Off-Topic Thread V3.0

I wouldn't discribe Steve and Wendell as hyperbolic and if this is true it will see a huge impact for years. Pretty much lock in AM5 platform for the next few years for custom builders.

Another take away from me is the lack of people complaining on public forums until now. Goes to show that the old saying "You can't get fired for buying IBM/Microsoft/Intel" (delete as required) is still valid.

Of course AMD to an AMD and mess up their launch. Delayed until mid August now.

A little humor dude. You can see my thoughts on the subject 4 posts up. If I'm anyway slanted it would actually be towards the minor players in the CPU and GPU markets if I was being honest.

All true. The more reputable sources are reporting that it’s not a performance issue but more quality control one so while interested to hear with this is by mid August no one will care as owners will not be effected. AMD do need to this go well form them and they do not need some of the previous hiccups to trip them up.

The major talking point for me will be pricing and less so performance. The 7600/7600x could be set for a huge price cut. A lot of Intel owners thinking about switching to AM5 and AMD could make it easier and more appealing. I’d even be interested to see what the AM4 pricing will be. Really hope AMD goes for it here.

Looking to upgrade from a i7 9700K, already have RAM and an SSD that I picked up on prime day on amazon. I'm thinking a 7800X3d, suitable motherboard, and going with a Thermalight Peerless Asassian for a cooler.

Unsure if I should wait for the 9700X in mid August though. One thing that might appeal about the 9700X is hopefully slightly better temps while giving similar performance.

Mostly for gaming but some light productivity as well as in setting up VMs. Any reason I should wait or look at something different?

Anyone got a similar cooler to the Thermalights and running a 7800x3D?

While the 9700K is starting to show its age for my use cases now its been a solid performer for me. Had it at 4.9GHz all core and gaming temps would usually peak in the low 70s.

Just wondering what sort of temps I'd get with the 7800x3D while gaming

Just a FYI, the Peerless Assassin has be succeeded by the Phantom Spirit. Both are perfectly fine but just be aware.

I am not sure if this is a case of missing what AMD was targeting or AMD missing clock/IPC targets. Probably a little of both. But I'm not sure I agree with the reviewers that zen5 is a waste of a generation. Like when both companies designed new gpus to meet what miners, not gamers wanted, and reviewers claimed they were a flop because gamers didn't benefit… everyone missed the fact that gamers were irrelevant and the target market were very happy.

Personally I'm very happy that AMD has maintained the same performance while cutting power by a third, and bringing temperatures back into sane regions. The whole 1000c melting disaster, intel's degradation woes, and both companies pushing insane power/ heat targets to eke out minor benchmark wins has proved to be detrimental to consumers. I am willing to bet that server buyers are very happy with the power and heat improvements, and they are going to be the target market given server hosts are going to be ditching intel core products like plutonium in the next while.

The big issue is the huge price jump.

Interesting. Every reviewer complains about the price jump but nobody admits they're not comparing launch to launch.

At 17:15 I'm left with a feeling that anyone who bought 65W or less got away squeaky clean from this mess…

You've taken the complete wrong conclusion from HUB's data.

The windows 24H2 preview gives the 9700X an 11% uplift at 1080p however, the 7700X gets a 10% boost to performance. So the results then indicate that the 9700X is 2% faster than the 7700X.

That's almost margin of error. And in some games the 9700X is slower, it's not a consistent 2% win across the board.

Therefore, as a generational upgrade, Zen 5 SUCKS ASS.

Is the reduced power draw nice? Sure, we won't complain. Is it worth the price hike? No.

AMD fanboys are crying out, looking for something or someone to blame but at the end of the day, the fault lies with AMD for setting expectations too high. They went away and designed an architecture focused on reducing power draw, likely to please lucrative server customers.

I mean on what basis is it obvious there is/was a software/OS problem other than trusting AMD's marketing numbers??? This is the second time AMD has recently been called out for dodgy performance numbers?

The real conclusion to draw from this is that for whatever reason, AMD has been taking a roughly 10% performance hit due to windows coding and even then they have been outperforming Intel and Zen 5, Zen 4 and maybe even Zen 3 owners are going to get a free performance boost.

That's awesome, that's impressive.

Zen 5's gaming performance uplift isn't.

"Because plenty of other reviewers showed that on non gaming workloads, there is agenerational uplift, and on Linux vs Windows there were clear indicators that windows wasn't doing something right. And, with the patch, there is proof of something being fixed, so... I'm not sure what you're confused by."

HUB and techpower did show benchmarks of the likes of cinebench getting an uplift of ballpark 10%. That hasn't translated to gaming (appprox 2-3%). You and I don't know specifically why and based on AMD's communications to HUB, they don't know either other than blaming reviewers for a bad review process which HUB thoroughly went through in a video recently. The patch also boosted Zen 4 gaming performance to largely the same degree so that doesn't give us a generational uplift.

"Mind you, you're also complaining about a price hike which has been debunked above: it's cheaper than its predecessor. Comparing launch day pricing to a year's worth of depreciation and stock clearance pricing isn't exactly honest and would always report a "price hike"."

While there's a certain validity to your logic, the reality is that when you're buying a CPU, the price on the day you pull the trigger is what's relevant. I'm sure in 6 months time, Zen 5 and Zen 4 will be much closer to pricing parity however, at the here and now, which is relevant for people building and buying today, it's a farce. Had the performance increase equaled the price differential or at least been a little closer, fine.

"Gamers tend to overlook that a) they're not the only ones buying hardware and b) they're not even very significant, in terms of hardware sales. So let's say gamers still aren't happy with the posted figures or the marketing. So what? That doesn't mean the hardware doesn't work or is faulty. That's the problem I have with both outlets. They referred to zen5 being a waste overall, or qualified that with the addendum "for consumers" when in reality they meant "DIY build gamers who already have zen4 processors". If they had reviewed, as others did, and come up with the conclusion "something's not right here and we don't recommend this for gamers" that would be one thing. Instead they ragged on the entire product as if their specific use case was the only one which matters."

In fairness, they are largely speaking gaming channels, that is their audience. But that aside, I mean who are these CPUs considered a good launch for? Other than a few niche linux users (and if you think gamers are a small niche…) and people who like to run cinebench, getting off to the thought of getting a 10% higher score compared to their 7700X, these chips are a nothing burger.

The average consumer won't tell the difference when running chrome and excel, the average gamer won't notice the difference in game and they're unlikely to notice much of a drop in their power bill at the end of the month. What they'll notice is the extra 80 quid or whatever they end up paying, to get 10 more points in cinebench.

Zen 5 isn't Intel though, so I guess that's good…