Soldato
So no specific links to specific posts. Figured
-
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
Soldato
Everyone else knows what the person is posting about. Just trawling through to find it isn't worth the time. But it was the single run CB23 results you didn't like and then tried to claim you need a 30min run etc. You made complete rubbish your argument and you change direction more than the wind to try and make a point.
Probably the most antagonistic person on this forum imo.
It's same rubbish when you talk about stock and say the 12900k is 125w stock but it isn't in terms of taking it out box and plugging it in. It's 241w and that what "stock" scores get you out the box. Yes because mobo vendors set it but that is what stock means. What happens when the system is set up and runs out box. Doesn't matter if the cpu 'stock' 125w if a user will never see that unless they go manually set PL1 to it as mobo set PL1=PL2 as example.
Ryzen does out box by CPU and Mobo design use 95c thermal boost to get most which is actually beyond its best efficiency curve when in stock.
But since you have to set 12900k to PL1 125w you can also do such for the 7950x as example and that outscored the 12900k at 241w even. The Zen4 series can be extremely efficient if you set one of the eco modes and still get more performance that stock. Look at the chart showing 85c and 75c eco modes and it scores better than stock cause its able to boost higher whilst keeping lower temps and pulling less power.
You deny anything written in front of you but the fact that 65watt 7950x beats out the 12900k at 241w means that over a 30min run AMD would always be on top for that workload in comparison even if you hampered yourself by doing so.
The best CPU for gamers will be the one with lowest dollars per frame so probably a 12600k like now or a 13600k...
x3d are only good at low resolution and stupid expensive anyway, they make the 4000 series look cheap
Soldato
12600kf right now is best performance to £ because of the price and being able to get them for £260 if you take whole system (CPU, Mobo, RAM) into account. If the £ hadn't fallen so and things were priced accordingly then the 7600x would have come out looking a lot better at the performance/£ point. Unfortunately for AMD certainly in UK it hasn't.
However the price that the pre-order with £356 13600KF and £380 13600k they are way beyond the performance/£ point. You would need the 13600kf to give a 37% performance increase to match the 12600kf at performance/£ and 30% for the 13600k. Looking at the shown 13900k performance charts we can calculate out that the performance gain over previous gen is nothing close to that. The performance of the 13600k I do think will be slightly above the 7600x in gaming, like 2-3% average over a complete suit of games. However it is also prices £55 more currently.
If you was upgrading from current Intel it doesn't seem enough of a boost and if you was building new and you waited for the B series boards for parity in options between Intel and AMD the costs there is £55 more for CPU bit likely about £50 less for a mobo if you got a current model with similar features meaning you are at almost 1:1 parity in performance/£ but you are needing to upgrade both CPU and Mobo next time around for Intel and for AMD it will be drop and go for a new CPU at the next generation which means you will always save whatever the cost of the Mobo is then if you are wanting to keep upgrading.
You would need to be waiting 4 generations before considering to look at both as complete refresh builds and ignore the drop in upgrade AMD could give you. We don't know if Intel will move to do more support for longer in future with AMD doing so but yeah if you upgrade only every 4 generations buying Intel now is likely just fine. If you buy every generation or two then AMD makes sense.
What will be interesting is if we skip PCIE 6.0 for PCIE 7.0 in the next socket update from AMD because we had PCIE 6.0 drop start of year and talk of PCIE 7.0 dropping for 2025 means that would be right on refresh for them. Interesting times ahead on pushing forward with that after stagnation with previous PCIE 3.0.
However the price that the pre-order with £356 13600KF and £380 13600k they are way beyond the performance/£ point. You would need the 13600kf to give a 37% performance increase to match the 12600kf at performance/£ and 30% for the 13600k. Looking at the shown 13900k performance charts we can calculate out that the performance gain over previous gen is nothing close to that. The performance of the 13600k I do think will be slightly above the 7600x in gaming, like 2-3% average over a complete suit of games. However it is also prices £55 more currently.
If you was upgrading from current Intel it doesn't seem enough of a boost and if you was building new and you waited for the B series boards for parity in options between Intel and AMD the costs there is £55 more for CPU bit likely about £50 less for a mobo if you got a current model with similar features meaning you are at almost 1:1 parity in performance/£ but you are needing to upgrade both CPU and Mobo next time around for Intel and for AMD it will be drop and go for a new CPU at the next generation which means you will always save whatever the cost of the Mobo is then if you are wanting to keep upgrading.
You would need to be waiting 4 generations before considering to look at both as complete refresh builds and ignore the drop in upgrade AMD could give you. We don't know if Intel will move to do more support for longer in future with AMD doing so but yeah if you upgrade only every 4 generations buying Intel now is likely just fine. If you buy every generation or two then AMD makes sense.
What will be interesting is if we skip PCIE 6.0 for PCIE 7.0 in the next socket update from AMD because we had PCIE 6.0 drop start of year and talk of PCIE 7.0 dropping for 2025 means that would be right on refresh for them. Interesting times ahead on pushing forward with that after stagnation with previous PCIE 3.0.
Soldato
But that doesn't explain how was I wrong. The stock guidelines from intel (you can check their website btw) is pl1 125/240 56 TAU. Other than that, of course mobo manafacturers are free to change it, but stock is stock, and in stock configuration it is absolutely true that the 12900k is more efficient than the 7950x also at stock
3200KSP will be the best, don't be silly. Worth waiting 10 years for it, and posting 10,000 posts a day discussing the merits of waiting for such a chip.
Soldato
Because you are reading a sales pitch figure that is not real world where PL1 125 is never utilised by itself because PL1=PL2 241 by all motherboard manufactures to maximise the performance and sod all given to the efficiency available. So has nothing to do with spec sheet stock if you are not getting that real world. The stock real world because of how the ecosystem works is 241w not 125w.But that doesn't explain how was I wrong. The stock guidelines from intel (you can check their website btw) is pl1 125/240 56 TAU. Other than that, of course mobo manafacturers are free to change it, but stock is stock, and in stock configuration it is absolutely true that the 12900k is more efficient than the 7950x also at stock
You have gone on to state you placed your 12900k at 125watt PL1 to set it to stock in previous posts.
AMD have the same feature in Ryzen Master so you can just set that to either 105w or 65w eco modes. Even the 65w R23 results out perform anything the 12900k can do because it scores higher than the 12900k can ever achieve. AnandTech for instance have the 65watt mode scoring 31,308pts so that is 481pts/w. The 12900k at 125w scored 26,890 so that is 215pts/w. So that would suggest that the 7950x is supremely efficient in comparison.
If you want to continue to run the whole 7950x 170w vs 12900k 125w to make a point then fine but literally nobody else (maybe Dave2150) is reading anything like this in anything that is being provided with tables and data points. You could have the 12900k at stock PL1 in fairness if you are only using a low end mobo where the manufacture has not set PL1=PL2 but honestly whom is buying a £90 mobo for a £500 CPU?
Soldato
Man, i think you dont get the context. Im not trying to say the 12900k is more efficient than the 7950x, because obviously it isn't. Out of the box settings - for me - are absolutely useless. The thing is, back on alderlake nobody cared that you could set PL1 to whatever you wanted and make the 12900k extremely efficient. But now that amd released an inefficient cpu at stock, everyone is talking about power limiting it. Don't you see the double standards? Cause I do.
Also, btw, the 12900k does not score 27k at 125w. If that's what anandtech said, they did it wrong. It scores around 24 to 24.5k. Im just saying, that with the official intel specs, the 12900k is indeed more efficient out of the box than the 7950x at stock. I find it funny, but whatever
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 0
Can you both take this to the adl thread please?
12400f for gaming. Especially if at 1440p or 4k. It's literally half the price of the 13600k for the same frames at those resolutions.
Soldato
But you are missing is that most people at 'stock' was 241watt not the 125watt setting. So Intel with their spec sheet yes it would be more efficient out the box at 125w, however real world settings stock for 95% of people with the 12900k is 241w because of the mobo spec setup and so that is real world stock vs spec sheet stock that is being discussed.
Nobody moved the goalposts because everyone was talking about the real world using the machine etc. Not what Intel has decided is spec. The same point being out the box that means the Intel 12900k is pulling 241w and the 7950x pulling the 170w+ whatever happens to do based on the thermal limit ability to boost.
So to get to Intel stock settings you need to set the 12900k via PL1 in Bios 95% time and thus that means if you are doing that then you should compare the 105w or 65w of the 7950x or whatever Eco options are there then, because that is also click and play and not even in bios.
Yes Anandtech indeed are showing their score as 27k at 125w for the 12900k.
The 13900k would need to be showing a 50% improvement in efficiency to get there. Looking at the slides from Intel and what is happening then that isn't likely to change this gen from Intel just to try and get back on topic. Power has gone to 340w in boost ability to get this extra performance with it boosting to 5.8Ghz with leaks originally suggesting around 40k for that. I haven't checked if that still right but seems these are less efficient this time around to get max performance but likely similar efficient to the previous 12900k then at the lower power draw settings?
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 0
Seriously?
still got the 5800X3D beating Raptor Lake in some games, it costs around £410 in the UK.
exactly not worth it... £410 for last gen cpu thats rubbish outside of gaming
already discussed, should have gone to spec savers or learn to read a chart if you can't see it
Last edited:
Last edited:
Try gaming on a 5800X3D while also having other background applications running, 8 cores is just not enough these days.
16 core V cache CPU's will be amazing though, assuming it works as well with Zen4 as it did with Zen3. Perhaps there could be thermal implications, as Zen4 is already hot as the sun.
Soldato