yup......
5900X is £500 and 5950X is £750, personally i think the 5900X should be £450 with the 5950X £600.
-
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.
Zen 3D V-Cache Ryzen CPUs May be Available in December 2021
- Thread starter humbug
- Start date
yup......
5900X is £500 and 5950X is £750, personally i think the 5900X should be £450 with the 5950X £600.
Right 768MB of L3 Cache.
I'm looking at my 5800X and thinking 32MB, that's quite a lot for an 8 core CPU, Intel are only putting half that on the 11900K.
Along comes Zen 3D and slams a gigantic 768MB L3 willy on the table!
Its going to be very interesting to see what Zen 3 can do with that much cache to blow Ops out in to.
The CPU tech war is definitely back on with AMD once again making all the innovations that matter. Sorry if that comes off as fanboi'ish but its true and not for the first time.
So Why are Intel's 10nm CPU's half the performance at twice the power consumption of AMD's?
Ok... We are talking about CPU's that you can buy now, Alderlake is speculation at this point, we don't know what the power consumption is yet.
Intel 1165G7: 28 Watts, Score 4,904 (10nm SuperFin)
Ryzen 4800U: 15 Watts, Score 9,286 (TSMC 7nm)
9,286 / 4,904 = 1.89 (+89%) That's 89% better performance with near half the power
Ryzen 5800U: 15 Watts????? Score 11,203 (TSMC 7nm)
11,203 / 4,904 = 2.28 (+128%) That's 128% better performance again with near half the power.
It equated to around 400% better performance per watt.
Are you honestly going to sit there and try to tell me that is purely Intel 10nm SuperFin vs TSMC 7nm? That AMD's CPU architecture has absolutely nothing to do with it?
Last edited:
So you agree AMD's architecture is more power efficient?
Intel don't make a 10nm CPU with 8 cores. we have to work with what they do make and it valid because we are talking about performance per watt.
10nm 11800h says hello.
Yeah ok, 45 Watts, whats its performance, no seriously its already using 3X the power, is it 3X faster than AMD's 8 core 15 Watt CPU? I'm going to stick my neck on the line and say that it isn't, that its no faster than AMD's 15 Watt part, i think i'm pretty safe in keeping my head.
This is a disingenuous argument, its not in good faith, pushing a 35 Watt CPU that already scores higher than a competitors 45 Watt CPU and then make the calculation again is just normalising inefficiency curves, a 105 Watt Ryzen 5800X score 60% higher than a 45 Watt 11800H, you could make the argument the Intel CPU has a very similar PPW to the AMD chip and you would be right, just as you are right that running the 5800H at the same power level as the 11800H the 5800H may only score about 20% higher and therefore only has about 20% higher PPW.
And with that one might say yes Intel scale better at higher power, so lets turn that round, why not push the 11800H to the same level of performance as the 5800X, how much power is it using? 105 Watts? do you think? I don't, i think its more like 200 to 300 Watts and that's the reality with ALL these chips when you push them that far outside of the most power efficient zone.
The 5700G Is a 5800U/H/HX in a pin socket, its 45 Watts. it scores 14,211, 5800X scores 16,200 or so...
The 11800H is just over 10,000
https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu-amd_ryzen_7_5700g-1876
The 5900HX is a default TDP of 35 Watts, its configurable up to 54 Watts.
The 11800H is just over 10,000
https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu-amd_ryzen_7_5700g-1876
The 5900HX is a default TDP of 35 Watts, its configurable up to 54 Watts.
Fine, doesn't matter, did you read anything i said because it didn't seem to get through?
Right, 5700G 14,211 at 45 Watts.
5800H they tested 12,500 at 75 Watts.
What they are measuring there is thermal throttling, not power scaling, they don't know it but the people who made this slide are idiots.
Right, 5700G 14,211 at 45 Watts.
5800H they tested 12,500 at 75 Watts.
What they are measuring there is thermal throttling, not power scaling, they don't know it but the people who made this slide are idiots.
1800X, same performance as the 6900X at half the power, Intel on their 14nm, AMD on a brand new Gloabal Foundries 14nm.
----------
I have been watching this space for about 25 years.
In all that time several significant breakthroughs in CPU's have been made, by Intel and AMD.
Intel practically invented the CPU, before X86 we had logic processors and each one had to be hardwired for a specific task, so you would have lots of them on a board, Intel created a programmable processor that could be programmed to do many different tasks through software extensions, X86 and with it the Central Processing Unit was born, along with it the IBM Personal Computer.
Since then its mostly AMD who have made the significant changes to the CPU, and each time an army of Intel shills downplayed or out right poo poo'ed on everything AMD ever did, despite nothing that Intel did in competition to AMD's innovations ever working, i still see people bleeting on that Itanium was better, it was ####### horrendous, slow, unstable, difficult to program for and MASSIVE power consumption, no one wanted it, IT died a slow expensive death for good reason.
You're not a shill or even remotely a fanboi @Joxeon so i don't get it.
Alderlake will be good, the 12900K will beat the 5950X by a small margin, ok fine, Intel are fighting back, we knew they would eventually, but it will pull twice as much power doing it, not because AMD are on a better node, because Intel's architecture just isn't as efficient.
----------
I have been watching this space for about 25 years.
In all that time several significant breakthroughs in CPU's have been made, by Intel and AMD.
Intel practically invented the CPU, before X86 we had logic processors and each one had to be hardwired for a specific task, so you would have lots of them on a board, Intel created a programmable processor that could be programmed to do many different tasks through software extensions, X86 and with it the Central Processing Unit was born, along with it the IBM Personal Computer.
Since then its mostly AMD who have made the significant changes to the CPU, and each time an army of Intel shills downplayed or out right poo poo'ed on everything AMD ever did, despite nothing that Intel did in competition to AMD's innovations ever working, i still see people bleeting on that Itanium was better, it was ####### horrendous, slow, unstable, difficult to program for and MASSIVE power consumption, no one wanted it, IT died a slow expensive death for good reason.
You're not a shill or even remotely a fanboi @Joxeon so i don't get it.
Alderlake will be good, the 12900K will beat the 5950X by a small margin, ok fine, Intel are fighting back, we knew they would eventually, but it will pull twice as much power doing it, not because AMD are on a better node, because Intel's architecture just isn't as efficient.
Last edited:
They exist on both sides but there is an added element now, since Sandy Bridge Intel are used to winning so they are particularly salty to see AMD BTFO'ing them, AMD'ers are used to losing and now that they are winning they aren't particularly cordial in victory.
Right now in terms of the hardware AMD's victory over Intel is absolute, even after Alderlake AMD still have many aspects that favour them and that's with older outgoing hardware. AMD are no pushovers these days, again, and that's very frustrating for some. They just keep getting better and better and........
Last edited:
Amd doesnt have a lead over intel like intel did over bulldozer. People making it out like zen3 has 60%+ ipc over skylake
I have never seen anyone say AMD did, but thier performance and efficiency lead over Intel is substantial enough to be obvious to all but the most ignorant to this space, its substantial enough to have killed Intel's prised HEDT segment stone dead.
AMD's mainstream CPU's are faster than Intel's HEDT. AMD's HEDT are on an entirely different level. One that is utterly unachievable by Intel.
Ask him to point to an Intel CPU that can get 40,000 Points in R23, let alone 80,000 points.... the raw performance lead is massive. and the PPW advantage ain't bad either.....