News Core i5-12600K Shows Strong Lead Over Ryzen 5 5600X In Ashes of the Singularity

[TerryLaze]

That is not how I remember that lawsuit. Are you sure you're talking about the same thing here?

Regards.

Of course nobody remembers, everybody only rides around on what intel allegedly did.
And even if the curt would give AMD right on this matter, for the whole duration of coming up with a judgment glofo would not be able to produce any x86 because for that duration the legality of doing so would be in question.
https://www.computerworld.com/artic...ns-to-end-patent-licensing-deal-with-amd.html

 

[-Fran-]

Of course nobody remembers, everybody only rides around on what intel allegedly did.
And even if the curt would give AMD right on this matter, for the whole duration of coming up with a judgment glofo would not be able to produce any x86 because for that duration the legality of doing so would be in question.
https://www.computerworld.com/artic...ns-to-end-patent-licensing-deal-with-amd.html

Nah; as I suspected they were two different things.

Regards.

 

[casa_is_cool]

This headline is MISLEADING.

You tell us that the Intel chip couldn't even complete the test and that basically this is a cherry picked result. And THIS is your headline!?

Look everyone, Tom's is schilling for Intel again.

 

[TerryLaze]

Nah; as I suspected they were two different things.

Regards.

Of course, AMD wouldn't sue themselves for glofo.
The point is that if AMD went through with suing for the anti competitive stuff then intel could have followed through with the glofo stuff.
It would have ended up in the same case, or in parallel cases but it wouldn't change the outcome.
Edit:
Also it was part of the same settlement as the anti-trust stuff.
recital A. 3.
https://www.amd.com/system/files/amd-intel-settlement-agreement-full.pdf

 

[casa_is_cool]

"At the time of the article, foxed.in had performed 13 Ashes of the Singularity runs on the Core i5-12600K, however, only one of them completed successfully. "

So... It's very fast, if it actually finishes? xD

"Look at that car go! it's so fast as long as the engine doesn't explode!".

I'm sure it's something else, but the way it was worded in the article makes it look like the CPU is making the test crash and, out of the box behaviour, that is not something I'd like to deal with. Is this going to be a repeat of HT gen1 where you had to disable it so apps didn't crash back then? Well, the writing is on the wall here. Early adopters are going to beta test this CPU for Intel, I think.

Regards xD

Totally agree. I think this CPU scheduler is going to be so inconsistent out of the box, it's going to drive people mad. Think about it, each app is going to need to be optimized which mean Intel will only perform its best on mainstream apps. Example, let's say for video editing you are using Shotcut (Free App) instead of Adobe Premiere Pro (Widely Used Commercial App) , which is going to be optimized.

This is going to be like Gibson Guitars installing robotic tuners on guitars in 2014. It's a great idea which could turn into a total disaster.

 

[kwohlt]

1. That test proves that on average Win10 runs better for AMD now, than Win11. So it does need a patch or more, because it should not be the case.

2. I'm a fanboy, but not a blind fanboy. I do want competition and do want both to fight it out, I just want AMD to be ahead a little and intel to still lose, because they deserve to lose more for what they did the last 7 or more years.
I also like that Alder Lake apparently is not a dud like Rocket Lake and will make AMD drop prices (which is the only thing I don't like about AMD's Zen3, their prices).

What I don't like is unfairness (like how Win11 is preferential to intel), I don't like clickbait titles (and bombastic titles) based on so called benchmarks, even worse - synthetic ones.

Until AMD starts doing the **** intel did, I will support them, or if they drop to Buldozer levels again, then I'll be forced to buy intel again. Otherwise I don't care for intel to win at all, just to push AMD and make AMD even better because of that.

" because they deserve to lose more for what they did the last 7 or more years. "
I never understood this take... Being mad at Intel because they stopped trying / innovating during the 7 years that AMD was releasing garbage? Why not be mad at AMD for...releasing bad CPUs during that time.

And as someone else said above me, Microsoft didn't design Windows 11 to prefer Intel to be unfair. Intel worked really hard designing a hardware scheduler, drivers, and working with Microsoft to optimize their products for Windows 11. If AMD should have done the same, we wouldn't be in this up-to-15%-performance-drop situation.

 

[VforV]

" because they deserve to lose more for what they did the last 7 or more years. "
I never understood this take... Being mad at Intel because they stopped trying / innovating during the 7 years that AMD was releasing garbage? Why not be mad at AMD for...releasing bad CPUs during that time.

If you think that's the only bad thing intel did in the past years you're very naive or worse...

I don't have time, nor the desire to write all the scummy and <Mod Edit> things intel did in the last decade and why I don't like them and nvidia too (both top 1 and 2 scummiest companies in hardware tech).

AMD wins by de-facto my money because they are the less scummy option, still as of today. If they change for the worse in the future, I won't support them because I'm not a blind fanboi, but for now AMD is the lesser evil, the one that does not make me bend and step over my principles to buy some PC tech.

I rather buy a product that is a little inferior, but my conscience and self respect is unaffected, than let these scummy companies walk all over me while I hand then my money just so I can win that King of the PC E-peen status.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

The only problem with this is that it's likely not going to start a price war. Intel's going to likely charge high prices as usual, and AMD is going to be contempt to either match them or undercut them by 5% or so, with the end result being continued high prices across the entire stack.

 

[Jerry_W14]

I have a Ryzen 5600X and it does everything I want it to...same goes for every part in my build. When I bought the AMD CPU I knew that eventually Intel was going to make something better, the two companies have been leap-frogging each other for years. So, I don't give a crap who currently has a faster CPU.

I have two systems with the 5600X one for gaming the other is my media center pc. Video transcoding Blu-ray burning. I love it, but I will buy a 3DVCACHE cpu next year. In three years I may get whatever is out then for an upgrade. Hell I may have gotten a new gpu by then.

 

[Solandri]

I don't know why they bother with this stuff till some real numbers come out.
All you get is Intel fans saying RIP AMD and AMD fans saying but but but.

The same thing if it showed AMD ahead just the other way around.

Well duh. It's the same reason SSD benchmarks are in GB/s, instead of sec/GB. Because news and review sites live and die based on views and clicks. And if they did sensical things like holding off reporting on Intel vs AMD on Win 11 until all the products were close to release, or reporting SSD speeds in sec/GB which would show the performance differences between most SSDs are indistinguishable to most users, they would lose views relative to other websites and rapidly go out of business. It's the same reason why sensationalists news which mostly serves to rile up people and reinforce their preconceived notions flourish, while true news reporting has mostly been abandoned.

Anyway, comparisons with Zen 3 are rather moot. Zen 2 and 3 are manufactured on TSMC's 7nm process (about 96.5 million transistors/mm^2). Intel's 10nm process finally caught up with that (100.8 MT/mm^2) which is why we're seeing Intel being competitive with Zen 2/3 again. But AMD is scheduled to move to TSMC"s 5nm process for Zen 4 in 2022. That's 173 MT/mm^2, which will give AMD another huge leg up on Intel again. Intel is going to be playing catch-up until at least 2023, when their 7nm process is scheduled to be ready (assuming no delays). Or if they swallow their pride and pay TSMC to manufacture their processors on 5nm.

 

[TerryLaze]

Anyway, comparisons with Zen 3 are rather moot. Zen 2 and 3 are manufactured on TSMC's 7nm process (about 96.5 million transistors/mm^2). Intel's 10nm process finally caught up with that (100.8 MT/mm^2) which is why we're seeing Intel being competitive with Zen 2/3 again. But AMD is scheduled to move to TSMC"s 5nm process for Zen 4 in 2022. That's 173 MT/mm^2, which will give AMD another huge leg up on Intel again. Intel is going to be playing catch-up until at least 2023, when their 7nm process is scheduled to be ready (assuming no delays). Or if they swallow their pride and pay TSMC to manufacture their processors on 5nm.

TSMC is available in high density as well as in high-performance versions.
With the difference between them being around 30% ,unless you have undisputed proof on which version AMD is using, your whole point is moot.
Not that the amount of transistors is any indication for anything, the only thing this changes is how many CPUs you get from a wafer.

Based on WikiChip's own analysis, the dense cells come at around 91.2 MTr/mm² while the less dense, high-performance cells, are calculated at around 65 MTr/mm².

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/7_nm_lithography_process

 

[NightLight]

Just calling out the obvious though huh lol

All I read is fanboy jibber jabber