Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,586
- Location
- Rutland
Absolutely, AMD are crushing it in performance per watt.
-
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 5 rumours
- Thread starter Grim5
- Start date
Not half. The graphics card will be able to hit its rated performance.
is it not time for and and Intel to make 8 core the new six core? Almost $300 for 6 core cup is not great deal. The pricing is not great relative to performance increase this round. But what may seem disappointing for us, is not for AMD, the performance per watt is where its doing really good, I see very good laptop CPU.
was expecting more performance tbh, will now wait for X3D chips.
was expecting more performance tbh, will now wait for X3D chips.
edit - Seems the host had a brainfart
I'm watching the GN review now.... again as always from TPU according to them there is no actual difference between any CPU, a 14900K is 5% faster than a 14600K, and everything else just creates the rest of the almost perfectly flush wall, now i don't know what sort of messaging TPU think they are putting out with this sort of... what looks like a GPU bottleneck benchmark but shouldn't be.... and i'm looking at Steve's 14600K vs 14900K results and seeing quite a big gap between them.
I said this the last 3 times TPU did CPU reviews, they are this same weird GPU bottleneck block where they shouldn't be... its a shame, TPU's GPU charts are good to use for forums, their CPU charts, as always are utterly useless and frankly IMO completely wrong, W1zzard is either completely incompetent when it come to benchmarking CPU's or he has some sort of social agenda where he wants you to think the cheapest CPU's are just as good as the most expensive ones.
Beck to you Steve....
Last edited:
Boils down to which games are picked
GN tries to focus on games that show a meaningful difference for CPUs, but TPU has a few games in their set that are GPU bound at 1080p. That brings averages close to each other. Look at 720p results, see a bigger spread then
Last edited:
I'm deliberately ignoring AMD and talking about the fact that there is no difference between the Intel CPU's either......
That's my guess, and probably not even specifically targeting desktop CPUs. If the efficiency gains are inherent in Zen5, they'll also apply to the datacentre CPUs using Zen5 and efficiency matters more for sales and profit there.
Eh well, guess I'll wait to see what the X3D versions of the desktop processors are like. Right now, I'm not seeing any reason to buy a 9xxx over a 7800X3D and I think I'll stay with my 5700X for a while longer.
That’s the most disappointing take away from this for me.
I was waiting on the 9800X3D to upgrade as I wanted a bigger jump than the 7800X3D but if it’s only a couple of % faster then I’ll probably wait and see what arrow lake is like.
Last edited:
I've just picked up a 5700X3D (currently on a 5600) so I reckon I'll get another couple of years out of that as my main usage is gaming with a mid range GPU. Was really considering going AM5 but seems there's not much point now, might as well leave it until I need to and see what's out at that time.
I liked Gamer’s Nexus saying it was like Intel’s 14nm++++ process.
