Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)

Vattila · Oct 6, 2019

Except for the details about the improvements in the microarchitecture, we now know pretty well what to expect with Zen 3.

The leaked presentation by AMD Senior Manager Martin Hilgeman shows that EPYC 3 "Milan" will, as promised and expected, reuse the current platform (SP3), and the system architecture and packaging looks to be the same, with the same 9-die chiplet design and the same maximum core and thread-count (no SMT-4, contrary to rumour). The biggest change revealed so far is the enlargement of the compute complex from 4 cores to 8 cores, all sharing a larger L3 cache ("32+ MB", likely to double to 64 MB, I think).

Hilgeman's slides did also show that EPYC 4 "Genoa" is in the definition phase (or was at the time of the presentation in September, at least), and will come with a new platform (SP5), with new memory support (likely DDR5).

What else do you think we will see with Zen 4? PCI-Express 5 support? Increased core-count? 4-way SMT? New packaging (interposer, 2.5D, 3D)? Integrated memory on package (HBM)?

Vote in the poll and share your thoughts!

Carfax83 · Feb 16, 2023

Hitman928 said:
The reason for the bad gaming results from those sites has been known pretty much the whole time, it's just that certain people with an agenda tried to gaslight everyone into believing otherwise.

It's not incumbent on reviewers to use overclocked memory to make a CPU look better than it actually is. Why should AMD get a pass all of a sudden for using optimized memory, when these websites have been using standardized memory for years in their reviews?

You're making it seem as though these websites are intentionally crippling Zen 4, but that's always been their testing method and they have a right to keep it that way.

As I said in the other thread, Zen 4 has a poor and inefficient memory controller. The benchmarks in the HWUB video show that Raptor Lake is significantly faster than Zen 4 when both are using DDR5 5200. That actually surprised me, as I genuinely wasn't aware how large the gap was and how suboptimal the memory controller was in Zen 4. Even with DDR5 6000, Zen 4 requires tight primaries to really catch up with Raptor Lake.

This sort of thing brings up issues of fairness in reviews. I personally don't care whether reviewers use overclocked memory or not, but I do care if they optimize the memory for one platform more than the other. Zen 4's optimal memory config may be DDR5 6000 with tight timings, but RPL's can go much, much higher.

gdansk · Feb 16, 2023

It is not misleading to show only the stock memory. I am fine with sites testing at stock memory speeds.

The problem is that certain people online will take such limited benchmarks and extrapolate wildly. And derail threads for months on end.

Hitman928 · Feb 16, 2023

Carfax83 said:
It's not incumbent on reviewers to use overclocked memory to make a CPU look better than it actually is. Why should AMD get a pass all of a sudden for using optimized memory, when these websites have been using standardized memory for years in their reviews?

You're making it seem as though these websites are intentionally crippling Zen 4, but that's always been their testing method and they have a right to keep it that way.

As I said in the other thread, Zen 4 has a poor and inefficient memory controller. The benchmarks in the HWUB video show that Raptor Lake is significantly faster than Zen 4 when both are using DDR5 5200. That actually surprised me, as I genuinely wasn't aware how large the gap was and how suboptimal the memory controller was in Zen 4. Even with DDR5 6000, Zen 4 requires tight primaries to really catch up with Raptor Lake.

This sort of thing brings up issues of fairness in reviews. I personally don't care whether reviewers use overclocked memory or not, but I do care if they optimize the memory for one platform more than the other. Zen 4's optimal memory config may be DDR5 6000 with tight timings, but RPL's can go much, much higher.

This is just more gaslighting.

Some reviewers have been using only officially supported memory the whole time, but many switched to using overclocked memory many years ago once XMP (and similar) memory became a thing, long before the Zen architecture was even a rumor.

Techspot 4790k review using overclocked memory. 9 years ago.
TPU 4790k review using overclocked memory. 9 years ago.
TPU 3770k review using overclocked memory. 10 years ago.
Techreport 4790k review using overclocked memory. 9 years ago.

From Zen 1 (released 6 years ago now) and for every iteration after, it has been known that the Zen architecture benefits more from faster memory speeds. This isn't because their memory controllers are "weak" (outside of maybe Zen 1) but because of their chiplet design which introduces additional latency as well as how the memory system on the CPU is dependent on the infinity fabric clock which is dependent on the memory speed. The reason why people with no agenda don't care about gaming tests at dog slow memory speeds is because no one builds a gaming computer with dog slow memory speeds today (EXPO/XMP memory is easy to find and relatively inexpensive if you don't go too high in speeds). So while those reviews provide valid data, it's not really that useful and you seem to be the only one calling out reviewers as being stupid or biased because they don't show the results you think they should.

As far as how fast of memory to run, RPL can go above DDR5-6000, but so can AMD. RPL can go significantly higher, but there are already tests showing that its performance stops scaling well below it's fastest speeds. You have to draw the line somewhere but what it really boils down to is that you'll always find fault in the reviewer's choices if the results show the Zen chips get too close to RPL for your liking, no matter if their reasoning is valid or not.

Joe NYC · Feb 16, 2023

Carfax83 said:
It's not incumbent on reviewers to use overclocked memory to make a CPU look better than it actually is. Why should AMD get a pass all of a sudden for using optimized memory, when these websites have been using standardized memory for years in their reviews?

You're making it seem as though these websites are intentionally crippling Zen 4, but that's always been their testing method and they have a right to keep it that way.

As I said in the other thread, Zen 4 has a poor and inefficient memory controller. The benchmarks in the HWUB video show that Raptor Lake is significantly faster than Zen 4 when both are using DDR5 5200. That actually surprised me, as I genuinely wasn't aware how large the gap was and how suboptimal the memory controller was in Zen 4. Even with DDR5 6000, Zen 4 requires tight primaries to really catch up with Raptor Lake.

This sort of thing brings up issues of fairness in reviews. I personally don't care whether reviewers use overclocked memory or not, but I do care if they optimize the memory for one platform more than the other. Zen 4's optimal memory config may be DDR5 6000 with tight timings, but RPL's can go much, much higher.

I am looking forward to you arguing the complete opposite in 2 weeks, when Zen 4 V-Cache with garbage memory leaves Raptor Lake with garbage memory way behind.

We will be back to Loony Tunes arguments...

Carfax83 · Feb 16, 2023

gdansk said:
The problem is that certain people online will take such limited benchmarks and extrapolate wildly. And derail threads for months on end.

How is it extrapolation? The underlying issue of Zen 4's poorly implemented memory system is to blame, which is why Zen 4 does so poorly in gaming benchmarks with it's stock memory.

It's already been discussed countless times in this very thread, as memory performance is very important for gaming. The Aida64 scores were quite revealing in that aspect. But this latest HWUB video really puts it into perspective, because it just shows how large a gap there is between the efficiency of RPL's memory interface and Zen 4's at equal speed.

In2Photos · Feb 16, 2023

Carfax83 said:
How is it extrapolation? The underlying issue of Zen 4's poorly implemented memory system is to blame, which is why Zen 4 does so poorly in gaming benchmarks with it's stock memory.

It's already been discussed countless times in this very thread, as memory performance is very important for gaming. The Aida64 scores were quite revealing in that aspect. But this latest HWUB video really puts it into perspective, because it just shows how large a gap there is between the efficiency of RPL's memory interface and Zen 4's at equal speed.

So now HWUB data is valid enough for you to use in your argument? Yet just the other day you were saying they were incompetent.

You argue that the memory controller is weak In reality it's just not as flexible. It's performance range is smaller than Intel. That just makes it different not weak. For many this is a significant advantage of the AMD system over Intel in that you can get away with much cheaper memory and maximize the performance of your system. How much did that 7800 MHz kit cost you anyway?

Carfax83 · Feb 16, 2023

Hitman928 said:
This is just more gaslighting.

Some reviewers have been using only officially supported memory the whole time, but many switched to using overclocked memory many years ago once XMP (and similar) memory became a thing, long before the Zen architecture was even a rumor.

If I'm gaslighting, then you're strawmanning. I never said at any time that there weren't reviewers in the past that used overclocked memory. That's been going on for a long time, though I would wager most stuck to standard memory, especially for launch reviews. The further you go back, the more likely you'll find that's the case I wager. When they did, they would usually dedicate entire articles to memory scaling and overclocking. At any rate, for the purposes of this discussion, I'm specifically talking about the current ones like PCgameshardware.de, Computerbase.de, Tomshardware, Anandtech etcetera.

From Zen 1 (released 6 years ago now) and for every iteration after, it has been known that the Zen architecture benefits more from faster memory speeds. This isn't because their memory controllers are "weak" (outside of maybe Zen 1) but because of their chiplet design which introduces additional latency as well as how the memory system on the CPU is dependent on the infinity fabric clock which is dependent on the memory speed. The reason why people with no agenda don't care about gaming tests at dog slow memory speeds is because no one builds a gaming computer with dog slow memory speeds today (EXPO/XMP memory is easy to find and relatively inexpensive if you don't go too high in speeds). So while those reviews provide valid data, it's not really that useful and you seem to be the only one calling out reviewers as being stupid or biased because they don't show the results you think they should.

It's much more complicated than what you're letting on. Chiplet design generally increases latency I agree, but what about bandwidth? Zen 2 had fairly high memory latency, while Zen 3 improved on that substantially, but their bandwidth was solid if I recall correctly. Zen 3 had superior memory bandwidth compared to Intel at that time when running at the same memory frequency:

AMD Ryzen 9 5950X Zen 3 CPU Review | KitGuru- Part 9

But with Zen 4, the memory bandwidth is much lower than Intel parts. Also, Zen 4 can actually achieve low latencies as well, lower than ADL and RPL in fact. RPL favors memory bandwidth, because it has a bigger RoB that can hide memory latency.

AMD Ryzen 9 7900 & Ryzen 7 7700 Review | KitGuru- Part 9

In the above test, RPL actually has the highest memory latency. But in read bandwidth, RPL has a 20GB/s lead over Zen 4 while using less aggressive timings.

Memory latency used to be the biggest factor for gaming, but nowadays it's memory bandwidth due to ray tracing.

RPL can go significantly higher, but there are already tests showing that its performance stops scaling well below it's fastest speeds.

It's workload dependent. Some workloads continue to scale, such as compression workloads. And in gaming, memory bandwidth helps out a ton when RT is activated.

Carfax83 · Feb 16, 2023

Joe NYC said:
I am looking forward to you arguing the complete opposite in 2 weeks, when Zen 4 V-Cache with garbage memory leaves Raptor Lake with garbage memory way behind.

We will be back to Loony Tunes arguments...

I guess we'll see. I don't think it will be a knockout blow like you suggest. Cache can only get you so far, and Zen 4 already has a big gap between it and RPL when using "garbage memory."

Hitman928 · Feb 16, 2023

Carfax83 said:
If I'm gaslighting, then you're strawmanning. I never said at any time that there weren't reviewers in the past that used overclocked memory.

Hmmm. . .

Carfax83 said:
You should know that testing with official standardized memory frequencies was the status quo for years for the vast majority of review sites, including Anandtech.

The shift towards using overclocked memory as a review standard is quite recent and was done specifically to put Zen 4 in the best possible light. In fact, several review sites tested Zen 4 with DDR5 6000 at launch and ADL with DDR5 4800 due to pressure from AMD

It's amusing to see what was once (and still is to a degree) a widespread review practice now become stigmatized because AMD pressured reviewers into using overclocked settings in their reviews.

Just as a reminder, here is what I said (with supporting evidence) that you are claiming is a strawman:

Hitman928 said:
Some reviewers have been using only officially supported memory the whole time, but many switched to using overclocked memory many years ago once XMP (and similar) memory became a thing, long before the Zen architecture was even a rumor.

Carfax83 · Feb 16, 2023

In2Photos said:
So now HWUB data is valid enough for you to use in your argument? Yet just the other day you were saying they were incompetent.

Come back to reality. They can't be incompetent in every single thing they do can they? I was a subscriber of theirs for many years, and only after what I considered were relatively speaking a few major screw ups did I unsubscribe and turn my back on them.

You argue that the memory controller is weak In reality it's just not as flexible. It's performance range is smaller than Intel. That just makes it different not weak.

I don't know what you mean by the performance range is smaller than Intel, but I am looking at it from an efficiency perspective. AMD made a much better DDR4 memory controller when you look at the bandwidth scores for Zen 2 and Zen 3 compared to Coffee Lake. Zen 4 is their first stab at DDR5, and it seems to be inefficient because they are giving up major bandwidth compared to RPL. Latency wise it's actually quite good, but bandwidth? Nah...

For many this is a significant advantage of the AMD system over Intel in that you can get away with much cheaper memory and maximize the performance of your system.

Didn't you watch HWUB's latest video? Garbage memory results in garbage performance with Zen 4. Zen 4 is extremely sensitive to memory timings, while RPL is not. You can get better performance on a RPL system with cheap, low speed DDR5 5600 than you can on a Zen 4 system.

How much did that 7800 MHz kit cost you anyway?

It's not a DDR5 7800 kit, it's a DDR5 7200 kit. I bought it from Microcenter for $379 plus taxes, which is after a 5% discount as I have their store credit card. So the retail price was close to $400 at the time. I'm sure it's lower now though.

Hynix A die is the best memory for RPL because it can easily overclock to high frequencies and is also tolerant of moderately aggressive timings. I heard that the M die was better for timings though.

Tuna-Fish · Feb 16, 2023

Carfax83 said:
Hynix A die is the best memory for RPL because it can easily overclock to high frequencies and is also tolerant of moderately aggressive timings. I heard that the M die was better for timings though.

I don't think it's better as such, just not any worse, so for Zen4 there's no point in paying any premium for A-die.

In2Photos · Feb 16, 2023

Carfax83 said:
Come back to reality. They can't be incompetent in every single thing they do can they? I was a subscriber of theirs for many years, and only after what I considered were relatively speaking a few major screw ups did I unsubscribe and turn my back on them.

At this point it feels like everything you post is just keyboard vomit when you make claims like these. If a reviewer has data that supports your narrative, you consider it valid, regardless of source. If they have data that doesn't support your narrative you claim them to be incompetent. And then you immediately roll over when they post something that fits your narrative.

I don't know what you mean by the performance range is smaller than Intel, but I am looking at it from an efficiency perspective. AMD made a much better DDR4 memory controller when you look at the bandwidth scores for Zen 2 and Zen 3 compared to Coffee Lake. Zen 4 is their first stab at DDR5, and it seems to be inefficient because they are giving up major bandwidth compared to RPL. Latency wise it's actually quite good, but bandwidth? Nah...

Didn't you watch HWUB's latest video? Garbage memory results in garbage performance with Zen 4. Zen 4 is extremely sensitive to memory timings, while RPL is not. You can get better performance on a RPL system with cheap, low speed DDR5 5600 than you can on a Zen 4 system.

By performance range I mean the range of frequency that benefits the system. Ryzen has a small window of memory frequencies that benefit the system. If you stray outside of that window you either lose performance (at lower frequencies) or you simply don't gain much (at higher frequencies). You see this as a system fault, a design flaw, a defect, or bad memory controller. Yet I, and others, see this as a benefit. There is much less value in purchasing a RAM kit beyond 6000MHz on AMD. Based on the HWUB video 7 game average if I buy a Ryzen system I can get a 20% performance increase going from 4800 CL40 to 6000 CL30.

Let's look at cost for those kits on PC Part Picker.

2x16GB DDR5 4800 CL40 - Starts at $99 https://pcpartpicker.com/products/memory/#b=ddr5&Z=32768002&S=4800&sort=price&page=1&L=400
2x16GB DDR5 6000 CL30 - Starts at $148 https://pcpartpicker.com/products/memory/#b=ddr5&Z=32768002&S=6000&sort=price&page=1&L=300

Going from 4800 CL40 to 6000 CL30 on the 13900K was only an 8.7% increase. Jumping to the 7200 CL32 kit raises that to just over 12% increase in performance over 4800 CL40. I couldn't even find a price on CL32, but CL34 kits start at $252. So while the Intel system still continues to increase performance with faster memory, the gains are not equal to that of AM5. So which system is inefficient actually? You're claiming that bandwidth is king, and that may be true for Intel, but AM5 is gaining more performance with less frequency and cost!!! That is efficiency!!! I wish HWUB would have tested above 6000MHz on AM5 just to see the numbers. I don't think they would have gained much but it would have been interesting to see.

It's not a DDR5 7800 kit, it's a DDR5 7200 kit. I bought it from Microcenter for $379 plus taxes, which is after a 5% discount as I have their store credit card. So the retail price was close to $400 at the time. I'm sure it's lower now though.

Hynix A die is the best memory for RPL because it can easily overclock to high frequencies and is also tolerant of moderately aggressive timings. I heard that the M die was better for timings though.

And how much performance did you gain by spending $400 over say a $200 kit, or $150? Look I get it, you have the best Intel CPU and the best GPU so you're going to buy the best of everything else. That doesn't make everything about the AMD system inferior. They just work differently. They both have advantages and disadvantages. They both have shortcomings. Neither one is perfect. And no one is wrong for picking the system they want. In the end, if it does what you bought it to do, great.

Hitman928 · Feb 16, 2023

In2Photos said:
I wish HWUB would have tested above 6000MHz on AM5 just to see the numbers. I don't think they would have gained much but it would have been interesting to see.

They did some limited testing in their 7600x review. Two of the games show decent improvement (5 - 7%) and two show little or no improvement.

nicalandia · Feb 17, 2023

AMD 7950X3D makes its debut on Geekbench5

ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench

Benchmark results for an ASUS System Product Name with an AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D processor.

browser.geekbench.com

Average ST speed on this sample is about 5.4 Ghz

Also Blender Scores.

7950X3D makes its debut on SisoftWare Sandra.

Details for Result ID AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 16-Core Processor (2M 16C 32T 4.2GHz, 3.2GHz IMC, 16x 1MB L2, 2x 96MB L3)

ranker.sisoftware.co.uk

inf64 · Feb 17, 2023

120W TDP seems to hurt the MT results. Hopefully users will be able to toggle 170W option via BIOS.

Abwx · Feb 17, 2023

inf64 said:
120W TDP seems to hurt the MT results. Hopefully users will be able to toggle 170W option via BIOS.

120W TDP amount to 162W PPT, that s enough to be within 96-97% MT perfs of a stock 7950X, methink that this 120W TDP was the original plan for the 7950X.

Timmah! · Feb 17, 2023

Abwx said:
120W TDP amount to 162W PPT, that s enough to be within 96-97% MT perfs of a stock 7950X, methink that this 120W TDP was the original plan for the 7950X.

That is probably true, even though Geekbench leak shows 10 percent lower MT performance, not just 3. But perhaps thats fixable by that limited overclocking via PBO/CO.

Anyway, its still rather disappointing to see lower clocks than with vanilla 7950x. It may not be completely pragmatic view, its sort of psychological. Part of the allure of 7000 series is the high clocks, almost matching Intel. Its the reason to want it, why its so cool in comparison to 5000 series, which was indeed great line of CPUs, but clocks staying above 5GHz no matter what, that is something else. And now 3D version gets away with that.

Det0x · Feb 18, 2023

itsmydamnation said:
has anyone tried using DDR 5 7200 memory @ 6000/6200 with "ultra" tight timings ?

Yes 7800MT/s XMP Hynix a-die @ 6200MT/s CL26

Also since were talking about spiderman performance for the nt time, hardwareunboxed have done a new memory performance comparison on Zen4 with "failsafe tuned timings". (still pretty relaxed compared to what's possible)
The performance difference between different media outlets can be explained quite easily

Asterox · Feb 18, 2023

Ok, but in games that loves big L3 cache all that fast DDR5 memory will be no match for any Zen 4 3D V-Cache+cheep DDR5 5200 as example.

Just Benching · Feb 18, 2023

In2Photos said:
At this point it feels like everything you post is just keyboard vomit when you make claims like these. If a reviewer has data that supports your narrative, you consider it valid, regardless of source. If they have data that doesn't support your narrative you claim them to be incompetent. And then you immediately roll over when they post something that fits your narrative.

By performance range I mean the range of frequency that benefits the system. Ryzen has a small window of memory frequencies that benefit the system. If you stray outside of that window you either lose performance (at lower frequencies) or you simply don't gain much (at higher frequencies). You see this as a system fault, a design flaw, a defect, or bad memory controller. Yet I, and others, see this as a benefit. There is much less value in purchasing a RAM kit beyond 6000MHz on AMD. Based on the HWUB video 7 game average if I buy a Ryzen system I can get a 20% performance increase going from 4800 CL40 to 6000 CL30.

View attachment 76654

Let's look at cost for those kits on PC Part Picker.

2x16GB DDR5 4800 CL40 - Starts at $99 https://pcpartpicker.com/products/memory/#b=ddr5&Z=32768002&S=4800&sort=price&page=1&L=400
2x16GB DDR5 6000 CL30 - Starts at $148 https://pcpartpicker.com/products/memory/#b=ddr5&Z=32768002&S=6000&sort=price&page=1&L=300

Going from 4800 CL40 to 6000 CL30 on the 13900K was only an 8.7% increase. Jumping to the 7200 CL32 kit raises that to just over 12% increase in performance over 4800 CL40. I couldn't even find a price on CL32, but CL34 kits start at $252. So while the Intel system still continues to increase performance with faster memory, the gains are not equal to that of AM5. So which system is inefficient actually? You're claiming that bandwidth is king, and that may be true for Intel, but AM5 is gaining more performance with less frequency and cost!!! That is efficiency!!! I wish HWUB would have tested above 6000MHz on AM5 just to see the numbers. I don't think they would have gained much but it would have been interesting to see.

And how much performance did you gain by spending $400 over say a $200 kit, or $150? Look I get it, you have the best Intel CPU and the best GPU so you're going to buy the best of everything else. That doesn't make everything about the AMD system inferior. They just work differently. They both have advantages and disadvantages. They both have shortcomings. Neither one is perfect. And no one is wrong for picking the system they want. In the end, if it does what you bought it to do, great.

As a side note, now even the cheapest kits (like 6400) use adie chips, which means they can get 7600mhz minimum. So it's not really like you are paying extra for that.

Mopetar · Feb 18, 2023

Asterox said:
Ok, but in games that loves big L3 cache all that fast DDR5 memory will be no match for any Zen 4 3D V-Cache+cheep DDR5 5200 as example.

If you're buying a 7950X3D why would you pair it with cheap memory? If you're on a budget, Zen 3D, AM4, and DDR4 is going to give you far better value per dollar.

A Ferrari is still going to be fast even if you put cheap K-Mart tires on it, but why on earth would you do such a thing?

About the only reason would be to test and show how it scales with memory, but it's not something anyone should actually do.

Kaluan · Feb 18, 2023

Mopetar said:
If you're buying a 7950X3D why would you pair it with cheap memory? If you're on a budget, Zen 3D, AM4, and DDR4 is going to give you far better value per dollar.

A Ferrari is still going to be fast even if you put cheap K-Mart tires on it, but why on earth would you do such a thing?

About the only reason would be to test and show how it scales with memory, but it's not something anyone should actually do.

I think this is misconception for many of what being on a budget means.

Having a budget doesn't necessarily mean you buy lower end, it means you should be mindful of the best bang for buck.

You're a gamer but also dabble in loads of productivity workloads as a gig? Ryzen 9 may be for you. You likely want 64GB of RAM too... and obviously a fast GPU. Buying a much cheaper 32GBx2 5200MT kit could save you upwards of $200... money that could get you to step up from the 7900XT you initially planned for to the XTX. Which will make a much bigger impact on you gaming than 2% @ 4K faster RAM may or may not net.

Plus, from what we can see, speed doesn't matter as much, timings do. Tuned 5200 is neck in neck with 6000 EXPO kits.

deasd · Feb 18, 2023

Zen4 Threadripper ES

HXL on Twitter: "EPYC 9654 QS（DDR5 5600MT/s Edition） Single Socket CB R23: 115315 pts TR Pro 7995WX?🧐 https://t.co/ItYAQ8Z1ed https://t.co/qRh8jim1jR" / Twitter

igor_kavinski · Feb 18, 2023

biostud said:
I remember creating a boot menu in dos 6.22, with QEMM and Stacker installed on a 386sx 16mhz with a 40mb HDD partitioned in two drives

Man, you can't be as old as me!

nicalandia · Feb 18, 2023

deasd said:
Zen4 Threadripper ES

HXL on Twitter: "EPYC 9654 QS（DDR5 5600MT/s Edition） Single Socket CB R23: 115315 pts TR Pro 7995WX?🧐 https://t.co/ItYAQ8Z1ed https://t.co/qRh8jim1jR" / Twitter

Holy Mother of God...! 115K points.. AVX512, 12ch, Intel Dead?

Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)

Senior member

Diamond Member

Platinum Member

Diamond Member

Platinum Member

Diamond Member

Golden Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Golden Member

Golden Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Lifer

Golden Member

Golden Member

Golden Member

Banned

Diamond Member

Senior member

Senior member

Lifer

Diamond Member