');$('.tpu-fancybox-wrap').css('maxWidth', maxWidth);*/instance.$refs.stage.on('transitionend', function() {updateButtonPos(instance);});},onUpdate: updateButtonPos,afterShow: function(instance, slide) {updateButtonPos(instance);instance.$refs.inner.find('.fancybox-tpu-nav').show();},beforeClose: function(instance, slide) {instance.$refs.inner.find('.fancybox-tpu-nav').hide();},afterClose: function(instance, slide) {$('.tpu-fancybox-wrap').contents().unwrap();$('body').removeClass('tpu-fancybox-body-wrap')},baseTpl: '
',});});}loadjs.ready(['jquery', 'fancybox', 'swiper'], function() {attachLightbox('a[data-fancybox]');if ($(window).width()<600) {$('.imgcontainer').each(function() {var $this=$(this);if (($this.find('a').length==1) || ($this.find('a').length>7))return;$this.addClass('swiper-container');$this.find('a').addClass('swiper-slide').css('width', 'auto').wrapAll('
');new Swiper ($this.eq(0), { slidesPerView: 'auto', slidesPerGroup: 1, spaceBetween: 15, pagination: { el: '.swiper-pagination', clickable: true } });});}$('.newspost').on('click', '.spoiler > .button, .spoiler > a', function(e) {e.preventDefault();$(this).next('div').toggle();});$('.newspost').on('click', '.ispoiler', function(e) {e.preventDefault();$(this).find('div').css('filter', '');$(this).removeClass('ispoiler');});$('.contnt').on('click', '.newspoll_btn', function() {popup.Show('TechPowerUp Quick Poll','Loading...');$.get('/news-poll/options?id='+$(this).data('id'), function(data) {$('#popup_content').html(data);});});});
Thursday, June 27th 2024
by btarunrDiscuss (65 Comments)
AMD's Ryzen 9000 "Granite Ridge" family of Socket AM5 desktop processors based on the "Zen 5" microarchitecture arrive in July, with four processor models in the lead—the 9950X 16-core, the 9900X 12-core, the 9700X 8-core, and the 9600X 6-core. AMD is building the CCDs (CPU core dies) of these processors on the slightly newer 4 nm foundry node, compared to the 5 nm node that the Ryzen 7000 series "Raphael" processors based on "Zen 4" are built on; and generally lowered the TDP values of all but the top 16-core part. The company is reportedly reconsidering these changes, particularly in wake of company statements that the 9000X series may not beat the 7000X3D series in gaming performance, which may have sullied the launch, particularly for gamers.
From the company's Computex 2024 announcement of the Ryzen 9000 series, the 9950X has the same 170 W TDP as its predecessor, the 7950X. The 9900X 12-core part, however, comes with a lower 120 W TDP compared to the 170 W of the 7900X. Things get interesting with the 8-core and 6-core parts. Both the 9700X 8-core, and the 9600X 6-core chips come with 65 W TDP. The 9700X succeeds the 7700X, which came with a 105 W TDP, while the 9600X succeeds the 7600X that enjoys the same 105 W TDP. The TDP and package power tracing (PPT) values of an AMD processor are known to affect CPU boost frequency residence, particularly in some of the higher core-count SKUs. Wccftech reports that AMD is planning to revise the specifications of at least the Ryzen 7 9700X.
Apparently, the Ryzen 7 9700X will undergo a set of changes to its specifications which see the TDP and PPT values increase. The TDP will be increased to 120 W, which is higher than even the 105 W that the 7700X comes with, and matches the 120 W of the 7800X3D. Given that the 9700X lacks 3D V-cache, the increased power limits should vastly improve the boost frequency residence of this chip. At this point we don't know if the re-spec includes an increase in clock speeds.
As to how AMD plans to go about this change in specs, given that a July launch would mean that chips with 65 W TDP may already have entered the supply chain; we honestly don't know, and the source article doesn't say. If we were to speculate, such an on-the-fly specs change could be deployed through motherboard BIOS updates that see the motherboard override the TDP and PPT values of the 9700X.
The idea behind the specs change, according to Wccftech, is to improve the gaming performance of the 9700X through clock speeds (boost residence) backed by increased power limits, so it gets closer to—or even beat—the Ryzen 7 7800X3D. A 9000X3D series (Zen 5 + 3D V-cache) is very much on the cards, but we don't expect those chips to come out before Q4 2024 at least.
Related News
- Tags:
- 4 nm
- AM5
- BIOS
- Granite Ridge
- Ryzen 9000
- TDP
- Zen 5
- Feb 4th 2024 AMD Readies X870E Chipset to Launch Alongside First Ryzen 9000 "Granite Ridge" CPUs (216)
- Jan 26th 2024 More AMD Ryzen 9000 "Zen 5" Desktop Processor Details Emerge (85)
- Jun 12th 2024 AMD Says Ryzen 9000 Series Won't Beat 7000X3D Series at Gaming (120)
- Jun 2nd 2024 AMD Outs Ryzen 5000XT Processors for Socket AM4, an 8-year Old Socket (208)
- Jun 2nd 2024 AMD Zen 5 Storms into Gaming Desktops with Ryzen 9000 "Granite Ridge" Processors (100)
- May 29th 2024 AMD Ryzen 9000 Zen 5 Single Thread Performance at 5.80 GHz Found 19% Over Zen 4 (132)
- Apr 8th 2024 AMD Ryzen 9000 "Granite Ridge" Zen 5 Processor Pictured (31)
- Apr 19th 2024 AMD "Strix Halo" Zen 5 Mobile Processor Pictured: Chiplet-based, Uses 256-bit LPDDR5X (109)
- Jun 4th 2024 Hands On with the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X "Zen 5" Desktop Processor (22)
- May 31st 2024 AMD Zen 5 Chiplet Built on 4 nm, "Granite Ridge" First Model Numbers Leaked (81)
This is actually a really pro move if they release a BIOS update for this:
1. non-pro users likely won't update their BIOS and will be more than happy with a really fast 8-core 9700X. They will also likely experience less issues with their CPU/memory/MB as a result (good for user and for manufacturers)
2. pro users will be very happy with the increased W and the power it gives.
Literally everyone is happy in such an arrangement.
They're not doing an Intel "upgrade your locked processor" for cha-ching thing here, all processors will be sold with the higher TDP.
thank you! then I'm not waiting for 9th series and upgrade myself with 7900 non X
TomgangJust makes me happy that i chose to go with zen 3. Easy to cool compared to zen 4 and maybe zen 5 and intels last 2 or 3 gen of cpu's and zips power as well compared to zen 4 and specially intel to last gen cpu's.
How are Zen3 easier to cool?
If you want a Zen3 chip to perform, you need to keep it below 75c. And that´s not what I would call easy. With a NH-D15 on a 5600X I can barely do 4700Mhz in Cinebench R23. Looping pushes the temp over 75c at the the end of the second run and the clocks drop. The 5800X is even worse and known to hit 80c+ in normal games.
If used to kill time in a GPU bound title, sure, Its not like its impossible. But these things are not designed for the purpose of killing time. In fact, its quite the opposite.
OnasiAh, the good old “crank the power up to win in benchmarks” move. I would have thought AMD would be smarter than this, but apparently not and they’ve resorted to cribbing from Intels playbook. A mistake, IMO, but seeing how a lot of people reacted in the thread about regular Zen 5 not beating X3D Zen 4 chips in gaming like that was a warcrime worthy of a Hague trial… well, the public deserves the nonsense companies pull, I suppose. Hopefully, they would leave in the old PPT settings as a pre-set option a la Eco mode.
True. There's no way this is a correct move, indeed! The thread where AMD said their "regular" CPUs would loose to X3D was quite obvious, and many, including me, thought that this is no problem. However...
TomgangJust makes me happy that i chose to go with zen 3. Easy to cool compared to zen 4 and maybe zen 5 and intels last 2 or 3 gen of cpu's and zips power as well compared to zen 4 and specially intel to last gen cpu's.
Not really. The cheaper price is for a reason. Zen3 has only the thermal and power envelope locked for safety reasons. While Zen4 is much more potent, thus the limits have been removed. Set the Zen4 power limits as Zen3, and you will have even better power consumption and clock boost. Because Zen4 CPUs are quite power efficient, and nothing of Zen3, outside fancy X3D models and the very top binned 5950X, have the performance per watt a bit worse than regular Ryzen 7000. And vice versa, if push Zen3 too high, it will give wose efficiency results, than Ze4 with similar clocks.
As fevgatos pointed out, below, the top chips, mostly the most potent, and efficient silicon. These can be pushed beyond the point of reasonability, but they operate much more efficiently, due to lower tollerances, due to having dual full CCDs, with much higher requirements. Whereas, the 12, 8 and 6 cores being the the worst quality silicon, obviously. Also, the X3D, seems cannot have the trash dies either, do to
fevgatosPower limits, or eco mode as amd calls it, shouldn't affect any of that. From my experience eco mode works perfectly fine with no issues.It is not the case that you can achieve similar performance with lower end cpus. A 7950x even at let's say 70 watts will be vastly faster than a 7700x even if you are running it at 200 watts. Not to mention much easier to cool.
Besides maximum performance, buying high end cpus like the 7950x and the 14900k is because they can be exceptionally fast while sipping power and very easy to cool
Exactly. Any CPU default/stock settings should be stability and effciency first. So that in case of some bugged firmware won't cause the savage situation, with default voltage going past 1.42V.
Everyone who want higher performance would just OC the chip, like it used to be for ages. Or just choose the power limit profile within UEFI/BIOS settings like 35W, 65W, 85W, 105W 125W... That would be really great, considering how the current AMD CPUs doing everyting auto.
SIGSEGVgenuinely asking, where is 9800X?
Where the intel i7/Ultra 7 is. AMD is copying intel's SKU naming scheme.
R0H1TWell AMD aren't the sharpest tools going around, they're going for efficiency crown in mobile/servers & literally the opposite for desktops? This race to be the next P4 or Dozer is dumb & old
This indeed looks like "netburst" deja vu.
ChomiqWhen not simply release 9800X.
Exactly. Instead of doing "4080 12GB" all over again, they should have just made another separate SKU with higher power envelope, like they did before. Where 5700X used to be 65W, and 5800X being 105. This is fallacy. They already claimed, they are not up for pushing non X3D parts, as they would lose anyway, and now.... AMD has almost completely became intel, if not worse, and for much sooner.
It makes sense, the 7700X trades blows with the 5800X3D in gaming and because of that I chose to just upgrade to AM5 rather than stick with AM4. If the 9700X just lost to the 7800X3D in gaming without any fight, there'd be little incentive to buy it unless you're looking to do non gaming tasks. I'm waiting for 9800X3D to see if it'll be worth the upgrade.
Seems like erryone runs default limits these days?
The way to get these chips to perform is by using higher power limits. It helps for higher core boosts, and higher sustained clocks across a myriad of loads.
Old news here folks :)
Depends how much this really means in the real world (In terms of power and heat). I am all for extra performance so long as it does not make the chip have too many major issues cooling it. Will be interested to see reviews especially if a bios update is required to update the chip because we may see reviews all over the place.
Brand new 8 (P) core CPUs are enthusiast parts. Setting a new enthusiast class part to 65W by default so all users building with it get that level of performance seems short-sighted. 105W seems a better fit but why did AMD set it to 65W to begin with? Do they really like this kind of press so much they just can't stop? As an RX 5600XT owner, this is last second re-think is yet another in a long line of AMinDecision.
Well at least they get there... sometimes, and if you want to run at efficiency then click 65W Eco mode if you're lazy or test in your apps and find your personal sweet spot for power-performance.
Let's not forget the 7800X3D uses less power than the 7700X yet draws way more frames. It's safe to assume the 9800X3D will be the same TDP with higher fps than 9700X. Not a fan of this large TDP increase though, the 65W thing was a great idea.
phintsNot a fan of this large TDP increase though, the 65W thing was a great idea.
Agreed.
Nobody wants to read articles on how to fix thermal throttling, but articles with titles like "The one setting in the BIOS AMD doesn't want you to know about - 5-15% free performance gains with two clicks" could have been winners.
AMD's naming is their choice but in my opinion:
9700X should be at most 105W
9800X may be 120W.
Interesting. Speaking of which, why people keep saying 7800X3D uses only 40-50W? Mine often goes to 70 and even 88. Especially while shader loading (in games) and video editing. Even during regular gaming, altho that is indeed around 45-55.
There is no point buying a non X3D processor when the X3D ones will be released not too long after. I'll keep my 7800X3D and wait for the 9 series X3D ones, hoping that there will be higher core counts cpus which can fully use the X3D cache and not a new 7950X3D which cant do it.
On something like Zen 3, 130w on a 65w part is no problem. On a 105w part like my 5900X, 250w is not a problem. On X3D it feels like I have an overpriced prebuilt :D
