You keep saying gamers would be better off just going with a 7600X or 7700X but wouldn't they really be better off with a 5800X3D or 12700K/ 12600K and save hundreds going with a budget board and DDR4? That they could then put those savings towards a better GPU which would actually make a considerable performance difference in gaming? Idk just seems Zen4 for gamers right now isn't worth it whatsoever at least the value gamers that's for sure.
Of course gamers would be better off going with a 5800X3D or a 12600K/12700K and a budget board/DDR4. Most gamers wouldn't see anything close to this performance difference between CPU's because they're not using 3090ti's lol. You're MUCH better off getting the cheaper platform and using that extra money to get a better GPU hands down no question. Zen 4 is complete butt right now in terms of gaming value.
Ngl the 7600X is pretty DOA when you can save a couple hundred and get a i7-12700, B660 board, and DDR4 for a couple hundred less and get better productivity performance and comparable gaming performance. It's going to be even worse when 13th gen comes out. 13600K is gunna be a 14 core 20 thread CPU now? vs a 6 core 12 thread 7600X? And you can use current B660/ Z690 boards and DDR4 saving all that cash? Idk man AMD is in a pretty rough spot on the low end.
last month I got a b560m motherboard for $59 Canadian, and i7 10700 8 core 16 thread CPU for $209 Canadian, and last week I got an RX 6700xt on sale for $429 Canadian. I also got 64 GB of ddr4 3200 MHz ram for $89 Open Box Sale... people should definitely start looking at deals like that.
Seems like AMD is purely relying on people adopting the 7600X and 7700X based on their track record of long-term support like AM4 because I can't see any other reason to get either of those CPU's right now given the poor value. But then again AMD only said they would support this to 2025 which is just over 2 years.... So what is that just 1 more platform? I mean they could support it longer but saying 2025 isn't that enticing if I'm being honest.
That price drop on the 7950x makes it real appealing. My brother in law just bought one lmao. I remember Zen 3 being so expensive at launch (if you could get one) and prices have came waaaay down. A 5900x at $350 is such a baller deal right now though it's hard to recommend Zen 4 currently for someone upgrading from a way older system.
I don't like it when RUclipsrs are telling you what CPU to buy personally. I look at the data, look at what I'm doing and make my own judgements. The two Steves always used to hate on AMD 8 core parts, but that's always one of the most popular one according to sales data, so obviously a lot of people ignore the commentary, just like me. "Just buy the 7950X" Why? I don't need a 16 core part. If 8 cores weren't enough for what I do I'd jump to the 12 core part. AMD has actually spaced out the pricing pretty appropriately for Zen 4, and it looks like the 7900X is often giving the best performance per core. That's actually spread out more in Zen 4 depending on what you're doing and that's a good thing. For Zen 3 the 5800X was the best part for perf./core but it wasn't the cheapest. But why should I care about cheapest for perf/core if it's overkill for what I do?? I'm still spending more money than I need to that I could use to put into a GPU, where universally reviewers have said is the smartest thing to do, until they do a CPU review and make a stupid statement like "buy the 7950X". And that's why I don't subscribe to these channels. The data they put out in the charts is good, but the commentary? I don't want their opinion. I know WTF I'm doing.
@@madgodzilla12465 Yeah they dropped the prices because AMD has been making a KILLING off of server and game console sales. So, they could afford to make less profit off Zen 3 Ryzen. There's no way in hell I spend $700 for a CPU when an 8 core CPU is what I need based on years of understanding of WTF I do on my system.
My 5900X is the greatest CPU I have ever owned. Bought it in mid 2021 for $380. No reason to buy into Zen 4 or AM5 just yet. Zen 5 though, I'll be waiting
A power-target benchmark would be very interesting, seeing how those Zen4-CPU's hold up with 105, 90 and 65W, something around those numbers. I also would be interested in a deep-dive into coolers. Do the old towercoolers suffice (also taking sound into consideration)? Can you put a Noctua D15 (AM4 edition) on AM5 without a extra kit? Such things.
@@farmeunit I still have to check but people under previous videos said Gordon from PCWorld did test the eco mode. Ian from TechtechPotato during his liveshow didn't show any result for this but was very enthusiastic that at 65W TDP the multicore perf is moderately reduced but the single core perf is unchanged. He said 7950X in eco 65W was still better than a 12900K and for him this is the way he will use those Zen 4 CPUs. For the cooler compatibility, AFAIK Ian said he was using a Noctua D15 with no issue but he warned to be careful to wait until vendors provide kits for incompatible coolers. Roman "DerBauer" has several compatibility issues when delidding or installing his subzero cooling pot. Roman also gets a huge 20Kelvin gain by delidding and applying liquid metal and said that this height compatibility with a thicker IHS may become an issue for future AM5 competitiveness.
95c is NOT good for computer components period. Idc what the company says, those are WAY over space heater temps 🤷🏾♂️. Intel has the cooler, faster, cheaper cpu. Definitely the easy choice here
@@mackdaddypeypey1 What really matters is power consumption; just because the CPU reaches 95c doesn't mean that it's a nuclear furnace the way some components are. Passively cooled components can reach high temperatures even though they are very low power parts, because they're passively cooled. And frankly, this has to be the logical conclusion of any form of true boosting algorithm. On Zen2 and Zen3, people have always wondered why their CPU doesn't run faster when it has thermal headroom. With Zen4, AMD has apparently been able to tweak the algorithm such that it automatically runs as hard as it possibly can for any given workload, meaning there is virtually 0 performance left on the table(and overclocking might also be completely pointless). I don't have an issue with Intel doing this either, as long as the power consumption numbers are mostly acceptable.
The title itself alone says how different and valuable this channel then most of the rest. No clickbait, clear sentence summarizing the the whole video. You are one of the best ...
Год назад
I also appreciate non-caps in the title. so unnecessary and obviously just attention seeking. and obviously the content is top-notch. this is indeed one of the best channels on YT.
The B-roll is a testament to "Hey look! No pins!". Looking forward to seeing if these IHSs can be shrunk/thinned, would be great if we can do that by Zen 4 3D
Not technically what you asked for but I believe derbauer has recently delidded a zen4 chip and used direct die cooling, you might find it interesting 🙂
@@conza1989 DerBauer said it was to keep the height compatibility with AM4 coolers. So this is certainly not something AMD will change for future AM5 CPUs but we will probably see aftermarket thin IHS.
@@PainterVierax I'm sure I'm not alone in the community when I say I'll gladly take a fat IHS over having to buy a new cooler. It might run warmer as a result, but Optimum Tech has an excellent video on tweaking these chips to run up to 30⁰ cooler with minimal performance loss.
@@benjaminoechsli1941 I was on the same boat as cooler mounting was one of the reason why I didn't jump on AM4 in 2017. That being said, that compatibility feature shouldn't be AMD's concern as serious brands always provide kits for new sockets. Although buying a new budget cooler is not a huge cost, way less expensive than new RAM dimms. edit: Also the PCO tuning presented by Optimum Tech can provide even more large performance gains if the IHS was thinner. AMD is known to be very conservative on stock curve since decades but PCO results like any OC /UV are silicon lottery dependent though.
At the Cost per Frame chart, you should take $100 off of the RAM for the 5800x3d as it doesn't care much about RAM speed, DDR4-3600 only gained 7.2% performance over DDR4-2133. 3600 c14 vs c16 is less than a percentage difference in performance, and a c16 can be picked up for $100 instead of $200 for c14. This would put the cost per frame at 4.49 for the 5800x3d.
If the 5800x3d truly doesn't care about RAM, there are 3200mhz cl16 kits selling for under 50 bucks like every day. And if that only costs you 1% or something compared to faster RAM, then it makes sense.
Yeah not a fan of most of the price per frame charts, you dont need expensive ddr4 or even a motherboard for pervious gens. He puts in high cost for older platforms to make the new one not seem so bad.
@@RyanApplegatePhD Very funny, but still ignoring overspending on the ram and mobo as he did on lower end, and cheating out on the higher end to bring that down
Hope you understand but i don't usually have time to watch the whole video here, and i feel like watching one of the Zen 4 reviews gives me enough context to be able to comfortably skip the benchmarks and get straight to the cost per frame and conclusion. The timestamps are a godsend is what I'm trying to say.
Zen 4 is not worse than Zen 3 in performance per watt. To properly compare that metric, you have to run them at the same power level. Since you can't get Zen 3 up to a 170W TDP, that means running Zen 4 at a 105W TDP, where it will still greatly outperform Zen 3. It will still outperform Zen 3 at a 65W TDP as well, even when Zen 3 has a 105W TDP. Being able to squeeze out an extra 10% performance by using an amount of power that Zen 3 can't reach doesn't make Zen 4 less efficient. It makes it more scalable.
Most people don't seem to understand this simple statement. Efficiency is given by performance-power graph/curve not just by no. of points/frames per watt. If you run 7950x at 105w TDP (without undervolt) you can get it to be 42% more power efficient than 5950x. If you run 5950x or 5900x with PBO, it will increase your power consumption a looooot but will only give like 5-10% boost over stock which means zen 3 doesn't scale well with higher power consumption.
They're gonna benchmark these with lower power levels, for sure. Steve commented in one of the review videos that they don't do these kinds of tests in review videos, that's post-launch content. It kind of makes sense to me as this is the default configuration that AMD decided to go with but of course it would be better if we also had ECO modes tests here.
A few things, AMD changed the TDP formula between zen 3 and 4. The TDP numbers are rubbish. Take a consistent work load, blender, measure the power draw at the EPS cable, and time taken per unit worked. You could make it anything 1 frame, 5 frames etc. I'm pretty sure GN tested this too and found a 5950x was more efficient vs the 7950.
This isn't a review of Zen 4 the architecture, it's a review of this CPU. That means testing the CPU's default behaviour and evaluating it, not fiddling with the settings to find favourable results which 99.99% of people will never do.
I am building a new machine. I plan to get the 7700x and a b650 MoBo and then wait for the 7800x 3d... the 5800 3d looks tempting, but I don't want to pull the trigger in a platform that doesn't have any upgrades pathway
@@Games_and_Tech Similar issue, the AM5 platform looks good, I simply don't find upgrading to an x3D is cost effective. OTOH I can wait to upgrade. Optimum Tech video on configuring platform thermal limit and PPT with undervolt is worth seeing. The thermal throttle isn't giving reviewers ways to feel good about their monster cooling systems.
I would love to see a full benchmark run from any single ryzen 7000 chip with the same undervolt optimum tech published. So can getting that 20c drop impact Performace either way. Keep up the great work!
Undervolt is like overclock, it may work on some chips, but it may crash on others using the same settings, so it's stupid to test that since not everyone will get the same result, it's just misleading
It's best to do overclock tests on a largeish sample of retail CPUs, otherwise you get golden samples that buyers won't experience. Perhaps it could be a community project?
@@lhv2k not really there was other youtube as well who underclocked and got great results. Dropped 20°c with little to no performance loss I think it was tech city. Maybe they all got best silicon? Even then you could probably drop 10
Well here in Canada, 7950x $1050, 7900x $740 and 7700x $550... so ya 5900x at $490 looks like a good upgrade. Plus AM5 board prices are very steep right now like $400 for a basic board!!!
wanted to upgrade from a x570 asus crosshair to x670 here and the price has risen from 470(at release now 430) to 770$ for the "same" model motherboard I think brands are going to be greatly disappointed by sales judging from the comments, every board has enthusiast high-end price now
Over in the UK the prices are £590 and £800 which means the 7950X is 35% more expensive instead of the 27% you get between $550 and $700 (if this is the correct dollar price). You can save £100 on the motherboard if you get a B650 over a X670 but I'm not sure if you'd want a 7900X on a B650 so if you're also spending extra on the motherboard perhaps it still makes sense to go for the 7950X/X670 or the 7700X/B650?
Im in dire need of a new workstation / gaming rig and am torn between the 7900x /7950x or using a 7700x temporarily for streaming and building a cheap stream PC later
once you/we are through all these initial launch-tests I would really be interested in the "what options you have in the real world at what tradeoffs"-test (c) 😉 So e.g. comparing the mid-range 7900 and 7700 (one or two dies - with differnt cooling-challenges maybe?) with other cooling solutions than top end 360 AiO on an open bench - like a Noctua/beQuiet air-cooler in a silent-case -> what performance do you loose? Or using the "Eco-mode" (I think AMD called it) ... what power/temp you end up with then... and is it maybe the more reasonable mode for these Zen4 for everyday use? ... etc.
Hopefully soon you will be able to benchmark all the new CPU's and GPU's which will give us a clear picture of the improvements in the latest gen of products. More late nights coming up for you Steve.
I'm going with AMD for my new build. This will be my first ever non-Intel build. Already have my mobo (X670E Crosshair Hero). Now, just need to decide on the CPU. Great video, mate!!
11:35 - At 242 watts total system power consumption for the 5900x, the 7900x at 302 watts is NOT 47% more power consumption. It's not even close. 302w/242w = 1.2479 (a 24.79% higher power consumption for the 7900x). 47% is the difference between the 5900x and the 7950x.
from your graphs the interesting cpu for gaming is the 7700x (but not really knowing there should be an x3d version of it) also, i know you all test as they come from the factory but there are huge gains to be had just by using the PBO2 curve optimizer. early adopters will have to deal with 90°c and more. i cant wait for the heavy discounted prices of the 5800x3d no new gen for me for at least a couple of years
Thanks for these reviews Steve. I am really looking forward to your motherboard reviews before buying as they were really helpful when choosing on AM4. I hope you have time to check some out before the next wave of GPU or Intel CPUs launch. For me the higher motherboard prices are partially offset by knowing I can keep it for 4 years and drop in a 3d Cache 7800X later. The RAM likewise will last vs if you were to buy an AM4 system new today. Hopefully post 13th gen reviews the AMD prices will come down a bit too. The 7900X and 7700X are already €50 here in Europe and are still in stock 3 days post launch
7900X is really impressive compared to the 5950X 25% better single core and 20% better multicore based on cinebench. The only "downside" is that it is overkill for gaming and for productivity there is always the 7950X which is only 150 bucks more
It's definitely overkill, but people (myself included) bought it because 12>8, and 5.6>5.4. Not because it made any logical sense, simply because we wanted the second best consumer desktop CPU money can buy.
Wait for Intel. They will force amd prices down without a doubt. As it stands, both will be good options and no one will tell a difference between two CPUs at a given price.
@@towb0at I need a GPU at a price point below 800$ that needs a faster CPU than an 11700k before I get excited about this new stuff. It'll be a few years before that happens.
Two things that I appreciate these days are value and efficiency. CPUs are getting so powerful that the percentage of people needing them probably goes down as they get more powerful. Marketing could certainly skew what people buy but I suspect that the vast majority would be fine with the 6-core models.
6-core models are fine for today's games but what about games that come out in the year 2024? Or 2025? Or 2026? About 5 years ago they said that 4-core models were enough and they were correct. 4 cores were enough. Now they're not. I plan to stay on the AM4 platform until the end of the current decade so eventually. In the future, games will need 8 cores as a minimum. Then it will be 12 cores minimum.
like many have already said I think I’ll stick with AM4 and try 5800x3d before seeing what the x3d versions of AM5 can do. if adding vcache can add 10-15 percent to gaming performance I would rather pay premium for that than current performance over 5000 series. As I currently have x570 and 3000 series cpu I don’t see the value in dumping MB, and memory when functionally I can get most of the performance for 430$ rather than expensive memory, MB and cpu.
@Steve , 5:23 maybe there is a typo or something... In the Blender test, it is said that the 7900X is a 30 % faster than the 12900K, but I've made the operation with those numbers, and unless I'm terribly wrong, here it's giving me a 18% faster, so, much less. Or maybe am I not considering something ? (btw, Blender is the app I care more about ;) ) Also, in the Cinebench test, multiple core, 4:10 , It is also said "it was also just 12% slower than the 7950X". But 29.358 is the 76.92% of 38.165, so, the difference is a bit more than 23%, not 12%. At this point, I'm starting doubting myself, I must be doing the math wrong... I only did look at it as the size of the bars didn't match with what I was hearing. If it's a typo, understandable, with that mountain of data and tests.... Sorry if it is my mistake...
Was looking for this comment, I noticed that immediately as well. He says 25% less cores but only 12% less performance but it's almost 25%/25%, as it should be.
@@dewjustin I have noticed it happens in other instances (in other graphs), but I did not want to make the comment bloated or look like being picky after all his work. Maybe he's doing so much work per each video that has to calculate these things on the fly ( or no time to calculate them), being maybe visual estimations... So, I think I'll just focus on the graphs and numbers from now on (and my own conclusions ;) ). In general, I compare Gamers Nexus, Linus', Puget Systems and Hardware Unboxed (and several written reviews) graphs from their benchmarks (not number by number, but yep in the stuff critical for me: for example if the 7600X does get a better score in Photoshop than a 12900K, as this is key for me, I'm asked often for low end machines for making graphic work, and I have my own interest on this).
The cost of AM5 boards is way too high for AM5 to be worth it right now. The cheapest AM5 board I see at my local shop is 400 CAD right now vs 140 dollars for AM4. I just quickly did mobo+ram+CPU and the 7600X would cost me almost 40% more than a 5800X3D and only offers 4% more performance, and maybe less performance for the games I like to play. As pricing stands right now, the 7600X is a complete failure.
Are you guys able to do DCS ( Digital Combat Simulator ) game. It would be a great test. It likes to use just one core most of the time and it would give a bit more insight to how single core would perform while also expanding on a huge market
Nice review ! But what is missing !? -> some people will also need a new mainboard o drive the new CPUs... So we all waiting for the reviews of the new mainboards - like the Asus Hero, the Gigabyte Aorus Master, the AsRock Taichi ! These boards should be a nice option for us all...and for the future Ryzen 8000 or 9000 cpus.
7900x value is insane now that amd discounted it, i was able to go and get a 7900x, 32gb 6000mhz ram, and an asus b650e strix motherboard for $600 combined at micro center...absolutley NUTTY
I got the exact same bundle a few weeks ago. Was gonna wait until Ryzen 8000 series to upgrade from i7 6950X, but live only 30 minutes away from a Microcenter so when I saw this deal it was a no brainier.
The reality of that Intel is kicking themselves in the ass after seeing Ryzen pricing. They could have only undercut amd by 20$ and both amd and Intel would have higher profits probably. But with such aggressive pricing from Intel, amd will lower prices significantly and they'll both be worse off. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if Intel raises MSRP.
Since you have DDR5 6400 CL32 available and probably lower under 6000 too, would be nice a RAM speed comparison on Ryzen 7000. Another RUclipsr found that Ryzen 7 saw an improvement in some scenarios using 6400 RAM, and also using 4 DIMMS.
@@Hardwareunboxed Thanks Steve, I found that very interesting in the 7600X review. I have a question though: Do 4 DIMMs not get hotter than 2 since they are so close together? In AM4 if you got dual rank sticks then 2 DIMMs gave you the same performance as 4 single rank DIMMs. Is that no longer true with 2x 16GB kits on AM5?
Could you please test next the motherboards? not only the mid-range ones for instance like Tomahawk and other but also a high end ones like Carbon? if its realy worth to pay that extra cash. thank you and thumbs up for an amazing content again guys.
Ahhh! Just need Raptor lake to come out now, market to shake up, you guys do your fantastic benchmarks and then us gamers can look for good value in the new gen CPUs.
Yup, no reason to jump until the dust settles (post 13th gen). I'll be looking for a 5900/5950 deal to replace my 3700x and ride that until Zen 5 makes sense.
It's somewhat funny looking back at this stuff by one month to see what the responses were. So, some arguments that people have not made: First, if you are NOT into productivity software that makes use of all available cores, then you have to look at the reasons for buying a 12 or 16 core CPU in the first place. My own thinking is that if you run multiple programs at the same time, and just don't want background tasks slowing you down, then extra cores will really deal with that. This is why the efficiency cores in Alder Lake and Raptor Lake do have their uses. On the flip side, 12 cores/24 threads without big.little means that there is never a performance penalty if Windows puts a thread on the wrong core, or if you actually have background tasks doing things that are useful but you don't want them to run slower. So, the whole, "Dollars per core" argument falls apart when not using your computer for real productivity stuff like rendering, because you are already going for extra cores you don't NEED. This isn't necessarily for business where you try to justify the cost per core. So, look at the prices, $700 will be too much to spend if you don't really need those extra cores for rendering, $550 isn't too much to spend at that point, while not for those who are pinching pennies. Platform cost...$500 for the ASRock X670e Taichi. Yea, a bit more expensive than the Z670 version was, but there is a bit more on this board, the active cooler for the PCIe 5.0 SSD is included, more M.2 slots. But, in 2025 when Zen6 comes out, the new generation CPU will drop right into this board, while no CPU that comes out after 2022 from Intel will work on a Socket 1700 board, so you now need to buy a new board, and you can be sure it will cost more money. If you went DDR4 for Alder Lake or Raptor Lake, you will need to buy RAM at that point as well, or if you bought DDR5 memory for Alder Lake, you paid more than the cost of DDR5 is these days. All of this says that the platform cost from AMD will end up costing less money than the Socket 1700 from Intel. Note that if you are at the lower end, the 7600X, you can get away with a $250 motherboard for socket AM5 as well, but there aren't really cheap motherboards. Still, if you consider that you may want to upgrade the CPU and not just replace the entire machine, that argument about being able to swap the CPU with no other costs will negate all but the cheapest $100-$150 motherboards from any conversation you may have. $250 for a motherboard when you can swap the CPU for AMD but not Intel in a few years, yea, $125 per CPU you use, and Intel loses that advantage. DDR5 6000-CL30 is only $70 or so more than DDR4-3600, so it's not really a big deal.
I like the 7700x, highest frames with comparable cost per frame when 12700k is also using ddr5. With the possibility of a drop in cpu upgrade in a few years. I'm still thinking Raptor lake is going to shake up this segment though.
yes and I must say as someone who does 500+ benchmarks every gen that the ingame bench have become useless my worst example is borderlands 3 1st the game is 99% gpu bound I reduced my cpu clock by 1.0Ghz and got the same fps I also got the same fps with 3960x 9900k 5950x and 12900k because the 1080ti was the limiter - now with a 3090 the 160fps it says isn't real it's way too low and doesn't represent reality with my 1080ti I had 115fps in bench/120fps in game so it worked but with a 3090 I have 169fps in bench but 220-350fps ingame !!! ingame benchmarks stopped working with the rtx 3000 and rx 6000 gpus and this is going to get worse if the rtx 4000 and rdna3 are really 60-100% faster
@@fredEVOIX It's just silly that this not so rarely leads to reviews misrepresenting the impact of new CPU generations. It's pretty absurd, as I've seen from some outlets, to suggest Cyberpunk isn't CPU limited past a certain tier of CPU. It is, even at higher resolutions. Just not everywhere.
I decided to go with the 7900X as the price I am finding is $100 less than you have here and I like the lower power consumption while being at the top of the benchmarks for the games I play, Going big on a mobo with the ASUS ROG Strix X670E-A. Thinking this might be the last Gaming PC build so I am spoiling myself.
Great job!. You totally confirmed my thoughts when I saw that 7900x price. Made even worse by the fact the 5900x is the best bang for buck in the 5000 series(for productivity). P.S. I get the feeling these CPU manufacturers have started to specifically target Cinebench test results for headlines. I'm getting to where I try to ignore them in favor of of code compile and blender where it seems a little harder to "game" the test suite...and we always see good but more realistic gains.
5800x3D is kinda cracked. I do some productivity, but tbh at the volume I work at it's not that big of a deal to take a break while something is building. All I really need is to be GPU bound 100% of the time on my 3070. It's just so annoying to balance all the time. In the future I'm always gonna keep the CPU overpowered for those frametimes.
I bought this processor in Russia in June 2023 from private seller for 26k rubles, which was about 300$. Seems like I was really lucky to catch the right moment, because prices hiked since then due to all sorts of shit. I am still very confused why the grey market prices were so generous for this new hardware. 7950x was going as low as $360 back then, 7700x for $250. It seems like in USA 7900x still goes for $450 right now. X3D, on the other hand, were much less appealing. They were and still are rather expensive, 7950X3D goes for $800-900 in “official” stores
Out of the box, yes. But in eco mode Zen 4's efficiency is amazing. The 7700X limited to 65W only loses 1-2% in gaming and ST performance and 9% in MT performance.
Just a not when highlighting, instead of going opposite colors, should use a different colour completely, or like shade with diagnoal lines/white dots etc
No need to do undervolting, just set it to 65w or 105w on ECO mode, that alone will bring massive improvement to power efficiency without any big loss to performance.
Hey Steve, thanks for the review, well done. Have you thought about adding cpu platform comparison section to the cpu reviews? Or maybe a separate video comparing the platform features? The cpu choice might be depending on the platform, especially when considering cpus for content creation or workstations. IE the X670 chipset has only 2x 4 pcie lanes worth of bandwidth for storage (z690 has 3x 4lanes)while using the primary gpu slot.
Hi Steve. Will you be exploring undervolting these CPUs? I know Brian from techyescity did one but he only used the 7950x (but it was in impressed result.) I'm interested more in the 7600x or the 7700x (when the prices of the ram and boards come down in price).
motherboards will barely budge judging from my x570 crosshair dark hero, here it came down from 470$ at release to 430$ today and it's x670 version is now 770$ !!!
Here in Sweden r5-7600x cost 200$ less than r7-5800x3d but x670 and DDR5 6000MHz together will cost 300$ over b550 + 3600Mhz 16cl. I think going for DDR5 6000MHz with x670 with r5-7600x will be a better idea to go for over b550 + 3600Mhz 16cl r7-5800x3d.
At 11:37 The power consumption of 7900X compared to 5900X is 25% higher. You compared the power consumption of the 7950X with the 5900X which is 47% higher BUT this video is about the 7900X, no? :)
I was also thinking that the price for the 7900X seems odd. For anybody who actually needs or who would significantly benefit from a 7900X, surely the 7950X would be well worth the extra 150 USD. Moreover, if you're on a tighter budget but still want a lot of heavily threaded performance, a 5950X seems like an excellent alternative to the 7900X, with superior power consumption, and no need to upgrade your motherboard platform from AM4 (or, a much lower motherboard + RAM cost for someone buying a whole new system). A lot of people who might need/ want a 7900X likely already HAVE a 5950X, as they've been going on sale for the last 6 months or so. That being said, it is impressive that the 7900X is able to consistently pull ahead of the 5900X in pretty much all benchmarks except for ones which are constrained by GPU performance. I expect that most people who are buying the 7900X will be enthusiasts who don't really need the multi-threaded performance that much, but a 7700X or 7600X will likely be better for gaming, because they won't run into scheduling issues which can hurt the 7900X and 7950X a little bit in some games. Likewise, the 5900X and 5950X, and the 3900X and 3950X, are all going to be sub-optimal choices if you're mostly doing gaming and not a lot of heavily threaded work.
The 5950X is NOT more efficient than the 7950X. Seems like HUB just didn't get AMD's memo on Eco Mode. Literally just toggle that on and you greatly reduce Zen 4's power consumption and heat production while comfortably outperforming Zen 3. But yeah, that $150 gap must be meant to push more folks to buy 7950X instead.
One interesting thing, other reviewers (can't remember exactly which off the top of my head) commented they were able to get over 200fps in shadow of the tomb raider with the new zen processors. This was not using anything crazy (no ln2) it was just their standard benchmark series. might have been paul's hardware or GN steve? can't remember for sure... but it was someone trustworthy.
Nice review Steve. Seems like you have a lot more to go. 4000 series, 7000 series, A770, 13000 series. More sleepless nights for you. Thanks for doing this. One request tho. Can you also please include a gaming power consumtion chart using 3 game average - 1 CPU heavy game, 1 low CPU usage game and 1 mid CPU usage game? Thanks.
Well , an other You Tuber sucessfully managed to undervolt an 7950x with PBO2 and the Curve editor and a Power Limit and brought the Temps down to 70-80 C without sacrificing Performance . You should look into this as well because all AMD MoBos , even the cheaper ones will have this options and all AMD CPUs can be OC and UV , its not like Intel where you need an " K " CPU and a " Z " MoBo . With undervolting you can archive an lower Power consumption , less Heat and less Noise without necessarily sacrifice Performane , it simply depends on the Silicon Lottery how much you can archive .
I love that AMD will put out new AM5 processors and we can just drop a new cpu into the socket in 2-3 years and keep going. Intel will need a new mobo after 13th gen. THat is why after 15 years, I am going back to AMD.
Honestly. I am more interested in the Intel 13K series than AMD 7000 series. Intel has stepped up lately. This 7K series might beat 12K series. But that isn't the real competition is it. The 13K comes out in a month. It has increased thread and core count etc. I bet a 13700K would even be a contender against the 7900X, but far cheaper. Note, I only care about gaming. My god, the temps on those AMD CPUs now. 95c with a good cooler, lol WTF. Hey, maybe Intel will be as bad, I don't know. Still. Power consumption might be higher on the Intel, but even with lower power it can still easily beat it's previous 12K series.
in my opinion 7900x is future proof for more demanding CPU games in future or for people like me who work with 3d rendering and video editing softwares a lot. I'm very happy with it 😃
You keep saying gamers would be better off just going with a 7600X or 7700X but wouldn't they really be better off with a 5800X3D or 12700K/ 12600K and save hundreds going with a budget board and DDR4? That they could then put those savings towards a better GPU which would actually make a considerable performance difference in gaming? Idk just seems Zen4 for gamers right now isn't worth it whatsoever at least the value gamers that's for sure.
Of course gamers would be better off going with a 5800X3D or a 12600K/12700K and a budget board/DDR4. Most gamers wouldn't see anything close to this performance difference between CPU's because they're not using 3090ti's lol. You're MUCH better off getting the cheaper platform and using that extra money to get a better GPU hands down no question. Zen 4 is complete butt right now in terms of gaming value.
Ngl the 7600X is pretty DOA when you can save a couple hundred and get a i7-12700, B660 board, and DDR4 for a couple hundred less and get better productivity performance and comparable gaming performance. It's going to be even worse when 13th gen comes out. 13600K is gunna be a 14 core 20 thread CPU now? vs a 6 core 12 thread 7600X? And you can use current B660/ Z690 boards and DDR4 saving all that cash? Idk man AMD is in a pretty rough spot on the low end.
last month I got a b560m motherboard for $59 Canadian, and i7 10700 8 core 16 thread CPU for $209 Canadian, and last week I got an RX 6700xt on sale for $429 Canadian. I also got 64 GB of ddr4 3200 MHz ram for $89 Open Box Sale... people should definitely start looking at deals like that.
Yes, because its smart to buy into a dead-end plat...
Seems like AMD is purely relying on people adopting the 7600X and 7700X based on their track record of long-term support like AM4 because I can't see any other reason to get either of those CPU's right now given the poor value. But then again AMD only said they would support this to 2025 which is just over 2 years.... So what is that just 1 more platform? I mean they could support it longer but saying 2025 isn't that enticing if I'm being honest.
One of the reasons why the 5900x was so popular was that it had the cheapest price/core ratio and was great at everything.
That price drop on the 7950x makes it real appealing. My brother in law just bought one lmao. I remember Zen 3 being so expensive at launch (if you could get one) and prices have came waaaay down. A 5900x at $350 is such a baller deal right now though it's hard to recommend Zen 4 currently for someone upgrading from a way older system.
I don't like it when RUclipsrs are telling you what CPU to buy personally. I look at the data, look at what I'm doing and make my own judgements.
The two Steves always used to hate on AMD 8 core parts, but that's always one of the most popular one according to sales data, so obviously a lot of people ignore the commentary, just like me.
"Just buy the 7950X"
Why? I don't need a 16 core part. If 8 cores weren't enough for what I do I'd jump to the 12 core part. AMD has actually spaced out the pricing pretty appropriately for Zen 4, and it looks like the 7900X is often giving the best performance per core. That's actually spread out more in Zen 4 depending on what you're doing and that's a good thing. For Zen 3 the 5800X was the best part for perf./core but it wasn't the cheapest.
But why should I care about cheapest for perf/core if it's overkill for what I do?? I'm still spending more money than I need to that I could use to put into a GPU, where universally reviewers have said is the smartest thing to do, until they do a CPU review and make a stupid statement like "buy the 7950X".
And that's why I don't subscribe to these channels. The data they put out in the charts is good, but the commentary? I don't want their opinion. I know WTF I'm doing.
@@madgodzilla12465 Yeah they dropped the prices because AMD has been making a KILLING off of server and game console sales. So, they could afford to make less profit off Zen 3 Ryzen.
There's no way in hell I spend $700 for a CPU when an 8 core CPU is what I need based on years of understanding of WTF I do on my system.
@@johndoh5182 because the 7950x is better than the 7900x
My 5900X is the greatest CPU I have ever owned. Bought it in mid 2021 for $380. No reason to buy into Zen 4 or AM5 just yet. Zen 5 though, I'll be waiting
A power-target benchmark would be very interesting, seeing how those Zen4-CPU's hold up with 105, 90 and 65W, something around those numbers. I also would be interested in a deep-dive into coolers. Do the old towercoolers suffice (also taking sound into consideration)? Can you put a Noctua D15 (AM4 edition) on AM5 without a extra kit? Such things.
agree
I saw some mentions that someone has done this already but can't remember who. Saw it on another review. I believe it was pretty decent.
@@farmeunit I still have to check but people under previous videos said Gordon from PCWorld did test the eco mode.
Ian from TechtechPotato during his liveshow didn't show any result for this but was very enthusiastic that at 65W TDP the multicore perf is moderately reduced but the single core perf is unchanged. He said 7950X in eco 65W was still better than a 12900K and for him this is the way he will use those Zen 4 CPUs.
For the cooler compatibility, AFAIK Ian said he was using a Noctua D15 with no issue but he warned to be careful to wait until vendors provide kits for incompatible coolers. Roman "DerBauer" has several compatibility issues when delidding or installing his subzero cooling pot. Roman also gets a huge 20Kelvin gain by delidding and applying liquid metal and said that this height compatibility with a thicker IHS may become an issue for future AM5 competitiveness.
@@farmeunit i think optimum tech did some tuning to a 7700x and a 7950x. got thermals down by about 20 degrees
@@maximus3294 TechYes dropped 300 Mhz and dropped 40C, I believe. Maybe there was a voltage drop, as well. I think from default to. 985.
Thanks for not rushing in with reviews, and taking it one by one. Great, detailed job, as always! Looking forward for the motherboards :)
95c is NOT good for computer components period. Idc what the company says, those are WAY over space heater temps 🤷🏾♂️. Intel has the cooler, faster, cheaper cpu. Definitely the easy choice here
@@mackdaddypeypey1 What really matters is power consumption; just because the CPU reaches 95c doesn't mean that it's a nuclear furnace the way some components are. Passively cooled components can reach high temperatures even though they are very low power parts, because they're passively cooled.
And frankly, this has to be the logical conclusion of any form of true boosting algorithm. On Zen2 and Zen3, people have always wondered why their CPU doesn't run faster when it has thermal headroom. With Zen4, AMD has apparently been able to tweak the algorithm such that it automatically runs as hard as it possibly can for any given workload, meaning there is virtually 0 performance left on the table(and overclocking might also be completely pointless).
I don't have an issue with Intel doing this either, as long as the power consumption numbers are mostly acceptable.
@@mackdaddypeypey1 ??? Intel boost Up to 105 degrees.
^ true
@@mackdaddypeypey1 ??? Intel is not faster, you Miss Out the Points, you can save a few Bugs on Intel by using DDR4. But If you do, you lose 10%.
The title itself alone says how different and valuable this channel then most of the rest. No clickbait, clear sentence summarizing the the whole video. You are one of the best ...
I also appreciate non-caps in the title. so unnecessary and obviously just attention seeking. and obviously the content is top-notch. this is indeed one of the best channels on YT.
just got my 5900x for 300usd... guess i wont be upgrading until socket AM6
i wonder what AM6 would look like
Why? Amd will support the AM5 socket for many generations.
Me too 💪
@@geiers6013 maybe he only upgrades very rarely
Epic fail
The B-roll is a testament to "Hey look! No pins!". Looking forward to seeing if these IHSs can be shrunk/thinned, would be great if we can do that by Zen 4 3D
Not technically what you asked for but I believe derbauer has recently delidded a zen4 chip and used direct die cooling, you might find it interesting 🙂
@@soggycatgirl Thanks! Yeah his video was was got me onto the 'thick IHS' mindset, idk we'll see what gets invented in time
@@conza1989 DerBauer said it was to keep the height compatibility with AM4 coolers. So this is certainly not something AMD will change for future AM5 CPUs but we will probably see aftermarket thin IHS.
@@PainterVierax I'm sure I'm not alone in the community when I say I'll gladly take a fat IHS over having to buy a new cooler. It might run warmer as a result, but Optimum Tech has an excellent video on tweaking these chips to run up to 30⁰ cooler with minimal performance loss.
@@benjaminoechsli1941 I was on the same boat as cooler mounting was one of the reason why I didn't jump on AM4 in 2017.
That being said, that compatibility feature shouldn't be AMD's concern as serious brands always provide kits for new sockets. Although buying a new budget cooler is not a huge cost, way less expensive than new RAM dimms.
edit: Also the PCO tuning presented by Optimum Tech can provide even more large performance gains if the IHS was thinner. AMD is known to be very conservative on stock curve since decades but PCO results like any OC /UV are silicon lottery dependent though.
At the Cost per Frame chart, you should take $100 off of the RAM for the 5800x3d as it doesn't care much about RAM speed, DDR4-3600 only gained 7.2% performance over DDR4-2133. 3600 c14 vs c16 is less than a percentage difference in performance, and a c16 can be picked up for $100 instead of $200 for c14. This would put the cost per frame at 4.49 for the 5800x3d.
And this is without considering cpu cooler differences.
If the 5800x3d truly doesn't care about RAM, there are 3200mhz cl16 kits selling for under 50 bucks like every day. And if that only costs you 1% or something compared to faster RAM, then it makes sense.
Yeah not a fan of most of the price per frame charts, you dont need expensive ddr4 or even a motherboard for pervious gens. He puts in high cost for older platforms to make the new one not seem so bad.
@@Gomes862 You don't need a lot of things for a computer - like a case, just nail it to some cardboard. Youll probably still get one though.
@@RyanApplegatePhD Very funny, but still ignoring overspending on the ram and mobo as he did on lower end, and cheating out on the higher end to bring that down
Hope you understand but i don't usually have time to watch the whole video here, and i feel like watching one of the Zen 4 reviews gives me enough context to be able to comfortably skip the benchmarks and get straight to the cost per frame and conclusion. The timestamps are a godsend is what I'm trying to say.
Love to see the 5800X3D still holding its own on the charts.
Yep can't wait for the 7800x3d!
Zen 4 is not worse than Zen 3 in performance per watt. To properly compare that metric, you have to run them at the same power level. Since you can't get Zen 3 up to a 170W TDP, that means running Zen 4 at a 105W TDP, where it will still greatly outperform Zen 3. It will still outperform Zen 3 at a 65W TDP as well, even when Zen 3 has a 105W TDP.
Being able to squeeze out an extra 10% performance by using an amount of power that Zen 3 can't reach doesn't make Zen 4 less efficient. It makes it more scalable.
Most people don't seem to understand this simple statement. Efficiency is given by performance-power graph/curve not just by no. of points/frames per watt. If you run 7950x at 105w TDP (without undervolt) you can get it to be 42% more power efficient than 5950x. If you run 5950x or 5900x with PBO, it will increase your power consumption a looooot but will only give like 5-10% boost over stock which means zen 3 doesn't scale well with higher power consumption.
They're gonna benchmark these with lower power levels, for sure. Steve commented in one of the review videos that they don't do these kinds of tests in review videos, that's post-launch content. It kind of makes sense to me as this is the default configuration that AMD decided to go with but of course it would be better if we also had ECO modes tests here.
Literally This.
A few things, AMD changed the TDP formula between zen 3 and 4. The TDP numbers are rubbish. Take a consistent work load, blender, measure the power draw at the EPS cable, and time taken per unit worked. You could make it anything 1 frame, 5 frames etc. I'm pretty sure GN tested this too and found a 5950x was more efficient vs the 7950.
This isn't a review of Zen 4 the architecture, it's a review of this CPU. That means testing the CPU's default behaviour and evaluating it, not fiddling with the settings to find favourable results which 99.99% of people will never do.
Man getting the 5800x3D was such a great choice especially considering how cool it runs even on heavy loads (never gets hotter than 50C)
I am building a new machine. I plan to get the 7700x and a b650 MoBo and then wait for the 7800x 3d... the 5800 3d looks tempting, but I don't want to pull the trigger in a platform that doesn't have any upgrades pathway
The x3D is B2 stepping and the cache can help efficiency, the GN review highlighted that.
@@Games_and_Tech Similar issue, the AM5 platform looks good, I simply don't find upgrading to an x3D is cost effective. OTOH I can wait to upgrade.
Optimum Tech video on configuring platform thermal limit and PPT with undervolt is worth seeing.
The thermal throttle isn't giving reviewers ways to feel good about their monster cooling systems.
5800x 3d was a super smart choice !!!!
@@nuclearpcs2139 only game not prodectivity
I would love to see a full benchmark run from any single ryzen 7000 chip with the same undervolt optimum tech published. So can getting that 20c drop impact Performace either way.
Keep up the great work!
That video was sick!
Undervolt is like overclock, it may work on some chips, but it may crash on others using the same settings, so it's stupid to test that since not everyone will get the same result, it's just misleading
It's best to do overclock tests on a largeish sample of retail CPUs, otherwise you get golden samples that buyers won't experience.
Perhaps it could be a community project?
@@lhv2k not really there was other youtube as well who underclocked and got great results. Dropped 20°c with little to no performance loss I think it was tech city. Maybe they all got best silicon? Even then you could probably drop 10
@@spookyskellyskeleton609 techyes did he same thing undervolted and got a cooler cpu and same speed.
Well here in Canada, 7950x $1050, 7900x $740 and 7700x $550... so ya 5900x at $490 looks like a good upgrade. Plus AM5 board prices are very steep right now like $400 for a basic board!!!
wanted to upgrade from a x570 asus crosshair to x670 here and the price has risen from 470(at release now 430) to 770$ for the "same" model motherboard I think brands are going to be greatly disappointed by sales judging from the comments, every board has enthusiast high-end price now
Over in the UK the prices are £590 and £800 which means the 7950X is 35% more expensive instead of the 27% you get between $550 and $700 (if this is the correct dollar price). You can save £100 on the motherboard if you get a B650 over a X670 but I'm not sure if you'd want a 7900X on a B650 so if you're also spending extra on the motherboard perhaps it still makes sense to go for the 7950X/X670 or the 7700X/B650?
Im in dire need of a new workstation / gaming rig and am torn between the 7900x /7950x or using a 7700x temporarily for streaming and building a cheap stream PC later
I would love to see the same ryzen 7000 processors review at 65W.
once you/we are through all these initial launch-tests I would really be interested in the "what options you have in the real world at what tradeoffs"-test (c) 😉
So e.g. comparing the mid-range 7900 and 7700 (one or two dies - with differnt cooling-challenges maybe?) with other cooling solutions than top end 360 AiO on an open bench - like a Noctua/beQuiet air-cooler in a silent-case -> what performance do you loose?
Or using the "Eco-mode" (I think AMD called it) ... what power/temp you end up with then... and is it maybe the more reasonable mode for these Zen4 for everyday use?
... etc.
Or if you have the 5000 series just keep enjoying what you have.
Something i'm noticing a lot of RUclips reviewers are missing is MSFS. MSFS is very CPU demanding and would be great to benchmark
Hopefully soon you will be able to benchmark all the new CPU's and GPU's which will give us a clear picture of the improvements in the latest gen of products. More late nights coming up for you Steve.
I'm going with AMD for my new build. This will be my first ever non-Intel build. Already have my mobo (X670E Crosshair Hero). Now, just need to decide on the CPU. Great video, mate!!
That 5800x3d just keeps on looking like the 'high end but budget' gaming and production king.
11:35 - At 242 watts total system power consumption for the 5900x, the 7900x at 302 watts is NOT 47% more power consumption. It's not even close. 302w/242w = 1.2479 (a 24.79% higher power consumption for the 7900x).
47% is the difference between the 5900x and the 7950x.
16:29 master chief is so excited to have a 7950x in his hand
from your graphs the interesting cpu for gaming is the 7700x (but not really knowing there should be an x3d version of it)
also, i know you all test as they come from the factory but there are huge gains to be had just by using the PBO2 curve optimizer. early adopters will have to deal with 90°c and more.
i cant wait for the heavy discounted prices of the 5800x3d no new gen for me for at least a couple of years
Thanks for these reviews Steve. I am really looking forward to your motherboard reviews before buying as they were really helpful when choosing on AM4. I hope you have time to check some out before the next wave of GPU or Intel CPUs launch.
For me the higher motherboard prices are partially offset by knowing I can keep it for 4 years and drop in a 3d Cache 7800X later. The RAM likewise will last vs if you were to buy an AM4 system new today.
Hopefully post 13th gen reviews the AMD prices will come down a bit too. The 7900X and 7700X are already €50 here in Europe and are still in stock 3 days post launch
AMD is now a premium brand, with premium features, Intel is now the tight budget pc builder best friend.
Looking forward to the 4k benchmarks.
7900X is really impressive compared to the 5950X 25% better single core and 20% better multicore based on cinebench.
The only "downside" is that it is overkill for gaming and for productivity there is always the 7950X which is only 150 bucks more
Yeah, reducing the price gap between them seems like it must've been intended to sell more 7950Xs.
It's definitely overkill, but people (myself included) bought it because 12>8, and 5.6>5.4. Not because it made any logical sense, simply because we wanted the second best consumer desktop CPU money can buy.
Wait for Intel. They will force amd prices down without a doubt. As it stands, both will be good options and no one will tell a difference between two CPUs at a given price.
@@limitisillusion7 Honestly stoked for both Intel and AMD at this point. A cheap 7600X or 13600K will be amazing for consumers
@@towb0at I need a GPU at a price point below 800$ that needs a faster CPU than an 11700k before I get excited about this new stuff. It'll be a few years before that happens.
Current price on the 7900X is $400 on Newegg, making it the hands down best choice for the price cirrently
Two things that I appreciate these days are value and efficiency. CPUs are getting so powerful that the percentage of people needing them probably goes down as they get more powerful. Marketing could certainly skew what people buy but I suspect that the vast majority would be fine with the 6-core models.
6-core models are fine for today's games but what about games that come out in the year 2024? Or 2025? Or 2026? About 5 years ago they said that 4-core models were enough and they were correct. 4 cores were enough. Now they're not. I plan to stay on the AM4 platform until the end of the current decade so eventually. In the future, games will need 8 cores as a minimum. Then it will be 12 cores minimum.
like many have already said I think I’ll stick with AM4 and try 5800x3d before seeing what the x3d versions of AM5 can do. if adding vcache can add 10-15 percent to gaming performance I would rather pay premium for that than current performance over 5000 series. As I currently have x570 and 3000 series cpu I don’t see the value in dumping MB, and memory when functionally I can get most of the performance for 430$ rather than expensive memory, MB and cpu.
@Steve , 5:23 maybe there is a typo or something... In the Blender test, it is said that the 7900X is a 30 % faster than the 12900K, but I've made the operation with those numbers, and unless I'm terribly wrong, here it's giving me a 18% faster, so, much less. Or maybe am I not considering something ? (btw, Blender is the app I care more about ;) )
Also, in the Cinebench test, multiple core, 4:10 , It is also said "it was also just 12% slower than the 7950X". But 29.358 is the 76.92% of 38.165, so, the difference is a bit more than 23%, not 12%. At this point, I'm starting doubting myself, I must be doing the math wrong... I only did look at it as the size of the bars didn't match with what I was hearing.
If it's a typo, understandable, with that mountain of data and tests.... Sorry if it is my mistake...
Was looking for this comment, I noticed that immediately as well. He says 25% less cores but only 12% less performance but it's almost 25%/25%, as it should be.
@@dewjustin I have noticed it happens in other instances (in other graphs), but I did not want to make the comment bloated or look like being picky after all his work. Maybe he's doing so much work per each video that has to calculate these things on the fly ( or no time to calculate them), being maybe visual estimations... So, I think I'll just focus on the graphs and numbers from now on (and my own conclusions ;) ).
In general, I compare Gamers Nexus, Linus', Puget Systems and Hardware Unboxed (and several written reviews) graphs from their benchmarks (not number by number, but yep in the stuff critical for me: for example if the 7600X does get a better score in Photoshop than a 12900K, as this is key for me, I'm asked often for low end machines for making graphic work, and I have my own interest on this).
Reminds me the 5800X on launch, stuck in no man's land price-wise.
Wait for a b650, get a 7700x and call it a day!
Now it’s $400 and the 7950x is $550 so it makes sense now
The cost of AM5 boards is way too high for AM5 to be worth it right now. The cheapest AM5 board I see at my local shop is 400 CAD right now vs 140 dollars for AM4.
I just quickly did mobo+ram+CPU and the 7600X would cost me almost 40% more than a 5800X3D and only offers 4% more performance, and maybe less performance for the games I like to play. As pricing stands right now, the 7600X is a complete failure.
You guys should do an curve optimization video with these new chips.
Are you guys able to do DCS ( Digital Combat Simulator ) game. It would be a great test. It likes to use just one core most of the time and it would give a bit more insight to how single core would perform while also expanding on a huge market
I truly appreciate the direction of the vid titles these days. Open and honest from the get go
Nice review ! But what is missing !? -> some people will also need a new mainboard o drive the new CPUs...
So we all waiting for the reviews of the new mainboards - like the Asus Hero, the Gigabyte Aorus Master, the AsRock Taichi !
These boards should be a nice option for us all...and for the future Ryzen 8000 or 9000 cpus.
7900x value is insane now that amd discounted it, i was able to go and get a 7900x, 32gb 6000mhz ram, and an asus b650e strix motherboard for $600 combined at micro center...absolutley NUTTY
That's what I'm going to get soon too lol. I got a 7900 xt for $845 and I'm getting this bundle to remove the bottlenecks.
I got the exact same bundle a few weeks ago. Was gonna wait until Ryzen 8000 series to upgrade from i7 6950X, but live only 30 minutes away from a Microcenter so when I saw this deal it was a no brainier.
7 months later and they're still doing it but with 64 gigs now.
Going to be really interesting to see what the price/performance ratios look like even just a month from now.
The reality of that Intel is kicking themselves in the ass after seeing Ryzen pricing. They could have only undercut amd by 20$ and both amd and Intel would have higher profits probably. But with such aggressive pricing from Intel, amd will lower prices significantly and they'll both be worse off. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if Intel raises MSRP.
Going from 5900x system power of 242 W to 7900X 302 W is not 47%, but 25%. Otherwise excellent review ;)
Since you have DDR5 6400 CL32 available and probably lower under 6000 too, would be nice a RAM speed comparison on Ryzen 7000. Another RUclipsr found that Ryzen 7 saw an improvement in some scenarios using 6400 RAM, and also using 4 DIMMS.
Yeah that was me, in my 7600X review ;)
@@Hardwareunboxed Thanks Steve, I found that very interesting in the 7600X review. I have a question though:
Do 4 DIMMs not get hotter than 2 since they are so close together? In AM4 if you got dual rank sticks then 2 DIMMs gave you the same performance as 4 single rank DIMMs. Is that no longer true with 2x 16GB kits on AM5?
Could you please test next the motherboards? not only the mid-range ones for instance like Tomahawk and other but also a high end ones like Carbon? if its realy worth to pay that extra cash. thank you and thumbs up for an amazing content again guys.
Just on time for lunch ☺️
It's early morning for me
Same but I'm at the airport
Ahhh! Just need Raptor lake to come out now, market to shake up, you guys do your fantastic benchmarks and then us gamers can look for good value in the new gen CPUs.
I'm really looking forward to a video of 7950x vs Zen 3 threadripper!
I'm excited for RPL, Zen4X3D and B650 boards so I can build a great 7700X system "for cheap" early next year.
Yup, no reason to jump until the dust settles (post 13th gen). I'll be looking for a 5900/5950 deal to replace my 3700x and ride that until Zen 5 makes sense.
Me too, I think 7700X / 7800X3D and good B650E looks like my next PC
Its 410 USD now, absolute steal
You guys are the GOAT for pc tech reviews!
I think they intentionally priced it that way so that when the X3D versions come up they'll lower the prices significantly.
16:25 - I love your slow panning funny B -rolls XD
16:24 - Either Master Chief really missed the T-Bag on that one. Or the 7950X is getting it's squats in on Master Chief.
No kidding! The 7950X is only 50$ more than a 7900X at the local computer shop.
It's somewhat funny looking back at this stuff by one month to see what the responses were. So, some arguments that people have not made:
First, if you are NOT into productivity software that makes use of all available cores, then you have to look at the reasons for buying a 12 or 16 core CPU in the first place. My own thinking is that if you run multiple programs at the same time, and just don't want background tasks slowing you down, then extra cores will really deal with that. This is why the efficiency cores in Alder Lake and Raptor Lake do have their uses. On the flip side, 12 cores/24 threads without big.little means that there is never a performance penalty if Windows puts a thread on the wrong core, or if you actually have background tasks doing things that are useful but you don't want them to run slower.
So, the whole, "Dollars per core" argument falls apart when not using your computer for real productivity stuff like rendering, because you are already going for extra cores you don't NEED. This isn't necessarily for business where you try to justify the cost per core. So, look at the prices, $700 will be too much to spend if you don't really need those extra cores for rendering, $550 isn't too much to spend at that point, while not for those who are pinching pennies.
Platform cost...$500 for the ASRock X670e Taichi. Yea, a bit more expensive than the Z670 version was, but there is a bit more on this board, the active cooler for the PCIe 5.0 SSD is included, more M.2 slots. But, in 2025 when Zen6 comes out, the new generation CPU will drop right into this board, while no CPU that comes out after 2022 from Intel will work on a Socket 1700 board, so you now need to buy a new board, and you can be sure it will cost more money. If you went DDR4 for Alder Lake or Raptor Lake, you will need to buy RAM at that point as well, or if you bought DDR5 memory for Alder Lake, you paid more than the cost of DDR5 is these days. All of this says that the platform cost from AMD will end up costing less money than the Socket 1700 from Intel.
Note that if you are at the lower end, the 7600X, you can get away with a $250 motherboard for socket AM5 as well, but there aren't really cheap motherboards. Still, if you consider that you may want to upgrade the CPU and not just replace the entire machine, that argument about being able to swap the CPU with no other costs will negate all but the cheapest $100-$150 motherboards from any conversation you may have. $250 for a motherboard when you can swap the CPU for AMD but not Intel in a few years, yea, $125 per CPU you use, and Intel loses that advantage. DDR5 6000-CL30 is only $70 or so more than DDR4-3600, so it's not really a big deal.
The song at the end of the video is an absolute banger.
I like the 7700x, highest frames with comparable cost per frame when 12700k is also using ddr5. With the possibility of a drop in cpu upgrade in a few years. I'm still thinking Raptor lake is going to shake up this segment though.
I like that new catchy tune at the end :P
I appreciate you doing a custom Cyberpunk benchmark, because the in-game one doesn’t stress the CPU very much.
yes and I must say as someone who does 500+ benchmarks every gen that the ingame bench have become useless my worst example is borderlands 3 1st the game is 99% gpu bound I reduced my cpu clock by 1.0Ghz and got the same fps I also got the same fps with 3960x 9900k 5950x and 12900k because the 1080ti was the limiter - now with a 3090 the 160fps it says isn't real it's way too low and doesn't represent reality with my 1080ti I had 115fps in bench/120fps in game so it worked but with a 3090 I have 169fps in bench but 220-350fps ingame !!! ingame benchmarks stopped working with the rtx 3000 and rx 6000 gpus and this is going to get worse if the rtx 4000 and rdna3 are really 60-100% faster
@@fredEVOIX It's just silly that this not so rarely leads to reviews misrepresenting the impact of new CPU generations. It's pretty absurd, as I've seen from some outlets, to suggest Cyberpunk isn't CPU limited past a certain tier of CPU. It is, even at higher resolutions. Just not everywhere.
I love the honesty in the titles. If this was a Jays2cents video it would be called, "AMD did what???" Lol
I decided to go with the 7900X as the price I am finding is $100 less than you have here and I like the lower power consumption while being at the top of the benchmarks for the games I play, Going big on a mobo with the ASUS ROG Strix X670E-A. Thinking this might be the last Gaming PC build so I am spoiling myself.
Funny. I'm going the same route for my first ever build.
Great job!. You totally confirmed my thoughts when I saw that 7900x price. Made even worse by the fact the 5900x is the best bang for buck in the 5000 series(for productivity).
P.S. I get the feeling these CPU manufacturers have started to specifically target Cinebench test results for headlines. I'm getting to where I try to ignore them in favor of of code compile and blender where it seems a little harder to "game" the test suite...and we always see good but more realistic gains.
I like how the 5800x3d is just casually there hanging with the ddr5 cpus lmaoooo
For what I want to do It's a cheaper, more power efficient and around 2% slower than the 7950 lol. Win win for me.
I really hope for next gen they focus on power and price and less on performance
4:10 Math is wrong . 7900x approx 24% slower than 7950x in Cinebench R23 multi
5800x3D is kinda cracked. I do some productivity, but tbh at the volume I work at it's not that big of a deal to take a break while something is building.
All I really need is to be GPU bound 100% of the time on my 3070. It's just so annoying to balance all the time.
In the future I'm always gonna keep the CPU overpowered for those frametimes.
I bought this processor in Russia in June 2023 from private seller for 26k rubles, which was about 300$. Seems like I was really lucky to catch the right moment, because prices hiked since then due to all sorts of shit. I am still very confused why the grey market prices were so generous for this new hardware. 7950x was going as low as $360 back then, 7700x for $250. It seems like in USA 7900x still goes for $450 right now. X3D, on the other hand, were much less appealing. They were and still are rather expensive, 7950X3D goes for $800-900 in “official” stores
Bought AMD 7700X runs at 5500Mhz and is cooler than my 12900K.Best CPU I have owned to date.
These are very good generation to generation improvements in every dimension except power use :D
Out of the box, yes. But in eco mode Zen 4's efficiency is amazing. The 7700X limited to 65W only loses 1-2% in gaming and ST performance and 9% in MT performance.
Really appreciate your hard work guys👍
Just a not when highlighting, instead of going opposite colors, should use a different colour completely, or like shade with diagnoal lines/white dots etc
Outro music is nice....good review.
Love the shot of the CPU in the mug... very subtle lol
How about undervolting? I saw few you tubers doing it with great results
No need to do undervolting, just set it to 65w or 105w on ECO mode, that alone will bring massive improvement to power efficiency without any big loss to performance.
That's some ryzen spider right there 1:11
Damm, love the title, concise and to the point!
Hey Steve, thanks for the review, well done.
Have you thought about adding cpu platform comparison section to the cpu reviews? Or maybe a separate video comparing the platform features? The cpu choice might be depending on the platform, especially when considering cpus for content creation or workstations. IE the X670 chipset has only 2x 4 pcie lanes worth of bandwidth for storage (z690 has 3x 4lanes)while using the primary gpu slot.
Hi Steve. Will you be exploring undervolting these CPUs?
I know Brian from techyescity did one but he only used the 7950x (but it was in impressed result.) I'm interested more in the 7600x or the 7700x (when the prices of the ram and boards come down in price).
motherboards will barely budge judging from my x570 crosshair dark hero, here it came down from 470$ at release to 430$ today and it's x670 version is now 770$ !!!
@@fredEVOIX oh damn.. lol maybe a 5600 and a new gpu, could be the way to go for me..
Here in Sweden r5-7600x cost 200$ less than r7-5800x3d but x670 and DDR5 6000MHz together will cost 300$ over b550 + 3600Mhz 16cl.
I think going for DDR5 6000MHz with x670 with r5-7600x will be a better idea to go for over b550 + 3600Mhz 16cl r7-5800x3d.
At 11:37 The power consumption of 7900X compared to 5900X is 25% higher. You compared the power consumption of the 7950X with the 5900X which is 47% higher BUT this video is about the 7900X, no? :)
I was also thinking that the price for the 7900X seems odd. For anybody who actually needs or who would significantly benefit from a 7900X, surely the 7950X would be well worth the extra 150 USD. Moreover, if you're on a tighter budget but still want a lot of heavily threaded performance, a 5950X seems like an excellent alternative to the 7900X, with superior power consumption, and no need to upgrade your motherboard platform from AM4 (or, a much lower motherboard + RAM cost for someone buying a whole new system).
A lot of people who might need/ want a 7900X likely already HAVE a 5950X, as they've been going on sale for the last 6 months or so. That being said, it is impressive that the 7900X is able to consistently pull ahead of the 5900X in pretty much all benchmarks except for ones which are constrained by GPU performance.
I expect that most people who are buying the 7900X will be enthusiasts who don't really need the multi-threaded performance that much, but a 7700X or 7600X will likely be better for gaming, because they won't run into scheduling issues which can hurt the 7900X and 7950X a little bit in some games. Likewise, the 5900X and 5950X, and the 3900X and 3950X, are all going to be sub-optimal choices if you're mostly doing gaming and not a lot of heavily threaded work.
The 5950X is NOT more efficient than the 7950X. Seems like HUB just didn't get AMD's memo on Eco Mode. Literally just toggle that on and you greatly reduce Zen 4's power consumption and heat production while comfortably outperforming Zen 3.
But yeah, that $150 gap must be meant to push more folks to buy 7950X instead.
One interesting thing, other reviewers (can't remember exactly which off the top of my head) commented they were able to get over 200fps in shadow of the tomb raider with the new zen processors. This was not using anything crazy (no ln2) it was just their standard benchmark series. might have been paul's hardware or GN steve? can't remember for sure... but it was someone trustworthy.
Nice review Steve. Seems like you have a lot more to go. 4000 series, 7000 series, A770, 13000 series. More sleepless nights for you. Thanks for doing this. One request tho. Can you also please include a gaming power consumtion chart using 3 game average - 1 CPU heavy game, 1 low CPU usage game and 1 mid CPU usage game? Thanks.
Well , an other You Tuber sucessfully managed to undervolt an 7950x with PBO2 and the Curve editor and a Power Limit and brought the Temps down to 70-80 C without sacrificing Performance . You should look into this as well because all AMD MoBos , even the cheaper ones will have this options and all AMD CPUs can be OC and UV , its not like Intel where you need an " K " CPU and a " Z " MoBo . With undervolting you can archive an lower Power consumption , less Heat and less Noise without necessarily sacrifice Performane , it simply depends on the Silicon Lottery how much you can archive .
An error occurred at 04:12 - Cinebench R23 is actually 23% slower then 7950X and not 12% as it is mentioned in the clip.
I love that AMD will put out new AM5 processors and we can just drop a new cpu into the socket in 2-3 years and keep going. Intel will need a new mobo after 13th gen. THat is why after 15 years, I am going back to AMD.
Here in the UK: 7900x £590. 12900k £611 on a platform soon to replaced by lga2551.
If I needed it I'd buy a 7900x or 7950x no problem.
working with 7950x must be a goddamn TREAT for productivity
Would be interesting to see FPS differences between low and high speed ddr5 in 4k to judge its worth at high res🤷♂️
Loving the mug shots 😂
Great review! Thank you
So we are re-doing all these videos in a few weeks with Raptor Lake? if so, I am sorry, but I will wait for those.
Awesome work, thanks for all your efforts!
Honestly. I am more interested in the Intel 13K series than AMD 7000 series. Intel has stepped up lately. This 7K series might beat 12K series. But that isn't the real competition is it. The 13K comes out in a month.
It has increased thread and core count etc. I bet a 13700K would even be a contender against the 7900X, but far cheaper. Note, I only care about gaming.
My god, the temps on those AMD CPUs now. 95c with a good cooler, lol WTF.
Hey, maybe Intel will be as bad, I don't know. Still.
Power consumption might be higher on the Intel, but even with lower power it can still easily beat it's previous 12K series.
7800X3D will stamp out everything as far as gaming performance goes.
in my opinion 7900x is future proof for more demanding CPU games in future or for people like me who work with 3d rendering and video editing softwares a lot. I'm very happy with it 😃