I think they'll be fine, thanks to Dr. Su and their brilliant crop of engineers now. Zen 3 with V-Cache might retake the performance crown at least in some games and apps or extend their lead, and Zen 4 will be a wider architecture on TSMC's 5nm process. Raptor Lake is rumored to not be a massive change from the Alder Lake cores (probably like Sandy to Ivy Bridge or Ivy to Haswell)
Actually I would appreciate a 3090 benchmark as well since Nvidia has higher driver overhead (the scheduler is implemented in software whereas AMD has a hardware scheduler).
Lol. So you predict AMD will storm back and Intel will stagnate. I think you might be looking through red-tinted glasses mate.
Yup agreed and also ~85% of the market use those Nvidia drivers. It would also be nice if we had some CPU bound games to be tested. All the “draws” here look GPU bound,
I think there are few points to make here. The Ryzen gen 3 is a year old now. So the expectation should be that Intel should win with a brand new processor. Also, electricity over time does have a cost. Sure 130 watts over an hour might only cost you around $0.02. But, let's say you have the processor for 4 years and you average running it at full power just 2 hours a day. That's around $60. Also these motherboards for Intel are more expensive. The difference in price is easily made up by the difference in motherboard prices provided you are trying to build within a budget. So to claim these processors are cheaper is a bit misleading considering to use them properly, you have to spend more. Also, cooling is a bigger problem, so you'll likely need to spend more there as well. Overall this processor will cost you more, and so the truck example stands.
So you equate $60 over 4 years as being a considerable sum of money? That's not even 1 AAA video game at retail price...
Lmao, youve come up with a pretty unrealistic hypothetical scenario to demonstrate that it will cost you $60 over 3 years. I’m sorry but you won’t notice that, energy prices fluctuate by a lot more than that. Not to mention it’s nothing compared to the power consumption of heating etc. Its not worth spending more and losing performance on the 5950X.
Typical for sIntel, at least as I see it, it comes down to two words: Marketing Blather.
Destroyed would mean it was better in everything, that is not the case. AMD still wins in multicore average performance in content creating programs, while doing so it is also being more energy efficient, not hitting thoose insane 241watts. ADL does pull ahead in gaming for sure, but that lead looks to be alot smaller if not equaled with Zen 3D releasing in a few month.
$60 over 4 years is only one factor I pointed out. The others are more direct and immediate. It will be harder to cool, and it does require a more expensive motherboard to take full advantage of the CPU. You can get an X570 motherboard that is completely adequate for the 5950X for $180 and that's been since launch. The cheapest Z690 is around $250 and that is low end. Then with current DDR5 costs, that is another factor. Also, there is the PSU, which will cost you a bit more too as you'll likely want to buy one with 150-200 watts higher rating, especially if you want to do any overclocking. If you want maximum "AMD butt-kicking" performance out of this thing, you are going to pay for it. I don't care whether Intel or AMD is ahead, its not a big deal to me. I will replace my PC in a few more years, I don't have to have the latest and greatest at any given moment. I realize that the benefit of having a slightly faster process is negligible to what I'm doing with my PC 99% of the time. For me cost are always a factor because I look for the best performance to costs and right now this still is not it.
You appear to have misread the review. The 12900K won in all tests except blender and Corona. Far more people use premiere pro than either of those programmes and also Intel only lost by a few percent, making it still better value.
Looking at the relatively small IPC advancements going from Sandy to Ivy all the way to Skylake, perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised. AMD managed better going from Zen 1/+ to Zen 3. But Gelsinger is just starting out so let's see how the next couple years go.
wccftech.com
Nope. More power bring drawn will increase the wattage of the necessary PSU. Anyway, the main problem is the heat here.
I seen article where newest Intel cpu in gaming in 1080p was -2 - 7% faster than 1 year old ryzen, where intel platform (not CPU alone) is more expensive, and where professional usage is hindered by high power consumption (and cost aside this will negatively impact work culture as you need to dissipate additional Watts). What article did you see? Or maybe "up to" 7% is for some reason big enough to call it 'destroying'?
at average it is 3-4 % in 1080p, probably nearly nothing in 4k gaming.
OK, it was just an example. Anyway, I don't want those Temps in my rig.
Gelsinger doesn't make CPUs... and AMD only improved so much because there were so many improvements to be made for them - remember, until Zen, Intel was thrashing them!
Hey guy, forget about the price of electricity. More watts mean more heat and better cooling solution. This is the real problem.
But there are plenty of coolers that will handle the CPU without throttling... Will they cost more... YES... should that matter if you are purchasing a top-of-the-line CPU? NO!
