Overclocked Intel Core i9-11900K @5.2 GHz on all cores can beat the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X in single-thread and multithread benchmarks but at a massive power cost

[Anthony]

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

[Brian]

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

[vertigo]

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.

[Marco Esteban]

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.

[bernie retallac]

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

11900K is garbo.