AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Ryzen 7 7700 and Ryzen 9 7900 Review: Re-reviewing Zen 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Steve

Should this be the 7700 not the 7700X?

I have found more.

"despite the cheapest DDR4-6400 memory coming in at $175"
DDR5 obviously

---
"the cheapest LGA 1700 boards available supporting DDR5 memory cost $160 for Z690, $170 for B670, $190 for B660 and $200 for Z790"

$170 for B660, $190 for B760 probably


And distinctly coloured bars for new CPUs would be appreciated.
 
You know, people REALLY aren't doing their homework because, when it comes to motherboards that use DDR5, AMD has Intel completely beat:

AM5 Platform:
AMD R5-7600 = $300
GIGABYTE B650M DS3H - $160
TOTAL = $460

LGA1700 DDR5 Platform:
Intel i5-13600K = $320
ASUS ROG STRIX B660-I GAMING WIFI LGA 1700 - $200
TOTAL = $520

Because pricing on pcpartpicker can't be trusted for sites like Amazon, I just went to newegg and selected 'In stock" and "Sold by newegg".
Thanks for the tip. I'm also in the market for a media PC upgrade (among a few others) this year - I'm still on an A10-7850 and, I'm guessing because of the Windohs 10 Bloatware, it seems to be slowing down. I'll probably go 7600X or maybe up to a 7800X for that. (Yeah, yeah, I know its over powered - but hey, its my money! :) )
I think PcPartsPicker or Passmark are doing that
Thanks. I found PcPartsPicker, but it seemed like they did not have AM5 parts, I'll have to check again. I will also have to check out Passmark.
 
Thanks for the tip. I'm also in the market for a media PC upgrade (among a few others) this year - I'm still on an A10-7850 and, I'm guessing because of the Windohs 10 Bloatware, it seems to be slowing down. I'll probably go 7600X or maybe up to a 7800X for that. (Yeah, yeah, I know its over powered - but hey, its my money! :) )
Is that the only PC you have? I only ask because if you have a gaming PC, I would recommend re-purposing those parts for your HTPC and getting new gaming hardware. A gaming PC used as an HTPC would be good for at least a decade from now because it doesn't take much to display 2D graphics, even at 2160p.
Thanks. I found PcPartsPicker, but it seemed like they did not have AM5 parts, I'll have to check again. I will also have to check out Passmark.
That's pretty shocking. I mean, they're not brand-new anymore.
 
AMD is in a tough place. The Zen 4's already had excellent gaming performance and running an X in eco mode barely affects that. However, for productivity they are getting slaughtered in about 80% of the software out there. As good as those Zen 4 cores are they can't overcome Intel's massive core count advantage in general at similar or less price.

I don't understand why AMD is talking about gaming only with the v-cache models, that's not their problem. Unless v-cache can boost productivity it won't be any more appealing given it will cost probably another $100 more. I still think 13700K is the sweet spot for gaming and productivity. For some of the stuff I run like COMSOL 13700K kills the 7900X/7950X. I'd just run the 13700K at a lower TDP limiting it to say 170W to keep power under control.
 
Each CCD can access the L3 cache on the other CCD but going through the IO die, which has a fairly large latency hit (roughly 6 times longer). However, since the L3 cache just stores what's been booted out of the L2 caches in the cores of that CCD, the one with V-cache will suffer fewer cache misses than the other CCD.

However, most games pile all of the main processing into a relatively small number of threads, and they'll probably get run on the priority CCD, which will almost certainly be the one with the V-cache.
It's the "probably" and "almost certainly" bits I don't trust. Intel had issues when they released E cores with games getting stuck running on them and having to disable E cores to get the best performance.

I'm concerned AMD's is easier to manage (tell Windows to use this CCD first) but might potentially leave performance on the table. Counter Strike being an example where lots of Cache won't help the framerate as much as a higher clocked CCD would.

Or what about a game like Star Citizen that wants to use as many threads as possible. How does it spread the load out across all 16 cores when 8 of them have access to much more L3 cache much quicker? Or would the performance be worse giving the non-VCache CCD threads to do if those threads need lots of cache? Or would it need to be optimised for by the game engine itself, ask Windows what CCD has the cache, put these threads on that but run these other threads on the lesser but higher clocked CCD?

I'm rambling, just thinking out loud really.
 
AMD is in a tough place. The Zen 4's already had excellent gaming performance and running an X in eco mode barely affects that. However, for productivity they are getting slaughtered in about 80% of the software out there. As good as those Zen 4 cores are they can't overcome Intel's massive core count advantage in general at similar or less price.

I don't understand why AMD is talking about gaming only with the v-cache models, that's not their problem. Unless v-cache can boost productivity it won't be any more appealing given it will cost probably another $100 more. I still think 13700K is the sweet spot for gaming and productivity. For some of the stuff I run like COMSOL 13700K kills the 7900X/7950X. I'd just run the 13700K at a lower TDP limiting it to say 170W to keep power under control.
Whatever you are smoking, pass it around the room. Did you just pull that "80%" from thin air?
.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-13700k-cpu-review/4

https://www.techspot.com/review/2538-amd-ryzen-7900x/
 
Ok, all X-parts are now useless... cool ? if I was a early ryzen 7k adopter, I would be really sad right now ... and with the X3Ds coming, I don't see the use for the X-ones... imo
The X parts still clock higher out of the box so they're not useless. The price difference isn't that big between them right now.
 
The X parts still clock higher out of the box so they're not useless. The price difference isn't that big between them right now.
You are right in that perspective. But there's another perspective: non X parts can work better on mainboards with poor VRM setup. I'm not an owner of a AM5 system and I'm not informed of how well the current mainboards in the market do but as an owner of a cheap AM4 (cheapest Asrock b450m board) I can say VRM setup can be a serious bottleneck when choosing a CPU or considering a CPU upgrade. For example my system may handle a 5600 but not the 5600x, choosing to upgrade to a 5600x has more potential to blow my mainboard.
 
You are right in that perspective. But there's another perspective: non X parts can work better on mainboards with poor VRM setup. I'm not an owner of a AM5 system and I'm not informed of how well the current mainboards in the market do but as an owner of a cheap AM4 (cheapest Asrock b450m board) I can say VRM setup can be a serious bottleneck when choosing a CPU or considering a CPU upgrade. For example my system may handle a 5600 but not the 5600x, choosing to upgrade to a 5600x has more potential to blow my mainboard.
eco mode exists for the X parts (or you can manually set power limits). if that's your concern. but I doubt you'll buy 12-16 core CPUs and use a cheap board (even for the non-x parts).
 
Or what about a game like Star Citizen that wants to use as many threads as possible. How does it spread the load out across all 16 cores when 8 of them have access to much more L3 cache much quicker? Or would the performance be worse giving the non-VCache CCD threads to do if those threads need lots of cache? Or would it need to be optimised for by the game engine itself, ask Windows what CCD has the cache, put these threads on that but run these other threads on the lesser but higher clocked CCD?
Most modern games use way more threads than the average CPU can handle simultaneously. Take Shadow of the Tomb Raider, as an example, which is pretty CPU intensive, even at maximum graphics settings.

Below is the list of threads recorded during gameplay. The second column is how many seconds of CPU runtime that thread has been active for and the third column is the number of CPU cycles accumulated by that thread.

sotr_full_threads01.png

Note that it gets through the threads without any obvious issue -- one thread is taking up a significant amount of CPU runtime by itself, four more are reasonably demanding, and the rest are all very quickly processed.

However, the data was recorded on a system using an 8C/8T CPU, so Window's thread scheduler has nothing to be concerned about over thread allocation. If it was a dual CCD 16C/32T CPU, though, then it's a different matter. Ideally, you want the scheduler to ensure that the data heavy threads (e.g. the ones above that have long runtime and lots of cycles) are being processed on the CCD with the V-cache.

There's little that the game developers can do about this, other than keeping the number of those types of threads to a minimum. It's down to AMD and Microsoft working together, to improve drivers, firmware, and Windows to correctly manage and allocate threads on asymmetrical hardware. Intel and Microsoft have managed this with the P/E core malarky, so there's no reason why it can't be done for the forthcoming X3D models.
 
eco mode exists for the X parts (or you can manually set power limits). if that's your concern. but I doubt you'll buy 12-16 core CPUs and use a cheap board (even for the non-x parts).
Ok but why pay more for an x part if you're going to use it in eco mode?
 
Is that the only PC you have? I only ask because if you have a gaming PC, I would recommend re-purposing those parts for your HTPC and getting new gaming hardware. A gaming PC used as an HTPC would be good for at least a decade from now because it doesn't take much to display 2D graphics, even at 2160p.
Its a great suggestion, however, my "gaming PC" is an Ivy Bridge Xeon. It does have a 980Ti in it. I know its more money, but I think my preference is to get my hardware more up-to-date.
That's pretty shocking. I mean, they're not brand-new anymore.
My thinking was very similar.
Depending on your graphics needs, see this article.

Thanks. I will check it out. I have been thinking 66 or 6700 XT for the media PC graphics, but I may change my mind. I'll have to upgrade my AVR, too, since it is not 48Gbps HDMI 2.1 compliant, but I've already got the WAF for that. :laughing:
This app:

PC Builder: Part Picker
By Codewaster

Find it on google play
Thanks. I'll check it out.
 
Its a great suggestion, however, my "gaming PC" is an Ivy Bridge Xeon. It does have a 980Ti in it. I know its more money, but I think my preference is to get my hardware more up-to-date.
There's absolutely no reason to use anything better than that! Hell, I built my mom a "new" PC (which she uses as an HTPC) because she got a Sony 4K OLED TV and the Phenom II X4 940 system with an XFX Radeon HD 6450 couldn't handle 2160p.

I built her a PC using spare parts I had lying around. Her CPU is now an FX-8350 on a Gigabyte 990FX motherboard with 8GB of Cetus UMAX DDR3-1333. For her GPU, I gave her what was the direct rival of the GTX 980, a Sapphie R9 Fury Nitro OC+. I also bought her a Gigabyte P650B 650W 80+Bronze PSU (on sale for $40CAD), a new case to fit the gigantic (307mm) R9 Fury (about $50CAD) and I grabbed her a 128GB 2.5" SATA SSD to use as her system drive (ONLY $20CAD).

As an HTPC running Windows 10, it is literally PERFECT. There is literally no upside to buying new hardware for an HTPC when the hardware that you have would be more than sufficient. Put that extra money towards upgrading your gaming PC because otherwise, that older hardware you have will just become more e-waste before its time.

I know that you like newer hardware, I like newer hardware too but you gotta remember that hardware advancement outpaces software by an order of magnitude. There will be literally no benefit whatsoever to be gained by buying new hardware for an HTPC because your HTPC will be at least as good as my mother's and as I said, hers is PERFECT.

All I'm saying is that you should at least try it out before you piss your money away. I know that if you do try it out, you'll be more than satisfied with it and that's hundreds more that you can dedicate to upgrading your gaming PC which is pretty significant. The money that you spent all those years ago can still be of great benefit to you. Since you've already spent it, you might as well, eh? :D
Thanks. I will check it out. I have been thinking 66 or 6700 XT for the media PC graphics, but I may change my mind.
There will be no difference whatsoever in media playback (even at 4K) between a GTX 980 Ti and an RX 6600 XT. They will both play whatever you want with perfect clarity without stuttering. The difference is that you already own the GTX 980 Ti and it's not like you're ever going to have to worry about driver updates for media playback. If the card kicks the bucket down the road, then sure, replace it. Until that day though, it's a complete waste because nobody's in the market for a card that old for more than $50. :laughing:
 
Last edited:
There's absolutely no reason to use anything better than that! Hell, I built my mom a "new" PC (which she uses as an HTPC) because she got a Sony 4K OLED TV and the Phenom II X4 940 system with an XFX Radeon HD 6450 couldn't handle 2160p.

I built her a PC using spare parts I had lying around. Her CPU is now an FX-8350 on a Gigabyte 990FX motherboard with 8GB of Cetus UMAX DDR3-1333. For her GPU, I gave her what was the direct rival of the GTX 980, a Sapphie R9 Fury Nitro OC+. I also bought her a Gigabyte P650B 650W 80+Bronze PSU (on sale for $40CAD), a new case to fit the gigantic (307mm) R9 Fury (about $50CAD) and I grabbed her a 128GB 2.5" SATA SSD to use as her system drive.

As an HTPC running Windows 10, it is literally PERFECT. There is literally no upside to buying new hardware for an HTPC when the hardware that you have would be more than sufficient. Put that extra money towards upgrading your gaming PC because otherwise, that older hardware you have will just become more e-waste before its time.

I know that you like newer hardware, I like newer hardware too but you gotta remember that hardware advancement outpaces software by an order of magnitude. There will be literally no benefit whatsoever to be gained by buying new hardware for an HTPC because your HTPC will be at least as good as my mother's and as I said, hers is PERFECT.

All I'm saying is that you should at least try it out before you piss your money away. I know that if you do try it out, you'll be more than satisfied with it and that's hundreds more that you can dedicate to upgrading your gaming PC which is pretty significant. The money that you spent all those years ago can still be of great benefit to you. Since you've already spent it, you might as well, eh? :D

There will be no difference whatsoever in media playback (even at 4K) between a GTX 980 Ti and an RX 6600 XT. They will both play whatever you want with perfect clarity without stuttering. The difference is that you already own the GTX 980 Ti and it's not like you're ever going to have to worry about driver updates for media playback. If the card kicks the bucket down the road, then sure, replace it. Until that day though, it's a complete waste because nobody's in the market for a card that old for more than $50. :laughing:
I appreciate the suggestion.

However, the 980 Ti is HDMI 2.0 only. For not all that much more than what 980 Tis are currently selling for on e-bay, there are newer GPUs out there that support HDMI 2.1. Maybe things will change by the time I do get around to upgrading that particular PC, but then again, I could just buy a GPU that supports HDMI 2.1 off e-bay, too.

I don't see the point in having a GPU that cannot fully drive my display (and yes, I'll be doing UHD Blu-ray, too), and I likely have a different set of standards than you or your mother. (No disrespect intended). Also, I'm not that big of a gamer so saving a few dollars that I could put toward a "gaming" PC is not really a value proposition for me.

I am more likely to regret spending less on the media PC than I am spending more on it. My current media PC build cost me around $1600 US (IIRC), and I don't regret it mainly because of all the money I saved on dumping DishNetwork has more than paid for that PC over time.

Besides, there are components from my existing media PC I will be reusing - such as a Seasonic PSU, a 4K UHD Blu-ray drive, keyboard, mouse, and maybe a couple of other things that won't really count.

That said, I certainly won't be getting a 4090 or anything like that for the media PC. Heck, I won't even buy anything like that for my new Gaming PC build - even though I will be reusing the Seasonic 1200W PSU from my current "gaming" PC for the new Gaming PC and could likely power such a beast without any difficulties.

I'm a hardware nut, although, I do appreciate your attempts to prevent me from spending "too much". ;)
 
Give us PERFORMANCE/WATT charts already. Yeah, the high-end Intel looks great... until you take a look at the power consumption chart.

That's EXACTLY why I've been asking for perf/watt charts for like a year now.

As someone who pays the most money in the country per KWh, I want to know this too. At this point my hope is to get one of the X3D models and run it in eco 65W mode, just to save on my electric bill.
 
I appreciate the suggestion.

However, the 980 Ti is HDMI 2.0 only. For not all that much more than what 980 Tis are currently selling for on e-bay, there are newer GPUs out there that support HDMI 2.1. Maybe things will change by the time I do get around to upgrading that particular PC, but then again, I could just buy a GPU that supports HDMI 2.1 off e-bay, too.
Sure, you could do that. It's just that HDMI 2.0 supports 2160p@120Hz, so unless you have an 8K TV that you neglected to brag about ( :laughing: ) then I don't think that it will make any difference for video playback.
I don't see the point in having a GPU that cannot fully drive my display (and yes, I'll be doing UHD Blu-ray, too), and I likely have a different set of standards than you or your mother. (No disrespect intended).
None offence taken. Hell, all the 4K content she watches is on Netflix.
Also, I'm not that big of a gamer so saving a few dollars that I could put toward a "gaming" PC is not really a value proposition for me.
That's fair.
I am more likely to regret spending less on the media PC than I am spending more on it. My current media PC build cost me around $1600 US (IIRC), and I don't regret it mainly because of all the money I saved on dumping DishNetwork has more than paid for that PC over time.
Yeah, but all I said was "try it", not "don't do it". If you try it and it's insufficient for your needs, then of course, buy what you need. However, if it's not insufficient, that's more of your money in your pocket and less of it in the hands of those greedy bastards who already have more than they know what to do with. I just wanted you to test and evaluate the situation before going on a spree that might not give you any benefit, that's all. :laughing:
Besides, there are components from my existing media PC I will be reusing - such as a Seasonic PSU, a 4K UHD Blu-ray drive, keyboard, mouse, and maybe a couple of other things that won't really count.
Sure, there's no reason to change those either if they still work.
That said, I certainly won't be getting a 4090 or anything like that for the media PC. Heck, I won't even buy anything like that for my new Gaming PC build - even though I will be reusing the Seasonic 1200W PSU from my current "gaming" PC for the new Gaming PC and could likely power such a beast without any difficulties.
Sure, why not? My two main PCs have a 1000W 80+Gold PSU each. It's just one less thing to worry about.
I'm a hardware nut, although, I do appreciate your attempts to prevent me from spending "too much". ;)
Hey, what are friends for? I'm not worried about you spending too much, I just don't think that you have to spend anything at all. I could be wrong (I'm just a man after all) but if you try the parts you have and think "Hey, this is perfect!", so much the better! ;)
 
If using a TV (Which I assume you are since we're talking about a Media PC) HDMI 2.0 cannot transmit 2160p@120Hz. Your own link even says that.

I have a HDMI 2.1 compatible TV and a PS5. I also have a HDMI 2.0 Receiver. All cables have been replaced with proper HDMI 2.1 compliant cables. It is impossible to get 2160p@120Hz over HDMI 2.0. The standard simply doesn't support it, you have to have HDMI 2.1 devices all round.
 
If using a TV (Which I assume you are since we're talking about a Media PC) HDMI 2.0 cannot transmit 2160p@120Hz. Your own link even says that.
Yes. Absolutely true.
I have a HDMI 2.1 compatible TV and a PS5. I also have a HDMI 2.0 Receiver. All cables have been replaced with proper HDMI 2.1 compliant cables. It is impossible to get 2160p@120Hz over HDMI 2.0. The standard simply doesn't support it, you have to have HDMI 2.1 devices all round.
Its also a reason why I chose not to upgrade my AVR to a Yamaha A6A, ATM. The AxA series only supports 40Gbps HDMI 2.1 which, as I understand it, would hamper color depth - at least in the future. I'll wait for the A6B, or whatever model supports the full 48Gbps bandwidth of HDMI 2.1.
Sure, you could do that. It's just that HDMI 2.0 supports 2160p@120Hz, so unless you have an 8K TV that you neglected to brag about ( :laughing: ) then I don't think that it will make any difference for video playback.
@Burty117 already covered that. This is the one main reason why I will have to upgrade my AVR, too, as it "only" supports HDMI 2.0
Yeah, but all I said was "try it", not "don't do it". If you try it and it's insufficient for your needs, then of course, buy what you need. However, if it's not insufficient, that's more of your money in your pocket and less of it in the hands of those greedy bastards who already have more than they know what to do with. I just wanted you to test and evaluate the situation before going on a spree that might not give you any benefit, that's all. :laughing:
If only I had the time to forge yet another iron in the fire. :laughing:
Hey, what are friends for? I'm not worried about you spending too much, I just don't think that you have to spend anything at all. I could be wrong (I'm just a man after all) but if you try the parts you have and think "Hey, this is perfect!", so much the better! ;)
It'd be ancient hardware. ;) The 980 Ti is not HDMI 2.1 compliant.

Just in case you were wondering why I have a 980Ti in the first place, given I'm not a serious gamer, have a look at this "brag" ;) https://www.boincstats.com/stats/-1/user/detail/36239171501/projectList
The main reason I have no recent activity there is because running a 980 Ti and a 1060 24/7 doubles my monthly electric bill. :(
 
Last edited:
Its also a reason why I chose not to upgrade my AVR to a Yamaha A6A, ATM. The AxA series only supports 40Gbps HDMI 2.1 which, as I understand it, would hamper color depth - at least in the future. I'll wait for the A6B, or whatever model supports the full 48Gbps bandwidth of HDMI 2.1.
Exactly why I haven't upgraded mine either. We appear to be in the same boat :cool:
I'm sure I read Yamaha had the full 48Gbps versions coming out in 2023.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back