• 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.

Intel Core i9-12900K allegedly scores 30K points in Cinebench R23

Last edited:
throwaway4372 said:
That's what I thought, but I'd expect wikipedia to contain "the truth", which it doesn't.
Click to expand...
It's all just marketing these days, from all parties. You could look at the smallest feature sizes on die to try and get some idea but different parts of die will have different sizes. If you really want to dig into it look up some of the articles on Anandtech.
 
throwaway4372 said:
Are these cpus actually 7nm or not? They call it 10nm and 7nm and Intel 7, so the truth isn't discoverable via wikipedia. Are amd's "7nm" cpus actually 7nm?
Click to expand...

The truth is discoverable by Wikipedia - not sure which part isn't clear

It is to be fabricated using Intel's Intel 7 process, previously referred to as Intel 10 nm Enhanced SuperFin (10ESF).
Click to expand...

Intel's process is called Intel 7... nowhere does it say 7nm, because it isn't.
 
4K8KW10 said:
Single core performance is NOT important. Intel thinks this too and this is the reason why it will launch the Arrow Lake with 32 small cores and 8 big cores.


Intel Core i9 "Raptor Lake-S" to feature 24 cores, full lineup leaked - VideoCardz.com
Click to expand...

Single core performance is still one of the key determinants for gaming performance (along with latency) and this is important to many people.

Arrowlake being 8 big/32 small shows the opposite to what you suggest, you need the big cores with good single threaded performance to game on, you just don't need many of them because multithreaded performance beyond about 6 cores currently is wasted on gaming. Intel has a power problem so to get competitive multithreaded performance they've tacked on a buttload of slow but efficient cores. If power wasn't an issue they'd be able to just go all big cores like AMD do currently.

For true multithreaded workloads then those small efficient cores are fine, but to suggest singethreaded performance is not important is foolish.

Why do you think a 5800X and a 5950X have very similar gaming performance when they have very similar single threaded performance but one has twice the cores as the other?
 
Last edited:
stephenb said:
It's all just marketing these days, from all parties. You could look at the smallest feature sizes on die to try and get some idea but different parts of die will have different sizes. If you really want to dig into it look up some of the articles on Anandtech.
Click to expand...

It's all marketing but in the large picture it doesn't really matter if they call it 7nm or 37nm.
But 37nm would be closer to the reality and the truth.

While 7nm is just suck from their fingers.


Minstadave said:
Single core performance is still one of the key determinants for gaming performance (along with latency) and this is important to many people.

Arrowlake being 8 big/32 small shows the opposite to what you suggest, you need the big cores with good single threaded performance to game on, you just don't need many of them because multithreaded performance beyond about 6 cores currently is wasted on gaming. Intel has a power problem so to get competitive multithreaded performance they've tacked on a buttload of slow but efficient cores. If power wasn't an issue they'd be able to just go all big cores like AMD do currently.

For true multithreaded workloads then those small efficient cores are fine, but to suggest singethreaded performance is not important is foolish.

Why do you think a 5800X and a 5950X have very similar gaming performance when they have very similar single threaded performance but one has twice the cores as the other?
Click to expand...

You are wrong. What you describe is poor software optimisations, lazy game developers but things will improve over time and yet again you will be proven wrong.
More cores is always better, no matter what arguments you bring in the discussion..
 
Intel renamed their 10nm to Intel 7 to make it appear like its equivalent to TSMC 7n.

Which it may well be, its just their X86 architecture that's incredibly inefficient.
 
Cyber-Mav said:
Windows 11 will make sure that doesnt happen ;)
Click to expand...

Perhaps Intel will insure it does....

Apparently ADL review NDA lifts on the 27'th, AMD said Microsofts performance issues on Win 11 will also be fixed in this month, i think it will be fixed before reviews go out.
 
4K8KW10 said:
You are wrong. What you describe is poor software optimisations, lazy game developers but things will improve over time and yet again you will be proven wrong.
More cores is always better, no matter what arguments you bring in the discussion..
Click to expand...
In that case you best upgrade to the 2990WX, you are lacking cores. Let us know how well it does in games.
 
Armageus said:
The truth is discoverable by Wikipedia - not sure which part isn't clear
Intel's process is called Intel 7... nowhere does it say 7nm, because it isn't.
Click to expand...
When you click on Intel 7 it goes to the page for the 7nm process. Upon editing the link there's a note left by someone saying don't edit it to 10nm and the explanation about Intel 7 is on the 7nm process page. So not only is it wrong, but you can't correct it.
 
throwaway4372 said:
When you click on Intel 7 it goes to the page for the 7nm process. Upon editing the link there's a note left by someone saying don't edit it to 10nm and the explanation about Intel 7 is on the 7nm process page. So not only is it wrong, but you can't correct it.
Click to expand...

lol Wikipedia really is just a tool for pushing fake crap they want you to believe that they can't put on their official pages.

Intel Renames 10nm to 7nm

Before we get to the roadmaps, in a necessary move that will likely draw criticism, Intel is renaming its process nodes to align with the current naming conventions used by the third-party foundries like TSMC and Samsung.

This new policy begins with what was known as the 10nm Enhanced SuperFin process that is set to debut with the Alder Lake processors. Intel announced this process node long ago, and it is already in volume production.
Click to expand...

https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/news/intel-process-packaging-roadmap-2025

 
4K8KW10 said:
You are wrong. What you describe is poor software optimisations, lazy game developers but things will improve over time and yet again you will be proven wrong.
More cores is always better, no matter what arguments you bring in the discussion..
Click to expand...

Don't be daft. You words were "Single core performance is NOT important" which is obviously and demonstrably wrong.

As it stands single core performance is key for gaming, that may change in the future, maybe, but it hasn't really done so in the 15 years since multicore CPUs came out and won't change in the immediate future.

We're talking about CPUs that will be released imminently or in the near future not in far off fantasy land where games are beautifully multithreaded and money is free and unicorns prance across the plains.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom