News Intel Panther Lake processors could pack up to 16 cores, maximum of four performance cores according to leak

[TheHerald]

From the chart of your fav Cinebench MT the 7900 non x tops it, more than double of 13700 bud

What chart? What I just posted doesn't have cinebench.

 

[YSCCC]

What chart? What I just posted doesn't have cinebench.

I am referencing bituser’s chart, why only your chart is useful and his chart isn’t?

 

[TheHerald]

I am referencing bituser’s chart, why only your chart is useful and his chart isn’t?

Because birusers chart doesn't include the cpu in question, the 13700 non k?

 

[bit_user]

The 7950x 3d is the 2nd most efficient cause they have only tested one non k or t. If they tested all of them, nothing on amd would have made it on the top 10. That much is obvious but let's pretend it's not the case.

Last I checked, pretending was when you assert something to be true absent of supporting evidence. In that case, you're the one pretending, but you level the accusation at us?

That's shady. If this whole thing with talking up Intel products doesn't work out for you, I'd bet you'd do well in used car sales.

I'm not talking about zen 5 cause it's kinda irrelevant.

Nice try.

When you don't accept that rpl is more efficient than Zen 4

See, this is what I'm talking about. You picked one matchup of CPU models, propose a test under artificial circumstances, and the claim the finding applies to the entire product line. That's utterly ridiculous!

You're well aware that each product performs with a certain efficiency, which is the whole point of TechPowerUp doing one measurement per product, rather than just one per generation. The efficiency of a i7-13700 is different than a i9-13900K, even though they're based on the same die, because Intel adjusted the parameters of the latter to bias it more towards performance. And even if you devise tweaks to make the i9-13900K behave more like the i7-13700, it's of little practical consequence, because that's not how normal users would experience the product. Your argument is now largely theoretical and moot.

 

[TheHerald]

Last I checked, pretending was when you assert something to be true absent of supporting evidence. In that case, you're the one pretending, but you level the accusation at us?

That's shady. If this whole thing with talking up Intel products doesn't work out for you, I'd bet you'd do well in used car sales.


Nice try.


See, this is what I'm talking about. You picked one matchup of CPU models, propose a test under artificial circumstances, and the claim the finding applies to the entire product line. That's utterly ridiculous!

You're well aware that each product performs with a certain efficiency, which is the whole point of TechPowerUp doing one measurement per product, rather than just one per generation. The efficiency of a i7-13700 is different than a i9-13900K, even though they're based on the same die, because Intel adjusted the parameters of the latter to bias it more towards performance. And even if you devise tweaks to make the i9-13900K behave more like the i7-13700, it's of little practical consequence, because that's not how normal users would experience the product. Your argument is now largely theoretical and moot.

You keep saying I picked one match up blabla. I'll pick more after we agree that indeed the 13700 is a lot more efficient than it's competitor, the 7700x. What are the artificial tests you are talking about? I just go with the one and only review done on the 13700, it has it beating its competitor by a truckload in efficiency.

Intel makes 3 SKUs for most of it's chips, the k, the non k and the T. The focus on the K is absolute performance, the focus on the non k is balance, and the focus of the T is absolute efficiency. You people just cherrypick the K chips which are meant to be inefficient to conclude that intel doesn't make efficient chips, while completely neglecting that the non k and T chips are incredibly efficient. And then you have the audacity to call me biased, lol

That's like saying Renault doesn't make efficient cars cause the Formula 1 renault uses too much fuel....like that's somehow relevant to the road cars they are also making.

 

[bit_user]

I'll pick more after we agree that indeed the 13700 is a lot more efficient than it's competitor, the 7700x.

They're not really matched, though. The best discounts on the i7 are over and the K model is back up to $310 (non-K is even more), meanwhile the 7700X is down to $280, with rumors of further price cuts in the queue (as low as $220?).

That matchup was always a stretch, as we've previously discussed, but I let it slide, due to near pricing parity. I'm sure that's largely due to Intel trying to liquidate Gen 13 inventory (in the face of bad PR about Raptor Lake's reliability), ahead of Arrow Lake's launch. Whatever the reasons, if it's a viable matchup price-wise, I'm willing to consider it.

The thing is, that you're not actually talking about just the i7-13700. You're cherry-picking it to represent all of Raptor Lake. So, this whole thing is at an impasse, because none of us are falling for that switcheroo.

 

[TheHerald]

They're not really matched, though. The best discounts on the i7 are over and the K model is back up to $310 (non-K is even more), meanwhile the 7700X is down to $280, with rumors of further price cuts in the queue (as low as $220?).

That matchup was always a stretch, as we've previously discussed, but I let it slide, due to near pricing parity. I'm sure that's largely due to Intel trying to liquidate Gen 13 inventory (in the face of bad PR about Raptor Lake's reliability), ahead of Arrow Lake's launch. Whatever the reasons, if it's a viable matchup price-wise, I'm willing to consider it.

The thing is, that you're not actually talking about just the i7-13700. You're cherry-picking it to represent all of Raptor Lake. So, this whole thing is at an impasse, because none of us are falling for that switcheroo.

So finally after 7 pages we agree that the 13700 is more efficient than the 7700x. Why? Aren't intel chips fire breathing power consuming blabla. How can it be more efficient, and with that HUGE margin (70% more efficient, rofl).

Any reason why the same wouldn't apply to the rest of the non k and t models? Like the 14700 or the 14700t, wouldn't it almost by necessity be more efficient than the 13700?

EG1. Actually, scratch the price. it's even more efficient than the 7950x 3d and the 7950x which cost up to double, lol. Intel's chips are so efficient that they don't have to nitpick a 10$ price difference to make a comparison invalid. The 13700 even beats the ~550+$ 7950x 3d in efficiency.

 

[YSCCC]

So finally after 7 pages we agree that the 13700 is more efficient than the 7700x.

that is cherry picking, AND only you think that represent RPL is more efficient than Zen 4, and Intel didn't even think so, why the one making the architecture don't think so but according to you it is of utmost efficient architecture in the generation. Intel must be full of idiots who don't just release the T series and claim the efficiency crown and let AMD take that name all along.

 

[TheHerald]

that is cherry picking, AND only you think that represent RPL is more efficient than Zen 4, and Intel didn't even think so, why the one making the architecture don't think so but according to you it is of utmost efficient architecture in the generation. Intel must be full of idiots who don't just release the T series and claim the efficiency crown and let AMD take that name all along.

Totally. Im comparing 2 cpus released at the same time, with the same MSRP, same current price in the same workload. For sure, cherrypicking at it's finest

The rest of your post is gibberish. Are you suggesting that the 13900t isn't more efficient than anything amd has? How did you figure that out? This suggests otherwise

 

[YSCCC]

Totally. Im comparing 2 cpus released at the same time, with the same MSRP, same current price in the same workload. For sure, cherrypicking at it's finest

By ignoring the ton of other combination in comparison in Bituser's chart, which all the released at the same time, with the same MSRP, same current price in the same workload showed they got smoked by the competition, you got it right this time of your comparison being cherrypicking at it's finest, we finally agree on something I believe

 

[TheHerald]

By ignoring the ton of other combination in comparison in Bituser's chart, which all the released at the same time, with the same MSRP, same current price in the same workload showed they got smoked by the competition, you got it right this time of your comparison being cherrypicking at it's finest, we finally agree on something I believe

Bituser is comparing Intel's K models. OBVIOUSlY, those are not meant to be efficient. That's the whole reason non K and T exist. So sure, if the point you are trying to make is that amd is more efficient than Intel's k lineup at stock, id fully agree. AMD is more efficient than Intel's chips that are meant to be inefficient. That's not a particularly wow worthy achievement and the question is, who cares? If you care about efficiency you aren't looking at the k chips but the other 2, in which case Intel slumdunks AMD.

So since you care about efficiency why don't you compare AMD's spaceheaters with non k and T? I mean I know why, but id like to hear the reasons youll come up with.

 

[YSCCC]

Bituser is comparing Intel's K models. OBVIOUSlY, those are not meant to be efficient. That's the whole reason non K and T exist. So sure, if the point you are trying to make is that amd is more efficient than Intel's k lineup at stock, id fully agree. AMD is more efficient than Intel's chips that are meant to be inefficient. That's not a particularly wow worthy achievement and the question is, who cares? If you care about efficiency you aren't looking at the k chips but the other 2, in which case Intel slumdunks AMD.

So since you care about efficiency why don't you compare AMD's spaceheaters with non k and T? I mean I know why, but id like to hear the reasons youll make up.

Ah and then you compare the X with the non K, and cherry pick the segment putting the X model on huge threads disvantage, really very, very consistent. I thought you don't know you shouldn't compare the different lineups at their unintended use case, like something tuning down 13900k to 45w or so. Thanks Chief for being clear about what fair comparison is.

 

[TheHerald]

Ah and then you compare the X with the non K, and cherry pick the segment putting the X model on huge threads disadvantage, really very, very consistent. I thought you don't know you shouldn't compare the different lineups at their unintended use case, like something tuning down 13900k to 45w or so. Thanks Chief for being clear about what fair comparison is.

I didn't cherry pick any segments. AMD and Intel have decided the segments with their naming scheme and the prices. The 300$ segment is the R7 vs the i7. If the i7 13700 cost 599$ I would be comparing it with the 7950x. But it's not, so...I didn't put the R7 on a thread disadvantage, AMD did. Complain to them

There is no tuning involved, the review tested a stock 13700, it beat the 7700x by 70% in efficiency. 70 freaking percent. You just refuse to admit it cause of your agenda.

EG1. Funny you are talking about a thread disadvantage. You do realize that the 13700 is more efficient than the 7950x? There is no thread disadvantage there.

 

[COLGeek]

Please stick to the topic with facts, sources, and informed opinions. Eye-poking, insults, and trolling with not be tolerated.

Civility and respect is required by all.

 

[bit_user]

(comment deleted, as per COLGeek's post)

Agreed that we shouldn't get stuck in the past. Instead, focus on current and future products.