- May 16, 2002
- 24,081
- 13,125
- 136
No, thats not it, and not wehat I said, but I am done arguing with a troll.Gotcha, you just dont like the numbers
No, thats not it, and not wehat I said, but I am done arguing with a troll.Gotcha, you just dont like the numbers
I don't know about idle power but intel beating amd in mixed workloads isn't anything new, the same was true between ALD and zen 3.
Somebody doesn't understand the difference between peak power and average power, while also using one software for the performance benchmark and another for energy consumption. Meanwhile, in the world where people use the same workload to calculate efficiency, this stuff happens: the Intel part loses in efficiency at stock settings, let alone at 65W where performance relative to 7950X drops even more.The amd part was drawing way more power. If you actually do the math 22911 / 71 = 322pts vs 346 pts for the amd part. So the AMD part is 7.4% more efficient at 65w in heavy MT
I dont understand why in a thread about anandtechs results, we are talking about other reviews.Somebody doesn't understand the difference between peak power and average power, while also using one software for the performance benchmark and another for energy consumption. Meanwhile, in the world where people use the same workload to calculate efficiency, this stuff happens: the Intel part loses in efficiency at stock settings, let alone at 65W where performance relative to 7950X drops even more.
I should note that Techpowerup uses physical power measurements in their reviews, with 30 readings per second straight from the 12-pin connector. Here's how the 7950X and 13900K behave in their application benchmark suite:
So the 7950X uses 25% less power while delivering 5% less performance in mixed workloads, all measured accurately via hardware at the 12-pin connector.
View attachment 75228
You had no problem talking about another review in this thread about Anandtech results. What happened since yesterday?I dont understand why in a thread about anandtechs results, we are talking about other reviews.
That review wasnt talking about mt efficiency but about mixed usage. Which is not what anandtech was testing. You brought tpus results to disprove what anandtech found.You had no problem talking about another review in this thread about Anandtech results. What happened since yesterday?
But let's not linger on this too much, tell us more about how you managed to calculate Cinebench efficiency using yCruncher PEAK power readings.
Because you are misrepresenting data.I dont understand why in a thread about anandtechs results, we are talking about other reviews.
Nope and nope.Anyways, since you seem to trust tpup, we do agree that in light workloads the 13900k is VASTLY more efficient than the 7950x,right? Its also plenty faster in games as well. Am i right?
So the ppt limited zen 4 didnt consume vastly more than the limit it was set, it was all my misrepresentation.Because you are misrepresenting data.
Then why bother posting a review you dont agree with? That seems weirdNope and nope.
Single threaded does not equal lightly threaded in 2023. Additionally, if single threaded or very lightly threaded performance and efficiency are key driving factors for someone, they wouldn't be looking at any of these CPUs to begin with.Then why bother posting a review you dont agree with? That seems weird
So you agree that the 7950x gulps way more power than the 13900k in st workloads, but you dont think its an important metric. Don't want to misinterpret what you said, so please feel free to correct meSingle threaded does not equal lightly threaded in 2023. Additionally, if single threaded or very lightly threaded performance and efficiency are key driving factors for someone, they wouldn't be looking at any of these CPUs to begin with.
Way more is an exaggeration. Yes, there is a power penalty for AMD having a non-monolithic design that mostly shows up at idle or when using only 1-2 cores. This has been known for quite a long time, you are not bringing new information to the table. We are talking like, 10-11 watts of delta between the two. That's an LED light bulb worth of power, it's not a significant amount overall and again, we are talking about CPUs with 32 threads. This is like comparing the fuel efficiency of two 18 wheel trucks while they are idling or completely unloaded. No one cares who wins. The idle/light core usage is far more important in laptops and SFF systems, where AMD has monolithic designs to fight that battle.So you agree that the 7950x gulps way more power than the 13900k in st workloads, but you dont think its an important metric. Don't want to misinterpret what you said, so please feel free to correct me
I don't think way more is an exaggeration. The techpowerup showed a 52% efficiency delta, and that's while the 13900k was faster. At similar performance testing that difference could easily climb to 100%, meaning that basically the amd part would use double the power for similar performance.Way more is an exaggeration. Yes, there is a power penalty for AMD having a non-monolithic design that mostly shows up at idle or when using only 1-2 cores. This has been known for quite a long time, you are not bringing new information to the table. We are talking like, 10-11 watts of delta between the two. That's an LED light bulb worth of power, it's not a significant amount overall and again, we are talking about CPUs with 32 threads. This is like comparing the fuel efficiency of two 18 wheel trucks while they are idling or completely unloaded. No one cares who wins. The idle/light core usage is far more important in laptops and SFF systems, where AMD has monolithic designs to fight that battle.
The only plce that occurs is at 1-2 cores out of 32. And as said, the wattage is small. In A:LL other scenarios and workloads, the 7950x is much more effecient. Why do you persist in lying and trolling ?I don't think way more is an exaggeration. The techpowerup showed a 52% efficiency delta, and that's while the 13900k was faster. At similar performance testing that difference could easily climb to 100%, meaning that basically the amd part would use double the power for similar performance.
Now sure, you wanna call that insignificant, go ahead, but then don't tell me that the 10-15% efficiency difference in heavy MT workloads is significant because thats double standards
So you admit that what I said is true, but then call me a lier and a troll. Makes senseThe only plce that occurs is at 1-2 cores out of 32. And as said, the wattage is small. In A:LL other scenarios and workloads, the 7950x is much more effecient. Why do you persist in lying and trolling ?
What do you gain by convincing everyone that Alder or Raptor Lake is more efficient?it's just a CPU.
No, you mainttain its more effcient in all scenarios, and even above said the change could be as high as 100%. I call them as I see them, as you maintain this, even though every other poster here has proven you wrong. To continue this activity is called trolling.So you admit that what I said is true, but then call me a lier and a troll. Makes sense
Sorry, come back with something more than personal attacks (this is what, the 3rd time?) if you want a reply. This is embarrassing, calm down, it's just a CPU.
Never said it is, and I don't think ill gain anything, unless you plan on getting me somethingWhat do you gain by convincing everyone that Alder or Raptor Lake is more efficient?
Never said that. That's you putting words in my mouth. It's called lying. The thing you accused me of.No, you mainttain its more effcient in all scenarios
LOLThe 7950x is indeed more efficient in very heavy MT workloads
In EVERY scenario I saw, the 13900k was consuming a LOT more power(like as much as 100 watt or more than the 7950x), except this one test. Way to cherry pick.I don't think this video has been posted yet, but PC World did a 13900K power consumption review. They tested total power consumption and didn't do performance per watt testing, which is a shame because that would have been more impactful to this debate.
Basically though, they corroborate what @Herald and I have been saying, that in light to moderate CPU usage, RPL has an advantage over Zen 4 while in heavy thread usage, Zen 4 has the advantage. The browsing power usage was the most eye opening, as the 7950x looked like it was drawing on average about 120w, while RPL was about 80w.
You can compare efficiency, the 13900k at 85w consumes the same amount of power as the 7950x at 65w in their review, and the scores are pretty similar. The 7950x has an advantage, but its around 10%. Thats in cinebench r23.I don't think this video has been posted yet, but PC World did a 13900K power consumption review. They tested total power consumption and didn't do performance per watt testing, which is a shame because that would have been more impactful to this debate.
Basically though, they corroborate what @Herald and I have been saying, that in light to moderate CPU usage, RPL has an advantage over Zen 4 while in heavy thread usage, Zen 4 has the advantage. The browsing power usage was the most eye opening, as the 7950x looked like it was drawing on average about 120w, while RPL was about 80w.
You mean when power unlimited? Of course, if you ask the cpu to draw 350 watts, it will draw 350w, why is that a surprise? I mean the 7950x draws 200 more watts than the 13900T, does that tell us anything useful? Not really.In EVERY scenario I saw, the 13900k was consuming a LOT more power(like as much as 100 watt or more than the 7950x), except this one test. Way to cherry pick.