And it probably comes with a Dell 4090, a Dell proprietary z790, and anything else they can vendor lock.
Define “good”. It will be roughly equivalent to AMD in single core with higher MT bench scores in Cinebench that magically don’t really translate to real workloads that well. If you’ll notice the 14900k easily beats the 7950x in Cinebench MT but in Spec (a benchmark that uses multiple real world workloads) the 7950x comes out ahead in MT.
1) Korean DIY is a big indicator for those who will buy high end stuffs reacts to the recent events, so do all local DIY and local small stores sales, there is no reason to believe consumers will not think similar
Cb is real. It's based on ab actual app, cinema 4d. There are plenty of workloads that the 14900k is faster, not just cinebench. Come on now bud, let's not make stuff up.
Is there something unique about the Korean DIY market that makes it unrepresentative? I would assume they use the same key performance indicators we all use. AMD has taken over most DIY markets since zen3. Intel mostly ONLY does well with OEMs and SIs because they can give them massive bulk discounts that AMD just can’t compete with. Problem is Intel is running out of that money so now they’re genuinely losing market share. Unfortunately they’re losing share even faster in enterprise. At this rate, Intel could legitimately collapse in a few years and that would be TERRIBLE for the market. They need to get Gelsinger out and somebody good in.
No matter how you spin Korean DIY numbers are meaningless. Worldwide DIY itself is tiny, restricting it to Korea is so small I don't even know why we are talking about it.
Yeah, nah. If the product is good it's good, I don't care about how many talented engineered worked for it.
No, not true. Your 14900k is around 40% faster than my 12900k at the exact same power. I know I've tested it, had them both. In fact my 14900k was 25% faster while using half the power (125w vs 240w). We can test it, restrict your cpu to 125w and post your cbr23, I'll have mine at 240w and post my results. You are making stuff up basically.
Man, the current r7 is losing to a 3 year old i7 (12700k), do I really have to define anything? Come on now, amd is lagging in Mt performance. We can all see it.
Yeah Raptor Lake was SO FAST a 50% core count increase led to a 30% increase in performance. Do you even read what you’re writing. Raptor Lake offered 10% performance strictly by following AMD’s lead of increasing cache size. Zen2 and Zen3 wouldn’t have been such huge shocks to Intel if they hadn’t been so greedy with cache up until that point. A 3600 offered more cache overall than a 10900k. That’s sad.
Do YOU read what I'm writing? The 13900k is exactly 39.5% faster than the 12900k WHILE using the same power in MT workloads. That's according to TPUs review. Within 1 year, that's an insane increase.
No matter what you spin, DIY numbers represents the consumers, Puget is even more tiny compared to Korean DIY market
We are talking about confidence in intel, how do you know it is good and reliable??? by release benchmarks? or wait a year and then a new gen comes? never saw a company with a frustrated team come up with a good product.
which burns itself and is 100% slower than 12900k a year later for a lot of ppl, coz it breaks
I don't care about what the CPU will achieve in max performance (or whatever that means), I don't use my CPU or any other device out of the box, why the heck should I care? Do you use your TV or monitor out of the box? Your AC? I don't get that argument. I really don't care about out of the box.
Intel sells tens of millions of chips per year. DIY is a tiny percentage of that. Korean DIY is a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage. 100 sales of Korean DIY and you are trying to make ends meet vs 10s of millions.
Yeah a multicore advantage inferred simply by moving to a larger die isn’t an architectural gain. You’re either showing your ignorance or being willingly obtuse. Not to mention the fact that they just use obscene levels of power to get to the performance they have.
Who said anything about architectural gains? I don't give a dime if my CPU is faster because of an architectural gain or because the stars aligned. I just want it to be faster. Intel made them 40% faster within a year. AMD made them 10% faster within 2 years.
They are 35-40% faster at the same power bud. Stop making stuff up.
No what I’m telling you is that Intel basically took reduced margins to try and remain competitive and their financials seemingly say that it didn’t pay off. I think single core performance is good enough that they should drop the e core BS. 16 e cores takes the die space of 4 p cores. We could’ve had a 12 p core raptor lake flagship instead of the BS we got all because they wanted artificially elevated multicore scores that only hold up in workloads that aren’t latency sensitive. The new e cores are much larger in comparison to p cores and are in fact SUPER wide. They should hold up much better, hopefully.
That's great, thank god for that. I hope they take even more reduced margins, better for the consumer.
Why would anybody want 12p cores over 8+16? Doesn't make sense to me. 8+16 is faster and more efficient on every workload.
the tenth time I tell you, Puget runs BELOW freaking intel spec performance and power, which reduced and delayed any issues arising, that was basically irrelevant to any tuning except Puget's own systems, same chips put into any other's computers with our own settings will have different failure rates, period.
I exactly used the TV and AC out of the box! why not?! AC is on auto swing, auto fan speed, and at set temperature I desire, it's the same as using the CPU in stock intel setting, and ask it to do the tasks I ask it to do, I (and I expect most consumers) don't get into the circuitry to tune how much power the AC gets. TV is even more funny, plug it in out of the box, tune the freaking channels, install the apps, I don't overclock/underclock it's cpu.
I know - that's what im saying. If you are using pugets settings for both cpus (which are intel and amd stock) amd has a higher failure rate.
Really? Your tv or monitors brightness settings or volume? Your ac as well? It magically happened to be the temperature you wanted? And what if it wasn't? You would return it any buy a different brand until you found the one that had the temperature you desired by default? Sure bud, whatever you say. I don't do that. If I don't like my TV's out of the box settings I just change them, I don't buy a different brand, lol.
Not saying it isn't without compromise, but being cheaper is a good first step!
that's why it is even more unrepresentative to the intel market, 99% ppl buy it to get TOTL performance, not at puget's setting which nerf some 15%+ performance of it, and as I said, their % is based on different sample size, so it isn't really apple to apple or representative.
you do know that tweaking the stuffs out of intel spec is essentially "overclocking" and not warrented by intel? not power limit I am referring to, but undervolting or voltage limiting which can affect stability. except you I never seen through the hundreds of PCs I've build wanted to buy a more expensive CPU just to lower it's power to match the performance of a lower tier part, just being more efficient. Maybe your single case represent more than others.
That applies to both, puget is restricting both amd and intel. Why when both restricted to default stock amd has way higher failure rates? I wonder...
Who said anything about undervolting or overclocking though? Why do you even bring it up? I never mentioned it once, it's irrelevant.
Because most people don't actually give a damn about efficiency. They just pretend they do on intel K chip reviews trying to *** on Intel because they hate the company. Makes sense, considering they are super silent about the non k and T chips that are the most efficient desktop chips ever known to mankind
And I'd care about who you find the prettiest girl in the world why? Im not basing my buying decisions on what you think is better but on what I think is better. I don't use my cpus out of the box so the whole out of the box you are arguing about is absolutely meaningless to me. The way I use the chips (power limited) intel cpus are more efficient than amd cpus (by a lot) on every segment, that's why I prefer Intel.
1) they restricting both by different degree, and by which ppl other than them won't use the same exact settings, so they are NOT representative to anyone other than themselves, if I, say, go opposite, overclock both CPUs, one by 5% and another by 15% and give some failure rate numbers, do you think it is comparable?That applies to both, puget is restricting both amd and intel. Why when both restricted to default stock amd has way higher failure rates? I wonder...
Who said anything about undervolting or overclocking though? Why do you even bring it up? I never mentioned it once, it's irrelevant.
Because most people don't actually give a damn about efficiency. They just pretend they do on intel K chip reviews trying to *** on Intel because they hate the company. Makes sense, considering they are super silent about the non k and T chips that are the most efficient desktop chips ever known to mankind
And I'd care about who you find the prettiest girl in the world why? Im not basing my buying decisions on what you think is better but on what I think is better. I don't use my cpus out of the box those whole out of the box you are arguing about is absolutely meaningless to me. The way I use the chips (power limited) intel cpus are more efficient than amd cpus (by a lot) on every segment, that's why I prefer Intel.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram