Soldato
- Joined
- 15 May 2012
- Posts
- 5,846
- Location
- Louth, lincs
Seen a post on social media regards the Dark, will be a slight delay after launch. Usually expensive as well intially for us Brits.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Raptor Lake Leaks + Intel 4 developments
- Thread starter g67575
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 May 2012
- Posts
- 5,846
- Location
- Louth, lincs
I thought that was the case for Amd not intel
Oh noes I got clickbaited
Pretty good, easy to understand explanation for the average PC pleb.
The dude is a bit manic isn't he
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 0
A few things on DDR5. Subtimings are much more important than on DDR4. Wish that wasn't the case but they are. His are quite loose as based on his BW figures. With him, any timing he doesn't understand = waste of time. Back when he started, anything beyond primaries were a waste. Then he understood what tfaw/trfc/trefi do so those became important and so on.
Another point is his CPU OC is quite weak. The faster the CPU runs, the more and faster it needs to be fed by the memory. 5.2 is just slow. HT on doesn't help things when testing gaming...
The 3rd part is ofcourse where the bottleneck sits. Something like Spiderman with RTX is going really benefit but CS:GO which mainly loves clock speed, cache and branch prediction, is going to benefit way less.
The main point of optimizing your system is that you give it the best possible chance to perform in any scenario.
Last edited:
The Frame Chasers guy reckons performance in games doesn't scale much beyond ~5.5ghz (he says he's tested it at higher frequencies), and probably not in Zen 4 either. Pretty interesting.
So, clocking your CPU to 5.5ghz on AMD or Intel is fairly ideal (with the gain presumably being more noticeable with fewer cores).
Maybe that's due to the fact that so many games now are designed to make use of 6/8 cores (sometimes even more)?
He also predicts the arrival of 8800 d*** die, which will no doubt increase gaming performance by 1000%.
So, clocking your CPU to 5.5ghz on AMD or Intel is fairly ideal (with the gain presumably being more noticeable with fewer cores).
Maybe that's due to the fact that so many games now are designed to make use of 6/8 cores (sometimes even more)?
He also predicts the arrival of 8800 d*** die, which will no doubt increase gaming performance by 1000%.
Last edited:
g67575 mentioning the Zen 4 3D chips is not as silly as you make out and shows how much you lack logical and rational thinking. Considering the 3D chips will be released around the same time as the rest of the 13th gen Intels CPUs including the KS, it is actually a very reasonable statement.
I think this is the best advice I've heard today:
youtu.be
5800X3D is the BEST gaming CPU of 2022
MAX FPS, ZERO EFFORThttps://framechasers.org/ - Discord and Supporthttps://framechaser...
youtu.be
But that doesn't explain how was I wrong. The stock guidelines from intel (you can check their website btw) is pl1 125/240 56 TAU. Other than that, of course mobo manafacturers are free to change it, but stock is stock, and in stock configuration it is absolutely true that the 12900k is more efficient than the 7950x also at stock
you still disagree with almost every review that touches on efficiency for example...
But yea every efficiency calculation is still wrong
edit: In these charts which I am more likely to believe the 12900k is beaten out in efficiency by ryzen 3000, 5000 and 7000 sku's. But we can of course blindly ignore these efficiency calculations from reviewers all over and continue blindly believing that the 12000 series of intel chips are some sort of efficiency masterpiece.
Last edited:
No I don't. Club386 at the actual pl 1 of 125w and scored 24k on the 12900k in CBR23. Which makes it more efficient than a stock 7950x. PERIOD. You can't argue, it's just a fact. /Next
Yea you do, you didn't try and explain the image above but instead take a random site that agrees with you, in this case "club386", and use them to prove your point. Tell me in the image I posted with all at stock what is more efficient between all the following AMD SKU's (5950x, 5900x, 5600x, 7950x, 3700x, 5800x3d, 3600, 5800x) and the 12900k? Happy to go grab many, many more efficiency calculations from trusted reviewers and we can all learn how Bencher calculates efficiency. Perhaps even correct the above so we can rubbish gamers nexus numbers?
Last edited:
What's there to explain, it's obvious he is running with unlimited TAU, lol
It's not important. I just noticed that the 7950x stock is less efficient than a 12900k at 125/241 56 Tau Intel stock specification, so i mentioned it. That's all. It seems to be important to the amd side cause they keep personally attacking me about an actual fact! LOL
That wouldn't be stock then would it? Yet it clearly states on the chart - Stock next to all SKU's.
What? at stock the 7950X scores 40% higher at about the same power.
Last edited:
Stock 12900K, 27,000 points at 240 watts
Stock 7950X, 38,000 points at 240 watts
7950X at 65 watts 30,000 points
7950X at 125 watts 34,000 points
It doesn't matter which was you cut it the 7950X wins the efficiency argument.
It just is what is it is.
Stock 7950X, 38,000 points at 240 watts
7950X at 65 watts 30,000 points
7950X at 125 watts 34,000 points
It doesn't matter which was you cut it the 7950X wins the efficiency argument.
It just is what is it is.