Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,108
Seems like a complete waste of time to release these chips.
-
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
If you disable the P cores and then disable the E cores, memory latency changes so much that you cannot even measure it!
Soldato
Steve from Gamers Nexus found the same thing. He tested the 285k on Windows 11 23H2 as it was the most stable and gave the more consistent result (although they were still consistently disappointing). On one of 24H2 one of the gaming results on the high power profile was about 25% less then balanced.
I have to say Intel really has forgot how to do a launch as well as designing a CPU. Go back the to the original Core series and this nonsense never happened. Granted some of this is down to Intel's best friend Microsoft but if the OS needed patching then get it fixed first and then launch it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,743
1080 Ti heatsink weighs 1.2 kilograms
4090 heatsink weighs 2.0 kilograms
The heatsink required to cool a GPU has nearly doubled in just 5 years. At this rate, the RTX 7090 heatsink will weigh nearly 4.0 kilograms.
Intel have been doing the same. Instead of innovating, Intel just increased the power requirements each gen it seams. Clocking them to within an inch of their life (or an inch beyond their life in a lot of instances). Do you think that's okay? Would you have been happy if next gen needed more power than 14th gen? Then even more power for the gen after that? I think Intel's current CPUs are a step in the right direction.
Nvidia needs to do what Intel and AMD are doing right now. I would be happy if the RTX 5090 used 60% less power than the 4090 but was only 5% slower. Then for the RTX 6090 to have a HUGE 70% performance improvement with no increase in power. That would impress me.
Last edited:
Turin vs Granite Rapids
First AMD EPYC 9965 benchmarks are in; Turin server CPU sets flurry of new world records across wide range of software, but will that be enough to stop Xeon and Arm's forthcoming onslaught?
Reviews are universally positive, but AMD isn't the outright leader it once was
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 6,613
I find its been the same with the past 3 or 4 gens of CPUs from both players.
They're that busy trying to keep up with each other release wise that they're literally throwing anything out with not really a huge performance uplift, Instead of leaving it 2-3 years between generations and actually giving us HUGE upgrades.
i get it, I mean they're a business and want to keep the money coming in but my god its gotten very stale.
I also don't like how they continue to shrink the NM smaller and smaller, I think this is why modern CPUs run so damn hot now is because the heat is so concentrated...i also believe that degradation will happen much much faster with modern processors, But again is that part of the plan!
(Maybe the last part I'm out of touch with and don't know enough)
Last edited:
I think with AMD it's only been 9000 series that's been disappointing, zen 1 all the way through to zen 4 have good improvements and introduction of x3d
Last edited:
Caporegime
I wouldn't say that. I really like the way AMD have gone with 3D cache, efficiency is crazy (admittedly because they had to limit TDP) and performance boost is awesome in some titles, decent in others.
Zen 5 is dull but it's using the old IO die. Zen 6 should fix that and give higher RAM speeds.
Last edited:
I hope not, you can normally trust a CPU to keep going until it is obsolete. I wouldn't be surprised if the memory controllers degrade though.
Permabanned
alternatively theyll require water cooling as standard. as thermals increase, if they keep increasing that is.
a 9900k cost roughly 700 aud in 2018. 8 core
a 265k is priced at roughly 700 aud. 285k at ~ 1100aud... 8 core and eeeeeeeee-cores.
see if they can tune or patch this mongrel thing. talking to myself mostly.
another part of the gambit is how the e cores are utilised. (or not) and also that npu thang.
seems that many cores are there. and some proggies simply are not utilising them.
Last edited:
Permabanned
smaller transistors can have a lower thermal budget. ie. the shrinking of transistors within the silicon chip allows for more trans. per unit area.
so i believe it is more about increasing the compute power.cache and whatnot within a reasonable die size.
other factors if die size gets bigger the rate of manufacturing defects will/may/does increase too.
chippies are layered. they are stacking cache too - amd's latest thing. 'similar' to 3d nand.
larger chips = more expensive=more defects = more power etc.
if you want smaller chips. youll get less compute. at the current level of manufacturing anyway.
Last edited:
This is not quite comparable. Yes heatsinks on GPUs have gotten larger but a lot of this is to do with consumers wanting lower temps
Compare the temp of a high end GPU today to 10 years ago, todays GPUs run much cooler and the only way to make them run cooler (given the same power) is a larger heatsink.
Yes modern GPUs have increased their power usage to some extent, but they also run far cooler. 10 years ago it was normal for a top Nvidia and AMD GPU to to run at 90c, today consumers expect 60c
Permabanned
true. i looked back at the die sizes of 2004 offerings. not much different really. approaching 300 sq.mm for the biggest ones. (gpu dies)
and the cooler on my 3060ti is , well really good in terms of noise and heat control. i cant hear the gpu fans above the noise of the cpu fan. giga bytes the dust triple fan thing. have another card much smaller die, much lower power but with noisy af fans.
this was just luck really. i had no idea what the noise levels were going to be like.
but a 4090 is a monster die in comparison. over 600 sq.mm
and the cooler on my 3060ti is , well really good in terms of noise and heat control. i cant hear the gpu fans above the noise of the cpu fan. giga bytes the dust triple fan thing. have another card much smaller die, much lower power but with noisy af fans.
this was just luck really. i had no idea what the noise levels were going to be like.
but a 4090 is a monster die in comparison. over 600 sq.mm
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,806
This is just lack of experience or research tbh, you need to be smarter with your choice of components if you want a powerful yet silent system (that still runs cool).
Got my 265K sample coming tomorrow but board will be AWOL for a little while until my contacts come through! Gutted! Maybe not a bad thing though so some software related fixes can happen. Disappointing launch but happy to tinker with the new platform and try some new faster memory kits.
Permabanned
mm. or lack of actual reviews on the noise levels of specific graphics cards. 
but it is something ill look into in the future.
but it is something ill look into in the future.
Because Intel advertises this CPU as efficient, the efficiency is its major selling point not its performance. So yes out of the box it's efficient if you don't care about performance
Then some people said just wait till it gets tuned, then the beast comes out
Ok, so now we have tuning results and it causes power draw to go up, killing the efficiency, you know, the main selling point of the product
Sorry but I just don't see the point of buying a 285k, then tuning the cap out of it, buying expensive cu-dimm ram, tuning the crap out of that, just to get the same power draw and performance as an existing 14900k has
What a waste of 3nm silicon, I don't know what Intel did with the supposed improvements over 14900k's 10nm node...
Last edited:
Soldato
I'm thinking of going AMD for my next build I think intel's has had it .