Intel Core i9-12900K Allegedly Beats AMD Ryzen 9 5950X at Cinebench R20

[jared889]

its not about the bills to pay, its about the achievement not being so great when it consumes twice the power to reach that position.

Fanboys need to downplay intel. If intel eat less power oh they dont have high ipc
If they have high ipc and low power they re expensive..dont worry users who dont care about price, science labs and wallstreet will pay for that chips they dont need save money.
A high end lab will never use amd if they have the money due to avx

 

[Redwoodz]

Hmm, I remember a time, not all that long ago, when Cinebench scores, especially multi-core ones were the end all, be all of measuring cpu performance, at least according to one fan base...

Too bad we are talking about printed words and not cinebench screenshots.

 

[GURU7OF9]

I didn't say that - I asked if you even had a breakdown of their R&D. Obviously you don't. More obviously you are just trolling.

Now that is funny s.h.i.t ! ROFL

Hi,
But mother board manufactures especially asus "but not exclusively" usually give oc'ers options to use all resources and hopefully that includes all available cores even the small ones lol
Also most oc'er disable all background stuff anyway so these 8 small cores wouldn't be doing anything anyway or bare minimum on 1 or 2 small ones.
So I haven't forgotten anything lol

I know what you are saying and agree with it upto a point but still if you are not going to only use just the big 8 cores for heavy loads and 8 little cores for light loads to reduce power consumption then you might as well have all big cores and get heaps more performance!
You only really need little cores for laptops where battery life is an issue !
Or they still can't keep their brand new architecture thermals under a reasonable limit?

Hi,
8 cores 16 threads with an "additional 8 cores low quality or not" so seems like we're seeing a 16 core 16 thread chip so multi would be higher if all were working on that r20 render.

Me wonders whether the intel trickery is the avx512 vnni instructions ?

 

[chrcoluk]

Didnt 11900k only get released very recently? Intel are pushing out products way too fast.

 

[mb194dc]

Didnt 11900k only get released very recently? Intel are pushing out products way too fast.

Release probably isn't for 6 months odd. Isn't even an official date yet.

Probably best to take it with a mountain of salt until retail silicon is properly tested.

 

[londiste]

Me wonders whether the intel trickery is the avx512 vnni instructions ?

Pretty sure CB R20 has no idea about AVX512.
If the results are even remotely real, then those new Atom cores must have gained some AVX or AVX2 capability though.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

those new Atom cores must have gained some AVX or AVX2 capability though.

I believe they have.

 

[ThrashZone]

I know what you are saying and agree with it upto a point but still if you are not going to only use just the big 8 cores for heavy loads and 8 little cores for light loads to reduce power consumption then you might as well have all big cores and get heaps more performance!
You only really need little cores for laptops where battery life is an issue !
Or they still can't keep their brand new architecture thermals under a reasonable limit?


Me wonders whether the intel trickery is the avx512 vnni instructions ?

Hi,
R20 doesn't throw enough avx to trigger an -avx offset so chances of any avx 512 trickery is pretty slim

R23 is suposed to have avx but still isn't enough to trigger use of an -avx offset "if set to in bios", never has for me anyway.

 

[Punkenjoy]

Cinebench R20 support AVX, AVX2 and AVX512

Not sure why you don't get the offset, probably you got good cooling.

 

[agentnathan009]

There's only one person in the whole thread who talked about zen 3D, (in a vague way at that, he himself isn't even sure how those CPUs will fare) and that was enough to send you over the edge...

Anyway, I wonder how it will be priced, are they going to sell them for over 1000 because it's faster than the r9, or are they going to keep the same i9 price and undercut AMD ?

Don’t mind him, he is the fanboy. I don’t care if Intel pulls out ahead, competition is good. Modern CPUs are so powerful I don’t know why some fee the need to argue about a few numbers. I have a 3800X that I acquired used and it works quite well for what I do with it. Do I need those last few frames? Not really, but certain fanboys, ::cough:: Patrick ::cough:: seem to live and die by those numbers.

 

[TruthPhoenix]

The real question is whether INTEL can mass produce the 10nm chips?????
Or will it be a paper launch????

 

[HenrySomeone]

It can't be any worse than the RX 6000 series...

 

[InVasMani]

Try to cool that with sustained gaming loads using conventional methods using a mere middle end cooling solution, not a complete enthusiast overkill. 200W is too much...

This is a valid point though it is a new socket and wider socket so maybe new coolers can better accommodate all that extra heat similar to threadripper being close to 200w.

 

[Ferrum Master]

This is a valid point though it is a new socket and wider socket so maybe new coolers can better accommodate all that extra heat similar to threadripper being close to 200w.

Yes but Threadripper is an enthusiast platform with enthusiast solutions, not a mainstream socket. The power draw to dissipate is too much for an average Joes household PC.

 

[londiste]

The real question is whether INTEL can mass produce the 10nm chips?????
Or will it be a paper launch????

Intel said half the wafers they produce are 10nm... err, 7
Whether that will be enough not to be a paper launch is a different question though, Ice Lake Xeons are also now out and these are massive and probably sell well.

 

[529th]

I want socket longevity

 

[The red spirit]

I want socket longevity

Only AM3 pulled it off well, AM4 has been somewhat of trainwreck. Ultimately, there's no point in that. Most people don't upgrade PC frequently enough that they could actually benefit from that and either way, new CPU ends up meaning new board, memory and CPU. Unless somone will make a socket that will last 8 years, I guess longer socket support just isn't viable.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Only AM3 pulled it off well, AM4 has been somewhat of trainwreck. Ultimately, there's no point in that. Most people don't upgrade PC frequently enough that they could actually benefit from that and either way, new CPU ends up meaning new board, memory and CPU. Unless somone will make a socket that will last 8 years, I guess longer socket support just isn't viable.

Even then it isnt really viable. In 8 years we went from sandy bridge to comet lake. Imagine being the one guy that wants to put a 10900k in a board with USB 2, PCIe 2.0, and a grand total of two native SATA III ports. The flip side of CPU upgrades is that once there is enough of a difference to warrant an upgrade the motherboard's features are also out of date. Even comparing X370 to X570, you lose out on PCIe 4.0 and granular power tweaking on newer CPUs. Especially these days with CPU easily lasting a decade and still performing well I dont see the need for super long support cycles unless we start seeing zen-zen 2 level jumps again.

Yes but Threadripper is an enthusiast platform with enthusiast solutions, not a mainstream socket. The power draw to dissipate is too much for an average Joes household PC.

Average joe's PC also doesnt have a 12900k in it, it has a quad core i3 or hexa core i5 that pulls 35w under load. So that's a non issue.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Even then it isnt really viable. In 8 years we went from sandy bridge to comet lake. Imagine being the one guy that wants to put a 10900k in a board with USB 2, PCIe 2.0, and a grand total of two native SATA III ports. The flip side of CPU upgrades is that once there is enough of a difference to warrant an upgrade the motherboard's features are also out of date. Even comparing X370 to X570, you lose out on PCIe 4.0 and granular power tweaking on newer CPUs. Especially these days with CPU easily lasting a decade and still performing well I dont see the need for super long support cycles unless we start seeing zen-zen 2 level jumps again.


Average joe's PC also doesnt have a 12900k in it, it has a quad core i3 or hexa core i5 that pulls 35w under load. So that's a non issue.

Imo if you are buying a new gen chip, then buy a new board for it too.

 

[The red spirit]

Even then it isnt really viable. In 8 years we went from sandy bridge to comet lake. Imagine being the one guy that wants to put a 10900k in a board with USB 2, PCIe 2.0, and a grand total of two native SATA III ports.

It wasn't that bad. Sandy had 6 or more SATA III ports, USB 3.0 was quite common, PCIe 2 yeah, but considering how generally irrelevant PCIe speed has been, it's not a big problem. I personally see nothing wrong with putting i9 in something like that, except that I don't like i9.

The flip side of CPU upgrades is that once there is enough of a difference to warrant an upgrade the motherboard's features are also out of date. Even comparing X370 to X570, you lose out on PCIe 4.0 and granular power tweaking on newer CPUs. Especially these days with CPU easily lasting a decade and still performing well I dont see the need for super long support cycles unless we start seeing zen-zen 2 level jumps again.

Those features that you mentioned are nearly irrelevant. PCIe 4 doesn't matter at all and likely won't matter for next 4 years. Granular power tweaking loss is a bit painful to lose, but nothing major. Considering how big performance jump between Zen and Zen 3, if those X370 boards supported Zen3, I wouldn't see why you should put a better chip in there, except for not making sense to upgrade so soon.

All that "backwards support" on AM4 has been a trainwreck so far. Some people buy AMD hardware due to this feature (that AMD loves to gimp more and more as time goes on), but to me it made Ryzen unsellable (along with many other reasons). As a buyer, I have no idea with what BIOS board comes and what chips it supports out of box, there's no way to flash board to newer BIOS version if you need it with any Ryzen chip, therefore you depend on your local retailer to be kind enough and deal with it. So far, only one retailer actually messed with that as far as I know and if you bought from someone else, well you might have been completely screwed and had to buy e-waste A series chip, which makes already overpriced and overhyped Ryzen platform even more expensive. So I went with Intel, mostly because it was cheaper and because I was certain, that I won't have such stupid problems that need expensive solutions. And another problem was that AMD used to release new generation chips almost a year before natively compatible boards were released and then you had to wait, before those new boards that did exactly the same shit actually were priced like the older ones. Maybe in USA and other real first world countries something like that actually works, but not so much here and in actual 3rd world. And more than that, why to this day boards can't be flashed without CPU in it? Really how expensive could it be to put some cheapo ARM chip to do that or even better some e-waste tier MIPS chip from router? All in all, this backwards compatibility feature became a major PITA. I would have been fine with new board for each CPU generation, rather than something like that. But even if it was mostly a lie (because it didn't work out at all), I guess it helped AMD to sell first gen Ryzen and put it on media, so people would know that FX era ended and Ryzen is now cool (although it was unstable, buggy and in so many other ways unmarketable). I'm afraid, that until AMD fixes such a major issue, they won't sell me any of that Zen.

 

[jared889]

Reports, including ones by this very website, have already stated that Zen4 IPC increase is 29%. You add the vCache into that, benefits from the 5nm node, a 100-200mhz frequency bump and Zen4 could easily see 35%+ core for core performance increase over Zen3. When you consider that, this Alder lake leak isn't that impressive. Why are Intel fanboys already celebrating a "victory" when the huge IPC increase of Zen4 has been well reported for some time? Are they just ignoring that or are they uninformed? Granted, nothing is absolutely confirmed, but comparing an unproven rumor (this report) to another unproven rumor (Zen4 29% IPC increase from several different sources so arguably a better rumor) is fair game.

Let's not forget that Intel's R&D budget is literally over 684% larger than AMD's and therefore Intel SHOULD be crushing AMD. If Alder lake is better than Zen4, which based on preliminary reports, I don't think it will be, that would be the LEAST Intel should be accomplishing considering their $13.56 Billion R&D budget vs AMD's $1.98 Billion budget.

AMD should crush intel because AMD use smaller node, when intel wins AMD fanboys say they re anolder company ,they have more budget they pull strings with goverment.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

It wasn't that bad. Sandy had 6 or more SATA III ports, USB 3.0 was quite common, PCIe 2 yeah, but considering how generally irrelevant PCIe speed has been, it's not a big problem. I personally see nothing wrong with putting i9 in something like that, except that I don't like i9.


Those features that you mentioned are nearly irrelevant. PCIe 4 doesn't matter at all and likely won't matter for next 4 years. Granular power tweaking loss is a bit painful to lose, but nothing major. Considering how big performance jump between Zen and Zen 3, if those X370 boards supported Zen3, I wouldn't see why you should put a better chip in there, except for not making sense to upgrade so soon.

All that "backwards support" on AM4 has been a trainwreck so far. Some people buy AMD hardware due to this feature (that AMD loves to gimp more and more as time goes on), but to me it made Ryzen unsellable (along with many other reasons). As a buyer, I have no idea with what BIOS board comes and what chips it supports out of box, there's no way to flash board to newer BIOS version if you need it with any Ryzen chip, therefore you depend on your local retailer to be kind enough and deal with it. So far, only one retailer actually messed with that as far as I know and if you bought from someone else, well you might have been completely screwed and had to buy e-waste A series chip, which makes already overpriced and overhyped Ryzen platform even more expensive. So I went with Intel, mostly because it was cheaper and because I was certain, that I won't have such stupid problems that need expensive solutions. And another problem was that AMD used to release new generation chips almost a year before natively compatible boards were released and then you had to wait, before those new boards that did exactly the same shit actually were priced like the older ones. Maybe in USA and other real first world countries something like that actually works, but not so much here and in actual 3rd world. And more than that, why to this day boards can't be flashed without CPU in it? Really how expensive could it be to put some cheapo ARM chip to do that or even better some e-waste tier MIPS chip from router? All in all, this backwards compatibility feature became a major PITA. I would have been fine with new board for each CPU generation, rather than something like that. But even if it was mostly a lie (because it didn't work out at all), I guess it helped AMD to sell first gen Ryzen and put it on media, so people would know that FX era ended and Ryzen is now cool (although it was unstable, buggy and in so many other ways unmarketable). I'm afraid, that until AMD fixes such a major issue, they won't sell me any of that Zen.

Total nonsense, IMHO, and by and large I disagree whole heartedly, and I swapped CPU boards all sorts, it was nice to have options, and if I were a buy and keep guy well I could still do so.

However, on topic, I'll wait on reviews ,Intel hype trains aren't new after all.

 

[Makaveli]

Only AM3 pulled it off well, AM4 has been somewhat of trainwreck. Ultimately, there's no point in that. Most people don't upgrade PC frequently enough that they could actually benefit from that and either way, new CPU ends up meaning new board, memory and CPU. Unless somone will make a socket that will last 8 years, I guess longer socket support just isn't viable.

Not sure I agree with AM4 being a train wreck. I started at x570 and have already done 2 generations Zen 2 and now Zen 3 and if the Zen 3d refresh is on AM4 which I believe it is that will be 3 different cpu generations on this same motherboard. I call that a solid investment!

 

[The red spirit]

Not sure I agree with AM4 being a train wreck. I started at x570 and have already done 2 generations Zen 2 and now Zen 3 and if the Zen 3d refresh is on AM4 which I believe it is that will be 3 different cpu generations on this same motherboard. I call that a solid investment!

As investment it has been awful for you. Once you buy CPU, you should keep it for 6 years or longer, else you don't get much value out of it. Performance bump from Zen 2 to Zen 3 was within 20-25%. I have no idea where you get your chips from, but if you paid retail price for both, then you paid a lot for so little. And then you got 5800X, probably the worst value chip out of all Zens. At that point, what you saved by not buying a new motherboard is just expense avoided, but you blew that by not waiting for a truly big upgrade. A solid investment was buying Phenom II X4 waiting until Zen and upgrading it to Ryzen 1600 and maybe at this point waiting for Zen 4, but likely skipping that too (since it still performs quite well) and then jumping straight to Zen 5. Or having FX 8320 and upgrading it to i5 10400F. This way for minimal expenses you can have at least twice as fast hardware, RAM upgrade, tons of new features. And all if would cost you exactly what 5800X retails for alone. You couldn't tell a difference in gaming between i5 10400F and 5800X, but one costs dramatically less.

Here are benches on HWUB:

i5 performed really well, just like every other chip in that test and at least locally i5 is two tiems cheaper than 3600, not only that but has been for nearly two years without any price changes. If you want even cheaper CPU, then there's i3 10100(F), which is quite fast too:

It's not much slower than i5:

And here you go, your all expenses could have been minimized to just 100 USD and if you bought 3 AM4 chips, you literally spent over 1k USD for minimal gains. The entire i3 platform would have been 220-280 USD, literally less than 5800X alone.

The best case scenario is that you only used those AMD chips for a while and sold them for close to what you paid, then you could have minimized your losses, but even then, you ended up with 5800X and overpriced X570 board (there's no such things as reasonably priced X570 board, if you budget, you buy B550 stuff).

 

[Makaveli]

As investment it has been awful for you. Once you buy CPU, you should keep it for 6 years or longer, else you don't get much value out of it. Performance bump from Zen 2 to Zen 3 was within 20-25%. I have no idea where you get your chips from, but if you paid retail price for both, then you paid a lot for so little. And then you got 5800X, probably the worst value chip out of all Zens. At that point, what you saved by not buying a new motherboard is just expense avoided, but you blew that by not waiting for a truly big upgrade. A solid investment was buying Phenom II X4 waiting until Zen and upgrading it to Ryzen 1600 and maybe at this point waiting for Zen 4, but likely skipping that too (since it still performs quite well) and then jumping straight to Zen 5. Or having FX 8320 and upgrading it to i5 10400F. This way for minimal expenses you can have at least twice as fast hardware, RAM upgrade, tons of new features. And all if would cost you exactly what 5800X retails for alone. You couldn't tell a difference in gaming between i5 10400F and 5800X, but one costs dramatically less.

Here are benches on HWUB:

i5 performed really well, just like every other chip in that test and at least locally i5 is two tiems cheaper than 3600, not only that but has been for nearly two years without any price changes. If you want even cheaper CPU, then there's i3 10100(F), which is quite fast too:

It's not much slower than i5:

And here you go, your all expenses could have been minimized to just 100 USD and if you bought 3 AM4 chips, you literally spent over 1k USD for minimal gains. The entire i3 platform would have been 220-280 USD, literally less than 5800X alone.

lol I love how you determine that is a bad investment for me without any information at all except for your assumptions.

I know a thing or two about keeping a cpu for years I was on a i7-970 for 10 years before going AM4. And i'm not even sure why i'm wasting my time responding since you wrote a novel based on no history at all from my side. I paid $440 for the 3800X in dec 2019. Sold it for $400 in Jan 2021 so for a year of use $40. I picked up the 5800X for $650 CAD however because of the prior sale from old cpu cost to me was only $250. So that was what I paid to go from Zen 2 to Zen 3.

The rest of your video's irrelevant I was already on a AM4 platform I was not going intel.

Moral of the story you don't get to decide what is a solid investment for someone else when you aren't putting any funds towards their purchase. This whole post was just you telling me I should have gone intel......

The other thing with your post is 100% gaming. I'm an adult boss I do more than play games on my PC, gaming performance is not the primary factor in my builds.