Potential Ryzen 7000-series CPU Specs and Pricing Leak, Ryzen 9 7950X Expected to hit 5.7 GHz

[Valantar]

Normalized for either consumption or performance. Great for them that they ran as configured by Intel but that's not my argument at all

I mean, I should just start linking you to previous responses at this point, as everything you bring up is asked and answered four pages ago. "Normalizing" for either of those mainly serves to hide the uneven starting point introduced by said normalization, as each "normalized" operating point represents a different change from the stock behaviour of each chip. In the case of power limits being lowered, this inherently privileges the chip being allowed the biggest reduction from stock, due to how DVFS curves work.

You think a comparison normalized for performance is deeply flawed?

Yes, I really do. Outside of purely academic endeavors, who ever tests PC components normalized for performance? I mean, doing so isn't even possible, given how different architectures perform differently in different tasks. If you adjust a 12900K so it perfectly matches an 11900K in Cinebench, then it will still be faster in some workloads, and possibly slower in others. Normalizing for performance for complex components like this is literally impossible. Unless, that is, you tune normalize for performance in every single workload, and then just record the power data? That sounds incredibly convoluted and time-consuming though.

I mean come on, you cannot possible believe that. I don't believe you believe that.

Well, too bad. I have explained the issues with this to you at length multiple times now. If you're unable to grasp that these problems are significant, that's your problem, not mine.

I said it before, normalized for consumption, 8 gc cores are around 20-25% more efficient, normalized for performance the difference is over 100%. So yeah, the 5800x at 65 can get up to 13-14k.

And, once again: at what points? "Normalized for consumption" - at what wattage? The only such comparison that would make sense would be a range, as any single test is nothing more than an unrepresentative snapshot. And any single workload, even across a range, is still only representative of itself. For such a comparison to have any hope whatsoever of being representative, you'd need to test a range of wattages in a range of workloads, and then graph out those differences. Anything less than that is worthless. Comparing the 12900K at 65W vs. the 5800X at 65W in CB23 tells us only that exact thing: how each perform at that specific power level in that specific workload. You cannot reliably extrapolate anything from that data - it's just not sufficient for that.

As for your "normalizing for performance": once again, you're just trying to use neutral and quasi-scientific wording to hide the fact that you really want to use a benchmark that's relatively friendly to ADL as the be-all, end-all representation of which of these CPUs is better, rather than actually wanting to gain actual knowledge about this.

Again, performance normalized the difference will still be huge. You can put the 5800x at 50w for all I care, 8 gc cores will probably match the performance at 30w. I mean, 2 days left, im back and I can test it

I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, but: ADL has an advantage at lower power limits in less instruction dense workloads due to its lower uncore power draw.

Outside of that one application the zen 3 is even more comedically bad. Ive tested gaming performance (granted, only one game), 8GC cores at 25w (yes, power limited to 25) match a 5800x in performance hitting 90+ watts in Farcry 6. They both scored around 110 fps if I remember correctly at 720p ultra + RT

And once again, pulling numbers out of nowhere as if this is even remotely believeable. Also, 720p? Wtf? And how oddly, unexpectedly convenient that the one game you're testing in is once again a game that's uncharacteristically performant on ADL generally. Hmmmmmm. Almost as if there might be a pattern here?

Ive no idea what you are talking about. Im comparing core and power normalized, so it doesn't matter which Zen SKU the comparisons are done with. The 5950x with one CCD will perform pretty similarly to the 5800x at the same wattages, no? So your criticism is completely unwarranted.

... no. Did you even look at the AT testing? The 5950X, running 8 cores active, on the same CCX (they control for that in testing), in the same workload, at the same power limit as the 5800X, clocks higher while consuming less power per core.

It would be really, really helpful if you at least tried to understand what is being said to you. The boost behaviours, binning and DVFS characteristics of these chips are not the same. This is what I was saying about your "arguments" about binning on the 12400K: you're infinitely generous with giving Intel the benefit of the doubt, but you consistently pick worst case scenarios for AMD and show zero such generousness in that direction.

And yes, ive tested a 12900k with only 6 GC cores active at 65w, it scored way more than the 12400 does, so its pretty apparent the 12400 is a horrible bin. I think i got 14k score, but again, dont remember off the top of my head

And yet more unsourced numbers pulled out of thin air. This is starting to get tiring, you know.

But im not using igorslab for efficiency comparisons.

Uhhhhh... what? This is what you said, in literally your previous post:

You can check igorslab review which tests only CPU power, the 12400 is way more efficient than the 5600x.

Could you at least stop flat out lying? That would be nice, thanks.

Im using them to show you that a 12900k at 125w matches / outperforms a 5900x even at heavy MT workloads. Which is the exact opposite of what TPU said, where a 12900k at 125w is matched by the 12600k and loses to a 65w 12700. If you still cant admit that TPU results are absolutely completely hillariously flawed i don't know what else to tell you man....

I don't know that TPU's testing is flawed - but I have explicitly said that this might indeed be the case. Given the number of possible reasons for this, and my complete lack of access to data surrounding their testing other than what's published, I really can't know. It's absolutely possible that there's something wrong there.

However, you seem to fail to recognize that the Igor's Lab testing seems to be similarly flawed, only in the other direction. As I explained above, it's entirely possible to harm performance on AMD CPUs through giving them too much power, which drives up thermals, drives down clocks, increases leakage, and results in lower overall performance. Given that Igor's testing is with an auto OC applied and the power levels recorded are astronomical, this is very likely the case. So, if I agree to not look at TPU's results, will you agree to not look at Igor's Lab's results? 'Cause for this discussion, both seem to be equally invalid. (And no, you can't take the Igor's Lab Intel results and compare them to Zen3 results from elsewhere, as this introduces massive error potential into the data, as there's no chance of controlling for variables across the tests.



Oh, and a bit of a side note here: you are constantly switching back and forth between talking about "running the 12900K at X watts" and "8 GC cores at X watts". Are your tests all willy-nilly like this, or are you consistently running with or without E-cores enabled? That represents a pretty significant difference, after all.

 

[ratirt]

And if you think that, I say we get the resident TechPowerUp benchmark king in this thread to give his side of the story. Hey @W1zzard, let's see you give some input on this.

I'd really like to hear from @W1zzard about this entire, "TPU results are absolutely hilariously flawed".

 

[JustBenching]

Yes, I really do. Outside of purely academic endeavors, who ever tests PC components normalized for performance? I mean, doing so isn't even possible, given how different architectures perform differently in different tasks. If you adjust a 12900K so it perfectly matches an 11900K in Cinebench, then it will still be faster in some workloads, and possibly slower in others. Normalizing for performance for complex components like this is literally impossible. Unless, that is, you tune normalize for performance in every single workload, and then just record the power data? That sounds incredibly convoluted and time-consuming though.

CPUs, probably noone. Other PC hardware, sure, Fans and coolers for example

And, once again: at what points? "Normalized for consumption" - at what wattage? The only such comparison that would make sense would be a range, as any single test is nothing more than an unrepresentative snapshot. And any single workload, even across a range, is still only representative of itself. For such a comparison to have any hope whatsoever of being representative, you'd need to test a range of wattages in a range of workloads, and then graph out those differences. Anything less than that is worthless. Comparing the 12900K at 65W vs. the 5800X at 65W in CB23 tells us only that exact thing: how each perform at that specific power level in that specific workload. You cannot reliably extrapolate anything from that data - it's just not sufficient for that.

And I will when I'm back. I'll test everything that's there to test, assuming someone with a zen 3 is willing to participate.

I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, but: ADL has an advantage at lower power limits in less instruction dense workloads due to its lower uncore power draw.

Is CBR23 less instruction dense?

And once again, pulling numbers out of nowhere as if this is even remotely believeable. Also, 720p? Wtf? And how oddly, unexpectedly convenient that the one game you're testing in is once again a game that's uncharacteristically performant on ADL generally. Hmmmmmm. Almost as if there might be a pattern here?

What's not believable? Ill post you the results when I'm back, but im not sure what part you don't find believable.

Uhhhhh... what? This is what you said, in literally your previous post:



Could you at least stop flat out lying? That would be nice, thanks.

Im not lying, those are 2 different benchmarks from igorslab. The testing I posted at 125w wasn't to show efficiency compared to zen 3, I posted to show you that the TPU test at 125w was flawed. The 12400 testing had the 5600x at stock with PBO off, PPT power at 90w, so yes that one I used to compare efficiency.

I don't know that TPU's testing is flawed - but I have explicitly said that this might indeed be the case. Given the number of possible reasons for this, and my complete lack of access to data surrounding their testing other than what's published, I really can't know. It's absolutely possible that there's something wrong there.

However, you seem to fail to recognize that the Igor's Lab testing seems to be similarly flawed, only in the other direction. As I explained above, it's entirely possible to harm performance on AMD CPUs through giving them too much power, which drives up thermals, drives down clocks, increases leakage, and results in lower overall performance. Given that Igor's testing is with an auto OC applied and the power levels recorded are astronomical, this is very likely the case. So, if I agree to not look at TPU's results, will you agree to not look at Igor's Lab's results? 'Cause for this discussion, both seem to be equally invalid. (And no, you can't take the Igor's Lab Intel results and compare them to Zen3 results from elsewhere, as this introduces massive error potential into the data, as there's no chance of controlling for variables across the tests.



Oh, and a bit of a side note here: you are constantly switching back and forth between talking about "running the 12900K at X watts" and "8 GC cores at X watts". Are your tests all willy-nilly like this, or are you consistently running with or without E-cores enabled? That represents a pretty significant difference, after all.

But im not using igor's lab results as I've said before (ok, I used the ones for the 12400 / 5600x since they seem to be stock) as an efficiency comparison.

And yes all the tests that I compared to a 5800x were done with 8gc cores - ecores off. You keep saying it's only tests that favor alderlake, but it's not like it's my choice. Whenever I ask people to run something with their zen CPU after the claimed it's more efficient they basically dissapear. If you know someone willing to test with his zen 3, im all up for it.

I'd really like to hear from @W1zzard about this entire, "TPU results are absolutely hilariously flawed".

You think it's more likely that the 12600k is more efficient at same wattage while having less P coress and half the ecores? Ok man

 

[Arc1t3ct]

CPUs, probably noone. Other PC hardware, sure, Fans and coolers for example


And I will when I'm back. I'll test everything that's there to test, assuming someone with a zen 3 is willing to participate.

Is CBR23 less instruction dense?

What's not believable? Ill post you the results when I'm back, but im not sure what part you don't find believable.

Im not lying, those are 2 different benchmarks from igorslab. The testing I posted at 125w wasn't to show efficiency compared to zen 3, I posted to show you that the TPU test at 125w was flawed. The 12400 testing had the 5600x at stock with PBO off, PPT power at 90w, so yes that one I used to compare efficiency.

But im not using igor's lab results as I've said before (ok, I used the ones for the 12400 / 5600x since they seem to be stock) as an efficiency comparison.

And yes all the tests that I compared to a 5800x were done with 8gc cores - ecores off. You keep saying it's only tests that favor alderlake, but it's not like it's my choice. Whenever I ask people to run something with their zen CPU after the claimed it's more efficient they basically dissapear. If you know someone willing to test with his zen 3, im all up for it.


You think it's more likely that the 12600k is more efficient at same wattage while having less P coress and half the ecores? Ok man

Could you post your best CB23 score? I'd like to compare it against my KS. What mobo and ram do you use?

 

[JustBenching]

Could you post your best CB23 score? I'd like to compare it against my KS. What mobo and ram do you use?

You mean oced? Around 29950, unify X and 6000c30 ram on a u12a cooler

 

[chrcoluk]

Upgrading every generation makes no sense anyway - it just makes progress feel slower by chopping it up into tiny bits, while costing tons of money. That's a great PC you've got, and it'll be great for many years still, so no reason to upgrade for a while still.

Given the increase in base clock it seems efficiency is maintained at least to some degree, though they're definitely pushing these hard. The chips should all do base clock continuously at TDP, which looks decent (from 3.4GHz @ 105W to 4.5GHz @170W), but bumping TDP from 105W to 170W and PPT from 144W to 230W is still quite a lot. PPT/TDC/EDC tuning will likely be even more useful for Zen4 than it is for Zen3 currently, and no doubt there'll be notable gains by setting lower power limits simply as the chips are scaling much higher in power than previously.


Yes, exactly. Like I said: this is easily solved.

Through this, they could easily adjust the listed price to match with the reality of what the customer will be paying. This really isn't complicated at all.

Well TDP seems to have gone up from 65w to 105w for x600X chip? so thats quite a loss of efficiency sadly. Although I guess like you said if is a good enough board one can possibly tune it back down to 65w consumption.

 

[Valantar]

Well TDP seems to have gone up from 65w to 105w for x600X chip? so thats quite a loss of efficiency sadly. Although I guess like you said if is a good enough board one can possibly tune it back down to 65w consumption.

It has, but again, the base clock has also increased by a full GHz, so once again it's a bit of a balancing act. Less efficient overall - it's a 27% base clock increase for a 62% TDP increase after all - but a crapton more performance, both peak and sustained (before any architectural improvements). The good thing is, thanks to AMD's opportunistic boost algorithms and low per-core power draws, those boost clocks should survive even at much lower power targets if one wants to tune some. That also makes it quite likely that this - not unlike ADL - will be quite efficient at low threaded workloads, as lower Zen3 SKUs are quite held back by their clocks there. Still, it'll be really interesting to see how these things shake out once we have some actual reviews to look at.

 

[HenrySomeone]

Well TDP seems to have gone up from 65w to 105w for x600X chip? so thats quite a loss of efficiency sadly. Although I guess like you said if is a good enough board one can possibly tune it back down to 65w consumption.

They don't really have any other choice in order to stay at least semi-competitive against i5s (lower ones anyway, 7600x simply won't come close to 13600k) considering they will keep the 6/12 configuration for the 5th/6th time in a row while the big, bad, core-stingy (amd fanboy favorite title up until recently) Intel will have gone from 4/4 to 14/20 in the same time frame. I bet the red team is moaning over the lost opportunity to go to 12 core chiplets with Zen4 (like the rumors suggested a while ago), but back then they were probably betting on Intel's 10nm woes to continue at least another year or so and by the time it became apparent that won't be the case, it was already too late to change the design...

 

[ratirt]

You think it's more likely that the 12600k is more efficient at same wattage while having less P coress and half the ecores? Ok man

I really don't care what is more likely but rather what the results say. If you want to discredit @W1zzard's testing maybe you should point where you think the problem lies.
power limit a 12900k and it will lose performance. 10% down when power limit is at 175w. A lot of sites confirmed it. Go lower with the power limit performance tanks but efficiency goes up.
Where is the 12600K more efficient show me

Intel Core i5-12600K Review - Winning Price/Performance

The Core i5-12600K is the price/performance king in the Intel Alder Lake lineup. With its competitive pricing of $300, it's a clear winner against AMD's Ryzen 5 5600X and faster than even the 5800X in many applications and games. This is the gaming CPU you want.

www.techpowerup.com

 

[JustBenching]

I really don't care what is more likely but rather what the results say. If you want to discredit @W1zzard's testing maybe you should point where you think the problem lies.
power limit a 12900k and it will lose performance. 10% down when power limit is at 175w. A lot of sites confirmed it. Go lower with the power limit performance tanks but efficiency goes up.
Where is the 12600K more efficient show me

Intel Core i5-12600K Review - Winning Price/Performance

The Core i5-12600K is the price/performance king in the Intel Alder Lake lineup. With its competitive pricing of $300, it's a clear winner against AMD's Ryzen 5 5600X and faster than even the 5800X in many applications and games. This is the gaming CPU you want.

www.techpowerup.com

Right here

https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-alder-lake-tested-at-various-power-limits/images/cinebench-multi.png

According to the consumption table, the 12900k at 125w consumes 5 watts more than the 12600k while scoring very similarly. If you dont understand how that's absolutely impossible.... Its like boostint the 5600x to 125w and suddenly it matches the 5950x.

Also here is techspots review of the 12700, which has less cores and worse bin.

https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/2391/bench/CB23-1.png

At 65w the 12700 outscores the 12900k at 100w from tpus review. Again, if you dont understand why that's absolutely impossible.. I dont know how to help

 

[ratirt]

According to the consumption table, the 12900k at 125w consumes 5 watts more than the 12600k while scoring very similarly. If you dont understand how that's absolutely impossible.... Its like boostint the 5600x to 125w and suddenly it matches the 5950x.Reply

Is the power consumption of the 12600K also set to 125w max? I guess not. 12600K without a power limit can draw 220w maybe that's why. Also it is a cinebench23 and if you tell me your 12900K draws 50W during gaming I am literally gonna flip. This is a heavy full load task and it does require power. When you power limit 12900K to 125W it wont show much change in gaming but in Cinebench it will show decrease in performance by around 15% (not sure if 15% is correct but it is above 10% for sure)

Also here is techspots review of the 12700, which has less cores and worse bin.

https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/2391/bench/CB23-1.png
At 65w the 12700 outscores the 12900k at 100w from tpus review. Again, if you dont understand why that's absolutely impossible.. I dont know how to help

12700 has the same config 12900 so I don't know what you are after. Also these are different set ups and maybe that matters here as well.
What is also worth to point out, if power limits are lifted, TPUs 12900K test shows around 28k score just like TechSpot's.
Maybe the 12900K sample is not so great when tested. It would have been better if TechSpot had them both tested that way. Getting information from one site and the other and compare is kinda sketchy if there is certain limitations etc.

 

[JustBenching]

Is the power consumption of the 12600K also set to 125w max? I guess not. 12600K without a power limit can draw 220w maybe that's why. Also it is a cinebench23 and if you tell me your 12900K draws 50W during gaming I am literally gonna flip. This is a heavy full load task and it does require power. When you power limit 12900K to 125W it wont show much change in gaming but in Cinebench it will show decrease in performance by around 15% (not sure if 15% is correct but it is above 10% for sure)

Man are you for real? There are power consumption metrics in the review, yes the 12600k consumes 5w less than the 12900k at 125w while it scores the same. Which, as ive repeated multiple times, its impossible

12700 has the same config 12900 so I don't know what you are after. Also these are different set ups and maybe that matters here as well.
What is also worth to point out, if power limits are lifted, TPUs 12900K test shows around 28k score just like TechSpot's.
Maybe the 12900K sample is not so great when tested. It would have been better if TechSpot had them both tested that way. Getting information from one site and the other and compare is kinda sketchy if there is certain limitations etc.

No 12700 isnt the same configuration. It has half the ecores yet at 65w it outperforms the 12900k at 100w,which, again, is absolutely impossible.

There is nothing sketchy about comparing across reviews, cbr23 is a repeatable workload and when tested at similar power limits the cpus should score the same. And i know cause ive tested, 4 motherboards and 3 cpus, all scored 23500 to 24500 at 125watts.

Ask anyone with a 12900k to test stock with 125w power limit, they will all verify what im telling you. They'll score over 23k points

I googled for you some reviews testing at 125w. They all verify what im saying, TPUs review is absolutely wrong. Here you go, 125w = 23500 score

Intel Core i9-12900K at 125W | Club386

Little performance is lost when dropping power substantially, making Intel Core i9-12900K a fantastically scalable CPU.

www.club386.com

 

[ratirt]

Man are you for real? There are power consumption metrics in the review, yes the 12600k consumes 5w less than the 12900k at 125w while it scores the same. Which, as ive repeated multiple times, its impossible

I don't see the power limit for the 12600k set to 120W. I see scores and power limits for 12900K only. Which means the 12600K is at stock and if that is the case than it can draw 220W.

https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-alder-lake-tested-at-various-power-limits/images/cinebench-multi.png

That is the one you brought. Show me what the power consumed by the 12600K of 120W because I literally don't see it FOR REAL.
Don't hesitate with examples from the graphs. Maybe it will be easier to understand what you mean or talk about.

No 12700 isnt the same configuration. It has half the ecores yet at 65w it outperforms the 12900k at 100w,which, again, is absolutely impossible.

There is nothing sketchy about comparing across reviews, cbr23 is a repeatable workload and when tested at similar power limits the cpus should score the same. And i know cause ive tested, 4 motherboards and 3 cpus, all scored 23500 to 24500 at 125watts.

Ask anyone with a 12900k to test stock with 125w power limit, they will all verify what im telling you. They'll score over 23k points

True it has 4ecores less. Think about it if it isnt. Same power limit for both and one has more "mouths" to feed. Also base clock and boost clocks are different which means power required is different to sustain it. It is just a guess here but still possible.
Different boards and drivers used equals different power draw?
You will need to ask Wizz about the testing criteria not me or compare everything not only those things you disagree with.

 

[JustBenching]

I don't see the power limit for the 12600k set to 120W. I see scores and power limits for 12900K only. Which means the 12600K is at stock and if that is the case than it can draw 220W.

https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-alder-lake-tested-at-various-power-limits/images/cinebench-multi.png

That is the one you brought. Show me what the power consumed by the 12600K of 120W because I literally don't see it FOR REAL.
Don't hesitate with examples from the graphs. Maybe it will be easier to understand what you mean or talk about.

Here you go, the power consumption from TPUs review. The 12900k at 125w consumes 5w more than the 12600k

https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-alder-lake-tested-at-various-power-limits/images/power-multithread.png

 

[Prima.Vera]

Ah, forgot to add Japan to that list. For some reason, all non Japanese products seem to be stupidly overpriced and many Japanese products are also stupidly overpriced there.
Can't see any pricing for that from here though.
Time to come visit isla formosa...
Basic 4800 MHz modules have been on sale here for as little as US$67 for 2x 8GB.
A pair of 6200 MHz V-Color Manta CL36 16 GB modules retail for US$263, which is about the same some 3600 MHz DDR4 low latency G.Skill modules are going for locally.

V-Color MANTA XSKY 系列 DDR5 6200 32GB (16GB*2) 桌上型超頻記憶體 (黑色) - PChome 24h購物

V-Color MANTA XSKY 系列 DDR5 6200 32GB (16GB*2) 桌上型超頻記憶體 (黑色) - ├Manta 全何 DDR5, 支援 Intel® XMP 3.0 採用SK hynix原廠顆粒 MIT台灣製造 提供最好的品質及最佳的效能, 找V-Color MANTA XSKY 系列 DDR5 6200 32GB (16GB*2) 桌上型超頻記憶體 (黑色)推薦就來PChome 24h購物,多元支付,超值,優惠,可靠迅速,您的網路購物的首選

24h.pchome.com.tw

Funny thing is, also retarded, I can buy the same product from Amazon.com, and pay for transport, and it will still be 50% cheaper than the same one on Amazon.co.jp with free transport...

 

[JustBenching]

True it has 4ecores less. Think about it if it isnt. Same power limit for both and one has more "mouths" to feed. Also base clock and boost clocks are different which means power required is different to sustain it. It is just a guess here but still possible.
Different boards and drivers used equals different power draw?
You will need to ask Wizz about the testing criteria not me or compare everything not only those things you disagree with.

That's not how it works. Saying it has less mouths to feed is completely a non argument. Do you think the 5600x will outscore the 5950x at 125w in CBR23? Of course not. More cores means each core will work at better efficiency cause it doesnt boost as high.

Also check my previous post, I linked you a review of the 12900k with 125w power limit and it shows exactly what im saying, he scored 23500 at 125w. TPU scores 18k. That's just absurd

 

[HenrySomeone]

Man, AMDumbs are really something to behold! No matter how much concrete evidence you lay on the table before them, they don't move a single inch in their beliefs! This behavior actually has all the characteristics of a religious cult, a really hardcore one...

 

[ratirt]

Here you go, the power consumption from TPUs review. The 12900k at 125w consumes 5w more than the 12600k

https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-alder-lake-tested-at-various-power-limits/images/power-multithread.png

Yeah and you dont know if the 12600K is limited or not so what is your point? Apparently it is not limited.

That's not how it works. Saying it has less mouths to feed is completely a non argument. Do you think the 5600x will outscore the 5950x at 125w in CBR23? Of course not. More cores means each core will work at better efficiency cause it doesnt boost as high.

Also check my previous post, I linked you a review of the 12900k with 125w power limit and it shows exactly what im saying, he scored 23500 at 125w. TPU scores 18k. That's just absurd

Maybe there's a problem with the motherboards driver or windows scheduler at the point of the review, that is why the score does not align with other sites or differ a lot?
Wizz has to clarify that I'm only looking for some sort of explanation.

 

[JustBenching]

Yeah and you dont know if the 12600K is limited or not so what is your point? Apparently it is not limited.

Maybe there's a problem with the motherboards driver or windows scheduler at the point of the review, that is why the score does not align with other sites or differ a lot?
Wizz has to clarify that I'm only looking for some sort of explanation.

What difference does it make if its limited or not? LIke wtf...you can't be serious, It draws the same amount of power as the 12900k at 125w and it performs similar, which makes NO sense. Whether its limited or not is completely irrelevant

 

[ratirt]

What difference does it make if its limited or not? LIke wtf...you can't be serious, It draws the same amount of power as the 12900k at 125w and it performs similar, which makes NO sense. Whether its limited or not is completely irrelevant

Everybody know what the difference is. Literally like talking to a chimp. Read what I said and answer the question. Where do you see, in the chart you sent me, the 12600K is limited to a 125w like you have mentioned. I think it is a simple question.

 

[JustBenching]

Everybody know what the difference is. Literally like talking to a chimp. Read what I said and answer the question. Where do you see, in the chart you sent me, the 12600K is limited to a 125w like you have mentioned. I think it is a simple question.

https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-alder-lake-tested-at-various-power-limits/images/power-multithread.png

I already sent you the above link. Its the power draw numbers in cbr23. Cant you see that the 12600k consumes as much as the 12900k at 125w???

 

[ratirt]

https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-alder-lake-tested-at-various-power-limits/images/power-multithread.png

I already sent you the above link. Its the power draw numbers in cbr23. Cant you see that the 12600k consumes as much as the 12900k at 125w???

OK so you say it draws 125w just like the 12900K which is limited to 125w. The 12600K is not limited and can draw 150w btw.
Your problem is the 12900K under perform in CB23 with the power limit set to 125w? or what is the problem here?

 

[Mussels]

Whenever I ask people to run something with their zen CPU after the claimed it's more efficient they basically dissapear. If you know someone willing to test with his zen 3, im all up for it.

You mean me?
Who keeps pointing out result after result showing that you're making things up?
You create weird convoluted scenarios for your preferred setup, then ignore all information that disagrees.

I mean heck this post alone says it, i've posted dozens of reviews images and quotes at you but nope - i just disappear (from your memory, as you blank out anything that doesnt agree with you)

 

[JustBenching]

OK so you say it draws 125w just like the 12900K which is limited to 125w. The 12600K is not limited and can draw 150w btw.
Your problem is the 12900K under perform in CB23 with the power limit set to 125w? or what is the problem here?

Dude, are you daft? In that specific test it draws the exact same wattage as the 12900k. So.. At the same wattage the 12900k should slam the 12600k in cbr23. But it didnt. Therefore the test is laughably wrong

And yes, the 12900k underperforms in every power limited test, not just in the 125w. The 100, 75 and 50 are also hilariously wrong

You mean me?
Who keeps pointing out result after result showing that you're making things up?
You create weird convoluted scenarios for your preferred setup, then ignore all information that disagrees.

I mean heck this post alone says it, i've posted dozens of reviews images and quotes at you but nope - i just disappear (from your memory, as you blank out anything that doesnt agree with you)

No I wasn't talking about you, i dont even know who you are.

You cant have posted a result that proves me wrong, simply because im not wrong. I have the cpu, Heck i tested 3 of them on 4 mobos and all got the same results. Also every other review out there agrees with me (techspot, igorslab, club365). So whatever you think you postes that proves me wrong never happened im afraid.

 

[Mussels]

No I wasn't talking about you, i dont even know who you are.

I mean, i'm pretty sure the infractions from the last few times you've done this should stick out in your memory - but i'm not surprised denial is your survival strategy either