People don't understand how INCREDIBLE ZEN4 is 

1) Apple A15 core has 62% higher IPC than Zen 3 ..... this means A15 will have 42% higher IPC than Zen 4 2) ARM Cortex X3 (new this year) has 29% higher IPC than Zen 3 ... means X3 will have 14% higher IPC than Zen 4 3) both Apple and license Cortex X3 cores are pure 64-bit only .... no 32-bit compatibility, saves transistors and simplifies development for max 64-bit performance 4) both Apple and X3 are monster wide cores: 6x ALU + 2x Branch Units = 8-wide scalar integer engine 5) Intel and AMD are just 5-wide speed demons (Zen 3 has 4x ALU + 1x Branch, Intel Golden Cove has 5x ALU with branch units shared on them) 6) L1i cache for Apple A15 is humongous 192 kB, Cortex X3 has 64 kB ....... AMD Zen 3 and Intel has 32 kB (necessary tax for high GHz) 7) Zen 3 is great because it's last Jim Keller"s design (basically it's improved K12 core, the famous taped out but canceled core) 8) In the video the idea of passive cooled 16-core 7950X is nonsense. 170W TDP / 230W PPT CPU to be passive cooled to fight Apple Studio? C'ommon. Wet dream of AMD fanboys. Even Apple cannot passive cool 16-core M1 Ultra (Apple core uses 5 W each in compare to 20 W for AMD and Intel). Technically impossible. BTW do no forget that first SERVER CPU at 5nm TSMC is 64-core monolith AWS Graviton 3 based on license ARM Neoverse V1 core (derived from consumer core Cortex X1). Also Graviton 3 uses much advanced packaging than AMD - G3 uses 7 chiplets close tight together to minimize power consumption. Phoronix benchmarks shows higher performance than 64-core Zen 3 Epyc while having TDP 100W only (EPYC has 280W TDP). Pretty amazing for such an old V1 core from 2020. New server V2 core based on X3 will massacre any x86 server CPU. www.phoronix.com/review/graviton3-amd-intel/9 semianalysis.substack.com/p/amazon-graviton-3-uses-chiplets-and

@@arm-power that’s a lot of IPC! Can it play my games? 🙃

@@conorabc Sure, ARM is great for gaming. More than 50% gaming revenue comes from mobile gaming platforms = ARM CPU. Also Nintendo Switch uses ARM Cortex A57 core (64-bit ARMv8 ISA). MS and Sony want release mobile consoles too = ARM only. x86 is no go for mobile.

@@conorabc Also, GPU Immortalis released this year supports RAY-TRACING. AMD Radeon 6000 with ray-tracing was released March 2021. Only one year later ARM GPU Immortalis got ray-tracing support too. Pretty cool stuff.

@@arm-power 1) No, it doesn't. Not worth responding to the rest.

Any bets on the next quarter.

AMD is leading the processor industry now, and Zen 4 is the industry-first processors using 5nm process. AI chip ban to China will impact Nvidia Q3 revenue by about $400 millions, but AMD said it does not have any material impact on its revenue forecast.

I think we all know what you meant @Charles Chen, but you should correct that "AND" to "AMD" of course so a non-native speaker may understand

Xilinx helped

I know I've had no regrets on my 5950x and 6900xt system... seems every driver update lately unlocks more performance... crazy gains in some games.

⭐🌄🌅🤔

texcore

I on the other hand find him very credible :-D

Grass is green, water is wet. Now give me my coretex points/likes.

people dont understand how INCREDIBLE the ddr5 rams and am5 motherboards prices is.

That's a good idea, especially with DirectStorage, DDR5, and other stuff falling into place.

You think version,it will be only one 7700x3d /7800x3d because others don't have point because of high price snd lower productivity performance and gaming will be same amongst them

it's so tempting but even my 11900 will last me years to come. Will wait for sale or 3D one's. with clock speeds that high I don't have to OC anymore.

@@Mr11ESSE111 we most likely will get a 7800x3d

And don't forget Navi32 which will also launch 2023 Q1 and will be very interesting price performance wise.

I am your subscriber 🥳

14:30 valid point

Best romance tech on RU-vid.

Not a dry seat in the house.

Console contracts basically saved them from bankruptcy. I remember when it was announced I basically fistpumped in the air and predicted with relative accuracy that in 5 years it'll pay off, which it did with Ryzen coming out with Lisa Su at the helm. I remember being ridiculed and called delusional in every comments section, forum post or discussion. I still keep in touch with some of them and don't hesitate to rub it in their faces that blind fanboyism (of Intel at the time) completely blinds their perspective of the bigger picture and how companies operate and how certain decisions can make a night and day difference. Having that permanent steady income stream parallel to PC components is that cushion that will absorb heavy blows and feed steady income giving them more money to invest aggressively into R&D when they couldn't before.

Fusion didn't work except for some nice low end APU like Llano, Richland and X Box & PS which saved the company. There's basic problems: 1) performance gfx likes bandwidth but a CPU with support for quad channel RAM is expensive. So we suffer split address space with data copied over the PCIE bus. 2) power requirements make heat, it's easier & cheaper to cool 2 seperate 100W & 200W chips, than one 300W die.

@@egonieser I remember the relief, Intel had tried to force Itanic and build an absolute monopoly by the partner program locking AMD out of OEMs. The general public didn't realise they were being offered inferior products or why.

@@RobBCactive TL;DR all I really should have typed is that Intel followed AMD into unification territory and did fine with it for years. From adopting UHD into their socket while AMD still needed external graphics, to experimenting with layers of hybrid storage during a period when RAM cost too much and HDDs were too slow. AMD is only now making integrated graphics a standard feature despite having a head start on APU design. You can skip everything else that I typed below. Xbox One X sure drew plenty of power, something averaging about double what the Series X pulls. Approaching 150-180W package power, not total system power. Fused resources have been in development this entire time, features like BAR and peer-to-peer DMA and storage accelerators. And now that we are seeing 3D cache layering finally come out, and renewed interest in small HBM caches, it could soon be possible to have an APU that uses GDDR6 without the large penalties seen on those 4700S systems. All they need is enough onboard cache and aggressive prefetching to cover for those crippling latencies, that's why Radeons have Infinity Cache. They took a forward-looking approach that required a crazy amount of changes in the ecosystem, and somehow survived long enough to start gaining some benefits from the approach. Their new compute cards work on the APU model, and the new Ryzen 7000s will all follow basic APU principles because the graphics are part of system IO now. Llano was absurdly good if you undervolted, you could maintain 3GHz all-core load on a good A8 APU. Trinity and Bulldozer specifically were the things that almost killed the company, call it their Pentium 4 spiral of mistakes. And just as Pentium M led to the development of Core, AMD went back to the drawing board and tried to undo a platform that had no future. What we're seeing now are diminishing returns from higher wattage being weighed against the increased price of a larger die area. If people in certain market segments pay for the larger die, AMD can deliver 40-50% more performance without increasing wattage. Intel is still scaling in a more linear way at the high end, but their performance drops like a rock going into lower wattage. The newly launched U series proves that everything is the same fundamental technology and Intel *can't* optimize better for low wattage. Question now is whether Ryzen 7000 scales enough at the high end, not the low end. For anything below the most extreme performance segments, APUs will probably take over just as full-tour SoCs are now the standard for mobile devices. Consolidation is always a win for the system integrator, fewer external lanes and traces.

@@passintogracegoldenyearnin6310 The Intel iGPU were not the Fusion vision, some media encode/decode blocks and weak gfx with added dGPU wasn't the Fusion idea. It was unified address space for gfx, yes;. but it was offloaded GPU compute. Intel added evermore AVX instructions instead and failed to scale their iGPU with improved GPU architecture. Even the Quicksync success became less important as quality requirements changed. The only Intel APU are those Iris with the expensive EDRAM caches.

ROB sizes of competitors: - Apple A14/M1 .... 620 entry - Intel Alder Lake ... 512 entry - ARM Cortex X3 ... 320 entry (same as Zen4) IPC = GB5 score per GHz: - Apple A14/M1 .... 42% higher than Zen 4 - Intel Alder Lake ... 3% lower than Zen 4 - ARM Cortex X3 ... 14% higher than Zen 4 - ARM has support for 2048-bit vectors (SVE2 SIMD) - both Apple and X3 are 64-bit only (no single transistor wasted for old 32-bit garbage) 1st 5nm consumer CPU was Apple A14 (ARMv8 ISA) 1st 5nm server CPU was 64-core Graviton 3 (ARMv8 ISA + SVE SIMD, license Neoverse V1 core, similar to Cortex X1 core) 1st monolithic 128-core was Ampere Altra Max at 7nm TSMC (ARMv8 ISA, license Neoverse N1 core, similar to Cortex A76 core) 1st super-computer CPU-only which was beating GPU-based super-computers: ARM based Japanese Fugaku (52-core Fujitsu A64FX CPU, ARMv8 ISA + 2x512-bit SVE, 7nm TSMC) -------------------------------------------- Make your own conclusion.

@@arm-power Ultimately it is all about the performance for the much used applications. If anything we should be happy that with all the progress which AMD made it pushed Intel to finally make some progress again too. However it pans out, there is competition and the prices can decrease. Win for us! Though right now I am not in the market for Intel for the simple reason that Intel does not support Linux yet with Alder Lake, Intel made a mess by not using acpi the way it is intended to be used. I am sure that that will get solved before I buy a new CPU though. :) I have a 3700X and 5700 XT, first I want to upgrade the graphics card. I consider buying a 5800X3D if the price comes down (like €200 in the next 1-2 years), if not then it gradually becomes time for a new platform and I will choose whatever works best between Intel and AMD. Zen4 is not interesting for me anyway, AM5 is too new, DDR5 is too new, PCIe5 drives up the cost. Better wait at least one year. As much as I would like ARM to become a competitor, gamers are stuck to X86 in the next few years.

@@arm-power By the way, I would love Intel and AMD dumping superfluous old instruction sets. That really holds X86 back, you are 100% correct about that!

@@peterjansen4826 x86 cannot drop old 16-bit and 32-bit instructions. x86 uses variable encoding where each instruction can be 1 to 15 bytes long. All (16/32/64-bit) uses same variable CISC encoding, backward compatible. ARM is RISC with fixed 4 byte encoded. 32-bit AArch32 (ARMv7) is backward compatible to ARMv5 and v6. 64-bit AArch64 (ARMv8 / 9) is clean sheet design from scratch in 2010 and is not backward compatible (uses different encoding). For backward compatibility there must be separate 32-bit decoder. Different names and different number of instructions, take a look at page 15 here:file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Arm_Cortex-X1_Core_Software_Optimization_Guide-1.pdf So ARM by abandoning 32-bit saved a lot of transistors for second decoder. 64-bit AArch64 has very advanced and flexible memory model with fencing similar to DEC Alpha (x86 uses old simpler mem model). Programmer in AArch64 can access BTB and cache status. All this magic helps to extract IPC with as low resources as possible (it's more difficult for assembly programmer or compiler though). ARM is moving forward faster because: - 4 different CPU designers (ARM, Apple, Nuvia/Qualcomm, Ampere) - MANY chip manufacturers via license - new clean sheet ISA design - anyone can buy license for ISA or CPU - same is RISC-V royalty free / open (x86 is closed proprietary now, but back in 90 there were 7 designers because IBM forced Intel so)

Yep, if they don't release a backport to AM4 (even with a performance hit) Zen 4 will sell way less than Zen 3 imo.

Crypto destroyed the image of the gaming industry in the eyes of actual rec gamers. who spent ALOT of money as a hobby. We didnt give a shit about "investing" in junk bonds. We already had income, to burn. When they turned their backs on us, we found other avenues to entertain ourselves. Oh well. DJI is doing smashingly these days ;)

Pretty much this. These products might not even exist to me. Even if I have the money to buy then, why would I at those idiotic prices ?

Alternatively the insane demand for Ryzen 5000 and RTX 3000 means a lot of people have only recently upgraded. I built my PC in late 2020 and snagged my 3070, I won't even consider a new build until 2025. I just follow tech news for the fun of it but 2020 also saw the release of next gen consoles which were extremely competitive, essentially we're between big generational leaps right now for consumers.

@@gorana.37 To be fair 700$ for the absolute top of the line CPU is a fair deal. Intel "extreme" processors always used to be priced at 999$.

Probably similar performance to that of the Xbox series x

hopefully RDNA 3?

RDNA 2 is already on the steam deck

@@ireallyreallyreallylikethisimg I am expecting at least RX 5500 XT / RX 590 performance.

@@cdoublejj It is, but the Deck is a mobile device with limitations. It's performance is likely just a small fraction of what we can expect from an RDNA2 APU on an AM5 desktop PC.

Could use a pop guard though.

I don't understand why he always overprocesses his voice

@@genebeidl4011 hearing him say Ps and Bs always grate my ears

Always thought this guy is unnatural to listen to. It's like he speaks very quiet, very close to the mic at high gain to get a low and growly quality to his voice. I bet when he speaks normally it sounds a lot different. Could be wrong but just how it sounds to me.

@@genebeidl4011 Won't help when you're deepthroating the mic lmao

NDAs lift about four days before launch, I believe, so expect a deluge just before the 27th. ;)

There were some leaks stating to reach advertised speeds the new ryzen chips were pulling 220-230 watts and reaching 95c temps and throttling back as a result and this was on like a 320-360mm water aio cooler. Same test had Intel at only 83C temps. Would be funny to see AMD's new chips now become the power hog space heaters as compared to Intel and see how the AMD fanboys reacted then!

@@billwiley7216 yes intel has efficiency cores but Ryzen only has the normal cores

@@billwiley7216 Perhaps, but historically only one company has had to pay other companies not to use competing chips.

It's impressive how he can talk without a pause for several minutes without running out of breath! 😉

RISC or ARM. I'm leaning towards an ARM hybrid. I'm guessing partnerships with Google, Microsoft and Samsung

Are there any concrete indications of that? Genuinely curious.

There is no software on the horizon to even bother considering RISC-V architecture anywhere right now. ARM? Absolutely. We may see hybrid ARM and x64 core CPUs in a few more years, but definitely not some backward-emulated x64 on ARM hardware. That just does not make sense whatsoever right now with the performance per watt x64 can achieve.

@@chbrules RISC and RISC-V are not the same thing. RISC-V is one of several architectures that implements the Reduced Instruction Set Architecture design philosophy. ARM is a company that designs processors including ARM-v8, which is another architecture built on RISC principles. But, here's the interesting part, Zen and Core are both RISC designs inside the CPU core, but they use large decoders on the uncore to support the whole x86-64 ISA.

@@rightwingsafetysquad9872 if we're talking about a RISC-based design, it's already here. Intel has been doing it for over a decade. Their internal optimizers run RISC with CISC emulation. I imagine AMD does the same.

@@AntiFurry927 People dont forget about it. It just presents a massive cost to benefit analysis engineering wise, and is very conditional for it to help. It requires alot of very advanced prediction of execution to fully take advantage of, and its very costly, not only in terms of production, but of die space. it is an energy sap, as it is constantly refreshed even if not in use. It takes careful design considerations to decide on the amount too. It's part of why double stacking cache is such a nasty business and why AMD doesn't allow OC-ing of the 3d chips, because it makes it very hot, which not only causes issues with performance and error occurrence, but it also stresses the structure and can cause failures. but it has huge performance implications if it is able to be taken advantage of due to the extremely low latency.

@@AntiFurry927 Unless Intel has managed to get E cores much better, the fact that they have 24c on i9 and 14 on i5 will not change things. One Zen 4 core will be most likely as fast as two E cores and in AVX512 code it's probably even more. Also the insane power draw of Raptor Lake in all core productivity workloads starts to have an effect. Here electricity is starting to be close to $1 KWh and if CPU takes 100W more and it's running on close to 100% five hours per day, then it's one dollar more electricity every other day. That adds up to $180 per year. AMD might lose on mid range if Intel can price their CPUs well. But I think it's going to be a tough job as the yields on these monolithic dies is going to be much less than TSMC 5nm chiplets. Though they own the fab so it helps, but I doubt they can drop the pricing. Adding more cache increases the die even further as does the extra E cores. Though I absolutely love Intel going with E and P cores. It will the best way to tackle Amdahl's law, and optimize how much performance you get per watt and per die area. In a decade I think there will be 3 different cores, one where they just do everything to get the single thread speed as high as possible for running threads that are the bottleneck, then common fast cores where energy efficiency is somewhat taken into account, and then the highest performance per watt cores. And CPUs could be like 2+8+64.

"That's so fast that our next gen gpus might not be enough" Current-gen GPUs aren't enough for current-gen CPUs (at 1440p and 4K in most AAA games), but this problem is fixing itself. GPUs gain performance faster than CPUs. Next-gen GPUs should be about twice as fast as current-gen, while the CPUs are less than 50% faster. Saying that next gen GPUs might not be enough for a next-gen CPU is just a weird thing to say. It's much less likely for that to be the case then than it is now.

@@juzujuzu4555 "in AVX512 code it's probably even more" I think you're hedging your bets a bit too much there. Gracemont does not support AVX512. Obviously Zen 4 is going to be more than twice as fast as E-cores at AVX512: It's going to be infinitely faster, because AVX512 can't run on E cores. Usain Bolt can probably run faster than a brick.

@@r100curtaincall The heat issue is something AMD has debunked time and time again. The lower clocks are due to a _voltage_ problem. The 5800X3D used a beta-test version of V-cache that couldn't handle normal levels of voltage. Expect the 7000X3D chips to fix this.

The 7950x draws roughly 170W and can sustain up to 230W. That's about as much as Intel's 12900k. Passiv cooling is a dream and nothing more. Zen 4 is still impressive though.

Or just get an M1 Max Mac Studio...

@@DaCarnival But you need a second gaming machine.

​@@Plasma_Mobile Sure - having a work machine and a play machine isn't unreasonable.

intel better for creative professional due to BigLittle cores CPU ..

That's what a boat load of money does for a company.

@@badass6300 false, Intel back in 2015 had way more money than AMD, better marketing, and more engineers but their management got too complacent. It's not money that you need for good execution but great leadership. Lisa Su came in while AMD had 3.57 Billion dollars in debt(was worth 2.3B) now they are worth 129 billion dollars. For reference Intel is currently worth 128B.

@@Thesinistereyes1 Dude as important as the leadership is, it's the engineers that made it happen, Jim Keller at the front of Zen. Jim Keller always makes great products. He was also the person who was leading K7 and K8 back in the 2000s when AMD was again very successful. Well intel sells 70x times more chips than AMD, the stock market is so fake nowadays it's unreal. AMD from 2016-2021 sold fewer chips than intel sells in 1 quarter.

@@badass6300 Jim keller also Developed Alder Lake S for intel but if they had good leadership this should have been out in 2019 but instead they refreshed the same arch and node again. You realize why AMD is worth more because they acquired big companies like Xilinx. AMD sell more chips to Tesla, all consoles except switch, nearly all the new server upgrades and new server builds are AMD. Most Intel sells are cheap embedded solutions and prebuilts from companies like Dell. Aside from that their sales had gotten weaker and weaker even with good engineering on their new cores.

@@Thesinistereyes1 Jim Keller wasn't in intel in 2019 or had just arrived at intel in 2019. When I say Intel sells more chips than AMD I mean all chips from both intel and AMD.

My last 5 builds have all been APU based due to GPU costs, even now with GPU prices being somewhat normal, I would still go the APU route. The 3400G that im currently using is fine for the games I play, even at 1440p, and my sons 5700G based systems are quite simply amazing, though one of my sons did buy a 6500XT as a placeholder GPU. Im hoping that desktop APUs with ZEN4 and RDNA are a major step forward in the market.

@@VeggieManUK Or you could just join the mining bandwagon and not have to worry about all of this

I always want to know if indiscrete can beat out discrete

10 core is very unlikely due to how amd's ccx are since 1 is 8 cores, would mean you need a really unoptimal configuration of 3 cores disabled on each one.. 24 core probably not because it would interfere with threadripper? we might see a 24 core threadripper with vcache, dont know if theres any leaks about that range yet.. not to mention that increased core count would probably warrant a different name than 950

Makes sense, since AMD seems to have changed how boost clocks work to make them more temperature-dependent this generation. A good cooler will get you the advertised speeds.

I thought the rumours were amd has worse power draw this time, as well as heat as the cpu is very small where most if the heat is generated where intel have a large chip which dissipates heat much better

problem is, AMD will optimize it better as it is now.. but Adobe dont do it that fast i think.. cause of intel...

You won't gain much with a 3d version. Focus on gpu bottleneck if you want to upgrade with budget limit. Don't sacrafice gpu for 3d version of the cpu!

@@WimiBussard he will gain a ton with 3d version lol

@@WimiBussard How do you know? 3D V cache is already looking really good for gaming.

@gewel @Dawi I am ofc talking about having a budget. I might be wrong, but I assume, that if you have to choose between option 1: 5800X (EUR 300) + rtx3060ti/3070 (EUR 480/560) = EUR 780-860 option 2: 5800X3d (EUR 455) + rtx3060 (EUR 380) = EUR 835 (today's prices in Germany) I assume option 1 will give you more performance. If you don't have to choose, then ofc you can buy the best of the best.

@@WimiBussard Since I'm putting aside 1K/year for my PC hobby, and I was not able to buy a new system during the last 2 years, I have enough money to go high end both for CPU and GPU.

Yeah, he made a really bad read there. He also didn't call out that this slice-for-slice comparison leaves out the much smaller E-cores. A better comparison is total die area of Intel's single complete package vs all three dies in AMD's chiplet package. Cheaper, more reliable small chiplets in exchange for the extra packaging complexity. And AMD both consumes less power AND spreads it to three different dies instead of concentrating it inside a single die. Completely different strategies. In heavy multithreading all of Intel's cores are on one package, while in the worst case one of AMD's cores may need to go through the IO die to get data from the other CCD's cache. This is why there's been talk about whether the L3 tile may become standard on Zen 5, and maybe an L3 tile could even span across two compute dies and join them together. This was also discussed for the largest of the upcoming Radeons. Imagine moving from 2x32MB for 16 cores, to 96MB or more unified across 24 cores. Two CCDs, one L3 tile, and performance approaching a 28-core Xeon W in as little as 1/3 the watts.

@@passintogracegoldenyearnin6310 I am not familiar with E-cores from Intel, are though on the same die, so Intel uses one die, I can understand your argument, but you may have worded it a bit confusion... what did you mean with "leaves out the much smaller e-cores" ? Like not mentioning that they are included in Intel's package/die... Hmm well you have an interesting point there ! =D But I am for spreading of heat... so AMD's solution seems interesting. Though intel probably packages it in a smaller surface area, not sure though.

@@passintogracegoldenyearnin6310 By the way, the shared L3 cache of intel, reminds me of IBM's special L1 cache on it's latest mainframe/Z chips/processors have you seen it ? There CPU's can share each others L1 caches ! Quite amazing ! I think Intel may have had help from IBM, designing it's L3 cache to function in a similiar fashion, or maybe it was IBM that learned a trick or two from Intel's L3 cache design lol.

@@skybuck2000 On almost every traditional CPU, the L1 and L2 caches are exclusive per core and the L3 cache is the "unifying cache". Up through Zen 2, on desktop there were two 4-core CCDs with 16MB L3 per each, inside one CCX. Zen 3 changed to a single 8-core CCD with 32MB shared L3. The 7950X will be two separate CCDs with eight cores and 32MB L3 (for a total of 16 cores and 64MB L3), plus 1MB L2 per core instead of 512KB L2 (A total of 80MB L2 + L3 cache). Raptor Lake's best part the 13900K is expected to have 24 cores, 8 P-core and 16 E-core. It is a gigantic chip on their most advance process, needing 257 mm2 and being very expensive to make (bigger chip = higher chance of defect per chip). It is 25% larger than the 12900K but the extra eight E-cores only needed 13mm2 and the rest is more cache. It is believed that L2 cache increases from 14MB to 32MB and L3 cache increases from 30MB to 36MB. On the 12900K each P-core had 1.25MB exclusive L2 and a 3MB 'local' L3 (with the rest of L3 shared on an internal network), plus each GROUP of four E-cores got 2MB shared L2 and a 3MB 'local' L3. On the 13900K there is now 2MB L2 per P-core, 4MB shared L2 per cluster of 4 E-cores, and two extra slices of 3MB L3 for the two extra clusters of E-cores. 13900K has 68MB of cache vs 80MB of cache on 7950X and only 44MB on the 12900K. AMD's comparison image was one P-core plus one 3MB L3 slice. They say they can fit one Zen 4 core and 4MB of L3 into half as much space. However Intel can seemingly fit four E-cores into the same space as one P-core, with L3 being the same size. Or one would say two E-cores, 2MB L2 and 1.5MB L3 in about as much space as a Zen 4 core with 1MB L2 and 4MB L3. With 24 cores, the 13900K is not as inefficient in space per core across the entire chip. It will still use more physical area and cost a lot to make, and Intel is already possibly LOSING money on the 12700 and 12900 chips. Their earnings and profits have almost collapsed compared to before, these chips are just too big and too expensive compared to how much they sell for. AMD's chiplets are much smaller and have far fewer defective tiles. And by selecting only good chiplets to put into a package, they can ensure something like 99.9% success rate in packaging. They are using 5nm and 6nm TSMC process, and the total manufacturing cost is still less than a 12900K manufactured on the Intel 7 process... 13900K will have a 50% higher defect rate for being 25% larger, and you get fewer chips per wafer. They'd need to charge $800-900 probably to justify the investment and manufacturing costs.

@@skybuck2000 IBM making a shared L1 would not surprise me. Their special high-density eDRAM is laid out vertically in the wafer instead of horizontally and yielded phenomenal cache density on only the 22nm node!

I miss Jim :( ALRIGHT GUYS HOWS IT GOING?

@Transistor Jump don't mean to brag but I have 64g of RAM with a decent speed, it's the 100% cpu usage that I would like to address

13:40

You make it sound like they did this comparison with the 12900K using DDR4 which is absolutely not the case.

Nothing stops the average consumer buying the 5000 series which are still more than brilliant for everything. Just because new products come out doesn't mean the current ones are all of a sudden obsolete. 5000 series will be in demand for budget builds for years to come. They also mentioned that AM4 will still possibly receive some additions parallel to AM5 for this exact reason, to cater to budget users that want something beefier but don't want a whole system upgrade. Or... You can just upgrade to a higher end variant like from 5600X to 5800/900X - there's plenty of options to upgrade. Also it's common practice to release the higher end products first before launching the budget range, it doesn't make any sense otherwise because those who already have a system by default have a upgrade path like I mentioned so they will release something that is so excessively good that would entice you to a full upgrade.

DDR transitions always cause pain, it's pointless trying to sell a budget system when a dual channel DDR5 means 32GB around $200. The mobile monolithic designs will bring in more affordability, bulk LPDDR5 is at lower price premium to ODMs

@@egonieser they really filled the AM4 line up out early this year. What's missing? I'd expect AM4 price cuts before new designs, fully paid up development costs, cheaper 7nm node range, rather than new SKUs out on 6nm or Zen4 on AM4. They didn't port the RDNA2 GPUs onto 6nm in the RX 6x50 series refresh.

It won't. Small embedded chips might use it, but in that use case it competes with cheaper Zen2 solutions. Zen4c was invented to solver problem, which was never an issue in desktop space for AMD. On desktop is almost always better to have less more powerful core than more less powerful cores.

in theory, yes. In practice, I just chcecked what ddr5 memories are available in local shops, ant they are ALL worse than ddr4 in terms of latency in absolute terms

@@DJRYGAR1 yet perform vastly better

@@DJRYGAR1 DDR5 works quite differently from DDR4 so timings are not directly comparable. Watch some of buildzoids videos for a deeper dive.

@@DJRYGAR1 I was talking about caches. Cache latency is measured in core cycles. DDR5 is better than DDR4 for one different reason: internal organization. DDR5 might be worse than good DDR4 because subtimings are not yet optimized.

I wouldn't expect this to crush Intel. Most likely they'll do like they did previously and pay systems integrators not to use AMD chips or find some other illegal business tactic to steal AMD's wind like they did the last couple times.

Salam brother

It's Xilinx with some other stuff

It’s just Xilinx IP rolled into AMD’s other portfolios

Yeah, that was weird. They showed it and never talked about it. wtf?

@@SNESChalmers147 sounds abt right, forgot about the acquisition

The 7600x isn't mid range, it's priced against Intel's line just as the 5600x was against Comic Lake based on performance. It forced Intel to cut prices to retain market share. You could have an 8 Jaguar core processor and it would be terrible, so core count isn't everything. Even a 2+8c/12t Alder Lake CPU would be a compromise in gaming. Remember it's easier to lower prices to compete if necessary, than raise them after you just trashed your premium image line up with a low floor price that still cannot compete due to expensive memory.

@@RobBCactive You're right, i forgot, its low end because it is AMD's lowest end processor

@@denvera1g1 I meant the whole range is high end. Most offices use really crummy PCs. The low end now is the 5600g etc

@@RobBCactive 7600x will be low end until they launch the 7600G a year later for $275

@@denvera1g1 the range is high end, looking at things like that causes you to upsell to yourself. Like in restaurants people don't buy the cheapest wine on the list

in 5900X vs 5800X there's almost no difference in games. Same will happen with new gen

Depends on the games. Some games can't really benefit from it, but it seems many do and if they do, they get a pretty nice performance uplift. For example the OG Ryzen 7 5800X was generally slower than the likes of i7 12700K in gaming, with i9 12900K/KS getting even further ahead. But the X3D version was able to match and even beat the gaming performance of 12900K/KS by a bit while still remaining decidedly closer to the i7 price bracket than to the i9.

@@aloisvana1487 thanks! i was wondering. might be worth waiting til the next gen 3D versions come out…. mostly gaming here

I've been thinking that since the Intel "you'll get 5% increase gen over gen and be happy about it" days and I developed a habit to only buy new hardware when I see a 50%+ improvement over what I have now.

So long as Minecraft looks amazing, who cares :)

They had to fix the architecture to scale with clockspeed. Zen 5 is the real crazy one

I'm just glad they didn't have to overclock the crap out of them for those clock speeds.

@@captainharpoon according to redgamingtech they run suuuuper hot.

@@Pillokun well that's not good.

don't most cutting edge Intel chips debut at $1300 or more?