Latest Ryzen 9 7950X CPU-Z Bench MultiThreaded Score Puts it 8% Behind i9-13900K, 33% Ahead of i9-12900K

[btarunr]

A screenshot of an alleged AMD Ryzen 9 7950X "Zen 4" processor surfaced on the web, courtesy of OneRaichu, and this time there's no blur-out with the score field—15645 points. When compared to the alleged CPU-Z Bench scores of the Core i9-13900K "Raptor Lake" from last week, the Intel 8P+16E hybrid processor ends up 7.9% faster than this score, but still a very close second.

The Ryzen 9 7950X ends up a significant 23.47% faster than the leaked score of the Core i7-13700K (8P+8E), and the AMD flagship scores 33.5% faster than the previous-gen Intel flagship Core i9-12900K. While both the i7-13700K and i9-12900K are 8P+8E, the "Raptor Lake" gets ahead with higher IPC for the P-cores, slightly higher clocks, and more cache for the E-core clusters. The 7950X is also 32.12% faster than its predecessor, the Ryzen 9 5950X "Zen 3," and a whopping 58.39% faster than the Core i7-12700K (8P+4E).



One can begin to explain Intel's lead with its core-count of 24. The "Gracemont" E-cores are no slouch, and in our "Alder Lake" testing, were seen closely trailing the IPC of "Skylake" cores. The "Raptor Lake" as 16 of these, making the processor 24-core/32-thread. The 7950X is a 16-core/32-thread chip in comparison, made entirely up of what Intel would consider P-cores. The net-performance of Intel's 8P and 16E cores ends up slightly ahead of AMD's 16 P-cores.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

Are they still using engineering samples for this?

 

[TheLostSwede]

Are they still using engineering samples for this?

Unlike Intel, AMD has multiple types of engineering samples, rather than having QS samples as the last step before launch.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

Unlike Intel, AMD has multiple types of engineering samples, rather than having QS samples as the last step before launch.

So this is another leak basically, maybe to mislead performance? /s

 

[TheLostSwede]

So this is another leak basically, maybe to mislead performance? /s

We shall know very soon.

 

[Chaitanya]

Want to know power consumption of both those CPUs, if its like previous gen with Intel sucking unreasonable power to "beat" AMD CPUs with marginal gains then might go with AMD once again.

 

[Denver]

What would be the score of an 13900k @ stock? The score below was obtained with overclock and a chiller.

 

[freeagent]

Wow..

Might have to build with Intel next time

 

[Divide Overflow]

I'll wait for W1zzard's review.

 

[usiname]

What would be the score of an 13900k @ stock? The score below was obtained with overclock and a chiller.

View attachment 259908

Something south of the 7950x's score

 

[Ed_1]

Something is wrong with that CPU-Z with 13900k, the thread count should be 32 (8P cores/16threads +16E cores/16 threads).

 

[HenrySomeone]

Et tu, 7950x? Not even a single, all-important multi thread win?

 

[Punkenjoy]

It's an aggressive overclock, it's either fake or they have disabled Hyper Threading

 

[AM4isGOD]

wow have AMD shot themselves in the foot.

Can't wait to see real tests, i will be truly shocked if AM5 gen 1 is a bust.

 

[jrbigz]

What would be the score of an 13900k @ stock? The score below was obtained with overclock and a chiller.

View attachment 259908

That MT score is incorrect for those frequencies, OG video does show both CPU-Z ST/MT correctly on 5.9G/4.7G and 6.1G/5.2G.

Here is the stock 13900K

 

[AnarchoPrimitiv]

Et tu, 7950x? Not even a single, all-important multi thread win?

Just out of curiosity, and I'm seriously asking, why cheer for Intel? Why cheer for Intel when only success by the company with the LEAST market share is what benefits consumers the most, including yourself? We all witnessed what Intel did prior to ryzen...4 core stagnation, 4% generational uplifts, and all at a premium price...and that's what Intel's success would lead to again. Let me reiterate that this is a sincere question, because I know the only reason why I cheer for AMD is because while AMD's market share is below 50%, their continued success leads to a better situation for consumers all around, and if the day ever came where Intel was the underdog, I'd cheer for them, so I'm really curious as why someone would cheer for hegemony/monopoly and an inherently worse situation for consumers.

 

[Steevo]

I wonder what ultimate performance in gaming enthusiasts would do with E cores or more cores instead of the right number at the right speed.

Now it remains to be seen what AM5 can do with great cooling on stable release hardware, but remind me again how much good E cores do for a gaming experience?

 

[arandomguy]

Just out of curiosity, and I'm seriously asking, why cheer for Intel? Why cheer for Intel when only success by the company with the LEAST market share is what benefits consumers the most, including yourself? We all witnessed what Intel did prior to ryzen...4 core stagnation, 4% generational uplifts, and all at a premium price...and that's what Intel's success would lead to again. Let me reiterate that this is a sincere question, because I know the only reason why I cheer for AMD is because while AMD's market share is below 50%, their continued success leads to a better situation for consumers all around, and if the day ever came where Intel was the underdog, I'd cheer for them, so I'm really curious as why someone would cheer for hegemony/monopoly and an inherently worse situation for consumers.

Intel still leads over AMD in overall market share mostly with enterprise and OEM (prebuilt desktops and laptops) sales due to built up momentum, production volume and other factors.

In terms of retail market share aimed DIY (including system builders) the data actually suggests that AMD leads over Intel and has been for the last 2 years or so. Given the context that the products discussed and the consumers in question are in the retail DIY segment, AMD is actually in the stronger position and Intel is the so called "underdog."

 

[Punkenjoy]

Just out of curiosity, and I'm seriously asking, why cheer for Intel? Why cheer for Intel when only success by the company with the LEAST market share is what benefits consumers the most, including yourself? We all witnessed what Intel did prior to ryzen...4 core stagnation, 4% generational uplifts, and all at a premium price...and that's what Intel's success would lead to again. Let me reiterate that this is a sincere question, because I know the only reason why I cheer for AMD is because while AMD's market share is below 50%, their continued success leads to a better situation for consumers all around, and if the day ever came where Intel was the underdog, I'd cheer for them, so I'm really curious as why someone would cheer for hegemony/monopoly and an inherently worse situation for consumers.

Things get polarizing very quickly and there is a bunch of people that will by example never buy anything from X vendor and always from Y vendors. That is their problem in reality. Some people used to this forum will know who cheer for what and what to expect from them.

The only thing that matter is how performance increase and how competitive involved parties are. I hate to see clickbait articles or videos saying and cheering that X is or will destroy Y.

I am very exited for next gen because from rumors, it look like both will be competitive. I just hope that Meteor lake will be there soon enough to compete with Zen4 X3D.

 

[Denver]

That MT score is incorrect for those frequencies, OG video does show both CPU-Z ST/MT correctly on 5.9G/4.7G and 6.1G/5.2G.

View attachment 259925
View attachment 259923

Here is the stock 13900K

View attachment 259924

They just disabled the HT to keep OC so high.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

That MT score is incorrect for those frequencies, OG video does show both CPU-Z ST/MT correctly on 5.9G/4.7G and 6.1G/5.2G.

View attachment 259925
View attachment 259923

Here is the stock 13900K

View attachment 259924

Its being overclocked, so this compares to what exactly?

 

[MentalAcetylide]

Cores, P-cores, E-cores... I guess the core take home lesson here is expect more different types of cores.
I don't know what AMD has planned in the future, but I would expect them to start doing something similar if these Intel CPUs give the same or better performance with lower power use.

 

[AM4isGOD]

Things get polarizing very quickly and there is a bunch of people that will by example never buy anything from X vendor and always from Y vendors

Which is very stupid really, buy what is best at the time, not from the perceived underdog or who you have always bought, the best at the time you buy.

 

[mechtech]

In the end, it basically comes to down to pricing (after the reviews are done)

 

[evernessince]

Cores, P-cores, E-cores... I guess the core take home lesson here is expect more different types of cores.
I don't know what AMD has planned in the future, but I would expect them to start doing something similar if these Intel CPUs give the same or better performance with lower power use.

Intel Alder lake is less efficient then Zen 3 now. I'm not sure what makes you think Raptor lake will be any different when compared to Zen 4.