- Mar 3, 2017
- 1,747
- 6,598
- 136
If this is not an OC, clocks are great on the 65W 9600X (vs 5.3G on 105W 7600X)
Well, it is not obvious to me unless they mention it, because my 7950X spec says 5.7G but it runs 5.8G+ most of time in ST .It's obviously overclocked.
Note that unless you override it, the default limit is 5850mhz for the non-X3D 7950X. AMD has been adding a 150mhz buffer to these chips. They did this with Zen 3 as well (5050mhz for the 5950x).Well, it is not obvious to me unless they mention it, because my 7950X spec says 5.7G but it runs 5.8G+ most of time in ST .
I absolutely loathe the fact that those with the CPUs in their possession are hell-bent on running the world's most useless benchmark.
I absolutely loathe the fact that those with the CPUs in their possession are hell-bent on running the world's most useless benchmark.
I think the blunder they made is not releasing 7745HX3D. That could've really given 13980HX/14900HX laptops a run for their money. 7945HX3D is too high end to be affordable.
more cache > higher clocksThe X3D parts could launch around gamescom. I haven’t heard anything specific about them, but I do hope we get a 9950X3D and I hope they improve the clocks on the chiplets with 3D V-Cache. If they could reach clock parity with non-3D parts, Intel won’t have a chance.
Well the 12700K has E-cores, so of course its performance per core is lower.
Intel Core i7 12700K @ 5285.74 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
[uqse3g] Validated Dump by Sonic PG Z790 12700K DDR5-6000 CL28 (2024-06-10 18:17:37) - MB: ASRock Z790 PG SONIC - RAM: 32768 MBvalid.x86.fr
Now for some CPU-Z IPC calculation:
ST (divide score by highest clock)
9600X 0.153 per MHz
12700K 0.162 per MHz
MT (divide score by core count)
9600X 591.383 per core
12700K 496.425 per core
That is MAD performance per core!
Yeah but it's a comparison of the entire chip's capability.Well the 12700K has E-cores, so of course its performance per core is lower.
I mean if I were AMD and saw Lunar Lake, I would hedge that Arrow Lake would be real competition, and that Zen 5 may not be clearly better (but X3D may be)Arrow Lake would have to be very special. Qualcomm?? Too small in PC space to matter right now.
I would argue Phoronix has the most useful benchmark suite of them all, since it's based almost entirely on real world workloads. It is also open! The only drawback is that it is Linux based. I'm sure you could probably run it on Windows with some effort, but I haven't looked at it in quite a while.They have not discovered Phoronix or AT cpu reviews yet.
Unless Intel has decided to completely mislead, The "E" cores are about as fast as Zen 4 +-10%.I mean if I were AMD and saw Lunar Lake, I would hedge that Arrow Lake would be real competition, and that Zen 5 may not be clearly better (but X3D may be)
+150MHz, to be exact. 7950X FMax is 5.85GHz.Zen4 had set fmax +100mhz over advertised clocks
Unless Intel has decided to completely mislead, The "E" cores are about as fast as Zen 4 +-10%.
If they increased clock speeds that much it's weird that the rated boost on the 9950X is the same as on the 7950X.+150MHz, to be exact. 7950X FMax is 5.85GHz.
There was a rumour that Zen 5 FMax is 6.1GHz. that could very well end up have been true given the clocks/voltage here, because that 5.7GHz at ~1.25v for relatively low end silicon implies that for the well binned stuff 5.7GHz at 1.2v may be possible. And in case you're wondering why 1.2v matters - that's V-Cache die territory.
If intel is right, the E Cores are faster than Zen 5 at the same power envelope (20% faster than Raptor Cove at low power). Discounting AVX512 workloads of course.I would argue Phoronix has the most useful benchmark suite of them all, since it's based almost entirely on real world workloads. It is also open! The only drawback is that it is Linux based. I'm sure you could probably run it on Windows with some effort, but I haven't looked at it in quite a while.
Unless Intel has decided to completely mislead, The "E" cores are about as fast as Zen 4 +-10%.
I think X3D chips will be the champs of gaming. I don't see Intel overcoming that. I think Intel will probably win this gen overall (minus gaming) unless AMD does something uncharacteristic with X3D, which is a very real possibility.
have you seen Z5 power curves? no? funny.If intel is right, the E Cores are faster than Zen 5 at the same power envelope (20% faster than Raptor Cove at low power). Discounting AVX512 workloads of course.
A myth? lol these are official figures from Intel. 40% lower power at same perf 1.2x perf at same power. And 20-80% better PPW at low power than Lion Cove. If Intel isn’t lying, Chadmont is roughly on par with Zen5 at low power.That s a myth to believe that a e core can have the same perf as RPL that is 2x the size, as for Zen 4 i just looked at Computerbase numbers the other day and the 7700X is 5.2% faster per clock than the 8 P cores of a 12900K, so this well extend to 22% for Zen 5 and they will be still ahead by 7% when Intel s next gen will land.