AMD Ryzen 9 9900X Benchmarked in Geekbench 6, Beats Intel's Best in Single-Core Score

[Daven]

I have to admit to being disappointed in Zen 5, and I don't expect AMD have the footballs to take any kind of risks until they replace AM5, if indeed, they ever take any more risks.

I'm more than happy with my 5950x, but I see nothing compelling in the AM5 platform itself, and Zen 5 is not looking like it will beat Intel's up and coming desktop CPUs. Time will tell.

Again the two CPU giants are just trading blows. Arrow Lake is forecasted to lose/beat by very small margins or tie Zen 5. Its all incremental gains now that GPUs and AI have taken the focus away from CPUs.

 

[Kaleid]

You're always welcome at the blue-side...

Don't need another toaster

 

[stimpy88]

Intel doesn't have anything to beat them right now so it's a fair comparison IMO.
Also according to the article tests on the i9 were done before Intel baseline default settings, so the 14900K loses up to 15% of its performance.

Zen 5 is just as available as Intel's upcoming CPUs. I'm pretty sure AMD does not mean to be competing against 2-year-old CPUs, at least it would be worrying if they did!

 

[rv8000]

I have to admit to being disappointed in Zen 5, and I don't expect AMD have the footballs to take any kind of risks until they replace AM5, if indeed, they ever take any more risks.

I'm more than happy with my 5950x, but I see nothing compelling in the AM5 platform itself, and Zen 5 is not looking like it will beat Intel's up and coming desktop CPUs. Time will tell.

Thats a nice crystal ball you got…

Unless Intel’s Arrow Lake Core Ultra parts are magically imparted with extra GHz from your crystal ball, they’ve got a clock speed deficit from rpl to overcome as well as as the removal of HT/SMT when it comes to MT applications and scenarios.

Im not quite sure why people are overestimating AL performance when all they have to base their conclusion on are mobile parts that have significant trade offs without moving the needle much.

They should have some very strong ST performance, but the 14900k, 7950x, and 9950x are highly likely to maintain a healthy advantage in MT.

 

[stimpy88]

Thats a nice crystal ball you got…

Unless Intel’s Arrow Lake Core Ultra parts are magically imparted with extra GHz from your crystal ball, they’ve got a clock speed deficit from rpl to overcome as well as as the removal of HT/SMT when it comes to MT applications and scenarios.

Im not quite sure why people are overestimating AL performance when all they have to base their conclusion on are mobile parts that have significant trade offs without moving the needle much.

They should have some very strong ST performance, but the 14900k, 7950x, and 9950x are highly likely to maintain a healthy advantage in MT.

English and is composition a difficulty for you? Show me the part when I stated a fact and not an opinion?

Since when can "Zen 5 is not looking like it will beat Intel's up and coming lineup" be interpreted as me stating a fact? Why is that any different to you saying "but the 14900k, 7950x, and 9950x are highly likely to maintain a healthy advantage in MT"?

What's the difference here, or did you also dust off your "crystal ball"?

 

[rv8000]

English and is composition a difficulty for you? Show me the part when I stated a fact and not an opinion?

Since when can "Zen 5 is not looking like it will beat Intel's up" be interpreted as me stating a fact? Why is that any different to you saying "but the 14900k, 7950x, and 9950x are highly likely to maintain a healthy advantage in MT"?

What's the difference here?

You’re stating one unreleased architecture is going to beat another, with zero evidence, zero review data to back anything up, and with no reasoning as to why, hence the crystal ball which seems to have hit a sore spot based on your snap reply and quick edit.

The main difference with AL lacking HT, and 1st gen core ultra mobile parts showing a large drop in MT performance, there actually being, ya know, some evidence to back the statement up. Might wanna try it sometime.

 

[P4-630]

Don't need another toaster

I understand, you already got one.

 

[Onasi]

All this discussion over, essentially, a number that’s irrelevant in practice. Thought we’ve all agreed a while ago that Geekbench is a useless metric not representative of anything real?
But yeah, new architecture is faster than an old one, woohoo, very cool. Would’ve been more of a news if it was somehow slower.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

You're always welcome at the blue-side...

Rocket lake left a really bad taste in my mouth haven't went back to intel since.

12700k/13700k/14700k are super solid I'll never support E cores lol.

 

[maximumterror]

Q4 intel will crush that score once again...

Intel Core i9-14900KS has 16 cores and the Ryzen 9 9900X has 12 cores. Great comparison

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Intel doesn't have anything to beat them right now so it's a fair comparison IMO.
Also according to the article tests on the i9 were done before Intel baseline default settings, so the 14900K loses up to 15% of its performance.

Yes, and that’s my point. RL was actually proven to be unstable as it was originally configured from Intel, because the design was pushed too far. It was a factory overclocked chip that wasn’t 100% stable. In my opinion, that means they should have never released those affected models. For AMD to surpass that product and do so more efficiently is indeed progress. We’d all love to bend the laws of physics here, but the tangible performance gains aren’t so easily attained anymore.

 

[Redwoodz]

Intel has no chance in the next round. Their rocket launchers are going to be a tough sell when a competitor can match and beat their performance with half the power draw. Single core leading performance without X3D cache?

 

[SL2]

Mmm, yeah, the honorable ***kbench

 

[P4-630]

nevermind lol...

 

[WhenMusicAttacks]

Probably in the minority here, but pretty much all the games I play on the regular are held back by just 1-2 threads. Given the state of the industry I don't see myself moving on from these titles anytime soon either. Single core performance remains the most important metric for me.

That said, I'll probably be waiting for a 9700-9800x3d chip late in the product cycle before upgrade this 7600x.

I agree single core performance (and also memory latency) are still the most important things for the vast majority of use case, 6 cores are enough for gaming, audio production and generic use, 8 core is still ok (as they are the same silicon) but going to higher core count actually has some drawbacks.

Heck probably most users would be happy with 2P cores and 4E, provided the E cores don't slow down memory access by lowering ringbus speed

 

[kapone32]

Almost six years have passed since zen+ threadrippers' release date - time flies!

Yes but Threadripper WAS that good in terms of I/O.

I have to admit to being disappointed in Zen 5, and I don't expect AMD have the footballs to take any kind of risks until they replace AM5, if indeed, they ever take any more risks.

I'm more than happy with my 5950x, but I see nothing compelling in the AM5 platform itself, and Zen 5 is not looking like it will beat Intel's up and coming desktop CPUs. Time will tell.

AM5 is faster in every way than AM4.

I agree single core performance (and also memory latency) are still the most important things for the vast majority of use case, 6 cores are enough for gaming, audio production and generic use, 8 core is still ok (as they are the same silicon) but going to higher core count actually has some drawbacks.

Heck probably most users would be happy with 2P cores and 4E, provided the E cores don't slow down memory access by lowering ringbus speed

On AMD the more cores you have the snappier the PC feels in daily use.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

nevermind lol...

You cannot out debate the %80+ TPU AMD club, don't waste your time.

 

[Tek-Check]

Q4 intel will crush that score once again...

Yes, it will crush in a big kaboom supernova explosion.

If their upcoming CPU's are as good as they claim, Zen 5 will be 5-10% behind, at least!

It was similar last time, and then X3D SKUs were released, with the best selling gaming CPU in the world for 16 consecutive months.

I'm more than happy with my 5950x, but I see nothing compelling in the AM5 platform itself

You have a flagship from Zen3 and its performance aging depends on what you do with it and what you need from computing.

 

[JustBenching]

Q4 intel will crush that score once again...

Stock 12900k is hitting 19k too. GB6 is very memory bound.

a far more efficient chip that beats their current best which uses way, way more power and has had the snot overclocked out of it.....am I the only one that thinks it's crazy that Intel spends over 3x more than AMD on R&D and still can't beat AMD? That Intel has to resort to cartel tactics by selling chips at cost, giving huge sums of money to OEMs to keep AMD's chips out of the best laptop models, and trying to buy up capacity at TSMC?

Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. MS-7D28 - Geekbench

Benchmark results for a Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. MS-7D28 with an Intel Core i9-12900K processor.

browser.geekbench.com

This is my 12900k at stock. It's a 2021 cpu matching the 9900x. Average power draw for the run was 19 watts. What the hell are you talking about man?

But I certainly don't remember ever hearing that modern desktop Intel CPUs being efficient, and certainly never heard of them being more efficient than the equivalent AMD offering.

That entirely depends on what you mean by equivalent? Going by AMD's naming scheme (and MSRP) their 7700x is equivalent to the 13700k. And I can tell you with utmost confidence, set them both at equal power, the 13700k will smash the 7700x in both performance and efficiency. It won't even be close actually. So yeah, I'd argue intel chips are more efficient.

 

[dgianstefani]

Intel Core i9-14900KS has 16 cores and the Ryzen 9 9900X has 12 cores. Great comparison

14900KS has 24 cores.

 

[WhenMusicAttacks]

Going by AMD's naming scheme (and MSRP) their 7700x is equivalent to the 13700k.

I think that we should go by the absolute number, where 9900x while being lower than 12400f smokes it anyway. I mean, don't even start with the intel 9900 or 9900k comparison, that is brutal

 

[Ruru]

Q4 intel will crush that score once again...

Just in time for winter

 

[A&P211]

Possibly implode at the same time.

That was a titanic comment!!

Intel Core i9-14900KS has 16 cores and the Ryzen 9 9900X has 12 cores. Great comparison

The 14900KS has 8p cores, 16 e cores, 24 cores in total. Intel and AMD cores are different.

 

[Minus Infinity]

So 9900X with 24 threads beats 7950X with 32 threads in multithreading. Pretty impressive for something with 25% less cores.

For me, productivity is way more important than gaming, but any improvements in ST are welcome. I will be choosing my next cpu based on overall best performance, weighted more towards productivity. And I have high hopes X3D variants will suck way less this time round, so I can have my cake and eat it too. Still, I'm not dismissing Arrow Lake at all and can't wait for the next gen benchmarks.

 

[JustBenching]

I think that we should go by the absolute number, where 9900x while being lower than 12400f smokes it anyway. I mean, don't even start with the intel 9900 or 9900k comparison, that is brutal

You are right, it's obvious thate 2 cpus released at the same time , with the same MSRP and the same naming scheme (x7 x700x vs x7 x700x) clearly are not meant to be competing products, lol.