AMD Ryzen 9 7900X / Ryzen 9 7950X Benchmarks Show Impressive Zen 4 Linux Performance

[coder]

I doubt I'd notice much if any difference in day to day usage, between the 5900X and the 7900X. So other than 'bragging rights', I don't see why I should 'upgrade' .

Who said you should upgrade? My machines range between 6-11 years old. I don't have anything newer than a Skylake laptop.

As for more power, most anytime you get more performance, you usually pay for that by using more power. Just the nature of the game.

Not true. Comparable chips made on a smaller process node are almost always more power-efficient. However, Zen 3 is more power-efficient than Zen 2, while still being on the same process node.

AMD increased the power consumption of their platform to compete with Intel, but it wasn't strictly necessary just to deliver a performance improvement. And in spite of that, look closely at the power consumption graphs on the article's last page: the averages are the same since the previous gen!

[jrch2k8]

LOL, wut?

AMD sure did do significant redesign and achieve a respectable IPC increase.





Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/17552...coming-sept-27

read, i didn't say none, i said not too creative. enough to catch up with alder lake but nothing like zen 3 did back in the day.

[coder]

Disappointing power consumption numbers but at least it isn't less efficient than last gen. I don't think AMD needed to push this chip so hard - they could have dropped by a few hundred MHz while still staying on top and it would make a huge improvement on performance-per-watt.

They did both: give users the option to get excellent performance in a lower power-envelope, while letting gamerz crank enough GHz to smash Intel's teeth.

You know that if they held back, Intel's Special Edition 350 W extreme gamer boards* would juice Raptor Lake hard enough to take the crown. And that would deprive AMD of a well-deserved victory.

* I'm not even joking, here. 350 W.

[rclark]

Cost-wise, sure. AM4+DDR4 is the better deal, if you don't need a lot of performance.

Ha Ha! Thing is, in my use case anyway, I already have 'a lot of performance' with a 5900X and 64GB of DDR4 RAM.... In fact, I doubt I'd notice much if any difference in day to day usage, between the 5900X and the 7900X. So other than 'bragging rights', I don't see why I should 'upgrade' .

As for more power, most anytime you get more performance, you usually pay for that by using more power. Just the nature of the game. That's why you need a ratio metric of x performance per watt to give you a 'fair' power metric.

[coder]

In this iteration, sure AMD didn't get too creative with IPC uplift or core redesigns and since 12th gen had a nice uplift, they just went full brute force ahead like Intel hence i agree for that reason they need similar power budget.

LOL, wut?

AMD sure did do significant redesign and achieve a respectable IPC increase.





Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/17552...coming-sept-27

[coder]

I had such high hopes for the die shrink and reduced micron process thinking "FINALLY! Heat output will go down." But by all acounts, it actually seems to have increased if I am reading some of these numbers right.

Not sure why you thought that. Dennard Scaling has been dead for ages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennar...ng_around_2006

And while MSI is touting X670 and X670E boards with not chipset fan, I could swear I saw some X670E mobo maker with one on it. Please god, no. It would be the 2000s all over again.

A lot of X570 boards had chipset fans, at launch. Not sure if that remained true.

[cb88]

LOL in saturated scenarios it approaches 2x the performance if intel's fastest.

I noticed a typo at the daw benchmark - the second one says 480000 hz. Also, testing on both 44.1 and 48 khz is pointless, what you should be doing instead is testing much smaller buffer sizes, cuz that's where cpus need to face real time requirements in audio scenarios.

You should try testing at like 128 samples buffer. That's what's used for real time recording, mixing and stuff is done at large buffer sizes because the latency is not an issue if you are not performing live.

While true... to be fair Micheal's system probably isn't tweaked for audio latency either.

[coder]

also power optimized 5000 series is better power wise as well.

No, AMD says Zen 4 offers better perf/W.





Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/17552...coming-sept-27

Once AM5 mature and the used market dries up, sure that will be the way to go but for now, i'll wait until 8000 series since a node upgrade may solve the power draw/heat in the future while DDR5 cost should be more sane

Cost-wise, sure. AM4+DDR4 is the better deal, if you don't need a lot of performance.

[coder]

7000, AM5 and DDR5 will stay expensive for a long time.

According to what I've read, DDR5 prices are projected to continue declining through the end of this year. That could've changed, but I think it was from about 1 month ago.

I just want some ECC DDR5 UDIMMs. I know they exist, but they're still hard to find.

[schmidtbag]

Disappointing power consumption numbers but at least it isn't less efficient than last gen. I don't think AMD needed to push this chip so hard - they could have dropped by a few hundred MHz while still staying on top and it would make a huge improvement on performance-per-watt.