progsteThe cores per ccd is the same (8), if anything the 5950x should put out more heat since it has two of them but the opposite is tru as AMD refined their manufacturing process.
By hard to cool eveyrone compares similar coolers in similar use conditions, not watt per watt.
Also if the TDP is 170W it will do at most that at stock.

fevgatosYou don't understand the fundamental parts of thermodynamics. The 5950x is power limited to the same wattage as the 5800x,but that wattage is spread out to double the die size, thats why its easier to cool.

Zen 4 has an even smaller die size, but even higher power draw, which will make it way harder to cool than zen 3. On the other hand Raptor will have a bigger die size than alderlake but similar power draw, which makes it easier. Assuming the zen 4 rumors are true and the 7950x draws north of 200w, it will be way harder to cool than the 13900k at 250watts. Thats just physics

progsteThe die size is the same, the 5950x uses two 8 core chiplets while the 5800x uses one of them.
We'll see once the chips are out, but something tells me the 13900k will be another miniature stove while the 7950x will be reasonable.

RichardsRaptor cove still superior on an older node.. intel architecture is more advanced

AlwaysHopeThose scores are pretty close if not within the margin of error. It's like splitting hairs here... I also think bios immaturity with RPL could be a handicap.

agent_x007IPC is a constant (and depends on task), and it is independent of core frequency (and why you multiple both together to approximate performance FYI).

The higher the core frequency, the higher it will be scewed by buses/IMC/DRAM performance, and higher chance of throttling based on cooling/power requirements …

efikkanThis is a typical misconception.
Real IPC is a constant and is given by the architectural design, it's the architecture's ability to process instructions across "any" workload, and is measured in clocks. Real IPC isn't possible for us to measure, so we approximate it by locking clock speed far below any throttling point, choosing memory hopefully fast enough not to cause a bottleneck, and hopefully selecting a good amount of workloads able to saturate a single core. What we get is a relative IPC, which is an approximation, and the quality of this approximation is dependent on the aforementioned factors which will affect the benchmark scores.

WirkoHow do you account for the fact that different instructions take different number of cycles to execute, from zero (sometimes, if the front end manages to fuse two instructions into one micro-op) to several tens (division, whose time to execute also depends of the actual data being divided)?
How do you account for the fact that, as an example, a Skylake core can do four non-vector additions at the same time (they probably execute in one cycle but I haven't checked) but only one division (which, again, takes many cycles to execute)?

efikkanReal IPC is a constant and is given by the architectural design, it's the architecture's ability to process instructions across "any" workload

btarunrThe big surprise here is just how good the "Gracemont" E-cores are in SPECint. OneRaichu made a distinction between the "Gracemont" E-cores of "Alder Lake" (GLC-12) and those of "Raptor Lake" (GLC-13,) as the latter have double the amount of shared L2 cache per E-core cluster. The E-core is fast approaching IPC levels comparable to that of "Skylake," which really is Intel's calculation in giving its processors a large number of E-cores next to a small number of P-cores. The idea is that the E-cores will soak up all the moderately-intensive compute workloads and background processes, keeping the P-cores free for gruelling compute-heavy tasks.