that gem with an rx 7900 xtx gives me a good 100+ FPS in 4K w/ Escape from Tarkov. even streets of tarkov on a good day sticks around 90 tops, and 70s low. everything else, even new games run like butter in 4K. got zero reason to upgrade
TBH power draw was kinda getting out of hand and is still out of hand with the GPUs, it is nice to see it getting better, we shouldn't need a dedicated circuit to run our computers in our houses.
yeah if you running intel cpu 350 watts , but Amd had 80 watt 7800x3d cpu for long time , looks like you just buy intel only so you might need powerplant in the house
I like the direction they are going with the efficiency, not only because it saves power, but because that is a passive way of battling heat. Which in a way directly translates to less throttling and more stability and durability. If we have learned anything from the 2 previews Intel gens, going all the way in power for sake of performance is not that wise.
Lol, so if you are a gamer, you are paying alot more for the new intel cpus while getting less in performance?. What a joke. The 9800x3d is the only way to go. I couldn't care less about productivity benchmarks.
Hmm.. I like durability as an argument for a new CPU generation. Wish my Intel Q6600 from 2007 that i still use to play old games had that!.. Are you for real?
Yes and no. Yes that Intel's previous generations of CPU are using too much power and producing too much heat that it becomes a problem, so yes they needed to lower the power consumption. But at the same time no, its a fail because they had a node advantage over AMD and this is the best they can come up with? Heck, they probably would have similar results if they made 14th Gen CPUs on the new node to reduce power consumption while maintaining the same performance. Efficiency is great if there is performance increase. This is the same problem with AMD, going for efficiency for little to no gains with Zen5. That's why people complained and AMD released a 105W option. The problem with Intel is that it is using a newer node, had the advantage and still couldn't win. In fact, it is still going to consume more power than AMD counterparts. Not to mention X3D chips will retain the lead, and 9800X3D will pull further ahead when it comes out. Intel needed efficiency AND performance improvement in order to compete. Unfortunately it couldn't achieve both.
I'm holding on to my 12700k for a while. I still feel like it has another 3 to 5 generations of good use. But it is interesting to see what improvements intel and amd is doing for their products.
Yeah I don't see a reason to upgrade my 13600K either yet. I am interested if the Ryzen 9 X3D chips turn out well tho, especially if there is no more core parking nonsense.
To be fair I care about power efficiency more and more these days. For the longest time I didn't, but with the 4000 series cards, and now the 5000 series cards eating SO MUCH POWER, while everything, including power, is getting so disgustingly expensive, I kind of don't want my GPU to eat 600W. Sure, it's logical that the more powerful the cards get the more power they will use, but we're talking double of what a lot of people considered to be a lot of power draw. I'm just kind of stuck between wanting the best performance, but also crying over the electricity bill; it's good to see someone take the power efficiency approach.
600Watts is like $289 a year ($24 a month) if you're running it 12 hours a day at 100% which is unlikely but I wasn't sure how hard core you are. I used $0.11Kwh as the average cost over that time as that's what mine is where I live. theres a calculator online for this. Using 300Watts its $144 for the year or $12 per month. Moral of the story is it's really not a big difference
@@toddblankenship7164$0.20 per kilowatt hour here in my part of Oregon. At over $500 per year, imo that's not a small amount of money. But that is an extreme case too. There is the benefit too of not having a space heater running against my air conditioning during summer is another argument for me. I still have 10th gen and recently I took off all overclocks and the experience is pretty similar and I'm using half the power and way cooler room. What I'm getting at is I understand the efficiency argument, but I'm interested in seeing though how far these will go with more power for sure
@@toddblankenship7164 it depends on where you are. Where i am, the bill is 400 dollars running a refrigrator, a freezer, and a couple tv's. With occasional air conditioner use and occasional oven use etc. 4 years ago it was about 175. Moral of the story EVERYONES EXPERIENCES ARE DIFFERENT.
@@toddblankenship7164 In my area price doubles between 2pm and 7pm so your estimate is off for other p.s youtube sucks my app never lets me comment properly
@@toddblankenship7164It's not just about the energy costs though. It's more about having a quieter PC that doesn't heat up your room like a space heater
@@StolenJoker84 sigh.......AMD is worse because the numbers mean practically nothing. Why can't it be GPB0 where G = gen, P = performance, B = bonus performance? sigh........
@@jamescarter8311 it's true that AMD has a history of underperforming, but so does Intel, so it's a pointless assertion. The crown goes back and forth between AMD and Intel, and has done so for the last 25 years.
i had a 13900k that is now in heaven and switched to 7950x after the win11 fixes my actual gaming perf is the same or close, those few fps intel had caused obligatory degradation I do not trust intel at all since the big problem is the ringbus design
Dang, gotta wait two more years for Intel to make real moves. I understand the concept of a foundational product to build on later, but two years feels like an eternity.
Power efficieny matters a lot more in the mobile space, and that's where a lot of computing is being done. It also matters in the data center. Realistically the users unconcerned about power consumption are gamers who are not running their systems 24/7.
@@HyperionZero Cores can always clock down to meet lower power requirements. But they could still make another SKU that's just for desktop high performance needs.
I would adopt these new CPUs if it weren't for the fact that I bought a brand new laptop like 3 months ago.... And yes, we do care about the efficiency. If you're a PC gamer, go and get 14th gen, or simply push the power limits up, Intel has made allowances for you. I'm so pleased to see them taking a concern in power efficiency, us laptop users need this, excessive power draws aren't an option. For so long we've been ignored and sidelined for PC gamers, now it's our turn to get some new hardware.
Intel are no stranger to 'gluing' CPU's together. Just check out the old 'Pentium D' designs they put out to compete with AMD when they launched their first dual core CPU designs.
To be honest, I don't care what Intel's doing. I personally think the E core approach is stupid. My use case requires all cores to be fast, not just 8 of them. I haven't considered Intel in years. Just my opinion.
they somehow worked well for me but we know why I'm on 7950x now which was awful at release but 1 year later with 25 ! bios updates from MSI it's now awesome (with 2 sticks of ddr5@6200 I didn't try 4) I'm waiting for the 9950x3D but it's not like I need it
IF I could upgrade before the end of the year...? I'd get a 7800X3D; I only play WoW so even my 5800X is probably already overkill, but I to play 4K, high FPS - I still can't find a definitive answer to why I need to pair either CPU with a 40/5090 to achieve it, so I'm holding fire 'til I do see why...
I'm curious to see what the performance of Intel's new cpu's will be like. But I'll still end sticking with a 9800X3D, I mainly game and watch YT so an X3D chip is the best choice.
Numbers are looking Mid , no upgrade path with Arrowlake , throwing down 1k for no to a little performance is crazy , next gen X3D chips are going to destroy
Jay was wrong, Zen 1 wasn't a chiplet design, and they aren't on their 5th generation of chiplet design. Zen 1 was monolithic. Chiplet design came with Zen 2.
My 12900k vs my 3900x is night and day my 12900k has ran flawlessly since nearly launch. I like my 3900x Which liked to blue screen because it didn’t like the ram even with it running at base speeds. (I know the ram still works as it’s the exact same ram in my 12900k System) also constant usb dropout issues. And many bios updates to fix it. And 12900k was first gen
im one of those that do care about power consumption. thats why i bought 7800x3d a year ago, as in 100% usage it consumes about 85W and in most games it rarely reaches even 50W. I still overpaid for the cooling because i wanted water one even though i didnt need one but... also i have my 7900xtx set to -10% power limit so the temps are lower and fans dont have to spin as much since in nearly most of the games that i play i can achieve my desired 120fps for my monitor refresh rate, and only is some games like witcher 3, cyberpunk or plague tale: requiem (for me this game looks bad for what it needs in terms of gpu power but shit happens) power draw reaches the 325W ( i play at high, sometimes ultra settings at 1440p without RT as i dont find it looking good) .
I think it's important to consider that power efficiency isn't equally irrelevant in every part of the world. In some European countries, for example, electricity prices are significantly higher than in the U.S., so a processor that uses 40% less power can actually make a noticeable difference in daily costs. Beyond that, less power means less heat, which can help with cooling and potentially prolong the hardware's lifespan. This improvement might not be game-changing everywhere, but for users in regions with higher electricity costs, it’s definitely something worth noting!
Glad you are mentioning the potential use cases for AI power now with your knowledge, I saw someone talk about it in the discord RU-vid requests and the admin just shut him down!
I’ve been on the bubble of a new build for quite some time. I have a 5800x and 3080. Was considering going back to Intel just to see how it performs again (I had Intel previous to my AMD rig). Even with me being ready to upgrade and aiming for next year, I am still going to end up waiting to see how these CPUs pan out. If I am going to make my big investment into a new rig, I like to make sure I’m getting a solid product. But at least now I have a range of when I am actually, and finally, going to upgrade and rebuild.
Thank you for pre mashing my keyboard for me. Power consumption helps with reducing the ridiculous cooler sizes, help noise and form factor. i.e. It helps make ITX viable because it makes low profile coolers more viable. I like these developments from both Intel and AMD
When are Intel going to get rid of those E-cores? Or at least reduce them? Instead of 8P+16E cores (total of 24), they can at least make them 12P+12E (total of 24).
I hope the Ultra 9 or the 9950x will be my next CPU. I just don't want buyer's remorse. I can't wait to see the reviewers' actual benchmarks on the Ultra 9.
@jamescarter8311 I got an RMA done. But here is the kicker from a 13900kf kf. They gave me a 14700kf and told me that's the best they can do. So I lose performance and money.
@@yikesmcgee-gz3lq Why not? Intel has a history of anti-competitive practices that continues till this day. A blatant refusal to recall 13th/14th gen despite a QA fail and manufacturing defects. I realize that Arrow/Lunar lake are made by TSMC, but I will never want to support anything Intel from now on.
My 12700k was paired with an ASUS z690 both had multiple driver / bios issues and to top it off ASUS support was horrid... fast forward to current intel... same story ... 2 companies i was huge fan boys of now lost my business
this convinced me to upgrade to a 7800x3d and the rtx 5000 leaks made me get a 4080super... im literally waiting 5 years until i even think of upgrading my ram at this point.
I turned HT off on my 14600KF and was able to turn it up with 200mhz extra on pcores. I run it now on 5.8ghz p-core and 4.4ghz ecore. Got a 2244 single core score on cinabench R23. And a 922 score on cpu-z bench test. It runs stable on the prime95 and cinabench stability tests.
I'm updating from an older system so i think it will be worth it. If i get the new motherboard now it should have a longer lifetime if these CPUs last a few generations as opposed to buying a motherboard and cpu when it's the last CPU for that generation
I plan to replace my general purpose small desktop that has a i5-6400 CPU @ 2.70GHz/HD with a new small desktop containing a U5-245K/SSD. No GPU, just using this computer for general internet surfing like watching JayTwoCents (my favorite YT channel). Tired of the hard-drive noise and time to boot.
Yes for sure! I might upgrade to 9800X3D but we will see, I am currently using the 5800X3D so ;) Might be perfect to actually just skip 2 gen and go for the Zen 6!
The issue with 13/14th gen, the brand new socket neeeded with potentially short lifetime as intel announced skipping a gen to focus on a completely different sku and no real gen to gen gain ? I'm currenlty slowly saving to get a desktop in 6 months as I'm finally settling somewhere and I'm definitely leaning AM5 Thanks for the video :)
Intel ditched HT due to 3 reasons. 1) Sidechannel attacks. 2) HT requires doubling the register file among other things - this saves die space. 3) Intel was planning cores that can be partitioned in-situ as part of the Royal Core architecture. Ripping out HT is a first step towards that. It's unclear whether Royal Core will ever come to market as planned though, as the project wasn't completed before Jim Keller left.
So they chose Multi-threading over hyper-threading? Can't lie... not the worst idea I've heard, gonna wait for benchmarks and see what performance gains actually result from it.
I want to point out on the multi-threading graph at 6:30 that they mention this was tested at 125W approximately. So the 14900k or 9950X may perform better at higher wattages. I am happy they are improving the performance per watt, but I would be surprised if the Ultra 9 285k took the multi-threading crown.
Every time i need to "benchmark" the programs i develop i have to open task manager and turn of 12 of the cores so it only runs on the P-Cores so i can get a "good" result. Leave them on and its about 40-60% difference in performance with only P-Cores. The scheduler is a joke...
I am on 8700k, so I think I finally will get something new, and I hope the socket will stay for few generations. I dont see the point again to go to last gen of a socket without upgrade path
All of these leaks in the tech industry give me hope. AMD should be able to capitalize on this and generate tons of people switching to AM5 or getting a new CPU. I really hope that AMD takes this movement and brings it to their gpu launch. I know AMD won’t match the 5090 but if they can match a 5080 for much less/half AMD will own both markets (for now). I’m tired of giving money to these greedy companies. I go for what makes the most sense for me but I’d really love to get an RDNA4 card instead of a $1300 5080 16 GB card
First Gen Zen wasn't a chiplet design on the desktop. It was a single die, a die that was designed to be used in multi-die designs for servers and obviously Threadripper. Most of the growing pains in Zen 1 were due to core complex design, each die had two 4-core CCXs which communicated via Infinity Fabric. In Zen 2, they doubled the L3 cache and moved to multi-die designs with a dedicated I/O die and separate Core die(s). Zen 3 then joined the two 4-core CCXs into a single 8-core CCX.
Considering that a lot of what I do are multicore workloads, while having better performance with less heat is nice losing out on all those extra processing threads actually hurts. Though, considering that their advertising an actual increase in the multithreading performance we'll just have to wait for the reviewers and consumers to get their hands on them to tell one way or another. If I can run my workflows at a higher clock speed than previously while producing less than, or the same amount of heat then that will be a benefit in my book.
I have a 8700k system that's about 6 years old at this point. Which still works just fine for productivity stuff. I've been really interested to see how Arrow Lake stacks up, but maybe I'll wait for the second generation of these chips.
I’m cautiously excited for the new Intel stuff. I’ve been an AMD guy for a long time, but this definitely smells like their Zen moment. As much as I like AMD, I also like competition so neither company gets complacent.
I think it kinda makes sense to get rid of hyperthreading now. HT was good when we were only able to get 2 and 4 core designs but now that 8 core designs are kinda standard and 16+ core designs are even becoming common it starts to make less sense. Having a single thread per core also allows much more granular power controls over the core. To my understanding HT also added about 20% of the die area to each core that had it which means that on a 16 core chip you could go up to about a 20c chip in the same die area.
I'm running a 10700k with a 3080ti - after all of the headache I'm seeing with the 13/14gen Intel processors, I'm heavily being pushed back into the AMD camp. The 7800x3D seems like a very reasonable upgrade. (Trying to keep things on the somewhat cheaper side while still getting the best performance I can)
If your waiting for a possible cheaper option I think the 9600x3d could be a potential cheaper alternative to the 7800x3d, assuming when it comes out that it’s available to the general audience
I have an Intel Core i7 4790k with a GTX1070. I was thinking about getting the Intel Core 9 Ultra 285k. But I will wait for AMD to see if the Ryzen 9 9800X3D beats out the Ultra 285k in gaming. What's funny is that the 7800X3D is the king so far still..
Wait for gaming benchmarks before you upgrade the CPU. This is just my opinion so take it or leave it but if I was you I would upgrade that CPU to the best gaming CPU that's at the top once intels newest chip is reviewed. I would then buy a used (find good deal) 3090, or 4090 once the 50 series is released as they will populate the market as the enthusiasts buy the 50 series. I would do this so your CPU and GPU upgrade path is staggered. the new CPU should easily last 5-6 years and the GPU would be upgraded in 2-3years which at that time you go back to buying the newest GPU generation at that time. If you have the cash do it all at once every time but I find this works great for me and budgeting my spending. I also have three sons that game and so I am also buying and building their 3 gaming PC parts like this as well.
I'm still rocking an i9 10900K still, this new path Intel is deciding to go on seems interesting. I will wait and watch the reviews and give it at least 3-6 months for the gen to mature and decide if I upgrade or not, because it will force me to basically build an entire new system from MB, RAM, Storage, PSU, CPU. Cooler and well off course GPU.
I still feel that the improve IPC from size has been from smaller size architecture than the tile substrate. We won't know until they x-ray one, and we have it in our hands to see how well cache works in hits new format.
Coming from a 10 year old 5960x this looks to be the platform i'll be getting soon, whenever it and the 5090 are available. Was close to getting something based on 14 series previously but held off due to the instability issues.
You're right that most don't care about power draw and I used to be there. But ever since wanting 24/7-on access to a fully fledged high performance PC for various non-gaming reasons, the past few years have been a bit frustrating in that AMD has better efficiency under loads but Intel generally has better idles. Coming from an i7-9700K, I was holding off going from blue 9700 to red 9700. And this announcement, as expected, gives me hope that something can come out of it.
Hope you guys installed the latest BIOS versions.. I kind of suspect that my 13600K has been affected by the premature degradation affecting Intel 13th and 14th generation CPUs as I get less than 20K score in Cinebench R23 multi-core and I saw people getting around 23-24K.
@@BucifalulR they all have this is a ringbus p-e core design fault I had a 12900k it degraded too altough not as bad but still it's nowhere near day1 cbr23 and 3dmark benches
Still Happy with Performance of my Ryzen 7 7700X. Sure if i could afford a newer system with Intel Ultra 7 or Ultra 9, maybe i'd consider upgrading again. But for now stays right where im at as meets all my needs
I'm still on a 4790K and will be waiting for performance reviews as well as maybe a month or so after to see how things end up before splurging on upgrades.
I'm on a 6600k and all i'm hearing is let someone else test this one out come back in 2 generations. If I buy a new CPU its still more worthwhile to buy AMD cpu or and 12th gen Intel and wait another 10 years before going down this route. (I'd still use the 6600K but win 11 kicking me off my PC.)
I am excited for the new Intel things. I plan to switch from my i9 9900k/2080ti system to a full battlemage system to support Intel gpus. I run 12th gen with a dedicated arc A770 in my media server, and it kills for media work. I may end up going back to Nvidia for the dedicated GPU, but I am really excited for the newer codex support on cpu from Xe2, and am ready for the upgrade.
If the performance per watt is as they say, I think that's a v.positive step for Intel. It could be a nice upgrade for people on 13th or 14th gen, and a GREAT upgrade for people with far older CPUs.
Difference between AMD and Intel with this is AMD lied about performance and went "but AVX 512, right?" while Intel is seemingly more upfront about what their new products can and can't do, while slashing their power problems *and* ripping out SMT while keeping relative performance. Leaves me far more interested in how Intel is going to shape up. As the guy in my friend group that people go to for PC parts recommendation, this could potentially put them back on the map in the near future.
meanwhile I'm on my second 14900k and have had an entire 2024 of crashes and constant issues so far. What is Intel going to do for all the people stuck holding their last flagship product that turned out to be completely borked?
Sounds like you're not treating it properly, there is always a reason for such crashes, maybe you should work in IT, then you'd actually understand how to solve these issues yourself
Its interesting. From what I understand for security reasons many had turned off their hyper threading so there wasn't a 'boost'. While this isn't important for gamers, it is if you're running Linux. So now you have to consider the physical core count and the virtual core goes away. Not sure how the NPU is going to play out.
The biggest concern I have with the new CPU's is the inclusion of the NPU's. When I bought my new laptop I purposely stayed away from any of the units with the NPU's due to Microsoft's ridiculous implementation of Recall and the HUGE security concerns that come with it and the fact that you cannot turn off Recall.
I agree. Power is not as important as performance for what us gamers and content creators do. I can see it being an issue for servers and industrial uses and such so they have to pay attention to that aspect. I am excited to see them do something different for once but i will wait and see considering how they screwed 13th and 14th gen.
I'm overdue of a upgrade I am planning to upgrade to this platform/cpu. Currently on a 6700k overclocked to 5ghz. So this gen including the energy efficiency gains are relevant for me. It would be my PC for both work & little bit of gaming on the side.
Might take a chance, but depends on how well the 9800X3D performs in Tarkov (only game that I can barely push high frames in certain maps - 7yr old game too). Currently on a 11700k since my x99 Deluxe mobo died back in April.
Power draw reduction is still a win. High wattage power supplies are expensive, so is the electricity bill. Less system power draw is money you get to save during building and every month after. We've had years of manufacturers absolutely cranking power consumption to squeeze out performance. It's time to come back down to Earth.
i dont think everyone sees the innovative importance of power reduction. with stuff like this you have a few innovative growth indicators. that is power, performance, and size. to get fast they get big, or use more power, or both. but to maintain that performance and reduce either size or power, that is sign of great innovative growth. I hope these companies do not listen to the people in this instance, it will only slow down the growth we truly want.
The efficiency with CPU's is similar to a car, there is the sweat spot, where you get the most speed per Watt, or the most MPG per MPH. In my car on the freeway 55 is the best (35 is the best) but I can't go 35 on the freeway.
