When 24 threads are faster than 32: Intel Core i9-12900K convincingly beats AMD Ryzen 9 5950X in Geekbench single and multi-core tests

[Jezwinni]

The i9-12900K can also use DDR4. Let's see what the performance is with the same memory.

Why?

[Jezwinni]

When 300w are 10%faster than 144w!?

When people are more interested in better performance than an extra £6 a year on their electricity bill.

When people can't accept the CPU they bought isn't the best anymore.

When AMD shrills look down the list of stats for anything they can possibly elevate as most important as it is the only metric they still lead in.

When people are so childish that the box that colour the box a CPU came in dictates whether it is any good.

When people kind of get the picture.

[Jezwinni]

Congratulations Intel on being a full product cycle behind AMD.

This Intel's superfin, 10nm++ 7nm 20A?

AMD best hope they never catch up then?

[JonJ]

When 300w are 10%faster than 144w!?

When people are more interested in better performance than an extra £6 a year on their electricity bill.

When people can't accept the CPU they bought isn't the best anymore.

When AMD shrills look down the list of stats for anything they can possibly elevate as most important as it is the only metric they still lead in.

When people are so childish that the box that colour the box a CPU came in dictates whether it is any good.

When people kind of get the picture.

When fanboys grasp at anything to seem like a product is relevant.  An unreleased chip, competing against a year old chip with twice the power requirements.  Ya, it's definitely superior.  SMH

[Romanio0089]

Intel, you're 2 generations behind.

[H]

When 300w are 10%faster than 144w!?

When people are more interested in better performance than an extra £6 a year on their electricity bill.

When people can't accept the CPU they bought isn't the best anymore.

When AMD shrills look down the list of stats for anything they can possibly elevate as most important as it is the only metric they still lead in.

When people are so childish that the box that colour the box a CPU came in dictates whether it is any good.

When people kind of get the picture.

That's not just extra 6 pounds, that's higher PSU requirement and higher cooling demand. And that's gonna make cost of building PC (upfront) go higher, not like power consumption difference which might not make a difference at all.

I doubt , it's 300w though, perhaps close to what AMD does, if Intel's 7 process is finally delivering, but if Intel CPU will be inefficient to big degree, then Ryzen will be sane choice again this year.

[Targonis]

I'm out of the loop, what is wrong with Geekbench?

Geekbench is one of those benchmarks that is amazingly biased toward Intel processors, to the point where even if the scores favor AMD, the benchmark will say that the Intel chip is better.   It does NOT reflect the actual level of performance you can expect when you run programs.   Remember hearing that Rocket Lake(11th generation Intel) was faster than 10th generation Intel?   Real world testing showed that Rocket Lake was NOT really faster in real world situations, so Geekbench was wrong, and has been wrong over and over again.

[rerodesign]

I guess the higher DDR5 bandwidth is getting them a performance advantage. It's negotiable when AMD brings a DDR5 compatibility. For me efficiency gets over clockspeed. So still AMD wins for me if Intel brings an efficient CPU like AMD does I will change back to Intel but rn no I won't just for a few percent more.

[CrEdge]

What about "Efficient Cores" power consumption outside of benchmarks and heavy gaming?  :p

[man_daddio]

So I noticed this is on Windows 11 so Windows 11 is obviously optimized to use the setup correct? These chips can't be used on Windows 10 right? Therefore, it doesn't surprise me that it did better.
I'm not sure of the whole engineering reason behind setting up a chip this way except for some kind of extra efficiency. That would explain the geekbench scores. But is geekbench the proper benchmark these days? I would like to see other benchmarks which I'm sure will get leaked soon. Thanks for the data though. I always like seeing new technology techniques. I am not a lover or hater of either AMD or Intel. I always buy what I feel is best for me.

[Anonymousgg]

The i9-12900K can also use DDR4. Let's see what the performance is with the same memory.

Why?

To quantify how much performance uplift is from DDR5 alone.

Also, most Alder Lake buyers will be slumming it on DDR4 systems.

[Ish]

I'm out of the loop, what is wrong with Geekbench?

Geekbench is one of those benchmarks that is amazingly biased toward Intel processors, to the point where even if the scores favor AMD, the benchmark will say that the Intel chip is better.   It does NOT reflect the actual level of performance you can expect when you run programs.   Remember hearing that Rocket Lake(11th generation Intel) was faster than 10th generation Intel?   Real world testing showed that Rocket Lake was NOT really faster in real world situations, so Geekbench was wrong, and has been wrong over and over again.

What would be a more reliable benchmark? Passmark? Cinebench?

[Brusherj]

These blatantly biased Intel reviews should not be allowed. Benchmarks can easily be rigged. I build high end systems and servers for a living and I use both Intel and AMD. I just find Intel's style of paying off reviewers/benchmarks and websites to try and give their product the upper hand. It's a shame to see people take money for biased reviews.
AMD fans are aware if these dirty tactics.

[Richard Colbert]

So I am running a 5950x under Windows 11 with DDR4 3600Mhz Ram with virtualization turned on (so I can run Ubuntu Linux simultaneously) with about 50 apps running including Google Chrome with 22 tabs open and 30+ extensions running and my scores are not too far behind the new (unreleased) Intel chips on a highly customized system, probably with nothing running and tweaked out the yin-yang. Oh and I have no tweaks, all UI graphical options are on as is Linux Filesystems, WSL and a bunch of other extra Windows Features!

In GeekBench 5.4.1 I scored 1548 Single-Core Score and 13733 Multi-Core Score.....sorry it won't let me post pic or link as this is my first time commenting!

[JamesParker]

Ok let's ignore the AMD fanboys for a second and break down the semi-clickbait title that brought us all here (bear in mind I use both platforms in my professional and personal life and I really couldn't care about brand loyalty):

- This is an unreleased processor that is, at least theoretically, beating an existing processor by using newer RAM and with an OS optimised for it. So it isn't a fair comparison on many fronts. It'll only be impressive if it beats what AMD releases next and with such a slim win on a newer OS and DDR5 RAM, I doubt Intel will win on a more level playing field.

- Someone brought up the point of performance/watt. This is crucial to a lot of users from mining to professional use. Intel may have the highest clock speeds but the cost to run that in a professional or profit-centric environment just isn't enough of a performance gain to offset the efficiency curves. It genuinely makes more sense to run AMD here especially since it's matured into a more stable platform vs it's initial release of the Zen architecture.

-Gaming performance is the only place where Intel still wins, well, for now. This does come at a price of high power draw though. AMD should actually benefit greatly from the more multi-core optimised scheduler that Win11 will bring but for now it doesn't look like they've optimised things for that OS. When it does we will see a shift in performance yet again but until AMD creates silicon that is able to achieve higher core clocks under load and support faster RAM this is a small slice of the pie that Intel is holding onto.

Will I buy a CPU on a brand new architecture? Hell no. Let others test that out and deal with any teething issues. Much like I avoided Zen 1 despite the media furore over it's release.

Will Intel finally making an attempt at innovation with this new CPU layout bring more competition? Definitely. And much like AMD coming back into the fight brought competition back, lowered prices (at least before the chip shortage), and gave us hope this small first step gets us back in the right direction.

Any competition is good for the consumer. I'd just hold my breath before crowning Intel the winner here until AMD's next CPU on the same OS and DDR5 comes out and then we can compare performance vs price to purchase, and cost to run in terms of power efficiency.