AMD Ryzen 5 5600 review
PowerColor RX 6650 XT Hellhound White review
FSP Hydro PTM Pro (1200W PSU) review
ASUS ROG Radeon RX 6750 XT STRIX review
AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 - preview
Sapphire Radeon RX 6650 XT Nitro+ review
Sapphire Radeon RX 6950 XT Sapphire Nitro+ Pure review
Sapphire Radeon RX 6750 XT Nitro+ review
MSI Radeon RX 6950 XT Gaming X TRIO review
MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X TRIO review
Core i9 12900K beats Ryzen 9 5950X in Ashes of Singularity by 40%.
The Core i9-12900K (Alder Lake), a 16-core, 24-thread processor, has been tested in Ashes of the Singularity as spotted by Twitterer BenchLeaks. Since dedicated quality presets were utilized, other CPUs can be compared.
A 1440p high preset on the i9-12900K gets an average CPU frame rate of 146.6 fps, 40% more than the Ryzen 9 5950X's 104.6. Both processors were tested with an RTX 3080 and 64 GB of RAM, but the card clock speeds are unknown. So we don't know if the benchmarks were conducted with (heavy) overclocks.
With a grain of salt or two in mind, these stats could give a rough idea of Alder Lake's gaming performance. On October 27 and 28, Intel InnovatiON we expect Intel to present its next desktop CPUs, with additional benchmarks surely to follow.
Download: CPU-Z version 1.97 (adds Core i9 12900K, Core i7 12700K and Core i5 12600K and Intel Z6xx) - 08/25/2021 08:39 AM
You can now download version 1.97 of CPU Z, the new build adds the Core i9 12900K, Core i7 12700K and Core i5 12600K "Alder Lake" CPUs and Intel Z6xx platform, DDR5 memory SPD and XMP 3...
Intel is listing a new Comet Lake-S processor, Core i9 10900KS - 02/15/2021 01:00 PM
Um yeah, a little unusual it is. That would be to release a Comet Lake-S processor so shortly before the new 11th Gen processor release. But it's listed at Intel, the SKU would be a Core i9 10900KS....
Core i9 11900KF Sample Hits 98 Degrees C cooled with 360mm AIO Under Load - 01/28/2021 07:37 PM
Right disclaimers first, we've seen comparable stories with Comet Lake before release, which turned out much better in the end. None the less as the titles say, an all-core boost on the pending Rocke...
Aorus LCS Series Push Core i9 10900K to All-core 5.2GHz - 07/02/2020 08:51 AM
Gigabyte announced the whole AORUS LIQUID COOLER Series can support Intel® i9 10900K CPUs running at all cores 5.2GHz and pass the long-period burning test of Prime95 benchmark with super high loadin...
Reviews: Core i5 10600K and Core i9 10900K processors - 05/20/2020 03:00 PM
Intel today launches the new 10th Core series of desktop processors. Guru3D has two reviews ready for you today, the six-core Core i5 10600K as well as the flagship Core i9 10900K with its ten cores. ...
Horus-Anhur
Senior Member
Posts: 3375
Joined: 2013-02-05
Senior Member
Posts: 3375
Joined: 2013-02-05
#5948633 Posted on: 09/22/2021 02:25 PM
Supposed result on R23
Supposed result on R23
Reardan
Senior Member
Posts: 472
Joined: 2014-09-21
Senior Member
Posts: 472
Joined: 2014-09-21
#5948638 Posted on: 09/22/2021 02:40 PM
Yup, could very well be stock CPU.
Not stock cooling though :
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/processors/core/cryo-cooling.html
"Intel CryoCooling Tech" sort of says it all really.
I suppose it'll eventually come out in the very tiny small print.....
How exactly does this prove this benchmark wasn't done on stock cooling?
Yup, could very well be stock CPU.
Not stock cooling though :
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/processors/core/cryo-cooling.html
"Intel CryoCooling Tech" sort of says it all really.
I suppose it'll eventually come out in the very tiny small print.....
How exactly does this prove this benchmark wasn't done on stock cooling?
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 6483
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 6483
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5948639 Posted on: 09/22/2021 02:41 PM
who says anyone wants to buy these frankenmonster cpu's with core and celeron tech both on one soc. This technology path sucks.
i'm saying that i don't need these cheap easy cores to run all the background bloatware that doesn't benefit me one iota, it only benefits "THEM".
As someone who keeps background tasks to a bare minimum, even I acknowledge this technology path doesn't suck. So far, it seems to me Intel is charging proportionately less for the little cores than they used to charge for HT. The little cores are better than HT. Not everything needs advanced instructions. Most tasks don't scale up that well, if at all. The big complex cores are not efficient when they're being pushed hard yet not fully utilized. I would soooo much rather spend less for more overall performance and lower heat output.I just don't understand this mindset of people who just want more big cores. If your computer earns you money, buy a workstation or server CPU, where there either won't be little cores or relatively few.
I say it over and over again: CPUs are generally better for multitasking, not parallelization. You don't need homogeneity in your architecture if there isn't homogeneity in your workload.
Crap benchmark for AMD.
I've had multicore cpus since the ES Xeon V3/V4 days running AoTS. My 5950X doesn't run it much faster than those in the benchmark (although the software version has changed).
Might not be crap for AMD. Maybe the game just peaks in performance after a certain core count.
Remember too that for games, each individual thread must be synced with a master thread. AMD's core cluster approach is pretty slow with inter-core communication, which can really drag down performance every time threads need to sync.
who says anyone wants to buy these frankenmonster cpu's with core and celeron tech both on one soc. This technology path sucks.
i'm saying that i don't need these cheap easy cores to run all the background bloatware that doesn't benefit me one iota, it only benefits "THEM".
As someone who keeps background tasks to a bare minimum, even I acknowledge this technology path doesn't suck. So far, it seems to me Intel is charging proportionately less for the little cores than they used to charge for HT. The little cores are better than HT. Not everything needs advanced instructions. Most tasks don't scale up that well, if at all. The big complex cores are not efficient when they're being pushed hard yet not fully utilized. I would soooo much rather spend less for more overall performance and lower heat output.I just don't understand this mindset of people who just want more big cores. If your computer earns you money, buy a workstation or server CPU, where there either won't be little cores or relatively few.
I say it over and over again: CPUs are generally better for multitasking, not parallelization. You don't need homogeneity in your architecture if there isn't homogeneity in your workload.
Crap benchmark for AMD.
I've had multicore cpus since the ES Xeon V3/V4 days running AoTS. My 5950X doesn't run it much faster than those in the benchmark (although the software version has changed).
Might not be crap for AMD. Maybe the game just peaks in performance after a certain core count.
Remember too that for games, each individual thread must be synced with a master thread. AMD's core cluster approach is pretty slow with inter-core communication, which can really drag down performance every time threads need to sync.
H83
Senior Member
Posts: 3865
Joined: 2009-09-08
Senior Member
Posts: 3865
Joined: 2009-09-08
#5948644 Posted on: 09/22/2021 03:00 PM
A 40% uplift over AMD seems to good to be true or some sort of freak result. Not to mention that there are more interesting games to bench than Ashes, like Cyberpunk.
Still, competition is always good, even if they don´t result in lower prices, like mackintosh as posted before me...
A 40% uplift over AMD seems to good to be true or some sort of freak result. Not to mention that there are more interesting games to bench than Ashes, like Cyberpunk.
Still, competition is always good, even if they don´t result in lower prices, like mackintosh as posted before me...
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 4699
Joined: 2008-09-07
Yep. AMD coming out with all these Ryzen CPUs kickstarted everything. I still don't understand why some people wanted AMD to dominate and kill Intel off. The best possible scenario that could have happened is happening.
We're getting great CPUs from both AMD and Intel and I hope they keep pushing themselves.
Remember people, buy what's best for your budget and usage scenario. Ignore the brand. They're both only here to make money, not to make anyone happy on some personal level.
Maybe there is (simply speaking) more profit in