• 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.

14th Gen "Raptor Lake Refresh"

Just some numbers to put the 75% into context. If you run the 13900k with no power limits, it hits 41.5-42k score on CBR23. So 75% on top is 70k+.


The 8P core on Alderlake can get around 20k. The 8P cores on RPL (this one I haven't tested, it's an estimation) can at most get what, 22-24k. The 16 ecores contribute another 20k. So even if the 15900k is 16P+16E core configuration, it's not hitting over 70k. 60k sounds more realistic. If they keep the same number of cores, so 8+16, no way in hell it's hitting anywhere near 70k. That would mean that the P cores would need to be twice as fast - which I find impossible.
 
Grim5 said:
30% higher IPC
10% higher clocks
50% increase to number of E cores

75% overall is probably very optimistic, I think 50-60% is more realistic
Click to expand...
50% increase to ecores? So 8+24? Now that would be just dumb. At this point they are just d*** measuring amd. No point in 24 e cores for desktop. And fun fact, these cpus are going to end up on laptops as well. Who the heck would want 24 e cores on a laptop, lol
 
I suspect Intel's main focus will be power consumption. It's not a good image with 12900k, 13900k being so highly inefficient compared to Zen4x3d. 14th gen for desktop is likely to make this worse.

A desktop chip consuming 350W+ is complete madness, when the competition sips power and delivers similar overall performance (better performance in games).
 
Dave2150 said:
I suspect Intel's main focus will be power consumption. It's not a good image with 12900k, 13900k being so highly inefficient compared to Zen4x3d. 14th gen for desktop is likely to make this worse.

A desktop chip consuming 350W+ is complete madness, when the competition sips power and delivers similar overall performance (better performance in games).
Click to expand...
That's an easily solvable situation. Power limit them to whatever watts you want / need. It will take 5 seconds.

Gaming Efficiency is the problem, at least for 13th gen, but still that's only comparable to the 3d chips. Normal zen 4 ain't particularly efficient in gaming either, especially the dual ccds.

350w is for people that only care about performance,since it is the faster chip at that wattage. If you don't care about performance just power limit them, various tests from computerbasede to phoronix and puget bench have shown that Intel is incredibly efficient at lower wattages. So - what's the problem?
 
Last edited:
Dave2150 said:
I suspect Intel's main focus will be power consumption. It's not a good image with 12900k, 13900k being so highly inefficient compared to Zen4x3d. 14th gen for desktop is likely to make this worse.

A desktop chip consuming 350W+ is complete madness, when the competition sips power and delivers similar overall performance (better performance in games).
Click to expand...
Intel has better Idle power consumption which is arguably a bigger deal for normal users. if/when they sort the fab node, the load power could be better unless they need to push clocks super high. Surprised Intel has not done a chip with extra L3 to compete with the AMD 3d chip.
 
Bencher said:
That's an easily solvable situation. Power limit them to whatever watts you want / need. It will take 5 seconds.

Gaming Efficiency is the problem, at least for 13th gen, but still that's only comparable to the 3d chips. Normal zen 4 ain't particularly efficient in gaming either, especially the dual ccds.

350w is for people that only care about performance,since it is the faster chip at that wattage. If you don't care about performance just power limit them, various tests from computerbasede to phoronix and puget bench have shown that Intel is incredibly efficient at lower wattages. So - what's the problem?
Click to expand...

If you power limit the 13900k, it's performance drops. It needs 350W+ to compete with Zen4x3d.
 
Dave2150 said:
If you power limit the 13900k, it's performance drops. It needs 350W+ to compete with Zen4x3d.
Click to expand...
That's right, if you reduce consumption, you also decrease performance, and furthermore, AMD can be further optimized, so the story about Intel falls apart. AMD is incomparably more efficient no matter how you look at it.
 
Dave2150 said:
If you power limit the 13900k, it's performance drops. It needs 350W+ to compete with Zen4x3d.
Click to expand...
It needs 350+ watts to compete in games? Or are you talking about multithreaded? Cause neither of them is true.

Here is a pugetbench review, the 13900k and the 7950x are at 125watts,the ks is at 150. The difference in efficiency between the 13900k and the 7950x is 9%. Nothing to write home about. So if you are running the 7950x at 100w, the 13900k needs 109 watts to match the performance.

 
Last edited:
Bencher said:
It needs 350+ watts to compete in games? Or are you talking about multithreaded? Cause neither of them is true.

Here is a pugetbench review, the 13900k and the 7950x are at 125watts,the ks is at 150. The difference in efficiency between the 13900k and the 7950x is 9%. Nothing to write home about. So if you are running the 7950x at 100w, the 13900k needs 109 watts to match the performance.

Click to expand...

Please stop trolling - it's established in official reviews that the 13900KS uses up to 350W in some workloads, at stock. Zen4X3D is much more efficient.
 
Bencher said:
It needs 350+ watts to compete in games? Or are you talking about multithreaded? Cause neither of them is true.

Here is a pugetbench review, the 13900k and the 7950x are at 125watts,the ks is at 150. The difference in efficiency between the 13900k and the 7950x is 9%. Nothing to write home about. So if you are running the 7950x at 100w, the 13900k needs 109 watts to match the performance.

Click to expand...

Please don't go down this road again - it only leads to one thing, bickering and ultimately cpu strikes (of which some are at risk of strike #3 and losing access)

Think carefully before posting
 
Dave2150 said:
Please stop trolling - it's established in official reviews that the 13900KS uses up to 350W in some workloads, at stock. Zen4X3D is much more efficient.
Click to expand...
At stock, sure, nobody argues otherwise. If you care about power efficiency don't run it stock, limit it to 109w and you achieve the same performance while using 9 more watts than the 7950x or the 3d. Big whoop.
 
Armageus said:
Please don't go down this road again - it only leads to one thing, bickering and ultimately cpu strikes (of which some are at risk of strike #3 and losing access)

Think carefully before posting
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what I'm allowed or not to post, that's why I kept asking you. Posting data from reputable reviews is not allowed cause some people disagree with them? It doesn't make sense.

If posting reviews that disprove peoples claims is not allowed I swear I'll stop posting them. Just say so cause it's not in any rules.
 
Last edited:
Bencher said:
At stock, sure, nobody argues otherwise. If you care about power efficiency don't run it stock, limit it to 109w and you achieve the same performance while using 9 more watts than the 7950x or the 3d. Big whoop.
Click to expand...

Oh god please stop. A 13900k, limited to 109W, does achieve the same performance as a 7950X3D. Heck, even at 300W+ it loses in some benchmarks. Please stop trolling.
 
AMD can also be further optimized and reduce power consumption, so we are again in a similar situation. AMD is more efficient and better, and there is no debate about that. Intel needs 300w+ to match AMD, which is why Intel is so focused on efficiency with MTL design. That is their main focus now, and with a reason, because they are very poor in that regard. Reading Bencher's comments, you get the impression that Intel is the most efficient architecture in the universe, that everyone else is wrong, and only he is right.
 
Last edited:
pete910 said:
Where's that damn merry go round gif..........
Click to expand...
Does it need to be a merry go round though? Facts are facts. Run everything at the same power, the 2ccds are a little bit better (10%) in efficiency than the bigger intel parts, the single ccds are a lot worse in efficiency compared to their intel counterparts. Why are we still talking about and act like there is a gap is beyond me.

The germans at computer base de tested all cpus at multiple multithreaded workloads at multiple power levels. Wanna know who was - by far - the most efficient cpu? Yeap, the 13900k. Other interresting facts, the 13700k at 88w was faster than the 7700x / 7800x 3d at 142w!!! The 7700x / 7800x3d was losing massively even to the 13600k, it was consuming more power while being slower. The 7600x was also, by far, the worst cpu in efficiency in their charts.

So why what I'm reading in this forum is completely different to what the reviews are showing?

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom