Core i9-13900KS runs circles around Ryzen 9 7950X in CPU-Z
notebookcheck.net
Core i9-13900KS runs circles around Ryzen 9 7950X in CPU-Z
1–10 of 16 posts
Re: Core i9-13900KS runs circles around Ryzen 9 7950X in CPU-Z
#2Headline is misleading. And same applies to the text. e.g. 928 vs. 900 difference is around 3% (assuming benchmark scores scale linearly) and 18,453 vs. 16,000 difference is around 15%. At least 15% isn't "runs circles around" kind of situation.
Re: Core i9-13900KS runs circles around Ryzen 9 7950X in CPU-Z
#3Not having ever used one of these E/P mixed cores CPUs I am curious to know if they are painless to use (especially under Linux). Does it ever happen that processes that should run on E cores run on P cores or viceversa? Do you have to somehow specify affinity in executables or there's some black magic that figures out automatically?
Any insights in this regard would be greatly appreciated as I am in need to change my desktop and I'm really curious regarding these 13xxx CPUs.
Re: Core i9-13900KS runs circles around Ryzen 9 7950X in CPU-Z
#4Headline is misleading. And same applies to the text. e.g. 928 vs. 900 difference is around 3% (assuming benchmark scores scale linearly) and 18,453 vs. 16,000 difference is around 15%. At least 15% isn't "runs circles around" kind of situation.
> the latter is notorious for underperforming in CPU-Z and one might have to wait for other benchmarks to surface before jumping to conclusions.
Quite a clickbait title
Re: Core i9-13900KS runs circles around Ryzen 9 7950X in CPU-Z
#5Not having ever used one of these E/P mixed cores CPUs I am curious to know if they are painless to use (especially under Linux). Does it ever happen that processes that should run on E cores run on P cores or viceversa? Do you have to somehow specify affinity in executables or there's some black magic that figures out automatically? Any insights in this regard would be greatly appreciated as I am in need to change m…
Intel contributed support which is in kernel versions 3.18 and up. Low priority tasks like the Baloo file indexer in KDE will always try to run on an E core.
You can also manually pin to cores in Linux and some platforms support manual management. When I'm traveling with my Pinebook pro I turn off the big cores which makes the battery last for days (when not watching video).
Re: Core i9-13900KS runs circles around Ryzen 9 7950X in CPU-Z
#6Intel have to put in an extra 8 cores to get similar multi-threaded scores, while the 3% higher single thread score is all about higher frequency.
I am not very excited for Intel's next earning call.
Re: Core i9-13900KS runs circles around Ryzen 9 7950X in CPU-Z
#7Since when is (has ?) CPU-Z a benchmark ?
Re: Core i9-13900KS runs circles around Ryzen 9 7950X in CPU-Z
#8Cpu Z is not a benchmark which makes me question the motives of this article
Re: Core i9-13900KS runs circles around Ryzen 9 7950X in CPU-Z
#9Intel have to put in an extra 8 cores to get similar multi-threaded scores, while the 3% higher single thread score is all about higher frequency. I am not very excited for Intel's next earning call.
I care more about transistors than cores.
If I were designing a CPU and OS from scratch right now, I'd put in at least a hundred cores. An M1 Ultra has over 100B transistors. That's more than 1000x the transistors of an Allendale Core 2 Duo core from 2007 (which had 170M split among two cores). I could literally fit 100 Allendale cores those suckers on less than 10% of the M1 ultra silicon.
I'd probably have 1-4 fast, modern cores for tasks which don't parallelize. I'd then have a massive number of auxiliary cores for tasks which do parallelize.
I'd also make good use of this to isolate processes, so for example, a rowdy browser tab can't slow the rest of my system down.
Re: Core i9-13900KS runs circles around Ryzen 9 7950X in CPU-Z
#10Intel have to put in an extra 8 cores to get similar multi-threaded scores, while the 3% higher single thread score is all about higher frequency. I am not very excited for Intel's next earning call.
I care more about transistors than cores. If I were designing a CPU and OS from scratch right now, I'd put in at least a hundred cores. An M1 Ultra has over 100B transistors. That's more than 1000x the transistors of an Allendale Core 2 Duo core from 2007 (which had 170M split among two cores). I could literally fit 100 Allendale cores those suckers on less than 10% of the M1 ultra silicon. I'd probably have 1-4 fast…
Unless you spend far too much on more cache per core, you’re going to quickly find that the bottleneck becomes the memory system. Hardly any of these low-priority process that would be scheduled in E cores are actually doing much compute. They’re either blasting memory or I/O, so adding more cores for them doesn’t help much.