Unfortunately, besides gaming, it kinda does. I smell some price cuts for Zen 4 mid range CPUs fairly soon.From the article:
Yet from the YouTube thumbnail:
![]()
Seriously, annihilate?!
Unfortunately, besides gaming, it kinda does. I smell some price cuts for Zen 4 mid range CPUs fairly soon.From the article:
Yet from the YouTube thumbnail:
![]()
Seriously, annihilate?!
Different tasks, though. One can't assume that the same power consumption is taking place.just divide the 12 game average by the wattage numbers
227/391 for the 13700k
231/256 for the 7700x
The Ryzen 9 7900X has an MSRP of $549; the Ryzen 7 7700X is $399. Intel's tray price of $409 to $419 puts it between the two, but it's closer to the 7700X in price than the 7900X. Price & performance matters more than total thread count or at the very least, that's what Intel believes otherwise they wouldn't have pitched the 13700K's price at this level.A 16 core CPU (13700K) versus an 8 core cCPU (7700X)..?
The comparison should be with the 7900X a 12 core CPU, still beats or equals the 13700K.
The Ryzen 9 7900X has an MSRP of $549; the Ryzen 7 7700X is $399. Intel's tray price of $409 to $419 puts it between the two, but it's closer to the 7700X in price than the 7900X. Price & performance matters more than total thread count or at the very least, that's what Intel believes otherwise they wouldn't have pitched the 13700K's price at this level.
P and E cores are not equal in terms of performance (they're not even clocked the same, for example), regardless of what multithreaded support it all offers.
All that is irrelevant.A 16 core CPU (13700K) versus an 8 core cCPU (7700X)..?
The comparison should be with the 7900X a 12 core CPU, still beats or equals the 13700K.
Cores are still cores, small or big, P or E, they'll give the advantage in multi-threaded workloads.
A 16 core CPU (13700K) versus an 8 core cCPU (7700X)..?
The comparison should be with the 7900X a 12 core CPU, still beats or equals the 13700K.
Cores are still cores, small or big, P or E, they'll give the advantage in multi-threaded workloads.
I know 6000 is the recommended sweet spot for AMD. Not sure why the Intel is higher, as I believe their "standard" support is 5600 out of the box.Amazing how many cores intel is now offering for less money, but I wonder what would they do if they get away in recovering the top spot?
Anyways, one question snd sorry if I missed it, why is the intel system using faster memory than the AMD (DDR5-6400 vs DDR5-6000)?
I tend to agree with your overall premise. On the mobo front, you can go with a Z690 and save money compared to 790. Only thing you're giving up is Gen 5 support for M.2. Not really that big of a deal right now and by the time you need it you'll be upgrading the system anyway."it can be paired with cheaper DDR4 memory on more affordable Z690 motherboards, so that's a big win in the value department"
-----------------------------------------
I ve never upgraded a CPU alone.
It is not practical if you upgrade in cycles of 3 years or more.
It does not make sense. You buy 13700k which is not a cheap cpu, but decide to save on everything else like ram and motherboard?
I also checked motherboards for both new am5 and z790s. They are about the same in price.
I think we have very even rivals this time. The only pro there is the heat. I assume people who buy one of these cpus will also want to upgrade to upper class video card. And less heat with AMD cpu sounds like a good bonus.
Anyway, we didn't power limit AMD Zen 4 CPUs, so we're not going to for Intel either, rather we'll focus on showing you what the default behavior is./I think this is a bit of a biased approach. It's good to include the default, but you know it makes a difference, and a big one at that, if you power limit. Why not show us both? Seems like you're cherry picking here and slanting the results. Setting power limits in the BIOS is easy.
Now I wonder how that helps Intel in this case.I know 6000 is the recommended sweet spot for AMD. Not sure why the Intel is higher, as I believe their "standard" support is 5600 out of the box.
It may help a little, but I doubt it's more than 1 or 2% at best.Now I wonder how that helps Intel in this case.
Honest question, did you say the same thing when Ryzen was released and first brought 6 and 8-core CPUs to mainstream prices, like did you think that comparing the $170 Ryzen 5 1400 to the $350 i7 7700K would more fair than comparing the i7 to the similarly priced R7 1700, and that the 1600 and 1700 should've been compared to Intel HEDT?A 16 core CPU (13700K) versus an 8 core cCPU (7700X)..?
The comparison should be with the 7900X a 12 core CPU, still beats or equals the 13700K.
Cores are still cores, small or big, P or E, they'll give the advantage in multi-threaded workloads.
Honest question, did you say the same thing when Ryzen was released and first brought 6 and 8-core CPUs to mainstream prices, like did you think that comparing the $170 Ryzen 5 1400 to the $350 i7 7700K would more fair than comparing the i7 to the similarly priced R7 1700, and that the 1600 and 1700 should've been compared to Intel HEDT?
A huge point of the first gen Ryzen and Alder/Raptor Lake for me is bringing higher thread count CPUs to a lower price point, ignoring that and comparing it to more expensive CPUs that have the same amount of threads doesn't make sense to me.
Intel, thanks to their monopoly obtained via many illegal tactics, decided to starve us from having CPU's with more cores until AMD started fighting back with Ryzen.Honest question, did you say the same thing when Ryzen was released and first brought 6 and 8-core CPUs to mainstream prices, like did you think that comparing the $170 Ryzen 5 1400 to the $350 i7 7700K would more fair than comparing the i7 to the similarly priced R7 1700, and that the 1600 and 1700 should've been compared to Intel HEDT?
A huge point of the first gen Ryzen and Alder/Raptor Lake for me is bringing higher thread count CPUs to a lower price point, ignoring that and comparing it to more expensive CPUs that have the same amount of threads doesn't make sense to me.
Didn't deny anything. Simply explained why the 7700X was chosen as the reference point.
But if you look at single-thread and gaming results you can already know that the 13700K is slightly faster than the 7700X even without the E-cores. And they cost basically the same while the 13700K comes with the extra E-cores.But still, a fair mano-a-mano comparison with the 7700x would limit the 13700k to just 8 P cores. Otherwise you're just comparing them on a cost basis, not a technical basis.
...
IMHO platform longevity is most important. AM4 was launched in Sept 2016 and is still a great value. Contrast that with the Rocket Lake platform. It was launched March 2021 and is already passe'. They need to shell out for an entirely new platform. It's funny to hear people who spent a lot of money on Rocket Lake criticize AMD for high priced motherboards. If they had just bought into AM4 in 2016 they would be sitting pretty.
I hated that Intel did that, and criticized them heavily for their thread count deficit at lower price points until they finally matched AMD with Comet Lake.Intel, thanks to their monopoly obtained via many illegal tactics, decided to starve us from having CPU's with more cores until AMD started fighting back with Ryzen.
Now is the other way around for Intel, being the d!cks they are, they are now giving us more cores for less money than AMD is currently charging.
The problem with that is, as usual, Intel will force you to replace your motherboard right away for any upgrades, plus you will pay out of your behind for the power bill.
But the best part is, I know how Intel behaves when on top, so I will do the darnest to make sure they dont get away with that, because we will then go back to 4 core hell with them.