12900k

[tp4tissue]

Given the Power figures,  they're basically channeling Prescott.

Thoughts ? ne1 gon' Intel ?

[MIGHTY CHICKEN]

While AMD is nice, I’ve always mostly gone intel since Ryzen took over mostly due to microcenter having stupidly good deals on intel stuff, like you could get a 9700k for smth like under 200 while the 3600 was still 225 smth


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Leslieann]

I'm still totally good with my 8700k.
Short of a customer wanting a "new" gaming rig and basically paying me to upgrade I can't see myself replacing it anytime soon.
Anything new-ish with 6cores and more threads (if possible) is plenty good for almost anything so long as you have the NVME ssd, GPU and memory to match.

Don't get me wrong, I can bog down any of it if really I try but it's not easy or often and would do it to just about anything available today short of super ultra high end, the GPU is about the only place I could see any real difference in anything other than extreme situations and even then only on certain games, but it is probably my next upgrade once prices come back to normal.

[yui]

well they have been going pentium 4 era again since AMD took the crown, stupid high power, paid off reviewers, worked with MS to make an anti-AMD scheduler, misleading or out right false advertising. they did it all back then, so they do it again now, although this time the high power paid off.
and i have not hit 100% on my R3 1300X yet so i am not going to upgrade soon either, and frankly not really planing on going windows 11 anyhow.

[Leslieann]

Given how bad MS has been recently, I'm going to say the AMD performance issues was an accident. Ms has pretty much never put the effort into AMD as it does Intel.
Paid reviews... Maaaaaybe. They played games with the launch, games they didn't need and they have been doing all they could (incentives to OEMS) to stave off AMD, just like last time. As for power, it's a new design on a new scale, they even clarified power settings better than in the past. Not saying it's not still B.S. and some claim reviewers may have gotten golden samples, BUT... As production yields get better, those golden samples will become the norm.

My bigger concern is the problems with DRM and the power. Yes the golden samples will become the norm, but my concern is it could be an indication that Intel over-stretched in order to beat AMD. Is this design already max'd out in hopes it buys time to get to the next generation? The golden samples are good, but if the design has already peaked, that doesn't say much for when AMD does their next (DDR5) refresh and doesn't just reclaim the crown but runs away with it. Intel has done this sort of thing in the past and it did not go well. I just worry this is a holdover to buy time.


Also.. Let's talk about those efficiency cores...
Something I really think reviewers are doing a disservice about is that those "efficiency" cores*, while great in a laptop do they really matter in a desktop? In a laptop (and lesser degree servers) it makes sense as every watt matters but on a desktop saving a few watts on low stress applications doesn't really help anything except allow them to advertise how many "cores" it has and drop power draw on spec sheets. "Look we have 16 cores too(!)", so what if half are garbage for hardcore work. Intel knows multi core threading isn't all there yet so you can't always take full advantage of 16 cores but as multi-threading gets better and better this design is going to become more and more handicapped. Again, great idea for laptops, but on a desktop you don't care that much about low-to mid range power draw, only idle and raw power, the power stepping can handle the rest quite well.

Honestly, on desktop Intel would have been better to just settle for 12 full power cpu cores and then use hyper threading to split them into more efficient units. Why? Because if you have a limited number of threads, fewer, faster more powerfull cores are better. 12 threads at full power is better than 8 cores full power and 8 gimped cores because your multi-threading now has to not only split between 16 cores, it has to decide with goes to what and how rather than just 12 full power, equal cores. Think of it this way, it has to make 2 decisions per core, that's 32 options (ignoring hyperthreading) as opposed to simply 12 equal options. Add in hyperthreading and now you have 64 options vs 24. How much does it matter? On early Ryzen it could eat up one entire core in a 16core cpu just to decide where to send things, what's it going to use on these new chips? It's a fast CPU, but it's fast in spite of this design choice, not because of it.

*I can't really blame reviewers, they haven't had the time to really evaluate these chips and I could be wrong but I suspect this will be born out at some point. I see this whole thing for desktop as marketing fluff.

[tp4tissue]

Haven't had the time to respond to LLnn's post.

Basically to simplify the situation  Intel did NOT improve their technology. What they changed is the Value proposition to the consumer.

Those efficiency cores are really just glued on there to win specific benchmarks.

It's like running the race with 2 different cars, depending on which segment of road, and adding the times together.

This is FINE and it works depending on what the consumer is doing.    But their performance per watt hasn't changed..

AMD could easily Downclock their cores putting them into a higher efficiency band and glue a bunch of those onto their next 6xxx processor.  <not that they'd need to>


From the consumer stand point,  Tp4 has been butt-abused by intel for 15 years, straight up refuse to buy another (new) intel product for the rest of his life.

But for the standard non-political consumer,  Tp4 still believes Intel's a bad buy.  AMD easily wins averaged performance per watt, so if someone is actually doing heavy lifting compute at home, that's still the way to go.

Then there's how intel will always be trying to re-ramp their butt-abuse game, more boards, more sandbags.

If we look at this table.  Intel's 12900k is still toastering, while AMD 5950x is just sipping power.

It is NON trivial to cool 373 watts, You need a gigantic cooler to even be safe.


The 12600k, which they've focused the marketing on is actually an Anomaly vs 5600x. Intel is sacrificing more silicone to essentially cheat the benchmark. And this doesn't even work in all benchmarks, in fact it doesn't work in the majority of benchmarks (little of which were reported).   Their power efficiency is still terrible when the new big/small thread director doesn't work, which is down to software optimization, it's not as transparent as they claim.

[suicidal_orange]

I've been saying since first gen Ryzen was released my next upgrade will be DDR5 AMD, I've not done any research since but what I'm reading here says it's still the right idea.

[Darthbaggins]

I'm still on the fence on moving to the new Intel Platform, which I am excited to play with if I get the chance.  For my everyday use my 5yr old x99 platform with Broadwell-E has been a workhorse - I will be waiting to see Intel's new HEDT line-up due to how well x99 has treated me and still is going strong.