News AMD updates Zen 5 Ryzen 9000 benchmark comparisons to Intel chips — details Admin mode boosts, chipset driver fix

[mitch074]

This is exactly why I buy Intel. More cores at every price point means I can have some heavy stuff on the background running while enjoying a flawless experience. Basically a 300 euro 13700k offers you 16cores of raw performance with high framerates for all your games.

And having so many cores means you can pull the power draw back while still being much much faster than it's competition for those transcoding workloads.

...and that's why I buy AMD : 16 cores of raw performance that don't burn down and still compress super fast with a power profile set at 65W, and high frame rates in games, even with only 65W.

 

[TheHerald]

...and that's why I buy AMD : 16 cores of raw performance that don't burn down and still compress super fast with a power profile set at 65W, and high frame rates in games, even with only 65W.

Yeap, you are buying top of the line amd and that's fine. Their midrange is where it's total trash though.

At 65w no cpu is going to burn down. Well, besides those x3d chips that exploded. You are probably getting worse framerates than an Intel chip at 65w btw, unless you have a 3d (those that exploded at 65w)

 

[stuff and nonesense]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBn3FbKusZI


From his discussions with Microsoft devs Spectre and Meltdown changes caused performance regressions for Ryzen.

 

[bit_user]

At 65w no cpu is going to burn down. Well, besides those x3d chips that exploded. You are probably getting worse framerates than an Intel chip at 65w btw, unless you have a 3d (those that exploded at 65w)

There are only like a dozen known examples of this, compared with probably millions of Raptor Lake CPUs that will need to be replaced under warranty. But, to hear you talk about them, the 7000X3D is equal or worse in scale.

Tactics like this show your true colors. You're not being even-handed and even go out of your way to trash AMD CPUs, when you can.

 

[TheHerald]

There are only like a dozen known examples of this, compared with probably millions of Raptor Lake CPUs that will need to be replaced under warranty. But, to hear you talk about them, the 7000X3D is equal or worse in scale.

Tactics like this show your true colors. You're not being even-handed and even go out of your way to trash AMD CPUs, when you can.

Do you know of any 65w chips exploding other than the x3d?

My true colors is representing facts. The above afaik is a fact. Feel free to correct me, ill change my mind instantly.

 

[bit_user]

Do you know of any 65w chips exploding other than the x3d?

My true colors is representing facts. The above afaik is a fact. Feel free to correct me, ill change my mind instantly.

Except you're really not. Because, that problem was address early on. By continuing to talk about it like it's a live issue, you're spreading in incorrect impression that it still is.

It would be a bit like me talking about how "some Intel CPUs can't even divide correctly", even though the Pentium FDIV bug was 30 years ago.

 

[TheHerald]

Except you're really not. Because, that problem was address early on. By continuing to talk about it like it's a live issue, you're spreading in incorrect impression that it still is.

It would be a bit like me talking about how "some Intel CPUs can't even divide correctly", even though the Pentium FDIV bug was 30 years ago.

So you agree that the only 65w chips that exploded were the x3ds?

EG1. In the post you quoted I said exploded. Clearly im talking about the past. You either misread it or you are pretending im saying something im not.

 

[mitch074]

Yeap, you are buying top of the line amd and that's fine. Their midrange is where it's total trash though.

At 65w no cpu is going to burn down. Well, besides those x3d chips that exploded. You are probably getting worse framerates than an Intel chip at 65w btw, unless you have a 3d (those that exploded at 65w)

The chips exploded because the mobos didn't comply with CPU manufacturer's specs : technically an overclock, and the protection circuit would fry which would then allow unmetered current to go in. AMD fixed them. Intel processors from 65W and up get damaged over time even when following CPU manufacturer's specs.
As for AMD's midrange sucking... Well, they at least support AVX512, overclocking and ECC, and have supported virtualization and XMP for a long time.

 

[cryoburner]

Oh well, besides the fact that you are wrong, I agree with everything else.

The closest competitor to the 13700k (in price I mean) is the 7700x, they have a 15-20$ between them. The 7900x is 60$ more expensive. The 7900x is closer in price to the 14700kf (369$ vs 359$).

Pricing may potentially vary by region and retailer and what current promotions are going on, but what I said was accurate for at least the typical US (and EU) pricing at the time of my post. Since then, Amazon put the 13700K on a better sale though (likely matching Newegg's temporary $30 off promo code for the processor, though they are out of stock), resulting in it being priced about $30 below the 7900X, but that still only amounts to about a 9% difference in price. And even at the reduced price for the 13700K, the 7700X is still priced about another $30 lower still, making the comparison no closer between those processors. None of the major US online stores show more than a 10% price difference between the 7900X and 13700K. Another online retailer, B&H, even has the 7900X and 13700K both priced at $359, with the 7700X priced substantially lower at $299.