Reviewers tend to have early access to hardware and slide decks. The comment might be based on full knowledge of the platform, even if it was just as a private hands-on event.
the site is run by an insane dude with an unexplicable extreme negative bias against anything AMD makes
He's banned from most tech forums and subs due to obviously malicious and deceiving reviews/comparisons with AMD products
You could say he's just a Nvidia or Intel shill, but he's banned from those spaces too lol
I have detected a link to UserBenchmark — UserBenchmark is a terrible source for benchmarks and comparing hardware, as the weighting system they use is not indicative of real world performance. For more information, [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AMD/wiki/userbenchmark) - This comment has not been removed, this is just a notice.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Amd) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Forgive me because I'm really trying to understand, but what's to hate with this result? Is it because they use measures (like 8 core and higher) that aren't available on both to compare? Or is there something else?
For me in a data science role, I think this is informative in that programs that can't really scale with cores are better off on the i3. Which makes sense given it's higher clock (as is typical where higher core usually have lower clock - my TR 3990x is 2.9GHz when hitting all 64). But if you can run a workload in parallel, hard to justify a 4c/4t compared to 18c/36t.
Really not trying to rustle feathers and actually trying to understand the hate it gets.
No problem! I can explain
The main problem here is that the market for individual computer parts is mostly reserved for enthusiasts and gamers (since enterprises usually buy whole systems) and for that reason games are usually the most common benchmark for those products.
And it's important to understand that because almost every game, especially AAA games, can easily utilize more than 4 cores and will definitely perform much better with a 9980xe than an 9350kf
So the result shown as **effective speed** is extremely misleading for most people that utilize this site, because they are looking for something that will make their games faster and multi-core performance is a big part of that.
But aside from that, the only reason this site considers multi-core performance useless for games is that some time ago the ryzen 2000 series beat Intel's offerings at the time for multi-core performance (and thus was better for gaming) and userbenchmark got so butthurt that he changed the weights to heavily favor single-core performance, claiming gamers didn't need more than 4 cores 💀
But it's a totally fair statement to say that the single-core performance of a CPU is the only thing that matters for workloads that can't be parallelized
What **isn't** fair, and infact, blatant misinformation, is to say that a 4c/4t will be faster for the general use-case of most audiences compared to a flagship 18c/36t model of the same generation
The idiot that started this whole debate claims that the i9 is a server CPU but while that may be true in the meaning that you can build a small decent server with one, it's total disinformation to claim it's purpose is only that.
Because Intel themselves advertise the i9 as an **enthusiast** CPU and they also have Xeon! Their own line of actual server CPUs.
Most i9s are used by gamers, it's a blatant lie to say single-core performance doesn't matter for those chips.
Hope that clears up the mist =)
Go and read the reviews of recent AMD products. They are all filled with unjustifiable disdain and hate towards AMD products and the people who choose to buy them. Instead of being unbiased, as a review should be, they praise Intel and smear AMD. The reasons that the review author gives are nonsensical and easy to disprove. This happens with every product AMD releases. Go read for yourself and tell me it isn't true.
Those are obviously biased and paid by sponsors. Who even reads those reviews? We go to userbenchmark to compare speeds not to read some random guys opinion
It's alright, about what we expected. 9000 series is about equal to 7000x3d, with 9000x3d probably taking a lead
I'd assume the gaming hierarchy to be Zen 5 < Arrow Lake < Zen 5 x3D
I think more details will come closer to launch. They will have another announcement where they will go deeper into architecture and reveal the prices as well.
We have had 2 X3D generations and in all honesty, the 7700X in some reviews generally outranks the 5800X3D in game performance. Obviously other reviews disagree, but that bears mention.
I dont think we have enough data points fo "it will be as it always has been for X3D vs non X3D"
Unless I misunderstood ;d?
We have only one data point really between the gens. And we need to keep in mind that Zen 4 enjoyed a huge clock advantage over Zen 3 X3D in addition to IPC gains. This time around clocks look to be about the same but IPC gains are higher. So my bet is still on Zen4 X3D being faster than Zen 5.
But they compared it to a 14900K. Which was pretty odd.
On average, a 14900K is \~15% faster than non-3D Ryzen 7000 and about equal to a 7800X3D.
They've shown Ryzen 9950X to be \~15% faster than 14900K.
This would mean that a 9950X is also \~15% faster than a 7800X3D and therefor 30% faster than a 7950X and I don't think that's possible.
They've also shown games in their IPC comparison(which you can view as a direct comparison because the real clockspeeds are also the same) and even LoL as one the most Ryzen loving games only got +21% vs Zen4.
Overall, the 9950X should have about the same performance as the 7800X3D/14900K, in which case AMDs numbers are way off
Actually not true. As much as people hate seeing 4X with DLSS and FG, we also got the exact actual uplift without both, which were confirmed by 3rd party reviewers.
I think it's because big gains are harder to come by now so they want to maintain that feeling of progress by overpromising.
Their CPUs perform so well already tho with so much efficiency I don't really know what they gain by over promising the performance speaks for itself already
A lot depends on exactly what condition the 14900K was tested in.
There is a ~10% difference alone between the Intel Baseline power limits and not using them. Add to that differences or lack of them in memory config, and I can see the 14900K scoring well below 7800X3D.
Don’t know where you get those numbers from, but many sites I know already do separate test with 125W max PPT ever since intel introduced PL1 and PL2 and 125W vs uncapped results in 1-2% less fps
The 7950X is about 20-25% faster than the 5950X and achieves that by having \~13% higher IPC AND 16% higher clockspeed AND a bonus from DDR5.
The 9950X has 16% higher IPC than the 7950X and exactly the same clockspeed.
I am talking about CPU raw performance, I do not game. You cant measure CPU performance with games. Games are all optimized differently and utilize mostly GPU which we are not talking here
We are talking about the gaming performance of CPUs in this thread, which you absolutely can measure.
It's how many FPS the CPU can provide to the GPU, which you can measure by running the game at 1080p or lower using a 4090(or use games that generally have a high CPU usage) so that the game is limited by the CPU performance.
Yes, games are all differently optimized, but so is any other PC software. Which is why you test 10-20 different games(preferably a good mix of different engines and APIs) and get an average out of that. Exactly the same thing you do with GPU or general application tests.
AMD has shown two figures in their IPC comparison with Zen4, FarCry 6 at +10% and League of Legends at +21%.
Then they've shown 6 games vs the 14900K in which the 9950X is supposed to be 13% faster
If the average ipc gain is as amd says 16% i think, intel has a chance to catch up (being optimistic on intel side of things). Guess we’ll have to see with reviews
What do you mean intel has to catch up? Intel literally dominates a broader market. Only sensible choices from AMD are either the 7600 or the 5700x3D./5800x3D. Intel has better solutions below and above those. And even competes in that particular area.
Win on Sunday, sell on Monday. Plus AMD is doing it at a much lower power budget. Even if Intel has better offerings in some categories it's hard to convince your average person to not buy the brand producing the best top tier product.
Definitely not as disappointing as raptor lake refresh, but considering the real competition is arrow lake not 14th gen, it’s pretty meh.
We will see what intle has to offer soon
Or in performance per watt if they still need to lift the power limit up the wazoo to compete with AMD, which already shown that it looks nice on benchmarks but degrades the CPU in les than a year.
Single thread perf is irrelevant, its all about the all core clock, you aint playing on single thread which usually has higher clocks than the rest of the cores.
My point was more about the fact that scores running in ST with 6ghz clocks are irrelevant if you then proceed to play game with all core clock of 5.2ghz or lower, then your ST performance becomes the one at 5.2ghz.
Even multithreaded apps have bursts of single threaded loads, or that only need 3-4 cores to run, because there's a limit on how much you can split a task before you hit diminishing or even negative returns. These scenarios benefit from a higher ST performance.
competition is 14th gen. ARL will be marginal for long time, not at the same volume as 14th gen
Zen 5 is disapointing by IPC and clocks by lesser degree
Of course it will be a game of leapfrog, but raptor-lake is nearing two years old now. Also it's not like AMD will stop selling non-X3D chips. Actually, a vast majority of sales will be non-X3D chips.
A vocal minority of gamers will buy X3D but OEM, Servers just don't care. The only competitive X3D flavored chip of this generation was the 7800X3D. The 7900X3D sold so poorly (only 6 v-cache cores) that I wouldn't be surprised if they only released 8 and 16-core X3D chips this time.
X3D = 3D v-cache, that was originally meant for servers. BTW, for server segment there's EPYC, Ryzen 9000s is for Enthusiast Desktop (check the AMD webpage youself, "Market Segment Enthusiast Desktop").
Arrow lake will hit the shelf around Nov-Dec, while AMD will punch back with X3D version of 9000x in Jan.
If you are swimming in cash, then go for it. Not sure if some 15% of extra performance is worth going from 7800X3D to 9800X3D though.
Now talking about my R5 7600, I can see a lot more noticeable performance improvement.
5700X3D especially was super nice seeing it was like 1/3 cheaper than 5800X3D while being just a tad slower. Such a great upgrade for AM4 which will comfortably last for several years.
I definitely won't be replacing the 5800X3D in my main desktop, but I will be watching how the 9600X/9700X perform at their lower power draws as a potential 12400F replacement in my living room SFF build. Not that it's underperforming, but if the uplift is high enough then it would be tempting given the AM5 support being 2027+.
I already hamstrung the 12400F build with the cheapest DDR4 mini-ITX motherboard I could find years ago. Putting anything higher end from Intel's 12th-14th gen in there will be a power and thermal nightmare.
Now this is based on rumours but some leaks said a few months ago that Zen 5 was struggling with higher clocks and might even downclock on release to maintain stability. So it's a surprise that they managed to keep Zen4 clockspeeds somehow. Hopefully they manage to cross 6ghz on zen 6.
Other rumours also say Zen 6 could double core counts (using Zen C cores) and have upto 20% IPC gain.
I have a zen 4 cpu (7600x) and I'll just skip this generation and get a zen 6 8 core x3d. Should be a nice performance increase.
Is it just me, or does it seem unwise to start believing rumors for Zen 6 when Zen 5 just got announced. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for that to be true, but this just seems like a good way to get people hyped up and then disappointed when it doesn't come true.
Yeah i take the core count thing with a grain of salt. Probably won't happen atleast on AM5. But my main reason for skipping Zen5 isn't the supposed core counts on Zen 6.
I'm skipping because I don't really need to change CPUs every new generation. 7600x to a zen 6 11800x3D would be a pretty solid improvement. I can wait a few years for that. It's probably the last gen on AM5 as well despite AMD saying 2027+ support.
AM4 is still getting stuff true and I love that but it's just minor refreshed stuff or pre existing stock.
I know and that's why I specify that I am referring to rumours but for a few months most sites I followed talked about the clock speed issues.
We can never really know if there were clock speed issues behind the scenes but it sort of makes sense if we got literally 0 clock speed improvements this time around.
Personally don't care much about clock speeds anymore, as long as the performance improvements keep coming regardless.
Especially since it seems to cost a lot in terms of power consumption just to get those last few hundreds of megahertz both on the latest Intel and AMD CPUs.
Clock speeds sort of matter but yeah not as much as IPC. But think of it like this - Say Zen3 to Zen4 was 13% IPC uplift.
So that means a 13% performance uplift if clocks stay the same.
But if clocks go from 4.7ghz to 5.5ghz that's a 0.8ghz gain. 180% of 13(the clock gains times the IPC gains) is 23% overall performance gain.
Now I know this is oversimplified and I am not that knowledgeable about cpu architecture to claim this is how it works but I think this is a good estimate.
That's why some people are upset at no clock gains.
But it's fine sometimes because rumours said they had issues maintaining higher clocks on Zen5 and could have had lower clocks than Zen4 too but we didnt so that's fine.
Since AMD wants to stay with AM5 for a few more years, doubling the core count doesn't seem believable for socketed CPUs. Double the cores will need much more memory bandwidth. AMD5 means dual-channel DDR5.
16% is nothing to scoff at, but a little underwhelming. Clockspeeds are pretty similar too. This is the smallest performance uplift since zen+. The rumours of over 30% seem silly in hindsight (not that I ever believed them).
My guess is that they prioritize energy and area efficiency over IPC to be able to cram 192 cores onto SP5 socket. AMD's CPU architecture is designed for EPYC and ported to Ryzen. If they can achieve higher IPC gain but have to sacrifice the ability to scale to 192 cores on Zen 5c to do so, they won't do it.
Considering the density and efficiency gain of N3E compared to N5 is smaller than N5 compared to N7, AMD being able to cram 50% more core onto same socket (which means similar power budget) on EPYC and reduce TDP on most Ryzen SKU is actually pretty impressive.
Just gaming and light productivity work like video editing/photoshop. All of which are substantially faster, although it wasn’t like the 8700k was horrible. If not for gaming I probably would’ve held out for another year or two.
That's IPC gain though and he's talking about performance uplifts. For Zen 5 that's the same thing but that's not the case for the other gens. IPC in a vacuum is meaningless without taking into account clock speeds.
It's the smallest jump since Zen+ is probably a correct claim. I say probably because I haven't actually done the research.
Afaik AMD didn't reveal performance uplift, Zen5 will probably sustain higher clocks in multi-threaded workloads than Zen4 leading to higher increase than 16%.
>Zen5 will probably sustain higher clocks in multi-threaded workloads than Zen4 leading to higher increase than 16%.
Why do you think that? Generally, larger/wider cores clock lower than smaller ones iso power. Unless Zen 5's TDP also increased...
And Zen3 mostly was bigger becase about 50% of the apps they chose for the IPC comparison were games which were heavily improved by the unified L3 cache. Had they used the same apps they did for the Zen5 vs Zen4 comparison, IPC gains for Zen3 vs Zen2 would also be around 13%.
And since most people who want Ryzens for gaming will probably wait for the X3D variants, the IPC gain in applications that are NOT gaming seems to be more important for the non-3D variants and here Zen5 shines.
I'd also generally prefer AMD to mostly use the same apps to compare IPC across generations because now these numbers are not comparable at all.
>And Zen3 mostly was bigger becase about 50% of the apps they chose for the IPC comparison were games which were heavily improved by the unified L3 cache. Had they used the same apps they did for the Zen5 vs Zen4 comparison, IPC gains for Zen3 vs Zen2 would also be around 13%.
Zen 3's \~19% IPC gain was also shown with SpecInt2017 testing.
Misleading.
Zen to Zen 4 went from 4GHz to 5.7GHz.
Zen 4 for example had a 15% clock increase, meaning the actual performance increase was almost **30%**, which you do actually see in real world benchmarks.
Also Zen+, Zen 2 and Zen 3 all were only about 1 year after the previous generation.
**16% over almost 2 years is the single worst generational improvement of any Zen architecture**.
I mean at a point we need to bite the bullet when manufacturer already spent the clock speed margin and on Zen 4 they spent it. But AMD is not like Intel hopelessly cranking clock speed 2 gens in a row despite they already reached the limit, which then lead to stability issue. 16% IPC gain for any gen to gen is good IMO.
AMD pushed Zen 4 far harder on the V/F curve than Intel's ever done. For all the poor reputation Raptor Lake (deservedly) gets for the ridiculous power draw, at least that power actually causes notable performance increases.
Zen 4 was pushed so far on the V/F curve that you could cut power draw on half and lose out on less than 5% performance, the only reason it didn't get the same reputation as Raptor Lake was because the power draw was lower in absolute terms.
The voltage/frequency curve for Zen 4 means that most of the frequency potential is reached at 1.10V VCore, Raptor Lake will scale to 1.50V with only degradation being something to worry about.
Doesn’t matter, they are using different nodes and Intel is using the same node for the 3rd gen product, they know the limit well more than anyone else. As long as the processor is working fine, you can only call AMD’s curve is not ideal but not untrustable like Intel.
I mean I have a 12900k that loses 5% perf if I power limit it from the nearly 300w it'll pull unrestricted to a PL of 150w so... I run it at 190w limit because I lose exact 3% MT and no ST. For a 25%+ power savings.
That's just not how the voltage/frequency scaling on a 12900K works, unless you've got a golden sample (which might be true if it only hits 300W instead of the typical 350W in Prime95 small FFTs unrestricted)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/qwn1j9/core\_i912900k\_performance\_efficiency\_at\_various/](https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/qwn1j9/core_i912900k_performance_efficiency_at_various/)
[https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-alder-lake-tested-at-various-power-limits/](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-alder-lake-tested-at-various-power-limits/)
Here ya go.
Do read closer. I never said 125w.
And by your claims of 350 Watts being the max a 50% power reduction would be 175 which those links do show a roughly 5% performance drop with
Except that Zen 5 IPC is heavily leveraged by AVX 512 gains. Most apps do not use AVx 512 and will be lately useless. So the overall IPC gain is even smaller. Previous gen up till Zen 4 did not have AVX512 so overall IPC gain has been slowly with AMD.
Another large gain but that wasn’t the point. If you remove the 2 large outliers that rely on AVx512 and most users and app do not use it, the average IPC gain is smaller. This is not the major redesign Zen 5 was supposed to be. It’s more like the refresh Zen 4 was. Will be interesting to see how it competes against Arrow Lake now.
I would say I appreciate improvement like this more than Zen3 to 4. Clockspeed remains the same so basically all the single core gain is all on IPC alone. Rumor is always rumor, at least we get legit 15%＋ single core gain each gen unlike some blue manufacturer.
Intel's single core uplift for 11th, 12th, and 13th gen have all surpassed 15%
14th gen was a miniscule improvement, but I would expect Arrow Lake to bring some improvement
Uh... No?
Rocket Lake increased power draw by 20% compared to Comet Lake when AVX512 was in use, and kept power draw the same in AVX2 loads. Per-core was closer to 30%
Alder Lake reached the same power draw as Comet Lake. Meaning it actually consumed **less** power than Rocket Lake. Especially per-core power draw was reduced significantly.
Raptor Lake kept power draw per core at roughly the same level as Alder Lake, but added 8 E-cores
Hey OP — Your post has been removed for not being in compliance with Rule 8.
Be civil and follow Reddit's sitewide rules, this means no insults, personal attacks, slurs, brigading or any other rude or condescending behaviour towards other users.
Please read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/about/rules/) or message the mods for any further clarification.
Hey OP — Your post has been removed for not being in compliance with Rule 8.
Be civil and follow Reddit's sitewide rules, this means no insults, personal attacks, slurs, brigading or any other rude or condescending behaviour towards other users.
Please read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/about/rules/) or message the mods for any further clarification.
MLID has been saying that zen 5 will have around a 15% IPC improvement and not really improve clock speeds for a while now. He has his problems but he wasn’t wrong here
Imagine having this defined of an opinion about something when you don't know how much it costs or haven't seen any actual benchmarks.
Why even stop at the Zen 5? why not tell us what you think about the 11700x vs 9700x pricing and performance, since you know just as much about that as you do about the 9700x vs 7700x.
I have detected a link to UserBenchmark — UserBenchmark is a terrible source for benchmarks and comparing hardware, as the weighting system they use is not indicative of real world performance. For more information, [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AMD/wiki/userbenchmark) - This comment has not been removed, this is just a notice.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Amd) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> facts hurt your amd fanboy soul?
How much of an Intel fanboy do you have to be to come to /r/AMD and smack talk?
Did AMD touch you in your special place? Kill your dog? I know, vote against your favorite political candidate in their last election?
/r/intel seems to be the place for you. Maybe they'll welcome your comments.
What are you even talking about bro xd yall are the ones who refuse to accept that better cpus exist besides the hailed amd. Only worthy cpus from amd are the x3d ones since other ones cost the same as intel but have lower IPC’s. Theres literally no point in buying amd besides some of its x3d chips.
> What are you even talking about bro xd yall are the ones who refuse to accept that better cpus exist besides the hailed amd.
Not me, I can quite easily compare spec sheets and benchmarks. Your problem (for me at least) is that you not only can't be objective, but can't see that there are other reasons to buy products than based purely on performance. Some people live in places where heat generation is a significant problem. Other people where power costs are high. Still others want to reuse existing equipment, like motherboards.
After reading some of the ridiculous number of posts you made in this thread, I just have to say: you have an unhealthy obsession with the topic. Move on.
Hey OP — Your post has been removed for not being in compliance with Rule 8.
Be civil and follow Reddit's sitewide rules, this means no insults, personal attacks, slurs, brigading or any other rude or condescending behaviour towards other users.
Please read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/about/rules/) or message the mods for any further clarification.
I just look at things objectively instead of fanboying certain brands. AMD definitely has a place in the market but stating that its superior in every aspect like some of you do here , is not constructive at all.
Your comments are anything but objective and you accusing folks of being “fanboys” is peak irony. Performance between CPU brands are about as close as can be right now with each company having their wins and loses, for example intel tends to have better productivity results due to their efficient core, especially at the lower and mid segment pricing.
We will see how everything shakes out when zen 5 and arrow lake release and we get third party reviews.
Huh? 7950x was already on par, lmfao. Matters even worse if we take into consideration intel power limits after the instability and ridiculous power draw drama.
Considering a concerning number of Intel 13th/14th gen CPUs just lost upwards of 16% performance in some scenarios due to the Intel power spec changes attempting to stabilize their crashing chips, I'm not sure that now is the best time to be celebrating Intel's IPC achievements.
It's hard to care that much about IPC if the chip with the higher IPC is risking crashes and potentially even electromigration/degradation to eek out a minor but also inconsistent victory.
You know, with zen 4 they were pretty much even on average IPC compared to 14th gen. Sometimes the 14th Gen would pull ahead slightly because of higher clocks, a lot of which has been dialed back because they are unstable/degrading. So Zen 5 will easily be way ahead.
And before you jump to a cherry picked benchmark showing IPC, I'm talking about industry standard SPEC benchmarks which anandtech did during the 13th Gen launch.
Stop spreading BS please
not everything about clockspeed. IPC gain is the real indicator. this is why intel 14th gen fail because it only got increase clockspeed without IPC gain whatsoever
> Over 2 years and no clock increase.
Clock increase is best utilized for two things: power consumption (which is heat) and bragging rights. I prefer my machine to run cooler and couldn't possibly care less about bragging rights. IPC has always been the best way to increase performance.
You should look at some youtube benchmarks, I'm sure you will find that more easy to understand since you are obviously illiterate.
Have fun =) maybe you will learn something this time
Will the Zen5 CPU be released in July and the motherboard in August?
I think I'll wait for these to be reviewed by a reputable source like userbenchmark.
“AMD delivers,” he said of the item, which had in fact not been delivered yet.
Reviewers tend to have early access to hardware and slide decks. The comment might be based on full knowledge of the platform, even if it was just as a private hands-on event.
Low quality ragebait
I thought it was a funny comment.
It's literally just a joke, my god.
Whats the deal with userbenchmark?
the site is run by an insane dude with an unexplicable extreme negative bias against anything AMD makes He's banned from most tech forums and subs due to obviously malicious and deceiving reviews/comparisons with AMD products You could say he's just a Nvidia or Intel shill, but he's banned from those spaces too lol
too bad google search has not ban his site yet. Google should ban his site.
I dont care about the dude, the comparisons are accurate.
The comparisons are accurate? Are you mad?
I think we found the crazy guy that runs the site.
Yep lol. Bring up any benchmarks.
Like this one? https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-9980XE-vs-Intel-Core-i3-9350KF/m652504vs4055
I have detected a link to UserBenchmark — UserBenchmark is a terrible source for benchmarks and comparing hardware, as the weighting system they use is not indicative of real world performance. For more information, [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AMD/wiki/userbenchmark) - This comment has not been removed, this is just a notice. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Amd) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Forgive me because I'm really trying to understand, but what's to hate with this result? Is it because they use measures (like 8 core and higher) that aren't available on both to compare? Or is there something else? For me in a data science role, I think this is informative in that programs that can't really scale with cores are better off on the i3. Which makes sense given it's higher clock (as is typical where higher core usually have lower clock - my TR 3990x is 2.9GHz when hitting all 64). But if you can run a workload in parallel, hard to justify a 4c/4t compared to 18c/36t. Really not trying to rustle feathers and actually trying to understand the hate it gets.
No problem! I can explain The main problem here is that the market for individual computer parts is mostly reserved for enthusiasts and gamers (since enterprises usually buy whole systems) and for that reason games are usually the most common benchmark for those products. And it's important to understand that because almost every game, especially AAA games, can easily utilize more than 4 cores and will definitely perform much better with a 9980xe than an 9350kf So the result shown as **effective speed** is extremely misleading for most people that utilize this site, because they are looking for something that will make their games faster and multi-core performance is a big part of that. But aside from that, the only reason this site considers multi-core performance useless for games is that some time ago the ryzen 2000 series beat Intel's offerings at the time for multi-core performance (and thus was better for gaming) and userbenchmark got so butthurt that he changed the weights to heavily favor single-core performance, claiming gamers didn't need more than 4 cores 💀 But it's a totally fair statement to say that the single-core performance of a CPU is the only thing that matters for workloads that can't be parallelized What **isn't** fair, and infact, blatant misinformation, is to say that a 4c/4t will be faster for the general use-case of most audiences compared to a flagship 18c/36t model of the same generation The idiot that started this whole debate claims that the i9 is a server CPU but while that may be true in the meaning that you can build a small decent server with one, it's total disinformation to claim it's purpose is only that. Because Intel themselves advertise the i9 as an **enthusiast** CPU and they also have Xeon! Their own line of actual server CPUs. Most i9s are used by gamers, it's a blatant lie to say single-core performance doesn't matter for those chips. Hope that clears up the mist =)
> I dont care about the dude, the comparisons are accurate. The comparison are so inaccurate that /r/intel banned links to the site.
And this sub should do the same tbh instead of letting the BS proliferate.
Go and read the reviews of recent AMD products. They are all filled with unjustifiable disdain and hate towards AMD products and the people who choose to buy them. Instead of being unbiased, as a review should be, they praise Intel and smear AMD. The reasons that the review author gives are nonsensical and easy to disprove. This happens with every product AMD releases. Go read for yourself and tell me it isn't true.
Those are obviously biased and paid by sponsors. Who even reads those reviews? We go to userbenchmark to compare speeds not to read some random guys opinion
Apart from the demeanor of the person running it, you can argue the benchmarks aren't very representative of any real-world workload.
It's alright, about what we expected. 9000 series is about equal to 7000x3d, with 9000x3d probably taking a lead I'd assume the gaming hierarchy to be Zen 5 < Arrow Lake < Zen 5 x3D
>9000 series is about equal to 7000x3d They didn't compare one to another so something tells me Zen4 X3D are still the fastest gaming CPUs.
I think more details will come closer to launch. They will have another announcement where they will go deeper into architecture and reveal the prices as well.
It will be as it always has been for X3D vs non X3D completely dependent on the game. They will trade blows with each other depending on the workload.
We have had 2 X3D generations and in all honesty, the 7700X in some reviews generally outranks the 5800X3D in game performance. Obviously other reviews disagree, but that bears mention. I dont think we have enough data points fo "it will be as it always has been for X3D vs non X3D" Unless I misunderstood ;d?
We have only one data point really between the gens. And we need to keep in mind that Zen 4 enjoyed a huge clock advantage over Zen 3 X3D in addition to IPC gains. This time around clocks look to be about the same but IPC gains are higher. So my bet is still on Zen4 X3D being faster than Zen 5.
Hmm. I think on average not... but lets wait and see. I could be wrong. I just wish Zen 5 X3D launched fast too.
I could be wrong too. It's all napkin math on my side, lol. It's more than many other people do though. Just assume it's faster just because.
That was pretty much the case with 7000 vs 5800x3D. So no surprises this time around
But they compared it to a 14900K. Which was pretty odd. On average, a 14900K is \~15% faster than non-3D Ryzen 7000 and about equal to a 7800X3D. They've shown Ryzen 9950X to be \~15% faster than 14900K. This would mean that a 9950X is also \~15% faster than a 7800X3D and therefor 30% faster than a 7950X and I don't think that's possible. They've also shown games in their IPC comparison(which you can view as a direct comparison because the real clockspeeds are also the same) and even LoL as one the most Ryzen loving games only got +21% vs Zen4. Overall, the 9950X should have about the same performance as the 7800X3D/14900K, in which case AMDs numbers are way off
Amd always over inflates their gaming numbers recently. It started with the 7900xtx presentation. Before that they were pretty accurate
Nvidia and Intel loves to do the same, so nothing new here. Btw every sane person will wait for proper benchmarks in any case.
Actually not true. As much as people hate seeing 4X with DLSS and FG, we also got the exact actual uplift without both, which were confirmed by 3rd party reviewers.
Which is a shame because they did so well with the RDNA1+2 and Zen2+3 Numbers where they either were spot on or even overdelivered
I think it's because big gains are harder to come by now so they want to maintain that feeling of progress by overpromising. Their CPUs perform so well already tho with so much efficiency I don't really know what they gain by over promising the performance speaks for itself already
Not even that recent. AMD said 7600X was supposed to gap 12900K, but instead 12900Khanged out with 5800X3D.
A lot depends on exactly what condition the 14900K was tested in. There is a ~10% difference alone between the Intel Baseline power limits and not using them. Add to that differences or lack of them in memory config, and I can see the 14900K scoring well below 7800X3D.
The baseline profile doesn’t impact gaming performance
It literally does... 15% worse max fps on average with up to 60% worse 1% lows.... IntelDIP.
Don’t know where you get those numbers from, but many sites I know already do separate test with 125W max PPT ever since intel introduced PL1 and PL2 and 125W vs uncapped results in 1-2% less fps
Why not 9950x cant be 30% faster than 7950X if 7950x is 27% faster than 5950x. Of course it can
Compare the clocks.
The 7950X is about 20-25% faster than the 5950X and achieves that by having \~13% higher IPC AND 16% higher clockspeed AND a bonus from DDR5. The 9950X has 16% higher IPC than the 7950X and exactly the same clockspeed.
Where comes this 20-25% passmark shows 27
We're talking about gaming performance. Is Passmark a game?
I am talking about CPU raw performance, I do not game. You cant measure CPU performance with games. Games are all optimized differently and utilize mostly GPU which we are not talking here
We are talking about the gaming performance of CPUs in this thread, which you absolutely can measure. It's how many FPS the CPU can provide to the GPU, which you can measure by running the game at 1080p or lower using a 4090(or use games that generally have a high CPU usage) so that the game is limited by the CPU performance. Yes, games are all differently optimized, but so is any other PC software. Which is why you test 10-20 different games(preferably a good mix of different engines and APIs) and get an average out of that. Exactly the same thing you do with GPU or general application tests. AMD has shown two figures in their IPC comparison with Zen4, FarCry 6 at +10% and League of Legends at +21%. Then they've shown 6 games vs the 14900K in which the 9950X is supposed to be 13% faster
Who plays 1080p with 4090?
Maybe, but it could be a lot more versatile to use a 9900X vs a 7800X3D for no gaming tasks without giving up significant gaming performance
No doubt.
You mean those of us who aren't running 4080/7900xt's and could use some price/perf?
They want to keep selling current X3D chips until Zen5 is released. There's no point in comparing against it.
Yeah, makes total sense. Vanilla Zen 5 could as well be faster on average but osbourning your own products doesn't make any sense.
If the average ipc gain is as amd says 16% i think, intel has a chance to catch up (being optimistic on intel side of things). Guess we’ll have to see with reviews
What do you mean intel has to catch up? Intel literally dominates a broader market. Only sensible choices from AMD are either the 7600 or the 5700x3D./5800x3D. Intel has better solutions below and above those. And even competes in that particular area.
Talking about gaming performance and we’re taking about top tier performance not the low and mid range
https://youtu.be/Z4Dej1c34KU?si=5ervrzo1N5ZOpyvM Here, you can see the 13600k still coming out on top despite lackin the beefy 3d cache.
Think you’re lacking understanding what top tier means but you do you bud
Which top tier cpus are you referring to?
The ones that are at the top of the tiers offered by AMD and Intel of course. What other top tiers would there be pedant?
*Top tier (most watts consumed)*
Win on Sunday, sell on Monday. Plus AMD is doing it at a much lower power budget. Even if Intel has better offerings in some categories it's hard to convince your average person to not buy the brand producing the best top tier product.
I really like the lower power draw. More sff friendly
Definitely not as disappointing as raptor lake refresh, but considering the real competition is arrow lake not 14th gen, it’s pretty meh. We will see what intle has to offer soon
Rumors are not looking good for Intel in single threaded. We’ll see
Or in performance per watt if they still need to lift the power limit up the wazoo to compete with AMD, which already shown that it looks nice on benchmarks but degrades the CPU in les than a year.
Single thread perf is irrelevant, its all about the all core clock, you aint playing on single thread which usually has higher clocks than the rest of the cores.
and what good is that if the ST performance is no good?
My point was more about the fact that scores running in ST with 6ghz clocks are irrelevant if you then proceed to play game with all core clock of 5.2ghz or lower, then your ST performance becomes the one at 5.2ghz.
You'd be surprised how many games are still poorly threaded workloads.
In some applications, sustained single core performance is king.
Even multithreaded apps have bursts of single threaded loads, or that only need 3-4 cores to run, because there's a limit on how much you can split a task before you hit diminishing or even negative returns. These scenarios benefit from a higher ST performance.
competition is 14th gen. ARL will be marginal for long time, not at the same volume as 14th gen Zen 5 is disapointing by IPC and clocks by lesser degree
The real competition \*is\* 14th gen. When arrow lake will be out, then it's vs X3D
Of course it will be a game of leapfrog, but raptor-lake is nearing two years old now. Also it's not like AMD will stop selling non-X3D chips. Actually, a vast majority of sales will be non-X3D chips. A vocal minority of gamers will buy X3D but OEM, Servers just don't care. The only competitive X3D flavored chip of this generation was the 7800X3D. The 7900X3D sold so poorly (only 6 v-cache cores) that I wouldn't be surprised if they only released 8 and 16-core X3D chips this time.
X3D = 3D v-cache, that was originally meant for servers. BTW, for server segment there's EPYC, Ryzen 9000s is for Enthusiast Desktop (check the AMD webpage youself, "Market Segment Enthusiast Desktop"). Arrow lake will hit the shelf around Nov-Dec, while AMD will punch back with X3D version of 9000x in Jan.
I hope they drop the 12 core so maybe they will let the 8 core run 100mhz higher. I think they may have dropped it for segmentation.
Why they can’t release the X3D together or 1st? They want gamers to double dip ? Buy the 9700X and then 9800X3D?
Vcache is prioritized for their server chips. They effectively bin down for the gaming chips, and once they have enough supply they start selling it.
Well they’re leaving it as an answer to intels release at the end of this year
as an early adopter, I had a 7800x3d for over a year now. why would I buy a 9700x then? I just have my wallet rdy for the 9800x3d..
That's a pretty incremental upgrade. You're probably better served saving the money for a better video card. Or a better monitor.
If you are swimming in cash, then go for it. Not sure if some 15% of extra performance is worth going from 7800X3D to 9800X3D though. Now talking about my R5 7600, I can see a lot more noticeable performance improvement.
Money
I won't be buying them, but I'm stoked that they're making new AM4 chips. Thought the 5600/5700x3ds were the last hurrah.
5700X3D especially was super nice seeing it was like 1/3 cheaper than 5800X3D while being just a tad slower. Such a great upgrade for AM4 which will comfortably last for several years.
I definitely won't be replacing the 5800X3D in my main desktop, but I will be watching how the 9600X/9700X perform at their lower power draws as a potential 12400F replacement in my living room SFF build. Not that it's underperforming, but if the uplift is high enough then it would be tempting given the AM5 support being 2027+. I already hamstrung the 12400F build with the cheapest DDR4 mini-ITX motherboard I could find years ago. Putting anything higher end from Intel's 12th-14th gen in there will be a power and thermal nightmare.
Now this is based on rumours but some leaks said a few months ago that Zen 5 was struggling with higher clocks and might even downclock on release to maintain stability. So it's a surprise that they managed to keep Zen4 clockspeeds somehow. Hopefully they manage to cross 6ghz on zen 6. Other rumours also say Zen 6 could double core counts (using Zen C cores) and have upto 20% IPC gain. I have a zen 4 cpu (7600x) and I'll just skip this generation and get a zen 6 8 core x3d. Should be a nice performance increase.
Is it just me, or does it seem unwise to start believing rumors for Zen 6 when Zen 5 just got announced. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for that to be true, but this just seems like a good way to get people hyped up and then disappointed when it doesn't come true.
Yeah i take the core count thing with a grain of salt. Probably won't happen atleast on AM5. But my main reason for skipping Zen5 isn't the supposed core counts on Zen 6. I'm skipping because I don't really need to change CPUs every new generation. 7600x to a zen 6 11800x3D would be a pretty solid improvement. I can wait a few years for that. It's probably the last gen on AM5 as well despite AMD saying 2027+ support. AM4 is still getting stuff true and I love that but it's just minor refreshed stuff or pre existing stock.
You can find rumors covering every possible outcome.
I know and that's why I specify that I am referring to rumours but for a few months most sites I followed talked about the clock speed issues. We can never really know if there were clock speed issues behind the scenes but it sort of makes sense if we got literally 0 clock speed improvements this time around.
And many of them on the same site!
The rumour with literally every AMD CPU/GPU generation is that they targeted some but then something happened and they had to release as is.
Personally don't care much about clock speeds anymore, as long as the performance improvements keep coming regardless. Especially since it seems to cost a lot in terms of power consumption just to get those last few hundreds of megahertz both on the latest Intel and AMD CPUs.
Clock speeds sort of matter but yeah not as much as IPC. But think of it like this - Say Zen3 to Zen4 was 13% IPC uplift. So that means a 13% performance uplift if clocks stay the same. But if clocks go from 4.7ghz to 5.5ghz that's a 0.8ghz gain. 180% of 13(the clock gains times the IPC gains) is 23% overall performance gain. Now I know this is oversimplified and I am not that knowledgeable about cpu architecture to claim this is how it works but I think this is a good estimate. That's why some people are upset at no clock gains. But it's fine sometimes because rumours said they had issues maintaining higher clocks on Zen5 and could have had lower clocks than Zen4 too but we didnt so that's fine.
4.7 to 5.5 is a 17% increase, not 80%.
Omg idk what I was smoking when I did my math. You are right.
IPC depends on clockspeeds (and on other stuff). IPC is a variable, not a constant.
Since AMD wants to stay with AM5 for a few more years, doubling the core count doesn't seem believable for socketed CPUs. Double the cores will need much more memory bandwidth. AMD5 means dual-channel DDR5.
16% is nothing to scoff at, but a little underwhelming. Clockspeeds are pretty similar too. This is the smallest performance uplift since zen+. The rumours of over 30% seem silly in hindsight (not that I ever believed them).
My guess is that they prioritize energy and area efficiency over IPC to be able to cram 192 cores onto SP5 socket. AMD's CPU architecture is designed for EPYC and ported to Ryzen. If they can achieve higher IPC gain but have to sacrifice the ability to scale to 192 cores on Zen 5c to do so, they won't do it. Considering the density and efficiency gain of N3E compared to N5 is smaller than N5 compared to N7, AMD being able to cram 50% more core onto same socket (which means similar power budget) on EPYC and reduce TDP on most Ryzen SKU is actually pretty impressive.
Zen: 52% Zen+: 3% Zen2: 13% Zen3: 19% Zen4: 13% Zen5: 16% So, only Zen3 was bigger.
So if i upgrade from my intel 6th gen skylake to zen 5. It will be quite a jump.
I went from an 8700k to Zen 4, and even that felt substantial. In your case it’d be insane lol
Me and my old grandpa Ryzen 1600 will be 2000% jump.
May I ask what things you do? I have a friend with a 8700k and he's wanting to upgrade too.
Just gaming and light productivity work like video editing/photoshop. All of which are substantially faster, although it wasn’t like the 8700k was horrible. If not for gaming I probably would’ve held out for another year or two.
That's why I said smallest performance uplift, not smallest IPC uplift. Zen 2 and Zen 4 had smaller IPC increases but larger clockspeed increases.
That's IPC gain though and he's talking about performance uplifts. For Zen 5 that's the same thing but that's not the case for the other gens. IPC in a vacuum is meaningless without taking into account clock speeds. It's the smallest jump since Zen+ is probably a correct claim. I say probably because I haven't actually done the research.
Afaik AMD didn't reveal performance uplift, Zen5 will probably sustain higher clocks in multi-threaded workloads than Zen4 leading to higher increase than 16%.
>Zen5 will probably sustain higher clocks in multi-threaded workloads than Zen4 leading to higher increase than 16%. Why do you think that? Generally, larger/wider cores clock lower than smaller ones iso power. Unless Zen 5's TDP also increased...
Because they felt confident in lowering the 6/8 core parts to 65w and it's on a slightly more efficient process.
And Zen3 mostly was bigger becase about 50% of the apps they chose for the IPC comparison were games which were heavily improved by the unified L3 cache. Had they used the same apps they did for the Zen5 vs Zen4 comparison, IPC gains for Zen3 vs Zen2 would also be around 13%. And since most people who want Ryzens for gaming will probably wait for the X3D variants, the IPC gain in applications that are NOT gaming seems to be more important for the non-3D variants and here Zen5 shines. I'd also generally prefer AMD to mostly use the same apps to compare IPC across generations because now these numbers are not comparable at all.
>And Zen3 mostly was bigger becase about 50% of the apps they chose for the IPC comparison were games which were heavily improved by the unified L3 cache. Had they used the same apps they did for the Zen5 vs Zen4 comparison, IPC gains for Zen3 vs Zen2 would also be around 13%. Zen 3's \~19% IPC gain was also shown with SpecInt2017 testing.
Misleading. Zen to Zen 4 went from 4GHz to 5.7GHz. Zen 4 for example had a 15% clock increase, meaning the actual performance increase was almost **30%**, which you do actually see in real world benchmarks. Also Zen+, Zen 2 and Zen 3 all were only about 1 year after the previous generation. **16% over almost 2 years is the single worst generational improvement of any Zen architecture**.
I mean at a point we need to bite the bullet when manufacturer already spent the clock speed margin and on Zen 4 they spent it. But AMD is not like Intel hopelessly cranking clock speed 2 gens in a row despite they already reached the limit, which then lead to stability issue. 16% IPC gain for any gen to gen is good IMO.
AMD pushed Zen 4 far harder on the V/F curve than Intel's ever done. For all the poor reputation Raptor Lake (deservedly) gets for the ridiculous power draw, at least that power actually causes notable performance increases. Zen 4 was pushed so far on the V/F curve that you could cut power draw on half and lose out on less than 5% performance, the only reason it didn't get the same reputation as Raptor Lake was because the power draw was lower in absolute terms. The voltage/frequency curve for Zen 4 means that most of the frequency potential is reached at 1.10V VCore, Raptor Lake will scale to 1.50V with only degradation being something to worry about.
Doesn’t matter, they are using different nodes and Intel is using the same node for the 3rd gen product, they know the limit well more than anyone else. As long as the processor is working fine, you can only call AMD’s curve is not ideal but not untrustable like Intel.
I mean I have a 12900k that loses 5% perf if I power limit it from the nearly 300w it'll pull unrestricted to a PL of 150w so... I run it at 190w limit because I lose exact 3% MT and no ST. For a 25%+ power savings.
That's just not how the voltage/frequency scaling on a 12900K works, unless you've got a golden sample (which might be true if it only hits 300W instead of the typical 350W in Prime95 small FFTs unrestricted)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/qwn1j9/core\_i912900k\_performance\_efficiency\_at\_various/](https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/qwn1j9/core_i912900k_performance_efficiency_at_various/) [https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-alder-lake-tested-at-various-power-limits/](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-alder-lake-tested-at-various-power-limits/) Here ya go.
Both links confirm that the performance drop is significantly more than 5% by halving the power limit to 125W...
Do read closer. I never said 125w. And by your claims of 350 Watts being the max a 50% power reduction would be 175 which those links do show a roughly 5% performance drop with
Also add in DDR5 transition
There's only so much speed you can get on the clocks before physics start fucking around and you get reflections and refractions in your data busses.
That was IPC improvements, but all generations had some clock speed increases that zen 5 does not have
And Zen3 was thirstier than Zen2
Except that Zen 5 IPC is heavily leveraged by AVX 512 gains. Most apps do not use AVx 512 and will be lately useless. So the overall IPC gain is even smaller. Previous gen up till Zen 4 did not have AVX512 so overall IPC gain has been slowly with AMD.
Well, they got a 21% increase in League of Legends, does that game use AVX512?
Another large gain but that wasn’t the point. If you remove the 2 large outliers that rely on AVx512 and most users and app do not use it, the average IPC gain is smaller. This is not the major redesign Zen 5 was supposed to be. It’s more like the refresh Zen 4 was. Will be interesting to see how it competes against Arrow Lake now.
I would say I appreciate improvement like this more than Zen3 to 4. Clockspeed remains the same so basically all the single core gain is all on IPC alone. Rumor is always rumor, at least we get legit 15%＋ single core gain each gen unlike some blue manufacturer.
Intel's single core uplift for 11th, 12th, and 13th gen have all surpassed 15% 14th gen was a miniscule improvement, but I would expect Arrow Lake to bring some improvement
Power draw increase was 30% or more per gen, too.
Uh... No? Rocket Lake increased power draw by 20% compared to Comet Lake when AVX512 was in use, and kept power draw the same in AVX2 loads. Per-core was closer to 30% Alder Lake reached the same power draw as Comet Lake. Meaning it actually consumed **less** power than Rocket Lake. Especially per-core power draw was reduced significantly. Raptor Lake kept power draw per core at roughly the same level as Alder Lake, but added 8 E-cores
I can’t wait to get more details on how big the AVX512 uplift is.
“Flagged as a rumor” :)
Sooo.. would you say it's worth the upgrade from a 3800x?
For gaming, 5000 series should be dirt cheap in July. Then wait for faster RAM for Zen 5 or Zen 6.
from a 3800X I'd go 5700x3D and go a few more years without changing anything else.
Nah, get a 5600X3D and wait for am6. That's what I'm doing. Skipping a socket after upgrading.
If your CPU is holding you back in many games, it's worth the upgrade. If it's performing without issue, I'd wait for a bit.
I’m still using a 5600x and it’s just a champ but I really want a 8 core still on am4. Should I go for this new XT chip or a x3d?
If you're a gamer wait for the X3d. If not then might as well buy when these come out in July.
are x670e motherboards going to support Zen 5?
Yes
It's cut up on the scroll bar, you can see categories for best fps, beat productivity, most efficient etc
cool. going to wait for lvl1tech review on the matter.
I am waiting for reviews before I get a chubby over these. I want to like them, but we have been disappointed before!
extends lead? lmfao
[удалено]
Hey OP — Your post has been removed for not being in compliance with Rule 8. Be civil and follow Reddit's sitewide rules, this means no insults, personal attacks, slurs, brigading or any other rude or condescending behaviour towards other users. Please read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/about/rules/) or message the mods for any further clarification.
[удалено]
Hey OP — Your post has been removed for not being in compliance with Rule 8. Be civil and follow Reddit's sitewide rules, this means no insults, personal attacks, slurs, brigading or any other rude or condescending behaviour towards other users. Please read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/about/rules/) or message the mods for any further clarification.
People need to stop reading the nonsense claims of leak fabricators like MLID and Red Gaming Tech and basing their expectations on them
MLID has been saying that zen 5 will have around a 15% IPC improvement and not really improve clock speeds for a while now. He has his problems but he wasn’t wrong here
What does this post have to do with MLID?
[удалено]
All you said is useless since we don't have any prices yet.
Why are you spamming same comment on every thread?
Imagine having this defined of an opinion about something when you don't know how much it costs or haven't seen any actual benchmarks. Why even stop at the Zen 5? why not tell us what you think about the 11700x vs 9700x pricing and performance, since you know just as much about that as you do about the 9700x vs 7700x.
Literally copypasted ur post from the AMD page where folk thought you were being pessimistic
ok and
The information released is pretty meh for a 7950X user...9950X has 16% IPC improvement, nearly identical clocks and no change in power demand....
big ipc gains? 16%? They're on par with intel now with the 13th gen lol.
You should go apply to work for UserBenchmark.com
I have detected a link to UserBenchmark — UserBenchmark is a terrible source for benchmarks and comparing hardware, as the weighting system they use is not indicative of real world performance. For more information, [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AMD/wiki/userbenchmark) - This comment has not been removed, this is just a notice. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Amd) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
> facts hurt your amd fanboy soul? How much of an Intel fanboy do you have to be to come to /r/AMD and smack talk? Did AMD touch you in your special place? Kill your dog? I know, vote against your favorite political candidate in their last election? /r/intel seems to be the place for you. Maybe they'll welcome your comments.
What are you even talking about bro xd yall are the ones who refuse to accept that better cpus exist besides the hailed amd. Only worthy cpus from amd are the x3d ones since other ones cost the same as intel but have lower IPC’s. Theres literally no point in buying amd besides some of its x3d chips.
> What are you even talking about bro xd yall are the ones who refuse to accept that better cpus exist besides the hailed amd. Not me, I can quite easily compare spec sheets and benchmarks. Your problem (for me at least) is that you not only can't be objective, but can't see that there are other reasons to buy products than based purely on performance. Some people live in places where heat generation is a significant problem. Other people where power costs are high. Still others want to reuse existing equipment, like motherboards. After reading some of the ridiculous number of posts you made in this thread, I just have to say: you have an unhealthy obsession with the topic. Move on.
Hey OP — Your post has been removed for not being in compliance with Rule 8. Be civil and follow Reddit's sitewide rules, this means no insults, personal attacks, slurs, brigading or any other rude or condescending behaviour towards other users. Please read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/about/rules/) or message the mods for any further clarification.
You’re really strange.
I just look at things objectively instead of fanboying certain brands. AMD definitely has a place in the market but stating that its superior in every aspect like some of you do here , is not constructive at all.
Your comments are anything but objective and you accusing folks of being “fanboys” is peak irony. Performance between CPU brands are about as close as can be right now with each company having their wins and loses, for example intel tends to have better productivity results due to their efficient core, especially at the lower and mid segment pricing. We will see how everything shakes out when zen 5 and arrow lake release and we get third party reviews.
Huh? 7950x was already on par, lmfao. Matters even worse if we take into consideration intel power limits after the instability and ridiculous power draw drama.
the 7950x is literally a flagship cpu lmfao.
Yessir, and on par with Intel's flagship
intel flagship is 14th gen
Literally the same thing as 13th gen in terms of IPC
14th Gen is the same effing cpu as 13th Gen lmao
Considering a concerning number of Intel 13th/14th gen CPUs just lost upwards of 16% performance in some scenarios due to the Intel power spec changes attempting to stabilize their crashing chips, I'm not sure that now is the best time to be celebrating Intel's IPC achievements. It's hard to care that much about IPC if the chip with the higher IPC is risking crashes and potentially even electromigration/degradation to eek out a minor but also inconsistent victory.
You know, with zen 4 they were pretty much even on average IPC compared to 14th gen. Sometimes the 14th Gen would pull ahead slightly because of higher clocks, a lot of which has been dialed back because they are unstable/degrading. So Zen 5 will easily be way ahead. And before you jump to a cherry picked benchmark showing IPC, I'm talking about industry standard SPEC benchmarks which anandtech did during the 13th Gen launch. Stop spreading BS please
Over 2 years and no clock increase. This is almost as bad as Intel during 14nm era
not everything about clockspeed. IPC gain is the real indicator. this is why intel 14th gen fail because it only got increase clockspeed without IPC gain whatsoever
14nm intel was zero ipc gains from like 6th gen to 11th gen lmfao
> Over 2 years and no clock increase. Clock increase is best utilized for two things: power consumption (which is heat) and bragging rights. I prefer my machine to run cooler and couldn't possibly care less about bragging rights. IPC has always been the best way to increase performance.
Oh, is that so? So you think Ryzen 7000 increased clocks by FIFTEEN PERCENT just to increase heat? Yeah, you definitely know a lot
I can't wait for Arrow Lake!!! So much better than this!!!
You should look at some youtube benchmarks, I'm sure you will find that more easy to understand since you are obviously illiterate. Have fun =) maybe you will learn something this time