Y'all nitpick much? Just buy yer CPU & enjoy it. Seriously, this is unprecedented levels of hair-splitting & it brings out the worst in y'all.

As for the nm debate, can you see where this is going? If Intel or AMD released a 0nm CPU y'all would buy it, I swear.

For shame, for shame. :D

Quote from: wow on January 22, 2021, 19:26:32
so many AMD shills, insufferable.

@deksman2
@PC gamer

what are you guys smoking? how does single core performance no longer matter? Even outside of gaming, single core determines how fast you open up / process work applications. Multi core performance is nice when you multi-task with lots of different apps or stream or render, but I'll take the single core performance superiority anyday.

Who's the shill here exactly?
I pointed out multiple things wrong with Intel hw (over twice the power consumption needed to barely edge out AMD by meager 12% in single core mainly due to higher clocks - not because of IPC gains).

As for single core mattering... please. That argument stopped being relevant a long time ago because we live in a day and age of multi-core software.
I'm not saying single core performance doesn't matter whatsoever, but I AM saying that Intel is essentially pushing GhZ for minor gains at the expense of efficiency.

These kinds of 'advantages' are pitiful.

I look at the entire package, and efficiency also matters to me because I do gaming, content creation and productivity.

For all of those things combined, AMD hw is simply BETTER because of the superior manufacturing process, superior efficiency, and superior multi-threaded performance (which I use far more).

I'm not going to quibble over a few % in games.
That's just a sad waste of time.

If the rumors about AMD releasing the Zen 3+ based Warhol CPU later this year are true (potentially along with the AM5 socket and DDR5), then Intel is going to need a significant speedup like this to remain competitive.

It would be better for intel:
a) finally obtain the manufacturing edge that has purposefully surrendered to competitors
b) stop pretending it meets with difficulties to produce smaller nodes
c) stop pretending the architecture is all that there is
d) stop using cheap tricks to claim it's somehow competitive with the old 14nm or even 10 nm node.

What's next a single core geekbench score at 6ghz?🤣

At this point why bother going to 10 or 7nm? They can just keep making new architectures and backport it to 14nm, while refining 14nm EVEN MORE so we can get 6 Ghz (chiller not included).

On "old" Asus B450-E Ryzen 9 5900x scores 1714 single core 14 120 multicore. i9 11 900k bet everything to 1 core boost speed. Intel 8 cores 16 threads for price of Ryzen 9 5900x seems meh to me.

Um...  Yeah kind of.   How many i9's are they gonna make that barely compete?   Can we even buy this concept art, or is it just more Intel click bait?   The whole reason for swapping is the waaaaaay better price model and AMD's multitasking capability.   If you're using your machine for more than gaming, AMD is a fantastic choice right now with lots of options.  Intel is playing catch-up.   Single core beyond 4.5GHz is just a perk for gamers these days.   I went from intel to AMD because intel absolutely fails at multitasking hard core.   Running a 3950x, and it smokes everything Intel has out at the moment without overclocking. I'm just saying, another i9 that wins with single core is old news.   Intel has always had good track record on that.   

Intel themselves (Intel's PR department) just the other week stated Rocket Lake saw a 19% IPC improvement over Comet lake clock for clock. Yet here we have an 11900k beating a 10900k, by 32% (both running at the same clockspeed)....??  Hmmmm.  I dunno.

The competition is the 5900 not 5950 your price point is moot as Intel literally has nothing that can compete with the 5950.

Quote from: Zev on January 22, 2021, 20:08:31
These amd chips cost a lot more than the 10900k and potentially the 11900k. I don't see why people say "amd better" but yet pay 2x for a 5950x.

The 5950X is literally 2 5800Xs inside the same power envelope. On a platform that could theoretically give you the option of running it as 2 8c/16t VMs  with their own dedicated GPUs, for less power still than 2 physical boxes. Its an entry level HEDT CPU on the consumer platform, that still sells for less (MSRP) than the 1st 16 core threadripper did. There are greater computing aspirations than getting the highest FPS in the latest COD game.

These amd chips cost a lot more than the 10900k and potentially the 11900k. I don't see why people say "amd better" but yet pay 2x for a 5950x.

The 12% advantage has no real bearing on people already on Ryzen. It's advantageous for people that are either on Z490, or on an older platform and would rather wait for Intel to do something noteworthy than buy AMD. I also question if this geekbench score is influenced by AVX512, which is being added to their 11th Gen. AVX512 is pretty much useless to the crowd Intel would target with these part. Still a fail if they'd rather bring that to the consumer platform as opposed to ECC.

so many AMD shills, insufferable.

@deksman2
@PC gamer

what are you guys smoking? how does single core performance no longer matter? Even outside of gaming, single core determines how fast you open up / process work applications. Multi core performance is nice when you multi-task with lots of different apps or stream or render, but I'll take the single core performance superiority anyday.

Isn't this purely because of avx 512?  Similar issue with the 11700k before

Quote from: G K on January 22, 2021, 12:10:54
regarding why someone would buy for the 12+% gain, given the power usage - Power usage may be important for Server farms and laptop users, this chip is aimed at Desktop gamers a crew that power is not important, to just as single core score outweighs multiple cores for this crowd.  Intel has other chips in the pipe to address the server and laptop markets.

As to some help, unless this is a LN2 cooled score (which I doubt), it is probably a legitimate score.

As to Oh, its over  - Never really began,  Understand the human desire to back the underdog, but anyone that thought that AMD with a couple of successes was going to dominate going forward against a behemoth like Intel is thinking with their heart, not their brain.

I certainly wouldn't bother with Intel.
Weaker security, worse overall performance and efficiency.
Gaming isn't the only metric of value, and to be fair, Intel's only able to produce those scores due to being CLOCKED higher than AMD. Also, if you hadn't noticed, by putting AMD at a very close clock speed, the benchmark do equalize... and that's just for single core... Intel has a massive disadvantage in multi-core which is used for content creation and productivity (a lot of people mix gaming with those things).

So, no, 12% higher performance in single core (mainly due to higher clocks) while losing at multi-core and having 2.5x higher power consumption makes Intel's Rocket Lake a VERY unappealing offer.

Also, data centers are quite important because they are a FAR more lucrative market for companies which produce CPU's.