• 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.

HUB: Intel 13700K vs AMD 7800X3D

jigger said:
Ryzen isn’t going to pull anything close to power of its Intel equivalent, as this test shows.

I’m not sure what you’re point is but it’s not relevant in the real world.

www.techpowerup.com

Intel Core i9-12900K Review - Fighting for the Performance Crown

The Intel Core i9-12900K is Intel's flagship processor for the Alder Lake architecture. In our testing, we saw fantastic gaming performance from this new processor. Not only low-threaded tests have improved, the 12900K can even beat AMD at highly threaded workloads.
www.techpowerup.com www.techpowerup.com
Click to expand...
Cause Ryzen have very bad thermal conductivity
You can't cool them, therefore you can't overclock them. Throw some custom wc and delids and Ryzen are pulling over 350 watts no problem. Detox has posted both his 5950x and 7950x at over 300 watts power draw.

But true, Intel are much easier to cool and therefore clock them and make them pull crazy wattages. Even 330 watts on a 13900k can be done with a small aircooler

Anyways, in terms of efficiency in mt workloads intel are much better. 12900k / 13700k are much more efficient than the r7 7700x / 7800x 3d at iso wattage
 
Last edited:
jigger said:
AMD being 2-3x better that Intel for power use and heat has become the norm.

Performance per watt is the last reason anyone should buy Intel over AMD.
Click to expand...
Well for my testing both CPU's the biggest difference I see in CPU power usage is ~70w, which is also 2X as much but as I've demonstrated earlier, in the great scheme of things that costs me less than £20 per year more to run the 13700K, which for my usage is by far the best CPU but that power efficiency is definitely the way that Intel need to be going and trying to emulate.
 
Last edited:
MartinPrince said:
Well for my testing both CPU's the biggest difference I see in CPU power usage is ~70w, which is also 2X as much but as I've demonstrated earlier, in the great scheme of things that costs me less than £20 per year more to run the 13700K, which for my usage is by far the best CPU but that power efficiency is definitely the way that Intel need to be going and trying to emulate.
Click to expand...
Can you post a cbr23 with let's say a 100w power limit and compare your 7800x 3d to the 13700k? I'm pretty sure the i7 will curbstomp the 3d in both performance and efficiency.
 
humbug said:
I agree with you, to an extent, that extent doesn't stretch to calling Steve Walton a liar.
Click to expand...

I don't think he is peddling untruths on purpose, but he (like many enthusiast reviewers) doesn't really care about power consumption (case in point: he doesn't bother including it in the comparison videos for old vs new or current vs current GPUs), so I think he's far less invested in giving us accurate numbers.
 
Bencher said:
Can you post a cbr23 with let's say a 100w power limit and compare your 7800x 3d to the 13700k? I'm pretty sure the i7 will curbstomp the 3d in both performance and efficiency.
Click to expand...
I don't see the point in that as it doesn't benefit me because that's not how I use either CPU. I can run Cinebench r23 on both of them at stock and the 13700K would come out clearly ahead in both ST and MT but at the same time use much more power.
 
MartinPrince said:
I don't see the point in that as it doesn't benefit me because that's not how I use either CPU. I can run Cinebench r23 on both of them at stock and the 13700K would come out clearly ahead in both ST and MT but at the same time use much more power.
Click to expand...
Do it for science. Let us all witness how far ahead Ryzen is in efficiency. If I remember correctly a 13700k gets 19500 cbr23 score at 65 watts.
 
Bencher said:
Do it for science. Let us all witness how far ahead Ryzen is in efficiency. If I remember correctly a 13700k gets 19500 cbr23 score at 65 watts.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what your fixation is with proving that current Intel is more efficient than AMD but in my hands on testing and experience it clearly isn't. The much higher 20w idle power of the 7800X3D was a bit surprising and ticked me off a bit as I couldn't understand why it needs to be this way, especially when compared to the low power it uses for pretty much everything else!
 
MartinPrince said:
I'm not sure what your fixation is with proving that current Intel is more efficient than AMD but in my hands on testing and experience it clearly isn't.
Click to expand...
I just want to see how much more efficient the 3d is when they are both run at iso wattage, which is how you properly measure efficiency. If you don't want to show us that's fine.

I'm thinking about upgrading so Id like to know but w/e, can't force you.
 
Last edited:
Regarding idle power draw, Ryzens might not be accurate. If your mobo is using the old svi2 interface it's measuring power draw before the vrms, Intel does after. So intel doesnt include vrm loses, amd does. Ryzens power draw is accurate only if you are using the svi3 interface, check your hwinfo it should show which one it is using.

So if you are using svi2 it's drawing less power than it reports. Not a huge difference, a couple of watts.
 
Last edited:
This looks really bad for Intel; it's definitely not good publicity, especially during times of rising energy costs, which have significantly impacted Europe. What's even more concerning for Intel, who already has many problems to deal with, is that they won't have a solution until Arrow Lake. MTL is a mobile-only design, and if AMD introduces 3D cache for their mobile design, it could be game over for Intel. Phoenix is already highly efficient even without 3D cache, but with 3D cache, they would gain a tremendous performance boost, making it an ideal feature for laptops.
 
Vulture said:
This looks really bad for Intel; it's definitely not good publicity, especially during times of rising energy costs, which have significantly impacted Europe. What's even more concerning for Intel, who already has many problems to deal with, is that they won't have a solution until Arrow Lake. MTL is a mobile-only design, and if AMD introduces 3D cache for their mobile design, it could be game over for Intel. Phoenix is already highly efficient even without 3D cache, but with 3D cache, they would gain a tremendous performance boost, making it an ideal feature for laptops.
Click to expand...
On the other side, Intel is (re-) introducing L4 "adamantine" cache which might be an interesting alternative...
 
Freddie1980 said:
You have to do what's required at the end of the day. AMD had to clock the RX Vega and it's Polaris GPU's to a point where any extra jump frequency resulted in an exponential increase in power draw but that only resulted in AMD having a product that was competitive with the GTX 1080.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Intel are working with what they have and that’s fine. Intel need to find more performance and that has to come at the cost of power efficiency.
 
Bencher said:
Cause Ryzen have very bad thermal conductivity
You can't cool them, therefore you can't overclock them. Throw some custom wc and delids and Ryzen are pulling over 350 watts no problem. Detox has posted both his 5950x and 7950x at over 300 watts power draw.

But true, Intel are much easier to cool and therefore clock them and make them pull crazy wattages. Even 330 watts on a 13900k can be done with a small aircooler

Anyways, in terms of efficiency in mt workloads intel are much better. 12900k / 13700k are much more efficient than the r7 7700x / 7800x 3d at iso wattage
Click to expand...

Ryzen is very easy to cool.

Can be done with a very small cooler only as long as this small cooler can dissipate 350watts. 350 watts is 350watts regardless…
 
Bencher said:
I just want to see how much more efficient the 3d is when they are both run at iso wattage, which is how you properly measure efficiency. If you don't want to show us that's fine.

I'm thinking about upgrading so Id like to know but w/e, can't force you.
Click to expand...
My 7950X gets 30K at ECO 65W, 35K at ECO 105. An 8 core should probably get 15K and 17.5K. This is without any CO.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom