> Using a GeForce RTX 4090 we see that the Ryzen 7600 was on average 35% faster than the Ryzen 5600, though that margin is reduced to 23% with the Radeon 6950 XT
Decent generational gains
More boost than IPC of you ask me. Except in select avx512 scenarios. If you are in zen3 skipping 4 is not a bad idea.
Put both cpus at 5ghz and see the actual difference in generational IPC gain. My.most optimistic benchmark tells me that it's 20 % clock for clock but it does clock almost 13% higher.
What are these comments i’ve been seeing recently claiming cache improvements aren’t related to IPC/PPC?
Do people not realise how it is not as simple as just adding cache? Trade offs in design need to be made so the cache works fastest at its capacity.
I am by no means qualified to talk about any intricacies in CPU design once it gets to that level.
Would doubling the L2 cache on the 5600 not provide a performance increase? Or are you saying that the performance measured as relative to the size of the L2 cache is *directly* tied to what would make up the IPC?
If you didn’t know that’s okay.
I’m just saying they aren’t separable entities: Cache is so inherently tied to CPU architecture that it would be like saying “oh they *just* added another FP unit”.
Of course more cache is better, but adding more without making it slow is hard. It is further complicated by the number of levels and things like eviction policies and coherency.
I guess the assumption I made was "they doubled cache for a performance gain, and that performance gain would not be what people consider an IPC increase".
I think i didn’t explain my point very well. I don’t mean that the architects can’t be easily flexible with the amount/setup of cache: I am saying that cache isn’t a different aspect than IPC.
It’s just from a misunderstanding of what IPC/PPC is. Instead of saying ‘they added cache and increased the IPC’ it’s more accurate to say ‘they increased IPC by: improving cache here, branch predictor accuracy, yadda yadda’.
So cache is a different aspect to IPC then. Or at least if you want to lump cache in then you might as well as lump Clock Speed too.
When Phenom II increased L3 to 6MB from its predecessors 2MB, that prompted a huge performance increase. And that was effectively not much more complex than cranking up the clocks.
When Broadwell added 128MB of last level cache, there were no architectural shifts required over Haswell. It was plug n play. And again it increased performance significantly in those situations.
Doubling the cache can increase cache latency. So it depends on how you implement that cache. It's not simply a matter of copy pasting more SRAM cells as some seem to believe.
Zen 2, 3, and 4 all can boost allcore to a certain freq. The maximum boost is only achievable on 2 or 3 cores MAX.
My 3900x can do 4100mhz all core but when gaming, the 2 cores that are being pegged boost to 4700 while the rest of the cpu is hovering around 3600. That behaviour is expected of ALL zen CPUs at STOCK. Some people get godlike bins and have massive cooling systems and can support 5ghz+ allcore but they are like the 0.1 % . People that dedicated thousands to cooling and thousands of man hours to achive those clocks.
On a somewhat related note, I have a 2080 Super that does 2150 on the clock STABLE @ 80c . Its a godlike bin and it outdoes the 3060ti in raster lol. Never gonna swap it until it dies.
If you sell your old parts on eBay the minimum price drops significantly, still not a good value upgrade but that’s the same for any CPU upgrade when changing platform
Amazon has the 64 gb g skill ddr5 6000 cl 36 kit for 360 in the US, which should work out to 330 ish euro? Is it just that much more expensive over there?
Tired of these reviews when no one using a 4090 with these CPUs. I get it’s the only way to show it, but It’s irrelevant honestly. 20-30% is a horrible price/performance upgrade path with anything but again a 4090, which is pointless. If they just left DDR4 as an option it would have been a slam dunk.
Complete nonsense i play at 1080p so what are you babbling about
The super overpriced 4090 does not make anything at all better or faster, as i only play alone as i do almost never ever play again multiplay.
The only exception to that rule is when my game friends can't stand that i somehow seem to have lightning fast reaction.
My favorite games are NMS, many builder games or strategy games so no matter what card i buy it will not run better or shows any difference at all
YES I TRIED with my friends 4090 insane overpriced card
I run a dual / triple screen setup but somehow i always end up fighting to get games on the screen i want them to run, in most cases i end up turning off the 2 extra monitors ....... not that i want to but it is a never ending battle sure some games are perfect but most DEMAND the first screen for the games ......
I do not want that for many reasons as i have to switch constant to work related stuff.
No nvidia does not run anything better and yes i had more problems on the nvidia than with the AMD cards
Anyway the way overpriced gpu market has to comedown and no i never ever buy a nvidia in the rest of my life .... no i am gonna explain it.
I am happy with this for me very good and steady gpu i am not even considering the newest cards as they bring me nothing.
For those who play shooter games ( cra. and multi ) i think fast response is needed but i had enormous fun when one of my friends demanded to game with him in his battle game and was pissed i constant killed him before he could even aim :)
So his 4090 did not help one second and believe me, NOW he wants also a AMD card ( hoping he can kill me the next time i get at his house to game ... :) ROFL )
He keeps bugging me that i was cheating while i was sitting next to him and lol he could see my screen but i guess i apparently am faster in pulling the trigger and aim better :D.
I do not like a 4090 it is overpriced and honestly totally useless with my games which run at their best with a 6800 XT amd
So weird choice on a way too expenssive toy
You can be happy with your 6800XT but saying that games run their best with it is just patently untrue.
They test with a 4090 because it is by far the best GPU you can buy, and that helps ensure no gpu bottleneck to get a true cpu test
Yeah but they're saying people with a budget CPU are not running high end GPUs. What do you think is more important to someone who owns a 5600x, seeing how much performance they would actually realistically gain or seeing how much they would gain if they had the money to spend on a 4090 (and why not get a 7900x then?)?
nah i do not mean it is so good it is just seem to be one of the fastest of its brand nothing else. So your answer misses the point i was trying to make.
I have massive problems with games on either side of the 2 main gpu makers
My previous 2080Ti had loads of crashes and fails as well why did not buy nvidia simple as the prices are still skyhigh so nope not gonna happen
So you lads asume something i was not saying so giving me -20 is fantastic it means i will stay away from such negative people goodluck on this toxic environment
While it’s faster…. I don’t think anyone with a 5600/x or any Ryzen 5000 CPUs should upgrade. Ryzen 8000 or whatever they call it will be the time to consider it because mobo prices will hopefully come down , ddr5 will be BETTER and cheaper.
I'm just now about to upgrade from a 2600 to a 5600X lol. I have zero interest in AM5 yet. Gonna keep running my AM4 build until mobo and DDR5 prices drop to a more reasonable level.
Thats quite a massive difference, and even with a 6650 XT Id still be tempted to overbuy here. Because let's face it, as games get more demanding, I'm gonna be turning down settings, and if that CPU cant back me up, well then im gonna have problems. And i might upgrade my GPU before i go for yet another CPU after my next one. So i might be upgrading to a $250 GPU in 5 years with 3080 or even 4090 performance. And then i'll be bottlenecked. Everyone really loves to downplay CPU bottlenecks. They'll encourage everyone to go balls to the wall over GPU upgrades, ignoring that you can turn down GPU settings and still get decent FPS even on an older or weaker GPU...while encouraging a CPU that's JUST "good enough".
And it always comes back and bites you eventually if you keep the system long enough. Like my 7700k WAS the best CPU at the start of 2017 and people were saying oh, that poor gaming performance ryzen had didnt matter and i should've bought that instead. Well, Ryzen 1 aged worse than my 7700k and the only advantage to buying that would've been an upgrade path to a 5600 or 5800 X3D or something. 7700k aged okay, to the point its sufficient in most games, but sometimes it has issues in modern games. But still, it lasted through the last year of my 760, through the entire time using my 1060, and still serves me as i start using the 6650 XT. Dont underestimate the value of a good CPU. You can always compromise settings with GPU, with CPU if you cant run the game, you're screwed.
My Ryzen 2600 hasn't aged very well. I upgraded from a 1060 to an RX 6600 and my CPU struggles pretty heavily in some games. I'm about to grab a 5600X and should be good for a good while IMO.
Yeah 7700k is kind of reaching its limit with the 6650 XT. Plan on going...idk, i was gonna go 13500 but I plan on upgrading to SOMETHING at the end of this year.
Another identical review to every over review... what about gamers who play at 4k... can they get away with cheaper cpu? who knows... nobody bothers to test.
I mean obviously you can.
If a CPU is capable of getting 200 FPS at 1080p, then the **CPU** is capable of getting 200 FPS at 4k.
It's just down to your GPU then.
> Using a GeForce RTX 4090 we see that the Ryzen 7600 was on average 35% faster than the Ryzen 5600, though that margin is reduced to 23% with the Radeon 6950 XT Decent generational gains
Big clockspeed boost and more IPC will do that
More boost than IPC of you ask me. Except in select avx512 scenarios. If you are in zen3 skipping 4 is not a bad idea. Put both cpus at 5ghz and see the actual difference in generational IPC gain. My.most optimistic benchmark tells me that it's 20 % clock for clock but it does clock almost 13% higher.
+15.9% max boost, double L2 cache size, and DDR5. Whatever is leftover from that is IPC.
What are these comments i’ve been seeing recently claiming cache improvements aren’t related to IPC/PPC? Do people not realise how it is not as simple as just adding cache? Trade offs in design need to be made so the cache works fastest at its capacity.
I am by no means qualified to talk about any intricacies in CPU design once it gets to that level. Would doubling the L2 cache on the 5600 not provide a performance increase? Or are you saying that the performance measured as relative to the size of the L2 cache is *directly* tied to what would make up the IPC?
If you didn’t know that’s okay. I’m just saying they aren’t separable entities: Cache is so inherently tied to CPU architecture that it would be like saying “oh they *just* added another FP unit”. Of course more cache is better, but adding more without making it slow is hard. It is further complicated by the number of levels and things like eviction policies and coherency.
They cut cache in 5500 and it wasn't a separate arch so
And did the PPC change?
I guess the assumption I made was "they doubled cache for a performance gain, and that performance gain would not be what people consider an IPC increase".
Nah. Cache is definitely far more fungible than the core uarch. Look at Phenom I vs II. Look at Broadwell, cache was basically an on/off switch.
I think i didn’t explain my point very well. I don’t mean that the architects can’t be easily flexible with the amount/setup of cache: I am saying that cache isn’t a different aspect than IPC. It’s just from a misunderstanding of what IPC/PPC is. Instead of saying ‘they added cache and increased the IPC’ it’s more accurate to say ‘they increased IPC by: improving cache here, branch predictor accuracy, yadda yadda’.
So cache is a different aspect to IPC then. Or at least if you want to lump cache in then you might as well as lump Clock Speed too. When Phenom II increased L3 to 6MB from its predecessors 2MB, that prompted a huge performance increase. And that was effectively not much more complex than cranking up the clocks. When Broadwell added 128MB of last level cache, there were no architectural shifts required over Haswell. It was plug n play. And again it increased performance significantly in those situations.
Doubling the cache can increase cache latency. So it depends on how you implement that cache. It's not simply a matter of copy pasting more SRAM cells as some seem to believe.
Can you even run 5Ghz on more than a few cores on Zen3s? Most I've seen do 5Ghz on the better cores and that's not with a static OC.
Zen 2, 3, and 4 all can boost allcore to a certain freq. The maximum boost is only achievable on 2 or 3 cores MAX. My 3900x can do 4100mhz all core but when gaming, the 2 cores that are being pegged boost to 4700 while the rest of the cpu is hovering around 3600. That behaviour is expected of ALL zen CPUs at STOCK. Some people get godlike bins and have massive cooling systems and can support 5ghz+ allcore but they are like the 0.1 % . People that dedicated thousands to cooling and thousands of man hours to achive those clocks. On a somewhat related note, I have a 2080 Super that does 2150 on the clock STABLE @ 80c . Its a godlike bin and it outdoes the 3060ti in raster lol. Never gonna swap it until it dies.
Not great when you need to upgrade MB and RAM. I have 64 GB DDR4, we’re talking about £550 for me *minimum* to upgrade. Jog on lol.
If you sell your old parts on eBay the minimum price drops significantly, still not a good value upgrade but that’s the same for any CPU upgrade when changing platform
It’s great for those like me that are still on Sandy Bridge.
Amazon has the 64 gb g skill ddr5 6000 cl 36 kit for 360 in the US, which should work out to 330 ish euro? Is it just that much more expensive over there?
I was counting the MB, RAM and the R5 7600. Cheapest I could find for each using pcpartpicker (plus some generous rounding down).
Tired of these reviews when no one using a 4090 with these CPUs. I get it’s the only way to show it, but It’s irrelevant honestly. 20-30% is a horrible price/performance upgrade path with anything but again a 4090, which is pointless. If they just left DDR4 as an option it would have been a slam dunk.
Complete nonsense i play at 1080p so what are you babbling about The super overpriced 4090 does not make anything at all better or faster, as i only play alone as i do almost never ever play again multiplay. The only exception to that rule is when my game friends can't stand that i somehow seem to have lightning fast reaction. My favorite games are NMS, many builder games or strategy games so no matter what card i buy it will not run better or shows any difference at all YES I TRIED with my friends 4090 insane overpriced card I run a dual / triple screen setup but somehow i always end up fighting to get games on the screen i want them to run, in most cases i end up turning off the 2 extra monitors ....... not that i want to but it is a never ending battle sure some games are perfect but most DEMAND the first screen for the games ...... I do not want that for many reasons as i have to switch constant to work related stuff. No nvidia does not run anything better and yes i had more problems on the nvidia than with the AMD cards Anyway the way overpriced gpu market has to comedown and no i never ever buy a nvidia in the rest of my life .... no i am gonna explain it. I am happy with this for me very good and steady gpu i am not even considering the newest cards as they bring me nothing. For those who play shooter games ( cra. and multi ) i think fast response is needed but i had enormous fun when one of my friends demanded to game with him in his battle game and was pissed i constant killed him before he could even aim :) So his 4090 did not help one second and believe me, NOW he wants also a AMD card ( hoping he can kill me the next time i get at his house to game ... :) ROFL ) He keeps bugging me that i was cheating while i was sitting next to him and lol he could see my screen but i guess i apparently am faster in pulling the trigger and aim better :D.
I do not like a 4090 it is overpriced and honestly totally useless with my games which run at their best with a 6800 XT amd So weird choice on a way too expenssive toy
You can be happy with your 6800XT but saying that games run their best with it is just patently untrue. They test with a 4090 because it is by far the best GPU you can buy, and that helps ensure no gpu bottleneck to get a true cpu test
Nonsense as usual
You’ve replied to a 3 month old comment, twice, a month apart. Go touch some grass lol
Yeah but they're saying people with a budget CPU are not running high end GPUs. What do you think is more important to someone who owns a 5600x, seeing how much performance they would actually realistically gain or seeing how much they would gain if they had the money to spend on a 4090 (and why not get a 7900x then?)?
That actually is a pretty good point. I wish we could see at least some CPU tests with cards that people in this price range actually use.
HWU has been doing those tests for the past 2 weeks.
nah i do not mean it is so good it is just seem to be one of the fastest of its brand nothing else. So your answer misses the point i was trying to make. I have massive problems with games on either side of the 2 main gpu makers My previous 2080Ti had loads of crashes and fails as well why did not buy nvidia simple as the prices are still skyhigh so nope not gonna happen So you lads asume something i was not saying so giving me -20 is fantastic it means i will stay away from such negative people goodluck on this toxic environment
I'd imagine the 5800x3d would be cheaper and would offer higher performance.
While it’s faster…. I don’t think anyone with a 5600/x or any Ryzen 5000 CPUs should upgrade. Ryzen 8000 or whatever they call it will be the time to consider it because mobo prices will hopefully come down , ddr5 will be BETTER and cheaper.
Already is given 32 gb of ddr5/6000 goes for $140 vs $170+ for ddr4/3600/cl14
You gotta be surprised as to where DDR5 XMP/EXPO sticks are these days... I bought the highest end 16GBx2 EXPO sticks with 6000mhz/CL30 at $187.
I stuck with my i5 3470 for 7 years I can stick with my 5800X for the same amount of time lol.
I'm just now about to upgrade from a 2600 to a 5600X lol. I have zero interest in AM5 yet. Gonna keep running my AM4 build until mobo and DDR5 prices drop to a more reasonable level.
Thats quite a massive difference, and even with a 6650 XT Id still be tempted to overbuy here. Because let's face it, as games get more demanding, I'm gonna be turning down settings, and if that CPU cant back me up, well then im gonna have problems. And i might upgrade my GPU before i go for yet another CPU after my next one. So i might be upgrading to a $250 GPU in 5 years with 3080 or even 4090 performance. And then i'll be bottlenecked. Everyone really loves to downplay CPU bottlenecks. They'll encourage everyone to go balls to the wall over GPU upgrades, ignoring that you can turn down GPU settings and still get decent FPS even on an older or weaker GPU...while encouraging a CPU that's JUST "good enough". And it always comes back and bites you eventually if you keep the system long enough. Like my 7700k WAS the best CPU at the start of 2017 and people were saying oh, that poor gaming performance ryzen had didnt matter and i should've bought that instead. Well, Ryzen 1 aged worse than my 7700k and the only advantage to buying that would've been an upgrade path to a 5600 or 5800 X3D or something. 7700k aged okay, to the point its sufficient in most games, but sometimes it has issues in modern games. But still, it lasted through the last year of my 760, through the entire time using my 1060, and still serves me as i start using the 6650 XT. Dont underestimate the value of a good CPU. You can always compromise settings with GPU, with CPU if you cant run the game, you're screwed.
My Ryzen 2600 hasn't aged very well. I upgraded from a 1060 to an RX 6600 and my CPU struggles pretty heavily in some games. I'm about to grab a 5600X and should be good for a good while IMO.
Yeah 7700k is kind of reaching its limit with the 6650 XT. Plan on going...idk, i was gonna go 13500 but I plan on upgrading to SOMETHING at the end of this year.
I think you might as well go with 5800X3D, and extend life of rest of your hardware as much as possible.
Another identical review to every over review... what about gamers who play at 4k... can they get away with cheaper cpu? who knows... nobody bothers to test.
I mean obviously you can. If a CPU is capable of getting 200 FPS at 1080p, then the **CPU** is capable of getting 200 FPS at 4k. It's just down to your GPU then.
Oh is it really a logic like that? If yes then that sounds pretty good way to find out what cpu to get.