Try the other way around.
You get the V8 and you only have the gas/consumption issues when you're going 200mph on highway. For the rest it's ok.
...what? Unless you're on the autobahn, you're not going to go 200 on the highway. If you were to go 200 without being a selfish reckless idiot, then you're actually taking advantage of the car's potential as intended, where perhaps (but maybe not actually) its fuel consumption isn't so much of a problem. Since the chances of that happening for the vast majority of people is pretty slim, my point still stands:
What's the point of paying extra for potential you will most likely never use? Seeing as gaming is your example, you'd be far better off just dumping that money into a better GPU, a better/quieter cooling system, or more storage. With a 13900K, you're either burning money on excess performance (remember: you also need to spend extra on cooling, PSU, and the motherboard) or you're burning yourself by sharing the same room as it.
A 13700F ought to be a bargain in comparison and have a negligible impact on gaming performance.
this is engineering sample, ignore these benchmarks, the fact 13900K lost to 12900K in CPUZ single core benchmark is everything you need to know
Im an Intel/nvidia user mainly because they old, big and just work, but i decided to give amd a chance, big mistake.
I moved up from 5950x to 12900K, extremely happy now, the 5950x +x570 and now rx 6700 made me hate AMD to the point i wont give them a chance even if their top products beat competing by over 20%
I had so many issues, small quirks and annoyances with AMD that i never had with otehr products
It's sad to see people having issues with something that one hasn't had any. It always makes me think that I am lucky also. Whilst I've had bad luck with Intel more so then AMD.
Just work I don't believe there is even one pc component maker that makes things that just work.
It's sad to see people having issues with something that one hasn't had any. It always makes me think that I am lucky also. Whilst I've had bad luck with Intel more so then AMD.
Just work I don't believe there is even one pc component maker that makes things that just work.
5 gaming rigs in the house as my whole family games including my wife. Mix of AMD/INTEL/Nvidia, all work majority of the time with different configs and components. My rig is all AMD 5900x/6800XT and works great. After years of Intel/Nvidia, I will probably stay AMD for the next upgrade as well. Don't care about RTX or DLSS as I mostly play CoD/BF and get over 200 fps in native resolutions.
5 gaming rigs in the house as my whole family games including my wife. Mix of AMD/INTEL/Nvidia, all work majority of the time with different configs and components. My rig is all AMD 5900x/6800XT and works great. After years of Intel/Nvidia, I will probably stay AMD for the next upgrade as well. Don't care about RTX or DLSS as I mostly play CoD/BF and get over 200 fps in native resolutions.
Over 200fps in BF 2042 in 1080p?
Show me and learn me 🙂
Maybe I need Amd gpu with my 5950x?
I watched somebody comment on Putin the other day, you could easily delete PUTIN and insert INTEL
"I dont believe what they say, i only believe what they do".
There is no point, except for cinebench fans.
It was also my point and trying hard to justify my next upgrade.
If you look at average game performance for 12k series you'll see a very small difference among all cpu, especially when you go on a higher resolution.
My initial response was for those that keep quote the max wattage in high load/stress which in gaming or usual scenarios is not a problem.
This way we could say I'll never buy a 12600k because it reaches 200W+ in prime, while the chip sits very well at less than 100W in most tasks and also easy to cool.
There is a point - while I take CB results with a grain of salt in terms of how good a CPU is, it does put the CPU under a realistic all-core stress load. Some all-core workloads will run cooler, others may run hotter. CB isn't running unrealistic calculations, so it's a good metric for how hot your CPU is likely going to get under 100% load. If this was Prime95 or stress-ng, I'd say "this is a stupid comparison" since that's not a realistic stress load and is purpose built to make the CPU run way hotter than normal.
Like you said, the game performance across the 12K series is a small difference. You're right that it wouldn't get that hot in gaming, but why get it if that's all you're using it for? It doesn't make sense to buy a CPU knowing >33% of its potential will go to waste. You said "Do you need 2x radiators and custom $500 cooling plus else to game?" but you will need all of that if you intend to do anything more demanding than gaming.
So, if you're trying to justify your next upgrade and gaming is your top priority, I'd say the 13900K is not worthwhile.
There is no point, except for cinebench fans.
It was also my point and trying hard to justify my next upgrade.
If you look at average game performance for 12k series you'll see a very small difference among all cpu, especially when you go on a higher resolution.
My initial response was for those that keep quote the max wattage in high load/stress which in gaming or usual scenarios is not a problem.
This way we could say I'll never buy a 12600k because it reaches 200W+ in prime, while the chip sits very well at less than 100W in most tasks and also easy to cool.
people will quote whatever number fits their story. those who cite 300w stress test power consumption numbers on intel will only use gaming numbers for amd.you made a good point about most cpus using sub 100w for gaming these days.the only exceptions would indeed be 11900k and 12900k but they're bad value compared to 11700 and 12700 to begin with.
ahahaha I'm not a cinebench gamer but I do have apps that use x threads per process so using the cpu to 50-100% happens more than "just a gamer" and I found cinebench is relevant for my use, that said....recent ASUS motherboards auto overclocking feature asks you to do cinebench runs, and amd clock tuner ryzen tool needs them too to find your best settings so that annoying cinebench trend has become almost unescapable if you tweak your gaming PC
and my overkill build is used mostly to run my over-modded skyrim which is unrelatable for everyone except a very small niche
have a nice week peeps don't get angry over pc hardware we will all get something for our needs in 21 days 😉
wild alpine ibex say hi 😉
Bf 5 running 400+ fps with 12900k with 7000c30 ddr5 and 3090 😉
Why did you quote me? Do you love me that much? <3
:D
I quoted you because you keep changing the goal posts to fit your narrative and to provoke people and call people noobs.
BF2042 is the only game in the series that runs like crap and it is even simpler in details then the previous games.
Why would you waste time and effort with this game?
EA pretty much needs to shut down the older games, to get more players to join 2042.
Good post and of course you didn't receive a single like and no one quoted you. Inconvenient truth. AMD fanboys always try to sweep such data under the rug. Instead they fixate on some rumors and extreme overclockings with LN2 350W 450W 500W insanity prime95 synthetic nonsense and keep repeating it like broken record.
I double checked. Previously checked max power use only. But I run BF5 for 5mins. Average is ~120W with spikes over 140W.
My 280mm AIO with 4 14cm fans has to work hard to keep the CPU cool.:)
Trackmania Turbo only uses 50w.
I don't have FC6 but FC5 averages 85W.
There is a point - while I take CB results with a grain of salt in terms of how good a CPU is, it does put the CPU under a realistic all-core stress load. Some all-core workloads will run cooler, others may run hotter. CB isn't running unrealistic calculations, so it's a good metric for how hot your CPU is likely going to get under 100% load. If this was Prime95 or stress-ng, I'd say "this is a stupid comparison" since that's not a realistic stress load and is purpose built to make the CPU run way hotter than normal.
Like you said, the game performance across the 12K series is a small difference. You're right that it wouldn't get that hot in gaming, but why get it if that's all you're using it for? It doesn't make sense to buy a CPU knowing >33% of its potential will go to waste. You said "Do you need 2x radiators and custom $500 cooling plus else to game?" but you will need all of that if you intend to do anything more demanding than gaming.
So, if you're trying to justify your next upgrade and gaming is your top priority, I'd say the 13900K is not worthwhile.
Your logic work for budget build where every dollar saved can make a difference somewhere else, like building a gaming PC with core i5 and use the saved money for better GPU.
For enthusiast build, getting the best gaming performance is the priority.
And Cinebench is a synthetic workload that does not represent gaming at all, I have no idea why techtubers like to quote Cinebench power consumption figure for gaming CPU, probably because they are morons.
From OCN
"RobertoSampaio
"What I can say is that all the wattage rumors are always overrated...
We've seen people talking about high power at 10900k, 11900k, 12900k, and now we see the same people talking about the same...
For the correct reading of the CPU power, you need to calibrate the DC load line... And nobody does that... So we always have people talking about 300w or 400w...
The power consumption of the 13900k, running stock, full load, is around 200W. Overclock I believe at 250w...
I'm testing the CPUs with a $20 air cooler and a regular paste... It's part of the test. CPU is hitting 90C at this condition."
[ATTACH=full]13191[/ATTACH]
Thought I'd check.... Tried 2 games on my 9900k
BF5 - 160W
Deathloop - 140W
So to me, it looks like most games use well over 100W.
No more info?
This could be anything from stock cpu to max overclocked with ... without info, your numbers makes no sense 🙂
Post atleast full hwinfo, so it's easy to compare.
There is also a big difference in 4k BF V with low fps and 1080p low quality with high fps, in therm of powerusage 🙂
No more info?
This could be anything from stock cpu to max overclocked with ... without info, your numbers makes no sense 🙂
Post atleast full hwinfo, so it's easy to compare.
There is also a big difference in 4k BF V with low fps and 1080p low quality with high fps, in therm of powerusage 🙂
It's a 9900k running at 5ghz all core. So very similar to a 9900ks. I'm running at nearly 4K, 5120x1440
This is a good test: [youtube=UmSRwP76V88]
Shows how the 12900k is able to push hihger framerates while using less power than previous generations.
It's a 9900k running at 5ghz all core. So very similar to a 9900ks.
This is a good test: [youtube=UmSRwP76V88]
Shows how the 12900k is able to push hihger framerates while using less power than previous generations.
Wolfgang
Testing Games
Jansn Benchmarks
I've always enjoyed their channels. I like them because they have the actual hardware. Wolfgang won so many people over because that channel is all business and no BS! Same with TG and JB,
Our own @XenthorX and @bobnewels are doing a fantastic job also.
@southamptonfc
Our processors are still kicking butt. They are standing the test of time. I'm still impressed with my 10900k but it's time for the next leap. The 7950x and the 670e motherboard are supposed to be released this month. I'm also going with DDR5 6000 or higher. I hope to get my hands on this hardware. I don't know when the 13900k is getting released. I'm ready for more framerates @4k. When the 4090 comes on the scene I'm all over it.
wild alpine ibex say hi 😉