Damn, Intel!

[Tan3l6]

34 minutes ago, themrsbusta said:

I disagree Linus conclusion: To me, the 5600X still the king because is a 65w CPU

i5 is 10 bucks more expensive but a 125w/150w CPU needs an more expensive motherboard, more powerful PSU and much more cooling, you probably can't use in Micro ITX without a huge watercooler.

At the end of the day you would paid more on the entire kit than using the Ryzen. To have a little bit more performance, on the spreadsheets...

TDP shows little.

The 5600X and 12600K system load difference is 16W:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyleather/2021/11/04/new-intel-core-i5-12600k-vs-ryzen-5-5600x-which-should-you-buy/?sh=79a7f0031e9a

 

To each their own, to me 12600K seems much better. 

[themrsbusta]

1 minute ago, Tan3l6 said:

TDP shows little.

The 5600X and 12600K system load difference is 16W:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyleather/2021/11/04/new-intel-core-i5-12600k-vs-ryzen-5-5600x-which-should-you-buy/?sh=79a7f0031e9a

 

To all their own, to me 12600K seems much better. 

>Overclocking 

[Tan3l6]

22 minutes ago, themrsbusta said:

>Overclocking 

Right, 40W

Significant, but considering performance uplift, the used power would somewhat be compensated by higher fps.

 

[Stahlmann]

43 minutes ago, themrsbusta said:

At the end of the day you would paid more on the entire kit than using the Ryzen. To have a little bit more performance, on the spreadsheets...

At the end of the day it's important that Intel stays competitive and thus AMD needing to innovate. It was the first time in years that AMD was on top and they instantly raised prices across the board. Same with GPUs: As soon as they don't have to do work to sell stuff, they will stop doing work and just sell stuff.

 

To me it doesn't really matter if Intel or AMD is the king, as long as they stay competitive with each other and drive innovation. That's what matters.

[Dracarris]

In a (German) YT comment under his own 12900K video, Igor from IgorsLab straight out claims that LS and Anthony have been using insufficient mounting pressure on the cooler in their benchmarks. He claims temperatures under 60 degree Celsius for Productivity workloads, which is a huge gap compared to the 90 of LTT. Apparently there have been notices from cooler manufacturers about this mounting pressure issue.

 

There is also a salty kick in the nuts-comment about LTT being a video production company and not a real benchmarking "lab" but I guess that's just Igor being Igor.

[Alder Lake]

55 minutes ago, themrsbusta said:

I disagree Linus conclusion: To me, the 5600X still the king because is a 65w CPU

i5 is 10 bucks more expensive but a 125w/150w CPU needs an more expensive motherboard, more powerful PSU and much more cooling, you probably can't use in Micro ITX without a huge watercooler.

At the end of the day you would paid more on the entire kit than using the Ryzen. To have a little bit more performance, on the spreadsheets...

it's a quite significant gap between the 5600x and the 12600k performance

 

also if I had to guess, I'd say that if they were both using the same wattage, the 12600k would still perform better

[Alder Lake]

4 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

In a (German) YT comment under his own 12900K video, Igor from IgorsLab straight out claims that LS and Anthony have been using insufficient mounting pressure on the cooler in their benchmarks. He claims temperatures under 60 degree Celsius for Productivity workloads, which is a huge gap compared to the 90 of LTT. Apparently there have been notices from cooler manufacturers about this mounting pressure issue.

[Cyracus]

1 hour ago, kumicota said:

When pointing out that the 7nm from Intel is the same as their 10nm I think it would be interesting to call out AMD on that too, as they were the ones that begin with that new metric just for marketing

Nm and before it um are 2d measurement metrics, which worked fine in earlier days, but when processors moved to 3d manufacturing methods (mid 200X for home pc) we continued to use 2d metrics to describe the processes. 

From 2:22 Neil Degrasse Tyson explains why 2d measurement of 3d objects is less than ideal 

 

[Cyberspirit]

2 hours ago, BigDamn said:

The 12900k is impressive to an extent, but for content creation I still believe the 5950x is the clear winner. Though the chip is $100 more, the cost saved on AMD's platform and not requiring a top tier cooler even things out with a slight performance edge to Ryzen. I wish we could've seen a comparison between Windows 10 and Windows 11 for AMD to verify that the performance hit really is fixed.

 

But man the 12600k is impressive. This is THE gaming chip to beat for the foreseeable future. Can't wait to see what AMD's response is when Zen4 releases.

GamersNexus mentioned in their video that they will do a separate piece comparing Win 10 and 11. Although Steve did say that he saw the numbers already and the difference wasn't all that big.

[mariushm]

Yeah ... no..

 

160w for 5950x vs 240w for 12900 and barely better with ddr5 memory that eat around 1w / GB

so cheaper cpu, but expensive motherboard (i can run 5950x on a 100-120$ motherboard) and expensive memory.

 

Do some charts  with performance per dollar and see who does better.

 

Switch to DDR4 and cap the cpu to let's say 200w (vs 160w for ryzen 5950x) to keep the cpu at a more manageable 90c or so and your extra performance is gone.

 

[WolframaticAlpha]

Comparing the 12900K with the 5950X seems like a folly, considering it is 150 bucks more

 

TechJesus™ has a nice review, albeit on Win10 and Intel is still holding. It has almost reversed, with Intel being the better one in productivity and value(on lower end parts)

 

The 12900K is stupid and should be price cut. Not as bad as the 11900K, but eh, that ain't much

 

The 12700K and the 12600K are much cooler.

12 minutes ago, Cyberspirit said:

GamersNexus mentioned in their video that they will do a separate piece comparing Win 10 and 11. Although Steve did say that he saw the numbers already and the difference wasn't all that big.

That was visible in the 0.1% lows. Maybe it will improve. Maybe not

 

Nice to see competition. AMDs margins were absolutely ridiculous when you put it against basically everybody else.

[kcwilsonii]

I think I chose well and went with the 12600k, of course this will be a huge leap forward for me as I am still running a 3570K on my gaming PC

[Alder Lake]

55 minutes ago, mariushm said:

Yeah ... no..

 

160w for 5950x vs 240w for 12900 and barely better with ddr5 memory that eat around 1w / GB

so cheaper cpu, but expensive motherboard (i can run 5950x on a 100-120$ motherboard) and expensive memory.

 

Do some charts  with performance per dollar and see who does better.

 

Switch to DDR4 and cap the cpu to let's say 200w (vs 160w for ryzen 5950x) to keep the cpu at a more manageable 90c or so and your extra performance is gone.

 

"barely better"

also, your performance won't be "gone" if you lower the power, you're just ignorant

[Helpful Tech Witch]

51 minutes ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

TechJesus™ has a nice review, albeit on Win10 and Intel is still holding. It has almost reversed, with Intel being the better one in productivity and value(on lower end parts)

 

ofc they did w10, they have to keep a testing platform, otherwise the scores are invalid for comparison

[samcool55]

Competition! But it's such an expensive platform if u wanna do it properly.

Motherboards are around double of a B550 board and DDR5 is double the price of DDR4. But hey that's what you get if u wanna be an early adopter.

 

And we already knew AMD was power efficient and while Intel depending on the test does get a bit out of control, it's nice to see that they didn't go full FX and is competitive in most scenario's.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

7 minutes ago, yesyes said:

"barely better"

also, your performance won't be "gone" if you lower the power, you're just ignorant

thats a 8% difference, thats not that big.

the reason the 12900k is better is because it draws  2x the power....

[Alder Lake]

1 minute ago, HelpfulTechWizard said:

ofc they did w10, they have to keep a testing platform, otherwise the scores are invalid for comparison

AMD apparently gets a 5% performance boost from switching to windows 11, meaning from here on, all benchmarks should be done on windows 11

[Helpful Tech Witch]

1 minute ago, yesyes said:

AMD apparently gets a 5% performance boost from switching to windows 11, meaning from here on, all benchmarks should be done on windows 11

Seen any proof of that?

iirc one of the adl threads said Tech Jesus himself said there was bassically no difference in win11/10

for a while amd had a ~10% los in perf, not a 5% gain

 

GN will keep its testing platfor untill the end of the year, its what they always do,

 

[Alder Lake]

Just now, HelpfulTechWizard said:

thats a 8% difference, thats not that big.

the reason the 12900k is better is because it draws  2x the power....

how about for a 17% difference?

[Helpful Tech Witch]

1 minute ago, yesyes said:

how about for a 17% difference?

 

thats and entirely diffrent thing, a productivity benchmark, not a game like the last one. Got any power draw maps for each of those?

[Alder Lake]

8 minutes ago, HelpfulTechWizard said:

Seen any proof of that?

iirc one of the adl threads said Tech Jesus himself said there was bassically no difference in win11/10

for a while amd had a ~10% los in perf, not a 5% gain

 

GN will keep its testing platfor untill the end of the year, its what they always do,

 

It’s the same for the Blender Open Data benchmark, especially when looking at the Ryzen 9 5950X which sees less than a 1% deviation in performance. The R5 3600 was also similar though we do observe a 3% improvement with Windows 11, which I’d argue is quite insignificant.

 

also this "for a while" ended days ago, and even if it didn't improve performance, it's still an insignificant loss

 

tldr: proof given, doesn't matter if there's no difference, that 10% loss was fixed days ago

[Alder Lake]

6 minutes ago, HelpfulTechWizard said:

thats and entirely diffrent thing, a productivity benchmark, not a game like the last one. Got any power draw maps for each of those?

before I find one, I do think intel is slightly less power efficient, but cranking it up to 5Ghz or whatever just exaggerates it to the point of stupidity, so it's not an accurate thing to base your judgement off of

[Helpful Tech Witch]

1 minute ago, yesyes said:

It’s the same for the Blender Open Data benchmark, especially when looking at the Ryzen 9 5950X which sees less than a 1% deviation in performance. The R5 3600 was also similar though we do observe a 3% improvement with Windows 11, which I’d argue is quite insignificant.

 

also this "for a while" ended days ago, and even if it didn't improve performance, it's still an insignificant loss

 

tldr: proof given, doesn't matter if there's no difference, that 10% loss was fixed days ago

ye, quotes without scource, thats  great

I never said that loss was still active tho....

[Alder Lake]

Just now, yesyes said:

before I find one, I do think intel is slightly less power efficient, but cranking it up to 5Ghz or whatever just exaggerates it to the point of stupidity, so it's not an accurate thing to base your judgement off of

~25% difference in performance for a ~50% increase in power, but as performance goes up linearly, power usage goes up exponentially, so if you reduced this down to a 5% increase in performance, I would guess the extra power usage to be a difference of <10%

[mariushm]

14 minutes ago, yesyes said:

how about for a 17% difference?

 

Wow... cherry picking ...

 

It's OFFICE stuff.   You're comparing a  $600 12900k + $300..400 mobo and a $300 kit of 32 GB DDR5 edit: + $150 on water cooler to cool 240w  to a $550 5950 + $150 mobo + $150 DDR4 kit + $50 air cooler  .... you get 17% extra performance for DOUBLE the power consumption and maybe $500+ more.

 

edit and I'm being generous here, you can run a 5950 on a 100$ motherboard if you want.

 

Here's another question ... in an OFFICE environment, do you think the Dell / HP / whatever machines will come with unlocked CPUs that do 240w, or do you think those systems will CPUs capped at 125-150w and with shit motherboards with barely any heatsinks on the VRM and with a stock cooler and some chunky air cooler. 

 

Those systems will be capped and throttled, so the fact that 12900k can do 17% more for 2x the power consumption is meaningless... it's just something for your wanking pleasure.