Posts: 3,363 +4,371
Ok, so what is the point of this graph then?
Ok, that makes sense but it doesn't mean that Zen-4 is more efficient because the R9-7950X still required 61% more juice to produce only 42% more performance compared to the R9-5950X.The 7600X system required 195 kJ of energy to do the test, whereas the 5950X system needed 105 kJ. At face value, this suggests that the 7600X system has half the efficiency of the 5950X system, but it's 6C/12T CPU versus a 16C/32T one. So the latter can use three times more threads to complete the test - so it does it quicker, thus using less energy in total.
Regardless, the R9-5950X is still producing more performance-per-watt than the R9-7950X. If the BIOS limiting power was the issue, the R9-5950X wouldn't have the performance level that we see. The fact that the R9-7950X uses 61% more juice to produce only 42% more performance means that it's less efficient, period. It's like AMD and Intel have jacked up the power use to make it appear that these parts are a better upgrade than they actually are. I don't see an advantage for Zen-4 here, I see the exact opposite. Sure, they're faster but the cost of that speed isn't necessarily worth it.Another thing to bear in mind is that different motherboard manufacturers set different power limits, but Zen 4 CPUs do have higher power limits than Zen 3 ones - the TDP/PL1 of the 7600X is 105W, whereas the 5600X was just 65W. In the case of the 5950X, it may also be the case that when all cores are fully loaded, the BIOS may be limiting the power.
Speed should come because of efficiency, not at the cost of it.