I'm all for quoting intel power figures at people, but avoid the fanboy hashing. We're due for months of it non-stop with both companies having some good looking tech this year, go easy.
@phanbuey I'm sure its powerful and not an issue at all for most tasks, but theres no way at 5.2GHz that it fits the definition of "efficient" which is what this seems to be about
The only thing seperating it from a 12900K is two P cores, so its power consumption simply isn't that much lower
Single threaded, or the stock 125W power limit and it's certainly efficient enough - but not with an all core OC, the moment the thread counts go up in applications that performance comes at a wattage cost that just destroys the efficiency.
TPU's review only did 4.9GHz and it added 100W over stock
And uhh... it didn't do so hot, this is the chart you want to be at the bottom of, not the top.
TPU did run at 1.45V to achieve this, so your specs claimed 1.235v should be significantly better - but i cant find reports of anyone else achieving that speed at less than 1.35v, with most needing 1.35v+ to even reach 5GHz.
If you do have a golden chip, that explains your love for it and efficiency claims - but anything other than that and you have one of the least energy efficient CPU's in existence :/
This is why people argue and it turns into fanboy wars.
If anyone is going to comment in a news thread about your superior hardware, post some screenshots and proof or it will only be interpreted as fanboyism or trolling. Show HWinfo64 with the wattages and clock speeds to backup the claims, otherwise we have to google and hunt down info and no one's gunna believe it.
They've got great ST performance, and they can have great MT performance - but it's a direct choice between that performance, or the power efficiency as it's not possible to have both at the same time.