Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Ryzen 5 7600X Linux Performance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    It's faster than the 5600X, but it still loses too many tests to 12600k. It draws about the same power as 12600k, too, despite being built on a smaller node. 13600k will eat this for breakfast.

    Comment


    • #12
      People keep forgetting that a CPU is so much more than the cores.
      I mean. SerDes for PCIe 5.0 and such are going to SUCK POWER like there is no tomorrow.
      I/O is going to be a real pain in the power budget.

      Probably future optimization to layout and serdes DACs will yield less aggressive tuning and a cut on the I/O power budget.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by bug77 View Post
        It's faster than the 5600X, but it still loses too many tests to 12600k. It draws about the same power as 12600k, too, despite being built on a smaller node. 13600k will eat this for breakfast.
        5600X was 17% faster than 12600K overall. "Losing too many tests" is a meaningless, arbitrary metric.

        Bottom line, no surprise it is faster, it's a newer CPU. If the 13600K, an even newer CPU, is faster, I don't think it will be a surprise to anyone at this point. The question is how much power will Intel require to do it.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Classical View Post
          This review has results that we should take a closer look at. On Windows systems we see that the AMD 7600X is on average as fast as the i9 12900k for gaming. With Linux we see that the 7600X is significantly faster on average than the 12900k for gaming.

          Why is this new AMD CPU generation on Linux so much faster than the best Intel CPUs for gaming? We don't see this on Windows systems so this is a unique fact.​
          No it's not. 7600x slower than 12600K

          AMD Ryzen 5 7600X Review - Affordable Zen 4 for Gaming - Game Tests 1080p / RTX 3080 | TechPowerUp

          This is average from 12 games. It's faster in some games, but if you tests many in average it's slower than 12600k.
          Last edited by HEL88; 07 October 2022, 01:47 PM.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by HEL88 View Post
            No it's not. 7600x slower than 12600K
            I see most of the time that the 7600X is very close to the i9 12900k:

            https://www.pcworld.com/article/1338...igh-costs.html

            Like at 1080p, you’ll see similar trends in chip performance between the 7600X and the 12900K (including the same uneven variance between individual games), though the percentage differences widen.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by HEL88 View Post
              No it's not. 7600x slower than 12600K

              AMD Ryzen 5 7600X Review - Affordable Zen 4 for Gaming - Game Tests 1080p / RTX 3080 | TechPowerUp

              This is average from 12 games. It's faster in some games, but if you tests many in average it's slower than 12600k.
              I would take those benchmarks with a grain of salt. The fact the overclock there resulted in lower performance is lack of thermal headroom. It appears from the different reviewer reported performances that we have either of 2 things or mix of both.

              Yes the possible cause of what we are seeing here.
              1) Ryzen 7000x series has a lot of silicon variation.
              2) Choice of cooler makes a huge difference.

              Yes the ones that show the 7600X as faster than 12600K at stock that do overclock 7600X the overclock is faster than the stock by a little bit. The ones that show 12600K is faster than the 7600X the overclock is slower than the 7600X stock. So there is something going on here.

              There is a horrible issue caused by the new Ryzen 7000x series heat spreader being 2mm thicker than the prior generations that heat transfer is not as good.

              The differences in results can be caused by both.

              Comment


              • #17
                I remember times when AMD wasn't competitive, i5 was $200 and i7 for $300.

                Now AMD is back in the game (and there are M1/M2), but the price for AMD's i5 is $300. Competition benefits the customers, right? Right?!..

                Well, at the same time if you're not chasing the very newest things, you can get something very cost efficient like Ryzen 5600 for ~150$ from AliExpress. They cost even $135-140 there now. Basically 5600x, and what was its MSRP at launch? $300 it was...

                No wonder it's Groups top selling CPU on US Amazon rn:

                https://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/pc/229189/

                ---

                ​​​​​​​New tech surely got pricier over recent years. Its performance is impressive though.
                Last edited by murlakatamenka; 07 October 2022, 05:29 PM.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Classical View Post
                  Why is this new AMD CPU generation on Linux so much faster than the best Intel CPUs for gaming? We don't see this on Windows systems so this is a unique fact.​
                  Considering how dirty Intel and M$ are and how they have screwed AMD in the past, i am willing to bet that money exchanged hands and AMD got shafted again.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Classical View Post

                    I see most of the time that the 7600X is very close to the i9 12900k:

                    https://www.pcworld.com/article/1338...igh-costs.html

                    Like at 1080p, you’ll see similar trends in chip performance between the 7600X and the 12900K (including the same uneven variance between individual games), though the percentage differences widen.
                    In this tests in many cases 7600x is slower than 12600k, but yes 7600x wins.

                    But more important is that RAM was not equal for both platforms: Intel had 4800, but AMD had 5200! This is more than 8% difference.

                    In test from TechpowerUp ram was equal for both platform: 6000.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by HEL88 View Post
                      In this tests in many cases 7600x is slower than 12600k, but yes 7600x wins.

                      But more important is that RAM was not equal for both platforms: Intel had 4800, but AMD had 5200! This is more than 8% difference.

                      In test from TechpowerUp ram was equal for both platform: 6000.
                      This is absolutely not straight forwards.
                      https://www.pcgamer.com/does-ram-spe...ing-amd-intel/

                      The performance difference between 4800 and 5200 ram is not 8 percent with real CPUs nightmare is that 5200 can be 1 to 2 percent slower than 4800 if it a miss match. With AMD and Intel processors using absolutely the same ram speed results in defective results I missed that mistake in the TechpowerUp write up.

                      AMD CPU due to how it infinity fabric works has sweet spots of best performance. Intel internal design also results in sweet spots. Faster ram does not always equal fast performance.

                      So there are possible two defects in that TechpowerUp write up.

                      What is ideal ram for the AMD and Intel CPU need to be worked out. Yes these could be 400 to 1000 apart and this would be normal.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X