I dont really get why people care so much about efficiency in a desktop. It's plugged in.To keep their CPUs competitive, Intel had to push clocks higher and higher. And the result is that power efficiency got thrown out the window.
PSUs are relatively inexpensive. If you are buying a new GPU, CPU, and motherboard you might as well just build up a new system.This is definitely true, but once their Ohio fab is built, they're going to have to:
A) have to build trust with their competitors
B) offer heavy discounts initially
It's doable for sure. I just get the sinking feeling we've seen the last of Intel's truly pioneering chip designs, and shifting into fabrication gives them an easy out.
Basically, the GM of chipmakers.
Lower energy bills, lower temperatures? And then you have the fact that GPUs are going to start using ridiculous amounts of power, meaning that you'll quite possibly want a CPU that doesn't require a brand new PSU for it to work with an RTX 4000 series.
Are you talking about power consumption, and having to buy a new psu? That's really not a big deal, and it's mostly the gpu manufacturers fault anyway.
OEM and Data Centers hate that because that's BOM cost for cooling and power as well as electricity for running and cooling these at hyperscalers.
Are you serious? Power draw matters. More power needs to more heat being generated and much more difficult to cool. This affects energy costs, which, if you haven't noticed are going up. As someone who already lives in a warm apartment that is very difficult to cool in the 100 degree summer, that is a problem.
1000 watt power supplies are in excess of $100 and a PSU is not something you cheap out on. I buy PSUs to last several generations and most people do to. PSUs also increase in price drastically once they exceed 1000W.
No shit. I don't invest in new PSUs the same way I upgrade new a CPU or GPU. WHenever, I buy a PSU, I want it to last for several generations. I love it how he says "they're relatively inexpensive" 1200W PSUs cost over $200 and often close to $400. Relatively inexpensive, right?!
I tend to avoid parts that require that much power... but yeah don't cheap out on the PSU, a bad one will kill everything else in your system.
Isn't mac studio kind of like mac pro?
The i5 11400 has no competition on the AMD side, I got it for £113, yes Intel are the best for budget cpu's now, who woulda thunk it!
It's called air conditioning. The energy cost differences are minimal.
A good 1000w psu is over $200.
If inflation is so bad, then they shouldn't be upgrading their cpu or gpu if they can't afford a PSU. Things cost money.
What do you mean, it's just better? What two CPU are you comparing?
Sapphire rapids is chiplet. They're just getting killed with delays, which I honestly do not understand why, I had thought they worked out their 10nm production woes.
But that's wrong. And unspecific.
They are absolutely working hard to catch-up. My point is that AMD has had superior products in that segment for 2 or more years but due to its slow moving nature it has taken time for this to show up in financials (but that is happening now).
Yeah, amd were all around better performance vs. the 10th and 11th gen Intel. It's different now.
Generally I agree except the price differential between 5800x3D and i7 - taking motherboards etc into account that is no price difference meaning that 5800x3D is really a fantastic package in terms of price/performance.
Yes they are finally starting to lose ground in the server market. 10nm has been a huge setback for Intel's production capacity, no doubt about it.
Which is why I bought one! But this doesn't apply to people not already on am4.
What CPU?
Chiplets have been a great win for AMD. Especially for workstations and servers.
In workloads that can use a lot of threads, it has amazing performance.
That is really surprising to hear. Goes to show how overblown all this CPU wattage talk is, and GPUs are the problem.
I also recommend the i7 over the i9, but if money is no object, you do get more cache on the i9 so it's not just clocks.
It's still a significant difference with 8 vs. 4.You are giving to much credit to those e-cores.
Look at the 12700K. it only has 4 e-cores less, and lower clocks than the 12900K. With OC, it gets closer to the 12900K.
That's a difference of 3500 points. So the e-cores in total, on the 12900K, are worth 7000 points. Or 880 points per e-core.
So the 8 p-cores are worth 20780 points. Or 2600 points per P-core.
Those e-cores are pathetic. Intel should just put 2 or 4 more P-cores.
The real reason why the Alder Lake beats Zen3, is because it released a year later. And because the Zen4 CPU has a 5-wide execution pipeline. While Alder Lake has a 6-wide.
And since cinebench scales really well with pipelines it gets a nice edge.
