Intel are not more power efficient though. How many times have we been over this now. Outside of you sitting and monitoring your gimped systems idol power use AMD are miles ahead of Intel in power efficiency. AMD are literally 3x the performance per watt or more.
-
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 Ultra 9 285k 'Arrow Lake' Discussion/News ("15th gen") on LGA-1851
- Thread starter Dave2150
- Start date
Intel are not more power efficient though. How many times have we been over this now. Outside of you sitting and monitoring your gimped systems idol power use AMD are miles ahead of Intel in power efficiency. AMD are literally 3x the performance per watt or more.
A lot more to this - the benchmark tests, aside from idle, are usually canned benchmarks at 100% utilisation, and power is often measured from the CPU rather than full system. Intel's power gating is more advanced than AMD's - in the lower half of utilisation states Intel actually uses less power than AMD. When you look at the picture for real world day to day running it becomes more complex.
Last edited:
To be fair, these are the same people who are willing to buy the latest Intel chip after the last 2 generations literally melted.
Only in cloud cuckoo land. You’re talking around your hat again.
Afraid that is you. If you have an AMD 7000 series system with a 14th gen side by side and measured power use over a whole day you'll find the results vary a lot depending on what you are doing - under high load conditions AMD have better power consumption but under idle conditions (that doesn't mean doing nothing at all but light office tasks, even just moving the mouse or other applications which put up to moderate load on the CPU) Intel are better.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 0
You're wasting time on this one.
Problem with that is the 14th gen is a dead end socket as the new processors are socket LGA1851.
Wait for the reviews.
Man of Honour
Why would anyone consider buying a 14th or 13th gen when they are proven to be flawed given recent events? Is the risk realy worth it? And then there is the power consumption and thermals...
Stick with what you have, then see reviews. I'm firmly staying put with the 12700K until a platform update that comes out that is actually next gen now. The 4090 is happy at 4K as long as a CPU is somewhat capable and evidences by all benchmark results for games and 3dmark etc.
Stick with what you have, then see reviews. I'm firmly staying put with the 12700K until a platform update that comes out that is actually next gen now. The 4090 is happy at 4K as long as a CPU is somewhat capable and evidences by all benchmark results for games and 3dmark etc.
Last edited:
Not sure anything right now really shines for future proofing, LGA1851 isn't exactly generous with extra provisioning of new features and new technologies are likely just around the corner like PCI-e 6.0, etc.
According to some users Intels failing CPUs are down to propaganda from the media.
(Inserts nothing to see gif)
I haven’t seen any of the reviews yet, but let guess. More, more of the same with bells on?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,463
We barely have anything that takes advantage of PCI-e 5.0 other than some top end hard drives. No GPU's currently use 5.0 bandwidth
I don't think people need to be too concerned about not having PCI-e 6.0
Can't compare an e-core to a full fat core from AMD. Obviously a gimped core will use less power, but as soon as you do anything meaningful, it's down to how optimised the scheduler is, which Intel have struggled with since the introduction of those e-cores.
Makes sense,will also wait for reviews
all my systems never sit idle. they are either on (working) or off as I don't like wasting power! Further more the systems are switched off at the wall as even the PSU consumes power even though the system is off. A PSU to match the power requirements of the system is also important to me. A large PSU is extremely ineffecient at low power.
I know exactly how much power is required as most machines are solar powered. Current Intel platforms are only heaters in my view.
I know exactly how much power is required as most machines are solar powered. Current Intel platforms are only heaters in my view.
Man of Honour
What ongoing struggles? A few games had issues at launch, the games were patched, problem solved, this was ages ago. Can you elaborate? At present there is no game or app that I am aware of with issues due to E-cores.
Huge shadow over them with the issues - but I'm yet to see them impacted on large scale in the real world, though not enough time has passed to see the full truth of it and not enough clarity from Intel to be sure. From my experience so far it seems that the problem CPUs are [probably] a relatively small number which are incorrectly boosting beyond 1.5V.
I've been running, and not treated gently, a 14700K from launch without a single problem so far and I don't find the thermals (running air cooler as well) or power use that bad - it runs far cooler, far less power use and not that far behind for performance compared to the 14900.
PCI-e 6.0 was just an example, but we are due iterations on quite a bit of tech which will make most existing platforms obsolete if people care about future upgrade paths, etc.
Not a big fan of e-cores personally but I've had zero problems with my 14700K and Windows 11 in that respect, some people have had issues especially with Windows 10. There are 1-2 pieces of software it is apparently still an issue like Star Citizen but I don't use those to see. But in that respect there is still a similar story with the split CCD AMD CPUs, again mostly edge cases these days but still some scheduler issues.