so basically a mere 6% better Cinebench MT score at the cost of almost 100 extra watts. I dunno in what universe would anyone want this instead of a 7950x.Reply
At platform level it is over 200W difference. Impressive. And I agree, nobody in teh right mind should get Intel over AMD, unless they have very specific workload in which that 6% makes a difference worth hundreds/thousand of dollars in electricity per year.Reply
I find it amazing. It takes more than 200W MORE to beat the 7950. The difference in efficiency is unbelievable. Buying Intel today still makes no sense unless that extra 5-10% in some specific benchmark really make a huge difference. Otherwise it'll cost you dearly in electricity.Reply
So, 6% faster than previous gen, a bit (10%?) faster than AMD's 7950. Consuming over 200W *more* than the Ryzen 7950. I'd say Intel's power efficiency is still almost half that of the ryzen. It's amazing how far behind they are.Reply
This power consumption / heat output is insane… this is putting their 90nm Netburst Prescott / Pentium D Smithfield days to shame. Remember when Apple left IBM/Motorola alliance? Power architecture power consumption going thru the roof, and intel JUST pivoted back to PIII/Pentium M-based Core arch. No wonder why Apple dumped Intel, they called what they were seeing really early on. Arm for windows/linux desktop needs to get more serious, apple's desktop arm is proving nearly as powerful using a fraction of the power draw. Windows is ready, and can even run non-arm code too. Reply
Just one question: do these AI "tools" connect to the Internet, after they "measure specific system characteristics, including telemetry from integrated sensors", to send that data to those Intel servers that are in the "cloud"?Reply
Some motherboards will let you just set a power limit. I'd like to see a benchmark where the power limit is set to only the advertising number (125 W) and see what it can do with that constraint. 400+ watts just seems insane. My laptop is currently suffering terrible battery life because the CPU throttles up and gets hot and cooks the laptop because of exactly this Power Be Damned philosophy. I want a quiet desktop that isn't going to cook me if I'm sitting next to it, and isn't going to just cook the motherboard components and fail after a few years.
I was expecting the new chip to be slightly more power efficient with a year of design tweaks and improvements. (And you'll note Intel wants you to think this because they kept the 125W marketing power usage on the box.) I am kinda baffled how Intel is executing so poorly. Nobody had a gun to their head forcing them to release this product. There's some deeply broken structural inertia in the organization to just keep pumping out products and not disrupting the flow of new model numbers. Somebody in Intel should have been screaming and said the plan wasn't working, rather than just keeping their head down to deliver a new model number for no reason.Reply
Andandtech did this with the 13900k vs 7950X at different TDP/PPT. Basically the Ryzen at 65W TDP or 88W PPT was faster than Intel at 125W TDP. Once the Ryzen was set to 105W TDP or 142W PPT the Intel needed 253W TDP to be faster. In fact the scaling on the Ryzem dropped off quite quickly over 105W TDP.Reply
Well, I just built a new system with an Ryzen 9 7900x that I got on sale for $380 a couple weeks ago and have set at a 105w TDP. Looks like I have no regrets here either in performance or efficiency.Reply
Re all the justified comments about excessive power draw, is this not only when using it at peak capacity?
If you're using it at peak capacity, all the time, then I agree, you've got the wrong CPU. It's like driving your vehicle at or over 6000rpm all the time.
For everyone else who's using a compatible MB and prior gen intel cpu, who wants a drop in upgrade, this may be useful?
(I'm using an amd 5950x here, with no regrets. When I need the cores (and I do use them), it's there. The rest of the time, it just idles..)Reply
I have 4 7950x machines where I encode using Handbrake SVT-AV1 almost 24/7. AT shows that the Intel is faster, but @ 2x the power consumption literally, AMD is still better. Besides my ambient rises at least 6-7c with the machines going 100%, I can't imagine how the 13900k/14900k will behave. Insane. Besides having all the machines going 100% with a 5000BTU AC it blows my circuit breaker, so I run the AC power with an extension from another room. I can't imagine how the 13900k/14900k will behave.
PS: Before anyone says I should have gone for a 64+ core EPYC, it was still cheaper to build these 4 systems over a 64c Eypc, taking into consideration 12CH memory, server board, etc. and these run at least 5.1ghz all core over a Epyc at 3.5~ GHZReply
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
22 Comments
Back to Article
DabuXian - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
so basically a mere 6% better Cinebench MT score at the cost of almost 100 extra watts. I dunno in what universe would anyone want this instead of a 7950x. ReplyyankeeDDL - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
At platform level it is over 200W difference. Impressive.And I agree, nobody in teh right mind should get Intel over AMD, unless they have very specific workload in which that 6% makes a difference worth hundreds/thousand of dollars in electricity per year. Reply
schujj07 - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
If you have a workload like that then you run Epyc or Threadripper as the task is probably VERY threaded. Replyshabby - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
Lol @ the power usage, this will make a nice heater this winter. ReplyyankeeDDL - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
I find it amazing. It takes more than 200W MORE to beat the 7950.The difference in efficiency is unbelievable.
Buying Intel today still makes no sense unless that extra 5-10% in some specific benchmark really make a huge difference. Otherwise it'll cost you dearly in electricity. Reply
yankeeDDL - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
So, 6% faster than previous gen, a bit (10%?) faster than AMD's 7950.Consuming over 200W *more* than the Ryzen 7950.
I'd say Intel's power efficiency is still almost half that of the ryzen. It's amazing how far behind they are. Reply
colinstu - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
This power consumption / heat output is insane… this is putting their 90nm Netburst Prescott / Pentium D Smithfield days to shame. Remember when Apple left IBM/Motorola alliance? Power architecture power consumption going thru the roof, and intel JUST pivoted back to PIII/Pentium M-based Core arch. No wonder why Apple dumped Intel, they called what they were seeing really early on. Arm for windows/linux desktop needs to get more serious, apple's desktop arm is proving nearly as powerful using a fraction of the power draw. Windows is ready, and can even run non-arm code too. Replyherozeros - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
My AMD AM5 would like a word with you … ReplyAzjaran - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
Did i miss something or are there no temperatures shown? Because 428W shouldn't be on the low side and demands a good Cooling Solution. ReplyGastec - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
Just one question: do these AI "tools" connect to the Internet, after they "measure specific system characteristics, including telemetry from integrated sensors", to send that data to those Intel servers that are in the "cloud"? ReplyTheinsanegamerN - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
Of course they do. Even if they say they dont. Replypookguy88 - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
you didn't have a 13700k to test against? Replyshabby - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
Yup pity, that would show us what those 4 e-cores can actually do. ReplyTheinsanegamerN - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
I mean they still dont have a GPU test bed going on 3 years post fire. I wouldnt expect much. Replywrosecrans - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
Some motherboards will let you just set a power limit. I'd like to see a benchmark where the power limit is set to only the advertising number (125 W) and see what it can do with that constraint. 400+ watts just seems insane. My laptop is currently suffering terrible battery life because the CPU throttles up and gets hot and cooks the laptop because of exactly this Power Be Damned philosophy. I want a quiet desktop that isn't going to cook me if I'm sitting next to it, and isn't going to just cook the motherboard components and fail after a few years.I was expecting the new chip to be slightly more power efficient with a year of design tweaks and improvements. (And you'll note Intel wants you to think this because they kept the 125W marketing power usage on the box.) I am kinda baffled how Intel is executing so poorly. Nobody had a gun to their head forcing them to release this product. There's some deeply broken structural inertia in the organization to just keep pumping out products and not disrupting the flow of new model numbers. Somebody in Intel should have been screaming and said the plan wasn't working, rather than just keeping their head down to deliver a new model number for no reason. Reply
TheinsanegamerN - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
If you want low power, get a ryzen. The 7800x3d tops out at just 50 watt.Performance loss, if anything like raptor lake (which this is) will be 15%+ down at 125 watt, more if they make heavy use of P cores. Reply
schujj07 - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
Andandtech did this with the 13900k vs 7950X at different TDP/PPT. Basically the Ryzen at 65W TDP or 88W PPT was faster than Intel at 125W TDP. Once the Ryzen was set to 105W TDP or 142W PPT the Intel needed 253W TDP to be faster. In fact the scaling on the Ryzem dropped off quite quickly over 105W TDP. Replymga318 - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
Well, I just built a new system with an Ryzen 9 7900x that I got on sale for $380 a couple weeks ago and have set at a 105w TDP. Looks like I have no regrets here either in performance or efficiency. ReplyFarfolomew - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
The new Pentium 5! ReplyGradius2 - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
So 13900k is better as you can get one for $450 Replycharlesg - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
Re all the justified comments about excessive power draw, is this not only when using it at peak capacity?If you're using it at peak capacity, all the time, then I agree, you've got the wrong CPU. It's like driving your vehicle at or over 6000rpm all the time.
For everyone else who's using a compatible MB and prior gen intel cpu, who wants a drop in upgrade, this may be useful?
(I'm using an amd 5950x here, with no regrets. When I need the cores (and I do use them), it's there. The rest of the time, it just idles..) Reply
rUmX - Tuesday, October 17, 2023 - link
I have 4 7950x machines where I encode using Handbrake SVT-AV1 almost 24/7. AT shows that the Intel is faster, but @ 2x the power consumption literally, AMD is still better. Besides my ambient rises at least 6-7c with the machines going 100%, I can't imagine how the 13900k/14900k will behave. Insane. Besides having all the machines going 100% with a 5000BTU AC it blows my circuit breaker, so I run the AC power with an extension from another room. I can't imagine how the 13900k/14900k will behave.PS: Before anyone says I should have gone for a 64+ core EPYC, it was still cheaper to build these 4 systems over a 64c Eypc, taking into consideration 12CH memory, server board, etc. and these run at least 5.1ghz all core over a Epyc at 3.5~ GHZ Reply