News Intel Core i7-12700K vs AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and 5800X Face Off: Intel Rising

[M42]

Sorry what? Rocket Lake is the biggest pile of **** intel launched in a while, so no back to back improvements there and certainly Rocket Lake did not catch up to Zen3 single core performance... synthetic benchmarks do not count at all when real gaming scores show the opposite.

Go ahead and quote internet videos. Everything you watch on the internet must be truthful, right?

We have both 5950x and 11900K systems at my work. We run SolidWorks, which is known to be sensitive to single-threaded performance. Solidworks runs about the same in single-threaded operations on the 11900K systems as the 5950x's.

 

[logainofhades]

The 11900k is a waste of sand. A 10850k was superior, in pretty much every multitasking regard, and could be found for less money. Also those videos are by well known, and well respected, reviewers. Steve, from Hardware Unboxed, is also a features editor, for techspot. An Steve from GN is probably one of the most technical, and thorough, reviewers out there.

 

[Why_Me]

The 11900k is a waste of sand. A 10850k was superior, in pretty much every multitasking regard, and could be found for less money. Also those videos are by well known, and well respected, reviewers. Steve, from Hardware Unboxed, is also a features editor, for techspot. An Steve from GN is probably one of the most technical, and thorough, reviewers out there.

We know the 11900K was a miss but as far as those two Aussies at HB go, I wouldn't give either one the time of day.

 

[M42]

The 11900k is a waste of sand. A 10850k was superior, in pretty much every multitasking regard, and could be found for less money. Also those videos are by well known, and well respected, reviewers. Steve, from Hardware Unboxed, is also a features editor, for techspot. An Steve from GN is probably one of the most technical, and thorough, reviewers out there.

Again, single-threading performance matters for more things than multi-threaded performance. Zen3 and Rocket Lake have about the same single-threaded performance. Alder Lake clobbers Zen3 in single-threaded performance and pretty much passes Zen3 in multithreaded performance in most business apps as shown here:

12th Gen Intel Core CPU Review Roundup

Intel has launched their new 12th Gen Intel Core desktop processors (code-named "Alder Lake") featuring support for DDR5, PCIe 5.0, as well as a completely new hybrid architecture using a mix of Performance and Efficient-cores. This is a lot of new technologies in one product which makes it hard...

www.pugetsystems.com

 

[btmedic04]

What are you talking about? AMD has nothing at all to do with the development of Alder Lake. Are you thanking Intel for the Ryzen 5000 series because Intel kicked AMD's ass for a decade? That makes no sense. The development of new CPU architecture from AMD or Intel takes years from start to finish so it is impossible for either side to just release something as a response to what the other side is doing. The only real time response they can have to the other is price.

without Intel, AMD wouldnt have passed the 1ghz barrier first, integrated memory controllers onto the die of the cpu, introduced 64 bit computing to the consumer market, or launched zen 1,2 or 3 in the timelines that we see and without AMD, intel would not have launched conroe/penryn/wolfdale/bloomfield, sandy bridge/alder lake in the same timeline. If AMD hadnt started competing at the high end again, we'd still be getting served reheated skylake refreshes on top of the 5 iterations of that architecture that we've already had. Yes, while you are correct that each company is responsible for developing their respective architectures over years, they do so based off of their capabilities and what their projections of each others future architectures are going to be. You cant have one without the other, otherwise the consumer loses due to a lack of requirement to innovate as we see with facebook, or the 10 years of quad core cpus on the consumer platform as examples.

 

[spongiemaster]

1. ADL's release - Given that Rocket Lake failed to recapture performance crown, Intel needs to release something quick to counter Zen 3. This is evident when both Rocket Lake and Alder Lake got release in the same year,

A product is released when it is ready. Nothing AMD could do magically sped up the development of Alder Lake and moved the release up months. You could kind of make that claim had Alder Lake been paper launched, and Intel had simply announced AL with availability coming in a few months, but it didn't. It was available on launch day and most of the product stack is in stock for MSRP at Best Buy right now and probably other major online retailers. The close release after Rocket Lake is only evidence that Intel did not have confidence that 10nm would be ready any time soon when RL was green lighted in q1 of 2019. Development of Golden Cove that AL is based on was probably started in 2018 when Jim Keller came aboard and Intel could see the writing on the wall then and moved forward with backporting Sunny Cove to 14nm for Rocket Lake. Intel did the exact same thing in 2015 when 14nm was delayed. They half-ass released a late and underwhelming Broadwell, their first 14nm mainstream CPU in June of 2015. Not even two months later, in August, Intel released the full Skylake product stack. There was absolutely no competition from AMD at that point, so you can't claim Intel released Skylake so soon from fear of AMD. It made no difference what AMD was doing, Intel released Skylake when it was ready. They are never going to hold a launch back waiting for AMD to be more competitive. That would idiotic.

2. ADL pricing - If you leave either Intel or AMD unchecked, each one will start maximising the profit margin.

I don't really buy this either. As recently as Coffee Lake, Intel's halo mainstream 8700k was $359. It's AMD that has sent mainstream CPU prices soaring up to $800 in just 3 years with the 5950x. Giving credit to AMD for keeping Alder Lake pricing in check is like getting excited over Black Friday ads showing $200 off when the "original" price was significantly raised in the months leading up to Black Friday and the sale price is not really a sale price at all or realistically $10-15 off previous sale prices.

 

[spongiemaster]

without Intel, AMD wouldnt have passed the 1ghz barrier first, integrated memory controllers onto the die of the cpu, introduced 64 bit computing to the consumer market, or launched zen 1,2 or 3 in the timelines that we see and without AMD, intel would not have launched conroe/penryn/wolfdale/bloomfield, sandy bridge/alder lake in the same timeline. If AMD hadnt started competing at the high end again, we'd still be getting served reheated skylake refreshes on top of the 5 iterations of that architecture that we've already had. Yes, while you are correct that each company is responsible for developing their respective architectures over years, they do so based off of their capabilities and what their projections of each others future architectures are going to be. You cant have one without the other, otherwise the consumer loses due to a lack of requirement to innovate as we see with facebook, or the 10 years of quad core cpus on the consumer platform as examples.

This is just completely false on all counts. AMD and Intel are not the driving force behind each other's product development. Industry demand and stock holders are. If either Intel or AMD disappeared, neither industry demand nor stock holder demands would suddenly disappear. It would be impossible for Intel to increase revenue and make stock holders happy if they weren't continually developing better CPU's that entice customers to keep upgrading. No constant stream of new products for customers to upgrade and the company will die a slow death. What is one the main forces behind TSMC's steady climb to fab dominance? It's not competition from Samsung or Intel, it's truckloads of money being dumped at their front door from Apple to help fund development of new process because Apple always wants to release better and more efficient products on a regular cadence. Industry demand is driving TSMC, not what their competition is doing.

 

[VforV]

Go ahead and quote internet videos. Everything you watch on the internet must be truthful, right?

We have both 5950x and 11900K systems at my work. We run SolidWorks, which is known to be sensitive to single-threaded performance. Solidworks runs about the same in single-threaded operations on the 11900K systems as the 5950x's.

I said gaming, read again.

Also, I'm sorry, but HUB and GN are the most trustworthy tech YT channels, none come close to them, that includes written media. They built up their rep in all their years, doing professional reporting and testing and not shilling, something others failed to do, sometimes miserably.

I trust these two and almost no one else, neither this site and other like it. Everyone else for me is just entertainment, not trustworthy info.

Also anyone that does not see this is either a shill, or a brainwashed simp, or a plain simpleton, which there are many. One actually keeps shilling for intel in this very thread. And the fact that he disses HUB and GN is a big exclamation mark.

I'm not saying you are one too though, but you chose a very specific workload that favors that pile of **** Rocket Lake, cherry picking. It's also not gaming.

The fact is the majority of people see how bad Rocket Lake is and admit it. We have Alder Lake now, so that CPU gen should just be ignored... forever, it was a waste of sand, like other said. 10th gen was better.

 

[VforV]

The 11900k is a waste of sand. A 10850k was superior, in pretty much every multitasking regard, and could be found for less money. Also those videos are by well known, and well respected, reviewers. Steve, from Hardware Unboxed, is also a features editor, for techspot. An Steve from GN is probably one of the most technical, and thorough, reviewers out there.

You cans see what kind of person one is when they diss HUB and GN. What their standards are and if they have a morality compass.

It's like a failed test, like when someone says they don't like dogs.

 

[logainofhades]

Again, single-threading performance matters for more things than multi-threaded performance. Zen3 and Rocket Lake have about the same single-threaded performance. Alder Lake clobbers Zen3 in single-threaded performance and pretty much passes Zen3 in multithreaded performance in most business apps as shown here:

12th Gen Intel Core CPU Review Roundup

Intel has launched their new 12th Gen Intel Core desktop processors (code-named "Alder Lake") featuring support for DDR5, PCIe 5.0, as well as a completely new hybrid architecture using a mix of Performance and Efficient-cores. This is a lot of new technologies in one product which makes it hard...

www.pugetsystems.com

Even in gaming, it really doesn't do well against a 10th gen i7 or i9, and it really proves it is a waste of sand, vs an 11700k. The GN review specifically shows this. The 11700k also is a waste of sand, vs the 10700k. Honestly, the only sensible 11th gen chips, are the i5's.

 

[M42]

I said gaming, read again.

Also, I'm sorry, but HUB and GN are the most trustworthy tech YT channels, none come close to them, that includes written media. They built up their rep in all their years, doing professional reporting and testing and not shilling, something others failed to do, sometimes miserably.

I trust these two and almost no one else, neither this site and other like it. Everyone else for me is just entertainment, not trustworthy info.

Also anyone that does not see this is either a shill, or a brainwashed simp, or a plain simpleton, which there are many. One actually keeps shilling for intel in this very thread. And the fact that he disses HUB and GN is a big exclamation mark.

I'm not saying you are one too though, but you chose a very specific workload that favors that pile of **** Rocket Lake, cherry picking. It's also not gaming.

The fact is the majority of people see how bad Rocket Lake is and admit it. We have Alder Lake now, so that CPU gen should just be ignored... forever, it was a waste of sand, like other said. 10th gen was better.

I wasn't specifically discrediting HUB or GN, just pointing out that in general, you can't believe everything on the web. I wrote that because in this case, MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE in a real working environment showed me that the single-threaded performance of the 11900K and 5950X appears to be about the same. This is backed up by single-threading benchmarks in several sites. As has been pointed out many times before single-threaded performance is the most important factor in many applications, including gaming. It's why a ThreadRipper, which has much more cumulative computing power is not the best gaming CPU.

The reason why Rocket Lake has better single-threaded performance than Comet Lake is Intel optimized the microcode to improve instruction timing by about 15%, which was the same thing that AMD did first between Zen2 and Zen3. So people can complain about how bad RL was all day, but the one thing it did was push single-threaded performance up to about Zen3's level. Then Alder Lake pushed past Zen3 by another 15% or so.

 

[M42]

Even in gaming, it really doesn't do well against a 10th gen i7 or i9, and it really proves it is a waste of sand, vs an 11700k. The GN review specifically shows this. The 11700k also is a waste of sand, vs the 10700k. Honestly, the only sensible 11th gen chips, are the i5's.

Can you post the link to what you refer to above?

 

[M42]

You cans see what kind of person one is when they diss HUB and GN. What their standards are and if they have a morality compass.

Wow...so people that don't read all reviews and watch youtube videos don't have a moral compass? (BTW, it's not called a "morality" compass!)

I base my remarks on my own experience and data from many users providing benchmarks. For example here are the results of many users contributing benchmarks for single-threaded performance:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

If you have another benchmarking site showing ranked single-threaded performance, please post a link. I am open to seeing other results from a cumulative number of end-users.

 

[Phaaze88]

For ducks sake, this is just a repeat of this thread: https://forums.tomshardware.com/thr...-and-5800x-face-off-ryzen-has-fallen.3734153/

Let the thread die.

 

[VforV]

My bad, I should have said "moral" compass. Sometimes it shows English is not my native language. But it's fine, everyone understood what I meant.

Can you post the link to what you refer to above?

Funny, I posted exactly that link that you ask for now, it's GN's review video on the last page for the 11900k. The one you replied not to believe everything on the net.... You can also look for GN's review of the 11700k, which is a waste of sand - titled on the thumbnail and shown in the video. You know how to use YT, right? 😛

For ducks sake, this is just a repeat of this thread: https://forums.tomshardware.com/thr...-and-5800x-face-off-ryzen-has-fallen.3734153/

Let the thread die.

I agree.

 

[logainofhades]

Can you post the link to what you refer to above?

Watch the Gamer's Nexus reviews for the 11700k and 11900k. 11th gen should have never been made. 10th gen was at least price/performance competitive, with Zen 3. 11th gen wasn't price/performance competitive against Zen 3 or 10th gen.

 

[-Fran-]

without Intel, AMD wouldnt have passed the 1ghz barrier first, integrated memory controllers onto the die of the cpu, introduced 64 bit computing to the consumer market, or launched zen 1,2 or 3 in the timelines that we see and without AMD, intel would not have launched conroe/penryn/wolfdale/bloomfield, sandy bridge/alder lake in the same timeline. If AMD hadnt started competing at the high end again, we'd still be getting served reheated skylake refreshes on top of the 5 iterations of that architecture that we've already had. Yes, while you are correct that each company is responsible for developing their respective architectures over years, they do so based off of their capabilities and what their projections of each others future architectures are going to be. You cant have one without the other, otherwise the consumer loses due to a lack of requirement to innovate as we see with facebook, or the 10 years of quad core cpus on the consumer platform as examples.

I mean, just to add to your point. AMD as it is today would not exist, quite literally, if it wasn't for IBM forcing Intel to license their X86 side to AMD in order to have a second supplier, back when IBM was the biggest OEM manufacturer. So, thanks to IBM we have competition in the X86 space, lol. VIA gave up a long time ago and so would have AMD if it wasn't for Middle Eastern and Chinese (IIRC) money.

Regards.

 

[M42]

Watch the Gamer's Nexus reviews for the 11700k and 11900k. 11th gen should have never been made. 10th gen was at least price/performance competitive, with Zen 3. 11th gen wasn't price/performance competitive against Zen 3 or 10th gen.

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


That video? If so, I just watched it, and I believe what I said still stands. Single-threaded performance of 11900k is about the same as Zen3's best. The only example is at about 7:45 into this video where there is a graph of photoshop performance using the PugetBench benchmark.

Overdramatically, the GN video says that the 11900k gets "pummelled" by the 5800x and 5900x. Let's do that calculation:

11900K score - 1202
5800X score - 1227 - 2% faster
5900X score - 1255 - 4% faster

That's hardly a pummelling!

Also, interestingly the GN video says they need to retest the 10900k so it was left out of that particular chart. However, if you go to the Puget Systems benchmark page (links below), you will see that the 11900K photoshop benchmark results submitted by users are noticeably higher than the 10900k's.

So, I find it odd that GN says they didn't include the 10900k because they had to rerun its test. Maybe because a poor score would have lessened the impact of their "message" about the 11900K being worthless?

BTW, the 10700k's photoshop performance is close to the 10900K's, and it's shown to be only 1028, thus making the 11900k's single-threaded performance about 17% faster.

11900k photoshop results:
https://www.pugetsystems.com/benchm...lication=photoshop&specs=11900k#results-table

10900k photoshop results:
https://www.pugetsystems.com/benchm...lication=photoshop&specs=10900K#results-table

 

[M42]

My bad, I should have said "moral" compass. Sometimes it shows English is not my native language. But it's fine, everyone understood what I meant.

Funny, I posted exactly that link that you ask for now, it's GN's review video on the last page for the 11900k. The one you replied not to believe everything on the net.... You can also look for GN's review of the 11700k, which is a waste of sand - titled on the thumbnail and shown in the video. You know how to use YT, right? 😛

Yes, I could have done that if someone used "Gamer Nexus" instead of "GN". I was not familiar with Gamer's Nexus, because I mostly use computers for business.

From what I can tell though from that first video, GN seems to leave out information that would lessen the theme of their video (e.g. the single-threaded performance improvements that Rocket Lake provides over Comet Lake).

 

[-Fran-]

Yes, I could have done that if someone used "Gamer Nexus" instead of "GN". I was not familiar with Gamer's Nexus, because I mostly use computers for business.

From what I can tell though from that first video, GN seems to leave out information that would lessen the theme of their video (e.g. the single-threaded performance improvements that Rocket Lake provides over Comet Lake).

Keep in mind those are not "busuiness" reviews because the hardware you build on is not "business oriented". Both AMD and Intel do have Workstations which serve the "business" side (according to their standards) and there's people out there reviewing them as such. I'm not saying you can't use the hardware to suit your specific needs, but as per usual, context is important. You won't find a lot of productivity or diverse business benchmarks (I never see WebLogic, Tomcat, JBoss, Apache, PHP, Oracle, PG or DB2 being benched anywhere, for example!) unless you look either really hard or check the developer's blogs for guidance. GN, HUB and even Tom's cannot be used for business guidance in full. At best they are good for hinting. There's a lot more nuisance that goes into selecting a machine for work. You could even argue stability should be king over performance even. That's one of the things Workstations ensure for you, even if the performance is not better than regular consumer parts, for example. That is not "reviewed" or taken into accunt anywhere that, in my opinion, should be important for any business purchase decision. Warranties as well. And a big "etcetera".

As for whether or not the "waste of sand" qualifier fits, you can only accept it based on the context presented by GN, HUB and many other reviews: the way they weight the pro's and con's of the CPU for the purposes they want out of them. To put it simple: GN is gaming with a side of productivity (not "business", mind you), HUB is gaming first and foremost, then everything else is almost anecdotal, Toms is (or tries to be) rounded, Anandtech is productivity first with gaming second into their considereations (they're the only ones with serious pro' benchmarking at times, for instance) and then you have L1Tech which has a bit of everything as well. Not any one of them has the whole truth, but you can draw hard lines based on all that context.

I hope this helps?

Regards.

 

[M42]

Keep in mind those are not "busuiness" reviews because the hardware you build on is not "business oriented".
I hope this helps?
Regards.

To be clear, I meant desktop business applications, which I believe are relevant to the type of hardware I build/use. For example, Solidworks and Photoshop, which rely mostly on single-threaded performance.

 

[-Fran-]

To be clear, I meant desktop business applications, which I believe are relevant. For example, Solidworks and Photoshop, which rely mostly on single-threaded performance.

Point still stands, as you don't see them reviewing ThreadRipper WS or Xeon or any other "pro-level" workstation CPUs/platforms to know, for sure, how different configurations of them actually perform. While it's less prevalent with CPUs, you still have software that is specialized enough to have specific builds for a workstation CPU and perform way better. This is almost a freebie in Linux, but in Windows is less commmon.

Anyway, I'm not saying you're wrong for focusing on the good points of the 11900K, but the "waste of sand" only applies to regular people and/or people focusing on games first and foremost, and I have to agree there. That CPU was/is bad in so many ways that it's hard to justify for 90% of types of workloads and people. You just happen to be within the 10% that can actually see the good side of it or has use for that small range of software that does, in fact, take advantage of the small advancements Intel included in it. Nothing bad with it, but don't try to remove the importance of the other 90% and accept it, I guess. If you disagree with that, I guess that's fine as well, as maybe you just like the Intel platform more for reasons not disclosed in any review or reflected by hard metrics. Again, context is important.

Regards.

 

[M42]

Point still stands, as you don't see them reviewing ThreadRipper WS or Xeon or any other "pro-level" workstation CPUs/platforms to know, for sure, how different configurations of them actually perform. While it's less prevalent with CPUs, you still have software that is specialized enough

I already know that Threadripper and Xeon perform more poorly for the business apps that matter to me because they have lower single-threaded performance. I can get this information from the Puget Systems website, which I do read regularly because they do that kind of benchmarking.

BTW, GN seems to have performed their 10900K Photoshop benchmark for their 12900K video, and just as I posted earlier, the 11900K has a significant lead over the 10900K (1119 vs 1009). The link below should start at the appropriate time in the video:

View: https://youtu.be/fhI9tLOg-6I?t=768

 

[-Fran-]

I already know that Threadripper and Xeon perform more poorly for the business apps that matter to me because they have lower single-threaded performance. I can get this information from the Puget Systems website, which I do read regularly because they do that kind of benchmarking.

BTW, GN seems to have performed their 10900K Photoshop benchmark for their 12900K video, and just as I posted earlier, the 11900K has a significant lead over the 10900K (1119 vs 1009). The link below should start at the appropriate time in the video:

View: https://youtu.be/fhI9tLOg-6I?t=768

Put context to that 110 points difference: ~10% improvement, but... You sacrifice 2 cores, requiring a new platform and way more heat/power. This is not even considering you can close the gap by OC'ing the 10900K (or just getting a 10850K and doing the same) as both are K parts and have, more or less, the same clock ceiling. I fact, I think the 10K series OC's slightly better because they suck* less power overall. Good things I know about 11K gen: DDR4 IMC is vastly improved and can use >4.2K MT/s kits easily, has PCIe4 (I think?) and can use previous gen coolers (as long as they can actually cool them). Those things you can measure and assign value, but it doesn't negate all the downsides.

Tradeoffs, right?

Regards.

 

[logainofhades]

Yea looking at price vs performance, a 10850k is considered a better choice, when the review was done. Benchmarks don't take into account background tasks going on, that you would experience, in a real world scenario. Companies often have security and AV software, and whatever little utilities required for said company. Those extra cores/threads make the overall experience better.