Why dont you just stop. Its not that you disagree its that you are far to aggressive with the way you try to argue your point. I chose AMD since AM4 as i hate Intel forcing new sockets on us every 2 generations.And you are doing it again. At this point Ill assume you are just lying. Out of all the tests he ran, Intel won 29 while amd won 9. That's a difference of over 300%....but yeah, for sure AMD won half of them. It says a lot about your affiliation when you think going 29 to 9 is a tie
I mean I've known it beforehand, no amount of facts or benchmarks will change your mind, fanboyism is a strong mental disorder sadly. Even if Intel won 99.999999% of tests, you would find that 1 it doesn't and call it a tie, so I guess it's pointless to even argue at this point. I give up
-
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"
- Thread starter Dave2150
- Start date
Caporegime
This is what you're referencing.
He is quite agressive, but don't climb in to the gutter with him.
Soldato
Absolutely great and amazing for you. I chose Intel cause I like blue. That doesn't give you or me an excuse to make **** up, does it? I post a review where Intel absolutely nailed it, going 29 to 9, and an AMD fan will call it a tie. That basically is making **** up. It's supposed to be a technological forum, not a forum where you spread misinformation to make yourself feel good about your choice
Soldato
And you are doing it again, 3 times in a row. No that is not what im referencing. This isThis is what you're referencing.
He is quite agressive, but don't climb in to the gutter with him.
I assume you actually missed it. Again. Repeatedly. Okay
Deleted member 651465
D
Deleted member 651465
I don’t get it. That pie chart is the same data that @humbug just posted 
| 146 tests |
| 12900k won 78 (53%) |
| 5950x won 44 (30%) |
Soldato
Caporegime
I don't think any of this tell us anything new.
The 12900K does well in lower threaded applications, better than Zen 3, its still mostly competitive in high threaded applications, but at the expense of very high power consumption.
We already knew that.
The 12900K does well in lower threaded applications, better than Zen 3, its still mostly competitive in high threaded applications, but at the expense of very high power consumption.
We already knew that.
Soldato
It tells us that both your claims from the previous page are wrong. And Im quoting
"5950X walks away with the win just as often as the 12900K"
That was in reference to the phoronix test, and it is clearly waaaaay off. The 5950x doesnt walk away with a win just as often, not even close to that. It walks away with a big L sign 70% of the time
And in reference to the igorslab test, you said
"AMD wins in about half of them"
When the actual win / loss ration is 29 to 9. Im sure if it was AMD winning 29 to 9 you wouldn't have said it's a tie, would you?
As for what else the phoronix test tells us, there is an efficiency chart somewhere, it shows that the 12900k not only finished the whole suite FIRST, it did it while consuming less total power. So it was both faster AND more efficient.
Of course I still don't expect these mere things called facts to change anyone's mind, but one can hope
Soldato
I kind am to be fair, cause the test was run with a u9s (LOL), meaning the 12900k was severely hampered in the all core workload testing due to severe thermal throttling.
Caporegime
It tells us that both your claims from the previous page are wrong. And Im quoting
"5950X walks away with the win just as often as the 12900K"
That was in reference to the phoronix test, and it is clearly waaaaay off. The 5950x doesnt walk away with a win just as often, not even close to that.
And in reference to the igorslab test, you said
"AMD wins in about half of them"
When the actual win / loss ration is 29 to 9. Im sure if it was AMD winning 29 to 9 you wouldn't have said it's a tie, would you?
As for what else the phoronix test tells us, there is an efficiency chart somewhere, it shows that the 12900k not only finished the whole suite FIRST, it did it while consuming less total power. So it was both faster AND more efficient.
Of course I still don't expect these mere things called facts to change anyone's mind, but one can hope
What is it that you need me to say to this?
If you want to be exacting about it yes, sure.
As for power consumption, its written on the phoronix test conclusion i posted, it was using as high at near 260 watts, or 258 to be exact, which agrees with a lot of other reviews who came to the same conclusion about it when its running high thread high stress loads. the igorslab test you cite is not.
See aggresive again. What have i made up, the only think i have mention was that 12900 did not seem to scale well (something you agreed with). As for a tecnological argument mind was that i did not like teh more socket life from Intel, yours was you like blue. The screen shot at the top of this page which humnug posted that you seemed to refer to clearly states that in MT workloads teh 12900K is less thencompelling.
Soldato
You don't have to be exacting. You can call a 29 to 32 a tie, fine by me. But when you call a 29 to 9 a tie, I have to assume there is an agenda. I mean once it could just be a mistake, but if someone keeps on doing it, and always in favor of a certain company, i dunno, too many coincidences to be an honest mistake
I don't know why you are bringing power consumption up again. We already agreed that in all core workloads it can get about to 240 (it can't get to 260 unless you unlock the power limits btw, or the mobo does it for you). Usually, at least with both the mobos I tried, it stays between 200 and 220, but I've seen some mobos that actually go up to 240. Igorslab also agrees with it, I don't understand why you say he doesn't, in his blender test the 12900k pulls 227watts.
Caporegime
You don't have to be exacting. You can call a 29 to 32 a tie, fine by me. But when you call a 29 to 9 a tie, I have to assume there is an agenda. I mean once it could just be a mistake, but if someone keeps on doing it, and always in favor of a certain company, i dunno, too many coincidences to be an honest mistake
I don't know why you are bringing power consumption up again. We already agreed that in all core workloads it can get about to 240 (it can't get to 260 unless you unlock the power limits btw, or the mobo does it for you). Usually, at least with both the mobos I tried, it stays between 200 and 220, but I've seen some mobos that actually go up to 240. Igorslab also agrees with it, I don't understand why you say he doesn't, in his blender test the 12900k pulls 227watts.
I think i have been quite reasonable, so its all you're going to get.
I'm off for some dinner.
Soldato
I wasn't talking about you with the made up ***t.
I didn't agree that the 12900 does not scale, I'm saying NO cpu does. Run a 5950x at 4.9ghz all core and it will consume 350w for measly gains. I don't know if it's a barrier we can bypass, but for now it seems anything above 4 to 4.5 ghz just makes the power consumption skyrocket
Caporegime
My CPU has one 8 core CCD, it uses about 90 to 110 watts at 4.7Ghz to 4.8Ghz all core R23 depending on how i have tuned, the 5950X has two of those.
Soldato
And that is relevant how? And what is 4.7 to 4.8? Just lock it to 4.9 and run a cbr23, tell me how much it consumes
Caporegime
Unsafe volts for a load like that, highest i've had it for R23 was 4.85Ghz, purely a benching run, about 110 watts. 16,124 points.
Soldato
But you are talking about tuned settings, and then comparing them to a 12900k stock I assume. So, what's the relevance? A tuned 12900k needs like 160-170w for 4.9 all core and score 28k.
Don't get me wrong, Im glad you are sharing your results, but I don't see point in regards to what I was saying
Here is my 12900 @ 100 watts.
Caporegime
But you are talking about tuned settings, and then comparing them to a 12900k stock I assume. So, what's the relevance? A tuned 12900k needs like 160-170w for 4.9 all core and score 28k.
Don't get me wrong, Im glad you are sharing your results, but I don't see point in regards to what I was saying
Here is my 12900 @ 100 watts.
What did i say about tuned CPU's? a 5950X at 4.8Ghz scores about 32K
Untuned it scores higher than that at about 120 watts.