Hey bunch of idio&ts, why don't to compare a 128 core to an 8 core to make the comparison even better more pointless 🙄🤦🏻�♂️

Quote from: Anonymousgg on August 12, 2022, 02:30:20

Quote from: BrendaEM on August 10, 2022, 05:32:30Why did you compare an expensive 24 core processor against a 16 core one?
Did Intel pay you?

The 13900K is going to be compared to a 16-core either way, because the 16-core 7950X is its direct competition.

If you know how good of an uplift is possible over the 5950X, you can have an educated guess as to how well it will perform against the 7950X. Although this power consumption will not be typical of most 13900K users.

You can't compare a 24 cores to a 16 core, I mean, there should be an easy W for the 24 cores. For that matter let's compare a threadripper 64 core to an Intel core 2 duo, since we will be comparing whatever with wathever 🙄🙄🙄

Hey bunch of idio&ts, why don't to compare a 128 core to an 8 core to make the comparison even better more pointless 🙄🤦🏻�♂️

Intel 11900 was a competitor to Zen3... 13900 is 2 generations newer. Wait for Zen4, then compare..

Quote
"An AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX 64-core/128-thread workstation processor was overclocked to 5.15 GHz all-core by Taiwanese overclocker TSAIK, under extreme cooling, and it [predictably] crushed the Cinebench R23 world-record. The chip scored a godlike 116142 points in the multi-threaded benchmark, ahead of the previous record-holder—105170 points scored on a Threadripper 3990X, by Splave. "
End of quote....

It's not about the electricity bill, with Intel. It's about having a pizza oven where my PC should be.
For anyone who lives where an actual summer happens, a processor above around 120W doesn't make sense. Even with the best and quietest cooler, there's no escaping the heat without AC.

Quote from: BrendaEM on August 10, 2022, 05:32:30Why did you compare an expensive 24 core processor against a 16 core one?
Did Intel pay you?

The 13900K is going to be compared to a 16-core either way, because the 16-core 7950X is its direct competition.

If you know how good of an uplift is possible over the 5950X, you can have an educated guess as to how well it will perform against the 7950X. Although this power consumption will not be typical of most 13900K users.

Full of haters here... Ferrari destroy a golf 7... But the fuel consumption...

Bad generation? Perhaps, but I still have hopes for Ryzen 7000. We'll see shortly.

Yes, it is 70% better, costs 10 times more, and needs an arc reactor from Tony Stark to power it and a helium based industrial cooler the size of a car to run for more than 10 minutes.

Why write such articles, its like comparing apples with oranges. Power consumption is main difference, lets lock them at the same Wattage and then compare.

It's actually more like +56% because a Ryzen 5950X scores ~26k at stock (142W PPT). Which is a really poor result for 13900K at almost 2.5x the power consumption. 5950X with 16 instead of 24 cores is still >50% more power efficient than Intel's two year newer gen. Only shows how desperate Intel is with their inferior tech. They can only increase power consumption, not efficiency. Not worth to buy.

Let's see how Ryzen 7950X "demolishes" 11900K. 🤦�♂️

U crazy?? why only scrapple??? I don't need these gimmick marketing racing pointless cpus who is better who is slower.. It is purely for naive ppl or who don't know what with money...

I have normal end user i7 11800H which consuming 35W at idle and 45-50 W when in load.. So completely consumable..
Battery 5-8 hours.. depending on work completely enough and acceptable

This endless racing jus to gain money is obsolete nowadays

If this is the way to get more performance then it is better to rent servers or data centers.

Truly only Apple is the one, who is making things for consumers use.

Intel must to renamed their air heaters to its real name