- Mar 3, 2017
- 1,747
- 6,598
- 136
There are many MT workloads that don’t require that much memory bandwidth.They won't because it doesn't have enough memory bandwidth.
Zen5 has amazing .1% lows
Page 4 - Discussion - Zen 5 Builders thread
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.forums.anandtech.com
Well, you could blame AMD/Intel for only officially supporting up to X MT/s kits. Pretty much all OEM pre-built systems would not use higher than officially supported sticks.The computerbase results are skewed by their insistence on using JEDEC memory at "officially supported" speeds. It doesn't invalidate their results, but the gaming results in particular aren't consistent with how most reviewers compare CPU's. It's also not consistent with how most DIY PC builders run their systems. In reality, The gap in gaming between 7700(X) and 9700X is more like 5% (depending on the games tested) with both running @ 6000 MT/s.
Should have released Zen 5 desktop on N3E.
Zen 5 isn't what we had hoped for from the gaming perspective, but to say "Zen 5" is a flop suggested by some journalists (HUB) is a bit of a stretch.
Sure if you compare it directly with the non X 7000, the efficiency claim is no longer the case. But what if AMD decides to put out a non X 9000 version with let's say, 45w? Wouldn't that "reshuffle" the whole lineup and thus making the claim AMD is trying to hide reviewers from making comparisons with the non X 7000 totally invalid?
What if you overclock the 9000 to 105w TDP then compare them again in terms of performance and efficiency? Wouldn't you gain back the 10 ~ 15% performance uplift people were expecting to see? (applications not gaming I know)
Why haven't I seen any reviewers plotting performance graphs from different wattages to really see where the efficiency gains from Zen 5 is really at? Yes efficiency is certainly thrown out of the window the higher the wattages but maybe at higher TDP is where Zen 5 really excels at. We need EFFICIENCY CURVE against zen 4 parts to know for sure if zen 5 is a flop or not. Those clickbait YT thumbnails is too quick of a judgement because we haven't seen how the higher end Zen 5 performs.
Bruh....... The 9700X should pull its 88W PPT limit (as indicated by HWI64) in CB 2024. This is entirely consistent with all of the 65W TDP AM5 CPU's. This isn't a mystery that requires autistic levels of investigation.
![]()
![]()
No link to the review..?
This 9700X curve can be right only if the idle power is much higher than the one of the 7700X, hence the apparent low efficency at low power, as said provide us a link so we can chek what it is about.
Thanks for the link.I posted it last page but I will post it here again.
His screenshot is taken from 7:04
Zen 5 is basically in parity with Zen 4 going below 75W. There's the answer.
This guy also briefly mentioned the fact that DDR5-6000 is crippling Cyberpunk 2077's performance.
PPT limit of the 7950X is 230W and under sustained heavy MT workloads, it tends to sit around 215-225W due to hitting thermal limits (vs. Sitting closer to or hitting 230W PPT limit). The graph appears to show ~200W, which seems like it would be in the neighborhood of core only power.Problem is that Computerbase has this for CB 2024, someone said that it could be the cores power wthout the uncore but from the 7950X review it s clear that they measure the whole package power.
That someone was me. And yes, they usually measure package power, but for that specific measurement they only measured the cores. It's described in the text. How about just using auto-translate:Problem is that Computerbase has this for CB 2024, someone said that it could be the cores power wthout the uncore but from the 7950X review it s clear that they measure the whole package power.

No, there s peaks over 200W, beside the CPU use only 189W in Handbrake wich is the app used for this test and 196W in Prime 95, from their measurement at the main power in Cinebench can be estimated accurately at 215W peak at most.PPT limit of the 7950X is 230W and under sustained heavy MT workloads, it tends to sit around 215-225W due to hitting thermal limits (vs. Sitting closer to or hitting 230W PPT limit). The graph appears to show ~200W, which seems like it would be in the neighborhood of core only power.
That someone was me. And yes, they usually measure package power, but for that specific measurement they only measured the cores. It's described in the text. How about just using auto-translate:
View attachment 105008
And yes, I still need to point out the "four cores" mistake to them. That's 8 cores for all the lines.
Wow that's mid. Again, I can not wait for that spec2017 int power curve lol.That someone was me. And yes, they usually measure package power, but for that specific measurement they only measured the cores. It's described in the text. How about just using auto-translate:
View attachment 105008
And yes, I still need to point out the "four cores" mistake to them. That's 8 cores for all the lines.
This is exactly my thoughts. Zen 5 seems to have been architected to take advantage of N3, while simultaneously being designed to work on N4. Its quite odd, and as a matter of fact, I cant think of any other CPU that was simultaneously designed and released (yes, Turin not out yet released but running in labs and sampling) on two fully different process nodes.It seems to be an architecture that is a bit big for its boots, or at the very least not optimised for the node. Reading between the lines in various interviews it did seem that's what Engineering would have liked exclusivity on N3E
View attachment 104985
This curve matches some of the data from early 9950X testing.
Page 643 - Discussion - Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)
Page 643 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.forums.anandtech.com
Seems the knee of the curve for Zen 5/N4X is both higher and less aggressive than Zen 4 on N5(p) It's easy to say N3E won't help much, but doesn't need much. Shifting that curve to the left is all. The fact it's still scaling suggests it really does need to be on a better node.
Still have to wonder why a higher TDP point wasn't selected for the 9700X , Is there voltage limit issues pushing higher TDPs on this node? it would also explain the max ST boost clocks pretty stagnant. Has anyone been able to push these higher yet?
Not going to happen. Strix Halo might be able to do something like that with its 3nm IOD and new chiplet packaging, but its designed for LPDDR so I dont know if its even technically possible to release on a desktop package and work with DDR5.
Not very encouraging. Hopefully the EXPO 8000 MT/s kits will have lower timings than the ones for the kit used by Larabel.
I really want AMD to pull some miracle with an updated IOD that allows the X3D chips to use DDR5-8000 in 1:1 mode.
This is exactly my thoughts. Zen 5 seems to have been architected to take advantage of N3, while simultaneously being designed to work on N4. Its quite odd, and as a matter of fact, I cant think of any other CPU that was simultaneously designed and released (yes, Turin not out yet released but running in labs and sampling) on two fully different process nodes.
The reason why 8000MT is doing little to nothing is the number of GMI links. Single link is the bottleneck for throughput. So going with higher kits will make sense only for dual chiplet SKUs. And 1:1 mode is less important for x3D SKUs because they have the 3d cache to insulate from DRAM latency.
Not very encouraging. Hopefully the EXPO 8000 MT/s kits will have lower timings than the ones for the kit used by Larabel.
I really want AMD to pull some miracle with an updated IOD that allows the X3D chips to use DDR5-8000 in 1:1 mode.
If you want to show off your memory, now or in the future you still have to buy a completely different AMD CPU. Latency or performance aside, a classic Zen4 or Zen5 CPU outside of the G series can't even move with 10600mhz DDR5 memory.
Not very encouraging. Hopefully the EXPO 8000 MT/s kits will have lower timings than the ones for the kit used by Larabel.
I really want AMD to pull some miracle with an updated IOD that allows the X3D chips to use DDR5-8000 in 1:1 mode.
If the redesigned core lets the 3D cache models run @ full speed 5.5Ghz then it will be ~15% better performance than the 7800X3D.
Not very encouraging. Hopefully the EXPO 8000 MT/s kits will have lower timings than the ones for the kit used by Larabel.
I really want AMD to pull some miracle with an updated IOD that allows the X3D chips to use DDR5-8000 in 1:1 mode.
In fact, the AVX512 improvement on Zen5 created a memory bottleneck so large that it became the primary reason why I promoted the BBP mini-program from a tool for verifying Pi records to a formal benchmark. The regular benchmarks wouldn't do Zen5 (and future processors) any justice. At least until someone can figure out how to get DDR5-20000 on AM5...
How many? And which of these are you running once a month or more often? Thanks in advance.There are many MT workloads that don’t require that much memory bandwidth.
One could show them just how big the dies are and how 9950X looks under the lid, yet they would still keep bringing this up regardless.They won't be launching higher count CPUs on AM5. Broken record but people keep suggesting an idea without merit
Couldn't they do something about the placement of these components (resistors?) to squeeze one more die in there?One could show them just how big the dies are and how 9950X looks under the lid, yet they would still keep bringing this up regardless.

