This is really great and exciting. Exactly what we needed. AMD is back with no compromises.

I dread to think what the power draw will be...

Again +40% improvement and in real world it will be +10% performance gain (single and multithreaded) meanwhile having +40% power usage? Intel plz

BLEH!:

I dread to think what the power draw will be...

I used to not worry too much about power draw... But with prices going sky high it's become a worrying factor now when purchasing computer parts

D1stRU3T0R:

Again +40% improvement and in real world it will be +10% performance gain (single and multithreaded) meanwhile having +40% power usage? Intel plz

You think 50% more E cores = only 10% improvement? Right...

I must be missing something, why do so many people bang on about power draw? Most if not ALL waste so much electric on every day stuff and if you are into high end PC's then you expect to use more electric. Most of my house is on LED bulbs now, but in one room I would have had 8 can lights and 4 other lights so 12 x 60w just for lights!!! Who gives a sh@t if the new amazing fast CPU's and GPU's take a bit more power, it just means now days you need a bigger PSU, so what. And don't say it to save the planet coz we know that is ball if you think shaving a few watts off a PC is going to make ANY difference 😛 So those that are making a fuss, it is coz you have to buy a bigger PSU? I upgraded to a 1200 watt PSU for my new i9-12900k/RTX3090 build and high-end gaming it runs around 550 to 600 watts - big deal. Looking forward to these new CPUs for sure and I hope the new competition with AMD continues to push the envelope!

I'm glad you live in a land of free energy, but many of us do not. My electric bill has risen by close to 100% in the last two years. My PC running for most of the day is a significant chunk of that bill.

Barrettusa:

I must be missing something, why do so many people bang on about power draw? Most if not ALL waste so much electric on every day stuff and if you are into high end PC's then you expect to use more electric. Most of my house is on LED bulbs now, but in one room I would have had 8 can lights and 4 other lights so 12 x 60w just for lights!!! Who gives a sh@t if the new amazing fast CPU's and GPU's take a bit more power, it just means now days you need a bigger PSU, so what. And don't say it to save the planet coz we know that is ball if you think shaving a few watts off a PC is going to make ANY difference 😛

There's a lot wrong here: 1. In a lot of places in the world, the heat output is a problem. In most places throughout the world, the heat output is a problem in the summer. 2. If you can't control the heat then you lose that performance. Why pay extra for performance you can't have? 3. In some parts of the world, electricity is expensive. While I'm fortunate to have cheaper than average electricity, my rates have doubled in 2022. 4. As an enthusiast, you should know that pushing the envelope this like leaves less room for tuning. Better efficiency generally means you can do more. 5. You like having louder fans or more expensive loops? Because that's what you get when things run hotter. 6. You're basically asking "why not settle?". Since when is that ever ideal? I don't want to buy a new product that's "good enough", and I don't want to pay extra for something that has a disadvantage to lower-end parts. 7. Collectively, every watt makes a big difference. Just changing all your incandescent bulbs to LEDs makes a noteworthy impact on just a single house. Now, multiply that difference by billions. Computers are no different. What used to take 300W just to browse the internet can be done fluidly in as little as 15W.

So those that are making a fuss, it is coz you have to buy a bigger PSU? I upgraded to a 1200 watt PSU for my new i9-12900k/RTX3090 build and high-end gaming it runs around 550 to 600 watts - big deal.

From what I recall (haven't checked in a while), high quality PSUs get substantially more expensive once you go past 750W. How many more FPS does your 12900K and 3090 get you compared to a 12600K and a 3080, and how many of those FPS can you honestly differentiate in a blind test? Not only is the performance-per-watt horribly disproportionate, but the performance-per- is too. The way you phrase all of this makes you sound elitist and out-of-touch.

Ricepudding:

I used to not worry too much about power draw... But with prices going sky high it's become a worrying factor now when purchasing computer parts

I've always overclocked as efficiently as possible

Agent-A01:

You think 50% more E cores = only 10% improvement? Right...

The E cores are restricted in how much they are used. They are mostly never used in games, because the Power cores are faster and there are mostly enough of them for games. They are mostly not used if a workload is not able to fill up more then the P cores. Background tasks are mostly not enough to fill up more then a couple of E cores, so the extra ones may not get any work anyway. It is kind of like a 5950 is not twice as fast in everything then a 5800 would be, just worse because of the limitations on work send to E-cores. If the 13900k still has the less overclocking headroom on the ringbus when E cores are active, some would just disable them first thing anyway = 0% improvement.

that would be really nice,but it's mlid so it's completely wrong

mackintosh:

I'm glad you live in a land of free energy, but many of us do not. My electric bill has risen by close to 100% in the last two years. My PC running for most of the day is a significant chunk of that bill.

aint that true

TLD LARS:

The E cores are restricted in how much they are used.

Restricted from what? Lack of work to do? It is not a problem to max out E cores in applications that can use it.

TLD LARS:

The E cores are restricted in how much they are used.They are mostly never used in games, because the Power cores are faster and there are mostly enough of them for games.

Moot point. 12600K is hardly maxed out in games so that would mean anything beyond 6p cores is irrelevant.

TLD LARS:

The E cores are restricted in how much they are used.They are mostly not used if a workload is not able to fill up more then the P cores.

That's true for any cpu. If a workload only maxes out a couple cores then of course the rest will be idle.

TLD LARS:

The E cores are restricted in how much they are used.Background tasks are mostly not enough to fill up more then a couple of E cores, so the extra ones may not get any work anyway.

E cores aren't only relegated to background tasks...

TLD LARS:

The E cores are restricted in how much they are used.It is kind of like a 5950 is not twice as fast in everything then a 5800 would be, just worse because of the limitations on work send to E-cores.

5950x doesn't have e cores? And of course a 5950x won't always be twice as fast as a 5800x because there are work loads that aren't limited by cpu core count like games.. Moot point.

TLD LARS:

The E cores are restricted in how much they are used.If the 13900k still has the less overclocking headroom on the ringbus when E cores are active, some would just disable them first thing anyway = 0% improvement.

Did you miss the "10-15%" improvement to P core architecture in performance? So how does that mean 0 % improvement? Anyways you're obviously not part of the targeted market for this CPU; when you only play CSGO of course there will be minimal improvements.. There's plenty of people that can actually use additional cores out there.

schmidtbag:

How many more FPS does your 12900K and 3090 get you compared to a 12600K and a 3080, and how many of those FPS can you honestly differentiate in a blind test? Not only is the performance-per-watt horribly disproportionate, but the performance-per- is too.

I'm not sure why you think P per Watt is horribly disproportionate, check any TPU review of 12900K or 3090 and the P per Watt is very close. If you OC any of these, sure there is worse scaling but at stock speeds and stock TDP limits in place, the hardware with more cores is just as energy efficient when taking total performance into account. https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i5-12600k-alder-lake-12th-gen/images/efficiency-multithread.png

TLD LARS:

It is kind of like a 5950 is not twice as fast in everything then a 5800 would be

the difference between 5950 and 5800 is neither a good point for justifying e-cores nor more p-cores. once you have an 8-core,the most important performance uplifts will then come from more advanced nodes and architectures,not more p-cores or e-cores. then memory + memory controllers and cache sizes then core count

mackintosh:

My electric bill has risen by close to 100% in the last two years.

Why?

Agent-A01:

Restricted from what? Lack of work to do? It is not a problem to max out E cores in applications that can use it.

Intel was to aggressive with moving things to the E cores, leading to slower performance, they adjusted the E core usage down and performance went up.

Agent-A01:

Moot point. 12600K is hardly maxed out in games so that would mean anything beyond 6p cores is irrelevant.

Almost no games scale well past 8 cores, a 12600k is more then plenty for 1440p or 4k, so beyond 8P cores is actually irrelevant and above 6P cores is close to being irrelevant too.

Agent-A01:

That's true for any cpu. If a workload only maxes out a couple cores then of course the rest will be idle.

That is the reason I am trying to say that 50% more E-cores are not going to give you 50% more E core performance.

Agent-A01:

5950x doesn't have e cores? And of course a 5950x won't always be twice as fast as a 5800x because there are work loads that aren't limited by cpu core count like games.. Moot point.

No it does not, I was trying to explain with the sentence (it is kind of like a). Past 8 cores many many programs and games, find the CPU has "enough cores" and therefore scale very badly with the extra cores, no matter if they are P or E.

Agent-A01:

Did you miss the "10-15%" improvement to P core architecture in performance? So how does that mean 0 % improvement?

Disabling the E cores means 0% improvement to E core performance, even though there are 50% more of them. The 10% extra P core performance will bring 10% more performance if thermals and power and efficiency allows it yes, but the disabled E cores still does nothing.

Agent-A01:

Anyways you're obviously not part of the targeted market for this CPU; when you only play CSGO of course there will be minimal improvements.. There's plenty of people that can actually use additional cores out there.

Is this targeted at me? I chose a slow Ryzen 8 core when Intel had the faster 7700k 4 core alternative, so I feel like I am exactly the targeted marked for slow but high core count CPUes.

Airbud:

Why?

wina Tuska