AMD Ryzen 9 7950X Review: The New Performance King

Pastuch

Posts: 146   +160
Great for productivity, but for gaming the 3D chips is what people will want to wait for. The 5800x3D still looks amazing.

For gamers that want performance per dollar, I think it’s going to be 7800x3d vs 13700kf. If the performance increase over a 5800x3d is minimal I’ll just buy one of those to tide me over
 

Geralt

Posts: 1,305   +2,090
I have an old Threaripper 1950x (180W TDP), so higher than both 3950x and 7950x:
And I am cooling that with air cpu cooler (Arctic 33 TR). When I use it at 100%, it almost never goes over 80C. This was 35 bucks cooler. The price jumped to 50. If you have money for 7950x, you probably have money for a good cooler.

A very good 360 AIO water cooler goes for 130 bucks. Not that expensive ( relative to the CPU in case).

Intel is already using more power, do you think their next one will use less?
Please, compare actually usage not their official tdp as they calculate those differently.
Only good old measure at the power cable is relative and truthful.
I have an Aorus 360 already. Yes, I heard that RL can be hottie too. Really, increasing the performance by increasing the wattage and the speed is not very good engineering on my book. Heat emission is insane.
 

Irata

Posts: 2,221   +3,857
Excuse me, I should have prefaced gaming and the 7600x specifically.

Also, contrary to what you say, the 13400 gets 4 e cores, a 200mhz boost along with more cache vs 12400. Thats quite the re-badge…
Not sure what‘s so hard to understand - the 13400 is literally the 12600k with a new name and a noticeably lower boost frequency (4.5 Ghz vs 4.9 Ghz).

It does not have the new Raptor Cove cores that the 13600K and up do but it‘s literally the unchanged (albeit gimped) Alder Lake die. The definition of rebadging.

And if you think it will be offered for the same price as the 12400…
 

Charles Olson

Posts: 77   +31
So I'm no PC guru and maybe I'm off here but from a gaming standpoint these benchmarks are only relevant at 1080p I guess? Would seem to me that at higher resolutions there would be almost zero difference between this CPU and more mid ranged CPUs?
The youtubers that did test 1440p and 4k seemed to show a gpu bottle neck and we may need to see these ( even top Intel 12900k ) retested after the new cards come out from both Team Red and Team Green before we can see a definite difference!
 

ZackL04

Posts: 869   +674
Not sure what‘s so hard to understand - the 13400 is literally the 12600k with a new name and a noticeably lower boost frequency (4.5 Ghz vs 4.9 Ghz).

It does not have the new Raptor Cove cores that the 13600K and up do but it‘s literally the unchanged (albeit gimped) Alder Lake die. The definition of rebadging.

And if you think it will be offered for the same price as the 12400…
Thats another way of looking at it yes but I think the word you should then be using is basically, not literally.

I’ll still be going for it, cheaper board prices, no care for overclocking.

Price we will have to see, I believe the 12400 is $179 rn but was down to 159 at one time. I would guess you are correct that it will probably hover closer to the $200 range. Still worth it to me vs a $300 7600x and such expensive companion board
 

rmcrys

Posts: 295   +239
- for light gaming: 5600X
- heavy gaming: 5800X3D or 7600X
- for medium productivity: high-end 5xxx series or midrange 7xxx
- high-end productivity: 7950X

Anyway, games and Adobe products are terribly optimized (= not optimized) so anything strong on multicore won't do much, unless you have two products simultaneously and you can manage product A uses 1-6 cores, product B uses 7-12 cores.

That is a reason because I stopped using Adobe products, they are baaaad and not optimized at all.
 

Lozzy

Posts: 57   +85
In some way true. But, AMD CPU is still using less power than the comparable Intel CPU.

If Intel can, why AMD could not go for higher power?
Yeah fair point, and commercially it makes sense. But it's lazy, inefficient, and in most cases unnecessary. 22% better performance (than Eco mode) for nearly 3x the power is just the stupid way of doing it. It's the approach that make Rocket Lake (and many other Intel generations) crap for building cool quiet systems.

I expect better of AMD, and much as I hate to say it, Apple are going at it the right way.
 

Irata

Posts: 2,221   +3,857
Thats another way of looking at it yes but I think the word you should then be using is basically, not literally.

I’ll still be going for it, cheaper board prices, no care for overclocking.

Price we will have to see, I believe the 12400 is $179 rn but was down to 159 at one time. I would guess you are correct that it will probably hover closer to the $200 range. Still worth it to me vs a $300 7600x and such expensive companion board
I don‘t disagree that going for a 7600x for gaming with current board prices isn‘t a good option unless you go for a top of the line graphics card. Bang for buck wise, a 5600(x) or 12400 are far better.

With $150 B650 boards, cheaper RAM and around $50 off msrp things will look different in a few months but right now I don‘t see a justification for it price wise.

As I am on AM4, it‘ll be a 5700X for me as that‘s the best upgrade for my preferences and regarding price and ease of upgrade. One of the benefits of long lived vs disposable platforms.

Imho it‘s sad that Intel no longer offers 6P core only models for 13 series as personally I prefer the non e core variants to avoid any scheduler quirks.

Not wanting to be nitpicking, but the 13400 is indeed literally a 12600K whereas the 13700K is basically a 12900K (same core count) with a slightly upgraded architecture, so not identical but very near.
 

JimboJoneson

Posts: 310   +507
True. Anandtech have more details on this. But it's disappointing that AMD have chosen to chase the performance headlines to squeeze the performance to the max at the cost of going well beyond efficient power levels. IMO anyway.
Is it disappointing to have the option to set various power limits with eco modes and get 90% of the performance at half or less power consumption, or, have the option to reap all the power it can have, at your fingertips?

I'm thinking that is way better than just offering a lower performing chip without those options.

It seems like a much better approach to me ... not sure why anyone would be disappointed in having all the options easily available to them.
 
Looks like a great cpu, the 7600x looks even better. U can't ask for much more for a generation. The fact that the 7600x scores so high on the productivity is insane. Considering the wattage of the 7600 it's great.when 3d cache comes it will be top dog. A lot of ppl hating on the price of the mobo and ram. I agree it is high. When u consider how much material is in a mobo and that this am5 will last multiple upgrades it's not so bad. I think the mobo manufacturers are trying to make a buck and know this mobo will last 2 cpu upgrades. When u consider the lifetime cost of a typical Intel upgrade path it's not bad. I think they are prices are high to get in. But let's not forget most pple will not upgrade the mobo. I think they are catching on. Not AMD's fault. Iean what else do u want from a cpu?
 

Lozzy

Posts: 57   +85
Is it disappointing to have the option to set various power limits with eco modes and get 90% of the performance at half or less power consumption, or, have the option to reap all the power it can have, at your fingertips?

I'm thinking that is way better than just offering a lower performing chip without those options.

It seems like a much better approach to me ... not sure why anyone would be disappointed in having all the options easily available to them.
Because by default 90%+ of people won't. It's wasteful
 

Lozzy

Posts: 57   +85
In some way true. But, AMD CPU is still using less power than the comparable Intel CPU.

If Intel can, why AMD could not go for higher power?
Because it's wasteful. 90%+ of users will just go with the defaults, blissfully unaware they're p*ssing energy up the wall. Maybe it's just me, but I hate this trend to spraffing energy like it's harmless
 

Tom Sunday

Posts: 77   +11
I wanted to replace my 3950 with this new CPU but temps don't convince me. To have 95ºC in my case is just insane. I will wait for Raptor Lake.

I share your sentiment in holding out for Raptor Lake and then seeing all the cards on the table. But just today I received a special sales notice from Micro Center giving away FREE 32GB DDR5 with any purchase of a Ryzen 7000 series CPU. I was wondering if AMD is sponsoring such a sales push and this early in the game? Why? Giving away a $190 value and as advertised is a big deal in the trying times of today! This said I wonder how many potential AMD buyers will jump and grab a 7000 series CPU even before all of the reviews are on record and have been regurgitated by the tech channels.
 

Irata

Posts: 2,221   +3,857
I share your sentiment in holding out for Raptor Lake and then seeing all the cards on the table. But just today I received a special sales notice from Micro Center giving away FREE 32GB DDR5 with any purchase of a Ryzen 7000 series CPU. I was wondering if AMD is sponsoring such a sales push and this early in the game? Why? Giving away a $190 value and as advertised is a big deal in the trying times of today! This said I wonder how many potential AMD buyers will jump and grab a 7000 series CPU even before all of the reviews are on record and have been regurgitated by the tech channels.
Wow ! That‘s a pretty sweet deal.
 

Puiu

Posts: 5,875   +4,885
TechSpot Elite
For gamers that want performance per dollar, I think it’s going to be 7800x3d vs 13700kf. If the performance increase over a 5800x3d is minimal I’ll just buy one of those to tide me over
In all likeliness the performance of Zen4+cache will be much higher than regular Zen4 in games.
 

ZackL04

Posts: 869   +674
By that logic, overclocking a CPU or GPU is 'wasteful' or 'disappointing' because most people don't 'use' it.

Not sure that anyone would agree with that line of thinking.
I would, Ive had a 9600k for years…on a water cooler for aesthetics

Never once tried to OC

Now my old 2700k? I wasted countless hours on that guy testing clock speeds and higher speed RAM.

But then I realized, what for? 10fps in GTA 5? I could have worked my job for those hours and created income to pay for stronger hardware and/or a new videocard.

IMO overclocking IS wasteful, AMD is doing it right, their chips are already maxed out and u can go eco when u want to. Hopefully Intel has a similar setup for Raptor Lake
 

Lozzy

Posts: 57   +85
By that logic, overclocking a CPU or GPU is 'wasteful' or 'disappointing' because most people don't 'use' it.

Not sure that anyone would agree with that line of thinking.
Eh? If you overclock then by definition you're electing to do it so even if you don't "need" it you want it.

That's a world apart from AMD/Intel squeezing every last ounce of performance out of a CPU at the factory just to out-do each other, regardless of the energy usage and way, *way* past the efficiency sweet-spot. We're talking a few extra percentage performance for nearly THREE TIMES the power usage (vs Eco mode). It's disappointing because AMD don't usually do that, it's normally Intel's way (in recent years at least)