Point me to the nonsense i sprouted. The numbers I quoted were from the actual review uscool posted. So wtf are you talking about?
Last edited:
-
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
I just did... I called you on 50w idle zen 3 draw, I called you on 12900k efficiency claims which btw are absurdly off. I mean I could go through your posts one at a time and deconstruct them but again the derail is real so lets not.
The 13900k stands on its own merit, no need to make bold claims of x or y when actually there is no need. The 13 series is good if not a bit power hungry.
Last edited:
I suggest you never, ever, link another chart in any post you make ever again then.
Last edited:
I didnt link it. It was uscool, so say the same to him
But i didn't say the 5950x draws 50w in idle, i said thats what the pro reviewer says, posted by uscool. I mean he freaking posted the thing, tell him that his links are nonsense.
No you cant go through my posts and deconstruct them. You can claim you can, but you actually cant, cause they are all based on facts.
No idea what is right or wrong in chart overall but the idle usage is pure nonesense for the 5950x and I assume the rest of the 5000 series as per my posts where I am at 8-10watt idle and 25-40 watt with Revit, Spotify, Chrome etc running. Yes the data is wrong on the chart as shown by others.
None of the stuff about efficiency on the 12900k or 13900k has been correct or fact to date though. You have been wrong with literally everything you have posted on that to date even with the data you have tried to show.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,996
Intel Core i9-13900K "Mount Doom Lake"
You are the one who said charts don't matter though, right or wrong, not the person who posted it. So you don't care what charts say, therefore you should never reference one ever again.
Last edited:
Absolutely man. I know there is no point in arguing in this forum, Intel is going to lose no matter what the facts say, so Ill go with pictures
This literally still shows that the Intel chip is not as efficient even if it closes the gap compared to the link you posted from the same people: https://www.club386.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Wattage-Comparison-02C5Hk9NKZFrktfm-1200x567.png
Their numbers for efficiency rating I assume is real workload as if you went off their CB scores it would be even worse for Intel.
Weirdly the 5950x is so far ahead of basically everything else released in recent years in terms of efficiency (note this is consumer chips so no TR and no EPYC/Xeon). It's an insanely efficient chip. Not the fastest chip in the world but in terms of efficiency it stands out on its own. These new chips don't even come close.
For all out raw speed though Intel have done a slap up job with the 13 series, especially in the mid range. You can't fault the 13600k and its positioning.
Last edited:
I am not fanboying, i really like the look of 13600. What i am saying is you constantly change the narative of a discussion to suit your clear agenda and if anyone debunks you you claim they are lying, doesnt matter if they are a pro reviewer or forum member. i was not talking about any pro revciewer in general/ You not realised everyone seen through you now
Last edited:
I recon that the 13600 is easily the star of the show.
- I know its probably not going to be a popular opinion but if it was me and I had a z690 id be slapping a 13600k in there along with some cheap DDR4 and that in my opinion would be a nice little system. If I was buying a whole new platform I would probably go AM5 and something mid range with a view to the X3D early next year. It just seems to me that for a few % here and there that that would likely be the better long term option with the exception of money no object builds which to be honest just buy the very best available now which is seemingly the 13900k and a 4090. - This is the sensible route imo and is seemingly the stance @Grim5 looks to have taken and the mental gymnastics that I would assume led him there.Great, find me a single post I was wrong on. Should be very easy
What? From cinebench numbers, the 7950x is 9% more efficient at 125w. That's not a lot is it?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,905
- Location
- Planet Earth
I recon that the 13600 is easily the star of the show.
I don't see the point of getting a Ryzen 5 7600X just as stop-gap. The issue is the Core i5 13600KF is much faster in productivity benchmarks and faster in gaming(its pretty much fighting the Ryzen 7 7700X whilst being cheaper). It would need replacing quicker IMHO. If you want an X3D CPU,its best to bypass the Ryzen 5 7600X and just start with an X3D CPU IMHO. Unless the Pound crashes even more in value,I expect it would be cheaper longterm.
If the Ryzen 5 7600X was £250,then it might make some sense but its way over £300. The whole AM4 mantra of buying cheap,and getting a more expensive CPU later does not hold. Its more like buying an expensive CPU and just putting in a more expensive one.
Last edited:
Not stock but the 7950X with the same power limits as the 5950X is far faster for the same power use.
I see what your saying, problem is there isn't that much in it really and I think the dead end platform was the deciding factor for that little brain fart. To throw a spanner in the works you could build onto a dead end platform and build a 5800x3d cheaper than the 13600 which throws a bit of a decision spanner in the works. Both are dead ends so it's hard to really recommend either. If I really needed a machine right now and didn't have one I would be very hard pressed to decide what to buy.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,905
- Location
- Planet Earth
But the problem is that the Core i5 13600KF is faster in gaming and faster in non-gaming applications:
OcUK Intel Raptor Lake review thread
Because you can use 8000 ddr5 ram on the Intel, and you can't on AMD? With 3D memory of CPUs and Direct Storage on GPUs, next year is the year RAM goes to die doesn't have any affect on gaming anymore
forums.overclockers.co.uk
Look through the figures - once I compiled the review thread and started reading the reviews I was surprised.
You have to consider its not just 6 "big" cores,but 8 "small" cores with Skylake level performance. Its like having a downclocked Core i7 9700 plonked onto the six core Raptorlake CPU.
The Core i5 13600KF is as fast or faster than a Ryzen 7 7700X in many non-gaming benchmarks. It's frequently beating a Ryzen 9 5900X in video encoding benchmarks and at times can get close to a Ryzen 9 5950X!!
Its not even close in non-gaming scenarios at all,and the Ryzen 5 7600X is consistently slower overall. Even with DDR4 you are seeing at worst about 10% lower gaming and application performance,and a lot of times not even that.
The added issue for AMD,is that the Core i5 13600KF is £350ish(in the US the RRP of the Core i5 13600KF and Ryzen 5 7600X are similar). The Ryzen 7 5800X3D is £420. So even if you get a £100 AM4 motherboard,you can still get a very good B660 DDR4 motherboard for £150~£160. The total price is about the same.
The Core i5 13600KF still wins in value. I can see a Core i5 13600KF lasting much longer than a Ryzen 5 7600X. Plus think about gamers who stream or capture video,having 8 Skylake level cores will make a big difference for multi-tasking.
So you really are spending more with a slower Ryzen 5 7600X to try and become "future proof" and as a person who is on B450,AMD tried to stop Zen3 on 400 series motherboards. The amount of arguments I had on here when that happened,and only because of the backlash they relented. But they still removed PCI-E 4.0 from later AGESAs meaning B450/X470 lost partial or full PCI-E 4.0 support.
Now I am looking for a B550/X570 mini-ITX motherboard and the prices are too high. I have seen more offers on Intel mini-ITX motherboards recently!
There is no guarantee that with Zen5 AMD might not have a technical hitch which means it needs newer motherboards. But even it works,a Ryzen 5 7600X will run out of steam quicker anyway which means you need to upgrade quicker. You need to price upgrades very carefully on the same socket otherwise,it does not add up financially. Many don't so it's not always cost effective staying on the same socket. I did,and stuck to my upgrade budget very strictly. If not it is more cost effective to sell what you have and change platforms.
The Ryzen 5 7600X needs a big price cut now. With the Core i5 12600K being rebranded as the Core i5 13400,and apparently the Core i5 13500 and Core i5 13600 have more ADL E-cores on top of this,the Ryzen 5 7600X is not looking great IMHO. It's going to get undercut by slightly slower CPUs too.
Last edited:
5800X with Spotify running.
CPU cores 0.66 Watts
SOC 16.9 watts.
CPU cores 0.66 Watts
SOC 16.9 watts.
Think some fact checking is probably in order here. That seriously can't be right, don't want to derail the thread at all but at idle even a 24 core threadripper doesn't use 50w stock, in fact mine is pulling approx 10w now according to ryzen master:
In fact later I shall fire up my mrs 5600x machine to see what idle power draw is as I don't believe it's 50w idle... not even close. edit: I also have an alder lake machine available to me so will also have a look at idles on that... Interesting.
