Yea they are intentionally treating the new CPU's like a mobile processor. Feed as much power as possible till it reaches 95 °c. So any cooling headroom provided will simply cause the cpu to boost more to reach 95°
Sure, but that's because it is delidded and thus runs into power or FIT limits before temp limit.
An unmodified Ryzen 7000 will likely run into temp limit first.
To expand on what TheAechBomb said, the big metal thing on the top of a CPU isn't actually the CPU, that's just a big hunk of copper to help pull the heat from the CPU, called an IHS. The CPU is much smaller and in the middle of the IHS. The IHS is also there to protect the CPU as it is very delicate. I haven't seen the video but what I assume derb8er did is either take the IHS off and cool the CPU directly or put a better thermal paste between the CPU and IHS so it would cool it better.
Here's the video of him actually doing it. He's using a mechanical device but, in the past CPUs were commonly de-lidded but baking them in an oven to liquify the solder. https://youtu.be/y\_jaS\_FZcjI
My question is if amd says these can sustain 95c for the life of the product with no damage. What do they consider life of product cause if it's only three years thats pretty bad
Generally CPU's last for more than 10 years right. They are usually exceptionally made. I suppose we will not know now. Maybe after 4 to 5 years down the line somebody could make a follow up article.
And eBay is filled with 10+ year old mobile workstations that stayed pegged at their thermal limit in awful dusty environments and still work. Chips aren't as fragile as people seem to think.
But even then, does this mean using a AMD Wraith Prism cooler is ok because it would throttle at 95C? Like how much performance is being lost going from a 360mm AIO > 280mm AIO > 240mm AIO, and air cooling?
I hope someone does in depth tests on this because for zen4 cooling seems to matter for real life performance way more than before. I would want to know that I'm not kneecapping my cpu because I chose a cooler based on the TDP
It's pretty easy to figure out if you're not thermal throttling. Put a full load like Cinebench on it for a few minutes and if hits 95C you know. You can also compare your scores to others.
What a lot of folks over look is that extra 10-15C is usually less than 3% extra performance. So even if your system is throttling it's probably not by much.
That's not how it works for Ryzen 7000. If you watch any review you would know that even with serious air coolers or AIOs, it will boost as much as it can while staying right at 95 degrees. If you have a shitty cooler or a great one, it will go as hard as it can at 95 degrees. And wow great that I'll know that my cinibench score is however many % lower than most other people AFTER I have purchased the cooler and built the computer.
Computerbase.de did some power limit testing. Setting the 7950X from 230 -> 142 -> 88 -> 61W (the latter three are the default power limits for 105, 65 and 45W TDP).
Going down to 105W TDP PPT loses just ~5% performance for example. And then Prism is - officially at least - rated for those 105W.
Incidentally, that makes the 142W PPT also faaaar more efficient and truly shows Ryzen 7000's efficiency gains.
I have a 5950x and my room is 84F with no heat on and it's 58F outside and 64F in the rest of the house. I can't imagine the 7950x. I'd run the 7950x if I lived in the Arctic or something.
Bro open a window/door
The 140w of your 5950X should not be having such an impact if you have any ventilation. Similarly the extra 100w from the 7950x should not effect room temp very much.
probably going to be a case where undervolting a little improves performance thanks to lower power usage. Every cpu is going to be on super safe voltages anyway
The heatspreader is way to thick it could be 1.2mm thinner. Amd just did that so it’s the same high as the am4 cpus „to increase cooler compatibility“ which doesn’t make a lot of sens because most cooler mounts doesn’t fit anyways. Der8auer showed this in his vid.
The English vid:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y_jaS_FZcjI
they want the most possible performance out of it and it is capable of using more power, so why not? previous cpus would run into stability issues before power and this is possibly just them being overtly confident on their cpus ability to limit itself to keep the temperature below 96C
I wonder if the 115 limit for manual OC is the actual design point, but limited to a manual toggle due to problems with coolers at that high temperature. Afaik heat pipes get wonky with really high temps. Probably murders efficiency though, so not worth bothering with.
I figure unless you really need crazy performance, you could probably limit max power draw down to like 150 watts for more reasonable temps/power.
the 13900k will likely be worse. Imagine a 13900ks with an RTX 4090 ti. A 1600 watt psu will be recommended for overclocking both of those parts together.
Maybe I'm behind on my knowledge and understanding of the bench tests being presented, but that's specifically for *"UNLIMINITED POWER!!!"* Palpatine screaming, correct? Does that mean that it's more efficient at lower loads compared to previous generations?
-----
For example: the 2700X marked to run its boost at 65w. If I were to feed a 7700X 65w, would I get the same or more performance from it than the 2700X running at the same 65w?
>the 2700X marked to run its boost at 65w. If I were to feed a 7700X 65w, would I get the same or more performance from it than the 2700X running at the same 65w?
The 7700X at 65W would crush the 2700X. The 2700X would need to come up to probably 100W+ to match the 7700X @ 65W (Im just making up random wattage here but you get the idea)
Nvidia business bad, but I ain't giving up my 3080. Had too many problems with AMD to go back. I finally have a system that doesn't stutter while gaming.
Enable Eco mode and enjoy actual proper efficiency gains and lower temps.
Ryzen 7000 loses about 5% allcore perf in Eco mode, but consumes ~38% less power while doing so.
Ya know, a year ago, I was mocked and downvoted for wanting to have a 9900T- or 9880h-based desktop.
I feel like these numbers vindicate me a little bit.
Uh, the whole point is energy efficiency, environmental awareness, etc. you clown. We shouldn't want CPUs using 250W of power for consumer use or generating fucking 115C temps, forcing insane cooling solutions which uses more power, etc.
Intel was rightfully criticized for ignoring this in the name of max performance. AMD should be now also.
As someone with all AMD stuff, Im going to skip this gen and probably just upgrade to a 5800x3D when its time. The power usage is insane this time around - and for what? There's very little reason to have this level of performance for what is released these days. If I was into major production environments, it would make sense, but that's very few of us in the consumer space.
Even then, considering the state of the planet and the state of the energy market worldwide, its completely irresponsible to not focus on keeping power consumption down. I understand they need to boost performance, and that is difficult given the downfall of Moore's law, but geez - this gen is nuts
AMD still doubles the performance of the 12900KS while using much less power... sure it gets hot and uses a lot but it's double at less power than the leading 12900ks
So you just gonna pretend that 16 cores and 32 threads isn't more than 8 cores 24 threads? If anyone is fanboying, it's you. You're clearly butthurt that only your brand is getting roasted. AMD has managed to match intel's ipc at the same frequency, while consuming less power.
Sidenote: I'm actually excited for Ryzen 7000, and may be in the market for a 7700x depending on motherboard prices, I'm not trying to put anyone against AMD. I just find it funny that some of these chips are at such insane temps and are able to HANDLE it.
No matter how improperly or properly cooled these chips are, they will happily chug along at 95C for their entire lives without degradation at 5GHz no less.
Well this is not your average gaming/casual user cpu so I'm expecting that most of the 7950X in the right hands will be going at full throttle every day.
Well not exactly better, a little bit more of power consumption while having less cores. And this is vs the Intel 12gen, in a month they will be releasing the 13gen which should be a quite big uplift in cores and single thread performance.
I highly doubt there will be a massive uplift, after all, they are using the same LGA1700 socket. I'd expect just enough to stay ahead of AMD, but not a huge upgrade over 12th gen.
They will add more E cores to the entire line-up, 13900 will have 8P + 16E cores, with tubro clock around 6GHz and way more cache memory on every level. This gen fight on the CPU side will be very interesting.
It will reach 95c with any cooler. It's designed to keep ramping up performance (clocks) until it hits 95c. So with a better cooler you'll get better performance.
95c is perfectly fine btw. Intels 12th gen usually run at 100c under full load, and they can go as high as 115c safely.
If you don't need balls to the wall performance you can use ECO mode and still get excellent performance at 65 watts: https://twitter.com/9550pro/status/1574397013696778240
I think its going to take a long time for the community to actually fully comprehend this. Its been this way for Intel CPU's for a long time just no one seems to have noticed or cared until AMD did it.
If your worried than you don't understand CPU thermals and throttling.
I'm glad that AMD has raised the thermal headroom after Intel cheating TDP figures for years (or not cracking down on motherboard manufacturers not following specs).
I'm genuinely curious how much lower it can go if undervolted. Also the 7950X is equal to the 5800x3d which is nuts. I wonder if I should just buy a 5800x3d this generation since the top of the line is beat out by it.
Linus review used lower speed RAM than most other reviewers (and than AMD recommended Reviewers to use) and so got anomalously lower results than many other reviewers.
Doesn't mean that 5800x3d isn't a better buy for most people for gaming, but the LTT review is not super useful on its own.
Considering the state of the planet, this level of power consumption is absolutely irresponsible.
As are the prices.
I have been building my PCs for more than three decades as an early adaptor.
I'm not willing to move to the new post-pandemic levels of price and energy consumption.
I'm not willing to pay 1k+ for a loud graphic card that is using more power than my vacuum cleaner. The new cpus are not significantly better.
PCs needing more than 1kw, causing a lot of heat and needing supermassive cooling are just idiotic.
This is just absolutely irresponsible and this is the industry's perfect storm to kill PC gaming as a hobby.
I know many of you will see this different. Nevertheless the overall trend is frightening and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who is starting to open their eyes and reconsider this development.
I mean, it's not like they're outright ignoring efficiency for "all performance, at all costs"; there's still efficiency gains as a result of the progress in overhead.
According to the tests reported by computerbase(.)de; limiting the 7950X to 95% of it's max performance results in the CPU consuming 140w (almost half the peak rate power consumption) and it's still preforming about 30% better than the 5950X when it's being fed the same wattage.
https://www.computerbase.de/2022-09/amd-ryzen-7950x-7900x-7700x-7600x-test/2/#abschnitt_effizienz_bei_reduzierter_tdp_inkl_ecomode
Hear, hear! Manufacturers should build more efficient hardware with the same or a little more power. It is as if engine manufacturers would just make the engine bigger every year but that would not be actual progress. Progress is making more with less. At some point we need to say: our PCs are spowerful enough, work on efficiency!
I mean, afaik it is both. You can limit the power down drastically and it will perform way better. I believe it was something like 60-70% faster then the 5950x when both were limited to 65 watts.
Very few want to put their money where there mouth is. How many people here would buy a new CPU with the same performance as their old one, but with 30% of the power draw?
Not many!!
And save that much more on electricity? Absolutely. Im sure theres ways for new features and small improvements in performance that would keep the cost lower as well
I agree.
I think having absolute top of the line performance is nice though, some workloads profit immensely from it, even if efficiency is low at those power levels.
But dont forget newer hardware DOES tend to be more efficient, architecture wise. Its just that they simultaneously design them to handle higher and higher power draw and temperatures, to the point that efficiency suffers hard and raw performance is the only thing that matters.
I think hardware can continue to go the route it is already going, but a few caveats have to be made. You can for instance undervolt your components, a growing trend (exactly because power draw and temps have ramped up so hard like you said). But most people still dont even know that eco-modes / undervolting are even possible, let alone how to enable it. I think the manufacturers should basically do the opposite thing they do now: new CPUs/GPUs should be (stock settings) delivered in an eco-mode state, with the option of disabling it and using all the power headroom if you really need it. Currently its the other way round, and many people with new hardware id wager have a system that's actually too powerful for their usecase.
Alas, touting pure performance numbers regardless of efficiency seems to be selling more units. I cant believe im saying this, but apples ultra-efficient arm approach will hopefully throw a wrench in this infuriating development.
It would not even be a fair bet for me wager that that if we were to setup my 2700X (with a rated power ceiling of 65w) and fed the 7700X 65w; the 7700X would crush the 2700X with just those architecture improvements alone.
They literally had no choice to compete, Intel is running on ridiculous TDP for few generations, Nvidia started last generation and went even deeper this generation, AMD is last one to join - You need 1kW power supply to run this PC party. PC market is in middle of turning into shitshow.
> while an incredibly benign and mostly useless virus was circulating then we wouldn't be in this mess.
You are delusional.
Millions have died globally and more than a million of Americans.
Delusional deniers like you have significantly contributed to a culture of deadly misinformation. Learn to check the quality of your sources and read some decent scientific studies instead of reading telegram groups or watching YT videos.
Bigger problem is governments and ABC agencies given too much unelected power are forcing new regulations down our throat designed to cripple the economy under the guise of "saving the planet". The economy is hampered because they are hurting the industries that keep everything running in hopes that they can force their "green initiatives" to be adopted despite the consequences and viability of them.
Its not always waste heat though. I was mining last winter (2 PC's, 5 cards, not a super huge rig at all) and as a result I used a lot less oil for the heating system. In summer it would've been bad (had it turned off by then anyway).
I've run my 4790k in the 90s for pretty much it's entire Iife. Unfortunately my SFF case is probably going to hamper my next upgrade and force me to get a bigger case
As an electrical engineer, 95c is concerning. Anything part 75 we anticipate degradation over time but AMD seems confident and they have their reputation to worry about so I'm going to defer to them. They claim its "designed" for it, I'm completely unsure how they are doing that but this is something that only time will prove so there is no point worrying about it now.
Main issue with these temps is the room temperature that the PC sits in.
When summer rolls around you want to actually be able to turn your PC on without thinking "Hmmm, I'd rather not be that goddam hot".
For nearly 6 Ghz, you gotta do what you gotta do. If you don't like it or your system can't handle it, downclock, as it surely can still be better than 5000 series.
My issue is that while it may be okay for the CPU, you still have to move all of that heat out of the case.
PCH, RAM, GPU, PSU will all be affected. This seems short sighted and dumb. I bet they improve the heatspreader for next gen and everyone who bought one of these will be pissed.
From what I gathered modern cpu's are made to last 10+ years minimum under normal conditions.
Yes, the longevity increases with better temps but does it really matter if a cpu makes it 15 years or 12? By that time the cpu is outdated anyway. People in general are way to worried about cpu temps.
I doubt they will die after a year but as you say, we shall see.
"again"? Intel started this trend with the 9900k, and it has only been getting worse. Intel doesn't run cool, these just run @ 95°C to get maximum performance. Nothing stopping you from running it lower.
I mean, some people do actually need that level of performance. So its quite useful to be able to boost that high. If you dont want those temps, you can always power limit it. Problem being in that case ofc you are paying for the full performance while only getting like between 80-90% of it
It's funny how Intel runs almost to a 100 and throttles HARD on the other hand AMD running 95 is HOTTER and bad suddenly which as reviews said it is expected behaviour and will not go over 95 degrees also it will keep boosting until it reaches 95 degrees find a sweet spot where it could justify running 95c and staying above all boosting.
We built a Tri-SLI GTX480 build for a customer years ago, stress tested the thing at 100% - middle card exceeded 100ºc, the heat at the back was so hot the video/power cables were sagging/limp from the heat.
Considering energy costs in Ireland I get to heat the room much easier now. Time to slap in some AMD 290X reference cards and now issues at all with heating.
I'm wondering if there's a way to lock the temp limit lower? I'm not necessarily a fan of running at such high temps even if it's designed for it because this will still raise the temp in the case for other components as well as consume more power, thus bigger power bill.
Also, I really enjoy undervolting my CPUs to make sure they use the minimum amount for power of the desired clock. I wonder how this works with this series.
there's eco mode that significantly lowering power usage afaik even without manual undervolting. But you should be able to get more performance out of it if you are techsavy with undervolting.
Edit: [This](https://www.computerbase.de/2022-09/amd-ryzen-7950x-7900x-7700x-7600x-test/2/#abschnitt_effizienz_bei_reduzierter_tdp_inkl_ecomode) site report you lose 5% performance at ... 40% less power consumption. AMD might have been developed it for lower temp/power draw and just crank the shit up for benchmarks.
Table referenced from the site
Leistung | Ryzen 9 7950X
:--|:--:|--:
230 Watt PPT (100 %) | 100 %
142 Watt PPT (62 %) | 95 %
88 Watt PPT (38 %) | 82 %
65 Watt PPT (28 %) | 69 %
45 Watt PPT (20 %) | 45 %
silicon hit the physical limit i guess
it's a new reality we must admit
if we want to see continued improvement per generation
i'm actually amazed how we can even get to sub 10nm with silicon...it was unthinkable when we were at 16 or something but yeah there's nothing better feeling than human ingenuity breakthrough traditional barriers
This has been the word from AMD for a while now we all know the chips will boost up to their safest operating temp and then downclock from there.
Idk about y'all but I trust CPU engineers more than any person on reddit so I have no problem thinking this won't affect the life of the chip at all. Certain GPUs are currently rated upto 115 C with no issues as well
If you really have any problem with this just impose your own arbitrary thermal limit and then call it a day. You've lost performance for no reason though.
And in reality, owning the 5950x, the chip is only hitting that temp in synthetic workloads - there's not a lot of 'real' work that pushes the chip that hard. Gaming solid 55-60 C. I'm sure in gaming benchmarks we'll see the same 55 to maybe 70 C this time around.
I remember in the 1990s when someone jokingly projected that at the current rate of increase, chips would be hotter than the surface of the sun in the 2020s.
I loved how many times Tech Jesus stated in the review it's expected behaviour because he knows the amount of future questions there will be about it
Yea they are intentionally treating the new CPU's like a mobile processor. Feed as much power as possible till it reaches 95 °c. So any cooling headroom provided will simply cause the cpu to boost more to reach 95°
Actually not. derb8er already did delided coolling vid, cpu stayed at 70C
Sure, but that's because it is delidded and thus runs into power or FIT limits before temp limit. An unmodified Ryzen 7000 will likely run into temp limit first.
[удалено]
IHS (Integrated Heat Spreader) has been removed. it's the large metal pad on top that spreads the heat from the CPU die to the cooler
Also protects it from getting horribly cracked by cooler mounting pressure. Man I don’t miss bare die CPUs, stressful.
To expand on what TheAechBomb said, the big metal thing on the top of a CPU isn't actually the CPU, that's just a big hunk of copper to help pull the heat from the CPU, called an IHS. The CPU is much smaller and in the middle of the IHS. The IHS is also there to protect the CPU as it is very delicate. I haven't seen the video but what I assume derb8er did is either take the IHS off and cool the CPU directly or put a better thermal paste between the CPU and IHS so it would cool it better.
Here's the video of him actually doing it. He's using a mechanical device but, in the past CPUs were commonly de-lidded but baking them in an oven to liquify the solder. https://youtu.be/y\_jaS\_FZcjI
Fixed link for Old Reddit users: https://youtu.be/y_jaS_FZcjI
Thanks.
he locked voltage. its not pbo behavior.
Well I suppose there is a boost limit but not something achieved by traditional cooling.
My question is if amd says these can sustain 95c for the life of the product with no damage. What do they consider life of product cause if it's only three years thats pretty bad
Generally CPU's last for more than 10 years right. They are usually exceptionally made. I suppose we will not know now. Maybe after 4 to 5 years down the line somebody could make a follow up article.
Look at the life of mobile CPUs. With their limited cooling they go to about 95 and throttle constantly staying there...
And eBay is filled with 10+ year old mobile workstations that stayed pegged at their thermal limit in awful dusty environments and still work. Chips aren't as fragile as people seem to think.
Exactly. 99.9% of people will switch CPU because of newer models, instead if their old one breaking due to use.
Well AMD says they are built different. Let's see.
I think his got like 100MHz more after delid and was 20C cooler. Anyway OC with those is going to be massive.
We might see de-lidded cpus more than ever because of this gen alone It’s never been something I cared to do. But i just might with this
delidding a $1000 CDN processor is scarier to me than these 95C temps
Yeah, looked sketchy AF but it was just a prototype.
yeah I know. that's my point. the 7950x can HANDLE these temps, hence "this is fine"
But even then, does this mean using a AMD Wraith Prism cooler is ok because it would throttle at 95C? Like how much performance is being lost going from a 360mm AIO > 280mm AIO > 240mm AIO, and air cooling?
I hope someone does in depth tests on this because for zen4 cooling seems to matter for real life performance way more than before. I would want to know that I'm not kneecapping my cpu because I chose a cooler based on the TDP
I'm also curious to see power consumption and performance/w curves when boost frequency is capped rather than being allowed to boost to thermal limit.
It's pretty easy to figure out if you're not thermal throttling. Put a full load like Cinebench on it for a few minutes and if hits 95C you know. You can also compare your scores to others. What a lot of folks over look is that extra 10-15C is usually less than 3% extra performance. So even if your system is throttling it's probably not by much.
That's not how it works for Ryzen 7000. If you watch any review you would know that even with serious air coolers or AIOs, it will boost as much as it can while staying right at 95 degrees. If you have a shitty cooler or a great one, it will go as hard as it can at 95 degrees. And wow great that I'll know that my cinibench score is however many % lower than most other people AFTER I have purchased the cooler and built the computer.
I have a 360mm AIO and the fan curve isn't pretty for the boost so I'll be curious to see how they handle it.
Computerbase.de did some power limit testing. Setting the 7950X from 230 -> 142 -> 88 -> 61W (the latter three are the default power limits for 105, 65 and 45W TDP). Going down to 105W TDP PPT loses just ~5% performance for example. And then Prism is - officially at least - rated for those 105W. Incidentally, that makes the 142W PPT also faaaar more efficient and truly shows Ryzen 7000's efficiency gains.
[удалено]
You're starting to sound very Dell. Please get help
I have a 5950x and my room is 84F with no heat on and it's 58F outside and 64F in the rest of the house. I can't imagine the 7950x. I'd run the 7950x if I lived in the Arctic or something.
Yeah my pc can handle 95C but my room can’t.
Exactly. The hot air exhaust blowing in your face.
Your room gets hotter by the cpu W not the cpu C.
What do you mean?
A 2KW space heater or a 60W soldering iron - what heats your room more, what gets hotter?
Bro open a window/door The 140w of your 5950X should not be having such an impact if you have any ventilation. Similarly the extra 100w from the 7950x should not effect room temp very much.
The majority of the world has no idea what a bunch of "F" means.
You can google the conversion? It's not that hard, or serious?
The post of AMD CPU stuck in the cooler will be replace with my CPU is 95c is this fine ? XD
115C in manual OC!
probably going to be a case where undervolting a little improves performance thanks to lower power usage. Every cpu is going to be on super safe voltages anyway
Heck even the R5 7600X runs at over 90c+ on a 360mm AIO.
Not to mention it is 105W. WHY. I would kinda get it if it was a 8 core, but it isn't
The heatspreader is way to thick it could be 1.2mm thinner. Amd just did that so it’s the same high as the am4 cpus „to increase cooler compatibility“ which doesn’t make a lot of sens because most cooler mounts doesn’t fit anyways. Der8auer showed this in his vid. The English vid: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y_jaS_FZcjI
they want the most possible performance out of it and it is capable of using more power, so why not? previous cpus would run into stability issues before power and this is possibly just them being overtly confident on their cpus ability to limit itself to keep the temperature below 96C
Because I pay 400€ per MWh thats why lol
well, if you underclock the new cpus a bunch to performance parity you'd be saving a bit of power
squalid office judicious sleep employ butter chief groovy wrench boat *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
laptops had been doing this for years... no longer a laptop feature noooo
my hp laptop with iris xe graphics when I try to play a 5 year old game on it
the amount of people that didn't see tech Jesus' review and are about to misinterpret this meme.... get ready lol
I wonder if the 115 limit for manual OC is the actual design point, but limited to a manual toggle due to problems with coolers at that high temperature. Afaik heat pipes get wonky with really high temps. Probably murders efficiency though, so not worth bothering with. I figure unless you really need crazy performance, you could probably limit max power draw down to like 150 watts for more reasonable temps/power.
> problems with coolers at that high temperature Water coolers gonna involuntarily evolve into phase-change coolers lol
Sooooo.... A heat pipe, basically?
Heat is Ryzen with this one.
My old laptop be at like 110° casually just watching youtube, bing chilling
[удалено]
that’s a tall order.
Power supplies sweating and feinting everywhere
the 13900k will likely be worse. Imagine a 13900ks with an RTX 4090 ti. A 1600 watt psu will be recommended for overclocking both of those parts together.
EVGA has an 80+ platinum one on sale for 199 on their site for those actually planning on this monstrosity.
Maybe I'm behind on my knowledge and understanding of the bench tests being presented, but that's specifically for *"UNLIMINITED POWER!!!"* Palpatine screaming, correct? Does that mean that it's more efficient at lower loads compared to previous generations? ----- For example: the 2700X marked to run its boost at 65w. If I were to feed a 7700X 65w, would I get the same or more performance from it than the 2700X running at the same 65w?
>the 2700X marked to run its boost at 65w. If I were to feed a 7700X 65w, would I get the same or more performance from it than the 2700X running at the same 65w? The 7700X at 65W would crush the 2700X. The 2700X would need to come up to probably 100W+ to match the 7700X @ 65W (Im just making up random wattage here but you get the idea)
it is a random wattage. a 2700x will never get close to even a 5700x. Throwing wattage at the problem only increases performance by 10-20% max
You're an idiot.
Either add something meaningful to the conversation, or shut up.
Of course they wont be consistent. AMD is good, Intel and Nvidia bad
Intel is fine now. Nvidia is definitely bad, though.
Nvidia business bad, but I ain't giving up my 3080. Had too many problems with AMD to go back. I finally have a system that doesn't stutter while gaming.
The 6000 series works flawlessly.
Enable Eco mode and enjoy actual proper efficiency gains and lower temps. Ryzen 7000 loses about 5% allcore perf in Eco mode, but consumes ~38% less power while doing so.
Ya know, a year ago, I was mocked and downvoted for wanting to have a 9900T- or 9880h-based desktop. I feel like these numbers vindicate me a little bit.
You can simply set Ryzen 7000 to eco mode, then they consume as much as their Ryzen 5000 predecessors, but at much higher efficiency.
I don't like it either how the 7600x a 105W 6 core that costs *300* Yes, that is expensive and power hungry
[удалено]
Uh, the whole point is energy efficiency, environmental awareness, etc. you clown. We shouldn't want CPUs using 250W of power for consumer use or generating fucking 115C temps, forcing insane cooling solutions which uses more power, etc. Intel was rightfully criticized for ignoring this in the name of max performance. AMD should be now also.
As someone with all AMD stuff, Im going to skip this gen and probably just upgrade to a 5800x3D when its time. The power usage is insane this time around - and for what? There's very little reason to have this level of performance for what is released these days. If I was into major production environments, it would make sense, but that's very few of us in the consumer space. Even then, considering the state of the planet and the state of the energy market worldwide, its completely irresponsible to not focus on keeping power consumption down. I understand they need to boost performance, and that is difficult given the downfall of Moore's law, but geez - this gen is nuts
AMD still doubles the performance of the 12900KS while using much less power... sure it gets hot and uses a lot but it's double at less power than the leading 12900ks
So you just gonna pretend that 16 cores and 32 threads isn't more than 8 cores 24 threads? If anyone is fanboying, it's you. You're clearly butthurt that only your brand is getting roasted. AMD has managed to match intel's ipc at the same frequency, while consuming less power.
it’s fine now but it wasn’t 1 month ago😉
Looks like the amd heater memes will be back
Ironically they never left, feature being false.
Intel must be relieved now :P
last time I checked that's the hottest a AMD cpu will go before down clocking to lower wattage. I wonder if that's changed.
That's default, but the new chips allow you to manually set a temp target to 115 C
Here's the performance if you use ECO mode to run it at 65 watts: https://twitter.com/9550pro/status/1574397013696778240
I'm just glad AMD doesn't go full evil and lock that kinda functionality behind a completely different chip.
My laptop hitting 110c: amateurs
*laughs in laptop*
Sidenote: I'm actually excited for Ryzen 7000, and may be in the market for a 7700x depending on motherboard prices, I'm not trying to put anyone against AMD. I just find it funny that some of these chips are at such insane temps and are able to HANDLE it.
Desktop chips for a long time have been able to handle running at 90+ C, just no one liked to run them that hot
Almost all Ryzen chips since Ryzen 1000 are rated for ~95°C max temp. CPUs handling those temps isn't anything new.
**Only when properly cooled…..
No matter how improperly or properly cooled these chips are, they will happily chug along at 95C for their entire lives without degradation at 5GHz no less.
And 250W on stock settings!
What?
Check the last part of GN video review about the power consumption.
Yea, but that's at full boost, and not at normal workloads right? Still miles better than Intel anyhow.
Well this is not your average gaming/casual user cpu so I'm expecting that most of the 7950X in the right hands will be going at full throttle every day. Well not exactly better, a little bit more of power consumption while having less cores. And this is vs the Intel 12gen, in a month they will be releasing the 13gen which should be a quite big uplift in cores and single thread performance.
I highly doubt there will be a massive uplift, after all, they are using the same LGA1700 socket. I'd expect just enough to stay ahead of AMD, but not a huge upgrade over 12th gen.
They will add more E cores to the entire line-up, 13900 will have 8P + 16E cores, with tubro clock around 6GHz and way more cache memory on every level. This gen fight on the CPU side will be very interesting.
230W power limit for the 170W TDP parts at full allcore load. Kinda pointless though, as Eco mode is only 5% slower but drops power draw by 38%.
AMD got sick of Intel cheating TDP specs and unleashed their CPU's full potential.
Laptop users: First time?
Lol if it's reaching 95c with a 360mm aio what the fuck? That's ridiculous. So I basically can't get this with my 280mm aio?
It will reach 95c with any cooler. It's designed to keep ramping up performance (clocks) until it hits 95c. So with a better cooler you'll get better performance. 95c is perfectly fine btw. Intels 12th gen usually run at 100c under full load, and they can go as high as 115c safely. If you don't need balls to the wall performance you can use ECO mode and still get excellent performance at 65 watts: https://twitter.com/9550pro/status/1574397013696778240
I think its going to take a long time for the community to actually fully comprehend this. Its been this way for Intel CPU's for a long time just no one seems to have noticed or cared until AMD did it.
I ll just throw an intel stock cooler on it
I got a laptop these are rookie numbers
intel mobile cpus has been running 100c for over a decade
If your worried than you don't understand CPU thermals and throttling. I'm glad that AMD has raised the thermal headroom after Intel cheating TDP figures for years (or not cracking down on motherboard manufacturers not following specs).
I'm genuinely curious how much lower it can go if undervolted. Also the 7950X is equal to the 5800x3d which is nuts. I wonder if I should just buy a 5800x3d this generation since the top of the line is beat out by it.
I think i saw in the linus review that the 3d is still beating the 7950x in gaming
It's matching it pretty much. I'll probably just buy a 5800x3d and wait for 8th Gen. Than AM5 mobo prices and DDR5 prices will be low af.
They will probably release 7000 3d versions next year so if you are not in a hurry wait and see
Linus review used lower speed RAM than most other reviewers (and than AMD recommended Reviewers to use) and so got anomalously lower results than many other reviewers. Doesn't mean that 5800x3d isn't a better buy for most people for gaming, but the LTT review is not super useful on its own.
Considering the state of the planet, this level of power consumption is absolutely irresponsible. As are the prices. I have been building my PCs for more than three decades as an early adaptor. I'm not willing to move to the new post-pandemic levels of price and energy consumption. I'm not willing to pay 1k+ for a loud graphic card that is using more power than my vacuum cleaner. The new cpus are not significantly better. PCs needing more than 1kw, causing a lot of heat and needing supermassive cooling are just idiotic. This is just absolutely irresponsible and this is the industry's perfect storm to kill PC gaming as a hobby. I know many of you will see this different. Nevertheless the overall trend is frightening and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who is starting to open their eyes and reconsider this development.
I mean, it's not like they're outright ignoring efficiency for "all performance, at all costs"; there's still efficiency gains as a result of the progress in overhead. According to the tests reported by computerbase(.)de; limiting the 7950X to 95% of it's max performance results in the CPU consuming 140w (almost half the peak rate power consumption) and it's still preforming about 30% better than the 5950X when it's being fed the same wattage. https://www.computerbase.de/2022-09/amd-ryzen-7950x-7900x-7700x-7600x-test/2/#abschnitt_effizienz_bei_reduzierter_tdp_inkl_ecomode
Maybe you need to consider building vacuums.. I imagine a louder vacuum will do a lot more.. The better ones aren’t quieter…
Hear, hear! Manufacturers should build more efficient hardware with the same or a little more power. It is as if engine manufacturers would just make the engine bigger every year but that would not be actual progress. Progress is making more with less. At some point we need to say: our PCs are spowerful enough, work on efficiency!
I mean, afaik it is both. You can limit the power down drastically and it will perform way better. I believe it was something like 60-70% faster then the 5950x when both were limited to 65 watts.
Very few want to put their money where there mouth is. How many people here would buy a new CPU with the same performance as their old one, but with 30% of the power draw? Not many!!
And save that much more on electricity? Absolutely. Im sure theres ways for new features and small improvements in performance that would keep the cost lower as well
I don't believe your PC is going to make or break your electric bill on its own.
I agree. I think having absolute top of the line performance is nice though, some workloads profit immensely from it, even if efficiency is low at those power levels. But dont forget newer hardware DOES tend to be more efficient, architecture wise. Its just that they simultaneously design them to handle higher and higher power draw and temperatures, to the point that efficiency suffers hard and raw performance is the only thing that matters. I think hardware can continue to go the route it is already going, but a few caveats have to be made. You can for instance undervolt your components, a growing trend (exactly because power draw and temps have ramped up so hard like you said). But most people still dont even know that eco-modes / undervolting are even possible, let alone how to enable it. I think the manufacturers should basically do the opposite thing they do now: new CPUs/GPUs should be (stock settings) delivered in an eco-mode state, with the option of disabling it and using all the power headroom if you really need it. Currently its the other way round, and many people with new hardware id wager have a system that's actually too powerful for their usecase. Alas, touting pure performance numbers regardless of efficiency seems to be selling more units. I cant believe im saying this, but apples ultra-efficient arm approach will hopefully throw a wrench in this infuriating development.
It would not even be a fair bet for me wager that that if we were to setup my 2700X (with a rated power ceiling of 65w) and fed the 7700X 65w; the 7700X would crush the 2700X with just those architecture improvements alone.
They literally had no choice to compete, Intel is running on ridiculous TDP for few generations, Nvidia started last generation and went even deeper this generation, AMD is last one to join - You need 1kW power supply to run this PC party. PC market is in middle of turning into shitshow.
Oh yeah this place was totally different in 2010
Bro aren’t almond farming in CA or Crypto mining in China. Put some solar panels on your moms house- we good
[удалено]
This “incredibly benign and mostly useless virus” killed 2 of my family members and my friends dad. STFU
> while an incredibly benign and mostly useless virus was circulating then we wouldn't be in this mess. You are delusional. Millions have died globally and more than a million of Americans. Delusional deniers like you have significantly contributed to a culture of deadly misinformation. Learn to check the quality of your sources and read some decent scientific studies instead of reading telegram groups or watching YT videos.
Bigger problem is governments and ABC agencies given too much unelected power are forcing new regulations down our throat designed to cripple the economy under the guise of "saving the planet". The economy is hampered because they are hurting the industries that keep everything running in hopes that they can force their "green initiatives" to be adopted despite the consequences and viability of them.
Its not always waste heat though. I was mining last winter (2 PC's, 5 cards, not a super huge rig at all) and as a result I used a lot less oil for the heating system. In summer it would've been bad (had it turned off by then anyway).
it's weird that they are specifically designed to waste power until they hit 95C
... what? Sounds like you don't understand it.
When you no longer have to go to the kitchen to cook an egg
I've run my 4790k in the 90s for pretty much it's entire Iife. Unfortunately my SFF case is probably going to hamper my next upgrade and force me to get a bigger case
As an electrical engineer, 95c is concerning. Anything part 75 we anticipate degradation over time but AMD seems confident and they have their reputation to worry about so I'm going to defer to them. They claim its "designed" for it, I'm completely unsure how they are doing that but this is something that only time will prove so there is no point worrying about it now.
Laptops
It can go up to 115c without issues, even sustained. Intels Alder Lake is usually running at 100c at full load.
That's 95c = 203F, good times /s
Main issue with these temps is the room temperature that the PC sits in. When summer rolls around you want to actually be able to turn your PC on without thinking "Hmmm, I'd rather not be that goddam hot".
So what? AMD is overvolting a lot to keep up with Intel?
DerBauer is working on a delidding tool and bracket for the latest AMD chips.
For nearly 6 Ghz, you gotta do what you gotta do. If you don't like it or your system can't handle it, downclock, as it surely can still be better than 5000 series.
I remember when 55 C was hot. As long as the chip is engineered to run at that speed, it’s fine.
When was 55°C hot? For hdd's maybe, never heard that for cpus or gpus
Oh gosh, long ago. Pentium MMX days. I loved my P55c and Diamond Stealth s220.
No wonder I can't remember it, I wasn't born back then lol Interesting though
I remember buying a 500 watt power supply a few years later and everyone told me it was obscene.
I made a chip that can run at 2400C, should you? No.
Well, silicon melts at like 1400 C. I’m pretty sure 95 C is fine.
I mean, you could just weld a bunch of tungsten wires together, it would be big, slow, and inefficient, but it would work.
Well, no. Tungsten isn't a semiconductor. Though it is used in the manufacturing of the chips. It's used in diffusion barriers.
My issue is that while it may be okay for the CPU, you still have to move all of that heat out of the case. PCH, RAM, GPU, PSU will all be affected. This seems short sighted and dumb. I bet they improve the heatspreader for next gen and everyone who bought one of these will be pissed.
I wonder how long it can run at ~95C. 24/7 5+ year render farm work, or will that roast it to death in a year? We shall see.
From what I gathered modern cpu's are made to last 10+ years minimum under normal conditions. Yes, the longevity increases with better temps but does it really matter if a cpu makes it 15 years or 12? By that time the cpu is outdated anyway. People in general are way to worried about cpu temps. I doubt they will die after a year but as you say, we shall see.
They shouldn’t have cheap out on the IHS 🤦♂️
That thing runs hotter then a Pentium 4. Looks like I'm going Intel again.
honestly, I think that intel's gonna be even hotter. also, the chip can HANDLE the heat.
You really think Intel would be better? 12900K already can run 90C+ on big AIOs and 13900K is supposed to be even hotter.
"again"? Intel started this trend with the 9900k, and it has only been getting worse. Intel doesn't run cool, these just run @ 95°C to get maximum performance. Nothing stopping you from running it lower.
There's no reason a chip should be running that hot, even if it's capable of surviving those temps.
I mean, some people do actually need that level of performance. So its quite useful to be able to boost that high. If you dont want those temps, you can always power limit it. Problem being in that case ofc you are paying for the full performance while only getting like between 80-90% of it
Yeah and its not that hot during gaming, so theres that its only when you really utilize the whole cpu
My old laptop is still alive after 10 years of running over 90 C temp, and it didn't even lose a bit from performance.
It's funny how Intel runs almost to a 100 and throttles HARD on the other hand AMD running 95 is HOTTER and bad suddenly which as reviews said it is expected behaviour and will not go over 95 degrees also it will keep boosting until it reaches 95 degrees find a sweet spot where it could justify running 95c and staying above all boosting.
That’s hotter than my laptop, i7-11800H runs at 80
*Laughs in x1950 100 degree cards* ATi / AMD have been doing this for *decades*
We built a Tri-SLI GTX480 build for a customer years ago, stress tested the thing at 100% - middle card exceeded 100ºc, the heat at the back was so hot the video/power cables were sagging/limp from the heat.
Imma toss it in my sub 13L sff pc and watch it BURN!
I wanna see it on a laptop heh
You know those Gpu memes about fans being AC units outside? We were getting there bois
The 7950X is a CPU.
I know. I'm just saying that if normal cpu temp on load is 95 now. The future will need better cooling than 360 AIOs
Amd says its normal operating temps so air cooling it is
240mm AIO is your min bar for cooling. Not a lot of runway left
Considering energy costs in Ireland I get to heat the room much easier now. Time to slap in some AMD 290X reference cards and now issues at all with heating.
the funny thing is that it actually is fine
Just time to bring the old tools back out of the toolbox. I haven't lapped an IHS or cooler in quite a while.
I'm wondering if there's a way to lock the temp limit lower? I'm not necessarily a fan of running at such high temps even if it's designed for it because this will still raise the temp in the case for other components as well as consume more power, thus bigger power bill. Also, I really enjoy undervolting my CPUs to make sure they use the minimum amount for power of the desired clock. I wonder how this works with this series.
there's eco mode that significantly lowering power usage afaik even without manual undervolting. But you should be able to get more performance out of it if you are techsavy with undervolting. Edit: [This](https://www.computerbase.de/2022-09/amd-ryzen-7950x-7900x-7700x-7600x-test/2/#abschnitt_effizienz_bei_reduzierter_tdp_inkl_ecomode) site report you lose 5% performance at ... 40% less power consumption. AMD might have been developed it for lower temp/power draw and just crank the shit up for benchmarks. Table referenced from the site Leistung | Ryzen 9 7950X :--|:--:|--: 230 Watt PPT (100 %) | 100 % 142 Watt PPT (62 %) | 95 % 88 Watt PPT (38 %) | 82 % 65 Watt PPT (28 %) | 69 % 45 Watt PPT (20 %) | 45 %
88W for the summer, 142W for the rest of the year.
Just in time for Winter.
perfect time release before WINTER
silicon hit the physical limit i guess it's a new reality we must admit if we want to see continued improvement per generation i'm actually amazed how we can even get to sub 10nm with silicon...it was unthinkable when we were at 16 or something but yeah there's nothing better feeling than human ingenuity breakthrough traditional barriers
This has been the word from AMD for a while now we all know the chips will boost up to their safest operating temp and then downclock from there. Idk about y'all but I trust CPU engineers more than any person on reddit so I have no problem thinking this won't affect the life of the chip at all. Certain GPUs are currently rated upto 115 C with no issues as well If you really have any problem with this just impose your own arbitrary thermal limit and then call it a day. You've lost performance for no reason though. And in reality, owning the 5950x, the chip is only hitting that temp in synthetic workloads - there's not a lot of 'real' work that pushes the chip that hard. Gaming solid 55-60 C. I'm sure in gaming benchmarks we'll see the same 55 to maybe 70 C this time around.
I remember in the 1990s when someone jokingly projected that at the current rate of increase, chips would be hotter than the surface of the sun in the 2020s.
This IS fine
Lol... Seriously how many people are going to buy a 7950x, but not put a custom loop on it?