Erm what, my 5950X at stock is getting 690 in CPU Z, some people's 5900X's with PBO get 702....

11900K is garbo.

The 5800x is running at 4.7GHz while the Intel variant is running at 5.2GHz. Not a fair test, put both CPU's at 5GHZ on ice and redo the test.

Agree that this is pretty ridiculous, requiring 138% more power (238% total) to achieve a very minimal win. And as another person pointed out, that's not even including the undoubtedly massive amount of power for cooling.

As for these selling because AMD chips aren't available, these will sell regardless, because a) people are more familiar with the Intel brand, b) Intel is more prevalent, and c) Intel uses, and has used for many years, anti-competitive practices to help push their products over AMD, hence (a) and (b).

And if Intel could take the same exact design to a 10nm or smaller with no other changes, it would absolutely result in an improvement, due to lower power requirements, which would lead to both less power consumption and being able to run faster due to less heat, and less time for the electricity to move through the processor. Granted, these changes wouldn't be major, especially the latter, but they would be there. More importantly, they could add more transistors in a given size, which would result in a more significant performance increase. To me, the fact they've managed to do as well as they have on 14nm, competing with TSMC's 7nm, tells me they have a highly optimized design, but they've squeezed about as much out of it as they can and they really need to shrink their die size, but doing so would likely result in a pretty good performance jump. Again, nothing earth-shattering, but probably fairly substantial.

The thing is, it doesn't matter if it would result in a 10x increase; the bottom line is where they are now, and right now, they're not doing well against AMD. That may change once they get 10/7/5nm figured out, but that's something to be determined once they get there. For now, 14nm is what they have, and it's struggling to hold its own, period.

Some people need TB or other Intel-specific features, but for most people, it's really hard to justify Intel over AMD right now, considering you're getting barely better single-threaded performance, much worse multi-threaded performance, and using more power. But chips shouldn't necessarily be compared based on tiers. ix != Rx necessarily, and it can go either way. People need to look at them based on cost, because, e.g., a $400 i7/R7 vs a $700 R7/i7 are not in the same category and shouldn't be compared against each other, whereas a $400 i7/R7 should be compared to a $500 R5/i5.

Not a 1 for 1 comparison to run the i9-11th gen against the Ryzen 7, run it against the Ryzen 9...

Ignorance on the argument can be found by simply looking at people arguing over something as stupid as nm production.

It is good for Intel to be able to still get some sort of improvement, sure, but thinking that a smaller productive process automatically means multiplying performance is utterly wrong.
Nothing assures you that Intel producing at 7nm would have higher performances than amd, it all depends on how well they manage to structure the whole processor.
Sure you get more transistor density, but it is just a small part of the whole process that leads to performance increases.

The fact that Intel's been trying to produce a working sample at 10nm for years and only succeded recently should make you think about many things.
Also, the fact that for now 10nm is limited for mobile CPUs, and that 10nm desktop architectures will be made with hybrid processors, should make you realize that they are not yet capable to reach high working frequencies on multiple cores, while AMD can finally almost reach your beloved 5ghz, even if they don't need them.

.

While AMD managed to create working and efficient samples at 7nm and has already a working 5nm sample.

And again, nothing can assure you that a future Intel 5nm will be as good as AMD's work.

Also you need to keep in consideration that amd will supposedly have more time to implement new architectures with 5nm productive process.

I mean, you are all talking about how impressive Intel is for producing a cpu that need more than double the power to surpass a 5800x, which is not even their highest cpu.
They needed to reduce cores to achieve this, the i9 is now 8 cores.
Sure the power is amazing, but I guess everybody can push out this kind of power by simply throwing to garbage thermal performances.
I swear I've rarely seen a 5950x going over 200w while pushed in oc, and that's double the cores

Quote from: Ryguy on January 02, 2021, 17:21:37
All the and fanboys crying about how it took intel Alot of power to achieve beating AMDs. Realize there still on 14mm kids, lol. Which is quite impressive, bet amd couldn't pull off the same.

Oh look, another Intel shill trying to pass off the absolute catastrophe that is Intel's manufacturing f***-ups as if it's some sort of achievement. 🤭

AMD can't make a chip this good on GloFo 14nm, for sure - that's why they're on TSMC 7nm and moving to 5nm by the end of this year. When's Intel's equivalent to that - 7nm - due again? 🤔

This is the kind of malformed thinking that leads people to believe the Earth is flat.

Quote from: Tymb on January 03, 2021, 00:09:25
What about AMD PL2 limit? Ignore it because it's not available? Zen can't even reach 5Ghz.

Really? I am now seeing my 5950X boosting to 5.1Ghz..

Great, now put it up against an overclocked 5950X.  LOL.

Quote from: Ryguy on January 02, 2021, 17:21:37
All the and fanboys crying about how it took intel Alot of power to achieve beating AMDs. Realize there still on 14mm kids, lol. Which is quite impressive, bet amd couldn't pull off the same.

If a superior manufacturing process can supposedly give better results for Intel, why aren't they doing it? Why are they sticking to 14nm+++++++, when the smaller AMD can?

Besides, Intel's 14nm is barely worse than TSMC's 7nm.

What about AMD PL2 limit? Ignore it because it's not available? Zen can't even reach 5Ghz.

Intel is not trying to impress anyone, they are trying to sell their competing chips when supply shortages exist from AMD. No CPUs vs CPUs is the logic here. Rocket lake will also have PCIE 4.0 which kept many from purchasing their existing line-up. These next chips will sell if shortages remain.

Intel still having trouble bringing desktop 10nm, most likely because those chips have bad yield and having trouble getting them to boost as high as the current 14++++++ cpu.

Quote from: S.Yu on January 02, 2021, 16:57:28
This is already pretty impressive considering this is still running on 14nm.

No, it's not. Actually, Intel's 14nm are almost equal to TSMC's 7 nm, there isn't that much room for improvement. Moreover - ever wondered why they make only mobile 10nm chips? These aren't as frequency scalable as 14nm chips, yet much more energy efficient at lower frequencies. Intel is indeed in weird situation when they can't compete with AMD, only lower the prices.

All the and fanboys crying about how it took intel Alot of power to achieve beating AMDs. Realize there still on 14mm kids, lol. Which is quite impressive, bet amd couldn't pull off the same.

This is already pretty impressive considering this is still running on 14nm.