AMD's latest Ryzen 7000 chips face severe criticism for their design flaws.
AMD's latest Ryzen 7000 chips face severe criticism for their design flaws.
I didn't read your book, but if you grasp how AM5 functions, you'd recognize they deliberately target TJmax. Greater cooling enables higher frequency gains, since the chips are pushed toward TJmax by design. This topic has been discussed by AMD and all the YouTubers you referenced. Are you deliberately emphasizing the downsides of a thick IHS just to complain?
I suppose there is some truth in that, but I also believe anyone smart enough to build and tune PCs and use this forum are also the kind of people who want maximum performance from their components and not to be ripped off. Again, we are already used to buying adapters or new coolers with each new generation. If you were on AM3 when AM4 came out, you needed a new cooler or adapter. Every socket change at Intel is the same. For some reason only this time around AMD felt the need to be stupid. I mean ya if existing coolers could be kept WITHOUT the need for a super-thick IHS that lowers performance, the sure by all means its a great idea. The problem is the fact that it DID require lowering performance with the thick IHS. I mean think about it, most people spend $100+ on a nice cooler for Ryzen 7000 or Intel 13th Gen for good performance because of how hot these CPUs run. I haven't heard of anyone buying a Hyper 212 cheapy cooler for anything other than the lowest SKU CPUs like the Ryzen 7600 (Non-X). So you are telling me that even after spending good money on a good cooler and then swapping to AM5 and realistically spending $1000+ because of the high cost of AM5 Mobos and DDR5 RAM along with the cost of a new case, new PSU, ect, that you would rather save $20 and let your brand new $300-$700 CPU run like a furnace than spend the equivalent of a large McDonalds meal and a shake to make you CPU run MUCH cooler and faster? That logic just doesn't compute with me. You spent $100+ on a good cooler for the purposes of COOLING WELL and then turn around and say saving $20 is worth it even though your nice cooling solution is now effectively worth about nothing.
It seems like a cover-up when it unfolds regularly across countless organizations producing diverse goods, unrelated to computer parts. This isn't some hidden plot or advanced secret; it's just plain business logic that prioritizes profit. Every day, thousands of companies operate under the assumption that revenue is the main goal. Remember the chip shortage and the $2000 GPUs? That’s a clear illustration. Of course, it might not be the most significant issue, but it still highlights how flawed the overall approach is. If you missed it, just know the year is 2023, not 1997. You don’t need to own anything personally to understand how things function. I’m just someone who checks every detail before purchasing, so I can be certain about what I receive and its capabilities. It’s called smart shopping. Did you catch the videos or hear from experts who’ve studied it? Why do I have to repeat everything for some people? I can’t help but chuckle.
You're absolutely right about that. Not everyone is interested in squeezing extra performance from overclocking, especially when it comes to things like RAM speed. I push my components way beyond normal limits just to avoid thermal issues, which frustrates me because the design doesn't handle that heat well. If I can't get better performance, I'll have to focus on voltage-based safe temperatures and accept the limits. Temperature scaling and diminishing returns are important factors too. It's pointless to hit 115°C if you're not seeing clock improvements.
Companies prioritize profit, and my point is: If operating at those temperatures posed real risks, the backlash and boycotts—particularly from enterprise clients—within 3 to 5 years would likely negate the short-term gains from pushing the chips to run hotter. The concerns you raised are backed by data; temperatures above 95°C aren't inherently dangerous, as seen in past deployments like Skylake, which continued functioning safely for years even at elevated levels. Evidence suggests 100°C can be manageable, and the industry has demonstrated resilience under such conditions. The perception of lower temperatures being preferable isn't just anecdotal—it's supported by real-world performance and reliability.
They are not, most people are not willing to go through the hassle of lapping your CPU or even having to buy adaptors/new coolers. Convenience is king. Also, no one is getting ripped off by anything, however, they'd feel like so if they had to spend even more money for a new cooler/adapter. You are probably thinking about OC'ing enthusiasts, those would be willing to go through such lengths to get maximum performance, whereas most people are plenty happy with the advertised performance and won't care about those 10% extra OCers get. We're not. I did, and I disliked that. It was not stupid, it was a design choice and made most users happy. Don't assume your preferences apply to most people. [citation needed] Most people I see are just buying CPU+mobo+RAM kits and reusing all of their previously existing parts such as case, cooler and PSU. There's no reason to waste money where it's not needed. I don't care about the CPU running like a furnace as long as it delivers the expected performance, as long as it's within spec I don't give a crap. I don't care about extra 10% either. Actually, I do power limit whenever I can because I find that it's more worthy to save 50~100W in power consumption for a mere 10% less perf. You made it sound like a conspiracy due to the fact that you claim that AMD made this decision against the opinion of its users, but that's not the case. They made a decision that likely made most users happy, you hardly see people wishing for a thinner IHS like you're doing. I mean, that's your opinion, and people are free to disagree with you. I liked this decision and found it sound.
It seems like the device might have sounded a bit off, but it isn't inherently unsafe. Over five to several years of regular use, especially at high temperatures, there could be minor performance drops after prolonged operation at 95°C. You'd likely lose the ability to overclock, and since you weren't able to maintain a cooler environment, that might not be noticeable. After ten years, it could fail, but most users would have upgraded or replaced their system by then, so it probably wouldn't be a big issue.
There are some valid points, yet the worries about temperatures during the Ryzen 7000 debut remain. Over time the issues have lessened, but they haven’t disappeared entirely. People have already shared their views and don’t feel the need to repeat them. As someone who frequently modifies hardware, I still care because at the factory default settings these CPUs operate at their maximum capacity. It’s true they’re working as intended, but from a purely optimistic angle, it’s worth considering. Imagine being an AMD executive facing backlash over overheating samples. You’d likely push for safer temperature targets, adjust cooling strategies, and reassure customers honestly.
Think about it: if you’re launching a new Ryzen 7000 series, and your samples are struggling with heat, would you simply shrug it off and say it’s built to handle it? The market is keen on performance, especially with the AM5 and 13th-gen builds gaining traction. Many buyers opt for robust air coolers like Noctua D-15 or AIOs rather than sticking with budget options. While there are exceptions for low-power models, most consumers prefer reliable cooling solutions.
For those on a tighter budget, there are decent options like the DeepCool AK620, which offers solid performance for around $65–70. It’s comparable to high-end air coolers in price and efficiency. If you’re considering a used system, you might already have a suitable PSU and case, but building from scratch ensures better compatibility.
Ultimately, predicting individual needs is tricky. It’s wise to research what others are choosing for their builds and plan accordingly. The reality is, AMD’s approach now reflects a balance between innovation and customer expectations.
Consensus reached on this point, though it stems from past experiences with lower temperatures. Laptops have operated effectively for a while without problems. I wouldn't consider it a major public relations issue, and keeping customers dissatisfied over cooling performance would be more problematic. My sources usually focus on mid-range cooling solutions, except for the 13900k model. I haven’t upgraded from my 5950x, and I don’t see much benefit in the latest DDR5 options for my needs. I currently own a Fuma 2 purchased for $70 in Brazil, though I feel it wasn’t worth it. My old Gammax 400 (with a $20 cooler) handled the same speeds at full load, albeit at higher temperatures—something I’m okay with. Alternatively, you can activate eco mode; that sounds reasonable. I agree with that idea, but I’m assuming such adapters were already available and would work everywhere. For instance, when switching from AM3 to AM4 in Brazil, there were no compatible coolers locally, so I had to buy a new one. There were many reports about cooler incompatibility, and many users were pleased—like the first result from Google: it seems a major corporation invested in research to determine whether maintaining compatibility was the right choice. As you mentioned, I suspect the engineers actually aimed for maximum performance and a thinner IHS, but were discouraged by product management.
We were informed about compatibility with cooler systems, yet we didn't learn that a Super-Thick IHS would be needed to achieve that. They often downplay the drawbacks, after all—it's public relations. It's a weak analogy. Laptops usually run CPUs with 15-30 watts, which limits their performance compared to desktops. Comparing apples to oranges really doesn't make sense. Pushing 30 watts at 100°C is much less harmful than 200 watts under the same conditions. Silicon struggles significantly when subjected to both high power and excessive heat, making it a challenging situation.