What's a real user? I think I'm one of them no?
And do you routinely run your CPU at settings that come as close as possible to matching the performance of a competing CPU, which you didn't buy?
In a way, yes. I'm running my CPU capped at a specific power limit - and I'd use that same power limit with any CPU i'd have.
But you're using that power limit because you want to limit any CPU to that power limit, not because you want to match it up to the power that would be used by a different CPU.
Everybody that buys an OEM or simple/normal prebuild system....
The Dell compact desktops we use actually implement Intel's stock power limits for the CPUs they have (i9-12900: PL1=65W, PL2=202W). Their cooling setup is adequate to prevent thermal throttling under those limits.
I didn't suggest iso performance but iso power. I think a lot of people do, and a lot more people would if they released that's something that can be done in a second. That's like the whole reason there is a 7900x and a 7900, cause most want a lower power cpu but they don't know you can do that in seconds.
Yes you have. You were previously talking about closing a 1.8% performance gap between R9 7950X and i9-14900K, on one benchmark, by boosting the AMD CPU to try and make it perform the same as the i9.
But at what power? These perf/W functions are curves, not straight lines. So, if you're going to pick some common power limit, how do you know which is the right one? Better test several. Oh, but then you'd have full perf/W curves, like I've been saying!
I think there's a good chance it's because not all of the compute dies would bin high enough to qualify for use in X-series CPUs.
Okay, so now you're arguing for testing them at out-of-box defaults, like I've also been saying!
Because those 2 are actually very close in performance, you can match them. Usually it's not the case, Intel CPUs are much faster than amd ones so you can't really match them in performance - not unless you are going to push thousands of watts into them
Doesn't matter. The most efficient at 50w is still going to be a chart topper at any sane power draw. Take the 14700k vs the 7800x 3d, is there really any point in the curve that the 7800x 3d is more efficient?
No, im not. Im asking who cares about out of the box when they know they can change the out of the box behavior?
It's still not what people actually do!
LOL, oh lame joke of an argument, again. Only with absurd matchups that don't match the reality of what market segments these CPUs fall into.
LOL, pretending as though this data doesn't exist.
There you go again, with a joke matchup. You're comparing a more expensive CPU with way more cores/threads to one that's older, cheaper, and more narrowly-targeted at gaming.
Most people do one of two things. Either they take the out-of-the-box defaults, or they do some sane tuning to maximize the performance of their setup. The never tune one CPU to match the performance or the power profile of another CPU.
Not at all. I've said multiple times that the 7950x beats the 13/14900k in MT efficiency. Why would I be mad about it, lol.
What do you mean man, it's still the 2nd most efficient desktop CPU in existence. Maybe im using the phrase wrong, isn't a chart topper something that retains high ranking but not necessarily the highest?LOL, pretending as though this data doesn't exist.
Sure, the i9-13900K was most efficient at 50W, but didn't top the chart much after that!
No, not really. The 7800x 3d for the majority of it's existence was between 380 and 450€. It was only the last 3 months it dropped below 380.
Maximize performance - you mean overclocking it? Well these people don't care about efficiency then, so who cares? The are not a part of the efficiency discussion. I'm talking about people that actually CARE about efficiency. These people either don't know they can change the power limits - or they do know in which case out of the box is meaningless to them.
What makes sense to claim is what will actually happen, in the real world!! You can argue whether it makes sense for the CPU to be configured like that, but that's a separate discussion than a fair portrayal of what behavior people should anticipate occurring (unless they adjust, accordingly).
Nope. Check PcPartPicker's price history for these CPUs. The i7-14700K has consistently been more expensive than the R7 7800X3D by about $50 or so. Compared with the i7-13700K, it's been a little more neck-and-neck.
That's only because the i7-13700's pricing has recently plummeted. That said, it's still a weird comparison since those CPUs aren't as good at gaming. The 7800X3D is more of a specialty product and everyone knows this.
Not "still", but yes it's currently a little cheaper. If you set the history window out to a year or more, you can see that's because the i5-13600K has also dropped a lot, this calendar year. It spent most of last year at or above $300.
IMO, "topper" means one who sits on top. There is only one top. If you mean "high-ranking", then say what you mean.
I can't speak to European pricing, but I've already said what's happened with the $USD prices, not to mention that the matchup is weird for other reasons.
Fine, but then pick a point where each CPU starts to level off. That's what most efficiency-minded users would do, if they do any tuning at all. The "knee" in that curve is a lot lower for the Zen 4 CPUs, as you can see from the ComputerBase and Anandtech data (even accepting the flaws in the latter). To arbitrarily pick a given wattage to compare them at is still an artificial comparison.
Get over yourself, the amount of people that will buy a hand crafted system that will allow a 14900k to run at the power levels shown in reviews is tending towards ZERO.
Same to you.
If you actually read what I wrote, then you wouldn't be saying this. I didn't say the testing had to be done with only out-of-the-box defaults. Among other things, I said you could compare using sane settings, like real people would actually use, but that whatever settings are used to measure performance should also be used to measure efficiency (and vice versa)!
It depends on the app, of course. Cinebench R23 is 4%.
But then you are only testing how dumb people are and not the efficiency of the CPU....
The CPU has no absolute efficiency. Its efficiency is based on how it's configured and used.
If you want to include a data point for such a sweet spot, then that configuration also needs to be included in all of the performance tests, so that people would understand the performance tradeoff of configuring it like that.
Unless the motherboard defaults to the absolute highest limit, in which case that should be one of the configurations tested.
Are you talking about PL1=PL2=125W or PL1=125W; PL2=253W?
Unlike what Toms & ComputerBase do, that TechPowerUp "Application Average" mashes together single-threaded and multi-threaded apps. I think that's misleading. I'd want to know how it behaves on heavily-threaded apps and lightly threaded ones, separately. Otherwise, when I fire up a rendering job or a big software compilation job, I might be in for an unpleasant surprise.
They have that as well
The vast majority of testing is done without power limits which skews people's view. Before tweaking even at stock settings AMD tends to have an absolute efficiency lead it's just not very big, and varies by workload. The 200W 14900K results are a pretty good indicator of what can be done with current Intel CPUs if one is willing to spend some time to figure out what works for specific use cases.
TPU does individual application graphing they just don't put it in comparison graphs:
Ι agree that the 3ds are more efficient in gaming, but there are some caveats here.The vast majority of testing is done without power limits which skews people's view. Before tweaking even at stock settings AMD tends to have an absolute efficiency lead it's just not very big, and varies by workload. The 200W 14900K results are a pretty good indicator of what can be done with current Intel CPUs if one is willing to spend some time to figure out what works for specific use cases.
When it comes to overall gaming efficiency though AMD generally has Intel beat, and the X3D parts absolutely do unless you start disabling parts of the Intel CPU (or accept sub par performance for the sake of efficiency).
TPU does individual application graphing they just don't put it in comparison graphs:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-14900k/22.html
I know, but another beef I have with TechPowerUp is that they give you no multithreaded and single-threaded averages (unlike Toms & ComputerBase). The reason people benchmark multiple different programs is that they don't all correlate perfectly.They have that as well
Oh, but it is. You already forgot what I've been saying, which is that it's silly to compare across product segments, which is exactly what that chart does. It puts the R9 7950X3D next to the i3-13400F. That would be like having a fuel economy chart that mixes together big 4x4 pickup trucks with small economy cars. Nobody in the market for one would consider the other, because the way you use them is fundamentally different as are the reasons for buying them.
They tend to be efficient within their respective product segments and especially when you put a leash on them (i.e. the 65 W or X3D versions). The one defying rhyme and reason is you, with the bad jokes that are the product matchups you're putting forward.
What 13400f are you talking about? The chart has the 14900k at 125w being as efficient as the 7950x 3d and at 200w beating it in performance. If you extrapolate the data the 14900k at around 160w should be performance matching the 7950x 3d which is running at 140. That's not a big difference.
How does that change anything? What would running AMD cpus at various customized settings achieve?
But they aren't, not even at 65w. Low loads, single threaded, idle (that's what youd probably care about most with 65w 8core parts) shows incredible inefficiency. I mean they are basically losing - by a big 40-50% margin to alderlake parts (13400 is alderlake based btw).
Efficiency @ 200 W still isn't looking that great for it. To get good efficiency out of it, you have to dial it all the way back to 125 W, but that comes at a 19.2% performance penalty and closer to the 7900X than the 7950X. I'm not sure people are going to do that, when they could just get one of those CPUs.
Yes, and that shows exactly what I'm talking about. You have this odd mix of lightly-threaded and heavily-threaded programs muddled together in their overall average.TPU does individual application graphing they just don't put it in comparison graphs:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-14900k/22.html
Yeah - that's called double standards. The 7950x will be consuming 80% more power at that point, so wth are you even talking about man? You are saying efficiency doesn't look great at 200w, but it's MORE efficient than the 7950x at that point.
We've just been through this. You can't cherry-pick a performance measurement in one configuration and an efficiency measurement in another! For each configuration (125W, 200W, etc.), you have to take performance and efficiency together!
The above ComputerBase data answers that quite nicely.
Ah, so you're back to basing sweeping statements on specific cases.
First, that's one of your classic bad-joke matchups, since even the R5 7600X outperforms the i5-13400F on CineBench MT.
Oh, you want to talk about double-standards? How about not comparing Intel CPU in modified configuration against AMD in stock! Again, if someone is going to buy a CPU and tune it for better efficiency, why wouldn't they base that decision on a comparison of both CPUs running with modified settings, like ComputerBase did?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram