News Core i9-12900K Destroys Ryzen 9 5950X By 38% In Ashes of the Singularity

[Ogotai]

No, the 12900k isn't beating the 5950x by 38%, but it is still winning which is pretty significant. For those saying it barely beats a year old CPU, you're missing the forest for the trees. The over 2000 single threaded cinebench score is what really matters, which is way ahead of 5000 series CPU's. 24 threads beating out the current gen 32 thread leader is a real accomplishment. Statistically zero percent of you are using a 5950x ($750 right now), and only slightly more are using a 5900x ($600+ right now). Whatever you are currently using outside of those 2, Alder Lake is going to crush. When utilizing 16 threads or less, which is overwhelming where most mainstream software is today, nothing is going touch Alder Lake. The winner here looks like the 12700k. The loss of 4 "efficiency" cores vs the 12900k means you're going to lose some in those rare highly threaded work loads, but lose practically nothing for everything else. If the rumored $430 is true, the 12700k is going to be a monster mainstream CPU that is going soundly beat 5000 series CPU's and crush everything else.

and you are baseing this WHOLE comment on a cinebench score ?? the SAME cinebench that intel used to use pre ryzen, then when ryzen was released and was faster in, so intel then down played the whole benchmark, and now that intel could be faster in the SAME cinebench benchmark, is valid again ? um ok sure, the rest of us,( id guess) like me, will wait till this cpu is out and is run on other benchmarks, and tests, instead of a benchmark that intel and its fans only use agree with, and praise, when intel is winning in it.

from here : " Intel downplayed the importance of PCIe 4.0 for mainstream users and also challenged AMD to prove its worth in real-world gaming and not just Cinebench. " of which, in the link for the word " challenged " intel further said "
One of Intel’s targets for unrepresentative benchmarks was Cinebench R15/20. This is a popular benchmarking software among reviewers, but Intel holds that, seeing as so few users actually use Cinema4D by its own internal numbers, performance in this benchmark does not equate to real-world utility. And no wonder it now thinks so. Back at Computex AMD showed off its Ryzen 7 3700X squarely trumping Intel’s Core i7 9700K in that very same benchmark. Similarly AMD’s Ryzen 9 3900X topped the Cinebench performance of Intel’s enthusiast i9 9920X during AMD’s testing.
" to that, amd should challenge intel to do the same when the tables were reversed, right ?

kind of funny how that works, isnt it ? intel wins in cinebench, and touts that win, intel loses, and downplays it. its back to winning in that benchmark, and it looks like it might start to tout its win in that again, or at least its fans are starting to, im sure intel will follow suit soon enough

 

[RodroX]

I think one have to keep in mind that comparing two sets of results without having access to hardware and test configuration is not very healthy.

Of course most of us want tech to advance and get better. Not anyone on thier right mind should want the new Alder Lake cpus to be slow than anything on the market today.

It really shouldn' t matter if you are AMD or Intel fan boy/girl, we all need and want tech to move foward and get better while consuming less power.

Lets hope intel gets a nice step up over the current gen, and maybe even step foward over AMD on performance. What I am afraid right now is the power need it by this chips to do that. I guess only time will tell.

I can't wait to read and watch the reviews on this new CPUs!!!

 

[spongiemaster]

and you are baseing this WHOLE comment on a cinebench score ?? the SAME cinebench that intel used to use pre ryzen, then when ryzen was released and was faster in, so intel then down played the whole benchmark, and now that intel could be faster in the SAME cinebench benchmark, is valid again ? um ok sure, the rest of us,( id guess) like me, will wait till this cpu is out and is run on other benchmarks, and tests, instead of a benchmark that intel and its fans only use agree with, and praise, when intel is winning in it.

from here : " Intel downplayed the importance of PCIe 4.0 for mainstream users and also challenged AMD to prove its worth in real-world gaming and not just Cinebench. " of which, in the link for the word " challenged " intel further said "
One of Intel’s targets for unrepresentative benchmarks was Cinebench R15/20. This is a popular benchmarking software among reviewers, but Intel holds that, seeing as so few users actually use Cinema4D by its own internal numbers, performance in this benchmark does not equate to real-world utility. And no wonder it now thinks so. Back at Computex AMD showed off its Ryzen 7 3700X squarely trumping Intel’s Core i7 9700K in that very same benchmark. Similarly AMD’s Ryzen 9 3900X topped the Cinebench performance of Intel’s enthusiast i9 9920X during AMD’s testing.
" to that, amd should challenge intel to do the same when the tables were reversed, right ?

kind of funny how that works, isnt it ? intel wins in cinebench, and touts that win, intel loses, and downplays it. its back to winning in that benchmark, and it looks like it might start to tout its win in that again, or at least its fans are starting to, im sure intel will follow suit soon enough

Don't listen to the marketing departments of any company. Pretty straightforward common sense.

PCIe 4 has been out for over 2 years now, and it still has questionable usefulness for mainstream users. I have one of the better PCIe 4 NVME drives in my system and I don't think I'd be able to tell the difference in a blind test with my previous PCIe 3 NVME. For GPU's, it makes no difference if you have a decent GPU. The only place PCIe 4 makes a real difference is in lower end PCIe 4 GPU's which is a really limited market. PCIe5 is going to be even more useless for years to come in the mainstream market.

Cinebench is a known quantity. No benchmark accurately represents the performance in every application, however, if a CPU wins handily in Cinebench, it's going to be faster on average.

 

[PCWarrior]

What people don’t release is that when all threads of a multithreaded cpu are utilised each logical thread is only offering 25-30% of what a physical thread does. But when fewer threads are utilised a logical thread can contribute a higher percentage like a 50 or 60% or even 100% of what a physical thread does. Having access to 24threads is therefore plentiful for the 5950X as the maximum computational throughput of a 16core-32thread is equivalent to that of a 21physical thread cpu.

The reality is that software can only be optimised in certain ways in order to take advantage of multiple cores. The developers of Ashes did not create a 32-thread version because it very simply yielded worse results than the 24-thread version due to overhead. There are multiple responses over the years by the developers when asked about when they would move from 16 to 32 threads, and they cited overhead as being the problem. It appears that 24threads is now the new sweet spot. As simple as that.

I read some insane posts that this was done to make Intel look better in multithreaded scores in general because supposedly people associate Ashes with general multithreading performance. Do you even read what you write? As if Intel needs a gaming benchmark to prove their superiority in multithreaded productivity. There are already benchmarks of Cinebench R20 and R23, Geekbench 5 and CPU-Z out there where Intel is beating AMD in both Single threaded and Multi-threaded. Ashes simply just shows that even in the most optimised for multithreading performance game (something that no other game comes close to) Intel offers far superior performance with a 38% lead. Nothing more nothing less.