AMD Ryzen 5 9600X & Ryzen 7 9700X Linux Performance With 105 Watt cTDP

[raystriker]

Basically some motherboards now allow overclocking, that's really what the story is.

All Ryzen CPUs come with an unlocked multiplier. All B650 and up motherboards also allow OC from default (unlike Intel where you have to buy the K series CPU and the Z series chipset motherboard. lol)

This "update" is just letting the CPU be more opportunistic for boosting behavior and sustained performance.

I have never been a big fan of overclocking, and i certainty would not run a processor that originally was sold as a 65w part at a 105w setting, you're just begging to damage something.

This is the dumbest thing I've read this year. Your understanding of processors seems to be from the 486 era.

It's also ironic that AMD, which in addition to more cores, has been marketing its processors as being lower power consumption than Intel's should suddenly allow their processors to be taken to setting that consumes an extra 40w.

Are they scared how their processors will stack up against Intel's performance-wise when the new Intel's are released?

I think yes.

No. AMD increased the TDP just so they compete better with themselves (7700X came with a default TDP of 105W).

[NeedleInHaystack]

OK I have a question :
Where are the 9950X3D ??
Where are the 9900X3D ??

In the future.

[skeevy420]

I run my 7800X3D in 65W mode. At the end of the day it's a frequency capped CPU so anything that helps keep the temps down to prevent any potential thermal throttling can have a potential net gain in performance. Heck, running Ryzen Master to help find the optimal UV is one of the very few reasons I keep a Windows install. If any of y'all use Ryzen Master, the Ryzen Master stability test is insufficient. Prime95 fails where Ryzen Master reports successful and stable. That's really useful for finding optimal per-core values. Also, I have a 6700 XT running at 1440p. I'm GPU-bound in nearly every single game. Giving the CPU more power won't fix that.

I really wish that AMD would release a firmware update that would increase the 7800X3D and 7900X3D to the frequency of the 7950X3D. To me, there's no reason that more cores should be faster than less cores when the issue is thermal limitations.

[Phoronos]

I really wish that AMD would release a firmware update that would increase the 7800X3D and 7900X3D to the frequency of the 7950X3D. To me, there's no reason that more cores should be faster than less cores when the issue is thermal limitations.

7800X3D costs about $ 400
7900X3D costs about $ 450
7950X3D costs about $ 600
Do you think they should perform the same ?

[skeevy420]

7800X3D costs about $ 400
7900X3D costs about $ 450
7950X3D costs about $ 600
Do you think they should perform the same ?

The CPUs would perform the same on programs that don't scale with greater than 8 cores like they damn near already do since they're only a few hundred MHz away from each other now. Anything else would run better with the better CPU like it already does. Anything that doesn't benefit from the extra cache would continue to run better on the 7900X3D and 7950X3D like it already does since those CPUs have non-X3D cores that aren't frequency-limited with PBO.

I think they should be able to perform as capable as they're able.

[Phoronos]

The CPUs would perform the same on programs that don't scale with greater than 8 cores like they damn near already do since they're only a few hundred MHz away from each other now. Anything else would run better with the better CPU like it already does. Anything that doesn't benefit from the extra cache would continue to run better on the 7900X3D and 7950X3D like it already does since those CPUs have non-X3D cores that aren't frequency-limited with PBO.

I think they should be able to perform as capable as they're able.

You want something faster , you pay more, that's all...no blablablabla

[skeevy420]

You want something faster , you pay more, that's all...no blablablabla

You sound like someone who bought a 7950X3D and wants to be able to lord their precious performance gain over everyone else. Whoop-de-doo.

With every other Zen CPU with an X in the name when you want your system to run faster than stock you enable PBO, the system will OC itself, and then you can fine tune it even further from there if you're willing, except with X3D cores for supposed stability concerns. I say supposed due to the product line limitations and BCLK OCs. I could accept the product line limitations if they'd give us the option and opportunity to fine tune our performance and stability on our own like how we can with every other consumer Zen CPU. It sucks that we're not given the option to find out outside of BCLK OCs which are only so stable due to their effect on everything, which is a bit of a tease because it does show that the X3Ds can be ran a hair faster and still be stable enough to pass tests.

I knew what I was getting into when I bought my 7800X3D for less than $350 after tax. Talk about an offer you can't refuse. I just think I'd be nice to have the option to try to succeed or fail like with all the other X models.

[quaz0r]

AMD got it right the first time, and should resist demands to overjuice like Intel, unless they want their processors to melt after 6 months like Intel

[sophisticles]

This is the dumbest thing I've read this year. Your understanding of processors seems to be from the 486 era.

Are saying you don't bother to proofread your posts?

I don't care what year it is, overclocking a computer component is asking for trouble.

Overclocking is great of you want to run a few benchmarks but of you want to get a long project finished you need stability and you will not get that from an overclocked CPU.

That's goes for any CPU from any manufacturer.

[qarium]

Basically some motherboards now allow overclocking, that's really what the story is.
I have never been a big fan of overclocking, and i certainty would not run a processor that originally was sold as a 65w part at a 105w setting, you're just begging to damage something.
It's also ironic that AMD, which in addition to more cores, has been marketing its processors as being lower power consumption than Intel's should suddenly allow their processors to be taken to setting that consumes an extra 40w.
Are they scared how their processors will stack up against Intel's performance-wise when the new Intel's are released?
I think yes.
Remember years ago when AMD could not compete and they released that 220w CPU, the FX-9590 or before that when Intel released their first quad core CPU, the Core2Quad and AMD decided to put 2 dual core CPUs and bundle them with a motherboard that supported 2 CPUs as a competitor to Intel?
I think the AMD lovers are about to experience deja vu real bad.

you are just sad that all the intel customers 13900K and 14900K people have crashing systems and their cpus have signs of decay and need to make bios updates and also sent the CPU to intel to perform warranty exchange.

and also the AMD 9700X costs 361€ in germany and the 14900K costs 529€

and the 105 cTDP mode of the 9700X shows that the AMD 9700X is faster overall according to geometric phoronix benchmark results.

the conclusion is with intel you get garbage product quality and expensive prices.

with AMD you get high product quality and cheap prices.