News Intel's Raptor Lake CPU Appears 20% Faster Than Core i9-12900K on UserBenchmark

[Admin]

Intel's 2.4 GHz Raptor Lake beats current flagship CPUs from AMD and Intel by a significant margin.

Intel's Raptor Lake CPU Appears 20% Faster Than Core i9-12900K on UserBenchmark : Read more

 

[TerryLaze]

Intel's 2.4 GHz Raptor Lake beats current flagship CPUs from AMD and Intel by a significant margin.

Intel's Raptor Lake CPU Appears 20% Faster Than Core i9-12900K on UserBenchmark : Read more

Meanwhile, Intel's current flagship Core i9-12900K is a 16-core/24-thread chip operating at 3.2 GHz – 5 GHz, whereas AMD's Ryzen 9 5950X is a 16-core/32-thread chip working at 3.4 GHz – 4.6 GHz. Given the fact that the Raptor Lake-S sample operates at rather low clocks, it is not surprising that it loses to both rivals in workloads that use eight threads or less.

According to the picture you posted it's basically margin of error to the 12900k and wins against the 5950x.
Also the 12900ks was already released some time ago, the 12900k is not the flagship anymore.

If the clocks are actually accurate and the new intel CPU gets the same performance at 4.6 as the 12900k gets at 5Ghz then that would be a pretty nice increase in IPC, basically 10% and if final clocks are closer to 5Ghz then that would be another 10%
If the clocks are just read from the firmware though then it might already be running at 5Ghz for all we know.

 

[osfanbuff63]

According to the picture you posted it's basically margin of error to the 12900k and wins against the 5950x.
Also the 12900ks was already released some time ago, the 12900k is not the flagship anymore.

If the clocks are actually accurate and the new intel CPU gets the same performance at 4.6 as the 12900k gets at 5Ghz then that would be a pretty nice increase in IPC, basically 10% and if final clocks are closer to 5Ghz then that would be another 10%
If the clocks are just read from the firmware though then it might already be running at 5Ghz for all we know.

I take it like how the RTX 3080 is technically the flagship, but the 3090/Ti is better.

 

[KananX]

AMD already said 7950X will be about 40%+ faster than 5950X, so it will easily beat Raptor Lake then. 12900K isn’t even faster in pure multi threading against 5950X.

 

[wifiburger]

AMD already said 7950X will be about 40%+ faster than 5950X, so it will easily beat Raptor Lake then. 12900K isn’t even faster in pure multi threading against 5950X.

BS ! 40%+ faster

 

[KananX]

BS ! 40%+ faster

AMD didn’t lie since FX times, but whatever, we will see in a few months right.

 

[btmedic04]

userbenchmark is trash and referencing it is trash. please refrain from posting this garbage

 

[TerryLaze]

AMD didn’t lie since FX times, but whatever, we will see in a few months right.

Depends on what you consider a lie.
AMD claimed boost clocks with the 3000 series that only a small percentage of CPUs would reach. Some would consider that lying, hence why they did that survey.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgSoZAdk_E8

 

[Liquidrider]

Why is Tom's Hardware using userbenchmark as a source?
Just using them as a source lowers Tom's Hardware credibility

Sounds over dramatic? No. Because userbenchmark was banned from
/r/hardware
/r/amd
/r/techsupport
even /r/intel banned them.

and if I am not mistaken now banned on /r/buildpc
for a VERY good reason.

UserBenchmark is not a trusted source by a majority of tech enthusiasts... you know your target audience.

 

[TerryLaze]

Why is Tom's Hardware using userbenchmark as a source?
Just using them as a source lowers Tom's Hardware credibility

Sounds over dramatic? No. Because userbenchmark was banned from
/r/hardware
/r/amd
/r/techsupport
even /r/intel banned them.

and if I am not mistaken now banned on /r/buildpc
for a VERY good reason.

UserBenchmark is not a trusted source by a majority of tech enthusiasts... you know your target audience.

So it was banned from one site total....
And that probably only because the users would not stop bickering about it.
It's a very early leak and it's presented as that and nothing more, it's not like anybody said that these results are trustworthy.

 

[shady28]

I find the single and two core benchmark more interesting than the all core workload. All core has a lot of other variables, and for most users is not a situation they run into very often. I've done a lot of looking at perfmon during the work day and game playing times, it's almost always a single thread that limits performance on my 10850K.

It looks like at 4.6Ghz turbo it is beating a 5.05Ghz 12900K by 1-3%. That implies a single or low thread count 10-15% performance bump vs Alder Lake at the same frequency.

 

[TJ Hooker]

I find the single and two core benchmark more interesting than the all core workload. All core has a lot of other variables, and for most users is not a situation they run into very often.

Agreed. Unless you're looking at all the variables, all core benchmarks can easily be dictated by the power/thermal limits of the platform, rather than the inherent performance of the CPU.