Your extrapolations are completely off...just saying. You think that from 125w to 140w it only scores 500 more points? LOL. Sure bud, whatever, it's pointless to argue wiith fanatics
So, you're back to making mismatched comparisons, I see.
Except that when you restrict it to 125W, it scores only 31293. The 7950X3D scores 35769, which is 14.3% faster. So, we're faced with the unpleasant dilemma that Raptor Lake offers, for multithreaded workloads: performance or efficiency, but not both.
Not both at the same time but at least it does offer both, in stark contrast to ryzen that offers only efficiency with no option to do anything to get more performance out of it.
That's not actually true. The problem with TechPowerUp is they don't have an aggregate of just the multithreaded apps, the way Toms and ComputerBase do.
Oh, I do value multiple data points. However, TheHerald was presenting Cinebench R23 MT efficiency data without the matching performance data. I was just rectifying that.
I disagree that things like rendering and compiling are "server-type apps". Lots of people do those things on their desktops.
"only".So, you're back to making mismatched comparisons, I see.
Except that when you restrict it to 125W, it scores only 31293. The 7950X3D scores 35769, which is 14.3% faster. So, we're faced with the unpleasant dilemma that Raptor Lake offers, for multithreaded workloads: performance or efficiency, but not both.
P.S. I don't even know why we're rehashing this issue yet again, when it will become moot in only 2 weeks.
The data I posted had performance included in them. Since the x3d is equally efficient at 140w it's damn obvious that it's faster. In fact at iso efficiency you can just divide the power draws of each cpu and find the performance delta. Which btw is small. Nothing like the nonsense that is constantly thrown around.
Which part isn't actually true?That's not actually true. The problem with TechPowerUp is they don't have an aggregate of just the multithreaded apps, the way Toms and ComputerBase do.
Lots of people eat on their desktops, doesn't mean that we have to judge them as dinner trays.
That just gives you a point sample, though. The full perf/W curves are more useful.
Doesn't really matter, point is people act like amd has a huge efficiency difference when that's just not true. Especially in any other segment bar the 7950x one. This campaign of misinformation needs to stop, and you are not helping to make it happen.
The audacity to ask if I'm related to user benchmark when you are claiming that the 7950X3D has the same performance as the 14900k,lol. Even the data you yourself posted show otherwise. But as I've said, the myth must go on, reality isn't important
From my perspective, the data is pretty clear:
I think you do. People have seen variations on this data enough times and in enough places. I know you focus a lot on idle power and single-threaded efficiency, but those don't tend to be highlighted in the same way as multithreaded, because people like to see what happens to these CPUs at the limit.
So going by current prices, Intel wins also in MT efficiency in all but one segment. So no, I really don't understand how people are concluding otherwise.From my perspective, the data is pretty clear:
The R9 7950X beat the i9-13900K from about 65 W and above, all the way until some crazy point to the right.
The R9 7900X beat the i7-13700K across the range. I think the i7-14700K reverses this, to some extent, thanks to those 4 additional E-cores.
Where the tides turn is that the R7 7700X loses to the i5-13600K after about 65 W.
However, I can try to do a Cinebench R23 (MT) comparison by combining the ComputerBase single-app data for the R9 7950X and the TechPowerUp i9-14900K data.
I think you do. People have seen variations on this data enough times and in enough places. I know you focus a lot on idle power and single-threaded efficiency, but those don't tend to be highlighted in the same way as multithreaded, because people like to see what happens to these CPUs at the limit.
I'm not saying you don't have a couple points, but I think you shouldn't be acting so surprised.
Then let's replot the results, see if it changes anything.You made up a bunch of numbers which are not accurate (your picture also uses Blender power consumption not Cinebench though they're close to the same). Your overall point is still mostly accurate (the 7950X3D is better perf/W at multi, but @TheHerald also didn't say otherwise), but basically none of your math is an accurate reflection of reality.
Below are the actual numbers for Cinebench R23 Multi if you don't understand why I said what I did.
Yeah... that wasn't the big problem part of your post...Then let's replot the results, see if it changes anything.
New predicted 140W results: 32324
VS. the 31882
A discrepancy of 1.4%...
This is the big problem with your made up numbers. The 14900k at 200W scores around a thousand points more than the 7950X3D. Just stop making up numbers when it comes to power and performance scaling. It doesn't work unless the scaling is linear which it isn't at these power levels.
I'd point out that mine were real data points (except for one or two, which were slightly interpolated). They apparently fit curves neatly enough that I could've ventured there, but I didn't want to give a false impression that we know more about what those intermediate datapoints look like than we do.
Thanks for stopping by! Your help is most definitely appreciated!
you quoted the wrong user, your response was meant more likely for terryblaze who is known for his extreme mental gymnastics to be able to still believe Intel is more efficient than AMD at any range or point.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram