# Cinebench R23 efficiency race



## usiname (Aug 7, 2022)

Everyone with every cpu and architecture is welcome to join in our Cinebench R23 efficiency race!
We have two categories:
6/12 cores up to 50W
8/16 cores up to 65W
Disabling of cores is allowed.
The only requirement is screenshot with BenchMate and is recommended to share a link to the result uploaded in HWBot

Ryzen 5 5500 3.925Ghz 1.1V
10005pts
50W








						ryzen 5 5500 50W`s Cinebench - R23 Multi Core with BenchMate score: 10005 cb with a Ryzen 5 5500
					

The Ryzen 5 5500 @ 3922MHzscores getScoreFormatted in the Cinebench - R23 Multi Core with BenchMate benchmark. ryzen 5 5500 50Wranks #416 worldwide and #10 in the hardware class. Find out more at HWBOT.




					hwbot.org


----------



## cvaldes (Aug 7, 2022)

It's important to note that Benchmate only runs on Windows machines which excludes Apple Macs running processors based on Apple Silicon.

Cinebench R23 does have a Mac-compatible binary but because of this Benchmate requirement you've excluded all Macs.

If the Benchmate requirement wasn't present, I'd expect Apple Silicon-powered devices to crush the competition in performance-per-watt in Cinebench R23 comparisons.

I happen to have an Intel-powered Mac mini 2018 but I don't fulfill the requirements of including a Benchmate screenshot.


----------



## usiname (Aug 7, 2022)

cvaldes said:


> It's important to note that Benchmate only runs on Windows machines which excludes Apple Macs running processors based on Apple Silicon.


Yes it was meant more as AMD vs Intel competition


cvaldes said:


> Cinebench R23 does have a Mac-compatible binary but because of this Benchmate requirement you've excluded all Macs.


Benchmate is required to ensure that the CPU does not exceed the maximum power consumption. Of course, this is not the whole consumption, but all systems are different and that is why the consumption is limited only to CPU/SOC level.


cvaldes said:


> If the Benchmate requirement wasn't present, I'd expect Apple Silicon-powered devices to crush the competition in performance-per-watt in Cinebench R23 comparisons.


It would be interesting to see also M1 family, but I don't know how to detect the exact consumption. Also M1 should be compared to mobile CPUs because that's the target it hits. For example 6900hs can score 13500+ with 35W and according Anandtech M1 max hit 12400 with 30w(34w - 4w idle) so "crush" is too strong statement


cvaldes said:


> I happen to have an Intel-powered Mac mini 2018 but I don't fulfill the requirements of including a Benchmate screenshot.


We can include results without screenshots, but we won't be able to declare them as winners cause with such low consumption each watt can drastically changed the final result and is possible false result reporting - from a human and technical point of view


----------



## Psychoholic (Aug 7, 2022)

Here's my result with 65W Limit set in bios (Benchmate recorded 66W during the test)
I know..The 12900k doesnt fit into either 6/12 or 8/16 categories.


----------



## P4-630 (Aug 7, 2022)

Psychoholic said:


> Here's my result with 65W Limit set in bios (Benchmate recorded 66W during the test)
> I know..The 12900k doesnt fit into either 6/12 or 8/16 categories.
> 
> View attachment 257292



Why do you have your GSkill DDR5 6000 running at 5800?
I got a set of Corsair Dominator Platinum 6000 36-36-36-76.


----------



## Psychoholic (Aug 7, 2022)

P4-630 said:


> Why do you have your GSkill DDR5 6000 running at 5800?
> I got a set of Corsair Dominator Platinum 6000 36-36-36-76.



Ah, good catch..  I was messing around with it a while back trying to see if i could get CL30-32 stable so I had it set at 5800 while doing that.
Forgot to set it back when i set the timings back to auto/xmp.


----------



## usiname (Aug 7, 2022)

Psychoholic said:


> Here's my result with 65W Limit set in bios (Benchmate recorded 66W during the test)
> I know..The 12900k doesnt fit into either 6/12 or 8/16 categories.


12900k with disabled e-cores fit perfectly. Thanks for your result


----------



## Psychoholic (Aug 7, 2022)

usiname said:


> 12900k with disabled e-cores fit perfectly. Thanks for your result



Note: no e-cores were disabled in that run as it is against the rules...

Err, guess not.. i must have misread that, disabling of cores *IS* allowed.


----------



## Det0x (Aug 7, 2022)

Here you go, 5950x @ 51w PPT = 20k points 
All 16core/32 threads enabled








Can test to how high i can reach @ 65watts later if there are a interest for that 

This is the same cpu with unlimited amounts of power:


----------



## usiname (Aug 8, 2022)

Psychoholic said:


> Note: no e-cores were disabled in that run as it is against the rules...
> 
> Err, guess not.. i must have misread that, disabling of cores *IS* allowed.


Sorry, yesterday I was on my phone and didn't saw very well your screen. The idea of this race was to sее how effective are the cores of AMD and Intel(the P-cores of AL) and what if12900k was 16p + 0e cores. Since 12900k has 8p cores, the max number of cores was limited to 8/16 and 6/12 with low power limits. Now I see that there is a desire for more categories with more different configuration of cores and consumption, but I am not sure how to proceed.

This question is to everyone - Do you want to have additional categories and what because the configurations of consumption and number of cores is to high and obviously CPUs with more cores always will have advantage if the power limit is same for everyone?

P.S. This 5950x running 3.125Ghz and 0.7v make me fell like the guy with the worst binned cpu in the world. Nice CPU!


----------



## thesmokingman (Aug 8, 2022)

This is going to come down to cooling...


----------



## ir_cow (Aug 8, 2022)

Is the limit here 65~ watts?


----------



## Dr. Dro (Aug 8, 2022)

ir_cow said:


> Is the limit here 65~ watts?



OP should set up the weight classes 

For AMD, good presets are Eco mode (45W, 54W PPT specification for 65W TDP CPUs), Eco mode 2 (65W, 84W PPT for 105W spec CPUs), the regular 65W (again with 84 PPT) and 105W (142W PPT) stock configurations  

I'll try to get a contribution in shortly


----------



## Det0x (Aug 8, 2022)

usiname said:


> The idea of this race was to sее how effective are the cores of AMD and Intel(the P-cores of AL) and what if12900k was 16p + 0e cores. Since 12900k has 8p cores, the max number of cores was limited to 8/16 and 6/12 with low power limits. Now I see that there is a desire for more categories with more different configuration of cores and consumption, but I am not sure how to proceed.
> 
> This question is to everyone - Do you want to have additional categories and what because the configurations of consumption and number of cores is to high and obviously CPUs with more cores always will have advantage if the power limit is same for everyone?


Why does the amount of cores matter ? i thought the goal was to get the highest amount performance/watt by any means possible ?

And no, the highest core count wont always win.. Go to high in that departement and the interconnects (IO-die) start using 50watt alone -> 64core epyc/xeon can not even compete in these 50watt and 65watt classlimits..

In my humble opinion, dont care about core amounts, only rank performance/power.
(Cinebench-points/watts)


----------



## usiname (Aug 8, 2022)

Det0x said:


> Why does the amount of cores matter ? i thought the goal was to get the highest amount performance/watt by any means possible ?
> 
> And no, the highest core count wont always win.. Go to high in that departement and the interconnects (IO-die) start using 50watt alone -> 64core epyc/xeon can not even compete in these 50watt and 65watt classlimits..
> 
> ...


I am talking about mainstream platforms and focus on most effective cores that doesn't mean they won't be interesting to see 64 core cpu, but it turned out that 6 and 8 cores are not enought. 
Single core is not good example for most efficient core so we need more cores to achieve real results in multi-threaded tasks while the power limit for specific number of cores will ensure that CPUs with 6-8 cores won't be smoked by CPUs with 12-16 cores, at least not because the CPUs with more cores are clocked much lower, but because of the better bin.


----------



## HD64G (Aug 8, 2022)

78W limit results in 11190pts at CB23. The result for the 50W limit is on the screenshot below. Also the load temp dropped to 53C from 64C when on the 78W limit. 64% of the 78W got to 74% of its performance.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Aug 8, 2022)

HD64G said:


> 78W limit results in 11190pts at CB23. The result for the 50W limit is on the screenshot below. Also the load temp dropped to 53C from 64C when on the 78W limit. 64% of the 78W got to 74% of its performance.
> View attachment 257352


This is about the expected result for a 5600 at 50W; OP's 10000 for a 5500 seems really fishy though...


----------



## glnn_23 (Aug 9, 2022)

12900k with e cores disabled.

14647  pts.      65W

Custom water 2 x 360





Edit.  More testing 12900K  8 (P) cores  65W

17250 pts


----------



## fevgatos (Aug 11, 2022)

65w 8GC cores - E cores off

@Valantar
@mahirzukic2

We could continue the discussion here

If 8 zen 3 cores break this score at 65w ill admit I was wrong all along. Btw this is with just UV, wth static OC it can do better but it doesn't need to, it already absolutely scorches 8 zen 3 cores in efficiency.




HenrySomeone said:


> This is about the expected result for a 5600 at 50W; OP's 10000 for a 5500 seems really fishy though...


You know what's really fishy? Zen 3 are the best selling CPU's, but nobody is here with 8 zen 3 cores willing to test at 65w. Makes you wonder why, doesn't it?


----------



## Det0x (Aug 11, 2022)

Since my 5950x 20k score @ 50w dont seem to fit in this narrative that's being painted here, i have disabled half my cpu and ran it well outside the efficiency range with only 1 CCD.
Core for core GC is stronger than Zen3, but they are so much bigger that they could only fit 8 of those on the consumer-die before they had to start adding e-waste cores to make up for MT deficit 

8 Zen3 cores @ 41 watt = 12603 points
3625mhz @ 0.8vcore
12603points/41watt = 307 points per watt


8 Zen3 cores @ 50 watt = 13698 points
3950mhz @ 0.88vcore
13698points/50watt = ~274 points per watt


8 Zen3 cores @ 64 watt = 15099 points
4350mhz @ 0.98vcore
15099points/65watt = ~232 points per watt

Silicon quality for my 5950x

When i run whole cpu with all 16 cores enabled in the correct efficiency range i'm getting the following:
20681points/51watt= *405 points per watt*

Compared to AL entries above:
16800points/65watt= *258 points per watt*

As we see above, sweetspot for Zen3 is way below even 3625mhz, and that's why all higher core count ryzen CPU's absolutely scorches Alder Lake in efficiency 
What numbers can you guys get with GC cores @ 50w max ?


----------



## fevgatos (Aug 11, 2022)

Det0x said:


> Since my 5950x 20k score @ 50w dont seem to fit in this narrative that's being painted here, i have disabled half my cpu and ran with only 1 CCD.
> Core for core GC is stronger than Zen3, but they are so much bigger that they could only fit 8 of those before they had to start adding e-waste cores
> 
> 8 Zen3 cores @ 41 watt = 12603 points
> ...


So GC is both faster and more efficient than zen 3 in CBR23. Thanks for posting



Det0x said:


> When i run whole cpu with all 16 cores enabled in the correct efficiency range i'm getting the following:
> 20681points/51watt= *405 points per watt*
> 
> Compared to AL entries above:
> 16800points/65watt= *258 points per watt*


Because you are comparing 16 cores to 8? LOL

When I run Alderlake with all 16 cores enabled I get
15215 points / 35watts = *434 points per watt.*

So with half the cores, with E waste cores and with less threads alderlake > zen 3 

It's clear by now that 16P cores at 125w would absolutely annihilate not just zen 3, but zen 4 as well


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Aug 11, 2022)

fevgatos said:


> So GC is both faster and more efficient than zen 3 in CBR23 *@65w*. Thanks for posting


Fixed. 

Not trying to cause a flame war, but we will need to see various arbitrary power limits to get an idea of the efficiency curves of both architectures. @Det0x has posted 3 different power levels - to make a meaningful comparison you should post the same power levels and scores. 

Also, is CBR23 sensitive to RAM speed?


----------



## fevgatos (Aug 11, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> Fixed.
> 
> Not trying to cause a flame war, but we will need to see various arbitrary power limits to get an idea of the efficiency curves of both architectures. @Det0x has posted 3 different power levels - to make a meaningful comparison you should post the same power levels and scores.
> 
> Also, is CBR23 sensitive to RAM speed?


He can pick whatever power levels, 8 vs 8 it stands no chance. I'm not even manually tuning man, im just letting the motherboard figure out the core clocks, with static OC I would get higher numbers. But again, don't need to, it's already beating the zen 3 quite handily

No, it's not sensitive to ram, the difference between ram speeds is tiny, but thanks for reminding me, I can probably score better if I turn down the IMC voltages and run wtih stock ram


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Aug 11, 2022)

fevgatos said:


> Because you are comparing 16 cores to 8? LOL
> 
> When I run Alderlake with all 16 cores enabled I get
> 15215 points / 35watts = *434 points per watt.*
> ...


Well, we are still comparing apples to oranges. ADL 434 points per watt @35W does not compare exactly to Z3 405 points per watt @51w. 

If we could see 8x and 8x ADL P-cores Z3 at say 35w, 45w, 65w, 95w, 105w we could interpolate the efficiency curves. Right now, both sides are cherry-picking.


----------



## fevgatos (Aug 11, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> to make a meaningful comparison you should post the same power levels and scores.


Here you go



Count von Schwalbe said:


> Well, we are still comparing apples to oranges. ADL 434 points per watt @35W does not compare exactly to Z3 405 points per watt @51w.
> 
> If we could see 8x and 8x ADL P-cores Z3 at say 35w, 45w, 65w, 95w, 105w we could interpolate the efficiency curves. Right now, both sides are cherry-picking.


Nope, only det0x is comparing apples to oranges, since he picked the score of 8 GC cores at 65w and compared it to 16 zen 3 cores at 50w. Of course afterwards I did the same, to point exactly what you just described, the cherrypicking.


I only wanted to see if core for core zen 3 or GC is more efficient, and the results speak for themselves I think, 8 GC cores slam the 8 zen 3 cores both in performance and efficiency. There is no wattage point that zen 3 do better than 8 GC cores. Heck, im not even sure Zen 4 can do better at this point.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Aug 11, 2022)

fevgatos said:


> Here you goView attachment 257695
> 
> 
> Nope, only det0x is comparing apples to oranges, since he picked the score of 8 GC cores at 65w and compared it to 16 zen 3 cores at 50w. Of course afterwards I did the same, to point exactly what you just described, the cherrypicking.
> ...


Looking at the result above, it seems that P-cores are about 10% more efficient than Zen 3, at 50w at least. Interesting! I would love to know how that compares across various wattages!

Also, det0x did give the oranges above his apples comparison


----------



## fevgatos (Aug 11, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> Looking at the result above, it seems that P-cores are about 10% more efficient than Zen 3, at 50w at least. Interesting! I would love to know how that compares across various wattages!


Nah, the difference is around 20%, I'm just too bored to go into manual tuning right now 

But sure, let's go with 10% for now until I decide to take this more seriously, cause right now im just letting the motherboard decide wtf it's doing


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Aug 11, 2022)

Hey, another thought! Could you do a run with E-cores only? I have been doubtful that they are actually more efficient than the more powerful P-cores.  



fevgatos said:


> Nah, the difference is around 20%, I'm just too bored to go into manual tuning right now
> 
> But sure, let's go with 10% for now until I decide to take this more seriously, cause right now im just letting the motherboard decide wtf it's doing


Yeah, just strictly based on the numbers above. Numbers someone like me could replicate if I got one.


----------



## fevgatos (Aug 11, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> Hey, another thought! Could you do a run with E-cores only? I have been doubtful that they are actually more efficient than the more powerful P-cores.


E cores are not more efficient than P cores unless you drop them down to like 2-3 watts per core. Also they don't seem to like undervolting at all, 1.05v is the least I can run mine regardless of the actually clock frequency.  P cores >>> e cores in efficiency. Actually, P cores >>> everything in efficiency right now.

You know what I'd find interesting? Performance normalized comparisons. Let's say, how many watts do 8 zen 3 cores need to reach 17k in CBR23. Probably 150+ watts. To match 8 P cores at 65


----------



## Det0x (Aug 11, 2022)

fevgatos said:


> When I run Alderlake with all 16 cores enabled I get
> 15215 points / 35watts = *434 points per watt.*


Very nice, please share screenshot 


fevgatos said:


> Here you goView attachment 257695


14981 points / 50 watt = *299points per watt *
But you said you could reach this ~performance at 35watt above, what gives ?



> E Cores are not more efficient than P cores unless you drop them down to like 2-3 watts per core. Also they don't seem to like undervolting at all, 1.05v is the least I can run mine regardless of the actually clock frequency. P cores >>> e cores in efficiency


This is actually the powerlevels Zen3 are made for.. First and foremost Zen3 is a server+mobile product, with sadly desktop being a afterthought.

Highest performance Epyc's have 280 PPT powerlimit, use ~50-100watt (depending on motherboard) for interconects/IO-die which leaves 230w for the cores in bestcase
230 watt / 64 cores = ~3,6watt per core under full load
And that's why Intel cant compete in servers.. Efficiency is the key word here


> how many watts do 8 zen 3 cores need to reach 17k in CBR23. Probably 150+ watts. To match 8 P cores at 65


Let me counter with, what cooling do you need to reach 33-34k in Cinebench ?  

Like i said earlier, in the end it all boils down to GC physical size, they are so big that intel could only put 8(10) of those on a consumer cpu(die) and keep the price in check at the same time. (10P cores would score lower than 8p+8E in full multithreaded benchmarks)

But that is no reason to handicap desktop Zen3 with a artificial limit for 8 cores maximum in this efficiency comparison when we both have to 5900x and 5950x as normal desktop consumer cpus for sale today  (well other than influence the result of course)


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Aug 11, 2022)

Det0x said:


> But that is no reason to handicap desktop Zen3 with a artificial limit for 8 cores maximum in this efficiency comparison when we both have to 5900x and 5950x as normal desktop consumer cpus for sale today  (well other than influence the result of course)


An 8 core limit makes sense, higher core-count products can disable but the reverse does not apply.


----------



## fevgatos (Aug 11, 2022)

Det0x said:


> But that is no reason to handicap desktop Zen3


It is when you want to figure out for example if a 16P core would be more efficient than a 5950x, right?

Here is the screenshot






Det0x said:


> Let me counter with, what cooling do you need to reach 33-34k in Cinebench ?


That's not a counter. Of course the 5950x gets a higher score when balls to the wall oced, since the E cores have a hard cap at 4 ghz (and no HT), meaning the 8 GC cores are supposed to get a score of 24k to score that 33-34 you are asking for. Im not even sure a 12900k can get that score, if it can you are looking at a chiller and probably 350-400w - maybe more.


----------



## Det0x (Aug 11, 2022)

Count von Schwalbe said:


> An 8 core limit makes sense, higher core-count products can disable but the reverse does not apply.


Yes, but on the other hand, 8 cores @ 50watt or 65watt forces Zen3 to run well outside maximum efficiency range.

Lets just say IO die use 10w, then we have:
40watt / 8 cores = 5watt per core
55watt / 8 cores = 6.875watt per core

That is a big difference from 40watt / 16 cores = 2.5watt per core



> Here is the screenshot
> View attachment 257712


Why did you stop with benchmate ? Just alittle strange you get ~same score at 50w and 35w (?)


----------



## fevgatos (Aug 11, 2022)

Det0x said:


> Yes, but on the other hand, 8 cores @ 50watt or 65watt forces Zen3 to run well outside maximum efficiency range.
> 
> Lets just say IO die use 10w, then we have:
> 40watt / 8 cores = 5watt per core
> ...


We can then run 8 cores at 20 watts if you want to 



Det0x said:


> Why did you stop with benchmate ? Just alittle strange you get ~same score at 50w and 35w (?)


I didn't stop, this is from an old run. Not strange at all, the score in 50w is with 8GC cores, the one in 35w is with all 16 cores (e cores on).


----------



## gffermari (Aug 11, 2022)

Thanks fevgatos and the others for the numbers.
But the performance normalised scenario is not right. It’s like asking how much fuel a fiat panda consumes at 180km/h and comparing it to a big sedan that can cruise comfortably at the same speed.

The normalisation on the wattage is correct and obviously since alder lake is newer than zen 3 is better. But isn’t it bad that they can’t fit 16 of them in a die while AMD can fit as many as they want?


----------



## fevgatos (Aug 11, 2022)

gffermari said:


> Thanks fevgatos and the others for the numbers.
> But the performance normalised scenario is not right. It’s like asking how much fuel a fiat panda consumes at 180km/h and comparing it to a big sedan that can cruise comfortably at the same speed.
> 
> The normalisation on the wattage is correct and obviously since alder lake is newer than zen 3 is better. But isn’t it bad that they can’t fit 16 of them in a die while AMD can fit as many as they want?


Of course they can fit 16 of them in a die. The problem isn't whether they can fit them, it's whether the consumer is ready to pay for what that would cost. Also - you are ignoring the fact that - at the same time - ALD vastly outperforms zen 3 in ST. If the P cores weren't as wide, they wouldn't have that high ST performance. So it's kind of a balancing act between how big you want your cores to be and how many you can fit. That's exactly where E cores come in, offering performance / die space.



Count von Schwalbe said:


> Yeah, just strictly based on the numbers above. Numbers someone like me could replicate if I got one.


Im not sure you could replicate the zen 3 numbers, that's manually tuned to no end. Which is fine of course, if I wasn't a lazy ***k I would do so as well, but im just saying the numbers are not entirely representative.


----------



## Det0x (Aug 11, 2022)

fevgatos said:


> Im not sure you could replicate the zen 3 numbers, that's manually tuned to no end. Which is fine of course, if I wasn't a lazy ***k I would do so as well, but im just saying the numbers are not entirely representative.


Yes all my Zen3 numbers above are manually tuned with static OC on all the different set powerlevels, with a binned 5950x.

This is the lowest vcore (powerusage) possible to set in bios with a static OC


Anyway I was fiddling around in the bios trying to find where my missing 13 watt are going: Cores + SOC = 25watt, not 38watt



VRM included in PPT?
x570s chipset included ?

In the end i could not find any answers, but i found some other settings that pretty much leaves this comparison moot..  
I'm sure you have also found these settings in your Unify-X bios fevgatos.. Now i see why its bad to use the time finetuning a static OC when i can produce whatever fantasy numbers i want



"17237 points @ 35watt"


----------



## Arc1t3ct (Aug 11, 2022)

Det0x said:


> Anyway I was fiddling around in the bios trying to find where my missing 13 watt are going: Cores + SOC = 25watt, not 38watt
> View attachment 257727
> VRM included in PPT?
> x570s chipset included ?
> ...



What trick is this???


----------



## fevgatos (Aug 11, 2022)

Det0x said:


> Yes all my Zen3 numbers above are manually tuned with static OC on all the different set powerlevels, with a binned 5950x.
> 
> This is the lowest vcore (powerusage) possible to set in bios with a static OC
> View attachment 257728
> ...


I have no idea what settings you are talking about. All im doing is going into bios -- settings limit to whatever wattage im testing and undervolting. That's it.



Arc1t3ct said:


> What trick is this???


Im assumming he is messing with ac / dc LL to make the CPU missreport wattage. If that's not it, I have no clue what he is doing. But it's easy to tell it's fake juts by looking at hwinfo


----------



## Det0x (Aug 11, 2022)

Arc1t3ct said:


> What trick is this???


First you downvote, then you ask me question ?  Na its fine, ill share.

All motherboards have telemetry offset values, people can pretty much fake whatever powerusage you want.
And that's why different motherboards reads different temperatures and power etc.. Cant even compare different chipsets from the name vender, nevermind trying to compare numbers from something like Gigabyte vs Asus

And that's sadly why i said this comparison is moot 
(people cant be trusted not to not use a "small" 10% offset to get ahead)



In screen above, its easy to make it read from 13w to 1850w maximum.


----------



## fevgatos (Aug 11, 2022)

Det0x said:


> First you downvote, then you ask me question ?  Na its fine, ill share.
> 
> All motherboards have telemetry offset values, people can pretty much fake whatever powerusage you want.
> And that's why different motherboards reads different temperatures and power etc.. Cant even compare different chipsets from the name vender, nevermind trying to compare numbers from something like Gigabyte vs Asus
> ...


And that's not true. Only AMD cpus have that. And it's pretty obvious from your hwinfo screenshot that something is messed with btw. Even your temperatures alone are a red flag, 78c on double rads @ 35w? 

The power report deviation at the bottom of yourhwinfo screen is what you messed with. That feature does not exist on Intel, it does on AMD cause their CPUs do not directly report power consumed like Intel do. Here you go, from the actual Stilt himself






						Explaining the AMD Ryzen "Power Reporting Deviation" -metric in HWiNFO
					

Ryzen CPUs for AM4 platform rely on external, motherboard sourced telemetry to determine their power consumption. The voltage, current and power telemetry is provided to the processor by the motherboard VRM controller through the AMD SVI2 interface. This information is consumed by the processors...




					www.hwinfo.com


----------



## Det0x (Aug 11, 2022)

fevgatos said:


> And that's not true.


What is not true ?


fevgatos said:


> And it's pretty obvious from your hwinfo screenshot that something is messed with btw. Even your temperatures alone are a red flag, 78c on double rads @ 35w?


I used those settings to highlight the problem, so all could see its wrong.

But i could used a small 10-20% offset at something like 35w or 50w and oneone would be the wiser without me telling its fantasy numbers


fevgatos said:


> The power report deviation at the bottom of yourhwinfo screen is what you messed with.


Power report deviation is normal for Zen3 in Hwinfo with 100% stock settings, that dont tell you anything..



fevgatos said:


> That feature does not exist on Intel, it does on AMD cause their CPUs do not directly report power consumed like Intel do. Here you go, from the actual Stilt himself


All (intel also) motherboard have telemetry offset's, like i said above, that's why different boards give different numbers in 100% in the same situation. (if you have them hidden in your bios / understand how to use them is a other story)


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Aug 11, 2022)

Det0x said:


> First you downvote, then you ask me question ?  Na its fine, ill share.
> 
> All motherboards have telemetry offset values, people can pretty much fake whatever powerusage you want.
> And that's why different motherboards reads different temperatures and power etc.. Cant even compare different chipsets from the name vender, nevermind trying to compare numbers from something like Gigabyte vs Asus
> ...



!

Pardon my noticing, but it looks like a 32 thread Cpu is only running 16 threads?? See CBR23 reports 8c/16t.


----------



## fevgatos (Aug 11, 2022)

Det0x said:


> What is not true ?
> 
> I used those settings to highlight the problem, so all could see its wrong.
> 
> ...


It's not true that Intel has the same telemetry options, cause Intel CPUs report their consumption directly. The only way you can mess with power reporting with Intel is by messing with AC DC LL, in which case a HWinfo screenshot also makes it obvious that it's been tinkered with. On Intel CPU's VID and Vcore need to match underload for the CPU to properly report wattage. Look at the screenshot, im running CPUZ  - VID and Vcore match, therefore power reporting is accurate.


----------



## freeagent (Aug 12, 2022)

ShrimpBrime -retired said:


> !
> 
> Pardon my noticing, but it looks like a 32 thread Cpu is only running 16 threads?? See CBR23 reports 8c/16t.


Its probably the only way to get the wattage low and still push a decent clock.. But I am just guessing


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Aug 12, 2022)

freeagent said:


> Its probably the only way to get the wattage low and still push a decent clock.. But I am just guessing


Yes, yes indeed. Per core epeen, I like to disable SMT for that. He's still reducing per core performance with it enabled half core count.


----------



## Count von Schwalbe (Aug 12, 2022)

ShrimpBrime -retired said:


> !
> 
> Pardon my noticing, but it looks like a 32 thread Cpu is only running 16 threads?? See CBR23 reports 8c/16t.


we were comparing 8 cores Z3 vs ADL P-cores.


----------



## Det0x (Aug 12, 2022)

ShrimpBrime -retired said:


> Yes, yes indeed. Per core epeen, I like to disable SMT for that. He's still reducing per core performance with it enabled half core count.


?? 
Please read from the start of this thread


----------



## tabascosauz (Aug 12, 2022)

Det0x said:


> Anyway I was fiddling around in the bios trying to find where my missing 13 watt are going: Cores + SOC = 25watt, not 38watt



Should just be normal, no? Ever since they moved to chiplets in 2019, there's always a few watts loss outside of the Cores+SOC number. 1CCD has less losses, 2CCD is about 13-14 watts, but difference is always there. Might even be a few watts on monolithic APU, I'll have to check. iirc because outside of the main VDDCR rails being measured the minor stuff is only a guesstimate in telemetry

Knowing that, it's thus hard to see how there can be a valid comparison since there's a big difference in uncore power between Intel and AMD


----------



## ShrimpBrime (Aug 12, 2022)

Det0x said:


> ??
> Please read from the start of this thread





Count von Schwalbe said:


> we were comparing 8 cores Z3 vs ADL P-cores.


Oh I'm sorry guys!! When I clicked it, I was sent to page 2. (facepalm)

Only have 12 threads at 65w. I suppose I would also have to do power reduction..... to participate....

But how do I prove the 50w requirement for this test?? Should I use HWinfo in the screen shot then?


----------



## glnn_23 (Aug 12, 2022)

12900k 8 (P) cores  at   50W.

15276 pts


----------



## usiname (Aug 12, 2022)

HenrySomeone said:


> This is about the expected result for a 5600 at 50W; OP's 10000 for a 5500 seems really fishy though...


Did you missed the HWBot url, the result cannot be manipulated


----------



## openbox1980 (Aug 13, 2022)

i9 12900h laptop processor at 50w. 6 p-cores, 8 e-cores





This is at 65w rated 6p 8c-cores


This one is for $hit and giggles, rated at the full 127w  6p, 8-cores


----------



## freeagent (Aug 13, 2022)

When I limit my CPU to 50w my score is pitiful..

Eco mode probably performs better lol.

That is both CCD's, 12/24, the only thing I changed with my PPT limit from 235 to 50w.

It scores like an R5 3600 I think.


----------



## openbox1980 (Aug 13, 2022)

I redid it again with the BM app
at 50w  i9 12900h laptop processor  6p, 8e-cores






at 65w



at 127w, the full power rated of the processor.


This is at 80w, the max wattage allowed when using the graphics card


----------



## Psychoholic (Aug 13, 2022)

This seems like a bizarre topic to argue about, but here we are and I'm enjoying the read..  still too early for popcorn though


----------



## Taraquin (Aug 13, 2022)

I get 11850 running 5600X -30CO, 0 PBO at 76W limit. 50W limit gives me over 85% of that score. Not bad. Effective clocks in hwmon is 3974-4049MHz.

I run Ram tuned at 3800cl15. SOC 1.06v, IOD 0.98v, CCD 0.8v, VDDP 0.8v, VDD18 1.6v. This reduces I\O-die consumption quite a bit vs stock SOC 1.2v, IOD\CCD 1v, VDDP 0.9v and VDD18 1.8v. I see benchmate makes one mistake and thinks my MB has 4dimms, it only has 2.

Currently my I\O-die uses about 18-19W during load. If I run ram at 2133 I could probably run SOC at 0.9v, IOD at 0.8v and mayby shave off 5W more for 2-300MHz higher clockspeed and about 500 more points on CB23, but in gaming etc my PC will be waaaay slower then.



HenrySomeone said:


> This is about the expected result for a 5600 at 50W; OP's 10000 for a 5500 seems really fishy though...


If SOC, IOD, CCD, VDDP and VDD18 is run as low as they can and you use curve optimizer for undervolt then 10k on 5500 is doable. My 5600X do 10350  at 50W  Running stock on everything it gets around 8500.


----------



## Voluman (Aug 13, 2022)

Lenovo Legion 5 notebook @ default, very basic bios, can't set anything.


----------



## agent_x007 (Aug 13, 2022)

So I'm lazy and just used 65W 8C/16T limit for my 10-Core/20-Thread CPU.



Pretty good score for 6 year old tech I think 
Also, more transisors with less volts = better score as this benchmark scales to any number of threads.
I wonder how low Vcore a Tr Pro 5975X would need, to get 65W...

PS. Benchmate 10.10.0 or later should be mandatory for good CPU Package Power reading.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Aug 13, 2022)

Psychoholic said:


> This seems like a bizarre topic to argue about, but here we are and I'm enjoying the read..  still too early for popcorn though


I don't know about bizarre, but it's more and more obvious that core-for-core Alder Lake isn't just (way) more powerful, but also more efficient, just like fevgatos has been saying for months (and Randallflagg before him) and got nothing but dismissals and ridicule from ardent team red members...


----------



## Det0x (Aug 14, 2022)

I finally remembered that i had to use the amd agesa part of the bios to set lower than 0.8 vcore with a static OC.
So i have done some more runs, mainly with all 16 cores enabled.

Few words before we dive into data:

There have been no telemetry trickery with these numbers
SOC powerusage is ~2w together with 13w usage for rest of CPU. Anything over this constant ~15w draw is going to the cores/caches on the CCD.
For all the new runs a very wimpy LLC together with set 0.75vcore was used to reach close to 0.7v under load on the lowest power runs
*Below we have results for a simulated 8core Zen3 5800x:*

8 Zen3 cores @ 33 watt = 11149 points in Cinebench r23 (~lowest powerlevel i could run with my current setup)
3200mhz @ 0.719 vcore under load -> ~*2.25watt per core under load*
11149points/33watt = *337 points per watt*


8 Zen3 cores @ 41 watt = 12603 points in Cinebench r23
3625mhz @ 0.8 vcore under load -> ~*3.25watt per core under load*
12603points/41watt = *307 points per watt*


8 Zen3 cores @ 50 watt = 13698 points in Cinebench r23
3950mhz @ 0.88 vcore under load -> *~4.375watt per core under load*
13698points/50watt = *~274 points per watt*


8 Zen3 cores @ 64 watt = 15099 points in Cinebench r23
4350mhz @ 0.98 vcore under load -> *~6.125watt per core under load*
15099points/64watt = *~235 points per watt*


*Results for a real 16core Zen3 5950x:*

16 Zen3 cores @ 49 watt = 20441 points in Cinebench r23 (~lowest powerlevel i could run with my current setup)
3100mhz / 2950mhz @ 0.7 vcore under load -> ~*2.125watt per core under load*
20441points/49watt = *417 points per watt*


16 Zen3 cores @ 64 watt = 23701 points in Cinebench r23
3575mhz / 3425mhz @ 0.781 vcore under load -> ~*3.063watt per core under load*
23701points/64watt = *370 points per watt*


16 Zen3 cores @ 88 watt = 27037 points in Cinebench r23
4075mhz / 3925mhz @ 0.887 vcore under load -> *~4.5625watt per core under load *
27037points/88watt = *307 points per watt*


So what have we learned by this comparison ?
A underclocked 12900k can be more efficient then a underclocked 5800x when you handicap Zen3 with its size advantage and only compare core for core with GC, but at the same time it cant touch a underclocked 5950x in energy efficiency as the numbers show.


> Like i said earlier, in the end it all boils down to GC physical size, they are so big that intel could only put 8(10) of those on a consumer cpu(die) and keep the price in check at the same time. (10P cores would score lower than 8p+8E in full multithreaded benchmarks)
> 
> But that is no reason to handicap desktop Zen3 with a artificial limit for 8 cores maximum in this efficiency comparison when we both have to 5900x and 5950x as normal desktop consumer cpus for sale today


A too expensive to produce hypothetical 16core GC could properly match and beat the 5950x in MT efficiency with ease, but it would meet the same fate against a 32core Threadripper. There is a reason why Intel dont have any HEDT class products for sale atm.

If you think i'm wrong, please share how many points Alder lake can put on the board in Cinebenchr23 at the given powerlevels *50w, 65w and 88w *as the OP asked for **


----------



## Psychoholic (Aug 14, 2022)

HenrySomeone said:


> I don't know about bizarre, but it's more and more obvious that core-for-core Alder Lake isn't just (way) more powerful, but also more efficient, just like fevgatos has been saying for months (and Randallflagg before him) and got nothing but dismissals and ridicule from ardent team red members...



Yep, I noticed day one (around launch day) when i bought my 12900K that i could take it from the default 241W down to around 170-180ish watts and not really lose anything performance wise. 

it would have been better received had it launched with a TDP less than 200W, while keeping pretty much the same performance.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Aug 14, 2022)

Det0x said:


> So what have we learned by this comparison ?
> A underclocked 12900k can be more efficient then a underclocked 5800x when you handicap Zen3 with its size advantage and only compare core for core with GC, but at the same time it cant touch a underclocked 5950x in energy efficiency as the numbers show.
> 
> A too expensive to produce hypothetical 16core GC could properly match and beat the 5950x in MT efficiency with ease, but it would meet the same fate against a 32core Threadripper. There is a reason why Intel dont have any HEDT class products for sale atm.
> ...


Handicap Zen3? Core-for-core comparison is the sole purpose of this thread! But because that doesn't suit your narrative, you keep on butting in with your 5950x with all cores enabled (which is something that we had before, many times). Oh, and recent 32 core Threadripper costs sweltering $3300 (AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX - Ryzen Threadripper PRO Chagall PRO (Zen 3) 32-Core 3.6 GHz Socket sWRX8 280W Desktop Processor - 100-100000445WOF - Newegg.com), so hardly a worthy comparison, even with the theoretical 16P core Alder Lake, wouldn't you say? Actually, just like Steve from HU says (usually an AMD fan favorite site), AMD is moving away from HEDT as well (likely abandoning the category altogether), as the 5000 pro series is a purely workstation line. And finally, because you seem to have forgotten, here is the OP's opening post in which they are specifically naming 6/12 and 8/16 chips as the primary focus of the thread:


usiname said:


> Everyone with every cpu and architecture is welcome to join in our Cinebench R23 efficiency race!
> We have two categories:
> 6/12 cores up to 50W
> 8/16 cores up to 65W
> Disabling of cores is allowed.


----------



## Taraquin (Aug 14, 2022)

Perhaps a bench in for instance SOTTR would be interesting to see scaling there? CB23 scales with frequency, but cares bot for ram, cache etc. Some apps/games are much more dependent on ram and/or cache. With the TPU powerscaling of 12900K in mind the picture can vary greatly between apps/games. In most games I bet the 5800X3D would be the king of efficiency at low Watt limit, while on most apps 12900K is the king.



fevgatos said:


> Nah, the difference is around 20%, I'm just too bored to go into manual tuning right now
> 
> But sure, let's go with 10% for now until I decide to take this more seriously, cause right now im just letting the motherboard decide wtf it's doing


A bit off topic:

You are more familiar with Alder lake than me, my 12400F has very limited viltage control due to locked FIVR, only UV on combined core/cache available. On my 6700HQ (unlocked bios) I could regulate:
SOC
Core
Cache
System agent
I/O

On ADL we have VDDQ aswell, are there more?

On Zen 3 we have
SOC
IOD
CCD
VDDP
VDD18
And a few more which I'm unfamilar with.

Tuned these voltages seems key to get good efficiency at limited powerbudget.


----------



## openbox1980 (Aug 14, 2022)

HenrySomeone said:


> I don't know about bizarre, but it's more and more obvious that core-for-core Alder Lake isn't just (way) more powerful, but also more efficient, just like fevgatos has been saying for months (and Randallflagg before him) and got nothing but dismissals and ridicule from ardent team red members...


On the mobile side, it seems alder lake and AMD 6000 series are about the same speed clock per clock upto about 60w. But since alder lake can ramp up much more in wattage, it starts to lose the efficiency race at around 60w.

I saw a youtube video on it, I dont remember which youtuber it was.


----------



## fevgatos (Aug 20, 2022)

Det0x said:


> A underclocked 12900k can be more efficient then a underclocked 5800x when you handicap Zen3 with its size advantage and only compare core for core with GC, but at the same time it cant touch a underclocked 5950x in energy efficiency as the numbers show.
> 
> *A too expensive to produce hypothetical 16core GC could properly match and beat the 5950x in MT efficiency with ease*, but it would meet the same fate against a 32core Threadripper. There is a reason why Intel dont have any HEDT class products for sale atm.
> 
> If you think i'm wrong, please share how many points Alder lake can put on the board in Cinebenchr23 at the given powerlevels 50w, 65w and 88w as the OP asked for **


But you do realize that's the whole point right? There are people saying that a 16P core would be too hot and power hungry to compete, which is the whole reason the topic even exists in the first place. Of course the current 8+8 configuration cannot compete in efficiency (at heavy MT tasks that is) with the 5950x, that's a given, since basically it uses 8 cores to match 16, e cores just stop scaling all together at 4ghz.  Although even in that scenario the difference isn't as big as you think, can probably hit 23k at 90w with the full configuration. That's just with AUTO motherboard settings btw, no manual tuning whatsoever.


----------



## Det0x (Oct 22, 2022)

So with the release of Zen4 and raptor lake which both seem to be overvolted and running kinda hot, this could be a interesting topic again 
Lets see who can make their hardware run the most efficient.. Ill start with my handtuned 7950x 

4800MT/s memory with auto timings were used for all the runs.
SOC draw alone is around ~10w (important for the lower PPT runs)
PBO was used to limit the powerdraw for all runs, at the high-end (~above 120w) i'm pretty sure i could do a better job with static OC.
PPT 250w, 160A TDC and 225A EDC limit = *40360 points* (OBS: CPU only pulled *230w* maximum)


PPT 210w, 140A TDC and 200A EDC limit = *40085* points (OBS: CPU only pulled *204w* maximum)


PPT *160w*, 115A TDC and 175A EDC limit = *39068* points


PPT *130w*, 100A TDC and 160A EDC limit = *37344* points


PPT *100w*, 80A TDC and 150A EDC limit = *34574* points


PPT *65w*, 70A TDC and 130A EDC limit = *28387* points


PPT *50w*, 65A TDC and 125A EDC limit = *22832* points


PPT *35w*, 60A TDC and 120A EDC limit = *144667* points


PPT *25w,* 40A TDC and 80A EDC limit = *4180* points (cores were running at a wooping 500mhz each while rendering cinebench lol)


At the lower end of the PPT scale the 7950x is limited by the chiplet design with SOC on a separate die drawing ~10w alone
At PPT limit 65w the cores had ~3.44w each
At PPT limit 50w the cores had ~2.5w each
At PPT limit 35w the cores had ~1.56w each
At PPT limit 25w the cores had ~0.93w each

A monolithic APU should be much better suited here..  Lets see them Raptor Lake results


----------



## Dr. Dro (Oct 23, 2022)

Det0x said:


> So with the release of Zen4 and raptor lake which both seem to be overvolted and running kinda hot, this could be a interesting topic again
> Lets see who can make their hardware run the most efficient.. Ill start with my handtuned 7950x
> 
> 4800MT/s memory with auto timings were used for all the runs.
> ...



At 65W you have roughly the same CB scores my 5950X with a very quick n dirty -2 all core Curve Optimizer pulls. Mine is around 28,8-29k usually. Motherboard and chip just don't cooperate.

Not bad. Just a shame the EDC bug on AM4 isn't fixed and probably never will be. Thanks a lot, AMD. I'll keep that in mind when I buy my next (Intel) CPU.


----------



## fevgatos (Oct 23, 2022)

Det0x said:


> So with the release of Zen4 and raptor lake which both seem to be overvolted and running kinda hot, this could be a interesting topic again
> Lets see who can make their hardware run the most efficient.. Ill start with my handtuned 7950x
> 
> 4800MT/s memory with auto timings were used for all the runs.
> ...


I think the 12900k won this already, only the 13900k might be able to touch it. 35w = over 15k points.


----------



## HD64G (Oct 23, 2022)

TSMC 5nm is providing great efficiency combined with Zen4 arch. AMD chose to push for top-spot in benchmarks since Intel is doing so for 4 years now with over 200W power draw for their top CPUs. I would prefer they had 3 modes for their Ryzen 9 CPUs with 100W, 150W and the maxed out 230W limits that reviews would test. They have the most efficient products both in CPU and GPU by some distance for at least 2-3 years now but that was sadly overlooked.


----------



## mama (Oct 23, 2022)

So this is my 7900x stock (10 minute run).  I will post efficiency results shortly.


----------

