3 ms·

The Intel i9-12900k has a TDP of something like 240 watts (I don't remember the exact number). The AMD 5950x has a TDP of 105 watts. The 5950x does roughly 10

The Intel i9-12900k has a TDP of something like 240 watts (I don't remember the exact number). The AMD 5950x has a TDP of 105 watts. The 5950x does roughly 10-15% worse single core and 10% worse all-core. Intel is far behind AMD. Overclock the 5950 a bit and you're back to where the i9 is stock, but still with less power. (I haven't actually done any research into that last sentence, but that seems plausible) The AMD customer experience is also much better. I can upgrade - and soon will be upgrading - my 2 year old 3900x system to a 5950x. I don't have to buy a new motherboard like I would have had to with Intel. Plus my system has had PCIe 4.0 for a few years (which I have been utilizing with a super fast SSD) and also supports ECC RAM - Intel will price gouge you for those by making you go to their enterprise targeted CPUs/motherboards (to be fair, they do now support PCIe 4 on the i9). Plus Intel withholding ECC from their consumer CPUs - even the high end ones - is just a major dick move and hurts all of the people like us on HN who want to have good hardware. And considering all the scummy anticompetitive stuff Intel has done over the last few decades, I'd say it's better to go with AMD even if their chips had a slight perf/$ disadvantage compared to Intel (but they don't). Of course, I'm not saying AMD is amazing and wouldn't do evil stuff if they got the opportunity, like Intel had, but AMD is still the underdog for just a bit longer, and in duopolies it's generally good to support the underdog if it doesn't cost you much (and here it doesn't really cost anything).

wmf 5y ago
If you set Intel and AMD to the same power limit Intel will probably be faster. Intel just gave ECC back although you have to use a workstation chipset.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> The Intel i9-12900k has a TDP of something like 240 watts (I don't remember the exact number). > The AMD 5950x has a TDP of 105 watts. I have experience with both. The 5950X has significantly higher idle power consumption. It's a known downside of AMD parts. Unless you're running the CPUs at 100% all the time, the Intel platform will probably consume less power overall. I know it defies all of the headlines and such, but it's true. Idle power consumption matters more than peak power consumption for most of us whose CPUs sit idle most of the time. If power is a concern, you get the 12600K instead of the hot rodded 12900K. > Overclock the 5950 a bit and you're back to where the i9 is stock, but still with less power. (I haven't actually done any research into that last sentence, but that seems plausible) I can tell you haven't done any research because this isn't true. The 5950X doesn't overclock well at all. You can try to force higher all-core speeds with a lot of voltage, but it's going to become a power hungry monster of a CPU for very little gain. The Intel really is the superior CPU. > Plus Intel withholding ECC from their consumer CPUs - even the high end ones - Also incorrect. Look up the 12900K page and scroll down to "ECC Memory Supported": https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/134599/intel-core-i912900k-processor-30m-cache-up-to-5-20-ghz.html https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/134599/... This is what I was talking about when I said the pro-AMD anti-Intel rhetoric was out of control. It's like basic facts don't matter any more. People just want to hate Intel.
- the_pwner224 5y ago
  Interesting, thanks for the info. Unfortunately a bit too late to edit/delete my previous post.
RachelF 5y ago
The AMD parts are already running close to max. You can squeeze a few percent more out of them, overclocking like in the old days is out of the question.

wmf 5y ago

If you set Intel and AMD to the same power limit Intel will probably be faster. Intel just gave ECC back although you have to use a workstation chipset.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> The Intel i9-12900k has a TDP of something like 240 watts (I don't remember the exact number). > The AMD 5950x has a TDP of 105 watts. I have experience with both. The 5950X has significantly higher idle power consumption. It's a known downside of AMD parts. Unless you're running the CPUs at 100% all the time, the Intel platform will probably consume less power overall. I know it defies all of the headlines and such, but it's true. Idle power consumption matters more than peak power consumption for most of us whose CPUs sit idle most of the time. If power is a concern, you get the 12600K instead of the hot rodded 12900K. > Overclock the 5950 a bit and you're back to where the i9 is stock, but still with less power. (I haven't actually done any research into that last sentence, but that seems plausible) I can tell you haven't done any research because this isn't true. The 5950X doesn't overclock well at all. You can try to force higher all-core speeds with a lot of voltage, but it's going to become a power hungry monster of a CPU for very little gain. The Intel really is the superior CPU. > Plus Intel withholding ECC from their consumer CPUs - even the high end ones - Also incorrect. Look up the 12900K page and scroll down to "ECC Memory Supported": https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/134599/intel-core-i912900k-processor-30m-cache-up-to-5-20-ghz.html https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/134599/... This is what I was talking about when I said the pro-AMD anti-Intel rhetoric was out of control. It's like basic facts don't matter any more. People just want to hate Intel.

the_pwner224 5y ago
Interesting, thanks for the info. Unfortunately a bit too late to edit/delete my previous post.

RachelF 5y ago

The AMD parts are already running close to max. You can squeeze a few percent more out of them, overclocking like in the old days is out of the question.