- Joined
- Oct 30, 2020
- Messages
- 269 (0.18/day)
I made 2 different claims. Firstly, that out of the box they are more efficient, which is true even for no other reason than that there are 35 and 65w versions. That is a clear cut case no arguing required, it's just true.
Of course you can buy those parts separately, what are you talking about man?
You made the second claim after you realised you lost the first two arguments. You started off with a useless ST power test, then we shifted to MT and this is what you had to say:
No, it just has a lower power limit.
At ISO power limits most Intel CPUs are more efficient than their AMD counterparts in MT. By a lot.
Which is false. At the same ISO power limits AMD CPU's are more efficient. Note that you mentioned nothing about being 'out of the box' or anything to do with price or segment. You simply implied that AMD is inherently more inefficient. Which is, again, false. Your other dubious 'claims' were made later.
And then yes, I also said that in most segments Intel are more efficient at ISO power- which is also correct. Segments - going by MSRP, i5 13600k vs r5 7600x, i7 13700k vs r7 7700x, i7 14700k vs r7 7800x 3d, i9 13900k / 14900k vs 7900x / 7950x. In most of those Intel wins in both ST and MT efficiency, it's only at the top end (7950x) that amd has the edge in MT.
So even in your own graph, 13600k is behind 7600x, 13700k is behind 7700x, 14700k is behind 7800x etc in efficiency. You probably meant non-k CPU's. In that case, we also need the non-x AMD CPU's in the graph. Since those aren't there, there's no real comparison.
Buy yes, your final argument is that Intel actually makes 35W CPU's which are more efficient out of the box than the higher power AMD parts since AMD doesn't make 35W CPU's. That's correct. But don't pretend like that's the argument you started off with. Also, those are OEM only parts, that's what I was talking about. You can buy these, but those are usually pulled from systems and not on the retail channel.