I'd rather have a CPU that gets faster as things get fixed over time than a CPU that gets slower because of poor engineering choices and benchmark chasing.
Those are 2 different things. And you can do both at the same time. I'm still running my 3700X on the stock cooler, locked at 4.3Ghz all core all the time, my temps sit between 27C to a high of 60C, the undervolt will control the current draw,
@@sandornyemcsok4168The problem still is Windows 11, Win 10 and Linux are still about 10% faster WITHOUT needing to increase the TDP from 65 to 105W. They've found some of the bugs and have been relatively quick to patch as each new thing is found, some of these things may have already been sitting in someones e-mail box during the launch, someone missed the software/OS Support roll out before launch.
@@Weissrolf Ironically, those can be undervolted also to lower your thermals without giving up to much in performance, you might actually gain some, I did.
With a 10% performance increase for over a 60% increase in power, I'm okay with 65w being the default. Anyone who isn't an enthusiast likely won't notice a performance difference, but would appreciate better temps and efficiency.
Yes, and those enthusiasts you talking about wont buy 9700x but 7800x3d or 9950x or waiting for 9800x3d. I am glad I have this option. I know my CPU aint running at its limit, so it should increase its lifespan. 9700x is fast as it is, no need to OC it.
Forget efficiency, pumping an extra 60% through it is going to toast your silicon intel style It was what it was for a reason, it can't do more than that
But that's a bit more like what I would expect from say a 9700X compared to a 9700. I'm not really sure what their non-X releases will even look like this generation unless they skip it entirely.
I think AMD providing a choice is great. And the 65 watt being the default is also the right choice, since for most buyers the most efficiency per watt is going to make the most sense(and that includes that don't know there is options). Simply put, unless you do some heavy lifting with your computer or gaming with a GPU to match then most will never feel the performance difference. And those that need the performance will either set up their machine them self or have some do it for them, so the 105 watt will used by them.
yeah, this is the correct move. give the best efficiency as default, and leave any extra as "overclocking options" for people who know what they are doing. just like it used to be. no need to squeeze every last drop of performance for normal computers
They already gave you that choice with the 7700 non-X which is pretty much exactly what the 9700x is. This is why some review outlets were saying AMD's efficiency claims were pure bullshit because they compared it to non-x instead of the 7700X that AMD _wanted_ it compared to. Anyone that compared it to the 7700 saw the performance gap improve from 3% to a whopping 7%, but the amazing claimed efficiency improvement completely vaporize. Zen simply ramps horribly with more power. It needs to stick to what it's good at and that's sub-75watt parts where it shines. Sad part is Intel chips don't lose much either with drastically less power usage which makes you wonder why the hell they do it. Both these companies have been pushing far more power than needed well into diminishing returns.
@@zjunk4877 Both companies? Seems to me that Intel is much more guilty of pushing the power, something they have clearly done because when selling many people look more at the number of Mhz than anything else. The Intel CPU's have been factory overclocked for generations, just like they invented the "efficiency cores" in order to boost the number of cores since that number also sells.
previous gen had an eco mode with lower wattage. it only makes sense to have an eco mode, while having max performance the base. This isn't some laptop cpu/ server cpu.
The thing is, the way the architecture is made, its built purposely to run at low wattage, around 65watts is what they noticed being the sweet spot. This is why bumping it up any further gives little to nothing. Now if they had made the architecture with heavy watts in mind, we would see some massive returns going from 65 to 105watts.
I disagree with your last point. Keep efficiency mode the default. Wastrels who want a few more frames for much greater energy consumption can pursue that if they want.
By your logic, if the more efficient mode should be the default, then the 13/14900K should be set to the Intel default profile (125W PL1)? In reality no one uses that mode.
The reason AMD are likely running their benchmarks as _Administrator_ are that they likely will be using tools that interact with the drivers directly & as such *normal* windows security would be getting in the way (e.g. UAC / registry / driver signing / etc) with that all off they are testing with as little interacting as possible
Right but their official benchmarks should have never come from admin mode, that should be tested on a clean machine and if they actually did that they might have found the issue and fixed it before it became a shitshow. This error cost them thousands of sales because of the "meh" reviews it got on launch.
That would be stupid. Every testing should be done in a typical environment - this should have caught by QA and shows they are amateurish in that department. Sadly it's a common theme... AMD GPU owners sadly know this...
I still dont understand the notion that every part in a PC has to run on max power draw and max performance as default and the controversy around " Oh just X% improvement over the last generation" and blatantly ignoring the fact that we save like 60% power over the last generation ......... for me that just shows that some reviews are out of touch ... for normal folks that is a huge deal
It's always been this way, people are just dumb is what it amounts to. In places where energy is an actual concern, like the EU, those lower power draws are seriously compelling.
Indeed, I always buy 65W CPU to save power, to keep it cool and quiet. It does not affect perfomance, mine 3600 never went above 50% at full load, I got 8600G just to upgrade. it is similar to wasting money on the fastest RAM, it can be 2-3x times more expensive to get 2-3 more FPS. PC fans are like boys comparing, who has bigger ... score in the benchmarks.
If I had such a processor, I'd probably leave it at 65W. _Maybe_ 10% performance improvements for _that_ much difference in power draw/heat? I'd probably only turn it on if I actually had trouble meeting a playable frame-rate in a CPU-bound game, or some similar real-time process. Might be useful to extend the CPU's life, later down the road, but initially leaving it at its efficiency peak is the sensible option. Also, they CAN'T raise the defaults, as these are already sold and integrated with other products as 65W parts and may have been placed with cooling or power solutions that wouldn't support 105W use reliably (in prebuilts, bundles, etc.). It would be a bad move to up the power/thermal requirements of a part after launch. Toggling something in the BIOS is simple enough for people who want the extra power. The kind of people who would notice ALREADY READ and customize the BIOS settings.
Shipping with 105w instead of 65w is an awful idea. I'm surprised you would suggest that. Lower power draw and temps is a big plus with AMD CPUs. To throw that out the window for everyone who wouldn't know to switch to 65w mode in the bios is asinine.
Tbf, a 40W increase is about as much as a couple LED light bulbs and it's not like 105W is even particularly high as far as CPUs go. Plus most people are probably pairing it with a 300+W GPU.
@@GeekProdigyGuy Also, 105 W is the power draw for pretty much all previous mid range X parts like the 7600x and 7700x. It would have been a simpler transition between the two if the X parts had just followed the same trajectory and then AMD sold energy efficient non-X parts.
@@GeekProdigyGuydo you leave bulbs on when you are not using them? If so you should get some motion detectors, that is a waste if not for decorative purposes.
There are power profiles in Windows for this exact usecase that people use to throttle their cpcus if needed. Having to flash something or switch something in BIOS isn't the norm
@@raizan5946 Yes, I do leave high efficiency bulbs on when I'm not using them. Why? Because they have a limited number of cycles. You can only turn them on and off about 1000 times before they burn out due to thermal expansion and contraction, leading to much more frequent replacement, negating any savings you could get by turning them off. Turn an LED bulb on 1 time and leave it on...and it will shine until Jesus comes back.
As a Windows user on a 5900x, I can tell you that yes, my cpu was being hobbled by windows. After the update, I magically gained around 10 to 15 fps more.
How are people not GPU bottlenecked on the AMD side that they all gain this crazy fps from their CPUs. I have a 4090 and am always GPU bottlenecked, at 100% usage, and under 144hz of my display. Do people with AMD CPUs really game at low resolutions with low GPU usage for max frame rate, that they would actually see a 10 to 15 fps increase? They test these CPUs at 1080p to keep the GPU out of it as much as possible, to even see gains from this kind of thing. It's crazy people game that way if they really do, I understand E sports and competitive gamers going for max fps over graphics, but how common is that really?
@@Mcnooblet It depends on the resolution. A lot of people are still on 1080p which can lead to a heavy CPU bottleneck. As you increase resolution (and in turn, less FPS), the power of your cpu starts mattering less and less. At those low resolutions, the speed of the cpu has to keep up with the amount of frames being pushed out.
i would choose 65W. I don't need the last 10% of performance and the environmental cost of 60% extra power use is not acceptable. I would have thought that those who are not techie enough to know about such a switch probably don't care much about the last 10% of performance either. (or contrariwise, that those who really care about highest performance are techie enough to find the switch.) I prefer that computers came out efficient by default, so that the vast majority are efficient and stay efficient through their lifetimes and only those who really think they need the performance intentionally choose to waste the energy to get it.
I dunno that's like buying a top end Intel setup and not enabling Xmp and the automatic overclocking in the bios, That said Asus used to give 3 basic settings for noobs on the ezmode bios screen which were essentially power saving/standard/performance which was awesome as 90% of the time the power saving mode was sufficient and the performance/OC profile was mostly unnecessary in a decently built gaming rig.
5900x still going strong. Any performance lifts from win updates are very welcome. Still waiting on the 9950X3D and the 9900X3D before I consider a possible new system.
at this point wouldn't it be better for intel and amd slow the release of new products? what we have is so dam good. imagine if we had a couple years wait. the next gen would be a huge gap and they can really get everything correct. 1 year just doesn't seem enough for them anymore.
its marketed as subscription but its actually just pay over time/buy now pay later model. The price a month is the cost of the pc divided by 24 (two years) like phones in the hope that you get a new pc after the 2 years. Honestly not bad for someone that wants to get maybe a much higher end pc now and pay it off over time but dont want to do credit cards or a bank loan. As long as the monthly payment is small enough to not even be a concern for the customer.
If people don't know how to turn 105W mode in the bios AMD made 100% right call making their CPUs 65W out of the box. If you don't know how to enable additional performance you don't need it, simple as. People would just be using more electricity to watch youtube and scroll twitter which is dumb. They tried eco mode and people were too dumb to turn it on, so now it's the default and I am all for it.
not always...gamers want higher performance but may not be techie enough to tweak or are intimidated to mrss things up and wont. cpu should run 100% capabilities out of box so less techie ppl will buy a better cpu and get better perf
@@AlleonoriCat does that mean they deserve less performance? buy a car with 1000hp but only allowed to use 600hp unless you type in a secret code? why would anyone buy it if they could get the competitions whos goes full tilt with no fiddling required?
@@aparsons671 Yes, an inexperienced driver should not drive a 1000hp car to begin with. Sadly that alegory doesnt fit since oc-ing your pc cant kill you and others 😂
@@christophermullins7163it was also mentioned it could affect edge uses. I have been looking through some tests and it seems the edge cases are cryptographic and related.
I think you should test both, because one of the reasons why I was considering updating from my 5800X to the 9700X was due to the power efficiency changes. I want to know what it's running like at stock power draw because that's what is most interesting to me personally
You're better off getting a 5700X3D rather than a 9700X, especially if it's primarily a gaming system. Put the cash you save towards a better GPU. The 9700X is about on par to a 7800X3D, which is only 10-15% better than a 5700X3D. If you moved from a 5000 you'd need a mobo and RAM too. Save yourself the literal hundreds of quid/dollars/whatever, get the cheapest X3D part, and get the best GPU you can afford
I think shipping with a default “105 mode” is a slippery slope. Just look at Intel and their current cpu problems by letting mb vendors clock Intel cpus to the moon by default.
yeah agree, I'm glad AMD tried to get out of the ever increasing moar-power-to-get-a-couple-%-xtra spiral with this move. Had the gaming perf on zen5 overall seen a bigger uplift, everyone would've praised them for it - and rightfully so IMO.
The issue at Intel was that there was no clear guidelines for board manufacturers to make a "balls to the wall" profile and they just did whatever they wanted. (Asus was already doing this 10 years ago, I still don't understand why everyone was surprised. ) Amd has clearly put their guidelines in place and manufacturers will simply have to follow it like the default profile. It shouldn't be too risky
@@maximravinet9950 the guidelines were always there for Intel. They publish them with their chips release. If you go to the Intel website and look at the specs of a cpu, it says right there what your mb settings should be. I used that information when I installed my 14900k and it is still running just fine. Never had an issue.
AMD has set specific guidelines on what board manufacturers can and cannot do with power profiles and what have you, and what default behaviour is too, I'd say as a result it's not really a slippery slope as such
Previous AMD 8-core CPUs could do 120-140W. And we are not seeing degradation for those. 65W TDP = cooling capacity = 88W power draw for gaming & multicore-applications 105W TDP = more cooling needed before throttling =88W power draw in gaming =??W power draw in Multicore-workloads
I think it being an option is fair, expo and xmp are also options that are off by default. Also, normal people probably would like 90% of the performance for 60% of the power. And if they do want the performance, they come over and flip it on. Otherwise, intel 13th and 14th gen should be considered unrecommendable due to needing to update your bios, something harder to do.
That additional efficiency is definitely more impressive than YOU gave it credit for. 😂 Since I’m never dealing with a CPU bottleneck I thought it was pretty impressive that there were any gains at all with that much of a drop in energy usage.
Love the notion that a chip runs at such a lot wattage. I'm building an ITX system and I'm looking forward to getting to use a tiny low profile cooler on a 65W TDP chip
As far as testing goes, I think you have to either show only 65w default mode or both. Showing only 105w mode could be misleading to people who aren't aware of this unique issue. The casual buyer probably doesn't even think about opening bios ever
I suppose the best way to get around the 65 Watt / 105 Watt TDP kerfuffle would be a prompt at first boot up asking users if they want to enable it in the BIOS and then telling them what the 105 watt mode does exactly without any form of jargon. For example "do you want to enable 105 watt mode which could gain you 10% more performance (you may see slightly more performance depending on what applications are being used) with additional power usage compared to the default mode 65 watts, press F2 to enter bios or esc to cancel". Similiar to the days of old when you used to get a prompt at POST.
@@littlefrank90 most people can still get by with a 5600 tbh. I use a 7950X but my use case is very niche. I can run various affinity designer projects as the colour picker tool can be used outside the application, a massive batch of files queued in Handbrake, run a virtual machine (or several depending on virtual machine config), use Fl studio and play games at the *same time* and oh If I wanted to do, I could run DirectML on the 7900XTX . As I use a 43" TV as a monitor, I can snap all this side by side, I do however need more RAM... 32 gigs is not enough lol. I bought all my components slowly and most of them on interest free fixed monthly payments.
@@rkwjunior2298 why is that? Isnt it going to be the same as the 7950 but with 3d vcach on both ccds and like 10% more performance for about the same price?
If those changes are what we actually get then that's super promising for them, but I still expect problems for the first few weeks or months until things get updated.
@@Johndoe-176Even if it has 3d Vcache on both the core-to-core latency will still be high and it will always be better to run the game on one CCD in order to avoid frame drops.
@@Johndoe-176 oh god please no. 3D cache on both ccds would suck so hard. Having one normal ccd, you can choose to run some games on that one instead, because some games do in fact favour frequency over cache, not to mention benefits for productivity workloads WHICH you must have if you're buying this instead of a single ccd x3d.
Having choices is really nice. I'd rather use it in efficiency mode tho. I have a 3900X with undervolting, and it looks like an amazing upgrade BECAUSE of the efficiency.
@@jordanturner7821 That's true. However comparing relative perf ofdifferent CPUs on both OSes might still be useful. If the 9000 series is on average significantly better than 7000 series on Linux, but not on Windows, that might be useful to determine whether there is an issue with windows or not. (Which is kinda what started this debate thanks to the excellent benchmarks of phoronix, though of course, comparing both OSes with the same suite of tests would be much better thing to go off than comparing phoronix with GN/HUB/etc benchmarks.)
The Ram thing will probably make more people interested in getting a X8700/E motherboard, but both the higher amount of Pcie lanes, pcie 5.0 support and finally officially USB4/TB support is things that at least to some users have been saught after for a long time where only very few AMD boards with an optional TB connector was able to support TB3 and those cards was often hard to find anywhere if you wanted one. It's just a question if its important enough for each user for the extra premium price of 500$+ for these boards
It's crazy how consumers prefer to expend 60% more power to get a 10% performance increase. The fact that the 9000 series delivers similar performance to the 7000 series at just 65W it's impressive.
Yes, and it makes RAM marketing messy. If XMP is unstable, you're SOL on easily figuring out whether you lost the CPU silicon lottery, or whether your mobo/RAM is defective. And good luck getting that warrantied.
do you guys actually use XMP? I've built A LOT of computers and every single time XMP just sets ramsnat the higher frequency and causes instability and I end up having to disable it. How does that work??
this is why I have always been a fan. while I consider myself decently tech savvy (thanks to you and LTT), I am really bad at keeping up with news in my busy day to day. many times you post updates like these for things I would want to do, like update my 9700X, but I wouldn't have seen the news without your notification and would have been oblivious. thanks Jay
Totally agree with AMD's choice of keeping the default at 65W. IMO any CPU should be shipping with a reasonable balance of perf and efficiency. Anybody who wants to burn 70% more power for 10% more perf, and would be able to tell the difference, will be knowledgeable enough to flip a switch in the BIOS. Let's not make every grandma's PC, office machine etc. needlessly burn excessive amount of energy, just to win on some % on benchmarks or make reviewers lifes a tiny fraction easier. I'm glad AMD went back to a sane balance here, rather than following down the ever increasing power spiral that Intel went down head first and was starting to drag them along as they kinda somewhat did with zen4.
The issue was AMD's extreme overhype raising expectations for 9000 series. If they said it was just be a slight increase in IPC but with power savings, it would have reviewed much more favorably. Those price/value is still a concern against 7000 series.
@@BReal-10EC As a lot of people have been saying, these should have been the non-X parts which would make the most sense. They are the parts that are built for efficiency first but can be clocked up for performance if you want it. The X parts are supposed to be outright performance and AMD saying that you could get both on them and it being barely worth the cost over the now much cheaper Zen 4 parts looks terrible.
@@BReal-10EC What i heard, was that the 9000 series would be focusing on energy efficency. hence this: "AMD brags about Ryzen 9000’s efficiency, extends AM5 support guarantee to 2027" - arstechnica, 15 July "Zen 5 aimed to achieve a 20-30% improvement in IPC compared to its existing Ryzen Zen 4 predecessors" - pcguide they clearly stated this.
The Ryzen 7 7700 NON-X exists. It is the same 65W(88W PPT) as the 9700x, why do people NOT know it exists? Also the i9 13900k at 125W undervolted gets you 84-88% the performance it does at 350W The thing is that AMD and Intel have started overclocking and overvolting their CPUs to the brink just to top benchmark charts. And AMD with Zen5 decided NOT to do it.
Why do you use the TDP for reference? Why does anyone use the misleading TDP for reference? It's not 40W more if you look into the actual PPT numbers, because that would be from 88W to 142W, which gives it a difference of 54W. Apart from that i am fairly okay with AMD finally choosing a more efficient standard setting like they already did with the 3700X and 5700X.
exactly thats how I see it. Btw in my normal use I dont reach 88W, its mostly around 70W, I think in this situation if I enable 105TDP then the only difference I could get would be during spikes and probably increasing my 1% low. But for those 10% increase its BS imho. Unless CPU will run same as now with more headroom for heavy load. But 9700x is fast, so I dont see any reason why I would need it to be 10% faster.
Yeah the trick with the 5800x is to lower the PPT to 105w or so from the 140w default or even down to 95w. Funnily enough the 5800x has a 105w TDP and the non x variant has 65w, same as the 5700x.
Your advice at about 6:30 in the video about not running admin mode is spot on!! Running an Admin account by default is a hackers dream - you open yourself up to all kinds of Remote Code Execution hacks and SQL Injection hacks...
I’ve been doing a stupid amount of research about PC building and your channel along with PC builder have been a great insight into the lifestyle. I also started watching some other “influencers” and it’s interesting to see the difference in priorities when choosing various components.
I would like to see both modes tested as I work in game development and am always thinking about future builds, as it affects my work as well as play. I always learn something from your videos. Thanks for all the test results
I disagree, AMD advertised the 9000 series as being an efficiency improvement, and it is, massively... this takes that away. I mean... I just got one of the Beelink AMD systems that is running at 25w, and I am amazed at how well it performs, I would never guess it wasn't a 125w processor from a few years ago. Well, except for the DDR5.
Hey Jay, long time sub I think it's only fair to test things as they are out of the box for these test and reviews. Then there can be follow up videos on tweaks and performance gains. I know that's more work but you can milk a launch a bit with subsequent videos. This also gives real world performance for those new to PC gamers. You do a great job of educating people on here so I'm sure new comers and old won't mind the additional videos.
Yeah when power like doubled here in the UK a couple of years ago I switched my 4GHz OC off my 5960X straight away. Thing is...I didn't notice the difference in performance all that much.
Yeah, in Europe power efficiency is a huge deal. I can't even imagine when they switch over to electric cars the fucking nightmare power bills will be, especially with Germany taking its Nuclear offline. In the states, that shit doesn't really matter most places. Though, the 4090 was tempting to force to run 1440p at 90 fps for the absolutely insane power efficiency that biotch provides.
@@jabezhane curious to see what intel will counter with next week. Tbh i would avoid them still after the 13/14th gen fiasco just because they dealt with it so poorly.
@@thenerdysk8er Yeah I'm on X99 still...so was hoping great things for 15th gen but then the issues arose and I wonder if 15th was still tainted by the production process too late or if they scrapped everything and started up again. Would be reassuring if Intel made a statement to the effect of "15th gen chips are a clean break from 13th/14th gen chips production wise!"
@@Iridiumcosmos All chips have nearly been that way when using more than 2 dimms. DDR4 3200 mhz could run on 4 dimms but when you went to ddr4 3600 or higher on AMD it wouldn't run it starting with the 1000 series. I couldn't run but 2933mhz with Ryzen 1000. I don't understand why people now just start talking about this. Intel is the same way but AMD has always had it worse.
@@benjy117 thats why the poster wants it fixed. I do too because I'd like to switch but not having adequate memory control is a roadblock for someone like me with RAM heavy workloads.
Jay, the CCD to CCD latency fix is just for the 9000 series, because they had excessive CCD to CCD latency (200 ns vs 70 ns). The older multi-CCD chips already had the best possible inter CCD latency.
I thought they learned that 105W is a bad idea with the 7700x, since in reality it's 145W and it can't be cooled properly even with water cooler. The 65W which is 88W is perfectly great and easy to cool.
honestly you can just undervolt while in the 65w mode and get an increase in performance while a decrease in heat generation/power usage. I did that to my 4790k, my 2700x and my 5800x. well worth it.
If AMD stop selling the 7000 series, the 9000 is a not abd option tbh. The efficiency increase gives more room for the PSU when considering the power draw of modern GPU's.
The 9000 is bad because they cost more. The Ryzen 7 7700 NON-X is 220-230$ and is a 65W TDP(88W PPT) CPU just like the 9700x and is only 5-10% slower than the 9700x which costs 360$.
@@rick33333 In what task is the 7700x 20% faster than the 7700? The difference is 5% clock speeds and the 7700 is not a lower binned 7700x, otherwise it would consume the same power at lower clock speeds, it's got a different voltage curve and a hard 88W power limit. While the 7700x has a 145W power limit.
@@rattlehead999 That's just not true, the 9700x trades blows with the 7700x and while it does fall short in some areas while being more expensive, it definitely isn't worse than the 7700.
The extra CPU performance from uncapping the TDP from 65w won't mean anything for gamers, which is where most of the reviews came from the context of. The 9700x was still slower than the 14700k in CPU demanding games like Baldur's Gate 3 with 105w mode enabled. EXPO and PBO are both overclocking tunings designed by their own engineers. If they are denying warranties to anyone because they're using features that AMD allows you to use, then they need to be dragged hard for it. As it stands, I haven't heard of anyone being denied a warranty for these specific reasons.
The 600 series motherboards are physically different from the 800 series. They can't be made entirely stable with a lot of four stick ram combinations.
Don't buy the new mb. Amd will only run 6400 1:1. So the x670e is more than sufficient. Better off buying a high quality mb x670e cheap now. I just bought a MSI x670e godlike for $800 never used on eBay. Saw a ROG CROSSHAIR HERO and asrock Taichi in the 350-400 range too. Open box
Can confirm with a 5900X bought in early 2020 that I saw an uplift in cinebench after the update. I remember testing it thoroughly and while not world changing, it was absolutely above margin of error.
Again the Ryzen 7 7700 NON-X is forgotten. It's the exact same thing the 7700 NON-X is 65W(88W PPT) and is only 3-4% slower than the 7700x which is 105(145W PPT). And the 7700 non-X can easily be cooled, while the 7700x can't be cooled even with a water cooler.
About the 65W vs 105W mode in benchmarks: As I see it it's the same as loading your XMP/EXPO profiles. It's one click for more performance (if all goes as it should).
Jay, respectfully when it comes to the 8000mhz RAM and infinity fabric, you have gotten the information wrong. The Infinity Fabric will run at a LOWER speed when using 8000mhz RAM vs 6000mhz. If you want the lowest latency, you will OC and tune your RAM to 6400mhz with the infinity fabric synced up at a 1:1 ratio. Though not all CPUs can accomplish this. Some apps prefer latency, whilst others prefer memory bandwidth. In my opinion it will still be the correct approach to use 6000mhz C30 RAM if you are looking for a plug and play approach. Less hastle, and more consistent across apps that prefer either bandwidth or latency.
I went with an 7700x with some ddr5 6000mhz memory for this years upgrade - from an i7 10700k. I do like this setup more, it is alot snappier during productivity, a bit faster in gaming. Next upgrade will probably be intel though, I want to try out those juicy e cores! There are some really interesting choices on both sides which is great, can't wait to see the performance of intel's new chips and also AMD's 9000 x3d chip.
The two options are actually awesome! Keep it at 65w for the next 4 or 5 years where the CPU is relevant (most games barely mess with the CPU that much); and have it stretch it's legs at 100w+ when it's struggling later on. It's exactly the reason my 9700k is overclocked but that's a standard warranty one which sounds nice.
13:43 Millions and Millions of people aren't caring about getting every last frame out of their system, they are caring about their power bill. They don't need to have the 105mode. The frame hunter and performance junkies already know how to tune their systems and so they can easily toggle a switch. AMD has done this the right way. Saving millions in unnecessary wasted power for 0-15 extra frames Yes it inconvenient for frame hunter and performance junkies but you're gonna go into your bios anyways so whats just switching one more toggle in the 5-20 others you already switch
@@Bluebpy83 that's depends where you are, some places the prices are different. You're also not accounting for people in various other situations like computers for jobs, portable power or high heat countries etc etc. But you're crying about having to go into the bios and toggle a switch coz you're probably lazy af. 🤦
Hey, whatta ya know - actual competition again? Shocking. Thanks Jay, good stuff! Still waiting for the 9000X3D myself; I will evaluate the motherboard situation then.
8000MHz RAM doesn't do much for performance over a decent 6000MHz memory kit. Also the 600-series motherboards already support 8000MHz RAM. Only reason to look at an 800-series motherboard is if you need a bunch of USB4 ports since USB4 is now mandatory. Though some 600-series motherboard already have USB4, the newer motherboards have more USB4 ports. But you could also just use a PCI-e USB4 card and add ports to a 600-series motherboard. One reason to stick with 600-series motherboards is that it has more PCI-e lanes available.
I think you should definitely do 105w testing instead of out of the box, because as time goes on most mobos will likely have the more current (but not the most up to date) version, and eventually that 105w tdp will just be rolled over. Edit: 100% they should have launched these as 105. Eco mode should be advertised but not the default as most of the time it's the power users who look to build a rig with a specific goal in mind (super power efficient rig, sff with smaller coolers) who will go into the guts of the system to enable what it is they are looking for.
I think efficiency for the average person is far better, it saves so much power in the long run, and therefore saves a ton of money. 10% performance for 60% more power just doesn't make sense to me (but I might just be alone in this).
I would like to see both benchmarks please Jay, for myself and for those who might see your review or skip to performance numbers and not know how to enable 105, or those that want to efficiency and want to see how well they would perform on low power. 👍👍
105W by default? 61% more power for undetectable gaming gains. Very smart. Insulate your house with the latest material and open all of your windows while you're at it. The point of these benchmark comparisons are to track progress and gauge value for $, but functionality wise unless you are running a 4080S on low settings, a 7500F is getting you 95% of the gaming your GPU has to offer. Taking a 9950X and shutting off a CCD making it a 9700 so you can get 450fps instead of 416fps in Chex Quest is just silly.
@@NoOne-py5or If that's from hub. Then don't listen to it as they don't have a clue. Telling people to get b650 boards but don't tell anyone you don't get any gen 5 anything. All x870 boards have 2x40gig usb c, wifi 7 and memory lane that's directly connected.
@@zagan1 yeah memory does not get fast on ryzen sadly the are limited since the release of 7000 series in bandwidth. So that better memory stability only helps all boards in running 6000mhz stable
for me and the purpose i use reviews for, I'd prefer the out of the box numbers. But i also see a reason to have the highest achievable as well, if your willing to push things. So maybe - out of the box numbers - max you can get with OC settings etc numbers, with notes and encountered stumbling blocks. I think this would be useful to most of your audience.
PBO should 100% not void warranty anyway at least in my experience with it. It can only go so far with the clocks and more importantly voltage, the thing that actually degrades CPUs, so voiding a short 3 year warranty just seems silly.
With a closed custom loop I feel like it’s about finding the balance between cpu and gpu. Right now in IRacing VR I’m cpu limited especially in large races. If I move to gpu limited the cooler temps are nice to have as it will mean my gpu can boost more. On the other hand once’s 5000 series GPUs come this may reverse and pumping up the cpu may help. Having options = win
Just ordered my x870E board today. Upgrading from AMD 2700x 8 core to the 9950x 16 core. Im excited for the jump from ddr4 to ddr5 Ram, and gen 3 M.2 to gen 5 M.2s and of course PCI gen 5 speeds. Even with the 9000 series complaints in performance, it's still a massive boost for myself and look forward to it
Why wouldn't they? NVIDIA never misses an opportunity. RTX 5090 will be an absolute BEAST, but wow the RTX 5080 is a joke in comparison. NVIDIA is ripping people off with the RTX 5080 no way around it. It needs 24GB of VRAM at the minimum, 16 GB doesn't cut it for path tracing. AMD as much as I love AMD, religiously misses their opportunities. Lisa Su needs to change this.
10% better for all that power? Hope other people are keeping up with the power we're drawing from the grid. It's getting crazy. The power efficiency was a great change to see.
This is a good move in my opinion. If they will warranty the additional power profile that is great news for games who don’t mind the extra heat and power draw. Me personally I would go with the lower power profile for gaming but I also don’t play competitive games. Good move. Love to see bigger warranties and more peak power.
In a world where we should try to minimize energy production, I think a 10% boost (at the very best) for 40% wattage should be optional. Default should be energy saving, because most people wouldnt see the difference, but the planet would.
Enlighten me. Why would you prefer efficiency over performance? Is it because of the more heat or that 10% won’t matter? No judgement, I am just curious.
I had a defective 5950X, any PBO without any tuning would crash randomly 1-2 times per day. I told them in my RMA that PBO just crashes the computer and they gave me a replacement no problem.
AMD‘s lesson should be to launch X3D CPU from day one! And price the standard version lower to justify their existence. Energy efficiency should be default! The planet will thank you. Then anyone who wants to measure his dick on futile benchmarks can still do it 😅
The Ryzen 5 5600X has 65W TDP. The Ryzen 7 9700X has a 65W TDP - this is insane especially at a time when the cost of energy is going up. I appreciate that AMD is focusing on energy efficiency while being able to maintain good performance over generations. For example, the Ryzen 5 2600x had a 95W TDP! I personally think they are moving in the right direction.
I'd rather have a CPU that gets faster as things get fixed over time than a CPU that gets slower because of poor engineering choices and benchmark chasing.
yeah, you should wait for 15th gen Intel
@@authoritariangentleman7570Z890 only supports one generation of CPU. Why wait for it? It’s not gonna get better.
@@PowellCat745 where did you get that info? Intel has said anything about it.
@@PowellCat745Why would Intel 800 series boards only support one generation? Looking at previous generations it will support at least 2 generations.
@@PowellCat745 source?
AMD was right all along. 61% increase of power for just 10% of performance. Makes no sense in my head. It's better to just undervolt it at 65W
Those are 2 different things. And you can do both at the same time. I'm still running my 3700X on the stock cooler, locked at 4.3Ghz all core all the time, my temps sit between 27C to a high of 60C, the undervolt will control the current draw,
I agree with you and disagree with Jay's proposal to make the 105 W mode to be the default.
@@sandornyemcsok4168The problem still is Windows 11, Win 10 and Linux are still about 10% faster WITHOUT needing to increase the TDP from 65 to 105W. They've found some of the bugs and have been relatively quick to patch as each new thing is found, some of these things may have already been sitting in someones e-mail box during the launch, someone missed the software/OS Support roll out before launch.
My (undervolted) 13900K uses 50% power for the last 20% of performance. These CPUs are overclocked out of the box.
@@Weissrolf Ironically, those can be undervolted also to lower your thermals without giving up to much in performance, you might actually gain some, I did.
With a 10% performance increase for over a 60% increase in power, I'm okay with 65w being the default. Anyone who isn't an enthusiast likely won't notice a performance difference, but would appreciate better temps and efficiency.
Well said ones who noticed are super power users and ones who OC’s and tweak the settings every month
Yes, and those enthusiasts you talking about wont buy 9700x but 7800x3d or 9950x or waiting for 9800x3d. I am glad I have this option. I know my CPU aint running at its limit, so it should increase its lifespan. 9700x is fast as it is, no need to OC it.
Living off grid or with solar Im willing to go from a 7600x to a 9600x to save that TDP wattage
Forget efficiency, pumping an extra 60% through it is going to toast your silicon intel style
It was what it was for a reason, it can't do more than that
But that's a bit more like what I would expect from say a 9700X compared to a 9700. I'm not really sure what their non-X releases will even look like this generation unless they skip it entirely.
I think AMD providing a choice is great. And the 65 watt being the default is also the right choice, since for most buyers the most efficiency per watt is going to make the most sense(and that includes that don't know there is options). Simply put, unless you do some heavy lifting with your computer or gaming with a GPU to match then most will never feel the performance difference. And those that need the performance will either set up their machine them self or have some do it for them, so the 105 watt will used by them.
yeah, this is the correct move. give the best efficiency as default, and leave any extra as "overclocking options" for people who know what they are doing. just like it used to be. no need to squeeze every last drop of performance for normal computers
They already gave you that choice with the 7700 non-X which is pretty much exactly what the 9700x is. This is why some review outlets were saying AMD's efficiency claims were pure bullshit because they compared it to non-x instead of the 7700X that AMD _wanted_ it compared to. Anyone that compared it to the 7700 saw the performance gap improve from 3% to a whopping 7%, but the amazing claimed efficiency improvement completely vaporize.
Zen simply ramps horribly with more power. It needs to stick to what it's good at and that's sub-75watt parts where it shines. Sad part is Intel chips don't lose much either with drastically less power usage which makes you wonder why the hell they do it. Both these companies have been pushing far more power than needed well into diminishing returns.
@@zjunk4877 Both companies?
Seems to me that Intel is much more guilty of pushing the power, something they have clearly done because when selling many people look more at the number of Mhz than anything else. The Intel CPU's have been factory overclocked for generations, just like they invented the "efficiency cores" in order to boost the number of cores since that number also sells.
i disagree, 65w should be default, anything over it its optional but supported.
previous gen had an eco mode with lower wattage. it only makes sense to have an eco mode, while having max performance the base. This isn't some laptop cpu/ server cpu.
The thing is, the way the architecture is made, its built purposely to run at low wattage, around 65watts is what they noticed being the sweet spot. This is why bumping it up any further gives little to nothing. Now if they had made the architecture with heavy watts in mind, we would see some massive returns going from 65 to 105watts.
62% more power for only 10% more perf? Not worth it! I'll take the power saving. Doubt I'd notice the perf.
Rationale: I'd be upgrading from an i7 9700K, so the perf leap should be huge for desktop anyway. Games, not so much as I game at 4K.
@@paradoxicalcat7173 and 95c temp its not cool
I disagree with your last point. Keep efficiency mode the default. Wastrels who want a few more frames for much greater energy consumption can pursue that if they want.
Wastrels hahah I like it
Wastrels, ruffians and rapscallions...
100% I would even be happy to have a -10w option .
Bingo, the workstation folks can keep their power and thermal savings for sweet performance.
By your logic, if the more efficient mode should be the default, then the 13/14900K should be set to the Intel default profile (125W PL1)? In reality no one uses that mode.
The reason AMD are likely running their benchmarks as _Administrator_ are that they likely will be using tools that interact with the drivers directly & as such *normal* windows security would be getting in the way (e.g. UAC / registry / driver signing / etc) with that all off they are testing with as little interacting as possible
This ... And they might have known about the issue for months prior.
It's because their automated tests require running as admin.
Right but their official benchmarks should have never come from admin mode, that should be tested on a clean machine and if they actually did that they might have found the issue and fixed it before it became a shitshow. This error cost them thousands of sales because of the "meh" reviews it got on launch.
That would be stupid. Every testing should be done in a typical environment - this should have caught by QA and shows they are amateurish in that department. Sadly it's a common theme... AMD GPU owners sadly know this...
@@kontoname Owner of many AMD and Nvidia GPU's and dozens between the both over the years, You have no idea of what you type
I still dont understand the notion that every part in a PC has to run on max power draw and max performance as default and the controversy around " Oh just X% improvement over the last generation" and blatantly ignoring the fact that we save like 60% power over the last generation ......... for me that just shows that some reviews are out of touch ... for normal folks that is a huge deal
yeah, +80% power usage is nothing if you live on a solar farm in the outback of australia feeding your fortnight addiction.
It's always been this way, people are just dumb is what it amounts to. In places where energy is an actual concern, like the EU, those lower power draws are seriously compelling.
Indeed, I always buy 65W CPU to save power, to keep it cool and quiet. It does not affect perfomance, mine 3600 never went above 50% at full load, I got 8600G just to upgrade. it is similar to wasting money on the fastest RAM, it can be 2-3x times more expensive to get 2-3 more FPS. PC fans are like boys comparing, who has bigger ... score in the benchmarks.
Influencers like Jay and Steve pushing AMD all day every day need every help they can to get these numbers higher.
this dude's hobby is watercooling pcs. can't expect him to have a reasonable take when it comes to this stuff
If I had such a processor, I'd probably leave it at 65W. _Maybe_ 10% performance improvements for _that_ much difference in power draw/heat? I'd probably only turn it on if I actually had trouble meeting a playable frame-rate in a CPU-bound game, or some similar real-time process. Might be useful to extend the CPU's life, later down the road, but initially leaving it at its efficiency peak is the sensible option.
Also, they CAN'T raise the defaults, as these are already sold and integrated with other products as 65W parts and may have been placed with cooling or power solutions that wouldn't support 105W use reliably (in prebuilts, bundles, etc.). It would be a bad move to up the power/thermal requirements of a part after launch. Toggling something in the BIOS is simple enough for people who want the extra power. The kind of people who would notice ALREADY READ and customize the BIOS settings.
Shipping with 105w instead of 65w is an awful idea. I'm surprised you would suggest that. Lower power draw and temps is a big plus with AMD CPUs. To throw that out the window for everyone who wouldn't know to switch to 65w mode in the bios is asinine.
Tbf, a 40W increase is about as much as a couple LED light bulbs and it's not like 105W is even particularly high as far as CPUs go. Plus most people are probably pairing it with a 300+W GPU.
@@GeekProdigyGuy Also, 105 W is the power draw for pretty much all previous mid range X parts like the 7600x and 7700x. It would have been a simpler transition between the two if the X parts had just followed the same trajectory and then AMD sold energy efficient non-X parts.
@@GeekProdigyGuydo you leave bulbs on when you are not using them? If so you should get some motion detectors, that is a waste if not for decorative purposes.
There are power profiles in Windows for this exact usecase that people use to throttle their cpcus if needed. Having to flash something or switch something in BIOS isn't the norm
@@raizan5946 Yes, I do leave high efficiency bulbs on when I'm not using them. Why? Because they have a limited number of cycles. You can only turn them on and off about 1000 times before they burn out due to thermal expansion and contraction, leading to much more frequent replacement, negating any savings you could get by turning them off. Turn an LED bulb on 1 time and leave it on...and it will shine until Jesus comes back.
As a Windows user on a 5900x, I can tell you that yes, my cpu was being hobbled by windows. After the update, I magically gained around 10 to 15 fps more.
5950x user here, gonna need to check out this update
How are people not GPU bottlenecked on the AMD side that they all gain this crazy fps from their CPUs. I have a 4090 and am always GPU bottlenecked, at 100% usage, and under 144hz of my display. Do people with AMD CPUs really game at low resolutions with low GPU usage for max frame rate, that they would actually see a 10 to 15 fps increase? They test these CPUs at 1080p to keep the GPU out of it as much as possible, to even see gains from this kind of thing. It's crazy people game that way if they really do, I understand E sports and competitive gamers going for max fps over graphics, but how common is that really?
@@Mcnoobletin my experience, FPS over graphics is the norm
@@Mcnooblet It depends on the resolution. A lot of people are still on 1080p which can lead to a heavy CPU bottleneck. As you increase resolution (and in turn, less FPS), the power of your cpu starts mattering less and less. At those low resolutions, the speed of the cpu has to keep up with the amount of frames being pushed out.
Prove it
i would choose 65W. I don't need the last 10% of performance and the environmental cost of 60% extra power use is not acceptable. I would have thought that those who are not techie enough to know about such a switch probably don't care much about the last 10% of performance either. (or contrariwise, that those who really care about highest performance are techie enough to find the switch.) I prefer that computers came out efficient by default, so that the vast majority are efficient and stay efficient through their lifetimes and only those who really think they need the performance intentionally choose to waste the energy to get it.
Amen.
I dunno that's like buying a top end Intel setup and not enabling Xmp and the automatic overclocking in the bios, That said Asus used to give 3 basic settings for noobs on the ezmode bios screen which were essentially power saving/standard/performance which was awesome as 90% of the time the power saving mode was sufficient and the performance/OC profile was mostly unnecessary in a decently built gaming rig.
5900x still going strong. Any performance lifts from win updates are very welcome.
Still waiting on the 9950X3D and the 9900X3D before I consider a possible new system.
Agreed, except i plan to go from a 3900x to a 9800x3d
Same here
I use 5950x 🙂
@@xxJOKeR75xxomg, I can’t imagine how big of a difference that’s going to make for you
Same but I'm still holding out hope for a 5950x 3D
9800x3d when
Definitely yesterday
Somewhere between October 2024 and February 2025
Oct 10th or nov 10th. One of those dates.
rumour is october 10th we get the announcement and a release early 2025
Announcement is on Oct 10th hopefully release soon after
at this point wouldn't it be better for intel and amd slow the release of new products? what we have is so dam good. imagine if we had a couple years wait. the next gen would be a huge gap and they can really get everything correct. 1 year just doesn't seem enough for them anymore.
Good point.
Unfortunately.... share holders :(
I don't speak poor, someone translate this.
could see this being good unless they double the price too xD
This dude is trying to ruin my stock portfolio.. LETS GET EM!
Subscription PCs?! How long untill I will have to pay a subscription to breathe?
You already are, it's called tax.
its marketed as subscription but its actually just pay over time/buy now pay later model. The price a month is the cost of the pc divided by 24 (two years) like phones in the hope that you get a new pc after the 2 years. Honestly not bad for someone that wants to get maybe a much higher end pc now and pay it off over time but dont want to do credit cards or a bank loan. As long as the monthly payment is small enough to not even be a concern for the customer.
No thanks, I’d rather own my own pc.
Intel did that a decade ago. For a price you could unlock a core lol.
I live in Canada, we have that. It's called the Carbon Tax, and it's horseshit.
If people don't know how to turn 105W mode in the bios AMD made 100% right call making their CPUs 65W out of the box. If you don't know how to enable additional performance you don't need it, simple as. People would just be using more electricity to watch youtube and scroll twitter which is dumb. They tried eco mode and people were too dumb to turn it on, so now it's the default and I am all for it.
not always...gamers want higher performance but may not be techie enough to tweak or are intimidated to mrss things up and wont. cpu should run 100% capabilities out of box so less techie ppl will buy a better cpu and get better perf
@@aparsons671 if they are not "techie enough" to tune their system they will never look at the fps counter. Trust me on this one
Agreed. I have all my 7800X3D CPU settings in the bios on default. In windows Min/Max performance I have set to 5/100 %
Runs flawlessly.
@@AlleonoriCat does that mean they deserve less performance? buy a car with 1000hp but only allowed to use 600hp unless you type in a secret code? why would anyone buy it if they could get the competitions whos goes full tilt with no fiddling required?
@@aparsons671 Yes, an inexperienced driver should not drive a 1000hp car to begin with. Sadly that alegory doesnt fit since oc-ing your pc cant kill you and others 😂
I would 100% rather a company back track and fix things then push forward and potential screw coustomers
My favorite update is that they're working on the inter-die latency issue toms hardware found. Super cool!!!
The issue was not latency
What they found is that the latency reported was higher than measured.
@@christophermullins7163it was also mentioned it could affect edge uses. I have been looking through some tests and it seems the edge cases are cryptographic and related.
I think you should test both, because one of the reasons why I was considering updating from my 5800X to the 9700X was due to the power efficiency changes. I want to know what it's running like at stock power draw because that's what is most interesting to me personally
You're better off getting a 5700X3D rather than a 9700X, especially if it's primarily a gaming system. Put the cash you save towards a better GPU. The 9700X is about on par to a 7800X3D, which is only 10-15% better than a 5700X3D. If you moved from a 5000 you'd need a mobo and RAM too. Save yourself the literal hundreds of quid/dollars/whatever, get the cheapest X3D part, and get the best GPU you can afford
one of my friends was taking a picture somewhere in California and you were walking in the background...I just saw it two days ago...small world
I think shipping with a default “105 mode” is a slippery slope. Just look at Intel and their current cpu problems by letting mb vendors clock Intel cpus to the moon by default.
yeah agree, I'm glad AMD tried to get out of the ever increasing moar-power-to-get-a-couple-%-xtra spiral with this move. Had the gaming perf on zen5 overall seen a bigger uplift, everyone would've praised them for it - and rightfully so IMO.
The issue at Intel was that there was no clear guidelines for board manufacturers to make a "balls to the wall" profile and they just did whatever they wanted. (Asus was already doing this 10 years ago, I still don't understand why everyone was surprised. )
Amd has clearly put their guidelines in place and manufacturers will simply have to follow it like the default profile. It shouldn't be too risky
@@maximravinet9950 the guidelines were always there for Intel. They publish them with their chips release. If you go to the Intel website and look at the specs of a cpu, it says right there what your mb settings should be. I used that information when I installed my 14900k and it is still running just fine. Never had an issue.
AMD has set specific guidelines on what board manufacturers can and cannot do with power profiles and what have you, and what default behaviour is too, I'd say as a result it's not really a slippery slope as such
Previous AMD 8-core CPUs could do 120-140W. And we are not seeing degradation for those.
65W TDP = cooling capacity = 88W power draw for gaming & multicore-applications
105W TDP = more cooling needed before throttling =88W power draw in gaming =??W power draw in Multicore-workloads
I think it being an option is fair, expo and xmp are also options that are off by default. Also, normal people probably would like 90% of the performance for 60% of the power.
And if they do want the performance, they come over and flip it on.
Otherwise, intel 13th and 14th gen should be considered unrecommendable due to needing to update your bios, something harder to do.
That additional efficiency is definitely more impressive than YOU gave it credit for. 😂
Since I’m never dealing with a CPU bottleneck I thought it was pretty impressive that there were any gains at all with that much of a drop in energy usage.
The Ryzen 7 7700 NON-X exists and it's 65W and only 5% slower than the 105W 7700X.
AMD isn't Intel, forcing electrons through silicon and cooking the die. 😂
@@paradoxicalcat7173 Then you forgot that the 9950X draws 250W under full load.
@@paradoxicalcat7173 yeah the 7000x CPUs running at 95C constantly under full load is on the edge of killing the chip...
Love the notion that a chip runs at such a lot wattage. I'm building an ITX system and I'm looking forward to getting to use a tiny low profile cooler on a 65W TDP chip
As far as testing goes, I think you have to either show only 65w default mode or both. Showing only 105w mode could be misleading to people who aren't aware of this unique issue. The casual buyer probably doesn't even think about opening bios ever
agreed, avg user doesn't even know what a bios is... but then again avg user doesn't buy the top shelf cpu...
I suppose the best way to get around the 65 Watt / 105 Watt TDP kerfuffle would be a prompt at first boot up asking users if they want to enable it in the BIOS and then telling them what the 105 watt mode does exactly without any form of jargon. For example "do you want to enable 105 watt mode which could gain you 10% more performance (you may see slightly more performance depending on what applications are being used) with additional power usage compared to the default mode 65 watts, press F2 to enter bios or esc to cancel". Similiar to the days of old when you used to get a prompt at POST.
im happy with my 7900 x3d. Yall used to roast me for it. now look at me. CHILLING.
heck, I'm happy with my 3800x, not sure what yall do with these hungry beasts.
@@littlefrank90 most people can still get by with a 5600 tbh. I use a 7950X but my use case is very niche. I can run various affinity designer projects as the colour picker tool can be used outside the application, a massive batch of files queued in Handbrake, run a virtual machine (or several depending on virtual machine config), use Fl studio and play games at the *same time* and oh If I wanted to do, I could run DirectML on the 7900XTX . As I use a 43" TV as a monitor, I can snap all this side by side, I do however need more RAM... 32 gigs is not enough lol. I bought all my components slowly and most of them on interest free fixed monthly payments.
did you solve the core parking thing?
Honestly, I think it's a neat CPU - I only stayed away from it because I cannot be bothered trying to figure out the core parking issues.
Windows update + latest AMD chipset driver = no more core parking issue.
I'm just gonna wait for 9950X3D.
Be prepared for disappointment
@@rkwjunior2298 why is that? Isnt it going to be the same as the 7950 but with 3d vcach on both ccds and like 10% more performance for about the same price?
If those changes are what we actually get then that's super promising for them, but I still expect problems for the first few weeks or months until things get updated.
@@Johndoe-176Even if it has 3d Vcache on both the core-to-core latency will still be high and it will always be better to run the game on one CCD in order to avoid frame drops.
@@Johndoe-176 oh god please no. 3D cache on both ccds would suck so hard. Having one normal ccd, you can choose to run some games on that one instead, because some games do in fact favour frequency over cache, not to mention benefits for productivity workloads WHICH you must have if you're buying this instead of a single ccd x3d.
Having choices is really nice. I'd rather use it in efficiency mode tho. I have a 3900X with undervolting, and it looks like an amazing upgrade BECAUSE of the efficiency.
Test on Linux and Windows, then compare the differences. Windows might be the primary factor in reduced performance.
Hard to get apples to apples here. Driver differentials and OS operations make the battle between the two all over the place for a ton of reasons.
@@jordanturner7821 That's true. However comparing relative perf ofdifferent CPUs on both OSes might still be useful. If the 9000 series is on average significantly better than 7000 series on Linux, but not on Windows, that might be useful to determine whether there is an issue with windows or not. (Which is kinda what started this debate thanks to the excellent benchmarks of phoronix, though of course, comparing both OSes with the same suite of tests would be much better thing to go off than comparing phoronix with GN/HUB/etc benchmarks.)
I once RMA’d a Zen 2 CPU on which I enabled PBO and they sent me a new one. So at least for that generation, they either didn't know or didn't care.
The Ram thing will probably make more people interested in getting a X8700/E motherboard, but both the higher amount of Pcie lanes, pcie 5.0 support and finally officially USB4/TB support is things that at least to some users have been saught after for a long time where only very few AMD boards with an optional TB connector was able to support TB3 and those cards was often hard to find anywhere if you wanted one. It's just a question if its important enough for each user for the extra premium price of 500$+ for these boards
It's crazy how consumers prefer to expend 60% more power to get a 10% performance increase. The fact that the 9000 series delivers similar performance to the 7000 series at just 65W it's impressive.
Isn't XMP disabled "out of the box" as well?
Yes, because using it technically voids the warranty.
Yes. XMP is not OOBE.
Yes, and it makes RAM marketing messy. If XMP is unstable, you're SOL on easily figuring out whether you lost the CPU silicon lottery, or whether your mobo/RAM is defective. And good luck getting that warrantied.
@@thor.halsliYes it does. Though it's impossible to prove and to date no one has heard of anyone refusing a claim for it.
do you guys actually use XMP? I've built A LOT of computers and every single time XMP just sets ramsnat the higher frequency and causes instability and I end up having to disable it. How does that work??
this is why I have always been a fan. while I consider myself decently tech savvy (thanks to you and LTT), I am really bad at keeping up with news in my busy day to day. many times you post updates like these for things I would want to do, like update my 9700X, but I wouldn't have seen the news without your notification and would have been oblivious. thanks Jay
Totally agree with AMD's choice of keeping the default at 65W. IMO any CPU should be shipping with a reasonable balance of perf and efficiency. Anybody who wants to burn 70% more power for 10% more perf, and would be able to tell the difference, will be knowledgeable enough to flip a switch in the BIOS. Let's not make every grandma's PC, office machine etc. needlessly burn excessive amount of energy, just to win on some % on benchmarks or make reviewers lifes a tiny fraction easier. I'm glad AMD went back to a sane balance here, rather than following down the ever increasing power spiral that Intel went down head first and was starting to drag them along as they kinda somewhat did with zen4.
I love how all the tech reviewers are so knowledgable about each others videos :)
If intel could achieve the same efficency increase even without increasing performance everyone would be kissing Intel's ass.
The issue was AMD's extreme overhype raising expectations for 9000 series. If they said it was just be a slight increase in IPC but with power savings, it would have reviewed much more favorably. Those price/value is still a concern against 7000 series.
@@BReal-10EC As a lot of people have been saying, these should have been the non-X parts which would make the most sense. They are the parts that are built for efficiency first but can be clocked up for performance if you want it. The X parts are supposed to be outright performance and AMD saying that you could get both on them and it being barely worth the cost over the now much cheaper Zen 4 parts looks terrible.
@@BReal-10EC What i heard, was that the 9000 series would be focusing on energy efficency.
hence this:
"AMD brags about Ryzen 9000’s efficiency, extends AM5 support guarantee to 2027" - arstechnica, 15 July
"Zen 5 aimed to achieve a 20-30% improvement in IPC compared to its existing Ryzen Zen 4 predecessors" - pcguide
they clearly stated this.
The Ryzen 7 7700 NON-X exists. It is the same 65W(88W PPT) as the 9700x, why do people NOT know it exists?
Also the i9 13900k at 125W undervolted gets you 84-88% the performance it does at 350W
The thing is that AMD and Intel have started overclocking and overvolting their CPUs to the brink just to top benchmark charts. And AMD with Zen5 decided NOT to do it.
@@rattlehead999 the non-X do 'exist' but can only be found at certain retailers and have a higher price tag e.g. 7900X $290 vs 7900 $376
side note im doing the NZXT flex player 2 and I love it! saw it on your channel! thank you!
Why do you use the TDP for reference? Why does anyone use the misleading TDP for reference? It's not 40W more if you look into the actual PPT numbers, because that would be from 88W to 142W, which gives it a difference of 54W. Apart from that i am fairly okay with AMD finally choosing a more efficient standard setting like they already did with the 3700X and 5700X.
exactly thats how I see it. Btw in my normal use I dont reach 88W, its mostly around 70W, I think in this situation if I enable 105TDP then the only difference I could get would be during spikes and probably increasing my 1% low. But for those 10% increase its BS imho. Unless CPU will run same as now with more headroom for heavy load. But 9700x is fast, so I dont see any reason why I would need it to be 10% faster.
Yeah the trick with the 5800x is to lower the PPT to 105w or so from the 140w default or even down to 95w. Funnily enough the 5800x has a 105w TDP and the non x variant has 65w, same as the 5700x.
And also the Ryzen 7 7700 NON-X. I don't know why people don't know that it exists.
@@initial_kd There is no non-X variant of the 5800X, that's basically the 5700X. Not a big friend of the back-and-forth when it comes to AMDs naming.
@@rattlehead999 Oh, i tell them. The 7700 non-X is especially cheap as Tray-variant in Germany.
Your advice at about 6:30 in the video about not running admin mode is spot on!! Running an Admin account by default is a hackers dream - you open yourself up to all kinds of Remote Code Execution hacks and SQL Injection hacks...
I’m subscribed and didn’t see this video in my feed after multiple refreshes, caught it on X.
Might have been unlisted
for me it shows the video is 3 min old and your post 24min so somthing is wrong here xD
Yeah it says the video was posted 4 minute ago, but you commented 25 minutes ago? lol
Seems like it was unlisted shows as uploaded 4mins ago for me
Who cares!?!?😂😂😂
I’ve been doing a stupid amount of research about PC building and your channel along with PC builder have been a great insight into the lifestyle. I also started watching some other “influencers” and it’s interesting to see the difference in priorities when choosing various components.
I'm not aware of any physical fuses for activating PBO, nor have I heard of any refused RMA claims due to an allegedly use of PBO.
I would like to see both modes tested as I work in game development and am always thinking about future builds, as it affects my work as well as play. I always learn something from your videos. Thanks for all the test results
I disagree, AMD advertised the 9000 series as being an efficiency improvement, and it is, massively... this takes that away.
I mean... I just got one of the Beelink AMD systems that is running at 25w, and I am amazed at how well it performs, I would never guess it wasn't a 125w processor from a few years ago.
Well, except for the DDR5.
they advertised massive gaming gains too
Hey Jay, long time sub I think it's only fair to test things as they are out of the box for these test and reviews. Then there can be follow up videos on tweaks and performance gains. I know that's more work but you can milk a launch a bit with subsequent videos. This also gives real world performance for those new to PC gamers. You do a great job of educating people on here so I'm sure new comers and old won't mind the additional videos.
Its all fun pushing it when power is cheap and you want an additional space heater ™️ in your room.
Yeah when power like doubled here in the UK a couple of years ago I switched my 4GHz OC off my 5960X straight away. Thing is...I didn't notice the difference in performance all that much.
that's any PC with a GPU as big as a shoebox. :D
Yeah, in Europe power efficiency is a huge deal. I can't even imagine when they switch over to electric cars the fucking nightmare power bills will be, especially with Germany taking its Nuclear offline.
In the states, that shit doesn't really matter most places. Though, the 4090 was tempting to force to run 1440p at 90 fps for the absolutely insane power efficiency that biotch provides.
@@jabezhane curious to see what intel will counter with next week. Tbh i would avoid them still after the 13/14th gen fiasco just because they dealt with it so poorly.
@@thenerdysk8er Yeah I'm on X99 still...so was hoping great things for 15th gen but then the issues arose and I wonder if 15th was still tainted by the production process too late or if they scrapped everything and started up again. Would be reassuring if Intel made a statement to the effect of "15th gen chips are a clean break from 13th/14th gen chips production wise!"
Wow, I haven't had any connectivity since Thursday the 26th. I missed alot in 5.5 days. Thanks 2cents crew!
All I care about is AMD fixing this memory training garbage, and stability with more than 2 stick of RAM
Same
@@Iridiumcosmos All chips have nearly been that way when using more than 2 dimms. DDR4 3200 mhz could run on 4 dimms but when you went to ddr4 3600 or higher on AMD it wouldn't run it starting with the 1000 series. I couldn't run but 2933mhz with Ryzen 1000. I don't understand why people now just start talking about this. Intel is the same way but AMD has always had it worse.
@@benjy117 thats why the poster wants it fixed. I do too because I'd like to switch but not having adequate memory control is a roadblock for someone like me with RAM heavy workloads.
I think that is part of how the infinity fabric works.
It's not AMD alone Intel has the same problem. The best OC'ers are using 2 sticks of RAM to get the best performance.
Great video. I do think the out of the box experience should be what stands on the performance measure but bonus content of the features turned on.
1:50 not more power draw, more TDP, power draw will be much higher than 40W
Jay, the CCD to CCD latency fix is just for the 9000 series, because they had excessive CCD to CCD latency (200 ns vs 70 ns). The older multi-CCD chips already had the best possible inter CCD latency.
I thought they learned that 105W is a bad idea with the 7700x, since in reality it's 145W and it can't be cooled properly even with water cooler. The 65W which is 88W is perfectly great and easy to cool.
Jay is the neutral guy off doing his own thing we need. Hope your health is good man. The world needs you.
How much performance do we loose if we go for 45W - asking for a friend from eco mode SFF gang :D
I don't think anything would get loose unless you're shaking your case.
@@JustAFan444😂
honestly you can just undervolt while in the 65w mode and get an increase in performance while a decrease in heat generation/power usage. I did that to my 4790k, my 2700x and my 5800x. well worth it.
Man, i got a 7950x3d a few months back and was loving it. Now that there was an update to make it even better is a cherry on top.
If AMD stop selling the 7000 series, the 9000 is a not abd option tbh. The efficiency increase gives more room for the PSU when considering the power draw of modern GPU's.
The 9000 is bad because they cost more. The Ryzen 7 7700 NON-X is 220-230$ and is a 65W TDP(88W PPT) CPU just like the 9700x and is only 5-10% slower than the 9700x which costs 360$.
@@rick33333 In what task is the 7700x 20% faster than the 7700? The difference is 5% clock speeds and the 7700 is not a lower binned 7700x, otherwise it would consume the same power at lower clock speeds, it's got a different voltage curve and a hard 88W power limit. While the 7700x has a 145W power limit.
@@rattlehead999 That's just not true, the 9700x trades blows with the 7700x and while it does fall short in some areas while being more expensive, it definitely isn't worse than the 7700.
I would suggest doing both 65 and 105, but only do OCing on the 105. If people are going to OC they are going to know how to move to 105.
Yes, please test 105w, with branch predictions and new bios with lower core to core latency
The extra CPU performance from uncapping the TDP from 65w won't mean anything for gamers, which is where most of the reviews came from the context of. The 9700x was still slower than the 14700k in CPU demanding games like Baldur's Gate 3 with 105w mode enabled.
EXPO and PBO are both overclocking tunings designed by their own engineers. If they are denying warranties to anyone because they're using features that AMD allows you to use, then they need to be dragged hard for it. As it stands, I haven't heard of anyone being denied a warranty for these specific reasons.
The ram should have been stable from the beginning and now they will make it stable but you have to purchase the freaking expensive motherboard.
The 600 series motherboards are physically different from the 800 series. They can't be made entirely stable with a lot of four stick ram combinations.
Don't buy the new mb. Amd will only run 6400 1:1. So the x670e is more than sufficient. Better off buying a high quality mb x670e cheap now. I just bought a MSI x670e godlike for $800 never used on eBay. Saw a ROG CROSSHAIR HERO and asrock Taichi in the 350-400 range too. Open box
@@walterrankin200 Currently running a 9950x on an x670e godlike with ram @7600Mhz CL34 :D
@@benjaminsmekens2344 is your uclk set to 1:1? I can run up to 8200, but everything over 6400 is unstable unless I go to 1:2
Can confirm with a 5900X bought in early 2020 that I saw an uplift in cinebench after the update. I remember testing it thoroughly and while not world changing, it was absolutely above margin of error.
Again the Ryzen 7 7700 NON-X is forgotten. It's the exact same thing the 7700 NON-X is 65W(88W PPT) and is only 3-4% slower than the 7700x which is 105(145W PPT). And the 7700 non-X can easily be cooled, while the 7700x can't be cooled even with a water cooler.
About the 65W vs 105W mode in benchmarks: As I see it it's the same as loading your XMP/EXPO profiles. It's one click for more performance (if all goes as it should).
Jay, respectfully when it comes to the 8000mhz RAM and infinity fabric, you have gotten the information wrong.
The Infinity Fabric will run at a LOWER speed when using 8000mhz RAM vs 6000mhz.
If you want the lowest latency, you will OC and tune your RAM to 6400mhz with the infinity fabric synced up at a 1:1 ratio. Though not all CPUs can accomplish this.
Some apps prefer latency, whilst others prefer memory bandwidth.
In my opinion it will still be the correct approach to use 6000mhz C30 RAM if you are looking for a plug and play approach.
Less hastle, and more consistent across apps that prefer either bandwidth or latency.
Benchmarks I saw showed 6000 gave better results.
6000mhz cl30 is the standard forsure
@@paradoxicalcat7173 the 9000 series are better than the first am5 gen that maxed at 6000 but it is silicon dependant
what pc case do you have on the background? it looks really nice.
Is the video still unlisted 💀
not anymore
I went with an 7700x with some ddr5 6000mhz memory for this years upgrade - from an i7 10700k. I do like this setup more, it is alot snappier during productivity, a bit faster in gaming. Next upgrade will probably be intel though, I want to try out those juicy e cores! There are some really interesting choices on both sides which is great, can't wait to see the performance of intel's new chips and also AMD's 9000 x3d chip.
Video is unlisted
The two options are actually awesome! Keep it at 65w for the next 4 or 5 years where the CPU is relevant (most games barely mess with the CPU that much); and have it stretch it's legs at 100w+ when it's struggling later on. It's exactly the reason my 9700k is overclocked but that's a standard warranty one which sounds nice.
13:43 Millions and Millions of people aren't caring about getting every last frame out of their system, they are caring about their power bill. They don't need to have the 105mode.
The frame hunter and performance junkies already know how to tune their systems and so they can easily toggle a switch.
AMD has done this the right way. Saving millions in unnecessary wasted power for 0-15 extra frames
Yes it inconvenient for frame hunter and performance junkies but you're gonna go into your bios anyways so whats just switching one more toggle in the 5-20 others you already switch
Yes the 8 dollar a month difference in power is tough! Hard times
@@Bluebpy83 that's depends where you are, some places the prices are different. You're also not accounting for people in various other situations like computers for jobs, portable power or high heat countries etc etc.
But you're crying about having to go into the bios and toggle a switch coz you're probably lazy af. 🤦
Hey, whatta ya know - actual competition again? Shocking. Thanks Jay, good stuff!
Still waiting for the 9000X3D myself; I will evaluate the motherboard situation then.
Intel wiping their brow..whew this time it wasn't just us that messed up
AMD chips not hitting performance claims is vastly different than Intel chips grenading themselves.
@@jeffreypaul9428 your right.. AMD edging is based
8000MHz RAM doesn't do much for performance over a decent 6000MHz memory kit. Also the 600-series motherboards already support 8000MHz RAM. Only reason to look at an 800-series motherboard is if you need a bunch of USB4 ports since USB4 is now mandatory. Though some 600-series motherboard already have USB4, the newer motherboards have more USB4 ports. But you could also just use a PCI-e USB4 card and add ports to a 600-series motherboard. One reason to stick with 600-series motherboards is that it has more PCI-e lanes available.
I think you should definitely do 105w testing instead of out of the box, because as time goes on most mobos will likely have the more current (but not the most up to date) version, and eventually that 105w tdp will just be rolled over.
Edit: 100% they should have launched these as 105. Eco mode should be advertised but not the default as most of the time it's the power users who look to build a rig with a specific goal in mind (super power efficient rig, sff with smaller coolers) who will go into the guts of the system to enable what it is they are looking for.
You already can have 300 amps of current on 180$ motherboard without any issues
I think efficiency for the average person is far better, it saves so much power in the long run, and therefore saves a ton of money. 10% performance for 60% more power just doesn't make sense to me (but I might just be alone in this).
I would like to see both benchmarks please Jay, for myself and for those who might see your review or skip to performance numbers and not know how to enable 105, or those that want to efficiency and want to see how well they would perform on low power. 👍👍
105W by default? 61% more power for undetectable gaming gains. Very smart. Insulate your house with the latest material and open all of your windows while you're at it.
The point of these benchmark comparisons are to track progress and gauge value for $, but functionality wise unless you are running a 4080S on low settings, a 7500F is getting you 95% of the gaming your GPU has to offer. Taking a 9950X and shutting off a CCD making it a 9700 so you can get 450fps instead of 416fps in Chex Quest is just silly.
Belive it or not but not everyone games. Infact I wouldn't be surprised if less the 0.1% of computers in the world gets gamed on.
personally with my pc being in my bedroom i hate having my pc heat up my room. Now with less power means less heat which im a fan of
Waiting the 9000x3D with the X870E to do a platform change (my Z790 died, Maximus Hero) 😢
From what I've seen X870 platform doesn't bring much to the table vs x670
Pushing 300watt through the board might have something to do with the failure.
@@NoOne-py5or
If that's from hub.
Then don't listen to it as they don't have a clue.
Telling people to get b650 boards but don't tell anyone you don't get any gen 5 anything.
All x870 boards have 2x40gig usb c, wifi 7 and memory lane that's directly connected.
Useless. Your cpu and mobo have something that’s called warranty use it….
@@zagan1 yeah memory does not get fast on ryzen sadly the are limited since the release of 7000 series in bandwidth. So that better memory stability only helps all boards in running 6000mhz stable
for me and the purpose i use reviews for, I'd prefer the out of the box numbers.
But i also see a reason to have the highest achievable as well, if your willing to push things.
So maybe
- out of the box numbers
- max you can get with OC settings etc numbers, with notes and encountered stumbling blocks.
I think this would be useful to most of your audience.
Hang on are people replying to a video before it exists? I have uploaded 2 mins ago while I see comments from 40 mins ago...
If you are a channel member you get the videos earlier.
@@ewleverard that makes sense thanks
pay to win system activated.
@@ewleverard So you get to type FIRST sooner than most people lol
Test both. It’s useful to know how low power mode will compare for instances where the processor is used in a sff pc.
PBO should 100% not void warranty anyway at least in my experience with it. It can only go so far with the clocks and more importantly voltage, the thing that actually degrades CPUs, so voiding a short 3 year warranty just seems silly.
With a closed custom loop I feel like it’s about finding the balance between cpu and gpu. Right now in IRacing VR I’m cpu limited especially in large races. If I move to gpu limited the cooler temps are nice to have as it will mean my gpu can boost more.
On the other hand once’s 5000 series GPUs come this may reverse and pumping up the cpu may help. Having options = win
7950x3d is good for me. Core parking is working as expected after troubleshooting, but I'm glad it's over with
Just ordered my x870E board today. Upgrading from AMD 2700x 8 core to the 9950x 16 core. Im excited for the jump from ddr4 to ddr5 Ram, and gen 3 M.2 to gen 5 M.2s and of course PCI gen 5 speeds. Even with the 9000 series complaints in performance, it's still a massive boost for myself and look forward to it
After how bad Zen 5 was, it’s strange how people run with the 5090 specs rumors
Why wouldn't they? NVIDIA never misses an opportunity. RTX 5090 will be an absolute BEAST, but wow the RTX 5080 is a joke in comparison. NVIDIA is ripping people off with the RTX 5080 no way around it. It needs 24GB of VRAM at the minimum, 16 GB doesn't cut it for path tracing.
AMD as much as I love AMD, religiously misses their opportunities. Lisa Su needs to change this.
Only believe in what is in the shelves.
@WhizoRizyeah after they way the 4080 was priced horrible you see consumers are f'ing dumb.
So awaiting the x3d chips, what we recommend Jay? X870e or x670e?
10% better for all that power? Hope other people are keeping up with the power we're drawing from the grid. It's getting crazy. The power efficiency was a great change to see.
This is a good move in my opinion. If they will warranty the additional power profile that is great news for games who don’t mind the extra heat and power draw.
Me personally I would go with the lower power profile for gaming but I also don’t play competitive games.
Good move. Love to see bigger warranties and more peak power.
These CPUs will gain 0-3% gaming performance with this update to power usage......
Incredible
The idiots have spoken. To hell with efficiency.
I would like to see both benchmarks for the 65 and 105 profiles.
This will help in the decisions when shopping around.
In a world where we should try to minimize energy production, I think a 10% boost (at the very best) for 40% wattage should be optional. Default should be energy saving, because most people wouldnt see the difference, but the planet would.
hmmm "in a world where we should try to minimize energy production," how is that relevant ? when they pushing electric vehicles lol
Didn't even get a notification .... Just stumbled upon it all on my own, thanks for ringing the bell YT 😆😂
40W for 10%, no not for me.
Prefer efficiency. No PBO, just undervolt.
True!
9700x being only 65w TDP was what I wished the industry always strived for.
Exactly. what is that,,, a 70% increase in power for a 10% boost in speed. Sounds like a good way to fry your cpu.
Enlighten me. Why would you prefer efficiency over performance? Is it because of the more heat or that 10% won’t matter? No judgement, I am just curious.
@@NyxHelithI like it for my sff builds because it helps my system run smaller coolers with decent performance.
its actually 54w ppt or ~61% power
I had a defective 5950X, any PBO without any tuning would crash randomly 1-2 times per day. I told them in my RMA that PBO just crashes the computer and they gave me a replacement no problem.
AMD‘s lesson should be to launch X3D CPU from day one! And price the standard version lower to justify their existence.
Energy efficiency should be default! The planet will thank you. Then anyone who wants to measure his dick on futile benchmarks can still do it 😅
The Ryzen 5 5600X has 65W TDP. The Ryzen 7 9700X has a 65W TDP - this is insane especially at a time when the cost of energy is going up. I appreciate that AMD is focusing on energy efficiency while being able to maintain good performance over generations. For example, the Ryzen 5 2600x had a 95W TDP! I personally think they are moving in the right direction.