• Happy holidays, folks! Thanks to each and every one of you for being part of the Tom's Hardware community!

News Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is the new single-thread performance leader in PassMark benchmark

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
At what power envelope though.

Previous Gen also did well on Syn test. But we know how that's working out for all the duds and power usage issues now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moobear
Marlin1975 said:
At what power envelope though.

Previous Gen also did well on Syn test. But we know how that's working out for all the duds and power usage issues now.
Click to expand...
Previous gen was a lot more efficient than it's competition in ST workloads.

efficiency-singlethread.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: adbatista, rtoaht and JRStern
TheHerald said:
Previous gen was a lot more efficient than it's competition in ST workloads.

efficiency-singlethread.png
Click to expand...
That chart is missing AMD's 9000 series, though it wouldn't make much of a difference. Chiplet designs are less efficient for single core because of the nature of the I/O die and the infinity fabric having to be powered for any core to do work. This adds a set amount of power required to do any work on any core, but its a relatively fixed amount of power. Stock multi-core efficiency is a different story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: adbatista, jp7189, TheHerald and 1 other person
TheHerald said:
Previous gen was a lot more efficient than it's competition in ST workloads.

efficiency-singlethread.png
Click to expand...
Good try on spinning it, as always, like this.

Can you find others where AMD is behind Intel in ST efficiency? I can see the 7800X3D second in the chart and the 13400F first, but we know which one would be the right pick for your enthusiast.

What about gaming workloads, for example?

Regards.
 
-Fran- said:
Good try on spinning it, as always, like this.

Can you find others where AMD is behind Intel in ST efficiency? I can see the 7800X3D second in the chart and the 13400F first, but we know which one would be the right pick for your enthusiast.

What about gaming workloads, for example?

Regards.
Click to expand...
How the heck am I spinning it? I just posted a graph from TPUP, what the hell man?

How are gaming workloads relevant here? The thread is about ST performance, guy said Intel consumes too much power at those, I provided some evidence to the contrary. Where is the problem?

Yes, I can find others where AMD is behind. How about this one?

828-EDB5-F-C71-B-4594-8997-3-E0-ED78-F9-C64.png


Can you people stop it? It's just a company. You don't have to defend it against all evidence to the contrary, damn.
 
TheHerald said:
How the heck am I spinning it? I just posted a graph from TPUP, what the hell man?

How are gaming workloads relevant here? The thread is about ST performance, guy said Intel consumes too much power at those, I provided some evidence to the contrary. Where is the problem?

Yes, I can find others where AMD is behind. How about this one?

828-EDB5-F-C71-B-4594-8997-3-E0-ED78-F9-C64.png


Can you people stop it? It's just a company. You don't have to defend it against all evidence to the contrary, damn.
Click to expand...
We (I'm guessing I'm representing the rest of the world) are not defending anything. We're trying to stop you from spreading false claims and misrepresent findings on tests.

The two tests you've pointed out are not quite good as you may want to beleive. Specially the second, since it's just power with no measure of performance. Unless you want to test stability or something like that?

In order to stablish whether one or the other is more efficient, you need average tests not single passes of any specific software to prove your bias in a very underhanded way.

I'll stop here, since it's a waste to continue.

Regards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jp7189 and Peksha
IOW on single core they're all about the same, and on multi there's no chart but probably similar.
And even the worst of them is plenty fast for 99% of real users.

How about versus Lunar Lake (recent laptop chip)?
 
-Fran- said:
Good try on spinning it, as always, like this.

Can you find others where AMD is behind Intel in ST efficiency? I can see the 7800X3D second in the chart and the 13400F first, but we know which one would be the right pick for your enthusiast.

What about gaming workloads, for example?

Regards.
Click to expand...
As I explained above, AMD chiplet CPUs are, in fact, less efficient at single core workloads than Intel's monolithic die CPUs. I also said it's a different story when talking about multithreaded efficiency, as we both know.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KyaraM
helper800 said:
As I explained above, AMD chiplet CPUs are ,in fact, less efficient at single core workloads than Intel's monolithic die CPUs. I also said it's a different story when talking about multithreaded efficiency, as we both know.
Click to expand...
The monolithic dies exist in Desktop, but why would you care about their efficiency when the performance is not there?

I'll venture a guess and say the 8600G is one of the most efficient CPUs out in the market right now for ST on desktop.

https://www.computerbase.de/2024-01/amd-ryzen-8700g-8600g-test/3/#abschnitt_effizienz_in_spielen

"We're accustomed to AMD's APUs delivering exceptional power efficiency — the prior-gen 5700G and 5600G are among the most power-efficient processors we've ever tested. AMD has dominated power efficiency metrics for several chip generations, but as shown in our renders-per-watt chart in the above album, Intel's competing processors are closing the gap."
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amd-ryzen-7-8700g-cpu-review/2

Not the right hill to die on, I'd say.

Regards.
 
-Fran- said:
The monolithic dies exist in Desktop, but why would you care about their efficiency when the performance is not there?

I'll venture a guess and say the 8600G is one of the most efficient CPUs out in the market right now for ST on desktop.

https://www.computerbase.de/2024-01/amd-ryzen-8700g-8600g-test/3/#abschnitt_effizienz_in_spielen

"We're accustomed to AMD's APUs delivering exceptional power efficiency — the prior-gen 5700G and 5600G are among the most power-efficient processors we've ever tested. AMD has dominated power efficiency metrics for several chip generations, but as shown in our renders-per-watt chart in the above album, Intel's competing processors are closing the gap."
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amd-ryzen-7-8700g-cpu-review/2

Not the right hill to die on, I'd say.

Regards.
Click to expand...
Neither of those links say anything antithetical to my claim. What are you even arguing here? My claim is that AMD CPUs are less efficient when limited to a single thread because of the innate architectural differences between chiplet designs and monolithic designs.
 
helper800 said:
Neither of those links say anything antithetical to my claim. What are you even arguing here? My claim is that AMD CPUs are less efficient when limited to a single thread because of the innate architectural differences between chiplet designs and monolithic designs.
Click to expand...
You're assuming/saying/implying AMD doesn't have monolithic designs for the desktop. They do and they're very efficient, more so than their chiplet counterparts and Intel.

If you're only talking about chiplet designs, then you're not wrong, but AMD has more than just chiplet CPUs for desktop.

Regards.
 
-Fran- said:
You're assuming/saying/implying AMD doesn't have monolithic designs for the desktop. They do and they're very efficient, more so than their chiplet counterparts and Intel.

If you're only talking about chiplet designs, then you're not wrong, but AMD has more than just chiplet CPUs for desktop.

Regards.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the chart that was posted with only chiplet CPUs from AMD. I even specifically said "AMD chiplet CPUs." I never said all AMD CPUs are chiplet based...
 
Ogotai said:
ahh, so one cherry picked benchmark proves your point ? gotcha
Click to expand...
I've posted 3 benchmark charts. How are they cherry picked is beyond me my man, these are all from 3 different reviews checking ST performance and efficiency. What would I need to do for those charts not to be cherry picked? I can post more from even more review sites, but the results are pretty much the same.
 
Marlin1975 said:
At what power envelope though.

Previous Gen also did well on Syn test. But we know how that's working out for all the duds and power usage issues now.
Click to expand...
This is the kind of info I'm always trying to find, but doesn't seem to exist. But I can confirm a huge difference in power consumption and heat output with the new microcode update! My 13900k pulls way less power now and runs cooler than ever before even with more total power available.

I never let mine run unlimited, that's just ridiculous and I knew better! But I did tune by temperature and settled in around 220 watts. I've never run my chip by OEM specs/settings, I always set my own..... Until this new update was released, now I'm running exactly OEM specs/settings with the same performance I always see under real work load conditions, but with much cooler operating temps. Soo same speeds with less power consumption equals greater efficiency. I don't have exact numbers, but from looking at "hardware info 64" before and after microcode update, from the speed and power draw to the temperatures, I'd say there is almost 40% difference.

I've never run at 253 watts before, I couldn't, nothing on the market can keep this chip cool enough to run at those power levels. This chip throttles at 212 degrees farenheit and would live there before the microcode update, unless you created your own limits like I did. But now under real world work load conditions this chip runs about 136 (F) average on all P cores at the recommended power setting of 253 watts. The difference is really night and day! If any have not updated their BIOS, they need to, the difference is huge!
 
  • Like
Reactions: adbatista
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom