Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Ryzen 5 7600 / Ryzen 7 7700 / Ryzen 9 7900 Linux Performance

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

  • edwaleni
    replied
    Too funny, everyone is so obsessed with the OC ability. There is a bug in the Ryzen 6000 series where the chiplet supporting Core 0 undervolts by .01 when it goes into its low power state and causes hangs in Linux. The lp state is now so close to the off-state, a fabrication variance (not caught in the bin sort) or a VRM that can't discriminate voltage that closely will cause the system to hang. Asus & Lenovo have been trying to resolve this for over 6 months. A Fedora dev has made the most progress to date by forcing the lp state floor up.

    So while we sweat the OC world, it seems AMD is pushing the limits in the low power one as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slartifartblast
    replied
    Originally posted by Anux View Post

    Couldn't you have told me from the start that you're not here to disscuss anything? You said something about "xbox had it first, go figure" and even after 3 times me asking for clarification you just spit out more disjointed and vague buzzwords.
    And you are looking for.........



    Have a nice day

    Goodbye

    Leave a comment:


  • Anux
    replied
    Originally posted by Slartifartblast View Post

    Oh dear, did Spectre and Meltdown pass you by ?
    Couldn't you have told me from the start that you're not here to disscuss anything? You said something about "xbox had it first, go figure" and even after 3 times me asking for clarification you just spit out more disjointed and vague buzzwords.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slartifartblast
    replied
    Originally posted by Anux View Post
    Everything is inside the CPU so you "shouldn't" be able to do mitm attacks. We knew that already. I still don't get it, could you be a little less vague?
    Oh dear, did Spectre and Meltdown pass you by ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Anux
    replied
    Originally posted by otoomet View Post
    May well be the reason. But what I care about are:
    * What kind of cooler/fans do I need
    That's exactly what the TDP is for. You can't "calculate" the cooling solution with just the raw watts. If your CPU (with 150W power consumption) is designed to run at 40 °C and your room has 20 °C you would need a much bigger cooler than you would need if the CPU is designed to run at 90 °C.
    * What kind of PSU do I need
    * Are my motherboard VRM-s good enough?
    That's peak power consumption, but as long as you don't overclock, your VRMs are good enough for all supported CPUs.
    * What will my power bill be.
    That's average power consumption. Sadly those values are mostly not given by the manufracturer, good thing we have phoronix.

    Leave a comment:


  • billyswong
    replied
    Originally posted by peterdk View Post
    Any info about temperatures? I really like the lower power draws, but am wondering if this also means a much lower temperature?
    Temperature is fan dependant. Putting a strong AIO water cooler to all CPUs doesn't make sense for those that sell together with stock cooler as the reading will not be realistic. Putting a stock cooler to those with it but AIO water cooler to those aren't ruin any meaningful comparison.

    Leave a comment:


  • otoomet
    replied
    Originally posted by Anux View Post
    Maybe that's the reason it's called thermal design power and not average power consumption?
    May well be the reason. But what I care about are:
    * What kind of cooler/fans do I need
    * What kind of PSU do I need
    * Are my motherboard VRM-s good enough?
    * What will my power bill be.

    For all these things I'd prefer to use watts, the physical units, not the "TDP watts" that I am not quite sure what they are. I also do not know how are CPU TDP watts related to cooler TDP watts... The TDP is only somewhat useful in answering these questions.

    Well, there is also the problem that no motherboard specs talk about max sustained power the VRM-s can stand, but let's not go into discussing the boards in this thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • jrch2k8
    replied
    Originally posted by Drago View Post

    If you care about power, then you should get Intel 13600 or something. It was bench marked to use much less power on idle(which is what your PC does 95% of the time) than AMD, albeit the insane turbo power. Some dude benchmarked it, and it turned out 13600 saved $10 per year.
    that is for light gamers and very light users tho, my PC get pretty damn heavy use on productivity stuff and some gaming to dispel stress from time to time, i really care about low temps and low power under heavy use.

    In the same sense i care more about MT reads on storage than burst seq reads because i have tons of stuffs running on background that can use decent speeds, like db, CI containers, VMs, media server, web servers, node, redis, etc. plus whatever im using on the frontend like my usual c++ projects or converting my media to AV1, etc.

    I also need at least 64gb of ram, so my ZFS volumes can stretch its legs which is actually what i'm waiting to hit that 7600 or 7700 since ddr5 64gb is still kinda expensive but i'm considering an 5900 or 5950 in AM4 as well.

    but yeah for very light use there are better options

    Leave a comment:


  • Drago
    replied
    Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post

    i mean dead by the fact the next gen of intel is extremely likely require a new mobo meanwhile AM5 will last for a decent time after 7000 series, so imho AM5 will be cheaper in the long run, that is all.

    Well, i prefer lower power consumption over few % of performance but i give you this is very relative since the reverse can be true as well for people who don't give a damn about power and temps as long as is faster.

    so, is nice we have options now for both spectrums
    If you care about power, then you should get Intel 13600 or something. It was bench marked to use much less power on idle(which is what your PC does 95% of the time) than AMD, albeit the insane turbo power. Some dude benchmarked it, and it turned out 13600 saved $10 per year.

    Leave a comment:


  • jrch2k8
    replied
    Originally posted by bug77 View Post

    Not sure about dead platform, you can still swap an 13600k (or better) in.
    The 7600 is fine. It's just that it comes into a competitive world (yay!) and all it brings to the table is lower TDP (the same performance has been available for over a year now and roughly at the same price point). And you have to swap your mobo and RAM to get that.
    i mean dead by the fact the next gen of intel is extremely likely require a new mobo meanwhile AM5 will last for a decent time after 7000 series, so imho AM5 will be cheaper in the long run, that is all.

    Well, i prefer lower power consumption over few % of performance but i give you this is very relative since the reverse can be true as well for people who don't give a damn about power and temps as long as is faster.

    so, is nice we have options now for both spectrums

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X