guru3d AMD Official Zen 5 Reveal

[UltraMega]

Quote

AMD is set to release the ZEN5 architecture based Ryzen 9 9950X, its flagship processor in July, which will feature 16 cores and 32 threads, achieving boost speeds up to 5.7 GHz. Uniquely, this processor will operate with a Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 170 watts and will include 80MB of total cache. The Ryzen 9 9950X will feature 16 Zen5 cores, reaching a maximum clock speed of 5.7 GHz, and will include an 80MB combined L2 and L3 cache. It will also incorporate a 2 Compute Unit (CU) RDNA2 integrated graphics and have a Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 170 watts.

 

The Ryzen 9 9900X, another high-end SKU, will offer 12 cores and 24 threads with a boost capability of up to 5.6 GHz. It will have a reduced TDP of 120 watts compared to its predecessor and include 76MB of cache, marking a significant adjustment in power efficiency. Both of these Ryzen 9 models maintain the core count and clock speeds seen in the preceding Zen4 series but show enhancements in energy consumption and thermal management. This indicates AMD's ongoing commitment to improving power efficiency without sacrificing performance.

 

Further down the lineup, the Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 5 9600X are also confirmed, featuring 8 and 6 Zen5 cores respectively. The 9700X will operate at up to 5.5 GHz with a 40MB cache and a TDP of 65 watts, while the 9600X will have a max clock of 5.4 GHz, a 38MB cache, and the same 65 watts TDP. All processors in this series will support AMD's AM5 socket platform. In addition to the processors, AMD is expected to launch new X870 and B850 motherboards that will accommodate the AM5 socket. These new boards are anticipated to debut at the Computex event, where AMD will likely showcase them alongside the new CPU series. This event will also see the unveiling of the Intel Z890 series, indicating a significant period for advancements in desktop computing hardware.

 

The adjustments in TDP across the new Ryzen models, with reductions ranging from 40 to 50 watts compared to their predecessors, point towards improved power efficiency—a key focus in the latest generation of AMD processors. These developments suggest that AMD is continuing to prioritize enhancements in performance and efficiency to maintain competitiveness with other leading chip manufacturers.

https://www.guru3d.com/review/amd-announces-ryzen-9950x-9900x-9700x-9600x-processors-zen5/

 

 

 

 

 

Happy to see lower TDPs on some of these chips. The 9600x and 9700x will probably run fine on a standard 120mm air cooler. 

Edited June 3 by UltraMega

[Sir Beregond]

Definitely feels like Zen 2 to Zen 3. Similar or same clocks as Zen 4, but higher IPC and efficiency gain. Very similar to the Zen 2 to Zen 3 move. Overall, good to see. Also liking to see the lower TDP numbers for the 9900X and 9700X.

 

That said, I imagine a lot of gamers will be waiting for the 9800X3D.

 

Interesting that they didn't talk price yet. 

Edited June 3 by Sir Beregond

[ENTERPRISE]

Until the X3D variants release, anyone on an X3D on Zen4 should wait as there is IMHO nothing worth upgrading to.

[Sir Beregond]

14 minutes ago, ENTERPRISE said:

Until the X3D variants release, anyone on an X3D on Zen4 should wait as there is IMHO nothing worth upgrading to.

Will be interested to see if they do a split-CCD style X3D on the Ryzen 9 SKUs again. I really was not a fan of that. Made the 7900X3D a particularly puzzling part as its functionally worse than a 7800X3D in gaming / loads that make use of the added cache but parks the cores on the 2nd CCD.

[ENTERPRISE]

Just now, Sir Beregond said:

Will be interested to see if they do a split-CCD style X3D on the Ryzen 9 SKUs again. I really was not a fan of that. Made the 7900X3D a particularly puzzling part as its functionally worse than a 7800X3D in gaming / loads that make use of the added cache but parks the cores on the 2nd CCD.

 

I would prefer it if they kept it to one CCD as well to avoid the latency penalty, I guess we will know in the near future.

[Sir Beregond]

2 minutes ago, ENTERPRISE said:

 

I would prefer it if they kept it to one CCD as well to avoid the latency penalty, I guess we will know in the near future.

I also decided that I'd prefer a part that has 8-core CCDs for that latency penalty reason. What I don't know yet is which. I really have no use for a 9950X/X3D so my guess is I'll opt for a 9800X3D to replace my 5900X.

 

Also interested to see what Arrow Lake bring, but I have a hunch I'll end up AMD again for the daily rig.

[UltraMega]

1 hour ago, ENTERPRISE said:

Until the X3D variants release, anyone on an X3D on Zen4 should wait as there is IMHO nothing worth upgrading to.

I actually prefer the 65w CPUs because the thermals are soooo much better. Top tier performance is obvious great for anyone who wants that, but IMO the X700 CPUs like the 5700x and 7700 are the real winners for AM4 and AM5 right now. 

 

All those prebuilds I made a while back had either 5700x or 7700 CPUs, all had standard $25 120mm coolers and all ran with great temps. 

[neurotix]

I'm sick of my 7900X3D not boosting on the 2nd CCD, making my benchmark scores way lower. I will be picking up the 9900X to replace it and it better damn well boost as well as be stable (though I don't have problems with stability currently).

[Fluxmaven]

Nice to see the lower TDP's.

 

I'll probably wait until fall of next year and decide between the 9900X or 9800X3D to replace the 5900X. It'll probably just come down to what sort of deals Microcenter wants to tempt me with. 

 

I've already had a 3900X, 5900X, and 7900X. So part of me wants to keep the Ryzen 9 tradition going... Then I go upstairs and use the 7800X3D rig. 

[bridgypoo]

4 hours ago, neurotix said:

I will be picking up the 9900X to replace it and it better damn well boost as well as be stable (though I don't have problems with stability currently).

hate to break it to you, amd of course covering their asses after we've complained to high hell:

 

given this, id rather wait and see what the first batch of chips yield and then we can figure out what to do. as you said, it's stable now and much more practical versus just a single need for boosting.

 

i care more about the stability and longevity versus boosting. not just saying that. i understand I'm prolly going against the grain with the motto of the website but we have a pretty decent chip in there now that's being air cooled.

Edited June 4 by bridgypoo

[Sir Beregond]

27 minutes ago, bridgypoo said:

hate to break it to you, amd of course covering their asses after we've complained to high hell:

 

given this, id rather wait and see what the first batch of chips yield and then we can figure out what to do. as you said, it's stable now and much more practical versus just a single need for boosting.

 

i care more about the stability and longevity versus boosting. not just saying that. i understand I'm prolly going against the grain with the motto of the website but we have a pretty decent chip in there now that's being air cooled.

There's nothing wrong with that. 

 

Unless you have a specific BIOS feature that lets you dynamically switch between the two based on load, you pretty much either choose lower all-core OC, or PBO+CO to take advantage of maximum single core boosts.

[bridgypoo]

5 minutes ago, Sir Beregond said:

There's nothing wrong with that. 

 

Unless you have a specific BIOS feature that lets you dynamically switch between the two based on load, you pretty much either choose lower all-core OC, or PBO+CO to take advantage of maximum single core boosts.

I'll admit that overclocking is DEFINITELY my kryptonite... but i have a feeling neuro will want to buy one of the first batches of chips since he's been dealing with the 2nd ccd not boosting for over a year. but the chip has also been stable for over a year too. I'm like flux and want to just wait.

 

[Sir Beregond]

15 minutes ago, bridgypoo said:

I'll admit that overclocking is DEFINITELY my kryptonite... but i have a feeling neuro will want to buy one of the first batches of chips since he's been dealing with the 2nd ccd not boosting for over a year. but the chip has also been stable for over a year too. I'm like flux and want to just wait.

 

Yeah I'm content to wait until the Micro Center deals start really going.

[Snakecharmed]

6 hours ago, neurotix said:

I'm sick of my 7900X3D not boosting on the 2nd CCD, making my benchmark scores way lower. I will be picking up the 9900X to replace it and it better damn well boost as well as be stable (though I don't have problems with stability currently).

To be honest, I'm surprised you went with the 7900X3D in the first place, since that was the 7000 series CPU that reviewers recommended not to buy. It either functions as a 6-core X3D CPU or a slower all-core 7900X, so it was a compromise on both ends of the gaming-productivity spectrum.

 

I don't foresee stability being an issue for a non-X3D CPU. If anything, it's been fun trying to find the undervolt limits of the 7900X at the 105W Eco threshold to maximize benchmark performance at that power limit. At some point in the future when I have the time or desire, I may delve into the memory overclocking which seems to produce more meaningful performance results anyway.

[Snakecharmed]

I don't see myself going for this generation since my rig is the least of my concerns for the first time in years, but 9950X/3D would be the move for me among the Zen 5 chips. Maybe AMD will do something better with the dual-CCD X3D chips this generation, but I doubt it. They're going to wait until Intel stops Sideshow Bobbing over rakes before they engineer something stronger for gaming than a Ryzen 7 ?800X3D.

[Sir Beregond]

8 hours ago, Snakecharmed said:

To be honest, I'm surprised you went with the 7900X3D in the first place, since that was the 7000 series CPU that reviewers recommended not to buy. It either functions as a 6-core X3D CPU or a slower all-core 7900X, so it was a compromise on both ends of the gaming-productivity spectrum.

 

I don't foresee stability being an issue for a non-X3D CPU. If anything, it's been fun trying to find the undervolt limits of the 7900X at the 105W Eco threshold to maximize benchmark performance at that power limit. At some point in the future when I have the time or desire, I may delve into the memory overclocking which seems to produce more meaningful performance results anyway.

I can't speak for Zen 4, but non-X3D Zen 3 loves tuned memory.

[neurotix]

15 hours ago, Snakecharmed said:

To be honest, I'm surprised you went with the 7900X3D in the first place, since that was the 7000 series CPU that reviewers recommended not to buy. It either functions as a 6-core X3D CPU or a slower all-core 7900X, so it was a compromise on both ends of the gaming-productivity spectrum.

 

I don't foresee stability being an issue for a non-X3D CPU. If anything, it's been fun trying to find the undervolt limits of the 7900X at the 105W Eco threshold to maximize benchmark performance at that power limit. At some point in the future when I have the time or desire, I may delve into the memory overclocking which seems to produce more meaningful performance results anyway.

 

I didn't read reviews, I had a 3900x and a 5900x so I didn't want to lose cores going to a 7800X3D and the 7950X3D was too expensive.

 

18 hours ago, bridgypoo said:

hate to break it to you, amd of course covering their asses after we've complained to high hell:

 

given this, id rather wait and see what the first batch of chips yield and then we can figure out what to do. as you said, it's stable now and much more practical versus just a single need for boosting.

 

i care more about the stability and longevity versus boosting. not just saying that. i understand I'm prolly going against the grain with the motto of the website but we have a pretty decent chip in there now that's being air cooled.

 

My rig is not air cooled sweetie. It's got a 360mm AIO and the best one on the market. So if we're talking about just CPU cooling, it's water cooled.

[neurotix]

So what I'm curious about is: is this actual Zen 5 or is it just Zen 4+? My current 7900X3D is 5nm, will the 9900x be on a smaller node? If it's not then its probably just Zen 4+ like the 3000 series had the 5000 series. It might only be a very incremental improvement if it's still 5nm.

 

EDIT: looked it up and Zen 5 is on N4P TSMC. 1nm less than what I have and only a 15% performance boost. Reminds me of Intel with all the early i7s. It's probably not worth the money for me.

Edited June 8 by neurotix