The Intel CPUs sport more physical cores than the AMD CPUs, even if a portion of the cores are smaller. It makes sense they will do well. For a few gens now, AMD hasn't touched the core counts, whereas Intel has increased them. It's the exact reverse of the situation when AMD beat Intel with the first gen Ryzen. In Intel's statements they had perfect trust and faith in Kaby Lake, which did beat Ryzen 1000 in the games, optimised for scarce cores back then, but naturally lost in everything capable of using all the cores, due to having only half of the core count Ryzen had. Now it's the other way around. I don't know if the 3D cache can help in anything but games, but I still think AMD should have used the technology in these "normal" CPUs, perhaps only leaving it out, for example, in non-X models. As it is, AMD also couldn't avoid increasing the power consumption, so I can't help but feel AMD isn't doing as much as Intel this time. It wouldn't surprise me if the rumours of poor sales of Ryzen 7000 were true.
The Intel CPUs sport more physical cores than the AMD CPUs, even if a portion of the cores are smaller. It makes sense they will do well. For a few gens now, AMD hasn't touched the core counts, whereas Intel has increased them. It's the exact reverse of the situation when AMD beat Intel with the first gen Ryzen. In Intel's statements they had perfect trust and faith in Kaby Lake, which did beat Ryzen 1000 in the games, optimised for scarce cores back then, but naturally lost in everything capable of using all the cores, due to having only half of the core count Ryzen had. Now it's the other way around. I don't know if the 3D cache can help in anything but games, but I still think AMD should have used the technology in these "normal" CPUs, perhaps only leaving it out, for example, in non-X models. As it is, AMD also couldn't avoid increasing the power consumption, so I can't help but feel AMD isn't doing as much as Intel this time. It wouldn't surprise me if the rumours of poor sales of Ryzen 7000 were true.
Ryzen honeymoon period is over. Intel is back and most amazingly still on the old Intel 7 node. Also I don't think poor sales are rumors, but a sad reality. Last few Ryzen launches all desirable models were out of stock for 6 months or more. Now I see all 7000 CPUs readily available with ton of stock.
Intel made so many clever choices with 12th and 13th gen. These efficiency cores that people used to joke about will come to haunt AMD. And supporting both DDR4 and 5 at the same time was brilliant move.
The Core i9-13900K is 9% faster than the Ryzen 9 7950X.
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X, 16 cores and 607.53 points
Intel Core i9-13900K 24 cores and 557.66 points
How the hell does that sentence makes sense? Less points is better?
7950x will be the productivity king. But if you factor in price of the whole platform, then I'm afraid Intel will provide better perf to price ratio. It's still kinda weird to me to call Intel the cheaper alternative.
Not necessarily if you consider power consumtion, I'm sure intel will use way more power. I can't wait for review benchmarks.
These benchmarks don't mean nothing if they don't come with a comparison of the power consumption.
The best cpu is the most efficient one, and to answer this question we will have to wait months, until all the cpus are released and their drivers optimized.
A cpu may finish a render 30 seconds slower or scores 100 pts less, but can result the most efficient in the end.
Not necessarily if you consider power consumtion, I'm sure intel will use way more power. I can't wait for review benchmarks.
You have seen that a 7950X also sips its cool ~250W right? 😀
Intel can't really go above that, as it becomes uncoolable. So at peak they are likely going to be equal.
The Core i9-13900K is 9% faster than the Ryzen 9 7950X.
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X, 16 cores and 607.53 points
Intel Core i9-13900K 24 cores and 557.66 points
How the hell does that sentence makes sense? Less points is better?
There is something WRONG with this article. I got the same WT ... feeling reading through it, 3x. sigh...
The Core i9-13900K is 9% faster than the Ryzen 9 7950X.
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X, 16 cores and 607.53 points
Intel Core i9-13900K 24 cores and 557.66 points
How the hell does that sentence makes sense? Less points is better?
Single core vs multi-core. The story wasn't written very well.
It goes on to confuse even more.
Consumption is another story. All reviewers should update their methodology to current state of things. That is testing all CPUs against a specific consumption target. Guru3D already tests CPUs with specific clocks for IPC comparisons. So testing CPU performace with specific power consumption target should be added as well. This is increasingly important and I would add performance tests with let's say 120W power limit to every review.
I wonder how important it is. If we are talking about regular private consumers, they aren't taxing their system anyway close to 100% most of the time, so we would need to study some average consumption statistics over a length of time. I've seen people say here at Guru3D many times that Intel CPUs don't use that much power when doing regular stuff, which doesn't push the CPU to 100%. I have no particular reason not to believe them. If we are talking about pros, how much does it matter? Let's say, arbitrarily, that a random pro's work is worth 30 bucks an hour. I don't think electricity costs yet quite so much that whether they used Intel or AMD, it would make much of a difference in workstation use, compared to the produced value. It would probably matter more if the pro can save half an hour a day or not in waiting time. If we are talking about servers, things would be different, but that's another topic.
But then again, this is just my pure speculation.
Guys choose the rating you prefer:
performace/watt, performace/dollar, dollar/platform-life, fps/dollar and pick the winner for you.
Low sales for ryzen 7000? i hope is true. tech and non tech customers knows that the ryzen 5000 is fast enough and cheaper, and other knows an intel model is behind the corner and waiting.
Ryzen honeymoon period is over. Intel is back and most amazingly still on the old Intel 7 node. Also I don't think poor sales are rumors, but a sad reality. Last few Ryzen launches all desirable models were out of stock for 6 months or more. Now I see all 7000 CPUs readily available with ton of stock.
Intel made so many clever choices with 12th and 13th gen. These efficiency cores that people used to joke about will come to haunt AMD. And supporting both DDR4 and 5 at the same time was brilliant move.
AMD made a mistake releasing the 5800X3D IMO. They gave people a viable option that included keeping 100% of a PC aside from the CPU.
This is compounded by giving AMD fans a preview of 7000 series X3D CPUs, which are likely to be gaming monsters.
AMD should have let the 12900K take the W.
AMD made a mistake releasing the 5800X3D IMO. They gave people a viable option that included keeping 100% of a PC aside from the CPU.
This is compounded by giving AMD fans a preview of 7000 series X3D CPUs, which are likely to be gaming monsters.
AMD should have let the 12900K take the W.
no, they didn't.
the 5800X3D was issued for two reasons: 1) lowering the cost of Genoa 3D servers (only one fab in world makes 3Dcache) and 2) providing an AM 4 upgrade during transition to DDR5
both worked spectacularly.
there is far too much hyperventilation re: sales especially considering not all board partners have released product.
this isn't analogous to anything else and Raptor Lake is struggling too even though all the board partners have their product in shops.
no, they didn't.
the 5800X3D was issued for two reasons: 1) lowering the cost of Genoa 3D servers (only one fab in world makes 3Dcache) and 2) providing an AM 4 upgrade during transition to DDR5
both worked spectacularly.
there is far too much hyperventilation re: sales especially considering not all board partners have released product.
this isn't analogous to anything else and Raptor Lake is struggling too even though all the board partners have their product in shops.
struggling with what ?
selling cpus before they're reviewed ?
5800X3D is still the best gaming cpu and 13k won't change that, only Ryzen 7000X3D but the price is the key to the success.
AM5 is a whole right now too expensive and not worth it, 13K have some redemption points and probably be better than the entire Zen 4 lineup excluding high end(7900/7950X).
Ryzen honeymoon period is over. Intel is back and most amazingly still on the old Intel 7 node. Also I don't think poor sales are rumors, but a sad reality. Last few Ryzen launches all desirable models were out of stock for 6 months or more. Now I see all 7000 CPUs readily available with ton of stock.
Intel made so many clever choices with 12th and 13th gen. These efficiency cores that people used to joke about will come to haunt AMD. And supporting both DDR4 and 5 at the same time was brilliant move.
oi oi.... Intel fanboi calm down. Enjoy your 13th generation 10nm (7 is considered by intel but in reality it is 10nm) process with hybrid cores which are incompatible with windows and 253W consumption for like few frames more (if any) in 1024x768 😀
Not to mention this 13th generation is EoL product. As for 12 & 13th generation performance with DDR4 I will not comment, there are many reviews out there about it but is not something you can brag for.
1 thing is real though: things are getting expensive more and more and many consider that is not worth to get upgrades atm. That is for all sides, including AMD/INTEL/Nvidia. What I see in hardware trend atm after so many years following that industry as an enthusiast, is that these inflated prices is the new normal which is very bothering and sad.
think what you want I'm telling you after one year of 12900k : e-cores aren't real ones
in my experience it feels like the 12900k is an 8 cores cpu + trash tier threads to surf the web or download stuff in the background
maybe AMD will disappoint me maybe not but anyway my (asus) Z690 and ddr5 experience was so bad that I still wouldn't go Intel again Z790 looks as bad for DDR5
...
wait what ?
...
ASUS HAS ERASED ALL 4 SLOTS SUPPORT FOR Z690 IN THEIR MEMORY QVLS (Z690 extreme below)DIDN'T I TELL YOU ? HAVE I NOT SPAMMED THAT 4 STICKS NEVER WORKED FOR ME FOR 12 MONTHS ? and that below is the Z790 extreme which is has almost no support AGAIN lovely 40-40-40-96 🙄 that said....the problem here seems to be ASUS see X670 extreme below also no 4 slots supported for AMD >< (and unlike ddr4 you do want to care either it won't boot or it'll throw thousands of error when you memcheck)
and here's the MSI X670 ACE which has 10 if not 100x more supported, sorting by 4 slots doesnt work so i kept only corsair
if my corsair memory which completely fails memcheck (2 sticks only) works fine on MSI X670 motherboard (on msi says it says 4 sticks supported at 6200Mhz) I'll have proof ASUS can't handle DDR5 and that nobody should buy their motherboards for both processors
edit : msi godlike Z690 also had really bad 4 sticks support check corsair only 2 kits are validated for 4 slots use one at 4800 and one at...4400 😕
the lie of 4 slots DDR5 motherboards finally I have proof !!! ahahahahahah I wasn't mad 😛
Z690 garbage confirmed and Z790 seems only slightly better
Z790 memory QVLs not listed at MSI but asus seems the same, this stinks
I did the hamster I beta tested DDR5 don't make the same mistakes
and that below is the Z790 extreme which is has almost no support AGAIN lovely 40-40-40-96 🙄
that said....the problem here seems to be ASUS see X670 extreme below also no 4 slots supported for AMD >< (and unlike ddr4 you do want to care either it won't boot or it'll throw thousands of error when you memcheck)
and here's the MSI X670 ACE which has 10 if not 100x more supported, sorting by 4 slots doesnt work so i kept only corsair
if my corsair memory which completely fails memcheck (2 sticks only) works fine on MSI X670 motherboard (on msi says it says 4 sticks supported at 6200Mhz) I'll have proof ASUS can't handle DDR5 and that nobody should buy their motherboards for both processors edit : msi godlike Z690 also had really bad 4 sticks support check corsair only 2 kits are validated for 4 slots use one at 4800 and one at...4400 😕
the lie of 4 slots DDR5 motherboards finally I have proof !!! ahahahahahah I wasn't mad 😛 Z690 garbage confirmed and Z790 seems only slightly better Z790 memory QVLs not listed at MSI but asus seems the same, this stinks I did the hamster I beta tested DDR5 don't make the same mistakes