Quote from: _MT_ on February 01, 2021, 13:23:35

Quote from: Grinnie Jax on February 01, 2021, 05:05:10
2) Secondly, power consumption. Rocket Lakes are damn power hogs, easy to see from the leaks and the mere fact that Z590 boards have power stages enough for 64-core Threadripper. Several leaks suggest that 250-300W under load for sure.

High-end motherboards are designed to allow overclocking. That's where things can get complicated. And yes, the 900K has a very big short term power limit that an Epyc or Xeon wouldn't have to be ashamed of (or would they, since efficiency can matter in servers quite a lot). Also, quite a lot of the manufacturers have a history of "cheating" - tricking the processors into drawing more power than they should, ignoring Intel's guidelines. You could have even something like 9700 consume horrendous amounts of power because of it, trying to brute force some extra performance out of the chip. Because of the nature of the power and performance relationship, you can reduce power draw into sane levels without much sacrifice. Not to mention that these extreme power draws tend to be in AVX512 workloads. Which Ryzen doesn't support.

So no, these processors shouldn't consume 300 W and certainly not for prolonged periods. Unless the motherboard is naughty and is trying to fry your processor. 11900K shouldn't be any less efficient than 10900K and there are two fewer cores to feed (so, at any given all-core frequency, you should see at least 20 % less power being drawn just because there are 20 % fewer cores).

wtf crack are you on? Last gen i9 10900k which is 10c/20t draws 360w of power sustained under full load. It would be naive to expect 11th gen to use significantly less. Even if power usage was 1:1 per thread removed 20% less  is still 290w!

Compared to ryzen 3950x which is 16c/32t which draws 145w sustained benchmark load and the 5950x is 142w.

Failing to see how your math checks out.

Almost all CPUs on Passmark will record extremely high scores when initially added to the list. This is done by the manufacturers, enthusiasts. Let us wait until a few dozen samples have been recorded to make such a claim NBC.

What's worrying is Intel's process is clearly inferior.

Quote from: Zulny R on February 01, 2021, 03:39:25
For short time, YES

Rendering more than 5 minute 11900k will clock at 3.5 GHz @ 125 watt while 5800x will clock at 3.8 @ 105 watt
5800x will be faster

Unless you tinkering TDP , for prolonged gaming 5800x will be faster

That's not how TDP works. When AMD says 5900X has 105 W TDP, it doesn't mean it has a 105 W power limit. Not long term, not short term. It's just a number their marketing people happen to like. It doesn't really have a meaning. How much it will really take depends quite a bit on temperature. Simply put, the better cooling you have, the more power it will take (and the more performance it will give). You can't compare TDP figures. Intel and AMD have different ways of calculating it and at least in the case of AMD, it truly is meaningless. It's really quite funny. I recommend you look it up. You'd need to know actual power limits. And then you need motherboards that actually follow the guidelines and do what Intel and AMD say they should. It can be a surprising amount of work getting a stock motherboard to behave like it should.

Not to mention that gaming loads are not that constant and not that heavy. You can easily see it in benchmarks. I expect Ryzen to be more efficient. But your numbers just make no sense for a typical game.

Quote from: Grinnie Jax on February 01, 2021, 05:05:10
2) Secondly, power consumption. Rocket Lakes are damn power hogs, easy to see from the leaks and the mere fact that Z590 boards have power stages enough for 64-core Threadripper. Several leaks suggest that 250-300W under load for sure.

High-end motherboards are designed to allow overclocking. That's where things can get complicated. And yes, the 900K has a very big short term power limit that an Epyc or Xeon wouldn't have to be ashamed of (or would they, since efficiency can matter in servers quite a lot). Also, quite a lot of the manufacturers have a history of "cheating" - tricking the processors into drawing more power than they should, ignoring Intel's guidelines. You could have even something like 9700 consume horrendous amounts of power because of it, trying to brute force some extra performance out of the chip. Because of the nature of the power and performance relationship, you can reduce power draw into sane levels without much sacrifice. Not to mention that these extreme power draws tend to be in AVX512 workloads. Which Ryzen doesn't support.

So no, these processors shouldn't consume 300 W and certainly not for prolonged periods. Unless the motherboard is naughty and is trying to fry your processor. 11900K shouldn't be any less efficient than 10900K and there are two fewer cores to feed (so, at any given all-core frequency, you should see at least 20 % less power being drawn just because there are 20 % fewer cores).

Quote from: i9 on January 31, 2021, 20:57:13

Quote from: ariliquin on January 31, 2021, 10:21:30
Single thread only, and almost no difference to top AMD CPU, what's the point when the AMD smashed the Intel in multicore and power consumption?

To be honest, those 8 Intel i9 cores are enough to beat latest ryzen 9 cores in programs that uses upto 10 cores which is vast majority of the programs. But there are a few highly threaded programs for rendering / cinema3D that can effectively use more than 10 Ryzen cores. For everyone else Intel systems will be faster. Also i9 is cheaper than Ryzen 9 since you don't have to pay for the additional cores that will be unused almost all the time.

Wrong.
1) First of all, multithreading is not same for Intel and AMD. AMD's hyperthreading is superior. So for anything which requires something more than 8 threads, AMD would be beneficial.
2) Secondly, power consumption. Rocket Lakes are damn power hogs, easy to see from the leaks and the mere fact that Z590 boards have power stages enough for 64-core Threadripper. Several leaks suggest that 250-300W under load for sure. So, probably, Rocket i9 has no room at all, would require the highest-end water cooling solution or Peltier cooling, while Ryzen 5XXX, even top of the line 5950X operates normally under an air cooler. Talking about practicality! Rocket Lake = ridiculous temporary fitting for Intel, just to take time and present something more capable.

Quote from: i9 on January 31, 2021, 20:57:13

Quote from: ariliquin on January 31, 2021, 10:21:30
Single thread only, and almost no difference to top AMD CPU, what's the point when the AMD smashed the Intel in multicore and power consumption?

To be honest, those 8 Intel i9 cores are enough to beat latest ryzen 9 cores in programs that uses upto 10 cores which is vast majority of the programs. But there are a few highly threaded programs for rendering / cinema3D that can effectively use more than 10 Ryzen cores. For everyone else Intel systems will be faster. Also i9 is cheaper than Ryzen 9 since you don't have to pay for the additional cores that will be unused almost all the time.

For short time, YES

Rendering more than 5 minute 11900k will clock at 3.5 GHz @ 125 watt while 5800x will clock at 3.8 @ 105 watt
5800x will be faster

Unless you tinkering TDP , for prolonged gaming 5800x will be faster

Quote from: ariliquin on January 31, 2021, 10:21:30
Single thread only, and almost no difference to top AMD CPU, what's the point when the AMD smashed the Intel in multicore and power consumption?

To be honest, those 8 Intel i9 cores are enough to beat latest ryzen 9 cores in programs that uses upto 10 cores which is vast majority of the programs. But there are a few highly threaded programs for rendering / cinema3D that can effectively use more than 10 Ryzen cores. For everyone else Intel systems will be faster. Also i9 is cheaper than Ryzen 9 since you don't have to pay for the additional cores that will be unused almost all the time.

There's Zen 3+ Warhol refresh which may change the dynamics further in AMDs favour.
Rocket Lake is Intels intermediate solution. I think their banking on 12th Gen Alderlake but not convince, big chip little chip is the way forward?

Yeah, it might be the first, but at what (power) cost ?

What an astonishing win at 2x power consumption  ;D

Single thread only, and almost no difference to top AMD CPU, what's the point when the AMD smashed the Intel in multicore and power consumption?