- Mar 3, 2017
- 1,747
- 6,598
- 136
It'd matter if it provided tangible benefit in performance, but most people will just open their faviourite tech-youtuber (GN or HU), see their thumbnails and won't buy the CPUs. AMD simply shot into both their legs and the dangling little thing between them as well...Thank god, this will hopefully end the thousands of "my CPU is running too hot" posts in German forums that I had to endure for Ryzen 7000 during the last two years.
Crazy lower numbers, from LTT Youtube test.Where Zen 5 actually shines is temperature:
View attachment 104662
That's -35°C from 7700X to 9700X and still -15°C when both are running at 142W PPT. Thank god, this will hopefully end the thousands of "my CPU is running too hot" posts in German forums that I had to endure for Ryzen 7000 during the last two years.

Yeah, but not many people like to use It.well, brain is there for some reason, to use it.
And these are not the gaming chips. That's the cache ones. Gamers would be picking the cache code anywayAVX-512 is only a small part of RPCS3. A big uplift on it won't translate to the same uplift for the PS3 emulator
? AMD is fine. Core will do well on servers, it will be competitive on mobile and they'll have a cost advantage there. And it's a much more efficient core for Office/General DT tasks. The only public that will be disappointed will be the gaming one.
But that doesn't mean they'll need to rush Z6. If anything, they need to make sure Z6 improves radically over Z5.
5600Mt/s is the official spec for those CPUs, so it make sense to make comparisons with the guaranted RAM speed.Even without this no one really uses or benchmarks the CPUs with JEDEC memory, it tanks AM5 performance disproportionately hard and isn't really used in real life scenario (unless you build home server with some sort of cheap ECC ram)
From what I have seen even in games the V$ is very variable in benefit ranging from nothing to 20+% improvement.Extra cache is basically heaploads of (almost) free performance
5600Mt/s is the official spec for those CPUs, so it make sense to make comparisons with the guaranted RAM speed.
Beside that s not the point, the guy selected the games such that CB tests results are the same as PCGH whose reviewer is known to trick the numbers in Intel s favour, FI in his 7950X review he doctored the tests such that the 14900K is 15% faster in MT while at Computerbase it barely matched the 7950X even when using 330W.
IIRC it took a while for the Windows scheduler to properly support the Bulldozer CMT architecture.Bulldozer was a departure from Intel-like cores and it suffered on Windows way more than on Linux
As already mentioned, only if the X3D versions are not downclocked like the 7800X3D, which might be a possibility with the low TDP of the 9700X.So, if this is the result for non-X3D version, I somewhat doubt that X3D variant would be much better. At least it wouldn't be worth it for Zen 4 users.
In any case... Two years and this is the result?
Yes, those extra % are basically free in terms of power or architecture, that's what I've meant. Also, it's not 20%? it's roughly 30% in cs2 (posted my own comparisons a week ago or so in this thread), around 50%+ in tarkov and pubg, and so on. Most people simply don't know how to test CPUs and their benchmarks are basically GPU tests instead of CPU tests.From what I have seen even in games the V$ is very variable in benefit ranging from nothing to 20+% improvement.
AFAIK the cache increase only actually helps if the game is moving data resources around significantly in flight.I think the V cache helps basically always in gaming
ranging from nothing to 20+% improvement
Notice the + next to the 20.Also, it's not 20%?

I do not think it is operating system related. It's mainly the tested workloads.Bulldozer was a departure from Intel-like cores and it suffered on Windows way more than on Linux. For some reason Zen 5 seems to behave similarly.
Yeah. They will get mocked about it more.Maybe shut up about gaming until X3D parts show up next time.
AFAIK the cache increase only actually helps if the game is moving data resources around significantly in flight.
Some game engines are better than others at managing data movement, so it's completely within reason that some games will benefit far less from cache increases like X3D.
Basically V cache is highlighting lazy programmers as much as anything else.
I'd be interested to see V$ benefits on day 1 games vs after a couple years of patches to refine perf.
Do they not just fix clock frequency on both to get an accurate reading on the perf delta?I can't remember seeing any tests where the V-cache didn't provide a gaming benefit. There are tests where it wasn't enough benefit to overcome the frequency advantage of the non-Vcache parts. I'm sure there are outliers though.
Do they not just fix clock frequency on both to get an accurate reading on the perf delta?
Also I was under the impression that while the 5800X3D clock regression issue was very significant that the 7x00X3D SKUs were much better for this?
