Kind of ironic as if ppl act like the 5950x or even 5900x dont pull upwards of 200w on an all core or r23 all core overclock/run. Then what you think the intels pulling 200w on single core loads too as if zen3 doesnt run 125-140w as it is for gaming.

IMO the "results" or leak's illustrious gap from previous intel and zen3...is largely in part to the new chipset and ddr5. This should be obvious as if am4 isnt end of life. im sure zen3 with ddr5 and 3d v cache could do am4 some well. AMDs doing the same thing new board/chipset and ddr5 to push their new socket past the zen3+ refresh cpus....or did people forget those are coming as the AMD fanbois say am5 is soon. Just wait for am5.

I got a 5900x c16 3600 mem bc im using my system/cpu in stock with xmp....theres a level of ease and still high computing i get there.
I hear/expect intel to apparently be priced under the 5950x with the 12900k....thats something to "CONSIDER" when paying 100+ more for a motherboard over a x570S tomahawk or etc, as well as 100+ more for ddr5 and first iterations of it with most likely as loose timings as ddr5 is going to have...im more interested in the 13900k and am5 myself. As well as better ddr5 kits eventually coming out...as the concurrent cost and irony aspects to kick in with RAM chud purchases and being GATED into chipsets with intel with 12/13th/14th gen launches and equally "FASTER" ddr5 kits per gen.....

Does any of this BS smell any different than when zen first launched and there were various ram kits right up into zen2 that didnt even work with amd. As fools owned anywhere from ddr4 2400-3000....to ultimately upgrade their "CPU" to zen3 if possible....and yet another ram upgrade....

Intel k series comes with its  own tax....of b-die mem, plat psu(for the constant crashes) for the OC voltage limits and max timings on the b die....and cpu.....and gpu...and LLC. That whole process vs a cpu-z which core failed Undervolt/oc curve for AMD....much like the current state of GPU overclocking....custom voltage curve.

Fanbois call that process buggy but then forego the constant crashouts and bsod...of their idiotic OC efforts and "USED" b-die kits bc they wont even pay full price to maximize their min-max 225w+ system.

Imagine trying to push every "MODERN" or future gen of intel on ITX...youd need a custom loop. Most of their laptops already need undervolts to prevent throttling...and zen3 on laptops is equally as impossible to implement...as far as a duel load on a system.

I think people are a lil too delusional with their idealisms as if big corporations give a damn about them and thats their biggest concern LMFAO.

Prior to my 5900x current system that im locked in for until ddr5 solidifies and its prices reach a stable point....i got a 9750h 1660ti laptop to replace my 2500k system. Back when intel pushed sub 300$ cpus that were able to compete with intel extreme processors and x58 without the x58 board price and quad channel ram...for games. It was ground breaking and since then the 9700k didnt have HT when my system died and it was still better in games than zen2 by a mile. Coupled with 200$+ of ram and an aggressive OC just to stay relavent out of the box just like my 2500k day 1. Nothings changed.  Since then where ppl were getting DFI and ASrock boards to unlock their duel core phenom II cpu into quad core....AMD/board makers has always offered the consumer an "ACCESS" point to gaming with aspects like that. As intel was just limited by aspects of HT, Cache, ram speeds, and vrm for hitting max oc which entails a board premium.

only ppl that buy into hype are ppl that dont see how ironic things have been since pentium D vs pentium 4 HT if that

Quote from: Hct3000 on August 31, 2021, 01:26:09
Getting as bad as Wccftech this place. I mean Intel themselves are only claiming a 19% ipc increase, yet according to this it's going to over 25% vs 11900k, unless it's boosting over 5.3ghz... Also, anyone believing that 8 big cores with HT, plus 8 little cores, 24 threads in all is going to beat a 16 big core 32 thread zen 3 part in heavy threaded workloads need their head looking at...

This is so unbelievable, I don't understand why websites are mopping it all up, pretty sure *TigerLake had some fantastic Geekbench leaks too. 🙄

Correction *RocketLake

Getting as bad as Wccftech this place. I mean Intel themselves are only claiming a 19% ipc increase, yet according to this it's going to over 25% vs 11900k, unless it's boosting over 5.3ghz... Also, anyone believing that 8 big cores with HT, plus 8 little cores, 24 threads in all is going to beat a 16 big core 32 thread zen 3 part in heavy threaded workloads need their head looking at...

This is so unbelievable, I don't understand why websites are mopping it all up, pretty sure TigerLake had some fantastic Geekbench leaks too. 🙄

There are 4 things that an Intel product needs to do to beat AMD. 

First, it needs to run without overclocking.  Traditionally, Intel could not manufacture parts that perform well, consistently.

Second, it needs to run with air cooling (Noctua).  Nobody is going to water cool a data center, Nobody is going to water cool a laptop, water cooling doesn't matter.

Third, it needs not t9 thermally throttle 30-60 after it hits its peak processing ratel that's a FAIL that Intel chips (especially Y-series laptop chips) have been doing for years and years.

Last, it needs to be more than a paper launch, Intel needs to be able to make 1M parts a month, these last few years they can only make enough to seed the reviewers, about 1K flagship parts per month ... consumers?  Can't get any!

I see no evidence that Intel can do all 4 things!

I would be more surprised if this wasn't true! I believe that Intel is pulling ahead by that amount in both Single and Multi-thread performance. It is a new architecture(finally). The real question is whether it will be able to compete with AMDs Ryzen 6000 series. And the fact that Intel will release first, means that AMD know exactly what they need to beat. I would also be surprised if a 6950x didn't out-perform the 12900k! Intel is heading in the right direction, and they won't relinquish the Gaming title without a fight. Hopefully this means better tech, and (hopefully) competitive pricing.

Quote from: Wildcard on July 23, 2021, 03:12:53

Quote from: Venkat Sellappan on July 22, 2021, 16:38:47
LIQUID COOLER? No Thanks. "Twitter user @oneRaichu claims to be in possession of a Core i9-12900K QS chip, and ran it through a Cinebench R20 run at stock settings, with a liquid cooler in the mix"

Quote from: Venkat Sellappan on July 22, 2021, 16:38:47
LIQUID COOLER? No Thanks. "Twitter user @oneRaichu claims to be in possession of a Core i9-12900K QS chip, and ran it through a Cinebench R20 run at stock settings, with a liquid cooler in the mix"

Exactly. They're running a 'K' sample with liquid cooling. Shouldn't a ground-breaking architecture NOT need to be pushed to such extremes already, in order to be competitive? And naturally, those prepared to spend vast amounts on requisite motherboards and coolers, are then going to pay yet more in the form of obtaining an unlocked multiplier.

Ridiculous, in my opinion. AMD is where it wants to be, and envisaged what Intel is about to offer. AMD also has a solid, proven platform that can deliver on several fronts. This speculative Intel part has to be run on liquid cooling and clocked to the hilt, sucking amps like a Dyson sucks dust in order to compete with something that runs cooler and costs less overall, then isn't the writing on the wall..?

This guy has no idea what he's talking about 😂

Quote from: Venkat Sellappan on July 22, 2021, 16:38:47
LIQUID COOLER? No Thanks. "Twitter user @oneRaichu claims to be in possession of a Core i9-12900K QS chip, and ran it through a Cinebench R20 run at stock settings, with a liquid cooler in the mix"

Quote from: Venkat Sellappan on July 22, 2021, 16:38:47
LIQUID COOLER? No Thanks. "Twitter user @oneRaichu claims to be in possession of a Core i9-12900K QS chip, and ran it through a Cinebench R20 run at stock settings, with a liquid cooler in the mix"

Exactly. They're running a 'K' sample with liquid cooling. Shouldn't a ground-breaking architecture NOT need to be pushed to such extremes already, in order to be competitive? And naturally, those prepared to spend vast amounts on requisite motherboards and coolers, are then going to pay yet more in the form of obtaining an unlocked multiplier.

Ridiculous, in my opinion. AMD is where it wants to be, and envisaged what Intel is about to offer. AMD also has a solid, proven platform that can deliver on several fronts. This speculative Intel part has to be run on liquid cooling and clocked to the hilt, sucking amps like a Dyson sucks dust in order to compete with something that runs cooler and costs less overall, then isn't the writing on the wall..?

I seem to recall a previous occasion whereby Intel touted what they claimed was a game-changer CPU. The problem? Intel weren't so fourthcoming on the power supplies required to run it stable. The CPU was neither practical nor affordable. I have a sneaking suspicion we may be seeing history repeat iteself; that Intel it literally coasting on its own fumes simply as a means of buying time and NOT putting faster, better products on the table that everyone can afford.

There are those here who say power draw doesn't matter. Well, do those people remember AMD Bulldozer? Do they remember the architecture's requisite cooling? Intel had the better architecture; one that could be clocked lower and still blow BD out the water. In the end BD simply could not compete except in very specific workloads. Squeezing extra performance from an architecture that draws more power - a LOT more than the competition - is a predicament both Intel and AMD have fallen into over time.. it never ends well.

Overall I think that at the moment we have some decent competition between AMD and Intel; that most of the products on offer from both camps are more than good enough for gaming - at 4K you're almost entirely reliant upon the GPU. Does Intel seriously think people are going to care about single-threaded performance in this day and age? I think most people will look for the best overall solution (including system longevity and compatibility), and in that regard, I think AMD will continue to win hands down.

LIQUID COOLER? No Thanks. "Twitter user @oneRaichu claims to be in possession of a Core i9-12900K QS chip, and ran it through a Cinebench R20 run at stock settings, with a liquid cooler in the mix"

Quote from: Kevin King on July 22, 2021, 15:47:38
We all pretty much know these benchmarks are faker than Joan Rivers. I have no doubt that Alder Lake will be faster than Zen 3. On the flip side AMD already has Zen 4 in their pocket promising a 20%+ IPC uplift running on 5nm. With AMD's track record with Ryzen, we have no reason to doubt the 20%+ IPC uplift over Zen 3 they are expecting.  Intel on the underhand has years of overpromising & underdelivering.

I see AMD maintaining the lead over Intel for at least the next 2 years.

We knew that something like a 12900K would beat the 5900X in multithreaded. From there it's a climb to 5950X, but maybe not impossible if one of the assumptions about Alder Lake is wrong. +25% IPC and +10% clock on the Golden Cove cores would get 8 of them close to 12 Zen 3. Then 8 Gracemont have to match 4 Zen 3. Those Gracemont cores are clocked at up to nearly 4 GHz on the 12900K. Also take into account that Alder Lake can use DDR5 which has some serious design advantages over DDR4. Maybe DDR5 will be entirely responsible for the good benchmarks and performance will suffer if Alder Lake uses DDR4, which it will on the cheap OEM systems.

AMD doesn't just have an IPC increase coming. They have the 3D V-Cache for a +15% average gaming boost. They can put that on Zen 3 and get close to Alder Lake. When Zen 4 arrives, they will have an IPC increase, DDR5, 3D V-Cache, and maybe more.

We all pretty much know these benchmarks are faker than Joan Rivers. I have no doubt that Alder Lake will be faster than Zen 3. On the flip side AMD already has Zen 4 in their pocket promising a 20%+ IPC uplift running on 5nm. With AMD's track record with Ryzen, we have no reason to doubt the 20%+ IPC uplift over Zen 3 they are expecting.  Intel on the underhand has years of overpromising & underdelivering.

I see AMD maintaining the lead over Intel for at least the next 2 years. 

Who did the Benchmarking???  Intel?   Super cooled and overclocked???

Make a big fake announcement to stall AMD sales??  Never seen this tactic before.

If the result is accurate and is confirmed by other benchmarks, the small cores are pulling a lot of weight. Like 8 Gracemont Atom = 4 Zen 3 or something.

Quote from: Wildcard on July 22, 2021, 04:35:33
A 'next-gen' architecture pulling 200 watts? I'd hardly call that progress.

Furthermore even if this has a higher IPC than everything in its wale, it doesn't alter the fact that Ryzen 5000 is good; is right where AMD wants it to be; and is part of a much broader roadmap. Zen 4 buidls on AMD's proven ability to design, plan and deliver great products at great prices, with great system longevity. Intel of late seems to be in a pickle, literally doing anything and anything to paper over its own cracks. I also wonder whether Intel will be ploughing even more money into 'diversity' policies instead of focusing on delivering products and services the markets actually want.

So yeah, let's see that clock speed and REAL TDP rating, shall we? Let's see the cost? And I don't think I'll have to ask in order to see AMD step upto the next gear and improve upon its track record as planned.

What will Intel do then.. pump even more core voltage into a CPU? Run the core even higher? Continue to charge a premium for an single-digit increase in single-core performance? Continue to omit a requisite cooler? Continute to lob off cores, threads and cache? Lie about the TDP ratings? Require yet another socket? Expensive boards? No thanks.

This is the exact thing that happened when amd came out with Ryzen, and Intel was milking the crap out of the 14nm process. It wasn't until the 9700k where amd became the most powerful choice, and it all went downhill for Intel from there. "Oh Intel's more refined and efficient chips are better because of good single core, the proven architecture destroys amd" until it didn't. How long has amd gone with the same refreshed chips??? Long enough to let Intel catch up. Pretty sure we are seeing the tables turn once again

This exactly. Intel is finally pulling out from the hole they digged onto themselves. Amd is in the end of their socket while Intel is matching them with an undeveloped architecture. It's fun to finally have both companies pulling together like the early 2000's. Honestly I'm willing to bet Intel will pull forward unless they have a major mess up