• 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.

AMD demonstrates Ryzen 9 5900X prototype with 3D V-Cache stack chiplet design

Here....

5950X 9.3 minutes
12900K 9.4 minutes

5950X 120 watts
12900K 243 watts

5800X 63 watts :cry: how far down the Alder Lake stack do you have to go to get 63 watts? just one Alder Lake P core uses half that...

EIIjnYA.png
KQVdiAp.png
 
Last edited:
jigger said:
It will be interesting to see if we get a new stepping along with V-cache.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they will but just imagine AMD "glue" a 5800X on to the 5950X, that's 50% more performance for 180 watts, and this without the 3D Cache, because they can, because AMD glue.

What are Intel going to do? make a 400 watt CPU the size of a 50 pence coin?

This is the problem with Intel's comically inefficient architecture, they have pushed it to its limits to keep up with AMD while they have plenty left in the tank with a CPU architecture built on a node two full generations behind.

All these shills banging on about 20 very contrived watts less in some cherry picked games are desperately distracting from the real issue with ADL.

AMD are so far ahead its not even funny anymore.
 
5950X 9.3 minutes
12900K 9.4 minutes

Who puts time in a decimal format lol. Game Nexus, apparently.

It's whole seconds of difference, with a CPU that costs ~£650. Life will never be the same again.

The 12900 (non K) can't be far behind.
 
g67575 said:
5950X 9.3 minutes
12900K 9.4 minutes

Who puts time in a decimal format lol. Game Nexus, apparently.

It's whole seconds of difference, with a CPU that costs ~£650. Life will never be the same again.

The 12900 (non K) can't be far behind.
Click to expand...

Let’s call it as it is though. Alderlake is barley good enough against an almost EOL chip and pretty much required Win11 and DDR5 to get there.
 
It's pretty value good for the money tbf (except the 12900K). Better value with B660 boards though, which aren't far off.

The non K chips should do well. It falls down when overclocked though, imo. They did struggle for years with clock speeds on 10nm, so I'm not too surprised.
 
g67575 said:
It's pretty value good for the money tbf (except the 12900K). Better value with B660 boards though, which aren't far off.

The non K chips should do well. It falls down when overclocked though, imo. They did struggle for years with clock speeds on 10nm, so I'm not too surprised.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t say Alderlake is particularly good value for money and sales reflect that. Alderlake seems to driven sales of Ryzen.
 
Zen 3 is an incredibly efficient design, but no one in tech journalism ever gave that any credence, not that they should, but its certainly impressive enough to deserve it.

Now, every tech journalist down from the top 4 or 5 are going almost hyperbolic about power efficiency of ADL in some very contrived testing, and say nothing about the power consumption outside of that contrived testing.

Am i the only one who finds that suspect? Suddenly they care about power efficiency again but only in some extremely narrow circumstance.
 
humbug said:
I'm not saying they will but just imagine AMD "glue" a 5800X on to the 5950X, that's 50% more performance for 180 watts, and this without the 3D Cache, because they can, because AMD glue.

What are Intel going to do? make a 400 watt CPU the size of a 50 pence coin?

This is the problem with Intel's comically inefficient architecture, they have pushed it to its limits to keep up with AMD while they have plenty left in the tank with a CPU architecture built on a node two full generations behind.

All these shills banging on about 20 very contrived watts less in some cherry picked games are desperately distracting from the real issue with ADL.

AMD are so far ahead its not even funny anymore.
Click to expand...


You mean a 3960x and it's 280w not 180w, power scaling is not linear
 
I don't think they will, lucky for Intel because of supply constants.

At any other time i think they might have done, personally i think they still should, now is not the time to ease off the pedal, supply constraints or not, make it, send it to reviewers and then just make a few thousand of them for retail.

Its about sending a message to Intel, that message being don't try to play us at our own game, we will crush you. We will make you regret it.
 
I doubt we'd see it with the 3d cache/AM4 chips but it kinda gets me wondering if that's potentially where the rumours of a ~170W TDP for Zen4 comes from...

If Raptor Lake is gonna have 16 'E' cores it is going to be reasonably handy in multithreaded stuff, so maybe AMD could counter with a 24-core Ryzen via 3 chiplets. It would kinda encroach on Threadripper but not as much as you'd think given the memory bus/PCIe setup.
 
humbug said:
I don't think they will, lucky for Intel because of supply constants.

At any other time i think they might have done, personally i think they still should, now is not the time to ease off the pedal, supply constraints or not, make it, send it to reviewers and then just make a few thousand of them for retail.

Its about sending a message to Intel, that message being don't try to play us at our own game, we will crush you. We will make you regret it.
Click to expand...

Crush them

Just embarrassing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom