AMD Plans to Use Glass Substrates in its 2025/2026 Lineup of High-Performance Processors

[JustBenching]

TPU's own benchmarks aren't good enough here as they won't suit the agenda.

Welcome to the 21st century! Make up your own world view using cherry picking:

We do have something in common, after all!

First of all the whole discussion started about performance per $ by toothless. Obviously, even with the graphs you just provided, amd doesn't offer better performance per dollar, not in MSRP and not with current prices. So you can spin it all you want but I was in fact correct.

Then I said "50% faster in MT performance" and you are posting some graphs that aren't about MT performance. But even in those, the 13700k is leading. By a lot. So what the actual heck are you even trying to prove here? Your graphs agree with me, the 13700k is considerably faster than the 7700x. Heck, it's faster than the 7900x as well. Even the 13600k is faster than the 7700x. But yeah, amd is leading in performance per $, lol. Whatever bud

 

[SL2]

First of all the whole discussion started about performance per $ by toothless. Obviously, even with the graphs you just provided, amd doesn't offer better performance per dollar, not in MSRP and not with current prices. So you can spin it all you want but I was in fact correct.

I haven't said anything about value.

Then I said "50% faster in MT performance" and you are posting some graphs that aren't about MT performance.

You're not posting any graphs or links at all, so how's that any better than me posting a graph that might be tainted by AMD's well known superior ST performance (not). Hypocrisy.

So what the actual heck are you even trying to prove here?

That the 13700K isn't 50 % faster, it's 17 %, and if you really think that AMD's ST performance would make any difference in the above graph you clearly know something that nobody else does lol.

But yeah, amd is leading in performance per $, lol. Whatever bud

Well I never said that, sir bud. I guess we're equally bad at reading each others posts.

 

[JustBenching]

I haven't said anything about value.

Cool. But that's what the discussion was about between me and toothless. So you agree, clearly, Intel offers better value, RIGHT? I mean the graphs you posted prove it.

You're not posting any graphs or links at all, so how's that any better than me posting a graph that might be tainted by AMD's well known superior ST performance (not). Hypocrisy.

I have no problem with the graphs you posted. I'm saying they weren't measuring MT performance. And sure, amd isn't faster in ST but the gap is much smaller which brings down the average difference. Come on now, you know this...

That the 13700K isn't 50 % faster, it's 17 %, and if you really think that AMD's ST performance would make any difference in the above graph you clearly know something that nobody else does lol.

Of course the 13700k is 50% faster. Just like a GPU, you measure a CPU when itself is the bottleneck. Not when the software is the bottleneck. If the particular software can only use 1 core for example, that doesn't mean that suddenly the 2 CPUs are equal, since you can run 16 instances of that software on the 13700k while retaining the same performance, something you can't do on a slower CPU like the 7700x.

Regarding your efficiency claims, computerbase paints a very clear picture. The 13700k at 88w is faster than the 7700x at 142 watts (!!!!) in their MT test suite. Do you accept these results or are they fake? The 7700x score 0.76 performance / watt while the 13700k scores 1.29. But sure, let's pretend amd is more efficient, why not

 

[Toothless]

Cool. But that's what the discussion was about between me and toothless. So you agree, clearly, Intel offers better value, RIGHT? I mean the graphs you posted prove it.


I have no problem with the graphs you posted. I'm saying they weren't measuring MT performance. And sure, amd isn't faster in ST but the gap is much smaller which brings down the average difference. Come on now, you know this...

Of course the 13700k is 50% faster. Just like a GPU, you measure a CPU when itself is the bottleneck. Not when the software is the bottleneck. If the particular software can only use 1 core for example, that doesn't mean that suddenly the 2 CPUs are equal, since you can run 16 instances of that software on the 13700k while retaining the same performance, something you can't do on a slower CPU like the 7700x.

Regarding your efficiency claims, computerbase paints a very clear picture. The 13700k at 88w is faster than the 7700x at 142 watts (!!!!) in their MT test suite. Do you accept these results or are they fake? The 7700x score 0.76 performance / watt while the 13700k scores 1.29. But sure, let's pretend amd is more efficient, why not

View attachment 354995

Since you were bent on MT, 7700x takes the cake while ST the 13700k edges out. We're going with Cinebench since that's where you were pulling the 50% MT performance figures, not some random tech site suite.

 

[CyberPomPom]

Cool. But that's what the discussion was about between me and toothless. So you agree, clearly, Intel offers better value, RIGHT? I mean the graphs you posted prove it.


I have no problem with the graphs you posted. I'm saying they weren't measuring MT performance. And sure, amd isn't faster in ST but the gap is much smaller which brings down the average difference. Come on now, you know this...

Of course the 13700k is 50% faster. Just like a GPU, you measure a CPU when itself is the bottleneck. Not when the software is the bottleneck. If the particular software can only use 1 core for example, that doesn't mean that suddenly the 2 CPUs are equal, since you can run 16 instances of that software on the 13700k while retaining the same performance, something you can't do on a slower CPU like the 7700x.

Regarding your efficiency claims, computerbase paints a very clear picture. The 13700k at 88w is faster than the 7700x at 142 watts (!!!!) in their MT test suite. Do you accept these results or are they fake? The 7700x score 0.76 performance / watt while the 13700k scores 1.29. But sure, let's pretend amd is more efficient, why not

View attachment 354995

How is that a big win to have a 16 cores, 24 threads CPU 10% faster at 88W on MT than a 8 cores, 16 threads one? Why don't you compare to a 12 cores, 24 threads CPU instead? Or even a 16 cores one? Since we don't know about transistors count and price per transistor we don't really have any other good metrics than cores count to choose for comparison. Prices follows performances, not the other way around. Intel lowering it's 13700K's pricing closer to the 7700X only means that it doesn't sell higher.

It's obvious from the start that it would be better with twice the threads, otherwise it would be a big fail and nobody says that about RL. And why 88W? Neither CPUs are 88W parts out of the box, or 142W for that matter. RL is competing, quite fairly against AMD but are less power efficient and their OOB power target are too high. That's it, no need to compare apples to oranges.

 

[JustBenching]

Since you were bent on MT, 7700x takes the cake while ST the 13700k edges out. We're going with Cinebench since that's where you were pulling the 50% MT performance figures, not some random tech site suite.

The 7700x takes the "cake" in efficiency when the 13700k is dwarfing it in performance. When you try to equalize the performance, the 13700k is pulling less power making it more efficient. That's what the computerbase review shows - quite clearly.

Since you like cinebench, here are the results from cinebench. At 88w it is faster and more efficient than the 7700x at 142 watts. If that seems to you like amd is more efficient sure, whatever, believe what you will. If facts can't change your mind I don't know what else to present to you to make it happen.

 

[Toothless]

The 7700x takes the "cake" in efficiency when the 13700k is dwarfing it in performance. When you try to equalize the performance, the 13700k is pulling less power making it more efficient. That's what the computerbase review shows - quite clearly.

Since you like cinebench, here are the results from cinebench. At 88w it is faster and more efficient than the 7700x at 142 watts. If that seems to you like amd is more efficient sure, whatever, believe what you will. If facts can't change your mind I don't know what else to present to you to make it happen.

View attachment 354997

You started the whole MT thing and arguing dude. Plenty of other people have chimed in and you've been hellbent in proving a single thing. We can toss in realistic production workloads.. wait we did that from TPU's bench. Here's another: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...core-processors-content-creation-review-2369/

I'm dipping out. Already a page of off-topic and whatever else. You do you dude but you've made your stance.

Before you throw another hidden call-out, insult, snark, whatever yes I know the 13700k is a fantastic chip, does work, whatever. I already know Intel makes good chips as my wife literally uses a 14900k for content creation.

 

[JustBenching]

K bud, apparently from all the links posted it's obvious that amd offers better performance per $ as you claimed originally, peace.

How is that a big win to have a 16 cores, 24 threads CPU 10% faster at 88W on MT than a 8 cores, 16 threads one?

How is it not? You get a faster more efficient chip for the same price as a slower less efficient chip. Now of course if you prefer slower less efficient chips you can buy the 7700x.

It's obvious from the start that it would be better with twice the threads, otherwise it would be a big fail and nobody says that about RL.

If it's obvious then why the hell do we have 2 pages full of people arguing otherwise? Do you see how crazy it is? Something you claim is obvious (and I agree with you, it is) but people have to insist otherwise cause everyones favorite company isn't doing so well. Insane stuff to be honest.

 

[CyberPomPom]

K bud, apparently from all the links posted it's obvious that amd offers better performance per $ as you claimed originally, peace.


How is it not? You get a faster more efficient chip for the same price as a slower less efficient chip. Now of course if you prefer slower less efficient chips you can buy the 7700x.



If it's obvious then why the hell do we have 2 pages full of people arguing otherwise? Do you see how crazy it is? Something you claim is obvious (and I agree with you, it is) but people have to insist otherwise cause everyones favorite company isn't doing so well. Insane stuff to be honest.

My point is that if the 13700K (16 cores) was really better than AMD's 16 cores counterpart it would be priced accordingly. It's not, and Intel has to price it in front of the 8 cores from AMD.

It's quite obvious when looking at Intel cashflow that they didn't design their chip to be cheap to produce. Also chip size is a big indicator, Intel i7 and i9 are very big, about twice as much as the 7700X and 50% more than both 79_0X. They should not compete in the same segment. For a consumer, in the short term, it's good value but it's not a great technological achievement.

When AMD had their wins with Zen1 due to them pricing 8 cores CPU with MT against 4 cores without MT it was great for AMD (and consumers) because they were coming back from very far and could make money at this price point. You know, being competitive.

The issue is Intel being competitive in performance per dollar due to them slashing their prices to the point of losing money. That's not being competitive in a meaningful way, that's trying to stay afloat. It's more similar to the post Phenom AMD situation, when they were losing ground with each generation. We can see the same pattern : more power, more cores and cut prices. Their prices were very competitive for specific workloads but they were not making money and came very close to death.

 

[JustBenching]

My point is that if the 13700K (16 cores) was really better than AMD's 16 cores counterpart it would be priced accordingly. It's not, and Intel has to price it in front of the 8 cores from AMD.

And that's great, you get a faster chip for cheaper, which is what ive been saying all along but toothless disagreed. He kept saying the 7700x offers better performance per dollar.

 

[CyberPomPom]

And that's great, you get a faster chip for cheaper, which is what ive been saying all along but toothless disagreed. He kept saying the 7700x offers better performance per dollar.

Why the 7700X against the 13700K? You getting a good deal on a 13700K doesn't make it a cheaper CPU overall. I don't know how they are priced (on average) where you live but where I am (EU) the 13700K is closer to the 7900X, not the 7700X. Also the 7900 non X is made for efficiency and is cheaper.

Given that you also need a better case and cooler and motherboard VRM to handle the i7 at it's default settings than the already cheaper 7700X I really don't see them in the same price bracket. Because even if you tweak the i7 to make it run (very efficiently, that's true) at 60 W the motherboard vendor still has to build the VRMs for 250 W. On AM5 even the worst A620 board will provide for a stock 7700X with no sweat. And if you're not hypermiling your CPU, @ stock i7 require watercooling to avoid throttling. AM5 also get hot but it's far more manageable with an air cooler.

For a fully equipped PC that doesn't make turbine noise I made price estimation with LGA1700 and AM5. With same total prices Intel was only on par in value after their prices' cut and their performance lead not significant enough to accept the drawbacks. As Intel CPUs would require quite a lot of tweaking to not release too much heat that would cook me in my office during summer.

 

[JustBenching]

Why the 7700X against the 13700K?

Cause AMD follows Intel's naming scheme, they released the R7 7700x to compete against the i7 13700k. I mean 2 cpus with the exact same name, released within 2 weeks of each otehr with the same MSRP and you are asking me why I'm comparing the two?

Given that you also need a better case and cooler and motherboard VRM to handle the i7 at it's default settings than the already cheaper 7700X I really don't see them in the same price bracket

But we already established that if you don't use the default settings the i7 is much faster regardless. So quite the contrary, the 7700x is more expensive cause in order to match the performance of the 13700k you need a beefier cooler and a very expensive mobo. Computerbase's review makes it quite obvious, the 7700x even while drawing 142 watts is slower than the 13700k at 88w. So you are paying much more for it's cooler and mobo and you are still slower and less efficient, lol.

 

[CyberPomPom]

Cause AMD follows Intel's naming scheme, they released the R7 7700x to compete against the i7 13700k. I mean 2 cpus with the exact same name, released within 2 weeks of each otehr with the same MSRP and you are asking me why I'm comparing the two?

You mean the 7700X released a week before than the 13700K was announced followed Intel naming scheme? And followed Intel MSRP? Not the other way around? With a lineup as follow?
13900K a bit faster than AMD 7950X (both 32T)
13700K a bit faster than AMD 7900X (both 24T)
13600K a bit faster than AMD 7700X (20T/16T)

To me it's Intel trying to undercut the Zen4s to try and show value. Nobody (but you, apparently) believed the 13700K and 7700X were competitors, Intel CPU being twice the size and TDP they were never in the same range to begin with. AMD certainly didn't believe so because 2 months later prices were settling already to put the 7900 in front of the 13700K.

In the same way I could try and argue that a tweaked Radeon 7900XT in a specific workloads is more power efficient than a 4070 Ti. That's not technically wrong but there is still a long way to conclude of RDNA3 overall better value and efficiency against Ada. People would call me out with reason.

But we already established that if you don't use the default settings the i7 is much faster regardless. So quite the contrary, the 7700x is more expensive cause in order to match the performance of the 13700k you need a beefier cooler and a very expensive mobo. Computerbase's review makes it quite obvious, the 7700x even while drawing 142 watts is slower than the 13700k at 88w. So you are paying much more for it's cooler and mobo and you are still slower and less efficient, lol.

No we didn't, the 13700K under 105 W (the 7700X TDP, OC is not fair game) is only 2 to 10% faster. Definitely not "much faster" in my book. Or far far behind the 7900X if I'm using your words.
And tweaking your CPU doesn't change the requirement for the motherboard. They need to be able to provide stock power and Intel stock power is far higher than AMD.

Again, the issue everybody tries to explains you of is not that Raptor Lake is inherently flawed but Intel running their CPU so high on the power curve. Making them less efficient than AM4 CPU on almost all metrics. You cannot in fairness compare an heavily underclocked CPU to a stock one.

 

[JustBenching]

You mean the 7700X released a week before than the 13700K was announced followed Intel naming scheme? And followed Intel MSRP? Not the other way around? With a lineup as follow?

The i7's naming scheme has been around for like what, 10+ years.

To me it's Intel trying to undercut the Zen4s to try and show value.

Maybe, doesn't matter. The end result is amd cpus don't have better performance per $, a thing you seem to agree with. Toothless said the exact oppossite.

In the same way I could try and argue that a tweaked Radeon 7900XT in a specific workloads is more power efficient than a 4070 Ti. That's not technically wrong but there is still a long way to conclude of RDNA3 overall better value and efficiency against Ada. People would call me out with reason.

If the 7900xt can get faster than the 4070ti while drawing less power then obviously it will be the more efficient product.

No we didn't, the 13700K under 105 W (the 7700X TDP, OC is not fair game) is only 2 to 10% faster

It's only 2 to 10% faster while drawing 88w vs the 142w for the 7700x. That's a huge efficiency benefit.

And tweaking your CPU doesn't change the requirement for the motherboard. They need to be able to provide stock power and Intel stock power is far higher than AMD.

No they don't. Plus there is a 13700 that comes with 65w out of the box. Especially on cheaper mobos,those don't remove power limits by default.

Again, the issue everybody tries to explains you

No, what toothless was trying to claim is that amd provides better performance per $, which is just not true period. He didn't want to accept that he was wrong so he flipped to efficiency. And lo and behold, the 7700x ain't particularly good there either.

You cannot in fairness compare an heavily underclocked CPU to a stock one.

That's why I'm comparing a 13700k limited to 88w. It still beats the 7700x running at 142w. Insane

 

[CyberPomPom]

The i7's naming scheme has been around for like what, 10+ years.

And i9 naming was introduced after Zen took leadership in MT against previous i7. With very fluctuating positioning in term of overall performance and core count in between generations. Zen desktop is more regular for that matter. They had 16T CPU with R7 and _700X tag since Zen1.

Naming and marketing are fluid for both companies. AMD obviously never intended the 7700X to compete with the 13700K otherwise they'd have kept it at the same price.

Maybe, doesn't matter. The end result is amd cpus don't have better performance per $, a thing you seem to agree with. Toothless said the exact oppossite.

No I'm not agreeing to that. Intel's are on par. As market dictate. Both AMD and Intel had to adjust their prices a lot since those CPU were announced.

Also you seem to forget that there are more than two CPU on the line-up. And they are not all as well priced as the 13700K.

If the 7900xt can get faster than the 4070ti while drawing less power then obviously it will be the more efficient product

That doesn't make the rest of the RDN3 GPUs more efficient. And they are other use cases where the 4070 Ti is more efficient. I wrote that I was cherry picking, that it was a form of lie. Why would you agree to that?

It's only 2 to 10% faster while drawing 88w vs the 142w for the 7700x. That's a huge efficiency benefit.

Apples, oranges. At isopower the 13700K is less than 10% faster on every point that doesn't require an artificial increases in the 7700X consumption. That is not huge. And still behind the 7900X (you shouldn't wear blinds).

No they don't. Plus there is a 13700 that comes with 65w out of the box. Especially on cheaper mobos,those don't remove power limits by default.

Apples, oranges. An Intel MB only able to provide 100W is lacking a lot and would be very much crippling anything but the slowest CPUs. Not so for AMD. For anyone but an hypermiler VRMs needs to be stronger for Intel CPUs than AMD's.

No, what toothless was trying to claim is that amd provides better performance per $, which is just not true period. He didn't want to accept that he was wrong so he flipped to efficiency. And lo and behold, the 7700x ain't particularly good there either.

No, he said that they are matching or better. You managed to find a single Intel CPU that matches AMD. Well, you had to go for a discounted, previous generation CPU but you found one. Great but not really on point. Also I'm the kind of people that consider platform durability, heat and noise to be a bigger part of "performance" than the Cinebench score.

 

[JustBenching]

And i9 naming was introduced after Zen took leadership in MT against previous i7. With very fluctuating positioning in term of overall performance and core count in between generations. Zen desktop is more regular for that matter. They had 16T CPU with R7 and _700X tag since Zen1.

Naming and marketing are fluid for both companies. AMD obviously never intended the 7700X to compete with the 13700K otherwise they'd have kept it at the same price.

No I'm not agreeing to that. Intel's are on par. As market dictate. Both AMD and Intel had to adjust their prices a lot since those CPU were announced.

Also you seem to forget that there are more than two CPU on the line-up. And they are not all as well priced as the 13700K.

That doesn't make the rest of the RDN3 GPUs more efficient. And they are other use cases where the 4070 Ti is more efficient. I wrote that I was cherry picking, that it was a form of lie. Why would you agree to that?

Apples, oranges. At isopower the 13700K is less than 10% faster on every point that doesn't require an artificial increases in the 7700X consumption. That is not huge. And still behind the 7900X (you shouldn't wear blinds).

Apples, oranges. An Intel MB only able to provide 100W is lacking a lot and would be very much crippling anything but the slowest CPUs. Not so for AMD. For anyone but an hypermiler VRMs needs to be stronger for Intel CPUs than AMD's.

No, he said that they are matching or better. You managed to find a single Intel CPU that matches AMD. Well, you had to go for a discounted, previous generation CPU but you found one. Great but not really on point. Also I'm the kind of people that consider platform durability, heat and noise to be a bigger part of "performance" than the Cinebench score.

You keep going around in circles. The data is there, an 88w 13700k is faster than a stock 7700x drawing 142 watts. This is not "matching" but you keep on going it is. Well it isn't. I hope it was, I'd have AMD myself. But it's not. No matter how much you keep repeating it I''ve already posted the data. The 7700x needs substantially more power, cooling and a beefier motherboard and it still loses in performance compared to the equally priced 13700k. Period. If you keep arguing against that even though I've already posted data from computerbase we are done, im not coming back to this.

 

[CyberPomPom]

You keep going around in circles. The data is there, an 88w 13700k is faster than a stock 7700x drawing 142 watts. This is not "matching" but you keep on going it is. Well it isn't. I hope it was, I'd have AMD myself. But it's not. No matter how much you keep repeating it I''ve already posted the data. The 7700x needs substantially more power, cooling and a beefier motherboard and it still loses in performance compared to the equally priced 13700k. Period. If you keep arguing against that even though I've already posted data from computerbase we are done, im not coming back to this.

A 7700X that draws 142 W does not exist ! It's a 105 W TDP part that on average consume around 80 W.

Computerbase mixed load is quite similar to TPU selection, it's average power consumption should not be to dissimilar, with the specifics of their tests 88 W would be quite realistic.
142 W is far into OC territory, obviously efficiency drops. That's the same reason so many Intel SKU have terrible efficiency out of the box. They'd have released them as 95/125W real TDP and priced them accordingly to their performance for this power the story would be very different. Nobody says the contrary. But also the same applies to AMD with the X and non X variant and Intel choose to make a fool of themselves to try and one up AMD.

Choosing 142 W as a reference for comparison even though you've been told repeatedly how wrong it is makes you a liar, a dense one at that. Following your way a 13600K needs substantially more power to try and match a 7900X and still loses in every metric. Great we learned nothing because they don't compete together.

As long as you keep cheery picking specific SKU to try and generalize to the whole product stack you'll have people replying that it's wrong. I'm not the first to react to your foolishness ont the matter and will let someone else do it next time.

 

[JustBenching]

A 7700X that draws 142 W does not exist ! It's a 105 W TDP part that on average consume around 80 W.

Computerbase mixed load is quite similar to TPU selection, it's average power consumption should not be to dissimilar, with the specifics of their tests 88 W would be quite realistic.
142 W is far into OC territory, obviously efficiency drops. That's the same reason so many Intel SKU have terrible efficiency out of the box. They'd have released them as 95/125W real TDP and priced them accordingly to their performance for this power the story would be very different. Nobody says the contrary. But also the same applies to AMD with the X and non X variant and Intel choose to make a fool of themselves to try and one up AMD.

Choosing 142 W as a reference for comparison even though you've been told repeatedly how wrong it is makes you a liar, a dense one at that. Following your way a 13600K needs substantially more power to try and match a 7900X and still loses in every metric. Great we learned nothing because they don't compete together.

As long as you keep cheery picking specific SKU to try and generalize to the whole product stack you'll have people replying that it's wrong. I'm not the first to react to your foolishness ont the matter and will let someone else do it next time.

Stock - 135w. Sure bro.

 

[maximumterror]

You started the whole MT thing and arguing dude. Plenty of other people have chimed in and you've been hellbent in proving a single thing. We can toss in realistic production workloads.. wait we did that from TPU's bench. Here's another: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...core-processors-content-creation-review-2369/

I'm dipping out. Already a page of off-topic and whatever else. You do you dude but you've made your stance.

Before you throw another hidden call-out, insult, snark, whatever yes I know the 13700k is a fantastic chip, does work, whatever. I already know Intel makes good chips as my wife literally uses a 14900k for content creation.

Let's count the threads: Ryzen 7 7700X has 16 threads, so 8 cores. The Intel i7 13700K has 24 threads, so 12 cores. The Ryzen 9 7900X has 24 threads, so 12 cores. And what do we see in your photos? Intel's marketing branding always seems to work

 

[Toothless]

Let's count the threads: Ryzen 7 7700X has 16 threads, so 8 cores. The Intel i7 13700K has 24 threads, so 12 cores. The Ryzen 9 7900X has 24 threads, so 12 cores. And what do we see in your photos? Intel's marketing branding always seems to work

13700k is 8+8 with half with HT. 8c/16t+8 E cores. It is NOT a 12 core.

 

[maximumterror]

13700k is 8+8 with half with HT. 8c/16t+8 E cores. It is NOT a 12 core.

so if it's 16 cores it should have 32 threads?
I read somewhere that Intel Atom is the same as Pentium, but only half of it. So it's half of a regular processor

 

[Toothless]

so if it's 16 cores it should have 32 threads?
I read somewhere that Intel Atom is the same as Pentium, but only half of it. So it's half of a regular processor

E cores do not have hyperthreading. I literally explained that.

 

[SL2]

so if it's 16 cores it should have 32 threads?

I don't know why you're trying to guess specs?

I have no problem with the graphs you posted. I'm saying they weren't measuring MT performance. And sure, amd isn't faster in ST but the gap is much smaller which brings down the average difference.

You're right, but it's not like ST is half of the benchmarks in 2024.

Do you accept these results or are they fake?

Of course I accept it.

What I don't accept is you picking ONE benchmark. It's called cherry picking.

No reviewer does that even for GPU's, contrary to what you've said. They'll show an average from several benchmarks. No one takes the number from the game with the biggest gain and use that number to describe the performance of a GPU. I think you know that.

Maybe you're just chasing highest possible numbers, similar to bandwidth, but I don't because it doesn't help me as a customer, and I don't think I'm the only one. That's also why software bottlenecks should be accepted becuase they will still be there when the end user wants to run the same program.

The 7700X is still faster in 9 benchmarks, overall it's slower, but not by 50%.

In the end we're both wrong. You're using one single benchmark, and I'm using an average that includes ST.

 

[JustBenching]

What I don't accept is you picking ONE benchmark. It's called cherry picking.

It isn't one benchmark. The computerbase link I posted at the top of this page is the average across their whole test suite.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

I use An intel CPU, but why oh why has this turned into another Intel vs AMD. Please STOP

The thread is about AMD using glass subtrate