Geekbench does indeed seem to be AMDs preferred benchmark this time around but CPU-Z and cinebench are both showing a 10% advantage for Intel in single core, while the 13600k looks to to have a lead of 65% in MT for just £50 more if rumours in pricing are to be believed.
-
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.
Raptor Lake Leaks + Intel 4 developments
- Thread starter g67575
- Start date
That is great if Cinebench is your game of choice. Not long now, waut for teh gaming benchmarks and any profuctivuty tests you may be needing. Oh and do not forget your DDR5
If you just look at maximum/average FPS values at 4K, yes you'll see old, slow CPU's perform as well as the new ones. Instead look at 0.1%, 1% minimum frame time values when using a 3090 or above class GPU. That's where you see the bottlenecks.
The same can be said for geekbench. I wonder if we'll see a geekbench score thread on OCUK as it looks like Zen4 will be largely absent from the https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/the-official-ocuk-cinebench-r23-benchmark-thread.18941421/ once RPL arrives.
DDR5 doesn't help much in gaming especially at higher resolutions so I'd use the money saved on the next tier up GPU as that's where your money should be spent if your aim is better gaming performance.
Geekbench 5 measures a range of tasks (shown in the breakdown), with the 13700K coming out on top in some, and the 7700X a bit ahead in others.
Cinebench measures measures 2D tile rendering performance, which doesn't correlate to other CPU tasks.
Soldato
Officer, I'd like to report a crime in progress. These straws are being clutched so hard I think it could constitute an assault.
I'd save a little longer and get both, i think you will find a 7950x competing just fine with Cinebench in MT and ST. I wonder if you will put your habd up and say yeah i wass wtonh. Me personally i am waiting on gaming reviews and handbrake, photoshop. Although i will wait for teh 3d Cache which will really kick bottom
The only crime taking place will be daylight robbery with the 7600X being up to 65% behind the 13600k in MT despite being similarly priced.
The problem with CPUz (v2017 x64 benchmark), is that again, it just measures one thing, as follows:
"The new benchmark computes a 2-dimensional noise function, that could typically be used in a game to generate a procedural map."
Info from here:
www.cpuid.com
and apparently it still uses just that one algorithm to generate the score.
Apparently, the CPU instructions used are 'scalar SSE/SSE2 instructions', maybe Intel has an advantage here?
"The new benchmark computes a 2-dimensional noise function, that could typically be used in a game to generate a procedural map."
Info from here:
CPU-Z 1.79 : new benchmark, new scores. | News | CPUID
The latest version of CPU-Z introduced a new version of the benchmark (2017.01), that succeeds to the previous version introduced in 2015. We've received a lot of emails concerning the new scores, and we'll try to answer to the most frequently asked
www.cpuid.com
and apparently it still uses just that one algorithm to generate the score.
Apparently, the CPU instructions used are 'scalar SSE/SSE2 instructions', maybe Intel has an advantage here?
If multi core is unimportant then why did you buy a 10700KF over a 10600KF?
Soldato
If it matches ST and kills the 7700x in MT it’s a bad chip. Gaming will be the decider at this level. Think a 6 core cpu should be £250 to make it worthwhile. Higher end much more interesting for AMD.
If the ST performance of a CPU is overall about the same, and there are fewer cores than the competition, then I would have thought total MT performance will always be lower. But people are interested in Zen 4, because of it's apparent ability to compete with 2nd gen. Goldencove CPUs in most tasks, at a much higher base clock, using less power.
The problem with E-cores, is that they don't make up for the inherent high power usage of Goldencove's P-cores at higher frequencies (all they can do is contribute to total power usage, at a much reduced amount). The total number of high performance cores kept scaling up with the 9th and 10th Intel generations (I think many expected this scaling up to continue), but basically it has been difficult to scale beyond 8-10 cores, while bringing in the IPC advantages of microarchitectures like Goldencove on 10nm (Intel 7).
The main reason I'm considering Zen 4 over the 13th gen, is that AMD is offering the ability to switch to a DDR5 (offering higher bandwidths) platform, that they have confirmed is going to be used for many more years to come. I also tend to think that AMD's design on TSMC's 5nm process, scales better above 8 high performance cores. For example, I think the 7900X (12 Zen 4 cores) should offer more than enough performance (in heavily multithreaded tasks), for what most people need. To some extent, it gives a clue about where next gen Zen CPUs are headed - On the other hand Meteor Lake is still going to be using E-cores /hybrid core design.
Purely for gaming, it looks like either an 8 or 16 core V-cache CPU is likely to give the best performance per $$$. Particularly if offered at $500 for an 8 core model (likely considering the $449 MSRP of the Zen 3 based 5800X3D).
I can see why people want to stick with Intel though, if they already own a LGA1700 board. The 13th gen might actually be more appealing to some without the E-cores, especially if Intel charged £50 less across the board (not everyone is concerned with future upgradability, right now).
The problem with E-cores, is that they don't make up for the inherent high power usage of Goldencove's P-cores at higher frequencies (all they can do is contribute to total power usage, at a much reduced amount). The total number of high performance cores kept scaling up with the 9th and 10th Intel generations (I think many expected this scaling up to continue), but basically it has been difficult to scale beyond 8-10 cores, while bringing in the IPC advantages of microarchitectures like Goldencove on 10nm (Intel 7).
The main reason I'm considering Zen 4 over the 13th gen, is that AMD is offering the ability to switch to a DDR5 (offering higher bandwidths) platform, that they have confirmed is going to be used for many more years to come. I also tend to think that AMD's design on TSMC's 5nm process, scales better above 8 high performance cores. For example, I think the 7900X (12 Zen 4 cores) should offer more than enough performance (in heavily multithreaded tasks), for what most people need. To some extent, it gives a clue about where next gen Zen CPUs are headed - On the other hand Meteor Lake is still going to be using E-cores /hybrid core design.
Purely for gaming, it looks like either an 8 or 16 core V-cache CPU is likely to give the best performance per $$$. Particularly if offered at $500 for an 8 core model (likely considering the $449 MSRP of the Zen 3 based 5800X3D).
I can see why people want to stick with Intel though, if they already own a LGA1700 board. The 13th gen might actually be more appealing to some without the E-cores, especially if Intel charged £50 less across the board (not everyone is concerned with future upgradability, right now).
I don't get why people are so obsessed with wanting more than 8 Pcores though? 8 is fine for gaming which barely scales above 6 and for ST workloads you only need 1 or 2 fast cores so again 8 is plenty. Multithreaded workloads are the only thing that scales above 8 cores and for this the Ecores are fine and actually better than Pcores as 1P = 4E and 4E out perform 1P on power and performance.
Soldato
"Purely for gaming, it looks like either an 8 or 16 core V-cache CPU is likely to give the best performance per $$$. Particularly if offered at $500 for an 8 core model (likely considering the $449 MSRP of the Zen 3 based 5800X3D)."
The 8 core is where my money would go if it offers the performance expected. We have already seen what the 58003d brought to the table.
Just for reference in Geekbench 5:
12600k @ 5.1mhz scores 1985 / 12520.
So to me Ryzen is looking good. Not wiping the floor with AL but will be interesting to see how it OCs.
Plus, especially the 8 core plus CPUs, I think it will trade against the top RL cpus no problem and overall be the best choice especially given the socket longevity.
The 8 core is where my money would go if it offers the performance expected. We have already seen what the 58003d brought to the table.
Just for reference in Geekbench 5:
12600k @ 5.1mhz scores 1985 / 12520.
So to me Ryzen is looking good. Not wiping the floor with AL but will be interesting to see how it OCs.
Plus, especially the 8 core plus CPUs, I think it will trade against the top RL cpus no problem and overall be the best choice especially given the socket longevity.
Higher core counts should hopefully come down in price over time, it's not really mainstream still. This has a lot to do with Intel, I think.
V-cache seems to be the thing to spend money on, at least on Zen 4. It might be that Zen 4 is only really competitive in games, but that might be all a lot of people are interested in anyway. I'm expecting 9-10% higher performance in games, compared to what the 7700X will offer.
V-cache seems to be the thing to spend money on, at least on Zen 4. It might be that Zen 4 is only really competitive in games, but that might be all a lot of people are interested in anyway. I'm expecting 9-10% higher performance in games, compared to what the 7700X will offer.
future proof, willy waving, productivity. Personally i do not get the point of e cores in a desktop but meh it is what it is. Zen 5 supposed to have double teh core count so that will really rub people the wrong way
Isn't AMD supposed to be using lower powered zen 4 cores as the E cores for zen 5? besides its all well and good AMD doubling cores at the high end but it's really the ryzen 5 and 7 parts that need addressing else intel will be galloping further off into the distance in those price brackets.
Permabanned
I have no idea what plans AMD have but I think they pushed Ryzen 5000 to it's reasonable limits a bit too much IMO, the 5800X is a great example, you need pretty damn exotic cooling if you want even small overclocks due to how badly the design translates to thermal efficiency. 105w CPU, need 250W cooling capacity LOL.