Because it doesnt. its you reading something, and then somehow coming up with a meaning that isn't there. Like, literal delusion.
Three years later. Still working on it. Yeah, ok. If/When it materializes, cool. Not holding my breath, and its STILL n ot a selling point.
I dont understand why you simply CANNOT seem to understand
most people do not ever do a drop in CPU replacement. Not ever. Never. Sub 1%. So how long the socket is supported is utterly meaningless because people simply dont upgrade while its relevant.
Not even sure what you're drooling about here, as i claimed absolutely NOTHING about Intel supporting sockets longer. Sockets last two generations, for the most part, going ALLLLLLL the way back to the 2nd Gen Core i-series parts (2500K, etc). Thats all i said they were going to do this time. Raptor Lake is already confirmed to also be socket 1700 and 600-series motherboards are already confirmed for support (via firmware update, likely) of Raptor Lake. Thats two generations. Exaclty like it has been for close to 15 years.
You seem to have literally no concept of what the word "factually" means. Since you have yet to use it correctly.
lolno. Thats just like saying a stock out of the box 10600K pulls 65W. AMD is just as untruthful with their real TDP as Intel is.
Did you actually WATCH the video? Because it doesn't pull near that stock. That was overclocked. And there's almost zero point to overclocking because you get like 200mhz all-core, maybe on a good day, and generally have to overvolt the bejezus out of it.
.... watch dem goalposts FLLLLLLYYYYYYY
It is absolutely fair to compare any part to any other when the performance is the same or better. And "the 5800X isnt designed for power efficiency"... neither is the 12400. There's literally ZERO difference in silicon between the cores in the 5600 and 5800... just more of them. There's ZERO difference in the P-cores in the 12400 and 12900K. There not designed differently.
What kind of clownshoes shit goes on in your brain?
I might add, you're also
wrong, as the 12400 keeps pace with, and outperforms, the 5800 even in productivity tasks. For less than half the price.
Holy shit are you changing the goalposts.
Im talking about a 12400 equaling or beating the 5800. The actual price equivalent CPU (a 12700) of a 5800 is 30+% faster.
Uh... no. a 12700 (not even the top end SKU) beats every mainstream AMD processor up to and including the 5950X by over 10% in every productivity benchmark.
No, because Intel actually has new HEDT silicon and AMD does not, still being on 3 year old Threadripper parts.
.... what? how do you look at charts that show Intel clearly dominating and then claim its the other way around? Are you like.. word dyslexic or something? You swap the names of the Intel parts for the AMD ones?
Look at all these benchmarks where AMD dominates Intel:
https://www.techheuristic.com/intel-...lose-to-5900x/
Oh, wait, not a siingle one. Whoops.
The server one, though, is true enough, mostly. Intel CPUs are still better for certain types of server processes though (due to additional instruction sets that dont exist on Epyc) but thats rather niche.
Brand new, entirely different process and core architecture that is more transistor dense than TSMCs upcoming 5nm process.... but sure.. "geriatric".
Its neither, its outright dishonesty on TSMCs part.
No they haven't. Rocket Lake kept up pretty well with even the 5000 series chips, neck and neck.. at 14nm. Benchmarks are a real thing that have actually been done and they dont support what you're saying at all. More power efficient? Definitely, because Intel's Skylake/14nm process was a power pig. But "overall performance"... nope. Neck and Neck.
Your delusions that are quite literally NOT supported by any of the testing done or benchmarks recorded are not fact, much less indisputable.
Is there some reason you're capitalizing Intel (which is a proper name, and not an acronym), like those mental deficients that insist on calling Macs MACs? I mean, its kinda funny, tbh.
You need to check your math. Even at full potential draw, the cost difference would be about 9$, if your computer was on 24/7 and the CPU was pinned the entire time.
Cool story though. Definitely doesnt make you look like a clown. And as for "understanding what the specs mean" - if you somehow believe that Zen 3 is remotely on par with Alder Lake.... yeah, apparently not.
Id like to point out that your choice of a Zen 4 chip over Rocket Lake (11 series) or 10 series chip was a perfectly fine one - at the time, Intel's chips werent blowing up anyone's skirts and no one knew at the time what Alder Lake held in store.
But the situation that obtained when you built does NOT obtain now. Hell, the 4/8 Core i3 12100 just blew the doors off the 3600G (which IS slightly slower than the X) in both gaming and productivity.
Not sure what delusion-fueled dreams you've had telling you otherwise, but Zen 3 is NOT better than Alder Lake at anything other than power efficicieny in the top 2 SKUs. And at those SKUs, the 12900K utterly crushes the 5950X, even when it isnt OCed.
... Energy prices in nearly every first world country are lower on average than the US. I cant speak to 2nd World countries (China, Russia, etc). Even if you were paying 5x as much as i do (unlikely) itd be 50$ a year running balls-out 24/7.
And if it IS 5x as expensive... seriously look into some solar panels and an inverter to defray some of that cost. Pay for itself in a couple of months.
TSMC is not AMD. TSMC just makes the chips, based on AMD's design.
TSMC is not Apple. TSMC just makes the chips, based on Apple's design.
BOTH currently use TSMCs "7nm" process, and the M1 utterly obliterates the Zen 3 chips in its core count range, both in outright performance AND in power draw. The M1 Pro and Max similarly dominate core-count equivalent Intel and AMD chips. (But both AMD and Intel still pull ahead in the 16-core+ zone, for most tasks - albiet at literally 6x the power draw).
Well, we agree that you're an idiot, at least.
Its a perfectly valid commparison, since all three CPUs feature in the same exact markets (laptops, desktops, and production machines). Its not the family cars' fault that it outperforms your needlessly expensive sports car.
Which only happened because AMD was still trying to get their memory controllers to function properly. Once they did, generation-on-generation improvements fell right down to industry norms (about 8-15%). Not that that's a bad thing.
They wont, because AMD already fixed the memory controller issues, which was the majority of the giant jump between Zen 1/2 and Zen 3 came from.
Right, because Intel is just sitting still. Raptor Lake already confirmed via engineering samples logged into benchmark sites to be about a 10% IPC gain, and more cores across the board, with the 13900 engineering sample being 14 P-cores (28 therads) and 8 E-cores. (And even the i3 having E-cores, which they currently dont in 12th gen) Again, im not saying Zen 4 wont be impressive. We simply dont
know. But we already know how giant of a leap Alder Lake was for Intel (~20+% IPC alone), and there are already samples out there of Raptor Lake.
Uhh.. no. Since Zen 1 DIDNT implode on their face, their keynotes of late have been VERY positive spin and crowing about how awesome there stuff is going to be ever since. Even when they have been overprimising and massively under-delivering (6500XT being weaker than a YEARS-old RX 480, lulz - not that nVidia was a lot better with the 3050, which is basically a very marginally faster 1660 TI/SUPER + Tensor and RT cores. I guess it can at least benefit from DLSS.). And when they had good numbers to show, theyve shown them. They showed NOTHING about Zen 4 other than "yeah its coming". And there's a SINGLE Zen 3 3D SKU coming... in June. Seems like that was either a dud or (equally likely, IMO) supply issues are preventing them from taking real advantage of it.
Anywho, i only ended up replying to you these last two times because other people had quoted you.
Since you're normally on ignore, barring another quote, ill be going back to ignoring your drivel.
- - - Updated - - -
Itll have to be phone-pics (im not sure if there's a way to capture screenshots of an EFI anyway) but i can show you where the settings are in the ASUS Z390 BIOS.
My rig is a Strix Z390i - your EFI/BIOS should be nearly identical to mine.
Ill post those up here a little later when i finally adjourn to my office to do some gaming tonight.
- - - Updated - - -
Okay, these are just going to be links, because its just easier for me to link to Google Photos than rehost them somewhere else:
First off, when you enter the EFI/BIOS (ill just use EFI from here on out, its shorter and more correct these days), youll see this screen:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/gzhibw9t3VJVJRX46
Thats the basic EZ Mode EFI screen. Notice down in the bottom right the "Advanced" Button. See here:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/fByA75Qg6X1Ed9358
Click that. It should take you to the main "Advanced" screen:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ADUab2dnFPXKVUWZ6
You want to click the AI Tweaker heading there at the top.
Itll land you here:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/kC5qcC4LnkXvKAeS7
My cursor is currently on the XMP settings in that pic. Enable your XMP profile if you haven't previously.
If you feel like it latter, there's every likleyhood your existing 2666 RAM can be manually overclocked higher. Gains wont be massive but you can play with it later if you want.
Notice at the bottom, highlighted in red is "CPU Core Ratio"
The next shot will show that in more detail (just scroll down to that):
https://photos.app.goo.gl/vRMiTy4NXB7J95k39
Enable "Sync All Cores" as i have in the screenshot.
Set the ratio to what you want the speed to be in the first entry ("1 Core Ratio Limit"); since you're syncing them, this is the only one you need to change.
Its multiples of 100mhz. So the 48 you see here is 4,800Mhz/4.8Ghz.
Start at say... 4.6 or 4.7 the first time.
If you scroll down further, youll see this:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/YPsz27PPmsaeCALQ6
This is where you adjust voltage. I only undervolt (run at lower than stock voltage) my 8600K because i have a small, constrained case (Mini-ITX - Phanteks Evolv Shift) and a single 120mm AIO to cool it. With your larger 240mm cooler, you shouldn't need to reduce the voltage to keep temps in check. Only worry about this if you cant get the CPU to be stable, which means you might to need to overvolt it.
Like i said, for now, just leave it stock, and try the CPU all core at 4.6 or 4.7Ghz (46, 47 multiplier).
Hit the Exit area, and Save Changes and Exit.
Download Prime 95:
https://www.mersenne.org/download/
And run it in torture test for a while. Let it really run. If it crashes, you can try fiddling with the voltage (go up in very small steps.. .02v or so each time, re-run the test, etc, until you get it stable).
If it is stable at 4.6 or wherever you start.. bump it up, run the test again. If you get to 4.8-5.1, you're fairly well golden unless you really want to get into altering RAM timings and stuff. And if you get it to 4.8 or higher at stock voltage but its unstable, try adding voltage to get it stable (just like before, small increments).
My experience with my 8600K was basically... set it at 48, it ran fine but a little hot.... then i lowered the voltage and its been stable. It took all of a few minutes.
Should the same for you. The 8600/9600K were very good overclockers.