AMD announces Ryzen 7000 series.

Colstan

Colstan

Site Champ
Joined
Nov 9, 2021
Posts
822
Team Red has just released details about their next gen CPUs, based upon the Zen 4 architecture.

Screen Shot 2022-08-30 at 12.59.59 AM.jpg


It's notable that AMD have decreased prices slightly, while Intel plans an increase. Also, the two bottom processors now have a TDP of 105w compared to 65w of its predecessor. (Comparatively, the entire Mac Studio with an M1 Max has a maximum power consumption of 115w.)

AMD is claiming an average 13% IPC increase over the 6000-series, with the 7950X delivering a 16% increase in clock speed boost over the 5950X. At Computex, AMD claimed the IPC increase would be 11%, and the 7950X boosted 200Mhz slower, leading some PC fans to amusingly claim that the company has been sandbagging about real performance.

AMD also claims that the 7600X beats the 12900K in gaming, which should make for interesting comparisons with Raptor Lake later this year. Also, rumors claim that V-Cache models of Zen 4 should be released as early as Q1 of next year, perhaps with a spoiler announcement by AMD when Intel announces 13th gen.

Screen Shot 2022-08-30 at 1.09.12 AM.jpg


The 7000 series requires DDR5 with the new AM5 platform. Seeing how both AMD and Apple are currently using a similar TSMC process (N5 vs N5P), it will be interesting to see comparisons, and whether the PC crowd is right that Apple's advantage is "just process, it's not magic", which is the excuse they have been claiming for some time.
 
Colstan said:
...and whether the PC crowd is right that Apple's advantage is "just process, it's not magic", which is the excuse they have been claiming for some time.
Click to expand...

Apple's biggest advantage is that every component is married to the CPU, rather than being separate components. A PC can brute force it's way past it, but it'll never match Apple's architecture on raw performance per watt.
 
Colstan said:
The 7000 series requires DDR5 with the new AM5 platform. Seeing how both AMD and Apple are currently using a similar TSMC process (N5 vs N5P), it will be interesting to see comparisons, and whether the PC crowd is right that Apple's advantage is "just process, it's not magic", which is the excuse they have been claiming for some time.
Click to expand...

It’s going to be a complicated comparison, IMO. The claim is 13% better IPC over the 5000 series, but it also adds clock speed increases to really pull out more single-core performance. AMD is going for a more Intel like approach here of more power, more performance, but seemingly still keeping things under some semblance of control. The loss of a SKU at 65W TDP is not great news on that front.

It is interesting that the TDP of the 7600X and 7700X is a little higher than the M1 Max CPU + GPU complexes. So I wouldn’t be too surprised if AMD does beat Apple here, but when you can draw nearly triple the power, it’s not so clear cut to me that it’s evidence that the engineering would be better, but rather they picked different priorities in their designs.
 
Renzatic said:
Apple's biggest advantage is that every component is married to the CPU, rather than being separate components. A PC can brute force it's way past it, but it'll never match Apple's architecture on raw performance per watt.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. Having control of the entire stack, from the chips that power the I/O, all the way up to the OS and primary applications, is a huge advantage. I think it's clear that Apple is going to maintain the performance/watt advantage, not just for their SoCs, but Macs as well. I just want to see the PC fans explain that without the excuse of process advantage. I'm sure they'll find something else to blame, then go back to "but it can't play Crysis!" when nothing else works.
Nycturne said:
AMD is going for a more Intel like approach here of more power, more performance, but seemingly still keeping things under some semblance of control.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of when Intel thought NetBurst would eventually hit 10Ghz, then they learned a hard lesson, physics is a bitch. At some point, Intel/AMD/Nvidia are going to have to deal with power consumption. With high-end Raptor Lake having an "unlimited power mode" reaching 350w, and Nvidia's top-end 4000-series rumored to reach up to 600w or more, AMD looks downright restrained. Still, this is a bad trend, one which Apple is way ahead of with the M-series.
 
exoticspice1 said:
ST: 2217 MT: 24396 CPU: 7950X

Its beats the M1 Ultra …
Click to expand...
"Beats" may not be the right word to use here. The Ultra has a CPU clock of 3.2GHz, compared to the Ryzen 9, which clocks 4.5~5.7GHz, yet the difference in ST is about +17%, MT +5%. If we assume a middling clock speed of 5GHz, that would be 56% higher than the Ultra, which looks a lot like not actually beating it.
 
Yoused said:
"Beats" may not be the right word to use here. The Ultra has a CPU clock of 3.2GHz, compared to the Ryzen 9, which clocks 4.5~5.7GHz, yet the difference in ST is about +17%, MT +5%. If we assume a middling clock speed of 5GHz, that would be 56% higher than the Ultra, which looks a lot like not actually beating it.
Click to expand...

Also, M1 ultra has been out for several months now, and Ryzen 7000 is yet to ship.
 
Yoused said:
"Beats" may not be the right word to use here. The Ultra has a CPU clock of 3.2GHz, compared to the Ryzen 9, which clocks 4.5~5.7GHz, yet the difference in ST is about +17%, MT +5%. If we assume a middling clock speed of 5GHz, that would be 56% higher than the Ultra, which looks a lot like not actually beating it.
Click to expand...
You can always bolt a rocket engine onto the back of a Camry and beat a Ferrari in a straight drag race. Doesn’t mean its a good product.
 
Cmaier said:
You can always bolt a rocket engine onto the back of a Camry and beat a Ferrari in a straight drag race. Doesn’t mean its a good product.
Click to expand...
Somewhat reminds of a really old joke...
Question: How fast can a Trabbi get? (Trabbi = Trabant, a really crappy car from the old GDR.)
Answer: It depends on how long the fall is. (I know it's not technically correct; the limit is always terminal velocity.)
 
Review of Ryzen 7000 on Anandtech:

www.anandtech.com

AMD Zen 4 Ryzen 9 7950X and Ryzen 5 7600X Review: Retaking The High-End

www.anandtech.com www.anandtech.com

And a cautionary comment about possible overweighting of the crypto score in Geekbench, since that score significantly benefits from the 7000's AVX-512-capability, yet most apps don't (can't?) currrenly use AVX-512.

AVX-512 Makes Ryzen 9 7950X Geekbench 5 Results Look Good — Too Good

The scores are real, the real-world performance gains aren't
www.tomshardware.com www.tomshardware.com

More details on this from Anandtech:

"For our 3DPM v2.1 testing, we added in the Intel Core i9-11900K (Rocket Lake) to show performance across AVX workloads. Although Intel officially fused off the AVX2/512 extensions on Alder Lake which did cause a little controversy and gave the impression that AVX-512 on consumer platforms was dead. AMD clearly believes the opposite, as it has implemented it so that AVX-512 runs two cycles over a 256-bit wide instruction. The performance of the Ryzen 9 7950X here is phenomenal, although the Core i9-11900K which did indeed feature AVX instruction sets in the silicon, is still better than the Ryzen 5 7600X with AVX workloads."
 
Last edited:
1664245419495.png


The 7950X at 65Watts in Eco mode gets a 31,000 points in Cinebench which is outstanding. Beats the M1 Ultra. Apple has catching up to do.
 
Using Cinebench R23 to benchmark Apple Silicon is problematic:
forums.macrumors.com

Guys, Please don't compare CR23 or Geekbench GPU compute scores for Apple silicon against an x86 processor or Nvidia/AMD GPU respectively.

tl;dr - They are not fair comparisons. I'm not going to be very deep but just enough to make you guys understand things. 1. Cinebench R23 CR23's render engine uses Intel Embree which is Intel's library to accelerate Ray tracing compute using CPU. It supports various SIMD instruction sets for...
forums.macrumors.com forums.macrumors.com
 
Cmaier said:
Do people buy macs to run cinebench?
Click to expand...
I ran it on my Mac Pro because I was bored and had nothing better to do. I know the argument is that Cinebench is more or less based upon a real productivity application, Cinema 4D, but it's not the same. The actual problem is that there are few useful cross-platform benchmarks to compare Apple Silicon Macs to PCs, and all of the reviewers who did deep dives into the subject have left tech journalism. That leaves us with a handful of potentially flawed benchmarks and data provided by the companies, which is highly suspect by nature.

To me the horse race is mainly a curiosity, because I'm always going to have a Mac, and a lot of this is just a "my dad can beat up your dad" contest. For people who are trying to make a judgement call on making a product purchase based purely upon performance and not other aspects, if such a user actually exists in the real world, then there's not much to go on without doing their own testing on the applications they use. For everyone else, we purchase a computer, not a processor.
 

Similar threads

exoticspice1
AMD's 7000 series GPUs - RDNA 3
Replies
10
Views
481
dada_dave
D
Back
Top