• 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 "Zen 4" thread (inc AM5/APU discussion) ***

SKILL said:
lulwat

You're not comparing stock to stock there are you? You're comparing 7950X 'stock' with 12900k 125W... Either you're being dense or intentionally misrepresenting things, I think we all know which one it is.

If you need help the 12900K at stock is 27,694, divided by 240W, gives 115p / watt vs 165 for the 7950X.

Or you could compare 125W vs 125W in which case the 7950X is 289p / watt vs 191 for the 12900k.
Click to expand...
It’s dense isn’t it. Fairly certain it’s dense.
 
timorous said:
Since when is the 125W score stock for the 12900K?

Either you compare the stock vs stock numbers of 38k and 27k and the respective power draw, whatever that may be, or you compare the 125W numbers to each other.

Comparing stock vs the 125W 12900K score is disingenuous, and you know it.
Click to expand...
PL1 of the 12900k is 125w. The guidelines for the reviews were to run with a non expiring turbo of 240w but the official actual numbers is 56sec @ 240w and then 125w. You can see it in Intel's actual webiste

ark.intel.com

Intel® Core™ i9-12900K Processor (30M Cache, up to 5.20 GHz) Product Specifications

Intel® Core™ i9-12900K Processor (30M Cache, up to 5.20 GHz) quick reference guide including specifications, features, pricing, compatibility, design documentation, ordering codes, spec codes and more.
ark.intel.com ark.intel.com

Anyways, it doesn't really matter - stock out of the box performance is completely irrelevant to me, i just find it funny that some people do different things depending on which company wins or loses.
 
Bencher said:
PL1 of the 12900k is 125w. The guidelines for the reviews were to run with a non expiring turbo of 240w but the official actual numbers is 56sec @ 240w and then 125w. You can see it in Intel's actual webiste

ark.intel.com

Intel® Core™ i9-12900K Processor (30M Cache, up to 5.20 GHz) Product Specifications

Intel® Core™ i9-12900K Processor (30M Cache, up to 5.20 GHz) quick reference guide including specifications, features, pricing, compatibility, design documentation, ordering codes, spec codes and more.
ark.intel.com ark.intel.com

Anyways, it doesn't really matter - stock out of the box performance is completely irrelevant to me, i just find it funny that some people do different things depending on which company wins or loses.
Click to expand...
How long does 1 run of R23 MT take, answer less then 56 seconds (closer to 20) so it would hit 240W for the duration of a r23 run, so at stock the 12900k completed a single pass of r23 at 240w. "You can see it on Intels actual website"
 
cliffy said:
How long does 1 run of R23 MT take, answer less then 56 seconds (closer to 20) so it would hit 240W for the duration of a r23 run, so at stock the 12900k completed a single pass of r23 at 240w. "You can see it on Intels actual website"
Click to expand...
Of course, but you don't really run R23 once. If you care about heavy MT performance (and efficiency), you are running those workloads for hours. A 30 minute CBR23 for example has the 12900k at better efficiency than the 7950x. If you only want to run for 50 seconds then efficiency doesn't really matter, does it?
 
Bencher said:
Of course, but you don't really run R23 once. If you care about heavy MT performance (and efficiency), you are running those workloads for hours. A 30 minute CBR23 for example has the 12900k at better efficiency than the 7950x. If you only want to run for 50 seconds then efficiency doesn't really matter, does it?
Click to expand...
12900K has lost my dude, though in GamerSNexus's bench it did show AMD having lower lows in gaming than the 12900K but this could just be teething issues.
Even with the envelope on power draw being quite a bit more than Ryzen 5000, the 7000 series are still more efficient over the 12900K, though single thread efficiency is near to FX 9590. Not totally the big picture though, those cores were hitting over 5.7ghz.
 
Last edited:
Bencher said:
Yeap. You posted the numbers from club386 that prove me right, and now you object to me for quoting those numbers. Truly unbelievable
Click to expand...

Just gonna stop I couldn't care less for either company I just find it amusing when something loses at something the lengths you go to try to twist it almost like Intel are paying you lol
 
Bencher said:
Of course, but you don't really run R23 once. If you care about heavy MT performance (and efficiency), you are running those workloads for hours. A 30 minute CBR23 for example has the 12900k at better efficiency than the 7950x. If you only want to run for 50 seconds then efficiency doesn't really matter, does it?
Click to expand...

Citation needed, or is this just yet more made up drivel?

Bencher said:
Yeap. You posted the numbers from club386 that prove me right, and now you object to me for quoting those numbers. Truly unbelievable
Click to expand...

Except it didn't prove you right.
 
Bencher said:
Of course, but you don't really run R23 once. If you care about heavy MT performance (and efficiency), you are running those workloads for hours. A 30 minute CBR23 for example has the 12900k at better efficiency than the 7950x. If you only want to run for 50 seconds then efficiency doesn't really matter, does it?
Click to expand...
We were only talking about a R23 score created with 1 run, do not try and weasel out of it, you lost this battle with your own statement about 56 seconds at 240w. Back peddling just makes you look foolish
 
Bencher said:
Citation for what? That heavy mt users run workloads for hours instead of seconds?

Yes, it absolutely did prove me right. 38k @ 230w < 24k @ 125w. It's just math dude
Click to expand...

That the 12900k would be more efficient on an 30 minute+ long MT task, eg the claim you made, do you need a picture to explain it?

So continuing the oranges to apples comparison.

36k @125W > 24k @ 125W. Is that simple enough for you?
 
cliffy said:
We were only talking about a R23 score created with 1 run, do not try and weasel out of it, you lost this battle with your own statement about 56 seconds at 240w. Back peddling just makes you look foolish
Click to expand...
I don't know who "you" were. I was not talking about a single R23 run. Nobody really cares about efficiency in heavy MT for 56 seconds, but if you do - great, the 7950x is pretty decent at that, but still the 5950x is better.
 
SKILL said:
That the 12900k would be more efficient on an 30 minute+ long MT task, eg the claim you made, do you need a picture to explain it?

So continuing the oranges to apples comparison.

36k @125W > 24k @ 125W. Is that simple enough for you?
Click to expand...
That's not out of the box though, the 7950x runs at 230w.
 
Bencher said:
I don't know who "you" were. I was not talking about a single R23 run. Nobody really cares about efficiency in heavy MT for 56 seconds, but if you do - great, the 7950x is pretty decent at that, but still the 5950x is better.
Click to expand...
You are just being rude and obtuse for the sake of it. If you objective is to turn every AMD thread into a argument about blue and red you win
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom