Am I analyzing this correctly when comparing my 5950x to the 12900k?

[LGabrielPhoto]

Hello,
So I had the chance to buy the 12900k and I did.
But after watching more and more reviews, I feel that I wouldn't get any real-world benefits by changing.

For instance, even when they show the 12900k beating the 5950x like with Blender B&W test by 8 seconds..that was against a very stock 5950x. Mine with simple PBO , CO, and tweaked limits to keep power and temps under control scores 7 seconds faster than the 12900k. And it also scores almost 30k in CB23 vs there 12900 27k.

Even in Photoshop, the OCed 5950x is not that far behind in real world so since I mostly do Photoshop, Premiere and some gaming (PCVR mostly), I don't see me gaining anything specially when I see the DDR5 situation. Plus in games when not VR I play 4K thus CPU differences are less important at this level. And on top of that, the current DDR4 mobos for the Intel just do not fit my need so even that wouldn't be an option for me.

For all that I am 99% sure I will just sell the 12900k.
What do you feel? Are you in the same boat as I am right now?
Thanks!

 

[GotNoRice]

I agree that most of the benchmarks I've seen do not take into account PBO or if you are using curve optimizer with a negative offset, etc. Everything I've read about these Intel chips makes it look like they are already being pushed to their limits (both in terms of heat output and power consumption) using stock boost clocks so I doubt there is much overclocking headroom. The AMD CPUs do benefit still from things like PBO and curve optimizer. And, most of the Intel benchmarks I've seen are using DDR5, meaning you need to factor in that huge early-adopter cost or be okay with less performance by going with DDR4.

It really seems like the way to go right now is to stick with AM4 until DDR5 matures a bit. The good thing about Alder-Lake is that there should be plenty of DDR5 kits for sale by the time AMD releases Zen4. Until then, stick with AM4 and maybe even upgrade to a new CPU with 3D Cache next year. It's certainly a LOT cheaper to upgrade the CPU than CPU+Mobo+RAM at the same time.

 

[ea6b123]

Im still confused by the new intel stuff or other chips are slower while others are faster cores and now intel hides it total power watts can someone explain this to me in simple terms, Also i was reading that 50 + games dont even work on intels new cpu's for now with drm stuff LOL

 

[GotNoRice]

Im still confused by the new intel stuff or other chips are slower while others are faster cores and now intel hides it total power watts can someone explain this to me in simple terms, Also i was reading that 50 + games dont even work on intels new cpu's for now with drm stuff LOL

P-cores are the fast cores. E-cores are slower, but only use 25% of the physical space and consume much less power. Because Intel has been lagging behind with their process technology, causing each core to run hotter, they simply couldn't fit enough P-cores into a single chip the same way AMD has done. Their compromise was to give a mix of P-cores and E-cores. This requires changes to the OS so that it can properly direct CPU intensive tasks to the P-cores while saving the E-cores for less important tasks and for heavily multi-threaded tasks. It's not a bad way to go really aside from the extra complexity involved. AMD will likely take a similar path in the next couple of years.

The DRM issue is not anything that Intel should be blamed for. It's a quirky issue where the DRM mis-identifies the P-cores and E-cores as actually being two different CPUs, and interprets that as meaning you are trying to play the game on two separate computers using the same key. This is hardly the first time that draconian DRM (that exists mainly to protect the publisher's profits) caused unintended problems for end-users.

 

[RodrigoR]

This video proves what LGabrielPhoto is saying...
First there is no review using Ryzen with PBO enabled vs ADL 12900K, second the memory kits are not DDR4-3733 or DDR4-3800 with good timings (14) (1t)
Intel is trying to sell that ADL is better for gaming and rendering which is not true at ALL.
I see ridiculous low CB23 scores in ADL reviews like 24-25K only, when PBO enabled Ryzen easily gets 30K, games the same

 

[///AMG]

Seems to me in multithreaded apps I have seen benchmarks for that the new Intel chips use just as much more power as they are faster than the stock 5950x. It is weird to me that reviewers are letting the 12900k use PL2 but not letting the 5950x use PBO or they dont state that it does. To me intel went netburst style with alder lake, instead of frequency its power limit this time. Overall its not big enough performance increase for me to bother, I will be waiting for ryzen 6000 series.

 

[LGabrielPhoto]

Seems to me in multithreaded apps I have seen benchmarks for that the new Intel chips use just as much more power as they are faster than the stock 5950x. It is weird to me that reviewers are letting the 12900k use PL2 but not letting the 5950x use PBO or they dont state that it does. To me intel went netburst style with alder lake, instead of frequency its power limit this time. Overall its not big enough performance increase for me to bother, I will be waiting for ryzen 6000 series.

Indeed. To me when when they don't tell, simply looking at the cinebnech scores was a simple way to tell if they did or not not

 

[noko]

If stock vs stock then that is how the chips fall. I would expect OCing for both 5950x and 12900K and others will be evaluated once the dust clears. I still don't see single thread performance of the P cores will be matched by Zen 3, regardless of OC. I also don't see much benefit going from Zen 3 to Alder Lake either, it would not be much of an upgrade while costing a significant amount of $'s. Maybe if one is going with a cheap 5600x system to a premium 12900K or 12700K system or building an additional whole system -> Alder Lake would be the way I would go in those cases.

 

[LGabrielPhoto]

If stock vs stock then that is how the chips fall. I would expect OCing for both 5950x and 12900K and others will be evaluated once the dust clears. I still don't see single thread performance of the P cores will be matched by Zen 3, regardless of OC. I also don't see much benefit going from Zen 3 to Alder Lake either, it would not be much of an upgrade while costing a significant amount of $'s. Maybe if one is going with a cheap 5600x system to a premium 12900K or 12700K system or building an additional whole system -> Alder Lake would be the way I would go in those cases.

I don't see this as "stock vs stock" at all as the days of that concept are long go. Guess will agree to disagree

 

[noko]

I don't see this as "stock vs stock" at all as the days of that concept are long go. Guess will agree to disagree

Maybe I should have said default settings, but yeh, each motherboard can be different as well. Just have to wait for OC comparisons, if they ever come. Even then that is not conclusive to what someone will be able to do due to chip quality level. Personally I would want Zen 3 ram at 3733 up to 4000 1:1 ratio, with as tight of timings as possible, same with the 12900K. Also Zen 3 using voltage/freq optimizations per core -> Some real work pushing everything to the max.

 

[LGabrielPhoto]

Maybe I should have said default settings, but yeh, each motherboard can be different as well. Just have to wait for OC comparisons, if they ever come. Even then that is not conclusive to what someone will be able to do due to chip quality level.

I actually saw a decent one where they did have pbo running. His scores were lower than mine but close enough to show a more apples to apples (imo) and one more prove that I did the right thing in deciding to sell the 12900k which arrives tomorrow instead of doing the build.

 

[Supercharged_Z06]

I've been running my 5950x for almost a year now... took Intel that long to close that performance gap. But they still aren't quite there yet when it comes to overall power use/efficiency. Still, competition is a good thing here, and I welcome it. The next round of releases from AMD will most likely bump that bar even higher. At least now you can go either Intel or AMD and expect comparable performance (while running DDR5 with Intel that is). With a dialed in 5950x, I see no reason one would want to switch to or consider a 12900K just yet... It seems to me the primary reason Intel has "caught up" is that they are now leveraging DDR5. Once AMD does the same, I have a feeling they will be out in front again for a while. Intel has been sitting on their laurels for far too long pumping out mediocre CPU tech for the last several years.

 

[ea6b123]

It took AMD to play catch up to Intel NOT staying ahead of the *game* now its Intel who leading world dominance was pwned by AMD and needs to wake up and didnt do anything for yrs to make gaming or cpu's any better for any of us with its tick tok stuff and lost whatever control they had. Go AMD Go

 

[chameleoneel]

I don't see this as "stock vs stock" at all as the days of that concept are long go. Guess will agree to disagree

PBO is not "stock". Its considered 'overclocking' by AMD and I don't believe its technically covered by warranty. (although I would be surprised to hear about AMD refusing to RMA with PBO usage being cited as the reason. But I don't actually know).

Here is Gamersnexus quote in their 3900x review "Precision Boost OVERDRIVE is what AMD is calling it when those three thresholds are bumped up. The default setting for PBO is “auto,” which the stock specification defines as disabled; further, AMD’s own review guide states to disable PBO for reviews, as the Overdrive portion is not spec. That’s what we did for our review".

12900k turbos forever with max power usage, as stock behavior.

You've been able to unlock the power and turbo limits on Intel's chips for a few generations now. and its not considered breaching warranty or design intention. As it sticks to all of the turbo and power algorithms designed into the chip.

However, Intel was shipping their product stack with advertised performance based off some suggested "stock" turbo and power settings. It was usually slightly less than 60 seconds for the turbo and then whatever TDP they claimed, for the power limit. Sometimes motherboards would respect these suggested/advertised settings as the stock setting for their bios. Often, they would not. And further, users can go in an max it all out, if they want.

Intel is simply maxing out 12900k for stock behavior. If you go into the bios settings and "unlock" the turbo and power limits----The performance is now within margin of error, compared to the 12900k's stock performance. Whereas the 11900k and 10900k would see a notable performance benefit, from maxing out turbo and power limits.

They are probably doing it because their chips no longer have any performance breathing room, when compared to AMD. There really hasn't been, for 3 generations, now. So Intel has had to shift how they ship their high end products----mostly for PR and marketing, I suppose.

But also, the average user is more privy to this stuff than ever before. At a certain point, IMO, it gets annoying if you have to change a bunch of settings to get all of the performance which can possibly be covered in warranty.

 

[LGabrielPhoto]

PBO is not "stock". Its considered 'overclocking' by AMD and I don't believe its technically covered by warranty. (although I would be surprised to hear about AMD refusing to RMA with PBO usage being cited as the reason. But I don't actually know).

This is just a matter of opinion..to me, there are no "stocks" anymore as there used to be. You feel that is the right test I do not. I am not going to be wasting time beating a dead horse. To me comparing a CPU running at a much higher voltage and calling it king when the other can do the same by enabling PBO (which dome were doing by default!) is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Feel free to disagree.
I have no bias one way or the other..this 5950x is my first AMD build since a Phenom ii so moving from Intel took a long time. As a matter of fact here is a photo of my 12900k as I write this reply...so I can build this if I really want it. Just real world in what I call apples to apples, I don't see the benefit at all for MY needs.

 

[chameleoneel]

This is just a matter of opinion..to me, there are no "stocks" anymore as there used to be. You feel that is the right test I do not. I am not going to be wasting time beating a dead horse. To me comparing a CPU running at a much higher voltage and calling it king when the other can do the same by enabling PBO (which dome were doing by default!) is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Feel free to disagree.
I have no bias one way or the other..this 5950x is my first AMD build since a Phenom ii so moving from Intel took a long time. As a matter of fact here is a photo of my 12900k as I write this reply...so I can build this if I really want it. Just real world in what I call apples to apples, I don't see the benefit at all for MY needs.

It is not opinion that the 12900k's stock, warrantied behavior is turboing forever and a power limit of 250 watts. And its not opinion that a 5900x or 5950x's stock, warrantied behavior does not include PBO/PBO2 (which expands turboing behavior and increases power usage).

Personally, I think more reviewers should be showing PBO performance numbers, along with stock numbers. However, I also understand its double the amount of work. and I understand the situation of probably needing to state its not covered by warranty.

Similarly, I find it strange we don't have more DDR4 RAM comparisons than just DDR4 3200 (some went as far as to relax the CL timings to 22, as per Intel spec), against whatever DDR5 RAM speed they choose (Hardware Unboxed for example, put DDR5 5200 against DDR4 3200). A lot of enthusiasts are running DDR4 3600 with at least decent timings. And that's arguably because of Zen 2 and 3. But again, that's not "stock" spec. And it often takes some tweaking to get DDR4 3600 fully stable on Ryzen.

 

[LGabrielPhoto]

It is not opinion that the 12900k's stock, warrantied behavior is turboing forever and a power limit of 250 watts. And its not opinion that a 5900x or 5950x's stock, warrantied behavior does not include PBO/PBO2 (which expands turboing behavior and increases power usage).

Personally, I think more reviewers should be showing PBO performance numbers, along with stock numbers. However, I also understand its double the amount of work. and I understand the situation of probably needing to state its not covered by warranty.

Similarly, I find it strange we don't have more DDR4 RAM comparisons than just DDR4 3200 (some went as far as to relax the CL timings to 22, as per Intel spec), against whatever DDR5 RAM speed they choose (Hardware Unboxed for example, put DDR5 5200 against DDR4 3200). A lot of enthusiasts are running DDR4 3600 with at least decent timings. And that's arguably because of Zen 2 and 3. But again, that's not "stock" spec. And it often takes some tweaking to get DDR4 3600 fully stable on Ryzen.

It is an opinion wether you like it or not and since apparently you don't understand that I don't plan to waste more time beating a dead horse...I am done with you. Sorry but time to block you and move on.
Regards