Wednesday, August 31st 2022

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X Geekbenched, Crushes i9-12900K, in the League of the i9-13900K

An AMD Ryzen 9 7950X "Zen 4" 16-core/32-thread processor was put through the Geekbench 5.4.5 benchmark, and it's becoming all too clear that AMD has a highly competitive product on its hands. The 7950X yielded a single-threaded score of 2217 points, and 24396 points in the multi-threaded tests. With these scores, the 7950X is about 14% faster than the "Golden Cove" P-cores of the i9-12900K "Alder Lake" processor in the single-threaded tests, and comes out as being 41% faster than it in the multi-threaded test. Against the leaked i9-13900K "Raptor Lake," the 7950X is shown being about 4% slower in the single-threaded test (against the "Raptor Cove" P-cores); and about 7.8% slower in the multi-threaded test.
Sources: Benchleaks (Twitter), VideoCardz
Add your own comment

104 Comments on AMD Ryzen 9 7950X Geekbenched, Crushes i9-12900K, in the League of the i9-13900K

#101
Valantar
ArcoFor me, waiting half a year isn't an option. It's 4-5 months at the max.
I mean, we all have our limits, but that is a very small distinction.
Posted on Reply
#102
Arco
ValantarI mean, we all have our limits, but that is a very small distinction.
True, but when I start piling more and more months of waiting it turns into a difference.
Posted on Reply
#103
AdmiralThrawn
ValantarExcept in gaming? Gaming doesn't see meaningful gains past 6c12t, so if the 7600X is faster at that, that makes it an attractive proposition even if it's clearly weaker in nT productivity.
This is true currently but in the long term, I know of several companies that are developing games to run on up to 8-10 cores if availible within the next 2 years. So having the gaming performance now may win but in 2 years with new titles there is a lot better argument for multicore performance.
Posted on Reply
#104
Valantar
AdmiralThrawnThis is true currently but in the long term, I know of several companies that are developing games to run on up to 8-10 cores if availible within the next 2 years. So having the gaming performance now may win but in 2 years with new titles there is a lot better argument for multicore performance.
Plenty of games already do. The question is whether they run 8-10 heavy threads. Which they won't in any reasonable time frame, as games for the most part just aren't that parallelizable. A lot of game code needs to be executed sequentially, and there are limits to how practical any attempt at splitting that into multiple threads can be.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 13th, 2024 07:24 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts