Intel's Core i9-12900K beats Ryzen 9 5950X by 39% in Ashes of the Singularity

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,435   +2,065
Ok so why would you expect Intel to update the benchmark to benefit their competitors products and not theirs?
I never said that, but you saying amd should update the benchmark is not accurate only the vendor of the software can do that. I posted that tweet so everyone can see this was an intel sponsored benchmark. Take what you want from that info.
 
Last edited:

J Oelschl

Posts: 9   +10
Serious Question: Other than for laptops that have battery considerations, is anyone asking for the big core/little core on the desktop? I mean as a desktop user I want all big core. I do not really care about "energy efficiency" when doing video editing or gaming. I would rather have 16 big cores/32 threads than 8 big/16 thread + 8 small/8 thread. I can see making a power efficient solution for laptops or datacenter products but not desktops. What am I missing? It is like a product no one is asking for! No one is going to use these chips in a tablet or IoT device as that space has been domimated by low power ARM solutions.
 

Aryassen

Posts: 175   +213
Intel nor AMD really aren’t “evil”. It’s just fantasy. I genuinely pity anyone who feels one is more evil than the other.

No one said Intel is "evil" or that AMD is "good". It was only said that it is suspicious that a relatively unplayed (though hugely anticipated back in the day) game suddenly gets an update, just before the release of Intel's new processor. The wildest "accusation" (if I can call it even that) was that it has "paid optimisation" written all over it. No one said Intel is evil...apart from...you know....you...(as a sarcastic exaggeration, I presume)
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 857   +707
No one said Intel is "evil" or that AMD is "good". It was only said that it is suspicious that a relatively unplayed (though hugely anticipated back in the day) game suddenly gets an update, just before the release of Intel's new processor. The wildest "accusation" (if I can call it even that) was that it has "paid optimisation" written all over it. No one said Intel is evil...apart from...you know....you...(as a sarcastic exaggeration, I presume)
No, they didn’t. I said Intel wasn’t evil and I got sent this shady forum post as some kind of argument that they are.

But I have to say it’s pretty desperate stuff. It doesn’t even look like “paid optimisation” it looks like Intel have updated a benchmark to use their latest hardware. It just looks like regular optimisation. Why would they update it for their competitor? What fool believes they would or should?

My suggestion to those who are at work already trying to discredit Intel ahead of their new product release. Try something else. It’s not possible to pay money to twist benchmarks, they might be able to twist some but never all. We will know how it performs.
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 857   +707
Serious Question: Other than for laptops that have battery considerations, is anyone asking for the big core/little core on the desktop? I mean as a desktop user I want all big core. I do not really care about "energy efficiency" when doing video editing or gaming. I would rather have 16 big cores/32 threads than 8 big/16 thread + 8 small/8 thread. I can see making a power efficient solution for laptops or datacenter products but not desktops. What am I missing? It is like a product no one is asking for! No one is going to use these chips in a tablet or IoT device as that space has been domimated by low power ARM solutions.
Personally I don’t care about the core sizes or counts. What matters is performance. If 8 big and 8 little cores beats a competitors 16 big cores then I would pick that product.

People already put too much weight on core count in CPUs as it is. How often do you see gamers with 8, 10 or 12 cores for example.

My advice to anyone looking at this is don’t let yourself get suckered into comparing the specifications of chips from different manufacturers. Look at the performance numbers for what you actually use it for.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 883   +1,678
Serious Question: Other than for laptops that have battery considerations, is anyone asking for the big core/little core on the desktop? I mean as a desktop user I want all big core. I do not really care about "energy efficiency" when doing video editing or gaming. I would rather have 16 big cores/32 threads than 8 big/16 thread + 8 small/8 thread. I can see making a power efficient solution for laptops or datacenter products but not desktops. What am I missing? It is like a product no one is asking for! No one is going to use these chips in a tablet or IoT device as that space has been domimated by low power ARM solutions.
Same boat as you.

I think they are doing this out of desperation to "innovate" but I also fail to see why this is needed on a desktop.


One thing that looks like it might not change, x86 might not be able to scale down to ARM power consumption levels and maintaining the same or better performance, so they will always be limited to desktops and servers.

But who knows, maybe we are wrong and there is future for this.
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,435   +2,065
Um...apparently a 10850 and 11700 are ALSO faster than a 5950x? Something sounds fishy to me.
Yup and I'm not that guy. I like to vette everything and don't just believe it because it was posted by a marketing person or a "leaker" And that goes for AMD stuff also not just intel.

Some people just want to believe and not ask questions.... to each their own.
 
Whilst I detest Red, Blue and Green fanboyism there is a pretty strong reason to be so (sometimes irrationally) protective of AMD; because without them this performance jump would not exist.

Those involved with CPUs for only the last few years are luckily ignorant of the pathetic state of the CPU market and without AMD that's where we'd be.

Like it or not Intel are playing catchup to a smaller company and THAT is exactly why, if this story is to be given credence, why we are seeing this performance jump.

AMD are first and foremost a business but they are solely responsible, up until now, of drammatically pushing the CPU envelope and to keep things progressing as we are we need AMD to grow a lot more...at least until we finally move on to ARM designs then competition will no longer be a two horse race.

 

Beerfloat

Posts: 305   +532
No one said Intel is "evil" or that AMD is "good". It was only said that it is suspicious that a relatively unplayed (though hugely anticipated back in the day) game suddenly gets an update, just before the release of Intel's new processor. The wildest "accusation" (if I can call it even that) was that it has "paid optimisation" written all over it. No one said Intel is evil...apart from...you know....you...(as a sarcastic exaggeration, I presume)

Sadly this trope is very prevalent here in the Techspot comments section.
 

Beerfloat

Posts: 305   +532
Wouldn't be the first time



When Star Dock is a tiny developer, an update this big 5 years later (with a daily player count around thirty) has "paid optimization" written all over it!

Yeah, it never was much more than a benchmark title.

Remember how hardly anyone ever actually played AotS, but it still used to be part of the test suite of many review sites because it demonstrated 'async compute', which made AMD's GCN architecture look competitive?
Never mind that it pretty much proved relevant for one thing only, ie showing how well AotS ran..

Anyway, interesting that for this particular task, the efficiency cores seem to hold their own against Zen 3 full fat cores. Not likely that we'll be seeing that across the board.
 

Rocky4040

Posts: 16   +22
Why haven’t AMD updated the benchmark? And also a screenshot of a forum post isn’t exactly hard evidence...

I was just commenting that everyone jumps to the conclusion that these companies are “evil”, usually out of spite. There is little to no evidence of malpractice from these companies these days. The most recent was some class action against AMD about core counts on its FX parts.

Intel nor AMD really aren’t “evil”. It’s just fantasy. I genuinely pity anyone who feels one is more evil than the other.
Why not just go and look at the actual change log on the game dev's website if it says the same thing then all of these comments that were made by some here are actually kind of valid if it does not say the say the same thing then you can call Horse pucky on it all...lol
 

Darth Shiv

Posts: 2,225   +799
I'm thinking 24 thread enables Intel to bump up the single thread perf a bit as opposed to if they ran 16C/32T...
 

Todd Sauve

Posts: 40   +50
What difference does it make? You get 200 fps with one CPU and 250 with the other. Why would you even care about that?
 

Strawman

Posts: 362   +214
Yup the story can use and update with that additional info

View attachment 87960

You realize AOTS was the go to benchmark for AMD back when Ryzen was released? You realize it was the first game to get an update to support the new ryzens and their many cores and weird interconnection? Did you bring up those conspiracy theories back when stardock was doing the same for Amd or it only bothers you now that it does it for intel?
 

Strawman

Posts: 362   +214
Serious Question: Other than for laptops that have battery considerations, is anyone asking for the big core/little core on the desktop? I mean as a desktop user I want all big core. I do not really care about "energy efficiency" when doing video editing or gaming. I would rather have 16 big cores/32 threads than 8 big/16 thread + 8 small/8 thread. I can see making a power efficient solution for laptops or datacenter products but not desktops. What am I missing? It is like a product no one is asking for! No one is going to use these chips in a tablet or IoT device as that space has been domimated by low power ARM solutions.
But the question isnt about 8 small vs 8 big cores. 4 small cores take up the same space as 1 big core, and they perform better. Therefore for your needs, which is multithreaded tasks just having small cores would be better than big cores.
 

Strawman

Posts: 362   +214
Whilst I detest Red, Blue and Green fanboyism there is a pretty strong reason to be so (sometimes irrationally) protective of AMD; because without them this performance jump would not exist.

Those involved with CPUs for only the last few years are luckily ignorant of the pathetic state of the CPU market and without AMD that's where we'd be.
You need to check your facts and your numbers. If anything performance has stagnated now. Remember the 2011-2015 era that the high end mainstream cpu cost 300-330 euro? The prices remained static, and the performance increase was around 45% (2600k to 6700k). Numbers taken from cinebench.

Fast forward to today, and in the same msrp (around 300) in the same 4 years the performance increase was.... 33% (1700 to 5600x). If we go with overclock numbers since the 1700 was a huge overclocker that drops down to 15-20%!! So amd gave us less of a performance increase than intel did.

Funny thing is with the same money I bought my overclocked 8700k I can buy a 5600x. The difference between the two of them is around 15% when both overclocked. Wow, after 3 years, we got 15% perfornance for the same amount of money....
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 2,724   +4,260
Assuming youll keep the cpu for more than a year, there will be a game where one cpu does 50 fps and the other 65.
In 15 years you mean. Quad core CPUs can still maintain 60 FPS in modern titles despite being "obsolete" for 5 years now. Hell a pentium 6505 can just barely manage 60, and that's a dual core with no AVX.
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,435   +2,065
You realize AOTS was the go to benchmark for AMD back when Ryzen was released? You realize it was the first game to get an update to support the new ryzens and their many cores and weird interconnection? Did you bring up those conspiracy theories back when stardock was doing the same for Amd or it only bothers you now that it does it for intel?

lol what conspiracy theories?

That post is just sharing a tweet and it seems to be bringing out the IDF.