax83]

We have been through this IPC nonsense before - both the SPEC and Geekbench (which is a good IPC measuring tool according to DR Cutress) are showing a neck even IPC in common desktop workloads. We also have composite ST scores such as Expreview's which also confirm this as a fact.

I guess I will have to respectfully disagree with you on this.

Gaming is slightly better on intel vs non X3D parts because of AMD's chiplet design.

And RL's wider core, more OoO resources etcetera have nothing to do with that either right?

Once AMD launches Zen 4 with Vcache this will be a non issue and Ryzen will again sit on top in basically every desktop workload. End of story.

I would think you would refrain from making these grand proclamations after how badly everyone missed the mark on Zen 4. According to all the hype, Zen 4 was going to pound Raptor Lake into the ground with close to 30% higher IPC compared to Zen 3. But now Zen 4 is already getting a price cut while RL prices were higher than Intel's MSRP due to demand.

I already said what I think about Zen 4 3D. I don't think it will have the same performance boost as Zen 3 3D as Zen 4's memory system is far superior to Zen 3's and won't benefit from the enhanced cache as much.

 

[Carfax83]

............................

For ADL vs Zen 4 it s here, and there s no difference between RL and ADL as demonstrated by the other review :

The IPC test between ADL and Zen 4 had more variety in terms of applications compared to the IPC test between RL and ADL. Raptor Lake has a much faster L3 cache for instance and more L2 cache that would have affected the compression test if they had done it.

At 3.6GHz RAM has little impact on perfs, and the softs where RL is better are not RAM dependent, that is, CB and Povray where it wins by 5/4/2% in R23/R20/Povray, on the other hand Zen 4 has better difference in the rest of the softs.

I know that CB and Povray are not RAM dependent, I'm talking about the other tests that they used for the Zen 4 vs ADL test, ie 7zip, Agisoft Photoscan Pro, DigiCortex Simulation, Handbrake.

Increased memory bandwidth would definitely have affected 7zip I know for a fact. I don't know why the hell they used DDR4 with the 12900K in that comparison. It was a complete oversight.

 

[JustViewing]

And RL's wider core, more OoO resources etcetera have nothing to do with that either right?

Surprisingly, RL's wider core is not performing as its architecture suggests. In other words, there is seems to be no benifit from RL's wider architecture other than wasting die space. It also shows how well Zen3/4 architecture is optimized with its narrower design.