Poll: Ryzen 7950X3D, 7900X3D, 7800X3D

[humbug]

I didn't dismiss it, I said they don't provide individual power draw results. Apparently they do , and they prove my ppoint. Curlyriff also said this



Read it this time. I've no idea why you keep arguing with facts, lol

I don't disagree with what @Curlyriff said, another way to put that is Intel better at lighter workloads, AMD better at heavier workloads, Intel's P cores are a bit quicker than Zen 4 cores, however Intel make up half if not more than half of their MT performance through lots of very much slower cores, so it stands to reason if you're only using 8 cores or less the 13900K would be better.

Its not the argument you're making.

It's common knowledge that intel is much better at at or mixed usage tasks both in speed and efficiency.

For efficiency, no one agrees with that and productivity workloads are very mixed in how much of the CPU's resources an application uses, even the open benchmarking link Curlyriff posted says the 13900K competes with the 7950X overall, IE not significantly faster, overall.

 

[humbug]

And just because....

In Cyberpunk 2077, the 13900K generally saw package power hovering between 170 - 180w and regular thermal throttling was detected despite package power sitting around 90c, still very hot when gaming. Meanwhile under the same test conditions, the 7950X drew between 140 - 145 watts, there was no thermal throttling detected and hotspot temps were between 77 - 79c, so a much cooler running CPU when gaming.

7950X 198 FPS
13900K 217 FPS +10%

1080P RTX 4090.

Intel Core i9-13900K Review: Hot and Hungry

Hot of the heels of AMD's Zen 4 series launch, here comes Intel with their highly anticipated 13th-gen Core series, codenamed Raptor Lake. Today we're reviewing the...

www.techspot.com

 

[Bencher]

I don't disagree with what @Curlyriff said, another way to put that is Intel better at lighter workloads, AMD better at heavier workloads, Intel's P cores are a bit quicker than Zen 4 cores, however Intel make up half if not more than half of their MT performance through lots of very much slower cores, so it stands to reason if you're only using 8 cores or less the 13900K would be better.

Its not the argument you're making.



For efficiency, no one agrees with that and productivity workloads are very mixed in how much of the CPU's resources an application uses, even the open benchmarking link Curlyriff posted says the 13900K competes with the 7950X overall, IE not significantly faster, overall.

No one agrees with that? Trchpoerrup agrees with that. Phoronix agrees with that. Technotice agrees with that. But whatever man, fanboyism is strong with this one

 

[humbug]

No one agrees with that? Trchpoerrup agrees with that. Photonic agrees with that. Technotice agrees with that. But whatever man, fanboyism is strong with this one

Still with Phoronix? paste the quote... in fact paste them all so i can see exactly what you're reading.

 

[Bencher]

Still with Phoronix? paste the quote... in fact paste them all so i can see exactly what you're reading.

What quote,you can see the actual results, curlyriff posted them..

 

[humbug]

What quote,you can see the actual results, curlyriff posted them..

If

It's common knowledge that intel is much better at at or mixed usage tasks both in speed and efficiency.

Was true you would have at least some way to cite that, i would say you might find Intel's current CEO attesting to this on twitter but his own board of directors made him walk it back because it was so blatantly not true, deluded is how common knowledge would describe this notion.

 

[Curlyriff]

Can we stop now please. Can some mod please can this up and can we get back to now the x3d chips ta.

 

[humbug]

Can we stop now please. Can some mod please can this up and can we get back to now the x3d chips ta.

I'm more than happy to....

 

[Bencher]

If



Was true you would have at least some way to cite that, i would say you might find Intel's current CEO attesting to this on twitter but his own board of directors made him walk it back because it was so blatantly not true, deluded is how common knowledge would describe this notion.

But I do. Techpowerups review clearly shows it, techcnotices review clearly shows it, phoronix shows it, what more do you need

https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-13900k/images/efficiency-singlethread.png

INTEL & AMD both lied! REAL WORLD power consumption is MESSED UP

Intel & AMD have both 'lied' about their real world power consumption. Here's the Truth:Sponsored Message:Whokeys 25% discount code : TN20 Windows 10 Pro O...

www.youtube.com

 

[alec]

Mildly interesting discussion about power efficiency should be moved to its own thread

 

[delta0]

Less than 2 weeks until they release. Really hope we see a preorder soon!

 

[Sc00p007]

Less than 2 weeks until they release. Really hope we see a preorder soon!

Was there preorder with the 7950x release?

 

[pete910]

Can we stop now please. Can some mod please can this up and can we get back to now the x3d chips ta.

 

[Iron Man]

Can we stop now please. Can some mod please can this up and can we get back to now the x3d chips ta.

This thread should be for AMD owners only….

 

[SilverCider]

Interesting to see that Zen 4 suffers the same sensitivity to memory latency as previous Zen iterations (HUB tested several DDR5 kits comparing a 7700X against the 13900K). Not new news by any means but whets the appetite for the upcoming 3D CPUs since the 5800X3D showed improved resilience toward memory speed and latency! Also, some pretty shocking conclusions about other benchmarking outlets that only used 5200 kits in their performance testing. I don't wholly agree with the downplaying of it since we are free to choose which memory we buy and use but maybe all CPU reviews should include a meaningful comparison with memory from the outset to avoid doubt in the future.

 

[LtMatt]

I am curious to see how much faster Zen 4 can get in Horizon Zero Dawn.

Spoiler

[/spoiler

 

[SilverCider]

I am curious to see how much faster Zen 4 can get in Horizon Zero Dawn.

Spoiler

[/spoiler

It's a curious one, the takeaway from the discussion there was that Horizon Zero Dawn had very little memory throughput hence the 'unexpected' Zen 4 scaling with memory speed. This would, to me at least, indicate that the 3D cache CPUs wouldn't show a massive improvement here and yet the 5800X3D does exactly this in comparison to the 5800X. Perhaps the cache hit rates are still high despite the apparent lack of memory sensitivity.

 

[humbug]

Interesting to see that Zen 4 suffers the same sensitivity to memory latency as previous Zen iterations (HUB tested several DDR5 kits comparing a 7700X against the 13900K). Not new news by any means but whets the appetite for the upcoming 3D CPUs since the 5800X3D showed improved resilience toward memory speed and latency! Also, some pretty shocking conclusions about other benchmarking outlets that only used 5200 kits in their performance testing. I don't wholly agree with the downplaying of it since we are free to choose which memory we buy and use but maybe all CPU reviews should include a meaningful comparison with memory from the outset to avoid doubt in the future.

I'm not sure that's unique to Ryzen, look at the post @LtMatt just made, there isn't much difference between memory speeds, no more than Intel.

If you use memory that isn't on the motherboard QVL list it defaults to extremely lose timings, i know this because my kit is not on my boards QVL, even at the XMP 32000MT/s the sub timings were 2X has high as i tuned them at 3800MT/s, TRFC for example was at 980, utterly ridiculous, i cut that down by more than half, this at 3800MT/s, i did the same for all the sub timings, i cut some by more than half.

I gained 20 to 30% in games by doing that, much more than the usual 10% you gain if the memory is on the QVL where they apply proper timings, i don't think Intel would be any different.

So its really easy, be it deliberately or by genuine ignorance to make any of these CPU's, be it Intel or AMD, look much worse in comparison than they actually are, all you have to do is use memory that isn't on one or the other's QVL, and with that you have plausible deniability if you get rumbled, which is very unlikely anyway.

People do do this, Ryan Shrout was notorious for manipulating his results in ways like this, he now works for Intel.

 

[Iron Man]

I'm not sure that's unique to Ryzen, look at the post @LtMatt just made, there isn't much difference between memory speeds, no more than Intel.

If you use memory that isn't on the motherboard QVL list it defaults to extremely lose timings, i know this because my kit is not on my boards QVL, even at the XMP 32000MT/s the sub timings were 2X has high as i tuned them at 3800MT/s, TRFC for example was at 980, utterly ridiculous, i cut that down by more than half, this at 3800MT/s, i did the same for all the sub timings, i cut some by more than half.

I gained 20 to 30% in games by doing that, much more than the usual 10% you gain if the memory is on the QVL where they apply proper timings, i don't think Intel would be any different.

So its really easy, be it deliberately or by genuine ignorance to make any of these CPU's, be it Intel or AMD, look much worse in comparison than they actually are, all you have to do is use memory that isn't on one or the other's QVL, and with that you have plausible deniability if you get rumbled, which is very unlikely anyway.

People do do this, Ryan Shrout was notorious for manipulating his results in ways like this, he now works for Intel

I want to see some benchmarks on release where Intel memory is very poorly optimised so I can see a huge lead for the 7950x3D to justify my purchase.

 

[Curlyriff]

I'm not sure that's unique to Ryzen, look at the post @LtMatt just made, there isn't much difference between memory speeds, no more than Intel.

If you use memory that isn't on the motherboard QVL list it defaults to extremely lose timings, i know this because my kit is not on my boards QVL, even at the XMP 32000MT/s the sub timings were 2X has high as i tuned them at 3800MT/s, TRFC for example was at 980, utterly ridiculous, i cut that down by more than half, this at 3800MT/s, i did the same for all the sub timings, i cut some by more than half.

I gained 20 to 30% in games by doing that, much more than the usual 10% you gain if the memory is on the QVL where they apply proper timings, i don't think Intel would be any different.

So its really easy, be it deliberately or by genuine ignorance to make any of these CPU's, be it Intel or AMD, look much worse in comparison than they actually are, all you have to do is use memory that isn't on one or the other's QVL, and with that you have plausible deniability if you get rumbled, which is very unlikely anyway.

People do do this, Ryan Shrout was notorious for manipulating his results in ways like this, he now works for Intel.

Huh there is 8fps for Intel max and if you only compare the same RAM timing ranges as AMD max out at then only 4fps. There is a 20fps increase for AMD.

So that is 2% for Intel in the increase and 8.5% increase for AMD. So suddenly if you are saying Intel is 10% faster because you are using worse RAM and timings that are not giving performance expected you could actually only be more like 2-3% off Intel in those games if they gain that same 8-10% FPS increase by using decent RAM. All those RAM options with timing are supported via QVL listing so it is not just as long is it on list you are fine.