fevgatosIll do it in the morning, combined with a picture of the sky to settle on the colour as well ;)

Thats my point, that's why it's pointless talking to you. Reviews show the 12700 being faster than the 5900x, and we are comparing it to a slower 5800x.

No , you were comparing it to the x3D let's be clear.

TheoneandonlyMrKNo , you were comparing it to the x3D let's be clear.

And we all know the 3d is faster than the 5900x....

So this time will be 151 ground and dummy pins instead of 49 like they did with 1151 to 1200. Ridiculous.

fevgatosAnd we all know the 3d is faster than the 5900x....

Stop moving the goal posts.

fevgatosYou made it a contest when you mentioned the 2.1 ghz base clock.

I am out of here.

You win :toast:

Didn't read the rest of your post. Probably I am losing some great arguments that totally destroy mine?
Well....who cares?

MarsM4NPlus the work/time difference of swapping a CPU vs. swapping a CPU+Board. :rolleyes:

A CPU is swapped in 30 minutes, but swapping a board is a day job (if you include the new Windows install to avoid driver issues).

A day job, i can do it including most needed drivers in a couple of hours. I think saying a full day is a bit of an exaggeration, maybe it does take you 8 hours though idk.

TiggerA day job, i can do it including most needed drivers in a couple of hours. I think saying a full day is a bit of an exaggeration, maybe it does take you 8 hours though idk.

Well, you need to load tons of updates (takes time if you got crap internet), install all drivers & programs again, turn off all the Windows nonsense & arrange everything to your liking.

You also need to shovel around some data (if you have your game library on the same drive quite even more). And if you're a perfectionist it'll take even longer. :laugh:

GzeroCan the amd fan boys cut it out already?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_AM4

3 different chipsets in 3 years.

Didn't the same thing happen on Intel side? 6th to 9th Core are all LGA1151 (6&7 and 8&9 not compatible aside), but still the same chipsets per generation.
I thought you meant Socket 754/940/939 followed by Intel long-lasting LGA775. Athlon 64 days were truly AMD's doing, on purpose as well as bad market strategies.

RidiculousOwOfollowed by Intel long-lasting LGA775

Ah, that LGA 775 who had a close friend called LGA 771.

john_Oh my. All this time you advertise us how much better 12900K is over anything else, only to tell us now how happy you are with a 10th gen i5.

You know that this is an importand parameter in marketing and that's why companies try their best to get the best spots in benchmarks? The casual consumer sees the 12900K being on top of benchmarks while running under the best watercooling someone can buy and hitting occasionally 300W power consumption and is so super wow excited, that then goes and buys an i5 or an i3, even a Pentium, something with that little magic sause in it to enjoy an idea of that great tchnology. The same in GPUs. People where drooling looking at Titan numbers, then going and buying a GT 710!

Try inserting an Alder Lake in that Z490 mobo. :)

I have a 11600K that pulls next to a 3070Ti. I can put a 11900K but the 3070Ti doesn't turn into a 3090Ti. Not?

Now I'm testing a 12600 also with igp. Processor and motherboard = 320 euros. As gaming is excluded on this system, the cheapest video card that can offer what UHD 770 offers is RTX 3050 (6500XT does not decode AV1 and does not include encoder). The offer from AMD in that price range is 5600G, much lower in performance, better in gaming but very weak in decoding (Vega, deh, not RDNA2). If you run youtube or netflix with it, an intel consumes 40W, the whole system, and AMD consumes at least 40W only the processor.
There are cases and cases, and for 12900K or 5950X we have a lot of tests to compare them.

PS. If the motherboard supports 3 or more series of processors, I would only use it if I make the leap to the next, not more. I only change a motherboard, not the car.

GicaI have a 11600K that pulls next to a 3070Ti. I can put a 11900K but the 3070Ti doesn't turn into a 3090Ti. Not?

That's what you understood? Really? Or are you intentionally giving a irrelevant explanation to build an easy argument? Try to be less melodramatic when it does NOT suits you. You where so melodramatic all this time about Alder Lake's superiority and now you downplay the significance of a faster CPU in YOUR case?
And I didn't say "insert an 11900K in the Z490". I said "insert an Alder lake". Can you?

Now I'm testing a 12600 also with igp. Processor and motherboard = 320 euros. As gaming is excluded on this system, the cheapest video card that can offer what UHD 770 offers is RTX 3050 (6500XT does not decode AV1 and does not include encoder).

You are testing in on Z490 I assume.
Are you in the video making industry or are you trying to find excuses where AV1 decoding and probably encoding is what maters most in this world?

The offer from AMD in that price range is 5600G, much lower in performance, better in gaming but very weak in decoding (Vega, deh, not RDNA2). If you run youtube or netflix with it, an intel consumes 40W, the whole system, and AMD consumes at least 40W only the processor.

So 20-30W in video playback plays a huge role, but 100W difference in multicore does not? Nice.
Still trying to find specific cases and then come to general conclusions I see. Of course we mention but at the same time exclude/downplay cases where the competition is having the advantage.

There are cases and cases, and for 12900K or 5950X we have a lot of tests to compare them.

And we are back to 12900K vs a 2 years old CPU. We have a lot of tests to do you say, still a few lines above AV1 decoding and encoding is what people are doing 24/7 I guess. The alpha and the omega in today's usage. Right....

PS. If the motherboard supports 3 or more series of processors, I would only use it if I make the leap to the next, not more. I only change a motherboard, not the car.

As you say, YOU. NOT everyone else.
I didn't got the car example, but no reason to explain yourself here. I am pretty sure you will grab one line of my post (you have plenty to choose), distort it and build a new argument about why Alder Lake is the best option.

It makes sense that AMD offers "better" motherboard upgradability. It took them 4 generations and 7nm to catch up to skylake cores from 2015 built on manafacturing technologies from the middle ages (14nm). An Intel user didn't need to upgrade, he just bought an 8700k back in 2017 and kept it until alderlake ;)

Meanwhile, an AMD user kept upgrading just to end up where the Intel user was 3 years ago. LOL

fevgatosIt makes sense that AMD offers "better" motherboard upgradability. It took them 4 generations and 7nm to catch up to skylake cores from 2015 built on manafacturing technologies from the middle ages (14nm). An Intel user didn't need to upgrade, he just bought an 8700k back in 2017 and kept it until alderlake ;)

Meanwhile, an AMD user kept upgrading just to end up where the Intel user was 3 years ago. LOL

2500K + Asrock Extreme 3 + Xigmatek cooler was the happening thing for years. Good times.

fevgatosMeanwhile, an AMD user kept upgrading just to end up where the Intel user was 3 years ago. LOL

Didn't realize 2017 was 3 years back, not to mention the hasty release of 8700k what 6 (9?) months after the 7700k :slap:

Besides Intel had 3 variations of 14nm node, also RKL was back ported on 14nm just to "fend off" AMD :nutkick:

R0H1TDidn't realize 2017 was 3 years back, not to mention the hasty release of 8700k what 6 (9?) months after the 7700k :slap:

Besides Intel had 3 variations of 14nm node, also RKL was back ported on 14nm just to "fend off" AMD :nutkick:

2017 was 3 years ago back in 2020 when AMD managed to touch the skylake 14nm cores from 2015 ;)

fevgatos2017 was 3 years ago back in 2020 when AMD managed to touch the skylake 14nm cores from 2015 ;)

You sure about that? Because facts state otherwise ~
www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2668?vs=2652
Btw any SKL derivatives with extra cores, & extra cache, had higher "IPC" & higher ST performance! Think of it as Intel's x3D's :D

The extra cache of course is the key aspect.
www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar/6
In case you want to see some other reference point ~

Normalising the scores for frequency, we see that AMD has achieved something that the company hasn’t been able to claim in over 15 years: It has beat Intel in terms of overall IPC. Overall here, the IPC improvements over Zen+ are 15%, which is a bit lower than the 17% figure for SPEC2006.

We already know about Intel’s new upcoming Sunny Cove microarchitecture which should undoubtedly be able to regain the IPC crown with relative ease, but the question for Intel is if they’ll be able to still maintain the single-thread absolute performance crown and continue to see 5GHz or similar clock speeds with the new core design.

R0H1TYou sure about that? Because facts state otherwise ~
www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2668?vs=2652
Btw any SKL derivatives with extra cores, & extra cache, had higher "IPC" & higher ST performance! Think of it as Intel's x3D's :D

The extra cache of course is the key aspect.
www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar/6
In case you want to see some other reference point ~

Cache per core is what's relevant, and that remained unchanged from 2015 to 2018 (9900k). So basically a 9900k core performance EXACTLY the same as a 6700k core at same clockspeeds. Your links show the skylake core (2015) winning almost universaly against the zen 2 core (2019). Which is my point all along, so im not sure what you are trying to prove, but you didn't.

fevgatosYour links show the skylake core (2015) winning almost universaly against the zen 2 core (2019)

Where? Certainly not in the benchmarks & IPC page I linked to.

And again cache matters, not just cache per core otherwise you wouldn't see the top end parts being decisively ahead of their predecessors!

R0H1TWhere? Certainly not in the benchmarks & IPC page I linked to.

And again cache matters, not just cache per core otherwise you wouldn't see the top end parts being decisively ahead of their predecessors!

Did you check the zen 2 review from anandtech you posted?

Yes, you checked the IPC section? Also you said Skylake (core) from 2015, the 8700k/9900k/10900k aren't the same cores! IIRC starting from 9xxx they also had hardware mitigations against spectre & meltdown. How about you show us where you're getting the numbers which show 6700k > 3700x or any zen2 chip in overall IPC o_O

R0H1TYes, you checked the IPC section? Also you said Skylake (core) from 2015, the 8700k/9900k/10900k aren't the same cores! I think stating from 9xxx they also had hardware mitigations against spectre & meltdown. How about you show where you're getting the numbers which show 6700k > 3700x or any zen2 chip in overall IPC o_O

Who cares about IPC, lol. If one CPU is running at 1 mhz and the other at 5ghz, NOBODY cares about the IPC but about the actual performance. The skylake cores ARE faster than the zen 2 cores. But it doesn't even matter, let's pretend you are correct, what are you saying, that instead of 5 years it took them 4 years to catch up to Intel? Okay, sure, still the point stands, that's why mobo upgradability is important for AMD users. Cause AMD needs a vastly more advanced node and 4-5 years to catch up to Intel. To Intel users mobo upgradability is irrelevant because their CPU is basically 4 years ahead of the AMD ones

It took them 2 years, Zen wasn't released in 2015 :rolleyes:

fevgatosCause AMD needs a vastly more advanced node and 4-5 years to catch up to Intel.

Says who? Do you have the numbers for the same chip on Intel's 14nm & TSMC 7nm, I guess extrapolating isn't your best suit huh! While TSMC's 7nm should definitely be superior there's no measure as to how much, unless you have the exact same chip fabbed on (two)separate nodes.

R0H1TIt took them 2 years, Zen wasn't released in 2015 :rolleyes:

Says who? Do you have the numbers for the same chip on Intel's 14nm & TSMC 7nm, I guess extrapolating isn't your best suit huh! While TSMC's 7nm should definitely be superior there's no measure as to how much, unless you have the exact same chip fabbed on (two)separate nodes.

Skylake core 14nm = 2015. A 6700k has a faster core for sure than a 2xxx zen. Therefore, yes it did took them 4 years and a vastly more advanced node. I don't know why you are arguing with stuff that are pretty much universally agreed upon. Even zen 2 was pretty atrocious when it come to latency dependant workloads, it was getting molested by skylake, that's why I said it took zen 3 to universally beat the skylake core from 2015

You don't even know that 2xxx chips are zen+ nor zen2, wanna try that again?

fevgatosit was getting molested by skylake

And I'd prefer this sort of garbage language being used elsewhere, I also particularly hate people who use words like raped or molested so lightly!

Ciao, keep entertaining yourself with that kind of knowledge :toast:

R0H1TYou don't even know that 2xxx chips are zen+ nor zen2, wanna try that again?

And I'd prefer this sort of garbage language being used elsewhere, I also particularly hate people who use words like raped or molested so lightly!

Ciao, keep entertaining yourself with that kind of knowledge :toast:

And I'd prefer people didn't think words had magical mystical powers, but what can you do :/