AMD Ryzen 7 7700X fails to hold up against the Core i7-13700K despite performing 25% faster than the Ryzen 7 5800X in Cinebench R20

[Redaktion]

A leaked Cinebench R20 score of the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X Zen 4 processor has shown up online. It nets a single and multi-threaded score of 773 and 7,701, which is 25% faster than its Zen 3 counterpart, but slower than the Core i7-13700K, which scored 814 and 11,243.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Ryzen-7-7700X-fails-to-hold-up-against-the-Core-i7-13700K-despite-performing-25-faster-than-the-Ryzen-7-5800X-in-Cinebench-R20.642695.0.html

[Andrej]

This comparison is complete rubbish. Comparing 8 core AMD vs 8P + 8E core Intel. Is this site for real or what?!

[Marco-Hannes Bachler]

Lol, compared to an i7 13700K, the Ryzen 7 7700X (ES sample) is a beast! It only has 8 cores and 16 threads and reaches almost the single core performance of an i7 13700K which has 8 more cores and 8 more threads, although the multi-thread-performance is of course weaker (has 8 cores fewer). And note: This is an ES sample, so the final sample is still stronger. This means that Intel still can't keep up with AMD in terms of performance and efficiency.

We can expect an Ryzen 9 7900X and Ryzen 9 7950X to be a multi-thread-score-monster and also being strong in the single-core-area and we know that AMD still has the 3VD-Cache. So this time, AMD is winning again.

[vertigo]

This comparison is complete rubbish. Comparing 8 core AMD vs 8P + 8E core Intel. Is this site for real or what?!

It's simply comparing an upcoming chip from each that's placed equally in their respective families. For years, AMD has been pretty consistently reported as superior to Intel in multi-threaded operations, despite have worse per-core performance, simply because they had more cores, and that was accepted as fair, because the comparisons were made against what each company provided at a given level. The fact is that here, Intel has bumped up their core count (finally) enough to overcome AMD, and so just as AMD received credit when they had more cores, Intel should now. It's not unfair, it's actually extremely fair, both because it's up to Intel/AMD to offer what they do, and therefore that is what has to be compared, and because that's how it's been done for years. You can't just suddenly change your mind and decide that core counts have to be equal to make it fair just because AMD is now losing. And, by the way, I prefer AMD and do not like Intel. But I can also be reasonable.

That said, cost and power consumption, as always, need to be considered. If the Intel chip is truly 46% faster but costs 30% more and uses 30% more power, then the consumer has to decide if they really need all that power (and almost none do) at any cost or if the AMD, cheaper at purchase and cheaper to run, will suffice.

[Andrej]

This comparison is complete rubbish. Comparing 8 core AMD vs 8P + 8E core Intel. Is this site for real or what?!

It's simply comparing an upcoming chip from each that's placed equally in their respective families. For years, AMD has been pretty consistently reported as superior to Intel in multi-threaded operations, despite have worse per-core performance, simply because they had more cores, and that was accepted as fair, because the comparisons were made against what each company provided at a given level. The fact is that here, Intel has bumped up their core count (finally) enough to overcome AMD, and so just as AMD received credit when they had more cores, Intel should now. It's not unfair, it's actually extremely fair, both because it's up to Intel/AMD to offer what they do, and therefore that is what has to be compared, and because that's how it's been done for years. You can't just suddenly change your mind and decide that core counts have to be equal to make it fair just because AMD is now losing. And, by the way, I prefer AMD and do not like Intel. But I can also be reasonable.

That said, cost and power consumption, as always, need to be considered. If the Intel chip is truly 46% faster but costs 30% more and uses 30% more power, then the consumer has to decide if they really need all that power (and almost none do) at any cost or if the AMD, cheaper at purchase and cheaper to run, will suffice.

Personally I always compared core per core chips and their respective performances. HW sites can compare what they like...
For example compare r4600h vs i7 10750h in multi. 6 cores both, but ryzen leads in multithreaded.

[Robert]

Benchmarks are pure rubbish.  I hate them and they prove nothing.  It comes down to performance per dollar and which has a better value.  Right now that's not Intel.  AMD is kicking butt with Ryzen.  The chips perform better in a production environment and they cost less than Intel.  They are a better value overall.  That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.  I will never go back to Intel because they screwed me over in 2006 with their deal with Apple and the Imac.  I built a 5800X gaming rig and I'm 100 percent satisfied with it.  I'm not in the market for a new rig right now but I'd go 16 core Zen 4 if I was.

[Julian M]

Man, I know news outlets live off this hype because that's where the money is, but the BS is too thick.

Can we at least wait until both lines of chips have actually shipped and got tested in real-world situations before claiming anything?

[Watzupken]

I feel the comparison is wrong. Ryzen 7 despite the 7 is not meant to compete with the i7 since it's clear that Intel's i7 is meant to go against the Ryzen 9 x900. Having said that if the scores is accurate, then the single core is not going to change much since it's just a minor bump in clock speed. But I do feel that if it is priced lower than Intel, AMD can still do some damage to Intel. At the higher end, I am pretty sure the i7 and i9 is going to be very power hungry given that Intel is using the same node to increase cache, cores and clock speed at the same time. And just to lock in their win, the rumours to allow up 350W unlocked power is just madness. 350W on the CPU, don't account for the power used by the motherboard and RAM. So it's drawing more power than a top tier GPU.

[Anonymousgg]

This comparison is complete rubbish. Comparing 8 core AMD vs 8P + 8E core Intel. Is this site for real or what?!

The comparison in the headline is single-threaded performance, which is applicable, even if the 7700X's competitor is more like the 13600K and that model has slightly lower clock speeds than the 13700K.

AMDominance can only be achieved with 3D V-Cache this time around.

[hs4]

The MT performance of the 7700X shown in here is about 10 times the ST performance (8 cores * SMTx1.25), and this result indicates that all cores will run at maximum clock when fully loaded. Expected power consumption per core would be 15-20 W, and power consumption of whole CPU would be 120-160 W.

The 7700x is an 8-core system and should be compared to the 13600K with 6 P-cores and 2 clusters of E-cores, which has an active area similar to Vermeer's CCD. The 13600K is faster than the 12700K, outperforms the 7700X in both ST and MT performance, and has an actual maximum power consumption is expected to be in the 150-180W range.

[You simp for Intel]

Why would it use an older version of cinebench? To favor the old way of doing things (Intel) instead of the way computers actually run now?

[RobertJasiek]

The 7700x is an 8-core system and should be compared to the 13600K with 6 P-cores and 2 clusters of E-cores,

Comparisons should not be so simple. There are applications for which only the P cores matter so such comparisons should also be made.

[hs4]

Comparisons should not be so simple. There are applications for which only the P cores matter so such comparisons should also be made.

If the number of threads is small, the problem is resolved by Thread Director. If number of thread is increased and SMT is required, the computing resources allocated to each thread will be almost the same for P and E cores. Only in the case of exactly 7 or 8 threads would there be a difference, but such cases are rare.

[Michael Anthony]

I don't like where thing's are going with power consumption, I will go with whatever is most cost efficient.

[8&8]

moving directly to 7800X3D no? don't understand their market decisions, showing on september 7800X that is 25% faster and january 7800X3D 30% faster than the original one. Just wait and move to 7800X3D, also because amd souldn't have fear of intel raptors, 5950X is still good enought, and people change cpu after 3/5 years. competition is good, but consumist is the killer of human genre!!!