CORRECTION: On the slide for CyberPunk 2077 Phantom Liberty, the chart shows 278avg, however that was incorrect. It is 235 avg fps. I mistakenly entered the data from SOTTR into the wrong cell which populated that chart incorrectly. The chart has been updated and will reflect that change in the future. Sorry about that. I am trying hard to add more data points to our tests moving forward and streamline much of the date in excel, which I am a novice at best, so please bare with me. I appreciate your understanding.
maybe you should consider AMD did know about Intels problems with cpu and also knew they could relese a power efficient cpu because Intel are not going anywhere and when they start moving again they got their 3D to counter any Intel cpu - I belive the rewieves are Meh and cant think ahead or back
@@JDubST I don't know that much about cpus. I think i get what youre saying though. Because the GPU can go further with 1080p then it'll allow to display the bottleneck more?
They did a lot of architectural changes that require software optimization (check interviews with Mike Clark). So, we'll see in time... They did however miss the opportunity to launch with better pricing. Same-ish perf, lower price, better efficiency, and good foundation for future software -- it would be a good generation. Now, it is just a "skip".
@@bending-unit-22you are comparing x3d cpus with x cpus running. wait till they launch the x3d variants before calling the generation "skip" also these zen 5 ones are running at 65W, if you set a higher power limit, you'll see the real performance gains.
Slight suggestion for some of these charts, like at 7:00 for the handbrake time in seconds to complete, maybe add a "less is better" or "more is better" somewhere so we know if we should be looking at the high numbers or low numbers on each individual chart.
Whenever AMD is low than lower is better when ever AMD is higher than the rest than high is better that's how it works on youtube comments, just go with that.
The thing that makes me glad is that AMD isn’t using a giant amount of TDP to reach decent numbers, I’m glad that someone in the market is focusing on decreasing power consumption and get the max amount of performance than raising the power consumption to get higher numbers that most of people might not notice if they don’t do an intensive CPU task
Why does that matter though? I'd rather give my cpu as much power as it wants to get as much performance as possible. You don't buy a super fast car and complaing that it doesnt get good gas milege....
@@RatedX_Gaming And yet, power consumption is often used as a reason why idiots blow their money on nVidia cards. Not everyone thinks like you. If power consumption means nothing to you, get Intel. Who cares if they self-destruct? Super fast cars aren't known for their reliability, eh?
I would agree with you if we were talking about laptops, but we're talking about desktops and imagine people buying pre-builts... will a reduce price be seen in less performance?
The funny thing is, running at the same speed while saving 30% power can sometimes be just as beneficial as running 15% faster with the same power consumption.
While your point stands, the charts AMD published are kinda misleading Sometimes all you want is performance, not savings But then again, its not like AMD is alone doing it so 😆
I'll take 100 FPS using 65W over 115 FPS using 105W because I'm not likely to notice the difference in actual gameplay but I will notice the lower electricity bill
@@longjohn526 you mean you notice if your power bill is $200 compared to $203? Don't get me wrong, it adds up over time, but you're literally talking pennies. I'll take better performance everyday over efficiency.
Would be good to have either the unit measured or an indication "lower/higher is better". For example "Blender CPU Test" does not tell me what is measured and what the graph is showing: Is it render time or Is it a score?
All graphs where lower is better(time to complete) are labeled as such. Everything is relative to each other which is really all that matters. 30% faster is 30% faster, whether its 30% higher score or 30% less time to complete.
In most cases, they're measured in points... It's a score. And there's no assuming. Higher is always better unless stated otherwise like with rendering times. They do mention that in the graphs.
yea dream away my dude.. maybe 9000 will drop in price cuz its too much... 7000 will prob stay up there maaaaybe 5-10% drop... 5000 is still popular and that might see a price cut cuz they need to sell them out
The fact that the 9600x beats the 7600x, and the 9600x is also 40 Watts less than the 7600x. That is something truly special. I don’t care if it’s a small margin, it shows that we’re heading in the right direction, especially for power efficiency and that’s what really matters. As far as the CPU numbers in gaming with the 9600x and the 7600x it’s a little buggy right now.
These are consumer grade desktop chips, not laptop chips and certainly not server farm chips. I don't care about efficiency so long as the power draw stays under a level where I can easily dissipate the waste heat. 120w is fine, even 180w is fine. Releasing chips that are 65w is just taking a big L in a market where the customer cares about performance more than they care on saving $10 a year in electricity bills.
@@Taurickk We are talking about power draws in excess of 300 watt +, to make matter even worse the gpu like the 4090s extra are burning up too. I have several friends that are in the hole close to 10k on several new systems because of the this. I have to setup the older system until something better comes along. If Intel goes the whole x86-64 will go with it. All they had to do is add features and be stable but profits come first even if everything is a fig of imagination.
I recently found a few mid-sized channels that do just this and are really good. Have a look around and you can find them, they are just not as big as these gaming channels so you have to go hunting. FWIW I also am interested in them for Dev work, and that is even harder to get answers to!
Yes yes and yes! I would love to see "benchmark" on audio production even if there is no benchmark beside loading up a DAW and throwing 10000 plugins on the system
The cost of the cooling solution should also be part of the price comparison. Going with a $20 cooler with an AMD CPU while needing a $100-$200 cooler for the Intel CPUs to avoid high temps and throttling, should be part of the pricing.
not just that, electricity costs, too. call me old, but efficiency matters more to me than raw performance or "value propositions". it's why i've been choosing AMD over Intel since Ryzen+ and Nvidia over Radeon.
This is why I'm a huge fan of using proper SYSTEMS to test a component. If you need to spend more on the motherboard, cooler, PSU, all because the powerdraw is crazy, that adds up so fast. Also all that extra power draw is exactly what Intel is having so many chips die on them. I hope we see the end of 300w CPUs very soon here.
Jay, you need to list the power used by the CPUs when running some of these tests. I don't care if Intel beats AMD when it requires 2x the power to do so.
But he does tell you? Both AMD processors ran at 65w while the 14600 and 14700 ran at 180w and 230w respectively. Going off memory, but those values should be pretty close
Well, electricity is really expensive in Europe and especially in Germany. So if the Intel CPU uses almost twice the power, a more expensive power-efficient AMD CPU would still make more sense. Especially, if you are using the PC every day for several hours.
AMD CPUs consume more power while on idle than their Intel counterparts. Only the instabilities of Intel 13th and 14th gen CPUs cuts the deal for AMD now.
Performance improvements, substantial ones in some cases for almost half of the power draw seem pretty good to me. And they're finally dominating single core performance as well. Honestly don't get the negativity. It's predecessor was the 7700x (not a x3d chip) and that thing launched at 400$. For non tinkerers and especially SI's this seems like an optimal arrangement. And for enthusiasts its a fun chip, as it has lots of headroom. More reviews should try it with pbo and a slight undervolt.
Don't get the negativity when AMD straight out lied on the benchmarks? Blue screens and crashes? Totally get the fact that Intel gets hammered and rightly so but AMD straight out lying on benchmarks is a pass...very odd
@@vMaxHeadroom intel gets hammered not for their defective cpus, but for how they are handling the situation. I would also argue that buying a defective product is worse, than optimistic benchmarks before product launch. Don't see how that would be 'odd' or even comparable for that matter. Amd didn't lie on the benchmarks, just selected results that made it look better on paper. Pretty standard for everyone. And that's why we have independant reviewers. Still better than what intel did with benchmarks a couple of years ago.
That's what I was thinking, and I think that's the market these chips are really aimed at. I have an older case that's for a media transfer machine that works great for a 95W CPU or less. So this may be the upgrade path for it once they hammer out the BIOS issues and prices drop below release price. The lower TDP means I can convert it from liquid cooled to air cooled.
After watching DeBauer's video I've come to the conclusion that to get a true picture of the generational uplift you really need to run the 7000 series in Eco-mode or use the similar overclock settings AMD was using as defaults for the 7000 series on the 9000 series. Both AMD and Intel were pushing the CPU stock settings higher than they normally would just to get that few extra percent processing power and AMD (correctly) decided going back to the old way of more conservative settings but with headroom to overclock if you wanted. Just enabling PBO on the 9700X gives a significant gain in performance
derBauer used PBO to boost the Wattage and got dramatically better benchmarks. It was like a different chip It's just held back on power. Feels like it would be good for ITX builds where you have to use a tiny air cooler
PBO also heavily depends on silicon lottery, like every other overclocking. We know that CPU manufacturers run CPUs closer to their limits in general nowadays, so PBO doesn't have that much headroom often and it takes a really good piece of silicon to squeeze more out of it. derBauer didn't use large sample size of CPUs to confirm his results in more general sense.
Jay, are you testing Intel Extreme vs Amd PBO unlimited? Because that is what you should test. Otherwise test the most restrictive profiles for both AMD and Intel.
Brace yourself, he's about to cuss you out because he doesn't understand how expensive electricity is in some places. Places with 50 cents/kWh will cost $58.44/year to run an extra 40 watts for 8 hours/day. Much of the UK and Germany is between 50 and 60 cents / kWh once you convert from Pounds and Euros.
@@David-xl8zfMy 12700K reaches 158 watts max with 12 cores and 20 threads. The 7700X never had good power efficency in the first place (in fact, it's just bad, a 7800X3D similar perfomance and half the wattage) the 9700X is a massive improvement.
@@David-xl8zfA 9700X at 150 watts is still worse than a Ryzen 9 7900X. The Ryzen 9 chips and the X3D chips are the ones with good perfomance per watt, vainilla Ryzen 5s and Ryzen 7s are so overshadowed by Core i7s and i5s.
@@saricubra2867 You can´t compare R9s and R7s on a significant nominal base relying on their power consumption. An R9 will always be better at 150W even single core. Overshadowed is relative. As I said, AMD CPUs have the handbrake put on in terms of their power consumption, more so than Intels. The "default" settings are a joke in my book which is why the new generation ends up with "meh" reviews at best. At least they aren´t eating themselves, yet. Although I have a strong suspicion regarding the recall before they were released.
@@ctk4949 it was a question people could do simple math to solve on their own. Performance/watt is kind of a copout when no one asked for laptop cpus to put in their mid-tower computers and charging roughly the same price. AMD should have released cpus that performed better with higher TDP instead of worrying about peoples' power bills (which still isn't even a thing since most people don't run CPUs full load 24/7).
@@ctk4949 same, I didn't came here for a while but the way this guy answer to anything is rude. He won't care because of his number of course but I've unsubscribed, last time I follow a launch here.
There are some other things to consider as well. upgradeability for example. If you choose a 13600K you may be able to upgrade to the direct follow up generation but after that you will most likely need another Mainboard as well, while AM 5 will probably stick around as long as AM 4
Jay, you should do handbrake with x265 and AV1. x264 is becoming legacy pretty fast these days and it's likely they didn't even try that in benchmarking for the launch. Just a thought.
@@DanielPetti You beat me to it ... I came here to suggest that it was added full (not double pumped AVX 256) AVX512 support in Zen 5 that makes the difference ... if you're testing something that can use it.
When you look at the wattage being used it's impressive that the ryzen's are able to do rather well but they are not generational leap processors, fingers crossed next time it'll be something amazing to talk about.
From what I've seen I'd suggest these are actually a pretty big generational leap when you take the power limiter away, which is why they can match the competition while consuming a measly 65 watts
@@foldionepapyrus3441 It's interesting that they called these X processors when really they are base models you can OC like all their other base chips.
16:17 what do we think causes the massive performance boost for the 13th gen i7 OVER the 14th gen here? seems like something might be wrong, but i'm not an expert
Didn't Jay Say he used the Intel Extreme profile? Wasnt Intel Extreme the Profile with up to 400A and 380W draw? Would be nice to have the Power draw of the CPUs listed there in the Tests.
As consumers we seem to forget we are not these companies largest or most profitable market. These low end/mid range cpu's are often used for servers (take a look at hetzner's offerings for example) where power efficiency is a HUGE deal. As a consumer and enthusiast what I'm curios about is if it can put up these numbers at 65w, what is the oc headroom and how much power can it handle? Everything has been binned and pushed to the brink out of the box for years. Also if your competitors only recourse has been to crank the power to keep up why not rub it in by dropping yours?
PS: I haven't watched the whole video, I stopped after Jay described his benchmark specs. Maybe he explains it later, but the settings make his results not comparable and not worth my view. On to der8auer
You mean like home servers? Data centers mostly use the epyc and xeon line-ups. Occasionally a top tier desktop chip is used if it needs that single core perf.
@@manon-gfx game servers and smaller servers use a lot of consumer chips. as i said you can check hetzner for an example, large scale data centers of course use epyc, etc.
@manon-gfx I'm more talking about website hosting for smaller businesses etc. You don't need that kind of compute, cost, or power consumption. The other part of it is that they sell massive amounts of these type of chips to OEM's who like the lower wattage because they can skimp on cooling and power delivery. The return to 65w likely means they are cooking up new GE parts (35w). Which will be used for new generations of thin clients. Lenovo is the largest pc seller in the world and ships literal boat loads of them to businesses around the world. Most of the outdated businesses towers are replaced with thin clients now
@@dragoonxgamer idk bro im using my 7600 non x at 5.2ghz allcore with 1.1v and 1v soc (can do 5.5 1.2v core but i like to stay under 65c on full stress). Imagine the undervolt and oc + temps on those 65w tdp chips. Maybe it draws more power from pbo idk i dont use that. He said that the chips stayed at 65w while testing so they didnt put any oc or pbo profile in those tests so they could be even better.
@@TheMaztercom real boost will come presumably with Ryzen 7 9800X3D, since draws less power, it will allow higher frequencies and performance overpassing the Ryzen 7 7800X3D which gets the most fps already.
@@TheMaztercom Yeah, bro... not what I said. What I'm saying is that it's important context. If the 9700X were pulling the same amount of power, that would be pathetic and not clarifying what's going on gives people the impression that's what's happening, when that isn't what's happening at all.
Brother, im on 5600x, and it looks im either staying till 9800x3d if its gonna have alot of uplift compared to 7800x3d or if intel releases something better...
@@pwn3426 Having two PCs is a waste of space and a pain to switch between tasks. Imagine flexing at someone who spent 4.5k backs on his rig. lol. Intel rulez kiddo, accept it.
I am not sure, this is a fair comparison. You tested the intel CPUs in extreme power delivery settings, yet PBO is disabled. 7:28 Turn it on, and you see what happens. (Spoiler: They rip)
Would love to see how they stack vs my 5700x3d. Playing 1440 with my 6700x, my guess is none of these will improve my rig by enough to make it worthwhile.
@@MisterKrakens with the same power draw, yes, the 7700X needed 50W more to match it, but then the 7700(non-X) is 2% under it, with the same power draw as the new part. nothing makes sense
I got a 12900ks (basically 13700k) for £200 ($250) about 2 years ago, I know bargain! and no issues with it, XMP no issues, and still would obviously keep up here!
So glad to be a 13600K owner. Zen 5 is really disappointing... Ryzen 9600x should already have 8c/16T. It's been 7-8 years since Ryzens came on the market, and at least a little difference would show.
You are comparing a 14 core (6p/8e) CPU to a 8 core CPU, which is not a fair comparison. What you should have compared it to is a Ryzen CPU with 14 cores, otherwise you are comparing a Ferrari to a Fiat Uno The Ryzen you should have used (that also was released in Q4 2022 is the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X that have 12 cores If you do that, then the 13600K don't look that good 13600K's 14 cores/20 threads vs 9 7900X's 12 core/24 threads 13600K's base clock at 3.5GHz P-core/2.6GHz e-core vs 9 7900X's 4.7GHz 13600K's max turbo clock at 5.1GHz vs 9 7900X's 5.6GHz
What makes these CPU's frustrating is that, if we aren't happy with how they perform, going out and buying Intel instead is one of the most questionable decisions you could make when building a pc right now IMO. So now, we're stuck with mediocre AMD CPU's and Intel time bombs. It actually really sucks
Yeah... Was thinking of upgrading my 5800X into the 9700X if the rumored performance gains were true. Sadly they're not. Will have to see, Der8auer tried manual overclocking and there actually seems to be fairly good headroom for that. Still, needing manual tuning to reach what was advertised isn't exactly a good look for AMD.
@@oxaile4021oc AMD is very simple. And most importantly you can set the temperature target to, for example, 90 degrees, so you won't fry your CPU like with Intel
you get a pretty big performance boost with pbo. gains like 15% ahead of 7700x just really weird to bog the cpu down so much with power draw as default tho
I'm still rocking a 5950x so I'm not tripping right now, not to mention they just released a few new AM4 cpu's, it doesn't look like AM4 is going anywhere anytime soon.
@@destiny_02 true but with the 7700 being so close to the 7700x and the 9700x basically being the same as the 7700x in terms of performance just get the 7700, your saving yourself money, you don't have a huge performance loss and your getting the same efficiency.
@@AssassinIsAfk Nope, NOT the "same shit". Do you pay the power bill in your household? Probably not, since you can't see how that changes things. At 50c per kWh, I will spend an extra $1.50 per week to run the 7700X, for the time I run my PC (80+ hours per week). That's 44 weeks to the "break even" point when the extra power consumption cancels out the purchase price difference, after which the 7700X is costing me MORE than if I bought the 9700X in the first place. Since I intend using this CPU for more than 1 year, financially my best choice is the 9700X...
I have a feeling this will be one of those cases where AMD doesn’t perform well at launch but ages really well once they get their drivers figured out. LTT mentioned in their video that when they enabled PBO performance went way up along with power usage. Which might be fine for most desktop users.
Those are absolutely awesome CPUs for pretty much anything a consumer would want to do. I can see AMD having problems down the line where their 5000/7000 CPUs are "good enough" for normies for the next decade or so...
I hear ya as with my main 2 systems(desktop, and laptop), I'm still on 12th gen intel with a Core i9 12900H on my desktop(yes an Aliexpress special Eyring mobo with a laptop chip), and in my laptop an Intel Core i5 1235U, and they crush everything I throw at them on Manjaro Linux, and I personally don't feel the need to upgrade them yet for at least a few years.
@@Definedd I'm not looking for bleeding edge gaming performance rather I need it for productivity which I feel this is gonna be miles ahead of the r5 3600 that I own.
Thank you for helping me get into computers, this page is single handedly one of the most helpful I have come across 🤘🏼 wishing you guys all the success
I guess i'd still go with AMD because i don't have a nuclear power plant in my backyard and since i'm from germany i gotta save what power consumption i can. Power is fucking expensive here because of our... politicians that are really trying their hardest... To fuck everything up...
@@flinx Oh yea. Made a trip to micro center got the bundle deal. Switched the memory and the motherboard out CPU was still only $224. Cheapest I could find new anywhere online was $384. Yupper I will take that deal.
It's the bios, there is something up with the bios. You experience these issues on the 7000 as well if you update the bios. I have been digging in on this and troubleshooting it. But something isn't right, it's causing my 7900x to not hit clocks that I have had before the update ( 5.7 ghz single core/ 5.4 milti core ) after update ( 5.5 ghz single at best, and 5.2 ghz multi ) I have also noticed the thermal throttle limit is now 80c, even if i set the limit to 95c. Maybe it's something to do with the new curve setting, idk, don't have the 9000 series to try mucking about with it, but I just have a feeling it may be related. Also I am using a Asus ROG Strix X670E-E gaming wifi mobo.
Didn't think of that, pretty Impressive, in just 4 years they managed the same performance with half the cores at almost third of the power. Why would you change a workstation cpu with a mid tier tho?
Thank you for actually comparing these to Intel and actually saying "It's your decision on whether or not to go Intel" - Someone like me would rather have the ease of use with Intel and RAM actually working and running at their XPO speeds. I've got an i7-4700K and I've had zero blue screen or instability, not saying it won't happen. But it's almost guaranteed that AMD will give you headaches when setting up (as Jay said they dealt with it all). Not shocked that AMDs charts are so off, they've been caught lying in this release already. Don't trust anything they say or do, they've got to cut too many corners to compete with Intel and it's clearly not working, these results are shocking, I didn't think they would be THIS bad. - Sure they're efficient... but I'd much rather have raw power over efficiency... Especially with a new launch... Drop power-hungry, powerhouse chips to get enthusiast interested, then drop the efficient chips later for those who care. This is more of a refresh...
I'm still running a Ryzen 5 5600 (non-X), and with a 4070 Super I have yet to run into any gaming issues. I only play at 4k60fps but this combination is solid. I guess I'll wait another generation or two?
i'm running a 5600X from 2022 with my new 4080, also at 4k60fps. Tbh I was running a i7 4790 from 2014-2022 and only upgraded to the 5600X when the motherboard died. 4790 ran with a 2080 Super and so did the 5600X until the 4080 upgrade. I disable Xbox gamebar and i don't use microsoft account with win 11 so i save a few system resources. Us high resolution gamers really don't need much cpu, we much more need gpu power. my 5600X will keep on going. chris
i'm not satisfied with this review. you can clearly see that the 65w tdp hinders multithread performance. yes, this choice was made by amd and its not your fault but you could have at least checked if the multithread performance scales with a little bit more power. you even mentioned how much power the intel cpus were using.
So your complaint is you were shown an out of box experience instead of an overcook attempt? How is it their (jay) responsibility to hide a short coming?
I mean, Jay, the 16 core variant is going to perfectly suit you. please go for it when its available.this thing is better than 14900k when simultanious threads can be reduced from what the 14900 can provide. the efficiency alone is worth the upgrade
Someone check me on this, but I think the power consumption isn’t as expensive as I thought: 13600K vs 9600X with 125W and 65W tdp (not perfect measurement, I know), used at those exact levels for 10 hours/week for a full year yields $5.62 higher costs for running the Intel (if you pay 18¢/kWh)
But Jay tested the Intel chips with the extreme power profile. The 13600K would consume more than 180W with those settings while the 9700X would consume 88W. In that case, Intel would cost about $8.6 higher in power per year. But that's ignoring the more expensive components needed for Intel CPUs, ie. cooler, power supply, and maybe motherboard depending on other features. Not sure why Jay used the extreme power profile when he knows how much we trust Intel's power management right now
@@valdrich472 yeah, exactly! I also saw that on his benchmark settings slide (at 7:29) about the Intel extreme power profile. I wish he would have discussed the other components like you mentioned too. It seems odd for him to overlook some of these fairly basic considerations.
The math is basically impossible to do but you also need to take into account the extra power your AC unit would need to keep your room cool. That is almost always the most significan factor when it comes to your power bill. That being said its probably no more than 10-20x your value. Pretty crazy how cheap power is
@@michael.petraeus Agreed! I just did the basic exercise after reading a few other comments about upfront CPU costs vs future electrical bills (very much only one angle of many). Jay not addressing some of this made me feel it was not as objective as it could have been.
2 things: Try faster memory Try unlocking the power limit ( it is kinda overclocking, but it is clear AMD hard restricted their CPUs to be able to say they are more efficient)
thats the problem with fanboys, they dont see the positives of the counterpart, only see their flashy intels sitting there dying of voltages, taking a whole nuclearplant for running at 2000f, i think u get me there. hes pissed that intel fked themselves cuz they think they still the number one lel
"Faster" 😂 mate , its one of the lowest generational improvements... I got an amd cpu myself but amd fumbled hard to take advantage while intel is imploding
Except they're only marginally faster and 7000 series chips have been available for less than their MSRP for well over a year now. So they are actually a lot more expensive. The tray version of the 7700 which is probably the most accurate 7000 series comparison (no included cooler, same TDP) goes for around $220 vs the $380 of the 9700x. The 7600 can be had for around $160 vs the $280 of the 9600x. That kind of price difference for a single digit performance improvement is crazy.
One big key you didn't talk about in the average gaming fps charts is power per frame. Basically the Intel chips look like they are dominating but they're running more than double the wattage in some cases. Put in a normalized average fps chart at like 65 watts. Yes you talked about it at the end a little but most people probably didn't make it that far.
I don't think this is a fair comparison, considering that Intel CPUs are overclocked by default, albeit the BIOS settings set to "Intel's Default Safe"-whatever the name is. AMD is just getting in second place by a mere margin, at half the TDP and no overclocking.
JayzTwoCents way of interacting with his commentary section is sure peculiar. He only answer comment that disagree a bit or more with him and he's super rude. 😅
The 7600X released in 2022 for $299, which is $334 in today's money. And the 7700X was $399 on release, which is $445 in today's money. It's $359. That's a win for consumers. Stop whining about current gen sale prices being lower, that's literally how this always works. Be happy that we're getting lower prices.
But what’s being compared is the current price you can buy them all for. Launch price being lower when adjusted for inflation is great, but the 9700x is currently a good bit more expensive than the 7700x (which it performs nearly the same as but is more efficient) and the 7800x3d which stomps on it in gaming performance which is what most people likely care about. Prices from 2 years ago will not affect current buyer sentiment.
Twisted logic. You don't charge premium for it being "new", you charge it for it being better. When the "old" alternative is much cheaper and still kicking - GL with those prices. Imagine pricing these nothingburgers even higher. lol.
Very good point. I agree with you 1000% on this. Power Management is the name of the game right now. 12 E-Cores is what people are paying for right now. Less sophisticated background cores IS NOT performance. Its just alot more power required for EQUAL performance with more added heat to the system. Ill stick with my 3900X for a couple more years and focus on a better GPU because of high prices.
65 watts and its competing with the big boys. People always thing of the upfront cost, but forget electricity, depending where you live, can be fucking expensive.
If you knew how to actually calculate power usage you would see that you would never make back your money when comparing actual real work usage. Obviously no one uses full load constantly
there's also the cooling and PSU to be taken into account. Both CPU seems very easy to cool and will allow a cheaper PSU with the GPU. You won't need to waste money on AIO to get cpu that stay chill.
Sure little bro, every generation should be the same just with less power, are your brain small? That sht should be in the same generation, New cpus from the same generation but with less energy usage, but a new generation? Fanboys are fanboys
Given the numbers being posted on 9000 so far, I'm going to at least wait and see how Arrow Lake looks. I was ready to jump on a Ryzen 9900X, but this calls for patience. I do like the reduced power draw, no doubt. It's nicer on the power bill, and easier to cool. Still.... will be patient for my new build, and see if Intel can get its act together with Arrow Lake at least.
@@SSYoung125 Intel state it affects all 13/14 gen parts with a TDP of 65 watts or more. (That includes the 13600K.) [I'm not saying that I agree with "What", just that you're wrong.]
If AMD really made their CPUs more power efficient - that's all they had to do, in my books. Most people do NOT play games. And they do NOT encode videos either. We don't give a flying duck about your bloody "CPU speeds". Give us more efficient CPUs every day! So that we don't have to buy CPU coolers the size of football and we don't have to buy 10 other coolers for PC case, its gotten absolutely ridiculous now! GIVE US MORE EFFICIENT CPUs!!!
I disagree. Building a new architecture for a whole new generation of CPUs after the highly successful 7000 series and impressive 8000 series APUs only for the new chips to simply be more power efficient would be a huge let-down for such a renowned CPU manufacturer like AMD. It's basically rebranding the 7000 series chips but with a lower TDP, which would be disappointing at best. Despite the success of the 7000 series, Intel's high end 13th and 14th gen chips (taking aside the obvious issues) are still faster, at least for productivity. They needed to step up their game if they wanted to take over as the CPU king, and efficiency wouldn't cut it at all. Contrary to your statement, most people buy Ryzen BECAUSE they're so much better than Intel for gaming, especially the X3D models. As I previously mentioned, to build a new architecture from the ground up simply for it to be a copy of the previous gen chips with better thermals would be a waste of time, money and resources. It would make AMD laughing stock.
And if you don't care about the damn CPU speeds, then might as well get an Athlon by your logic. Faster clocks = faster overall performance in your PC, be it gaming, productivity or normal daily tasks like browsing.
I am not surprised at all since there is no increase in L2 and L3 cache. I am not sure what AMD was thinking when making Zen 5, but I can say, they were not thinking much.
@@Basil_Ieaf pbo activates 105 watts and performance is no more than 1% so there goes that argument. and btw, this is a desktop cpu, i rly would take even a 150w AMD cpu with much better performance.
@Basil_left You can powerlimit the 7000 series CPU's (or buy the non-X SKU) & get the same margins though. These really don't move the needle on the value for money aspect...
For me personally, power draw is typically my top aspect to look at. Watching them get the same performance for60% less power is a massive win in my book. Plus you get access to the new generation stuff (when it becomes cheaper) is a nice bonus.
The power efficiency of these new processors cannot be understated. At a time of rising energy costs and pressure on many governments to reduce energy usage I can see efficiency soon being the driving factor for consumers over performance. In the EU electricity per kw/h is pretty much twice the price of what it costs in the US, over the lifetime of a CPU that's a lot of money that can be saved.
@@Dragoneye2427 It's simply not. At stock settings, AMD chips perform at exactly the stated TDP in an all-core workload under the highest boost it can achieve. Intel measures TDP with an all-core load at the *base* clock. Therefore, draws more power than the TDP would suggest. AMD draws exactly what it would suggest. If you then go in and enable other settings, then yes, they will draw more power... obviously. But, to state that they draw "80w base" or "140w at stock" is simply nonsense.
CORRECTION: On the slide for CyberPunk 2077 Phantom Liberty, the chart shows 278avg, however that was incorrect. It is 235 avg fps. I mistakenly entered the data from SOTTR into the wrong cell which populated that chart incorrectly. The chart has been updated and will reflect that change in the future.
Sorry about that. I am trying hard to add more data points to our tests moving forward and streamline much of the date in excel, which I am a novice at best, so please bare with me. I appreciate your understanding.
You need to test mGPU with the rdna3 gpus on Sottor/Rottr with both zen4 3D-v cache and normal zen 4. You might be suprised.
Then add in zen 5
maybe you should consider AMD did know about Intels problems with cpu and also knew they could relese a power efficient cpu because Intel are not going anywhere and when they start moving again they got their 3D to counter any Intel cpu - I belive the rewieves are Meh and cant think ahead or back
but why show cyberpunk on medium at 1080p with a 4090 fe ?
@@9000ryguy Because that puts more of a load on the CPU. He isn't testing the GPU, which you would test at 4k and highest settings.
@@JDubST I don't know that much about cpus. I think i get what youre saying though. Because the GPU can go further with 1080p then it'll allow to display the bottleneck more?
AMD never fails to fail to capitalize on an opportunity.
They really are the goat of not taking advantage of their competitors' weaknesses.
They did a lot of architectural changes that require software optimization (check interviews with Mike Clark). So, we'll see in time... They did however miss the opportunity to launch with better pricing. Same-ish perf, lower price, better efficiency, and good foundation for future software -- it would be a good generation. Now, it is just a "skip".
Obviously AMD is trying to play fair with Intel
/s
@@bending-unit-22you are comparing x3d cpus with x cpus running. wait till they launch the x3d variants before calling the generation "skip"
also these zen 5 ones are running at 65W, if you set a higher power limit, you'll see the real performance gains.
just wait for the 9800x3d, let them cook boii
Slight suggestion for some of these charts, like at 7:00 for the handbrake time in seconds to complete, maybe add a "less is better" or "more is better" somewhere so we know if we should be looking at the high numbers or low numbers on each individual chart.
I thought the same.
Great advice.
COUSIN! wanna go bowling?
Whenever AMD is low than lower is better when ever AMD is higher than the rest than high is better that's how it works on youtube comments, just go with that.
5:27
I was mesmerized by the intel disk spinning and slowly rolling off screen; couldn't keep my eyes off of it, well done!
18:54
The thing that makes me glad is that AMD isn’t using a giant amount of TDP to reach decent numbers, I’m glad that someone in the market is focusing on decreasing power consumption and get the max amount of performance than raising the power consumption to get higher numbers that most of people might not notice if they don’t do an intensive CPU task
Cope
Why does that matter though? I'd rather give my cpu as much power as it wants to get as much performance as possible. You don't buy a super fast car and complaing that it doesnt get good gas milege....
@@RatedX_Gaming And yet, power consumption is often used as a reason why idiots blow their money on nVidia cards. Not everyone thinks like you. If power consumption means nothing to you, get Intel. Who cares if they self-destruct? Super fast cars aren't known for their reliability, eh?
@RatedX_Gaming in some areas in the world electricity is very expensive. That's why it matters
I would agree with you if we were talking about laptops, but we're talking about desktops and imagine people buying pre-builts... will a reduce price be seen in less performance?
The funny thing is, running at the same speed while saving 30% power can sometimes be just as beneficial as running 15% faster with the same power consumption.
While your point stands, the charts AMD published are kinda misleading
Sometimes all you want is performance, not savings
But then again, its not like AMD is alone doing it so 😆
@@kadlifal misleading? Seems like they are straight up bs 😂😂, man that sucks
I'll take 100 FPS using 65W over 115 FPS using 105W because I'm not likely to notice the difference in actual gameplay but I will notice the lower electricity bill
@@longjohn526 you mean you notice if your power bill is $200 compared to $203? Don't get me wrong, it adds up over time, but you're literally talking pennies. I'll take better performance everyday over efficiency.
@@realkriketmore like 170 vs 203
Would be good to have either the unit measured or an indication "lower/higher is better".
For example "Blender CPU Test" does not tell me what is measured and what the graph is showing: Is it render time or Is it a score?
Blender is a render test. Lower time is better
@@mikeford963 To be assumed, but it would be great if it was clear what is measured on each graph.
All graphs where lower is better(time to complete) are labeled as such. Everything is relative to each other which is really all that matters. 30% faster is 30% faster, whether its 30% higher score or 30% less time to complete.
In most cases, they're measured in points... It's a score. And there's no assuming. Higher is always better unless stated otherwise like with rendering times. They do mention that in the graphs.
absolutely
Im just excited to see the drop in prices for Ryzen 7000 series and 600 series boards! Cheers from Australia!
You guys -get paid!?- get lower prices?
@@thorium9190 im waiting for 5000 series to drop in price. Still pretty expensive here
same here im building my first pc and im holding up hopping that the prices fall
Lmao on PC part picker au, all the 9000 series were out for a few weeks now, all the same price. $9999...
yea dream away my dude.. maybe 9000 will drop in price cuz its too much... 7000 will prob stay up there maaaaybe 5-10% drop... 5000 is still popular and that might see a price cut cuz they need to sell them out
You can buy a 7800X3D for $309 From Micro Center right now and it will smoke all of these X cpus in Gaming.
7800x3d in my country costs $500, it's crazy
It will definitely smoke them even the 5800x3d still holds it own in gaming
A 7800x3d is $214 from microcenter if u get a board with it
That's good to know cause i was actually looking at that processor in the AMD bundle deals at Microcenter.
That's what for X3D CPU exists
The fact that the 9600x beats the 7600x, and the 9600x is also 40 Watts less than the 7600x. That is something truly special. I don’t care if it’s a small margin, it shows that we’re heading in the right direction, especially for power efficiency and that’s what really matters. As far as the CPU numbers in gaming with the 9600x and the 7600x it’s a little buggy right now.
more efficiency is going to have to be the case now, less watts and still doing the same or little more is great news finally.
They are the 7700 and 7600 now do the math. Oohh they are more expensive, ooh no boxed cooler.
These are consumer grade desktop chips, not laptop chips and certainly not server farm chips. I don't care about efficiency so long as the power draw stays under a level where I can easily dissipate the waste heat. 120w is fine, even 180w is fine. Releasing chips that are 65w is just taking a big L in a market where the customer cares about performance more than they care on saving $10 a year in electricity bills.
@@Taurickk We are talking about power draws in excess of 300 watt +, to make matter even worse the gpu like the 4090s extra are burning up too. I have several friends that are in the hole close to 10k on several new systems because of the this. I have to setup the older system until something better comes along. If Intel goes the whole x86-64 will go with it. All they had to do is add features and be stable but profits come first even if everything is a fig of imagination.
I wish more people would talk about these CPUs for production work: audio and video production work. Everyone talks about gaming.
Wait for eposvox or techtime
@@leonvanos3095 thanks! (:
I recently found a few mid-sized channels that do just this and are really good. Have a look around and you can find them, they are just not as big as these gaming channels so you have to go hunting. FWIW I also am interested in them for Dev work, and that is even harder to get answers to!
Yes yes and yes! I would love to see "benchmark" on audio production even if there is no benchmark beside loading up a DAW and throwing 10000 plugins on the system
Isn’t apple better in that space.
The cost of the cooling solution should also be part of the price comparison. Going with a $20 cooler with an AMD CPU while needing a $100-$200 cooler for the Intel CPUs to avoid high temps and throttling, should be part of the pricing.
it also allow a smaller PSU.
i still don't know how they manage to make raptor lake chips that hot, i swear overclocked alder lake are colder
not just that, electricity costs, too. call me old, but efficiency matters more to me than raw performance or "value propositions". it's why i've been choosing AMD over Intel since Ryzen+ and Nvidia over Radeon.
This is why I'm a huge fan of using proper SYSTEMS to test a component. If you need to spend more on the motherboard, cooler, PSU, all because the powerdraw is crazy, that adds up so fast. Also all that extra power draw is exactly what Intel is having so many chips die on them. I hope we see the end of 300w CPUs very soon here.
@@manusiaorang2842 they overclocked it to oblivion and these chips are failing.
Jay, you need to list the power used by the CPUs when running some of these tests. I don't care if Intel beats AMD when it requires 2x the power to do so.
But it got beat 😢
But he does tell you? Both AMD processors ran at 65w while the 14600 and 14700 ran at 180w and 230w respectively. Going off memory, but those values should be pretty close
@@JDubST 9600X and 9700X run at 88w, not 65w idk how AMD comes up with that number, but that ain't the power draw.
@@MaxIronsThird TDP is for the cooling required, not the power draw
@@MaxIronsThird Jay literally says in the video that he saw them running at 65w using the software they use to log these values 🤷
Well, electricity is really expensive in Europe and especially in Germany. So if the Intel CPU uses almost twice the power, a more expensive power-efficient AMD CPU would still make more sense.
Especially, if you are using the PC every day for several hours.
I tend to leave my computer running 24/7
@@ericspecullaas2841 Why? Hibernate and resume takes like... 15 seconds.
AMD CPUs consume more power while on idle than their Intel counterparts. Only the instabilities of Intel 13th and 14th gen CPUs cuts the deal for AMD now.
@tim3172 uhhhh, I still have a cpu from the 4th gen, so my power usage is really low.
200W extra heat from your CPU is 200W less heat from your heating system
Performance improvements, substantial ones in some cases for almost half of the power draw seem pretty good to me. And they're finally dominating single core performance as well. Honestly don't get the negativity. It's predecessor was the 7700x (not a x3d chip) and that thing launched at 400$. For non tinkerers and especially SI's this seems like an optimal arrangement. And for enthusiasts its a fun chip, as it has lots of headroom. More reviews should try it with pbo and a slight undervolt.
Don't get the negativity when AMD straight out lied on the benchmarks? Blue screens and crashes? Totally get the fact that Intel gets hammered and rightly so but AMD straight out lying on benchmarks is a pass...very odd
@@vMaxHeadroom intel gets hammered not for their defective cpus, but for how they are handling the situation.
I would also argue that buying a defective product is worse, than optimistic benchmarks before product launch. Don't see how that would be 'odd' or even comparable for that matter.
Amd didn't lie on the benchmarks, just selected results that made it look better on paper. Pretty standard for everyone. And that's why we have independant reviewers. Still better than what intel did with benchmarks a couple of years ago.
Sounds like 9000 series make the perfect SFF CPUs for something like the Fractal Design Ridge.
That's what I was thinking about
That's what I was thinking, and I think that's the market these chips are really aimed at. I have an older case that's for a media transfer machine that works great for a 95W CPU or less. So this may be the upgrade path for it once they hammer out the BIOS issues and prices drop below release price. The lower TDP means I can convert it from liquid cooled to air cooled.
Sounds like a 13600K would give you better performance, is reasonably simple to cool, and costs less than the 9000 series.
@@brenthauer8365 A 13600k can draw over 200 watts though
@@brenthauer8365taking a BIG chance sir
After watching DeBauer's video I've come to the conclusion that to get a true picture of the generational uplift you really need to run the 7000 series in Eco-mode or use the similar overclock settings AMD was using as defaults for the 7000 series on the 9000 series.
Both AMD and Intel were pushing the CPU stock settings higher than they normally would just to get that few extra percent processing power and AMD (correctly) decided going back to the old way of more conservative settings but with headroom to overclock if you wanted. Just enabling PBO on the 9700X gives a significant gain in performance
There's a lot of overclocking to do to get to the power of 2 year old Intel chips that are way cheaper.
derBauer used PBO to boost the Wattage and got dramatically better benchmarks. It was like a different chip It's just held back on power. Feels like it would be good for ITX builds where you have to use a tiny air cooler
@@ChristopherYeeMon it works with Intel too
PBO also heavily depends on silicon lottery, like every other overclocking. We know that CPU manufacturers run CPUs closer to their limits in general nowadays, so PBO doesn't have that much headroom often and it takes a really good piece of silicon to squeeze more out of it.
derBauer didn't use large sample size of CPUs to confirm his results in more general sense.
I love the new bar-graph ordering - it's really illuminating!
Jay, are you testing Intel Extreme vs Amd PBO unlimited? Because that is what you should test. Otherwise test the most restrictive profiles for both AMD and Intel.
One slide said it's PDO off and Intel Extreme on.
Jay: you seem to forget the powerdraw. How much compute power do you get pr. watt. I'm thinking it will change the graphs A LOT.
Brace yourself, he's about to cuss you out because he doesn't understand how expensive electricity is in some places.
Places with 50 cents/kWh will cost $58.44/year to run an extra 40 watts for 8 hours/day.
Much of the UK and Germany is between 50 and 60 cents / kWh once you convert from Pounds and Euros.
The power efficiency is nuts on these. A big help to people where power is expensive.
They only look efficient because AMD pulled the handbrake with a power limit. Disable that they´ll go over 150W with ease.
@@David-xl8zfMy 12700K reaches 158 watts max with 12 cores and 20 threads.
The 7700X never had good power efficency in the first place (in fact, it's just bad, a 7800X3D similar perfomance and half the wattage) the 9700X is a massive improvement.
@@David-xl8zfA 9700X at 150 watts is still worse than a Ryzen 9 7900X.
The Ryzen 9 chips and the X3D chips are the ones with good perfomance per watt, vainilla Ryzen 5s and Ryzen 7s are so overshadowed by Core i7s and i5s.
@@saricubra2867 You can´t compare R9s and R7s on a significant nominal base relying on their power consumption. An R9 will always be better at 150W even single core.
Overshadowed is relative. As I said, AMD CPUs have the handbrake put on in terms of their power consumption, more so than Intels. The "default" settings are a joke in my book which is why the new generation ends up with "meh" reviews at best. At least they aren´t eating themselves, yet. Although I have a strong suspicion regarding the recall before they were released.
@@David-xl8zf So, are Zen 4 and Zen 5 r
Ryzen a flop or a success?
(ignore the X3D).
The Handbrake tests are most likely using AV1 encoding, that would be my best guess at least
what about performance per Watt? if the Zen 5 chips are using much less power while pushing these numbers they might be worth it.
Because that doesn't fucking change their ridiculous price
@@Jayztwocents Geez what a jerk!! They just asking a question and you used profanity to reply?!?!? WOW!!!!!!!!!!!
@@ctk4949 it was a question people could do simple math to solve on their own. Performance/watt is kind of a copout when no one asked for laptop cpus to put in their mid-tower computers and charging roughly the same price. AMD should have released cpus that performed better with higher TDP instead of worrying about peoples' power bills (which still isn't even a thing since most people don't run CPUs full load 24/7).
@@ctk4949 same, I didn't came here for a while but the way this guy answer to anything is rude. He won't care because of his number of course but I've unsubscribed, last time I follow a launch here.
@@Ethan_Fel I unsubscribed as well!!
That intel "wafer" turning and then rolling away is really cool!
There are some other things to consider as well. upgradeability for example. If you choose a 13600K you may be able to upgrade to the direct follow up generation but after that you will most likely need another Mainboard as well, while AM 5 will probably stick around as long as AM 4
leaving cpus in order of price in charts was brilliant idea !
Jay, you should do handbrake with x265 and AV1. x264 is becoming legacy pretty fast these days and it's likely they didn't even try that in benchmarking for the launch. Just a thought.
And VVC is also on the corner
Based on Linus’ review, it looks like the advertised Handbrake performance uplift happens in AV1 encoding, probably because of AVX512
@@DanielPetti You beat me to it ... I came here to suggest that it was added full (not double pumped AVX 256) AVX512 support in Zen 5 that makes the difference ... if you're testing something that can use it.
Av1 is probably where they saw the gain
@@ThePythonicCow + 9600x will be nice with console emulation especially with PS3 emulator
When you look at the wattage being used it's impressive that the ryzen's are able to do rather well but they are not generational leap processors, fingers crossed next time it'll be something amazing to talk about.
Just take a look at the 7700
From what I've seen I'd suggest these are actually a pretty big generational leap when you take the power limiter away, which is why they can match the competition while consuming a measly 65 watts
@@foldionepapyrus3441 It's interesting that they called these X processors when really they are base models you can OC like all their other base chips.
16:17 what do we think causes the massive performance boost for the 13th gen i7 OVER the 14th gen here? seems like something might be wrong, but i'm not an expert
Didn't Jay Say he used the Intel Extreme profile? Wasnt Intel Extreme the Profile with up to 400A and 380W draw? Would be nice to have the Power draw of the CPUs listed there in the Tests.
As consumers we seem to forget we are not these companies largest or most profitable market. These low end/mid range cpu's are often used for servers (take a look at hetzner's offerings for example) where power efficiency is a HUGE deal. As a consumer and enthusiast what I'm curios about is if it can put up these numbers at 65w, what is the oc headroom and how much power can it handle? Everything has been binned and pushed to the brink out of the box for years. Also if your competitors only recourse has been to crank the power to keep up why not rub it in by dropping yours?
I agree, not sure why Jay used the extreme power profile when he knows how much we trust Intel's power management right now
PS: I haven't watched the whole video, I stopped after Jay described his benchmark specs. Maybe he explains it later, but the settings make his results not comparable and not worth my view. On to der8auer
You mean like home servers? Data centers mostly use the epyc and xeon line-ups. Occasionally a top tier desktop chip is used if it needs that single core perf.
@@manon-gfx game servers and smaller servers use a lot of consumer chips. as i said you can check hetzner for an example, large scale data centers of course use epyc, etc.
@manon-gfx I'm more talking about website hosting for smaller businesses etc. You don't need that kind of compute, cost, or power consumption. The other part of it is that they sell massive amounts of these type of chips to OEM's who like the lower wattage because they can skimp on cooling and power delivery. The return to 65w likely means they are cooking up new GE parts (35w). Which will be used for new generations of thin clients. Lenovo is the largest pc seller in the world and ships literal boat loads of them to businesses around the world. Most of the outdated businesses towers are replaced with thin clients now
I would take that performance for 65w all day
thats just base speed
wait for it until it boost 💀💀
my ryzen 9 5950x has a tdp of 105w and while gaming it reaches to 140
I think thats due to PBO
@@dragoonxgamer idk bro im using my 7600 non x at 5.2ghz allcore with 1.1v and 1v soc (can do 5.5 1.2v core but i like to stay under 65c on full stress). Imagine the undervolt and oc + temps on those 65w tdp chips. Maybe it draws more power from pbo idk i dont use that. He said that the chips stayed at 65w while testing so they didnt put any oc or pbo profile in those tests so they could be even better.
@@dragoonxgamer I got my 5950x all core using around 215w. Depending on the game 120-150w usage. Idle was high at 70-100w :(
@@gman9552 I never saw my ryzen 5950x go above 140w
@@gman9552 You might have a power virus mate...70 Watts in idle ? LOL, NO
When you realize that the 9700X is doing this at a much lower power limit compared to the 7700X, it's a little more impressive.
Yeah bro, every generation should be the same but with less energy 😂
I am excited to see these new processors on some ITX building
@@TheMaztercom real boost will come presumably with Ryzen 7 9800X3D, since draws less power, it will allow higher frequencies and performance overpassing the Ryzen 7 7800X3D which gets the most fps already.
Yeah, I don't understand the negativity.
@@TheMaztercom Yeah, bro... not what I said. What I'm saying is that it's important context. If the 9700X were pulling the same amount of power, that would be pathetic and not clarifying what's going on gives people the impression that's what's happening, when that isn't what's happening at all.
The Intel ad with the spinning wafer disc triggers me with all the fingerprints all over it.
that shot at 5:27 tho 🔥🔥🔥
Dr Lisa said over a year ago the 9000 generation would be focused on efficiency, no surprise here!
Then their marketing with that bar graph was deceptive because you aren't going to beat power hungrier chips with efficiency chips.
Am I keeping my 5800X3D another year?
Make it two.
I sure am
Feels that way
Brother, im on 5600x, and it looks im either staying till 9800x3d if its gonna have alot of uplift compared to 7800x3d or if intel releases something better...
Looks that way
Currently running a 13600k and it's been rock solid, even with all the Intel issues.
yeah till it aint rofl
@@pwn3426 Imagine having CPU that is great at both gaming and productivity, without separating them at X3D and X/F. rofl
@@someperson1829Its also great at bluescreens
@@someperson1829 yo rofl i dont need a cpu for productivity in my gaming pc imagine being able to afford a pc for both, ROFL
@@pwn3426 Having two PCs is a waste of space and a pain to switch between tasks.
Imagine flexing at someone who spent 4.5k backs on his rig. lol. Intel rulez kiddo, accept it.
how is the 13700k so much better than the 14700k in cyberpunk test? I think those are swapped.....
0:18 Typical family unfriendly Jay.
I like the visual effect at 17:09
Jay saying ".....crush....." and at that moment the CPU box starts shaking like a building in an earthquake.
thats because there was a 5.2 mag earthquake at 4:39 am california time
@captaind4308 Really?
I am not sure, this is a fair comparison. You tested the intel CPUs in extreme power delivery settings, yet PBO is disabled. 7:28 Turn it on, and you see what happens. (Spoiler: They rip)
Dude, you kind of get funnier with each video. The humor definitely makes a tech geek vid much more entertaining 😅
Would love to see how they stack vs my 5700x3d. Playing 1440 with my 6700x, my guess is none of these will improve my rig by enough to make it worthwhile.
i was looking for 5800x3d comparison.
@@sopcannon Barely the same as 9700x. They said it was the first non X3D CPU to do as good as 5800X3D in gaming
As long as it’s not bottlenecking then in gaming it’ll hardly make a difference upgrading.
@@MisterKrakens with the same power draw, yes, the 7700X needed 50W more to match it, but then the 7700(non-X) is 2% under it, with the same power draw as the new part.
nothing makes sense
GN's video has big charts which include several AM4 processors. Spoiler: Not worth the upgrade.
I got a 12900ks (basically 13700k) for £200 ($250) about 2 years ago, I know bargain! and no issues with it, XMP no issues, and still would obviously keep up here!
So glad to be a 13600K owner.
Zen 5 is really disappointing...
Ryzen 9600x should already have 8c/16T.
It's been 7-8 years since Ryzens came on the market, and at least a little difference would show.
You are comparing a 14 core (6p/8e) CPU to a 8 core CPU, which is not a fair comparison.
What you should have compared it to is a Ryzen CPU with 14 cores, otherwise you are comparing a Ferrari to a Fiat Uno
The Ryzen you should have used (that also was released in Q4 2022 is the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X that have 12 cores
If you do that, then the 13600K don't look that good
13600K's 14 cores/20 threads vs 9 7900X's 12 core/24 threads
13600K's base clock at 3.5GHz P-core/2.6GHz e-core vs 9 7900X's 4.7GHz
13600K's max turbo clock at 5.1GHz vs 9 7900X's 5.6GHz
@@sidewind131258 He is comparing CPUs in the same price category. Ryzen CPUs with 12+ cores are significantly more expensive.
@@Rosaslav Not here in Denmark
That was a cool camera shot when you spun the sku around and then it rolled away, good job camera guy
Always interesting to see how different reviewers handle a new release. Thanks for your take on it!
What makes these CPU's frustrating is that, if we aren't happy with how they perform, going out and buying Intel instead is one of the most questionable decisions you could make when building a pc right now IMO. So now, we're stuck with mediocre AMD CPU's and Intel time bombs. It actually really sucks
I'll buy a 5090 later this year and it will be perfectly fine with mine OCed 9900K... I'll wait until a good CPU comes out.
@@ThereWasNoFreeName yeah and i'll be fine with my fx8350 and a 4090....
Yeah... Was thinking of upgrading my 5800X into the 9700X if the rumored performance gains were true. Sadly they're not. Will have to see, Der8auer tried manual overclocking and there actually seems to be fairly good headroom for that. Still, needing manual tuning to reach what was advertised isn't exactly a good look for AMD.
@@oxaile4021oc AMD is very simple. And most importantly you can set the temperature target to, for example, 90 degrees, so you won't fry your CPU like with Intel
you get a pretty big performance boost with pbo. gains like 15% ahead of 7700x just really weird to bog the cpu down so much with power draw as default tho
I'm still rocking a 5950x so I'm not tripping right now, not to mention they just released a few new AM4 cpu's, it doesn't look like AM4 is going anywhere anytime soon.
Still running 5800x, won't be changing any time soon, more than happy with it.
Still running my 3700X from 2019, and it gets the job done!
Seems to be the best 65W CPUs you can buy, that's something.
Nah just get the 7700, it's the same shit for cheaper
The 7700 is 2-3% slower than the 7700x but costs only 250$.
@@AssassinIsAfkX variant will boost higher consistently when given higher power limits
@@destiny_02 true but with the 7700 being so close to the 7700x and the 9700x basically being the same as the 7700x in terms of performance just get the 7700, your saving yourself money, you don't have a huge performance loss and your getting the same efficiency.
@@AssassinIsAfk Nope, NOT the "same shit". Do you pay the power bill in your household? Probably not, since you can't see how that changes things.
At 50c per kWh, I will spend an extra $1.50 per week to run the 7700X, for the time I run my PC (80+ hours per week).
That's 44 weeks to the "break even" point when the extra power consumption cancels out the purchase price difference, after which the 7700X is costing me MORE than if I bought the 9700X in the first place. Since I intend using this CPU for more than 1 year, financially my best choice is the 9700X...
I have a feeling this will be one of those cases where AMD doesn’t perform well at launch but ages really well once they get their drivers figured out. LTT mentioned in their video that when they enabled PBO performance went way up along with power usage. Which might be fine for most desktop users.
I feel like Qualcomm is rubbing its hands together right now.
Hard to believe that I’m now two generations behind; 5950x still absolutely crushes everything I throw at it…
5900x here and it runs great for me as well
Those are absolutely awesome CPUs for pretty much anything a consumer would want to do. I can see AMD having problems down the line where their 5000/7000 CPUs are "good enough" for normies for the next decade or so...
I hear ya as with my main 2 systems(desktop, and laptop), I'm still on 12th gen intel with a Core i9 12900H on my desktop(yes an Aliexpress special Eyring mobo with a laptop chip), and in my laptop an Intel Core i5 1235U, and they crush everything I throw at them on Manjaro Linux, and I personally don't feel the need to upgrade them yet for at least a few years.
Glad I went with the 5800X3D, especially looking at the benchmarks comparing it to newer and MUCH more expensive CPUs in gaming
Dude I have a 5950X as well, awesome chip that I expect will last me years. Nothing I've seen from intel or amd has me wanting or needing to upgrade.
Probably gonna upgrade to this from the 3000 series
Same, im on a 3900x. Only thing that sucks is having to buy a mobo and ram aswell
might as well go 7000 series (7600) and wait for 9000x3D. These are the same as last gen
@@Defineddnot worth it
@@Definedd I'm not looking for bleeding edge gaming performance rather I need it for productivity which I feel this is gonna be miles ahead of the r5 3600 that I own.
Save your money and get a 7700 non-X.
Glad they got the efficiency down. Now lets see what happens when you OC the crap out of them 🤔
@@NovusDundus degradation AMD is trash silicone always has been that’s how they make cheaper crap
up you mean :P
@@uranblut Having something "down" is shorthand for the expression "down pat", meaning they have something understood perfectly or have perfected it.
@@tim3172 thanks
Nothing...
i loved the part where he compared the ryzen 9700x to the amd 9700x. 10/10
Thank you for helping me get into computers, this page is single handedly one of the most helpful I have come across 🤘🏼 wishing you guys all the success
I guess i'd still go with AMD because i don't have a nuclear power plant in my backyard and since i'm from germany i gotta save what power consumption i can. Power is fucking expensive here because of our... politicians that are really trying their hardest... To fuck everything up...
thats why im sticking with amd im gonna be moving to germany soon from america
WE DID IT!!! WE HAVE OVER 9000 AMD CPUs!!!
Now wait for next gen to be called Ryzen Prime 1000 AIX series because AMD marketing
Phenom 9950 called. XD
Duronyzen 69420 XXL
AIX might get them sued by IBM.
Whew. Do not feel so bad now paying $224.29 for my 7800x3d a week ago.
shouldn't feel bad at all. That's a fine price if you're gaming.
@@flinx Oh yea. Made a trip to micro center got the bundle deal. Switched the memory and the motherboard out CPU was still only $224. Cheapest I could find new anywhere online was $384. Yupper I will take that deal.
@@csjpokey I wish you a long and productive life for your AMD - let's hope they don't become a monopoly and touch us in the bhole with pricing.
i wish you luck, not getting fomo, when they release the 9800x3d
It's the bios, there is something up with the bios. You experience these issues on the 7000 as well if you update the bios. I have been digging in on this and troubleshooting it. But something isn't right, it's causing my 7900x to not hit clocks that I have had before the update ( 5.7 ghz single core/ 5.4 milti core ) after update ( 5.5 ghz single at best, and 5.2 ghz multi ) I have also noticed the thermal throttle limit is now 80c, even if i set the limit to 95c. Maybe it's something to do with the new curve setting, idk, don't have the 9000 series to try mucking about with it, but I just have a feeling it may be related. Also I am using a Asus ROG Strix X670E-E gaming wifi mobo.
What happened to watercooling month?
I love when people say "first" but theres like 20 peoole that commented before them😂
First under this comment
Also first
nah im the first.
Just to keep the trend going.... Firstish
Last!!!
So the 9600 and 9700 finally are performing as well as my 5900X. Glad to know I don't need to upgrade my workstation.
Noticed...
You are comparing a Ryzen 9 series to a Ryzen 7 and 5 series. Wait for the 9900X to come out for a proper comparison.
Didn't think of that, pretty Impressive, in just 4 years they managed the same performance with half the cores at almost third of the power.
Why would you change a workstation cpu with a mid tier tho?
Yeah. I’m waiting to figure out if 5950x -> 9950x is worth the money and hassle.
Maybe? But probably not. (Is my random ass guess) 9950x is the only part without a tdp regression so.... @@jonprall
My ryzen 9 5950x looking at ryzen 9000 series
Can anyone help me
I am getting 21k in cinebench
Really liked the order of the graph not changing. Made it really easy to follow a specific cpu!
Thank you for actually comparing these to Intel and actually saying "It's your decision on whether or not to go Intel" - Someone like me would rather have the ease of use with Intel and RAM actually working and running at their XPO speeds. I've got an i7-4700K and I've had zero blue screen or instability, not saying it won't happen. But it's almost guaranteed that AMD will give you headaches when setting up (as Jay said they dealt with it all).
Not shocked that AMDs charts are so off, they've been caught lying in this release already. Don't trust anything they say or do, they've got to cut too many corners to compete with Intel and it's clearly not working, these results are shocking, I didn't think they would be THIS bad. - Sure they're efficient... but I'd much rather have raw power over efficiency... Especially with a new launch... Drop power-hungry, powerhouse chips to get enthusiast interested, then drop the efficient chips later for those who care. This is more of a refresh...
I'm still running a Ryzen 5 5600 (non-X), and with a 4070 Super I have yet to run into any gaming issues. I only play at 4k60fps but this combination is solid. I guess I'll wait another generation or two?
i'm running a 5600X from 2022 with my new 4080, also at 4k60fps. Tbh I was running a i7 4790 from 2014-2022 and only upgraded to the 5600X when the motherboard died. 4790 ran with a 2080 Super and so did the 5600X until the 4080 upgrade. I disable Xbox gamebar and i don't use microsoft account with win 11 so i save a few system resources. Us high resolution gamers really don't need much cpu, we much more need gpu power. my 5600X will keep on going.
chris
5600(X) is still a very capable gaming CPU, especially when paired with tuned RAM (this way it gets very close to 5700X3D performance level).
@@ee-fo9bz It isn't the resolution that needs more cpu or not, it's the framerate that matters.
Wow, straight away, bravo RUclips
i'm not satisfied with this review. you can clearly see that the 65w tdp hinders multithread performance. yes, this choice was made by amd and its not your fault but you could have at least checked if the multithread performance scales with a little bit more power. you even mentioned how much power the intel cpus were using.
So your complaint is you were shown an out of box experience instead of an overcook attempt?
How is it their (jay) responsibility to hide a short coming?
Good informative Video.
Old saying from my time studying general computer science in the 1990th:
"Benchmarks don't lie but Liar do Benchmarks!"
I mean, Jay, the 16 core variant is going to perfectly suit you. please go for it when its available.this thing is better than 14900k when simultanious threads can be reduced from what the 14900 can provide. the efficiency alone is worth the upgrade
Someone check me on this, but I think the power consumption isn’t as expensive as I thought: 13600K vs 9600X with 125W and 65W tdp (not perfect measurement, I know), used at those exact levels for 10 hours/week for a full year yields $5.62 higher costs for running the Intel (if you pay 18¢/kWh)
But Jay tested the Intel chips with the extreme power profile. The 13600K would consume more than 180W with those settings while the 9700X would consume 88W.
In that case, Intel would cost about $8.6 higher in power per year. But that's ignoring the more expensive components needed for Intel CPUs, ie. cooler, power supply, and maybe motherboard depending on other features.
Not sure why Jay used the extreme power profile when he knows how much we trust Intel's power management right now
@@valdrich472 yeah, exactly! I also saw that on his benchmark settings slide (at 7:29) about the Intel extreme power profile. I wish he would have discussed the other components like you mentioned too. It seems odd for him to overlook some of these fairly basic considerations.
Power is not only about money but temperature and noise. Technically you could OC a Zen 3 chip and claim it's as good.
The math is basically impossible to do but you also need to take into account the extra power your AC unit would need to keep your room cool. That is almost always the most significan factor when it comes to your power bill. That being said its probably no more than 10-20x your value. Pretty crazy how cheap power is
@@michael.petraeus Agreed! I just did the basic exercise after reading a few other comments about upfront CPU costs vs future electrical bills (very much only one angle of many). Jay not addressing some of this made me feel it was not as objective as it could have been.
2 things:
Try faster memory
Try unlocking the power limit ( it is kinda overclocking, but it is clear AMD hard restricted their CPUs to be able to say they are more efficient)
They're faster and cheaper than their zen 4 equivalents. What the hell else did you want?!
Salty fanboy
thats the problem with fanboys, they dont see the positives of the counterpart, only see their flashy intels sitting there dying of voltages, taking a whole nuclearplant for running at 2000f, i think u get me there.
hes pissed that intel fked themselves cuz they think they still the number one lel
@@DYNAMiXRap you talk about intel fanboys with bulls&*t like this lol
"Faster" 😂 mate , its one of the lowest generational improvements...
I got an amd cpu myself but amd fumbled hard to take advantage while intel is imploding
Except they're only marginally faster and 7000 series chips have been available for less than their MSRP for well over a year now. So they are actually a lot more expensive. The tray version of the 7700 which is probably the most accurate 7000 series comparison (no included cooler, same TDP) goes for around $220 vs the $380 of the 9700x. The 7600 can be had for around $160 vs the $280 of the 9600x. That kind of price difference for a single digit performance improvement is crazy.
One big key you didn't talk about in the average gaming fps charts is power per frame. Basically the Intel chips look like they are dominating but they're running more than double the wattage in some cases. Put in a normalized average fps chart at like 65 watts. Yes you talked about it at the end a little but most people probably didn't make it that far.
I don't think this is a fair comparison, considering that Intel CPUs are overclocked by default, albeit the BIOS settings set to "Intel's Default Safe"-whatever the name is.
AMD is just getting in second place by a mere margin, at half the TDP and no overclocking.
I miss the rock and metal music on the charts
JayzTwoCents way of interacting with his commentary section is sure peculiar. He only answer comment that disagree a bit or more with him and he's super rude. 😅
Yeah, can't tell if he's trying to be funny or edgey.
The 7600X released in 2022 for $299, which is $334 in today's money. And the 7700X was $399 on release, which is $445 in today's money. It's $359.
That's a win for consumers. Stop whining about current gen sale prices being lower, that's literally how this always works.
Be happy that we're getting lower prices.
But what’s being compared is the current price you can buy them all for. Launch price being lower when adjusted for inflation is great, but the 9700x is currently a good bit more expensive than the 7700x (which it performs nearly the same as but is more efficient) and the 7800x3d which stomps on it in gaming performance which is what most people likely care about. Prices from 2 years ago will not affect current buyer sentiment.
Twisted logic. You don't charge premium for it being "new", you charge it for it being better. When the "old" alternative is much cheaper and still kicking - GL with those prices. Imagine pricing these nothingburgers even higher. lol.
Jeez - People with 12th Intel and Zen3/4 are gonna continue to sit on what they got. I know I am.
Very good point. I agree with you 1000% on this. Power Management is the name of the game right now. 12 E-Cores is what people are paying for right now. Less sophisticated background cores IS NOT performance. Its just alot more power required for EQUAL performance with more added heat to the system. Ill stick with my 3900X for a couple more years and focus on a better GPU because of high prices.
0:38 Jay I don't know if you noticed but you have forward head posture (FHP).
... stay on topic
You make a HUGE mistake, showing the bench of Intel 13 and 14 generation that they are going to lower the result after the "microcode"...
Welp that microcode isn't out yet and these are the latest approved Intel BIOS, so what's the mistake besides your comment?
@@Jayztwocents So you think lowering voltage is not going to HURT Intel benchmarking?!...Get to Earth
@@surpriseblueviana3803no it doesn’t. Do you know how undervolting works
Learn about Undervolting it increases SPEED!
it doesn’t necessarily increase speed but it doesn’t slow it down either, they were being overvolted, causing the degradation
You tested intel on extreme power delivery but didn't turn on pbo for amd???? What a fan boy!!!
that intel "extreme power 253w" setting is stock intel settings in bios its actually underclocking on most mobos
65 watts and its competing with the big boys. People always thing of the upfront cost, but forget electricity, depending where you live, can be fucking expensive.
If you knew how to actually calculate power usage you would see that you would never make back your money when comparing actual real work usage. Obviously no one uses full load constantly
there's also the cooling and PSU to be taken into account. Both CPU seems very easy to cool and will allow a cheaper PSU with the GPU. You won't need to waste money on AIO to get cpu that stay chill.
@@Jayztwocents Also AMD's chiplet arch is notorious for high idle power consumption. 25-35 watts at idle vs ~5 watts for any recent non chip arch.
Sure little bro, every generation should be the same just with less power, are your brain small? That sht should be in the same generation, New cpus from the same generation but with less energy usage, but a new generation? Fanboys are fanboys
@@Jayztwocents It would if it meant upgrading your PSU and cooling. But I guess Intel fanboys won't notice it
Given the numbers being posted on 9000 so far, I'm going to at least wait and see how Arrow Lake looks. I was ready to jump on a Ryzen 9900X, but this calls for patience.
I do like the reduced power draw, no doubt. It's nicer on the power bill, and easier to cool. Still.... will be patient for my new build, and see if Intel can get its act together with Arrow Lake at least.
I can't wait to be able to get a 9700x will half my power usage while having same fps that's a massive power saving where i live.
Why bother even testing intel, they all apparently melt in 5 months.
You didn't watch the video.
Jay explained at 19:30 that the 13600k might be an excellent value and the 13600k hasn't had the "melting" issue.
@@SSYoung125 Intel state it affects all 13/14 gen parts with a TDP of 65 watts or more. (That includes the 13600K.)
[I'm not saying that I agree with "What", just that you're wrong.]
AMD users thumbs
If AMD really made their CPUs more power efficient - that's all they had to do, in my books. Most people do NOT play games. And they do NOT encode videos either. We don't give a flying duck about your bloody "CPU speeds". Give us more efficient CPUs every day! So that we don't have to buy CPU coolers the size of football and we don't have to buy 10 other coolers for PC case, its gotten absolutely ridiculous now! GIVE US MORE EFFICIENT CPUs!!!
I disagree. Building a new architecture for a whole new generation of CPUs after the highly successful 7000 series and impressive 8000 series APUs only for the new chips to simply be more power efficient would be a huge let-down for such a renowned CPU manufacturer like AMD.
It's basically rebranding the 7000 series chips but with a lower TDP, which would be disappointing at best. Despite the success of the 7000 series, Intel's high end 13th and 14th gen chips (taking aside the obvious issues) are still faster, at least for productivity.
They needed to step up their game if they wanted to take over as the CPU king, and efficiency wouldn't cut it at all. Contrary to your statement, most people buy Ryzen BECAUSE they're so much better than Intel for gaming, especially the X3D models.
As I previously mentioned, to build a new architecture from the ground up simply for it to be a copy of the previous gen chips with better thermals would be a waste of time, money and resources. It would make AMD laughing stock.
And if you don't care about the damn CPU speeds, then might as well get an Athlon by your logic. Faster clocks = faster overall performance in your PC, be it gaming, productivity or normal daily tasks like browsing.
Which motherboard and bios did you use… will you retest AMD when X870e motherboards come out in September?
3 seconds, whoa
Indeed
So close :D
Yes
I am not surprised at all since there is no increase in L2 and L3 cache. I am not sure what AMD was thinking when making Zen 5, but I can say, they were not thinking much.
Maybe having better performance with drastically reduced power consumption? You 105 watts vs 65?
@@Basil_Ieaf pbo activates 105 watts and performance is no more than 1% so there goes that argument. and btw, this is a desktop cpu, i rly would take even a 150w AMD cpu with much better performance.
@Basil_left You can powerlimit the 7000 series CPU's (or buy the non-X SKU) & get the same margins though.
These really don't move the needle on the value for money aspect...
For me personally, power draw is typically my top aspect to look at. Watching them get the same performance for60% less power is a massive win in my book. Plus you get access to the new generation stuff (when it becomes cheaper) is a nice bonus.
The power efficiency of these new processors cannot be understated. At a time of rising energy costs and pressure on many governments to reduce energy usage I can see efficiency soon being the driving factor for consumers over performance. In the EU electricity per kw/h is pretty much twice the price of what it costs in the US, over the lifetime of a CPU that's a lot of money that can be saved.
No 7800X3D in charts, dislike
I dont mean i disliked video, it just should have been there, its direct competitor of 9700x
I went with the 13600k when it came out and boy am I glad I did 😂 haven't had a single issue yet and look at it still out performing
Now tell me the power consumption big boy, I dare you !
@@Qs_Internet_Cafe I'm fine with that.
@@Qs_Internet_Cafe also I live in an area where electric is very affordable so my 125w tdp is nothing
@@OneTrueRickythe new amd chips are running base 80w and max 140w for some people at stock.
The result dosent seem consistent for evryone.
@@Dragoneye2427 It's simply not. At stock settings, AMD chips perform at exactly the stated TDP in an all-core workload under the highest boost it can achieve.
Intel measures TDP with an all-core load at the *base* clock. Therefore, draws more power than the TDP would suggest. AMD draws exactly what it would suggest.
If you then go in and enable other settings, then yes, they will draw more power... obviously.
But, to state that they draw "80w base" or "140w at stock" is simply nonsense.
This is not Zen5. You cannot claim this is a new gen with that small an improvement over the same CPU in the last gen. This is AMD's 14nm+ moment.
Which "14nm+" CPU dropped power consumption by 40% while delivering slightly more performance?
2 digit ipc improvements compared to last gen isnt enough? but 7% of intel is better? lel