back to article Specs leak of 5.7GHz AMD Ryzen 7000 chips with double the L2 cache

AMD's Ryzen 7000 desktop processors will reportedly top 5.7 GHz in the case of the Zen giant's top-of-the-line 7950X, when they launch later this quarter. The industry watchers at Wccftech claim to have obtained detailed specs for AMD's next-gen Zen 4 desktop CPUs, codenamed Raphael. If true, they offer some interesting …

  1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

    Now AMD is just being silly.

    Keep some gains back for later on, perhaps?

    I always backed AMD, so I'm very happy that they are kicking Intel's but for now.

    1. Martin an gof Silver badge

      But where are the "cheap" chips?

      What I'm really missing (as I've probably mentioned before) are the "good enough" desktop chips which AMD used to sell for £50 - £70 or so complete with graphics. Pushing the performance envelope is great, but when the cheapest 4000 series Ryzen 3 has a current RRP of only just under £100 as far as I can tell, and that's before you look at pricing up a separate graphics card and the fact that the 4000 series will likely be phased out as soon as these new chips are available, it's difficult these days to build a "cheap and cheerful" machine. Couldn't they have carried on producing some of the A-series? They were just fine for this kind of use.


      1. rcxb

        Re: But where are the "cheap" chips?

        Fab demand is extremely high, so now is not the time to shop for a deal. Also, inflation is hitting prices everywhere, so £100 could well be the new normal for budget CPUs.

        1. Snake Silver badge

          Re: £100 the new normal

          Of *course* it's going to be the new normal.

          Anyone who believes that this current chip 'shortage' will ever end, that somehow from this point forward supply with ever catch up enough with demand to bring prices back to their previous levels, I have several bridges over the Thames that I'll be happy to sell you.

      2. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

        Re: But where are the "cheap" chips?

        Taking inflation into consideration, £100 may well be the same as the old £70 price. Sadly.

        One disadvantage of getting older is that everything seems to just become pricier and pricier.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: But where are the "cheap" chips?

        I have a vague feeling that hiking up prices, in certain economic 'climate', is more profitable than mass production of cheap and cheerful. See something similar in travel industry (flight prices), though I don't know if the same business priciple applies here.

      4. mrb8

        Re: But where are the "cheap" chips?

        There's an AM4 Athlon 3000G on CEX as I speak for £45. Plenty fast enough for basic desktop use.

        1. Martin an gof Silver badge

          Re: But where are the "cheap" chips?

          One-off though, they're not still being manufactured I believe?


    2. JoeCool Bronze badge

      What ?

      are you referring to. Keep in mind this is a leak, and there is nothing about timeline

      Are you talking about oveclocking ? Maybe there's a practical reason that has nothing to do with sku-binning. That's the case dor the 5800x3d.

      On a side issue, what performance increase is typically available through overclocking ?

  2. Martin an gof Silver badge

    WfW 3.11?

    Yes, mumble, mumble 16 bit, woteva but...

    ..."back in the day" I was able to shoehorn Windows for Workgroups onto machines with as little as 2MB RAM and 20MB of HDD while 4MB and 40MB seemed fairly comfortable. Since the L3 cache seems to be shared and amounts to 4MB per core with, of course, 1MB per core of dedicated L2, I wonder what WfW would run like, if tied to one core and running entirely from the caches? Or 16 of them at the same time, or 32 running in effectively 2.5MB...

    Or (yes, I know I'm getting silly now) how about Windows 95, which I seem to remember worked pretty well in 16MB? Room for four of those in the L3 of the 16-core processor...


    1. FIA Silver badge

      Re: WfW 3.11?

      Not sure about W3.1, but Windows 95 chokes if your CPU is too fast.

      1. Martin an gof Silver badge

        Re: WfW 3.11?

        Oh, does it? That's interesting. Why would that be? If I had some time I'd have a play...


        1. FIA Silver badge

          Re: WfW 3.11?

          From what little I can gleen it sounds like a divide by zero error in some timing loop. (It probably takes 0ms to run something that should've taken longer I expect...)

          There's patches available on the web.

  3. eldakka Silver badge

    PPT (up to) 230W

    The 5900X can suck down as much as 200W when the chipmaker's Precision Boost Overdrive — an automated overlocking profile found in the bios — is enabled.

    Unless AMD has changed the way it reports TDP since the launch of its 5000-series parts, there's a good chance the chip designer's Ryzen 7900 and 7950 parts could near 300W in real-world power consumption, putting them in the same territory as Intel's 12th-gen chips.

    AMD reports both the TDP and PPT of their platform. The maximum PPT of AM5 is 230W, therefore any particular CPU can in theory draw up to 230W and still be within spec for the platform. Typically, TDP*1.35 is the allowed (at stock) PPT of any particular consumer Ryzen.

    AMD corrects socket AM5 for Ryzen 7000 power specs 230w peak-power 170w TDP:

    "AMD would like to issue a correction to the socket power and TDP limits of the upcoming AMD Socket AM5. AMD Socket AM5 supports up to a 170W TDP with a PPT up to 230W. TDP*1.35 is the standard calculation for TDP v. PPT for AMD sockets in the “Zen” era, and the new 170W TDP group is no exception (170*1.35=229.5).

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    120-140W of power under load

    more POWER!!! more ENERGY!!! more EVERYTHING!


    what's that, my electricity bill?!

    1. Scotthva5

      Re: 120-140W of power under load

      That was my first thought. Hopefully these "leaked" specs are not accurate as it seems, to me anyway, to be somewhat of a step backward given the current push for efficiency.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like