Nope. The 11600k can barely (and in some cases cant) maintain 60 fps. Cyberpunk, ms flight sim, new world are games that even the 5950x struggles to maintain 60 minimum.
Interesting, but certainly a valid point: price point vs progress. However, let me augment the picture you described slightly
). There were a ton of clock-for-clock comparisons through 4-6 generations from Intel, and it seemed, for a long time, that there is no real innovation from them, just higher out-of-the-box clock speeds and (eventually) more cores, keeping up the illusion of progress.
The only defence for Intel is nonsense. Not really a shock is it?
That's because something is.
I think it's more that the smaller cores produce less heat and use less juice because their power efficiency levels are crap compared to AMD's. Never forget that Intel is trying to defeat an architecture that was designed by the greatest IC designer on Earth. AMD hired Jim Keller, the creator of the Athlon 64 and father of 64-bit computing.
That's the same BS defence that Intel tried using to explain why their compiler was intentionally designed to hamstring a CPU based on its CPU ID alone.
1) But the same applies to Ryzen. For example the 1700 (same price point as the 5600x) could be easily overclocked 33% up, while the 5600x is pretty much maxed out. Actually overclocking the latter lowers your single thread performance.Interesting, but certainly a valid point: price point vs progress. However, let me augment the picture you described slightly
1) 6700K being 45% faster than 2600K: that is mainly because Intel allowed that much higher clock speeds out of the box for the latter (while at the same time the 2600K was VERY conservatively clocked, one even might say severely held back...thanks God it was dead easy to overclock to 4.5
2) Intel's very successful (ring bus style) cache architecture was told to be optimised for 4 cores, so understandably, they wanted to stick with it. Without any competition, they could do just that. For 6 (!) generations, they launched 4 core 8 thread CPUs as their flagship consumer models. If you wanted to have more cores, you had to go "enterprise", with astronommical prices (think $1000+ for a 6-core Xeon (yes, the same which you can buy now off Ebay for about 15 quid) plus a $3-400 motherboard)
3) Your 8700K (cracking little CPU, btw) is most probably the result of AMD's rising competition. If they didn't launch Ryzen, maybe we still would be uising 4/8 CPUs (like the 7700K, which has the same microarchitectrue as your 8700K...or the 9900K, coming to that), as "they are the best". Also, if you have a look at those above-mentioned clock for clock, core for core comparisons, I wonder what you would make of Intel's prgress over the past few years (let's skip "ancient" history, and just start with your 8700K)
4) AMD is bringing solid IPC increase with every generation so far. I wonder if they can keep it up. Either way, the good thing is that there is SOME competition at least, vs Intel monopoly for a decade with quad core processors as the pinnacle consumer technology. And just to make clear, when times were different, and AMD Athlons ruled the world while Intel's P4 was a laughing stock, it was not good either (then it was AMD's CPU prices which started to inflate disproportionally)
For one reason or another, it seems that we have turned into an era where semiconductor products are getting more expensive (instead of getting cheaper), so it may never return that for $300 you can buy a flagship model. With pandemics and the hysteria around it, with rare-metal prices going up, with manufactoring monopolies (I'm looking at you, TSMC), with China's global (manufacturer of the world) role quiestionned, and with so many other factors, it is difficult to say or see. But I don't think it is Intel's or AMD's fault.
I for one believe that innovation is there (especially in the CPU segment, more than ever before), only (sadly) it costs more, and as a result, previously established price points are being overwritten before our very eyes.
He also worked on the all mighty DEC Alpha!
Actually, I believe that instead of artificially holding the CPU back to extract more money from the customer, AMD simply sells the device at its real maximum speed.
Let's be honest here though. It's not like AMD hasn't done the same. Fanboy mentalities need to take a long walk off a short pier.
I'm gonna do exactly the same... aka refurbished 40€ noctua into a 2700 and oc until it smokes
You are right: the 5xxx series from AMD are pricey little buggers. I personally blame the pandemics madness for that, but who knows.
Interesting info but can you assert the perf difference would exist if they were manufactured on the same process?
I don't think that x86 will be able to scale down to ARM-levels of power consumption because x86's instruction set is much larger and more capable than ARM's. ARM was chosen for mobile devices because it's very power-efficient and mobile devices don't require the same functionality as a PC.
Speaking of fanboy mentalities, making false equivalencies like what you just did there is one of the signs of an Intel or nVidia fanboy. That's why your post has zero likes after almost twenty hours in a very active thread.
You beat me to it.
I don't recall saying anything about a performance difference. Intel's performance has always been good. However, their power efficiency has been terrible as of late. Why else would they come up with this 8 "smaller cores" idea? You do make a great point, it could be the process used because that does have a direct impact on power efficiency. At the same time, there's a reason why Zen won the same award Sandy Bridge did. It's a revolutionary architecture that scales linearly with core count, is extremely power efficient and is even modular in design. The modular design makes the manufacturing process far cheaper and easier by minimising the number of defective dice and therefore maximising wafer yields.
That's just it. NOBODY can achieve higher scores with weaker cores. Intel was clearly involved in this Ashes of the Singularity v3.1 update. Why else would it be able to use 16 cores but only 24 threads? Such a configuration has never existed before and technically, still doesn't. This update was MADE SPECIFICALLY for Intel's 16-core/24-thread CPU.
You could be right and we're only speculating. Like most things, it's probably a little bit of this and a little bit of that.
AMD has never mislead people... Interesting.Speaking of fanboy mentalities, making false equivalencies like what you just did there is one of the signs of an Intel or nVidia fanboy. That's why your post has zero likes after almost twenty hours in a very active thread.
You beat me to it.
I don't recall saying anything about a performance difference. Intel's performance has always been good. However, their power efficiency has been terrible as of late. Why else would they come up with this 8 "smaller cores" idea? You do make a great point, it could be the process used because that does have a direct impact on power efficiency. At the same time, there's a reason why Zen won the same award Sandy Bridge did. It's a revolutionary architecture that scales linearly with core count, is extremely power efficient and is even modular in design. The modular design makes the manufacturing process far cheaper and easier by minimising the number of defective dice and therefore maximising wafer yields.
Using smaller cores for increased power efficiency is something that Intel could have done long ago but there was no need for it like there is now. In truth, I don't really care about power efficiency at the PC level and neither does Intel. Hell, I used a Piledriver CPU and it drank juice like an alcoholic with a gin mixer. The reason that Intel is concerned about their power use is the fact that AMD is just smacking them around left and right in the server space. Xeon isn't even close to being a match for EPYC and THAT is where Intel is losing a crap-tonne of profit.
That's just it. NOBODY can achieve higher scores with weaker cores. Intel was clearly involved in this Ashes of the Singularity v3.1 update. Why else would it be able to use 16 cores but only 24 threads? Such a configuration has never existed before and technically, still doesn't. This update was MADE SPECIFICALLY for Intel's 16-core/24-thread CPU.
AOTS' performance scales linearly with thread count so a 32-thread CPU would most likely destroy a 24-thread CPU. Remember that when maxed out, regardless of cores, a 24-thread CPU behaves more like a dodecacore CPU than a hexadecacore CPU. This version of AOTS was designed to make it appear that Intel was beating AMD in multi-thread by limiting the AMD CPU to only 75% of its available threads. In fact, what we appear to see here is a next-gen Intel product having better IPC than a current-gen AMD product. However, that's possibly not even the case because if the scheduler is using 24 threads, the Intel CPU is defintiely using 16 physical cores and 8 SMT logical cores. The 5950X could be doing the same but it's far more likely that it's using 12 physical and 12 logical cores. Physical cores always outperform SMT logical cores by a certain margin so that could be another artificial advantage for Intel.
You could be right and we're only speculating. Like most things, it's probably a little bit of this and a little bit of that.
So you are saying that AMD has never misled anyone...? I said they both do which is the opposite of fanboy. Keep drinking your cup of stupid.
Eh? Modern CPU's don't count x86, they count RISC like instructions. Power consumption wise about only real problem is logic that translates x86 instructions into RISC like instructions and other way around. That consumes quite little power however. It's just that modern x86 CPU's are mainly designed for higher power use. No real efforts for very low power x86 chips were ever made because ARM has so strong foothold. And why would any customer that want very low power CPU's want to use much less used x86 and lock themselves into AMD or Intel CPUs? Other choice is ARM that offers licences for virtually anyone.
If putting in smaller cores instead of fully featured ones allows you to have different thermals, that would affect how you can clock it which can allow you to achieve higher scores. 5950X vs 5900X... what are the base clock speeds? It's literally the premise that massive core count server CPUs are bound by - they trade off clock speed for massive parallelism. The point here is that the Intel hyperthread cores aren't terribly useful in such large numbers. Removing them doesn't cost you much but you can gain a lot by improving your clock speeds by doing so.
