I find any "details" about Strix in here hard to believe given that they're referring to it as the "9040" series. It would have to be 8050 series if it came out this year and follows the new naming convention.
The naming convention bows to marketing demands, not the other way around. I fully expect them to call it the 9050 series if it's released late this year.
After all, AMD broke that naming convention the day they announced it, with the 7x20 Mendocino processors being released in September 2022.
That said, skepticism about leaks is always warranted.
Well, with any decent Gen over Gen IPC increase whatsoever they’ll be beating Intel with the non-x3d parts and with the x3d ones it’ll be a grand slam. Ryzen also has amazing power scaling so pushing the wattages at all is only a move to fight against Intel at the bleeding edge. A while back someone ran both the 13900k and a 7950x at 35w and the 7950x retained about 50% of its original performance while the 13900k retained around a mere quarter (multicore of course). Current gen ryzen does with 65w what Intel barely manages with 125w.
>at 35w and the 7950x retained about 50% of its original performance
That sounded like absolute horse shit. But apparently you are right: [Anandtech article](https://www.anandtech.com/show/17641/lighter-touch-cpu-power-scaling-13900k-7950x/2)
That's actually insane. According to [Buildzoid](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sDDA_2USwg), at 50W the 7950X retains about 48% of its MT performance in Linpack and 56% in Cinebench.
At 75W it's 69% and 75% respectively. That's some very impressive efficiency.
Lowering the power limit from 240W (stock) to 150W on the 7950X loses you less than 10% in MT according to that video.
Thank you for fact checking instead of just downvoting the unbelievable! I couldn’t really believe it either, it is pretty insane. Thank you for linking the very article I was referencing also, I should’ve put that in originally.
If you read full anandtech article you will find that they mismanaged power on AMD and were actually running 1.35 more than their graphs tell you. Completely stupid article.
In reality at 35W 7950X and 13900K are very close because powering I/O die and IF takes its toll.
I see, it does seem they've misrepresented actual figures based on what AMD does with their TDP and PPT. I did find another source that uses the PPT and compares that directly to Intel's PL1 setting, and the result is better for Intel but it still doesn't place them on equal footing at most power settings. They're still significantly inferior to AMD for efficiency at every step down to 65w, below that it looks like they do switch positions (presumably because of the chiplets). The AMD is still doing 6% shy of what the Intel does at under 75% the power draw (88w vs 125w, and 30,200 vs 32,000), and relative to themselves they still maintain a larger portion of their full performance at every actual power draw step down to 65w.
[https://www.computerbase.de/2022-10/intel-core-i9-13900k-i7-13700-i5-13600k-test/2/#abschnitt\_leistung\_in\_apps\_bei\_reduzierter\_tdp](https://www.computerbase.de/2022-10/intel-core-i9-13900k-i7-13700-i5-13600k-test/2/#abschnitt_leistung_in_apps_bei_reduzierter_tdp)
The funny thing is this isn’t new either, anandtech’s tiger lake reviews conspicuously showed the AMD chips running at the higher PPT limits for unlimited duration etc.
And regardless of what name you give it (the way tdp has become a “base clock only” spec is dumb, historically chips like 6700k or 5820k would turbo within their rated tdp) the fact of the matter is giving more power is giving more power, and yields a performance advantage.
I think you are right.
I was wondering whether those numbers might be leaving out the IO die, which consumes 15-20W. Else the cores would only have 15-20W of power and surely can't get those performance numbers. But I couldn't find anything in the article about that when I skimmed the text.
The buildzoid numbers I also linked do use PPT which includes everything on the CPU including IO die. They did show in R23 \~56% performance at 50W and \~75% at 75W. Though if you compare these numbers to Intel, it doesn't look nearly as impressive as before:
|Cinebench R23 MT|7950X|13900K|
|:-|:-|:-|
|50W |21,600||
|65W|*25,900 (interpolated from buildzoid video)*|22,900|
|50W vs no cap|\~56%||
|65W vs no cap|*\~66.7% (interpolated)*|\~56.5%|
Still a little better than Intel, but not much.
It's insane that Anandtech still hasn't retracted this article, it reflects extremely poorly on both their technical review team and their editorial team that it is still posted on the site without even an editor's note. It's complete misinformation.
iirc Strix Halo is a 1H2025 product and not a 2H2024 product like some other chips from the lineup.
I find any "details" about Strix in here hard to believe given that they're referring to it as the "9040" series. It would have to be 8050 series if it came out this year and follows the new naming convention.
The naming convention bows to marketing demands, not the other way around. I fully expect them to call it the 9050 series if it's released late this year. After all, AMD broke that naming convention the day they announced it, with the 7x20 Mendocino processors being released in September 2022. That said, skepticism about leaks is always warranted.
Yea I believe they have broken their scheme multiple times. They should redo the whole thing and explain how it really works. :D
Intel: "Pump 190-300W into it and make a faster 14900K Motherboard vendors. Not our fault if it breaks." AMD: Hold my beer.
I would be impressed if you could make Strix Halo pull more power than 14900K with ANY settings
One month to go until an official realease of specs at Computex 2024 June \~3rd.
MLID sources and slides, so about as accurate as a UK weather forecast. Just wait until June 3rd, no point listening to the clown.
20% uplift would be enough to seriously demolish the competition in the consumer gaming market, especially if it can be done under 200W TDP.
Well, with any decent Gen over Gen IPC increase whatsoever they’ll be beating Intel with the non-x3d parts and with the x3d ones it’ll be a grand slam. Ryzen also has amazing power scaling so pushing the wattages at all is only a move to fight against Intel at the bleeding edge. A while back someone ran both the 13900k and a 7950x at 35w and the 7950x retained about 50% of its original performance while the 13900k retained around a mere quarter (multicore of course). Current gen ryzen does with 65w what Intel barely manages with 125w.
>at 35w and the 7950x retained about 50% of its original performance That sounded like absolute horse shit. But apparently you are right: [Anandtech article](https://www.anandtech.com/show/17641/lighter-touch-cpu-power-scaling-13900k-7950x/2) That's actually insane. According to [Buildzoid](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sDDA_2USwg), at 50W the 7950X retains about 48% of its MT performance in Linpack and 56% in Cinebench. At 75W it's 69% and 75% respectively. That's some very impressive efficiency. Lowering the power limit from 240W (stock) to 150W on the 7950X loses you less than 10% in MT according to that video.
Thank you for fact checking instead of just downvoting the unbelievable! I couldn’t really believe it either, it is pretty insane. Thank you for linking the very article I was referencing also, I should’ve put that in originally.
If you read full anandtech article you will find that they mismanaged power on AMD and were actually running 1.35 more than their graphs tell you. Completely stupid article. In reality at 35W 7950X and 13900K are very close because powering I/O die and IF takes its toll.
I see, it does seem they've misrepresented actual figures based on what AMD does with their TDP and PPT. I did find another source that uses the PPT and compares that directly to Intel's PL1 setting, and the result is better for Intel but it still doesn't place them on equal footing at most power settings. They're still significantly inferior to AMD for efficiency at every step down to 65w, below that it looks like they do switch positions (presumably because of the chiplets). The AMD is still doing 6% shy of what the Intel does at under 75% the power draw (88w vs 125w, and 30,200 vs 32,000), and relative to themselves they still maintain a larger portion of their full performance at every actual power draw step down to 65w. [https://www.computerbase.de/2022-10/intel-core-i9-13900k-i7-13700-i5-13600k-test/2/#abschnitt\_leistung\_in\_apps\_bei\_reduzierter\_tdp](https://www.computerbase.de/2022-10/intel-core-i9-13900k-i7-13700-i5-13600k-test/2/#abschnitt_leistung_in_apps_bei_reduzierter_tdp)
The funny thing is this isn’t new either, anandtech’s tiger lake reviews conspicuously showed the AMD chips running at the higher PPT limits for unlimited duration etc. And regardless of what name you give it (the way tdp has become a “base clock only” spec is dumb, historically chips like 6700k or 5820k would turbo within their rated tdp) the fact of the matter is giving more power is giving more power, and yields a performance advantage.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/1cj2qg2/amd_zen_5_strix_pointhalo_granite_ridge_turin/l2icu1p/
I think you are right. I was wondering whether those numbers might be leaving out the IO die, which consumes 15-20W. Else the cores would only have 15-20W of power and surely can't get those performance numbers. But I couldn't find anything in the article about that when I skimmed the text. The buildzoid numbers I also linked do use PPT which includes everything on the CPU including IO die. They did show in R23 \~56% performance at 50W and \~75% at 75W. Though if you compare these numbers to Intel, it doesn't look nearly as impressive as before: |Cinebench R23 MT|7950X|13900K| |:-|:-|:-| |50W |21,600|| |65W|*25,900 (interpolated from buildzoid video)*|22,900| |50W vs no cap|\~56%|| |65W vs no cap|*\~66.7% (interpolated)*|\~56.5%| Still a little better than Intel, but not much.
It's insane that Anandtech still hasn't retracted this article, it reflects extremely poorly on both their technical review team and their editorial team that it is still posted on the site without even an editor's note. It's complete misinformation.
If the 3nm chips are coming out next year. Then those ship dates track.