13600k or 12700k gaming

[Mister Woof]

3 minutes ago, Ebony Falcon said:

I know amd said there cpus are ment to do that but intel never come out and said that so it makes me worry 

All the reviewers showed their chips bouncing off the 100c no matter what cooler they used. I would say the cooler will limit how long you can boost high but it probably isn't going to matter after a certain point, they will throttle. 

 

Maybe instead of overclocking, we should look into undervolting. 

[Ebony Falcon]

2 hours ago, Shimmy Gummi said:

All the reviewers showed their chips bouncing off the 100c no matter what cooler they used. I would say the cooler will limit how long you can boost high but it probably isn't going to matter after a certain point, they will throttle. 

 

Maybe instead of overclocking, we should look into undervolting. 

That’s defiantly what I’m going to look into 

probly just run 5ghz instead of 5.1 and see how far I can drop the voltage 

[Bombastinator]

6 hours ago, evilmedic said:

The game does not decided on whether its thread run's on a p-core or e-core. The O/S + the CPU decides it.

- A typical multi threaded game run's as fast as its slowest (bottlenecking) thread. The 13600 higher clock speed and instruction per clock gives advantage here.

- For a ideal synthetic multi threaded workloads, It seems like the 13600k also wins over the 12700k.

I don’t see how it possibly couldn’t. It’s got faster ipc and higher clock rates on all its cores.  
 

The game doesn’t decide but it does produce the data on which such decisions are made.  The decision is made either manually by the user using processor affinity, or by the portion of the cpu that assigns which thread to which core.  That process remains somewhat opaque to me.  It could be time based for instance: everything written before X is just never given to an ecore.  I don’t know what the criteria is.  My understanding though is they are not randomly assigned and a thread from a game is not assigned to an ecore unless there is a screwup.  There was a hardware unboxed video describing the issues real time software had with ecores having to do with latency.  They seemed to believe that ecores would slow down real time based stuff because they had more latency.  The result would be that the pcores would have to run at the same speed of the ecores, possibly breaking things. Their statement did not preclude the possibility of using only ecores though and just having a slower game.  That still might be a problem. The ecores lack some things the pcores have which might be things that are needed to make a game work. It also did not preclude the possibility that ecores might at some time in the future be made with such things.  Not currently though. 

Edited October 26, 2022 by Bombastinator

[Bombastinator]

46 minutes ago, Ebony Falcon said:

That’s defiantly what I’m going to look into 

probly just run 5ghz instead of 5.1 and see how far I can drop the voltage 

There have been numerous videos of people messing about with 4090s.  A gpu is not a cpu though. I associate 5ghz with CPUs, so I am wondering if the two are being conflated.  Afaik there is no real need to drop the boost cap on a cpu except to avoid wattage use and heat production. There have been a bunch of people doing things like that with the 4090.  There was an example at LTT of the use of a down volted 4090 being used with a very high end 550w power supply.  It did not work as well with lower end ones.  

Edited October 26, 2022 by Bombastinator

[MATIKOOO]

11 hours ago, Ebony Falcon said:

Do u think 8 p cores will age better than 6 p core with more e cores ? 
 

roughly same price with board 

depends what budget you have and whats your plan about pc itself if just gaming no big difference i have both cannt see much difference not 12th gen was bottleneck for my 3080 neither 13th but factor is DDR4 or DDR5 setup, even tho DDR4 is still decent i went for ddr5 for mostly future reasons

[Bombastinator]

56 minutes ago, MATIKOOO said:

depends what budget you have and whats your plan about pc itself if just gaming no big difference i have both cannt see much difference not 12th gen was bottleneck for my 3080 neither 13th but factor is DDR4 or DDR5 setup, even tho DDR4 is still decent i went for ddr5 for mostly future reasons

It becomes a question I think of how one upgrades.  An AMD ddr5 board makes more sense than an intel one right now, because it is more likely to be more usable with future chips and both kinds of memory currently sold for those boards are likely to have little value.  One because it will be relatively slow, and the other because it won’t be in new boards at all.   I suspect that is why AMD is offering only ddr5 boards but intel isn’t.  One will have to have its memory and cpu replaced, but the other will have to have everything replaced. Conversely one will be able to have its memory replaced by faster stuff whereas the other won’t. So if you plan on buying new everything anyway when you upgrade ddr5 intel boards don’t make a lot of sense.  If you plan on upgrading just the memory though they do.  So they’re a good idea for some people but not others.  Myself for example I plan on riding the machine I built to the brink of gaming death for as long as possible, then getting new everything, so I got ddr4.  I’ve got multiple core2 machines sitting on my living room table in pieces though.

[Bombastinator]

Just ran across this video.  It seemed apropos 

 

[MATIKOOO]

13 hours ago, CHICKSLAYA said:

No?? The 13600k clock speed is higher and it has other improvements as well. The 13600k is literally an improved 12700k essentially. They all went up a sku. The 13700k is like a 12900k. 

 

All your losing is the 2 p cores with the 13600k.

 

Getting a 12700k over a 13600k for the same price would be moronic. More cores, more cache, higher clock speed, better OC ability, DRASTICALLY better memory controller (DDR5 5600 vs 4800), I could go on and on, you are just plain wrong.

 

12700k: 

 

Total Cores: 12

# of Performance-cores 8

# of Efficient-cores: 4

Total Threads: 20

Max Turbo Frequency : 5.00 GHz

Cache 

25 MB Intel® Smart Cache

Total L2 Cache

12 MB

 

13600k: 

Total Cores: 14

# of Performance-cores: 6

# of Efficient-cores: 8

Total Threads: 20

Max Turbo Frequency: 5.10 GHz

Cache 

24 MB Intel® Smart Cache

Total L2 Cache

20 MB

 

 

well i have 12th i7 and 13th i7 no big difference ngl if upgrading from 12th to 13th, but if from elder generation sure it is.

 

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, MATIKOOO said:

well i have 12th i7 and 13th i7 no big difference ngl if upgrading from 12th to 13th, but if from elder generation sure it is.

 

Clock speed needs to be multiplied by ips, sort of added maybe? I don’t know.  There have been 5ghz plus CPUs before.  They had relatively terrible ips though, so even though they held OC titles for a long time, they weren’t actually that fast.  My old machine was a 4770k.  There were 4770ks that could hit over 5ghz overclocked too, they were much faster than the older AMD ones and still not very fast by modern standards. One of them couldn’t beat a 12100 in fps for example..

 

that old AMD cpu held onto the OC title until fairly recently iirc. Even though it was beaten actual speed wise in its own generation.

[Bombastinator]

7 hours ago, Shimmy Gummi said:

All the reviewers showed their chips bouncing off the 100c no matter what cooler they used. I would say the cooler will limit how long you can boost high but it probably isn't going to matter after a certain point, they will throttle. 

 

Maybe instead of overclocking, we should look into undervolting. 

Sounds like a job for crazy cooling.  If that would even work.  You can only pull so much heat through a given amount of a given metal at a given thickness. I’m imagining a 10 foot 100 gallon loop with multiple chillers.

Edited October 26, 2022 by Bombastinator

[MATIKOOO]

15 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Clock speed needs to be multiplied by ips, sort of added maybe? I don’t know.  There have been 5ghz plus CPUs before.  They had relatively terrible ips though, so even though they held OC titles for a long time, they weren’t actually that fast.  My old machine was a 4770k.  There were 4770ks that could hit over 5ghz overclocked too, they were much faster than the older AMD ones and still not very fast by modern standards. One of them couldn’t beat a 12100 in fps for example..

 

that old AMD cpu held onto the OC title until fairly recently iirc. Even though it was beaten actual speed wise in its own generation.

all i'm saying 12th gen was no bottleneck for any gaming, gpu was, neither 13gen is so if rig is only for gaming its not worth for upgrading from 12 to 13th gen, neither for streaming 12th gen is enough for streaming+gaming, extra e/p cores ofc is great but old 12th gen rig is enough for that, even tho if you are staying on ddr4 its worthless to upgrade if not fully upgrading to ddr5. 

[Bombastinator]

42 minutes ago, MATIKOOO said:

all i'm saying 12th gen was no bottleneck for any gaming, gpu was, neither 13gen is so if rig is only for gaming its not worth for upgrading from 12 to 13th gen, neither for streaming 12th gen is enough for streaming+gaming, extra e/p cores ofc is great but old 12th gen rig is enough for that, even tho if you are staying on ddr4 its worthless to upgrade if not fully upgrading to ddr5. 

The impression I get is anything after zen2 pretty much ended that.  The only way to do it these days is not have enough threads.  There are still 4 thread processors sold, but anything 12 thread or more is pretty much ok