AMD fanboys chilax. 14900K at 6Ghz scores way higher at about 980. Mine with no extra voltage and just +1 divider to 61 for 3 cores(6.1Ghz at up to 3 cores) scores 1000. I'd like to see next gen AMD CPU scoring 1000. Also Performance per clock is still worse for AMD. Again 14900K at 6Ghz scores 980. If it scores 910 then it's not reaching this clock. Then per clock performance is better than AMD's 910@5.8Ghz.

PavliniusAMD fanboys chilax. 14900K at 6Ghz scores way higher at about 980. Mine with no extra voltage and just +1 divider to 61 for 3 cores(6.1Ghz at up to 3 cores) scores 1000. I'd like to see next gen AMD CPU scoring 1000. Also Performance per clock is still worse for AMD. Again 14900K at 6Ghz scores 980. If it scores 910 then it's not reaching this clock. Then per clock performance is better than AMD's 910@5.8Ghz.

I don't think I've seen one post that fits your description. But good for you, son! Enjoy the chip, while it lasts...

atomsymbolNote 1: High power consumption is an industry-wide trend, in both desktop CPUs and desktop GPUs, enabled by advances in chip manufacturing and by larger&heavier coolers.

Also an industry trend are Laptops, Tablets, and NUC like boxes. Never before have they been so prevalent with a dizzying array of low power multi-core devices.

I guess I never realized what a turd Zen 4 was on 1T.

So now Zen 5 = 14900K and people claiming an AMD win. I think not.

RandallFlaggI guess I never realized what a turd Zen 4 was on 1T.

Zen 4 is a 2022 technology, it's normal that AMD lags behind. They have to release a refresh or a new generation.
But still, 50,000 Cinebench R23 points is a result which no other CPU has achieved.

Ya'll love b*tching about power consumption, even though its high on both sides...

stimpy88I don't think I've seen one post that fits your description. But good for you, son! Enjoy the chip, while it lasts...

The raptorlake14900k/ks failures are highly exaggerated son!

KonceptzYa'll love b*tching about power consumption, even though its high on both sides...
The raptorlake14900k/ks failures are highly exaggerated son!

Everything is written in the internet, but there is no one to read it :D

PavliniusAMD fanboys chilax. 14900K at 6Ghz scores way higher at about 980. Mine with no extra voltage and just +1 divider to 61 for 3 cores(6.1Ghz at up to 3 cores) scores 1000. I'd like to see next gen AMD CPU scoring 1000. Also Performance per clock is still worse for AMD. Again 14900K at 6Ghz scores 980. If it scores 910 then it's not reaching this clock. Then per clock performance is better than AMD's 910@5.8Ghz.

so you created an account to troll?

ARFEverything is written in the internet, but there is no one to read it :D

Yeah....in testing....in real world usage with a power limit (news flash, you should be setting a power limit on AMD side as well) they dont come anywhere close...but go on...

KonceptzYeah....in testing....in real world usage with a power limit (news flash, you should be setting a power limit on AMD side as well) they dont come anywhere close...but go on...

When you underclock it, it gets slower. AMD still wins the performance per watt graphs.


www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-14900k-raptor-lake-tested-at-power-limits-down-to-35-w/2.html

ARFWhen you underclock it, it gets slower. AMD still wins the performance per watt graphs.


www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-14900k-raptor-lake-tested-at-power-limits-down-to-35-w/2.html

Yeah, those tests were done before bios updates allowed you to disable CEP. I know you're AMD biased but facts are facts..

Also...gaming isn't the only thing you can do on a PC....


www.msi.com/blog/lowering-cpu-voltage-and-temperature-without-compromising-performance-disabling-cep-on-intel-14th-gen-non-k-CPUs

KonceptzYeah, those tests were done before bios updates allowed you to disable CEP. I know you're AMD biased but facts are facts..

Also...gaming isn't the only thing you can do on a PC....


www.msi.com/blog/lowering-cpu-voltage-and-temperature-without-compromising-performance-disabling-cep-on-intel-14th-gen-non-k-CPUs

MSI have something with Intel that we are not aware of. They are the only user selling an Intel based handheld ($899) so expect them to wax towards Intel. When the mobile version of this launches it will be in the next Steam deck which outsells everything else in that space. We are in a CPU War but we have sites like TPU that prove the truth. The narrative is powerful though. There was enough noise about instability that Nvidia blamed Intel who then blamed the MB makers and we go on but Intel chips are still more expensive anyway, the hubris.

PavliniusAMD fanboys chilax. 14900K at 6Ghz scores way higher at about 980. Mine with no extra voltage and just +1 divider to 61 for 3 cores(6.1Ghz at up to 3 cores) scores 1000. I'd like to see next gen AMD CPU scoring 1000. Also Performance per clock is still worse for AMD. Again 14900K at 6Ghz scores 980. If it scores 910 then it's not reaching this clock. Then per clock performance is better than AMD's 910@5.8Ghz.

What's your power draw to achieve 980 score? 500 watts from the CPU alone?

Shatun_BearWhat's your power draw to achieve 980 score? 500 watts from the CPU alone?

Single thread?

Shatun_BearWhat's your power draw to achieve 980 score? 500 watts from the CPU alone?

Not the same test but good enough for reference:
(as an offtopic sidenote - I seriously doubt the 7800X3D's 17W number)

RandallFlaggI guess I never realized what a turd Zen 4 was on 1T.

So now Zen 5 = 14900K and people claiming an AMD win. I think not.

In the CPU-z bench, sure. But that bench is a pretty terrible bench as it has no connection to any real world workload and tests a very small subset of the CPU itself. Real world workloads? Zen 4 is pretty damn close to 14th gen, even in their unstably boosted state. Anandtech did a lot of SPEC comparisons back then and this is what they had to say with regard to 13900k vs 7950x's IPC:

"With Raptor Lake being more of a transitional and enhanced core design that Intel's worked with before (Alder Lake), it remains to be seen what the future of 2023 holds for Intel's advancement in IPC and single-threaded performance. Right now, however SPEC paints a picture where it's pretty much neck and neck between Raptor Cove and Zen 4"

Zen 5 won't be equal in IPC to 14900K, it'll be comfortably ahead.

mkppoIn the CPU-z bench, sure. But that bench is a pretty terrible bench as it has no connection to any real world workload and tests a very small subset of the CPU itself. Real world workloads?

Have you ever looked at what it tests? Never mind, I already know the answer.

mkppoZen 4 is pretty damn close to 14th gen, even in their unstably boosted state. Anandtech did a lot of SPEC comparisons back then and this is what they had to say with regard to 13900k vs 7950x's IPC:

"With Raptor Lake being more of a transitional and enhanced core design that Intel's worked with before (Alder Lake), it remains to be seen what the future of 2023 holds for Intel's advancement in IPC and single-threaded performance. Right now, however SPEC paints a picture where it's pretty much neck and neck between Raptor Cove and Zen 4"

Zen 5 won't be equal in IPC to 14900K, it'll be comfortably ahead.

AT opinion is garbage, has been for years.

RandallFlaggHave you ever looked at what it tests? Never mind, I already know the answer.



AT opinion is garbage, has been for years.

Their opinion is based on a whole suite of SPEC tests. Granted this was after Ian Cuttress left and Gavin picked it up, but Ian in his own channel had the same opinion. Now what are you going to say, Ian's opinion is garbage too? Surely the CPU-z test matters more because it's so relevant to real world workloads eh?

Also if you don't agree with their opinion, make up your own after seeing the numbers. I don't think it'll be any different. edit: numbers for you www.anandtech.com/show/17601/intel-core-i9-13900k-and-i5-13600k-review/6

Edit: Oh sorry, you asked me what the CPU-z bench tests and then go on to say never mind you already know the answer. Strange. Well, instead of explaining it, i'll just paste the source of where I based my statement from: chipsandcheese.com/2023/11/03/cpu-zs-inadequate-benchmark/

Just don't say chips and cheese is garbage too lol

londisteNot the same test but good enough for reference:
(as an offtopic sidenote - I seriously doubt the 7800X3D's 17W number)

Do you think it is in fact less?

RandallFlaggAT opinion is garbage, has been for years.

Err, then look at the DIY market, and actual sales figures, so you will know the opinion of the society as a whole.


x.com/TechEpiphanyYT/status/1757166149148545250

If you have updated data, share it.

mkppoTheir opinion is based on a whole suite of SPEC tests. Granted this was after Ian Cuttress left and Gavin picked it up, but Ian in his own channel had the same opinion. Now what are you going to say, Ian's opinion is garbage too? Surely the CPU-z test matters more because it's so relevant to real world workloads eh?

Also if you don't agree with their opinion, make up your own after seeing the numbers. I don't think it'll be any different.

Edit: Oh sorry, you asked me what the CPU-z bench tests and then go on to say never mind you already know the answer. Strange. Well, instead of explaining it, i'll just paste the source of where I based my statement from: chipsandcheese.com/2023/11/03/cpu-zs-inadequate-benchmark/

Just don't say chips and cheese is garbage too lol

Ian's opinion is most certainly garbage. He has always been more concerned with the esoteric architecture and changes to architecture than the useable performance of systems. He's a PHD that works alongside college dropouts.

As far as CPU-Z, your own link explains that due to its size it is a fairly pure IPC benchmark. Data mostly fits in L1/L2 cache. So, what we're saying here is that the actual core of Zen 5, ignoring memory and IO performance, is no faster than Raptor Lake.

That's a big miss for AMD. And that is probably why they are rushing to market first. They need to sell what they can, before Arrow Lake smashes them.

RandallFlaggThey need to sell what they can, before Arrow Lake smashes them.

Without HT, and before AMD even caring to increase the core count from the old 16-core figure to at least 24-core figure?
Err, good luck waiting that.

offtopic:

ARFDo you think it is in fact less?

If it is CPU package, it is definitely too little. If it is cores only, feels like too much (and way WAY more than I expected on other Zen4 CPUs).

Wanted to test myself but it looks like something strange is going on with my 7800X3D. It does show somewhat low numbers on various single-core workloads but it also never goes beyond 4.2GHz for some reason...

RandallFlaggIan's opinion is most certainly garbage. He has always been more concerned with the esoteric architecture and changes to architecture than the useable performance of systems. He's a PHD that works alongside college dropouts.

As far as CPU-Z, your own link explains that due to its size it is a fairly pure IPC benchmark. Data mostly fits in L1/L2 cache. So, what we're saying here is that the actual core of Zen 5, ignoring memory and IO performance, is no faster than Raptor Lake.

That's a big miss for AMD. And that is probably why they are rushing to market first. They need to sell what they can, before Arrow Lake smashes them.

Ian has always been great at explaining what architectural changes there are and what workloads will benefit from it. And guess what, he's usually right. What more, he actually uses these systems for real world workloads in the work that he does. Not sure what your last sentence is supposed to mean, what does it matter who he works with? Surely you're not questioning his credentials? I mean, considering Jim Keller has a pretty high opinion of him I don't think we should really go there.

Also, I have absolutely no idea how you read my link and came up with the conclusion that it's a 'pure' IPC benchmark. The article literally states the opposite. I mean, it clearly explains that Zen 3 to Zen 4 had no change in IPC in that bench simply because Zen 4 runs into FP register file capacity which this bench is most sensitive to. Let me quote the conclusion of the article just for reference:

"AMD’s architects likely saw changes that could benefit CPU-Z wouldn’t pay off in other applications. Zen 4 received improvements like a larger micro-op cache, better branch prediction, and doubled L2 cache capacity. Those would help a lot of applications, but not CPU-Z. Thus, CPU-Z’s benchmark ends up being useless to both CPU designers and end users"

To clarify, those changes are what results in the 13% IPC gain from Zen 3 to Zen 4. But guess what the IPC gain in the CPU-z bench is? Zero.

So yeah, the bench is pretty useless as it has no real world relevance and tests a small subset of the CPU. Fitting into the L1 cache doesn't make anything a 'pure IPC' benchmark. No, we're not saying the actual core of Zen 5 is no faster than RPL, it doesn't even test 3/4 of the core lol. The test doesn't test the branch predictors, basically doesn't even touch the front end of the CPU and I can go on. At the least, that would make it a very incomplete IPC bench. Nothing pure about that.

mkppoIan has always been great at explaining what architectural changes there are and what workloads will benefit from it. And guess what, he's usually right. What more, he actually uses these systems for real world workloads in the work that he does. Not sure what your last sentence is supposed to mean, what does it matter who he works with? Surely you're not questioning his credentials? I mean, considering Jim Keller has a pretty high opinion of him I don't think we should really go there.

Also, I have absolutely no idea how you read my link and came up with the conclusion that it's a 'pure' IPC benchmark. The article literally states the opposite. I mean, it clearly explains that Zen 3 to Zen 4 had no change in IPC in that bench simply because Zen 4 runs into FP register file capacity which this bench is most sensitive to. Let me quote the conclusion of the article just for reference:

That might be because, Zen 3 and Zen 4, are not much different at the core level. They mostly changed the IO / memory / cache.

mkppo"AMD’s architects likely saw changes that could benefit CPU-Z wouldn’t pay off in other applications. Zen 4 received improvements like a larger micro-op cache, better branch prediction, and doubled L2 cache capacity. Those would help a lot of applications, but not CPU-Z. Thus, CPU-Z’s benchmark ends up being useless to both CPU designers and end users"

So he thinks AMD was looking at CPU-Z, or anyone was? That's absurd.

mkppoTo clarify, those changes are what results in the 13% IPC gain from Zen 3 to Zen 4. But guess what the IPC gain in the CPU-z bench is? Zero.

So yeah, the bench is pretty useless as it has no real world relevance and tests a small subset of the CPU. Fitting into the L1 cache doesn't make anything a 'pure IPC' benchmark.

Of course it does. If it does not fit in L1, what exactly are you testing?

L1<->L2 latency and bandwidth? L2<->L3 Latency and bandwidth? L3<-> main memory latency and bandwidth? Yes on all counts.

mkppoNo, we're not saying the actual core of Zen 5 is no faster than RPL, it doesn't even test 3/4 of the core lol. The test doesn't test the branch predictors, basically doesn't even touch the front end of the CPU and I can go on. At the least, that would make it a very incomplete IPC bench. Nothing pure about that.

Work on that reading comprehension thing. It does test branch predictors, just not to the degree that "chipsandcheese" wants.

RandallFlaggSo he thinks AMD was looking at CPU-Z, or anyone was? That's absurd.

He doesn't "think", they were testing it. AMD literally had CPU-z in the official IPC slide in case you want to have a look, and his quote was immediately after the slide.



Note CPU-z on the far left with no change.

RandallFlaggThat might be because, Zen 3 and Zen 4, are not much different at the core level. They mostly changed the IO / memory / cache.

And yet the quote itself is this: "Zen 4 received improvements like a larger micro-op cache, better branch prediction, and doubled L2 cache capacity. Those would help a lot of applications, but not CPU-Z. Thus, CPU-Z’s benchmark ends up being useless to both CPU designers and end users"

So yes, there were core changes. And those improvements certainly contributed to the 13% IPC gain and yet no gain in the CPU-z benchmark, because the a beefier front end doesn't affect the result. So let me understand this correctly, is a larger micro op-cache, which affects a lot of real world workloads, part of your 'pure IPC' calculation? Or like..better branch prediction? How about having larger L2 caches, which will certainly affect a lot of workloads but not CPU-z? Or is your definition of a pure IPC benchmark one that only really tests the backend of a CPU and fits into L1 cache?

RandallFlaggOf course it does. If it does not fit in L1, what exactly are you testing?

L1<->L2 latency and bandwidth? L2<->L3 Latency and bandwidth? L3<-> main memory latency and bandwidth? Yes on all counts.

I'm sorry, but just fitting into L1 cache doesn't make it a great, or a 'pure IPC' test. A higher L1 or L1>L2 bandwidth will contribute to, but not automatically make it a 'pure IPC' test . To put it simply, a larger L2 cache in a cache starved design will net huge IPC gains in most applications but an absolute zero gain in CPU-z single core bench. Same with a much larger micro-op cache. So essentially the CPU-z test is mostly testing the backend of a CPU, and hits the FP register particularly hard.

RandallFlaggWork on that reading comprehension thing. It does test branch predictors, just not to the degree that "chipsandcheese" wants.

I'm going to ignore that unnecessary insult of sorts and get to it. Improved branch predictors make next to no difference in the CPU-z benchmark and certainly no difference in the single core bench. To quote, this is how basic their test of the branch prediction is: "Even Goldmont Plus has no problem tracking CPU-Z’s branches". Hell, even Bulldozer has very little problems with that terrible branch predictor and that's saying something. It's not what "chipsandcheese" wants, it's what they are seeing in the results. My reading comprehension was fine, I just didn't wanna add a ton of explanation thinking you also understand that branch predictors make next to no difference in that bench. Well now you know.

You seem to have the idea that this CPU-z test which fits into the L1 cache is a pure IPC test. A chips and cheese article refutes that. The test not really testing a CPU's frontend refutes that, as real world benches benefit a lot from it. Branch predictors not affecting the single core result refutes that. A larger micro-op cache not affecting the result refutes that. I can go on, but i'll stop here. If you still think this CPU-z bench is a pure IPC bench so be it. It would simply mean your definition of IPC is different from mine. For me, IPC gains are calculated using an average of test results which individually test different parts of the CPU or a more rounded single bench that is atleast affected by changes in front end, execution and backend. A singular test that doesn't change from an increase in micro-op cache, larger L2 and generally beefier front end doesn't really fit the definition of a 'pure IPC' bench.

I'm going to stop arguing with you over this and leave with a quote from them:
"What limits computer performance today is predictability, and the two big ones are instruction/branch predictability, and data locality - Jim Keller, during an Interview with Dr. Ian Cutress.
That’s not just Jim Keller’s opinion. I’ve watched CPU performance counters across my day-to-day workloads. Across code compilation, image editing, video encoding, and gaming, I can’t think of anything that fits within the L1 cache and barely challenges the branch predictor. CPU-Z’s benchmark is an exception. The factors that limit performance in CPU-Z are very different from those in typical real-life workloads."