- Joined
- Mar 21, 2016
- Messages
- 2,681 (0.80/day)
You have to consider the designs as a whole. Less E cores in the design will mean better efficiency by extension relative to P cores. Round 1 goes to the 12600K on efficiency. You have to consider turbo frequencies and base frequencies of each chip, but it's important to also look those variables for both E cores and P cores of each CPU in question. The 12900K boosts higher on E cores and P cores, but with lower base clocks on E cores and P cores relative to the 12600K. That's not really favorable either since higher frequency is going to be better in a power limit test comparing peak multi-thread CPU utilization. Round 2 therefore goes to the 12600K once again. The 12900K is better for performance scores to make it look like it's punching above it's weight more than it really is if efficiency is important to you which with rising electrical costs and environmental aspects should be a bit, but isn't to everyone in any case it's adequately fair criticism even if it doesn't apply to you personally.
I know you think W1zzard was wrong because the score isn't what you want, but perhaps trust the guys testing methodologies a bit he's ran a few benchmarks here and there. I don't believe he was intentionally trying to make the+ 12900K look inferior to the 12600K if efficiency is important to someone, but guess what the results are pretty cut and dry he just put random numbers in a hat to pull out and say this was the score for each. He's a W1zzard not a M4ggician. I don't know why you think adding more E cores will automatically improve efficiency when they were designed for MT uplift and have lower IPC than P cores. Either way it's a hot take you'd think it so.
