Jump to content

Play Fair, Intel

Plouffe
 Share

Intel's 13th gen, Raptor lake, is finally here! The timing couldn't be worse with AMD's processors launching just yesterday, but the 13900K is nothing to sneeze at and if the price is right and the graphs don't lie, then AMD might have to reconsider the 7950X at $699.

 

Purchase an Intel Core i9-12900K Desktop Processor at https://geni.us/F14VY0

Purchase an Intel Core i7-12700K Desktop Processor at https://geni.us/lPf1M

Purchase an Intel Core i5-12600K Desktop Processor at https://geni.us/KApC

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason for using the memory speed they did is because that's what AMD and Intel list as the max supported memory for those CPUs. You can't blame Intel for not overclocking the systems in their benchmarks beyond manufacturers specified supported speeds, even if memory overclocking (XMP) is common in the enthusiast community.

 

i9 13900k

image.png

 

i9 12900k

image.png

 

Ryzen 5950X

image.png

CPU: Intel i7 6700k  | Motherboard: Gigabyte Z170x Gaming 5 | RAM: 2x16GB 3000MHz Corsair Vengeance LPX | GPU: Gigabyte Aorus GTX 1080ti | PSU: Corsair RM750x (2018) | Case: BeQuiet SilentBase 800 | Cooler: Arctic Freezer 34 eSports | SSD: Samsung 970 Evo 500GB + Samsung 840 500GB + Crucial MX500 2TB | Monitor: Acer Predator XB271HU + Samsung BX2450

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there are benchmarks of the 12900k at different power levels and in some of them the AVG FPS only drops by a few percent if go down from 241 W to 50 W... (720p with 3080). AMD cpus behave similar of course.

New AMD 7000 series vs Intel 13000 series @ 65 W and 120 W would be interesting though.

 

Just like every other presentation: It's just marketing nonsense. The 99th percentil benchmark from "The Riftbreaker" are particularly funny, that's like the Intel 99th percentile fps are 50% higher than the AMD AVG FPS ... I guess the benchmark stuttered at some point xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spotty said:

Ryzen 5950X

image.png

They obviously ran the 5950X at 6400MT/s since they would never accidentally mix Mhz and MT up.

 

Edit:
Before I cause any more confusion, that is obviously not what happened. The screenshot isn't even from Intel.

Googly 👀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

They obviously ran the 5950X at 6400MT/s since they would never accidentally mix Mhz and MT up.

Bu... but 6400 is a bigger number than 5600, and 3200 is a much smaller number. And as we all know, bigger number more better...

 

So mix units and hope nobody notices?

 

/s

Dell owns my soul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with them using 3200mhz on Ryzen... The memory controller on my 3950X is unstable, even with totally stock settings and just DOCP, running anything faster than 3200Mhz (possibly as I'm using 4x1R). Yes, it's possible to run memory faster, but it's not recommended by AMD themselves, and I've seen multiple friends complain the memory controller becomes unstable over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's it, DDR4 3200 is the max AMD is officially supporting on their platform, also they did used a good memory kit, 3200 14-14-14 with Dual Rank chip which is usually the best setup for AMD...

At this point they could also have pushed DDR4 3800 on 5950X/5800X3D, used PBO but also running a waterchiller on their CPU to aim 6GHz gaming and DDR5 7000+...

But what's the point ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Spotty said:

The reason for using the memory speed they did is because that's what AMD and Intel list as the max supported memory for those CPUs. You can't blame Intel for not overclocking the systems in their benchmarks beyond manufacturers specified supported speeds, even if memory overclocking (XMP) is common in the enthusiast community.

 

i9 13900k

image.png

 

i9 12900k

image.png

 

Ryzen 5950X

image.png

Exactly. What we should really be asking is why CPU manufacturers - both of them - insist on low-balling their memory speed specifications like this. It's clear that the 5950X not only benefits greatly from 3600MT/s DDR4, but is also completely capable of handling it without issue. Why don't they just rate it for that in the first place?

CPU: i7 4790k, RAM: 16GB DDR3, GPU: GTX 1060 6GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I might of missed it but did anyone catch when the embargo lifts for the 3rd party reviews?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BioFlash said:

I might of missed it but did anyone catch when the embargo lifts for the 3rd party reviews?

I dont think they have made it public, probably the same day its released. So October 20th

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4:30 That chart is disappointing AF and people hyping this up as the next best thing have no idea how to interpret data.

 

Most of those are 10% or less increases, which is PATHETIC

Thats like smartphone level stagnation. Sure, LoL got a 20% increase, but, so what, it already runs fast, and its only one game. R6 is like 17% ish, and after Guardians of the galaxy (AKA a game nobody plays or is interested in) the 10% or less becomes the norm. Whats that, like 5-6 games that are over 10%?

 

wow, much increase, very boost




If these are the cherry picked charts that they are proud of, i dont care about what the average increase is going to be.

“What you must remember, is that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

- Alucard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, NastyFlytrap said:

4:30 That chart is disappointing AF and people hyping this up as the next best thing have no idea how to interpret data.

 

Most of those are 10% or less increases, which is PATHETIC

Thats like smartphone level stagnation. Sure, LoL got a 20% increase, but, so what, it already runs fast, and its only one game. R6 is like 17% ish, and after Guardians of the galaxy (AKA a game nobody plays or is interested in) the 10% or less becomes the norm. Whats that, like 5-6 games that are over 10%?

 

wow, much increase, very boost




If these are the cherry picked charts that they are proud of, i dont care about what the average increase is going to be.

90% of those situations are GPU bound. The goal of the CPU in those cases is to limit stutter and minimums more then effect the average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, tim0901 said:

It's clear that the 5950X not only benefits greatly from 3600MT/s DDR4, but is also completely capable of handling it without issue.

Try populating all the RAM slots with dual rank DIMMs at 3600MHz, Some Ryzen CPUs can't handle at.

A PC Enthusiast since 2011
AMD Ryzen 5 2600@4.1GHz | GIGABYTE GTX 1660 GAMING OC @ Core 2085MHz Memory 5000MHz
Cinebench R15: 1349cb | Unigine Superposition 1080p Extreme: 3566
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I have to ask, but where can I find the photon to electron video they teased at the end? I couldn't find anything. Neither with a general YT search nor in the "Intel" or "Intel Newsroom" channel directly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2022 at 3:22 PM, tim0901 said:

Exactly. What we should really be asking is why CPU manufacturers - both of them - insist on low-balling their memory speed specifications like this. It's clear that the 5950X not only benefits greatly from 3600MT/s DDR4, but is also completely capable of handling it without issue. Why don't they just rate it for that in the first place?

Don't think it is low balling as my Ryzen system would crash on any load when going past 3200.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Just that Mario said:

Don't think it is low balling as my Ryzen system would crash on any load when going past 3200.

I had the same issue when I first set up my Ryzen 5000 system. As it turned out, when I activated the faster XMP profile it also undervolted the IO die. So I wrote down the values form the XMP profile, disabled XMP and dialed in the numbers manually. Everything runs rock stable ever since. Maybe worth checking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/29/2022 at 7:56 PM, Hatted Squirrel said:

I had the same issue when I first set up my Ryzen 5000 system. As it turned out, when I activated the faster XMP profile it also undervolted the IO die. So I wrote down the values form the XMP profile, disabled XMP and dialed in the numbers manually. Everything runs rock stable ever since. Maybe worth checking.

think I tried manually setting to higher clocks as well. Was fine on regular use, but moment I loaded a game up it would crash within few minutes. I just run memory at 3200 now, since XMP wants to set it to 3600 I believe (stock rated max speed for modules). Overall I cba to even deal with it. I hate this MSI BIOS and either I've got old or I got too comfortable with the super intuitive Gigabyte BIOS my old system had, that as long as it works I am fine with it and don't feel like touching any setting anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×