3 ms·

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K

23 points by doener 2y ago

znpy 2y ago
What is this? A benchmark abut an unannounced product?
- wmf 2y ago
  Yes. It will be released in October.
jiggawatts 2y ago
From the 80s up until about 2010 every new computer I purchased has about 3x the performance of the one before it. Now people are excited about +10% squeezed out through heroic efforts and more watts than my space heater.
- theodric 2y ago
  Journalists who need to be excited about having something to review to pay their bills are excited. I don't know any non-tuner-obsessives who are upgrading much more often than about once per decade. I personally went from (work Macs and) dual Socket 1366 hexacore Xeons (in 2011) to a Socket AM4 Ryzen 7 5700G (in 2022), and greatly appreciated the power consumption drop and performance boost. I'm not jumping on the AM5/modern Intel train until I see more cores, more RAM capacity, or much lower power consumption than what I have now.
- Panzer04 2y ago
  Moore's law isn't carrying the weight it used to :( Also squeezing ever more single threaded performance from inherently parallel scaling only (more transistors running at the same speed), as well as memory not being able to scale at the same rate as computing performance is really putting a damper on things.
  - mmaniac 2y ago
    Moore's law only talks about transistors - in an IC they should double every 2 years. 3 years after the Apple M1, the M3 increased transistor count from 16 billion to 25 billion. Two years saw the 5950x with 8.3 billion transistors go to the 7950x with 13.1 billion transistors. That's quite not the predicted rate of scaling, but it is respectable. 2x the transistors doesn't mean 2x the performance though. We can make plenty of logic, but the DRAM to feed it remains high latency and the SRAM to hide the latency isn't scaling well either. PHYs are consuming proportionally more silicon too. One might say that Moore's Law isn't dead, but diminishing in relevance.
- s1gsegv 2y ago
  10% per year does add up, particularly if you don’t upgrade every year. I think if you get some decent lifetime out of your computer you have a good chance of still getting a significant speed boost when you upgrade. I have a Ryzen 3950X and I suspect even now there’s a noticeable speed improvement at the top end, and I don’t feel like upgrading yet. That was still a big improvement over the Intel 3930K (?) I had before, even though sandy bridge was when progression started to show a slowdown. I do think it’s perhaps easier to buy a computer with some weird bottleneck (crappy storage and the like) which will present day-to-day performance on par with your outgoing computer. Day-to-day high performance is seemingly hard to get right even if you can crunch numbers faster. Sort of a latency vs throughput problem.
ysleepy 2y ago
So, very, very similar to the 9950X score (100.x%). https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/7375555?baseline=7425534 https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/7375555?baselin... But without AVX512 and possibly much higher power consumption. It is kinda exhilarating to see how much competition is going on with AMD, Intel, Apple and Qualcomm.
- infensus 2y ago
  Some leaks suggest that 15th gen is achieving these results while consuming 100W less than 14th, but I guess we best wait for some real tests
- phonon 2y ago
  You're double counting, since Geekbench 6 has three subtests that use AVX-512. ("Object Detection", "Background Blur" and "Photo Library") https://www.geekbench.com/doc/geekbench6-benchmark-internals.pdf https://www.geekbench.com/doc/geekbench6-benchmark-internals...
- zamadatix 2y ago
  Exhilarating? These are ~10% faster in single/multi than the 13900KS from 23Q1. Power consumption drops largely coming from everyone, including Intel this generation, using TSMC's latest nodes. Apple does have a pretty decent perf/w showing compared to the others but only if you want it for their walled garden. I'm extremely disappointed in the rate of competition this year, especially given all the hope I had for it. Given how close the leading performers all are, the increase in total high end competition, and having alternatively licensed architectures in that mix we're getting the same types of generational improvements we did when Intel was the lone king. About the only people really floored are the ones rocking the iPad. Who knows, maybe the X3D variants will still leave something interesting in the near term.
  - LASR 2y ago
    It’s just harder to produce significant gains now. A 10% might be the result of all the chip giants giving it their absolute best. I wouldn’t draw conclusions about the level of competition simply based on the spread in performance. Remember that with Olympic runners the spread is 100ths of a second. And yet the competition is fierce. You may not be excited about a 10% improvement. I am not either. But that’s a different matter.
addaon 2y ago
Given typical temperature deltas of 75 K for intel processors, it would need to be around -80°F (-60°C) in your computer room for this to be a reasonable product name.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

23 points by doener 2y ago

znpy 2y ago

What is this? A benchmark abut an unannounced product?

wmf 2y ago
Yes. It will be released in October.

jiggawatts 2y ago

From the 80s up until about 2010 every new computer I purchased has about 3x the performance of the one before it. Now people are excited about +10% squeezed out through heroic efforts and more watts than my space heater.

theodric 2y ago
Journalists who need to be excited about having something to review to pay their bills are excited. I don't know any non-tuner-obsessives who are upgrading much more often than about once per decade. I personally went from (work Macs and) dual Socket 1366 hexacore Xeons (in 2011) to a Socket AM4 Ryzen 7 5700G (in 2022), and greatly appreciated the power consumption drop and performance boost. I'm not jumping on the AM5/modern Intel train until I see more cores, more RAM capacity, or much lower power consumption than what I have now.
Panzer04 2y ago
Moore's law isn't carrying the weight it used to :( Also squeezing ever more single threaded performance from inherently parallel scaling only (more transistors running at the same speed), as well as memory not being able to scale at the same rate as computing performance is really putting a damper on things.
- mmaniac 2y ago
  Moore's law only talks about transistors - in an IC they should double every 2 years. 3 years after the Apple M1, the M3 increased transistor count from 16 billion to 25 billion. Two years saw the 5950x with 8.3 billion transistors go to the 7950x with 13.1 billion transistors. That's quite not the predicted rate of scaling, but it is respectable. 2x the transistors doesn't mean 2x the performance though. We can make plenty of logic, but the DRAM to feed it remains high latency and the SRAM to hide the latency isn't scaling well either. PHYs are consuming proportionally more silicon too. One might say that Moore's Law isn't dead, but diminishing in relevance.
s1gsegv 2y ago
10% per year does add up, particularly if you don’t upgrade every year. I think if you get some decent lifetime out of your computer you have a good chance of still getting a significant speed boost when you upgrade. I have a Ryzen 3950X and I suspect even now there’s a noticeable speed improvement at the top end, and I don’t feel like upgrading yet. That was still a big improvement over the Intel 3930K (?) I had before, even though sandy bridge was when progression started to show a slowdown. I do think it’s perhaps easier to buy a computer with some weird bottleneck (crappy storage and the like) which will present day-to-day performance on par with your outgoing computer. Day-to-day high performance is seemingly hard to get right even if you can crunch numbers faster. Sort of a latency vs throughput problem.

ysleepy 2y ago

So, very, very similar to the 9950X score (100.x%). https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/7375555?baseline=7425534 https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/7375555?baselin... But without AVX512 and possibly much higher power consumption. It is kinda exhilarating to see how much competition is going on with AMD, Intel, Apple and Qualcomm.

infensus 2y ago
Some leaks suggest that 15th gen is achieving these results while consuming 100W less than 14th, but I guess we best wait for some real tests
phonon 2y ago
You're double counting, since Geekbench 6 has three subtests that use AVX-512. ("Object Detection", "Background Blur" and "Photo Library") https://www.geekbench.com/doc/geekbench6-benchmark-internals.pdf https://www.geekbench.com/doc/geekbench6-benchmark-internals...
zamadatix 2y ago
Exhilarating? These are ~10% faster in single/multi than the 13900KS from 23Q1. Power consumption drops largely coming from everyone, including Intel this generation, using TSMC's latest nodes. Apple does have a pretty decent perf/w showing compared to the others but only if you want it for their walled garden. I'm extremely disappointed in the rate of competition this year, especially given all the hope I had for it. Given how close the leading performers all are, the increase in total high end competition, and having alternatively licensed architectures in that mix we're getting the same types of generational improvements we did when Intel was the lone king. About the only people really floored are the ones rocking the iPad. Who knows, maybe the X3D variants will still leave something interesting in the near term.
- LASR 2y ago
  It’s just harder to produce significant gains now. A 10% might be the result of all the chip giants giving it their absolute best. I wouldn’t draw conclusions about the level of competition simply based on the spread in performance. Remember that with Olympic runners the spread is 100ths of a second. And yet the competition is fierce. You may not be excited about a 10% improvement. I am not either. But that’s a different matter.

addaon 2y ago

Given typical temperature deltas of 75 K for intel processors, it would need to be around -80°F (-60°C) in your computer room for this to be a reasonable product name.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]