Intel Admits Arrow Lake S Won't Be The Fastest Gaming CPU

[@LonChera-1]

The amount of people that build the most expensive gaming PCs to just watch KZbin is the clear market.

[@drewnewby]

They build the most expensive gaming PCs to talk about them in KZbin comments.

[@sodiumvapor13]

Can confirm. Used my Alder Lake 12900KS to type this.

[@gabrielvasconcellos6427]

Can also confirm, using my 14900k with all 32 cores overclocked to 6.2 Ghz running on LN2 so I can type faster and watch videos at 2x speed in 8k resolution 240hz.

[@danm94]

Nah, not really, people use phones for KZbin more these days.

[@vac59]

The Intel Motherboard prices are insane 😢

[@ygny1116]

Looking forward to your arrow lake review. 1% low in demanding situation is the only metrics I care about, you guys are the only one doing it as far as I know.

[@xellestar]

How many people with a 5090 will actually game at such a low resolution as to be cpu bottlenecked

[@yancgc5098]

The 5090 will probably be bottlenecked even at 4K though, unless the game is using path tracing

[@tringuyen7519]

True, getting a 9800X3D will only increase 4K fps by 5%. Gamers shouldn’t care. But they fall into FOMO every-time.

[@tstager1978]

@@tringuyen7519 You have no idea how important that 5% is!

[@ndr2q]

Intel: “We’re taking a L this gen.”

[@ElDavo9000]

-Intel company motto 2018-20--

[@darylallen2485]

Can't spell Intel without L

[@melonburst8563]

To be fair they've done exceptionally well since Intel Core Duo came out that we expect them to be 1st all the time. I'm ok with a redesign towards efficiency hopefully they can save the x86 platform we will see...

[@lost4356]

Intel Goal is not AMD but TSMC they building new fab, currently designing new nodes.if intel using TSMC in the beggining they would easily crush AMD lucky they do it the hardway although with questionable decision even they also use TSMC right now. Unless you want TSMC monopolize the fab wafer industry.

[@lharsay]

​@@lost4356Arrow Lake is almost all TSMC silicon.

[@TheGameBench]

The only reason I'm excited as a gamer, who also uses their computer for productivity, is the 9950X 3D looking like it will be able to be the best of both worlds where you'll have pretty much the gaming performance of the 9800X 3D without making a compromise on the productivity side. So, I'm somewhat excited to see benchmarks of the 9900/9950X 3D chips since I would be upgrading from a 5950X. Intel really needed to make a big increase in performance for me to even consider them after how they handled the voltage issues with 13th and 14th Gen. However, I understand why people who are primarily concerned with gaming feel let down and I'm guessing the next round of GPU's aren't going to help that either.

[@KindHappyLove]

I’m interested in this as well. Trying to build my first gaming/productivity pc. Trying to buy things in stages because I want about as good as I can get and spread out the cost a bit. If you don’t mind me asking… What do you think I should be shopping for around Black Friday? Is there any cases and mother boards I can buy for the 9950X 3D and the 50 series GPU?

[@oneanother1]

Multi core performance on arrowlake will perform very well, especially since its very power efficient. I hear the e-cores can overclock very well. If you do any video work, Intel is best. It's not like the ultra 9 285k is losing by alot in gaming performance. And the only way to realize such a small difference is if you are gaming on a 4090 or higher. Bro, everyone is hyping up zen5x3d like its a massive performance gain over previous gen, I bet you won't even notice the difference. So if its like 200 dollars more expensive for 5% increase, is it worth it? Everyone is getting gaslighted because next gen CPUs are struggling to sell.

[@TheGameBench]

@@KindHappyLove I really doubt you'll see any really good deals on any of the new AM5 motherboards on Black Friday... if at all, but I imagine there will be heavy discounts on 600 series chipset boards and there's not much different between the the X870E and X670E, but you will want to get one with BIOS flashback in case it doesn't have a new enough BIOS to even boot with a Zen5 chip. As for cases, it's hard to say without knowing how big the 50 series cards are going to be. But it really depends on your style and if you want to go with air or liquid cooling. If you're going air, the Fractal Torrent is about one of the best cases for airflow and should fit any GPU you could want to buy.

[@mondodimotori]

I'm also considering it but... The x3d chip is gonna be slower in productivity when compared to the non x3d. Why should I leave performances on the table when productivity works pays my bills? I'd be leaving profit behind by going with an x3d chip.

[@TheGameBench]

@@oneanother1 Yes, video work is ONE of the productivity tasks I do, but the footage I work with can be decoded by my GPU. Getting Intel is of no advantage for me in that regard. Now, if I were working with XVAC 4:2:2 8-bit, then the built in media engine would be of benefit. However, I can just grab an Arc A310 to decode that footage and not skip a beat if I get to that bridge. I'll be curious how the real world benchmarks pan out, but unless Intel has some incredible increase to multi-core performance, it's not going to interest me in the slightest. I'm not upset they had issues... that happens. However, they handled it about as badly as they could. I just don't trust them as a company right now. They should have stood behind their product and supported their customers... and they didn't. As for gaming, I'm currently on a 3080 Ti, so I might move up to a 4090 or maybe I'll just go for the gold and get a 5090. After all, I won't have to upgrade the motherboard to buy the next couple of generations of CPU's from AMD, if I go that route, at the very least. Besides, if the E-cores still cause the same issues that they have been in gaming... who cares if they clock higher when they'll need to be disabled while gaming anyways. And like I said, I'm not moving from Zen4, I'm moving from a 5950X, so a 9950X 3D would be a huge step up in my workloads regardless of how much faster it is than Zen4. Also, I've seen nothing about X3D being overhyped. Everything I've seen is talking about it being a pretty marginal increase. So, I don't know where you're seeing that. Lastly, saying Intel is best is based on what exactly? You have zero idea how either these AMD or Intel chips will perform. This is something a fanboy would say.

[@MrAkaacer]

Its a bit silly that CPUs are forking into gaming and non-gaming CPUs. CPUs are general purpose and should be good all round for any tasks.

[@ion4290]

Мониторы раньше тоже были общими. А теперь есть игровые, офисные, профессиональные.

[@2drealms196]

Sadly the mass market isn't interested in performance at all costs, its with mobile devices and performance & power efficiency tradeoffs, and Intel is following that trend. Intel are probably looking at ARM devices grabbing a larger and larger share of consumer dollars (hence the recent AMD Intel collaboration to defend x86). Desktop sales are declining, and consoles have more or less plateaued since the X360/PS3/Wii generation.

[@LouSassol69er]

Damn shame. Mobile sucks arse for gaming too.

[@AshtonCoolman]

These won't be the fastest but let's be real. They'll be more than fast enough. Intel fanboys don't have to worry about being 5% slower than AMD when these CPUs are so exceptionally fast to begin with. We all kind of lose the plot sometimes with these comparisons. All of these CPUs from both AMD and Intel are amazing right now.

[@Ghostyboydead]

Is it fast enough for a 5090

[@christophermullins7163]

7800x3d is faster than current Intel. Next gen Intel is a bit slower than current Intel. 9800x3d will be +10% faster than 7800x3d. Everything I said is exactly what we should all expect from all of the info around. 9800x3d will be 15% faster average fps and using similar energy. AMD will be cheaper CPU and motherboard. I try not to fanboy but call me one if you want.. we all have the same info I stated... you guys have clearly biased expectations here.

[@SWOTHDRA]

They are not actually

[@prussell890]

​@@christophermullins7163the 7800x3d is faster at 1080p gaming with best gpu. 4k gaming its pretty much equal. but intel 14th gen cpus are as faster than all none x3d AMD chips. Intel has made the right move by moving to TMSC this generation just like AMD did years ago to improve efficiency. No one complains about the performance of intels, its the power consumption. You forget, we need competition, otherwise the prices go out of control, just like with Nvidia GPUs dominating the market. Intel will eventually take back the crown, it always swings back and fourth.

[@TheGameBench]

@@Ghostyboydead Nope. And neither will the new AMD X3D chips. However, this is more of an optimization issue with current engines than it is about the CPU's being weak.

[@FLOODOFSINS]

Turn next announcement will be when they file bankruptcy

[@DragoniteSpam]

I like P/E cores in concept, but I don't feel like they ever met their potential. I'm not sure if that means the drivers aren't doing their job properly, or the OS task scheduler isn't doing its job properly, or the engines' thread dispatchers aren't doing their job properly, or if the idea is just fundamentally flawed.

[@RobertFromEarth]

Good point. Gamers don't care about Cinebench score and those E cores take up space that is useless when gaming. AMD 3d cache / specialized gaming cpu is a much better approach.

[@DragoniteSpam]

@@RobertFromEarth if they worked as promised and sequestered stuff like the OS and Windows Defender to the E-cores to free up cycles on the performance ones it would be great, but it sounds like that usually isn't what happens :/

[@Cooldude1991c]

It's better to wait until intel 16th gen and beyond

[@christophermullins7163]

16th 😂

[@christophermullins7163]

And 400 series after that

[@Effect-Without-Cause]

I'm wondering how will a 14900K with disabled HT compare to the 285K.

[@deathtrooper2048]

I'm glad power consumption is now a priority, what use is a better cpu if I have to slow it down due it consiming too much power?

[@steezegod2768]

There is better cooling, direct die, mora, these are Halo CPU's. Not a office worker who runs a i3 or mobile chip in laptop

[@xyz2theb]

@@steezegod2768 the average pc gamer isnt going through all that to keep their cpu from killing itself. They just want a cpu that works right out of the box.

[@steezegod2768]

@@xyz2theb Then don't buy a Halo product such as the K or specifically the KS. The new bios stops voltages that degrades the chip. But Thermally, your average gamer gets a 360 AIO in the US. If you're still complaining? Custom Water, or chillout you know

[@TristanTormey]

@@steezegod2768 'K' just means the processor is unlocked and can be overclocked. Nothing to do with being a halo product.

[@xyz2theb]

@@TristanTormey thank you!

[@Damn_Smooth]

If a CPU costs more than a console on its own, it damn well better double performance. Should be way more than that. Without shader compilation stutter.

[@RogueSquadron80]

pc always destroys console

[@Damn_Smooth]

@@RogueSquadron80 No, you're just misinformed. Console destroys PC at the same price point. 4 years later and you still can't build something that matches the consoles for $500. 4. Years.

[@thunwa55]

⁠@@Damn_SmoothAre you an idiot? The expensive CPU aren’t meant for gaming, it’s for productivity usage. PC always destroy console at maximum build, you cant compare price since console take a lost on the hardware so they can take 30% off for every purchase you make on there console.

[@chrisking6695]

@@RogueSquadron80 you’re truly wrong. I have a PS5 and a 7800x3d/4080s rig. And while my PC plays all games in higher fidelity, at the end of the day, the goal is to play the game not just look at it. And I’ve played on my PS5 since release day and never had a bad experience. Demon souls still looks amazing. So does Elden Ring and many other games. And it’s been playing all the games in 60fps on performance mode and it didn’t cost me 2800 dollars. I also don’t have to mess around with driver settings and don’t have to follow graphics optimization guides or deal with constant crashes because something doesn’t work (like Forza 5 crashes when I use the Logitech steering wheel). A console is a better deal for gamers. A PC is for enthusiasts or FPS gamers in which case you don’t need to spend a lot of money on a high end rig anyway.

[@TheMichaelparis]

@@RogueSquadron80 majority of console players knows it but dont care they just want to have fun . To get the same type of performance in a pc cost an arm and a leg in some part of the world..

[@Waldoe16]

I think modern cpus are great, we just need something better than Windows that is unbloated and that programs can be compiled to use the newer instructions/optimizations easily.

[@dethskullcrusher]

The problem today is not CPU's power, is gaming optimization, what's the point of having 20 cores or 96 mb of cache if games stutter no matter what. We need better parallelization implementation for multicore CPU's.

[@mulamulelilumadi4717]

Wouldn't that mean running newer games on older hardware becomes more difficult if not impossible? Upgrading would have to be fairly regular....

[@dethskullcrusher]

@@mulamulelilumadi4717 Yes but that's not a problem with the hardware, is a software issue.

[@Mcnooblet]

A lot of gaming development revolves around consoles who have been 8 core for 10+ years. With a couple of those cores reserved for the OS. Once they port over to PC, they probably think why spend the money optimizing CPU gains? This also makes sense why a 7800x3d works so well in the current environment, with the added benefit of cache. However, once PS6 is released with 16 cores, I think we will start seeing the benefits of higher core counts vs lower core counts. Until then, 6-8 core CPUs will be standard for gaming. Some games coming out do seem to want 12+ cores like Dragon Age VeilGuard, Flightsim 2024, but that's also for higher end gaming, with RT Ultra. When benchmarks show lower gains with a 7800x3d/7900XTX with RT Ultra, even at 1080p, it will likely be blamed on the XTX completely.

[@ColtA13]

I think you're being a little imaginative. Even today, after over a decade at eight cores, games seldom take (substantial) advantage of more than 2-4 cores. The majority of the workload is generally happening on a single thread, because parallelisation is often impossible: and where it is possible, it's often (time) cost prohibitive. I don't mean to paint too dark a picture, as there is a LOT of work that can be shared across cores, but it's very hard to imagine a situation in which sixteen cores will net you considerably more performance than eight.

[@ktvx.94]

High-end CPUs already get hundreds of FPS on anything that isn't crippled by horrible optimization, let's be real. Pushing for efficiency is the right move, and if you only care about performance you can just be content with what you already have.

[@SWOTHDRA]

🤡🤡🤡 maybe on minecraft, thats all you pc peasants play anyways

[@lost4356]

Competitive FPS Sweet spot is like 240fps, Story action based game is like 60fps maybe 120fps,with 1080P resolution,and most of game look decent even in low setting. but most youtuber poisoned our mind that 4K Ultra setting with 480FPS is a bare minimum

[@paulboyce8537]

Motherboard with 2 x BIOS option to choose between Gaming and Workstation. MSI Z890 has options.

[@Brent_P]

My 13900K barely keeps up with my RTX 4090 at 4K UHD in any video game with draw distance, specifically.

[@alex24buc]

I have 14900ks. Am I ok for another year if I get rtx 5090 for 4k gaming?

[@MazdaChris]

Yes, almost certainly. You might want to use something like MSI Afterburner to do some logging to be sure, but I'd imagine you're GPU-limited in most games. In which case a faster CPU is going to make basically zero difference. Even if you're CPU-limited, upgrading now is unlikely to give you more than single-digit percentage uplift on framerates, which would have to already be at a pretty ridiculous level. You'd essentially be spending the better part of a grand, or more, given that you'd need a new MB as well, to get *at best* a 10% framerate uplift. At a framerate where the uplift would make zero perceptible difference.

[@alex24buc]

@@MazdaChris much appreciated your analysis. I have now the rtx 4090 and I was saying Inwanted to know that with the faster 5090 could I be limited. But I understand that there is no need for the new platform right away. Thanks a lot!

[@MazdaChris]

@@alex24buc You can probably take a bit of a guess by looking at how much headroom you've got when you're gaming at the moment. Obviously we don't know exactly how much the performance potential will increase with the 5090 over the 4090 in the real world, so it's hard to say for sure. But if you're nearly maxing out the CPU in the current rig, then chances are going up to the 5090 is going to run into a CPU bottleneck. But in that situation you have to ask whether it's even worth upgrading anything at this point. It's a lot of money if you're not going to get very little real world benefit. You may be as well to just save your money and skip a generation if you feel like you're already happy with the performance of your current setup.

[@CompatibilityMadness]

Intel and NV/AMD need to figure out how to run CPUs and GPUs at stock 0.7 - 0.8V voltage range (for now) : More transistors = More paths for current to take = less resistance to ground = more power generated at the same voltage level. It's not sustainable to run things "to the max", as we seen on 13-th/14-th gen or on 4090 (5090 should prove this point again, if not more). Sure, performance WILL suffer a lot due to this, BUT this step is necessary for transistor scaling to work at reasonable level, at least until Graphene and/or other element based ICs (ie. "not sand based"), can be ironed out. Let the consumers figure out what they want, by giving them this choice (be prepared for down of sales as consequences due to stupid marketing slogans and making performance #1 issue up to this point time).

[@Timmy51m]

I seem to remember there being issues with some of my games when hyperthreading became a thing on intel. History doesn't necessarily repeat, but it often rhymes.

[@ployth9000]

they could've made even more money if they just allowed it to work on z690/790 chipset but we know that was not possible well I don't see a point in upgrading from z690 to this since I already have pci ex 5.0 and ddr5

[@TheMichaelparis]

yeah i dont know why they keep changing socket when almost all the new tech is on the motherboard chipset

[@Yoshimatsu414]

Funnily enough, even though Bartlet Lake sounds like it would be good for gaming I don't think Intel is making it for the DIY or gaming market, according to the rumors.

[@rohitaug]

Never understood why power consumption is seen as a separate vector from performance. Lower power consumption means over 5 years there is much less money spent due to the cpu. Meaning you could justify upping your budget for the cpu and gain performance by getting a better cpu than you would have otherwise.

[@kieran9882]

it also leaves more room for overclocking

[@badz1497]

because it makes Intel looks bad LOL.

[@shugo1047]

If you give coders leeway (read: RAM) to fall back on, it will be used as a band-aid. It's why so many innovations in coding were established when society was a nose-length away from the hardware wall and still demanded more out of their machines.

[@healingheart333]

I think the discussion has more to do with the consumer market. Consumer demand has dropped considerably over the past few months. what we are seeing in the dev space has more to do with a lack of consumer demand.

[@Jtretta]

I think it's rather knowable that the 3d cache AMD chips are going to better in gaming than Arrow Lake. They put a big band-aid on what is probably the biggest hurdle to increasing performance in games, memory latency. Ideally the entirety of the addressable memory space would respond instantly. In reality you have a whole host of workarounds and speculative logic to try and make up for having to wait ages for the system RAM to respond to a read or write command. It must be said that increasing cache size doesn't necessarily increase performance, but the same is true with RAM. In either case if you do run out and have to resort to the next level of memory, cache to RAM and RAM to disk swap, you see a noticeable drop in performance.

[@dadozygaming]

I still have an Intel i7-6700k on my main PC. I think even if it doesn't perform that well, I bet it's still an upgrade for me.

[@DreadyBearBoi]

E-cores have had 2 issues, 1st is they have been really slow, 2nd is they get scheduled at weird times relative to the P-cores especially their hyper-threaded threads such that they cause weird performance issues. Not to say Arrow Lake is gonna be amazing or will fix many of these issues but removing hyper-threading will do a lot to fix scheduling issue to begin with, and the E-cores are significantly faster compared to last gen such that if the game does get scheduled on them it it won’t be as much of a problem. A lot of decisions regarding efficiency though and under-clocking certain elements like the ring bus to save power reflect in gaming however I believe it should be somewhat easy to pair back performance because of that. In gaming though efficiency should be great for Arrow Lake but notable is that higher core loads should be especially bad for Arrow Lake because the loss of hyper-threading and the need to run the E-cores at a higher power level is just less efficient than two full CCDs of P-cores with hyper-threading.

[@masterquake7]

Yet another reason why I am not going to be upgrading my current gaming PC anytime soon. PC gaming needs some major improvements for me to swap back to it as my primary platform. I used to buy shooters only on PC for mouse/KB, but I don't even do that anymore. Of course, there haven't been a lot of compelling shooters for me since Borderlands 2, but still.

[@urazoktay7940]

Amazing video, great analysis as usual, i thoroughly enjoyed it, thank you Digital Foundry.

[@cashwood]

If intel could make a cpu that has 8 Performance cores and maybe 2 or 4 efficiency cores, that would be great for gaming. The 8 performance cores could be fully dedicated to running the game process, and the efficiency cores could run everything else (background tasks, system and kernel processes, drivers, etc)

[@MegaKiri11]

It's really hard to keep games locked on performance cores. If you have even one efficiency core, there is a risk of threads scheduled there.

[@cashwood]

@@MegaKiri11 can't you pin a process to specific cores on windows? I swear you could do that in task manager

[@MegaKiri11]

@@cashwood are you willing to fiddle with Task Manager every time you open any game?

[@SaccoBelmonte]

Did Dark1X try isolating games to P cores using Process Lasso instead of having to disable the E cores? Or was it like, disabling the E cores also helped bringing heat and power consumption down so the P cores performed better?

[@concinnus]

Disabling the E Cores entirely is more about allowing the Ring Bus to be overclocked. Disabling them won't help with heat.

[@wille84fin]

I don't get how they have issues with heat with the 12900K. I've been using it for a few years, with a frame and 360 EK AIO and it't wont go past 82°C in any test. That includes OCCT AVX/AVX2. Gaming is ~50-60°C, and usually around 50W-70W with occasional 90W. It's paired with a 4080 Super. And my 12900K is OC'd to keep up with CPU's with more cores. 30K R23, 2100 single core. Sounds a lot like a skill issue. And yes, Lasso is good, usually not needed though, or at least with the games i personally play.

[@concinnus]

@@wille84fin Alder Lake was never that hot. But if you took each spec max turbo for a 12900K and a 13900K and applied it to all core, the +10% clock of the 13900K means +~30% heat because it's on the same node.

[@Aaron-zl5gq]

Arrowlake motherboards are also grossly expensive

[@alumlovescake]

With so many games cpu bottlenecked we need a massive boom in cpu power to make up for it.

[@technicallyme]

Xeons are either all e cores or p cores. No mixing thank God

[@mikki7522]

Probably better to just buy 14th gen on Black Friday

[@mattzun6779]

Seems like Intel has a perfectly reasonable plan. They fessed up that the chips aren't intended for the 0.1 percent who use a 4090 for 1080p gaming and avoid the bad press from promising something that wasn't even a design goal. It isn't even worth producing a chip with nothing but P cores for Intel. The chips are fast enough for 90 percent of gamers and better than previous chips for professional use, general home/office tasks and laptops. The architecture is probably better for data centers that previous architectures.

[@kartikpintu]

Exactly. It's better to be honest than over promise and undersell. Intel is changing their strategy and improved power efficiency which everyone complained about, now that they have produced results, people just moved the goal post. Who care if my game fos dropper from 210fps to 200fps as long as I save more money

[@jbountalas]

Thanks for the interesting review. At the end of the day, I'll just keep my 13900 and be happy.

[@artorias89]

but let say while you gaming a demanding game with ray tracing and you watch a 4k video on youtube and download with fiber optics a game in the baclground on steam....wouldnt 285k be the best cpu for that because of 24 cores?

[@steezegod2768]

Lmfao, as a i9/4090 owner, I either run my 360hz monitor only, or my tv at 4k, I pay for fiber 2G, and never am I RTX 4K gaming, while streaming 4k, and downloading a game. Lmfao, you gotta be a child. I run my 14900k with only 8 P Cores on, Ring Ratio Overclocked, and get better FPS.

[@artorias89]

@@steezegod2768i watch always twitch or youtube while i game, and sometimes i download games via xbox gamepass, since there are often new games...so nothing special bro

[@low_etc]

The defense for Intel in these comments are crazy while everyone was scorching AMD for Zen 5%.

[@RobertFromEarth]

You take out the e-core and use the space for cache. No need for 3D technology, just get rid of the junk that take space on the cpu die.

[@adamtajhassam9188]

Intel : 2 things I want to see improve b4 i consider makin a Intel system again: 1) STABILITY 2) SERVICE . Still waiting 4 my 1st crash o n AMD & lost interest w Intel chips now; after 40 yrs.

[@Landlord1244]

I wanted to buy intel i9 gaming laptop but after seeing their honesty about the whole chips crashing issue , I no longer trust them Bought AMD one instead

[@badz1497]

for laptops, AMD is almost always better. and if you're not looking for one with a dedicated GPU, there would be no contest whatsoever. the AMD's iGPU is like 2 generations ahead of Intel right now.

[@Landlord1244]

@@badz1497 thank you , I ended up buying Lenovo legion 5i with AMD Ryzen 7 and rtx 4070, loving it so far

[@xedarkrunner5167]

It's fine... people who only wants to play gets the PS5 Pro. I'm more curious about where Intel gets back those 5% from AMD in other tasks.

[@danm94]

Well with those prices, a MacBook isn't a bad choice anymore. Also, shareholders, as in many other areas ruined Intel. Innovation is stagnating because some rich guys need to get their shares at the end of the year. Everything that Intel is now is a bunch of meetings where they flex spreadheets.

[@clouds5]

I don't care about a few fps as long as it's a good price.

[@Ray88G]

Gaming is not everything. There are stil people who do work and other stuff

[@SWOTHDRA]

Work?? 🤡🤡🤡 almost every company works in the cloud

[@thetheoryguy5544]

Exactly, neck beard gamers want the fastest cpu to pair with their 1080ti their still holding on to lmao.

[@Ray88G]

@@SWOTHDRA You are the clown . Get life

[@Ray88G]

@@thetheoryguy5544 Not everyone plays games and AMD beats intel at gaming

[@zaselimgamingvideos]

I have been waiting for an update for my 2nd system and still using i7 6600k in it and i was waiting and almost went for i9 14900k but stopped because of unavailability of the mobo i wanted and thank God i didn't get 14th gen because of the issues it had and i was waiting for the 15th but i guess i will have to go with amd this time and i hope their new upcoming CPU/s are better than the current gen. The new mobo also have 7 slots for m.2 which also a huge + for me compared to 5 m.2 slot on 14th gen boards. I do both productivity (UE, 3ds max, Daz, blender, marvelous designer, premier pro etc) work and 4k gaming (rtx 4090). So i want a CPU that is good for both which is why i was waiting for 15gen and it just looks disappointing.

[@djtomoy]

i’m sure it will be fast enough for me, all i use my pc for is watching naughty videos and excel 2010

[@acidgaming0]

Can‘t wait to read UserBenchmarks FAQ on why Intel praises AMD products with their virgin PR accounts.

[@holo2869]

Yes, even game model optimizations have become lazy due to storage size and internet speed. Games now are very unoptimized. I was anticipating kriegger beta will establish a a new standard for games, but I was wrong. Too bad.

[@2010crackpot]

Why is no one talking about apple m chips. It’s the only company consistently improving in every way.

[@badz1497]

but they are the only one using it too.

[@Neosin1]

Gamers? You mean "Gamers that play at 1080p" lol, only plebs play at 1080p!

[@badz1497]

so like 50% of gamers on Steam? that's a lot of PC plebs

[@tstager1978]

New 9800x3d 5.7ghz

[@ion4290]

Yes, 999ghz. Holy amd

[@tstager1978]

@@ion4290 Yes exactly!!!

[@cfrozen6210]

Gaming performance is mostly Cache and Frequency. Frequency means more power, and much more Chache isn't needed for AI or HPC, and that is where the money lies. Intels current gaming architecture isn't really good for HPC, as it is mostly frequency focused. HPC is ruled by memory bandwidth (not important for gaming) and Vector Performance (also not important for gaming). Zen5 seems to be a great improvement for productivity, and so seems Arrow Lake. Gaming will profit from it in the long run, but not directly.

[@sherlockholmes7630]

As long as UE is hovering over these lazy game devs, the bottleneck saga will keep running high.

[@garethperks7032]

Software bloat will be the death of us.

[@UndyingGhost]

Core Ultra i9 (Rich lol)🤣

[@jamespark4577]

C'mon... for the vast majority, gaming benchmarks of around 5% for CPUs isn't everything (except to boast figures on these reviews). As long as it doesn't bottleneck the rest of the system, I'll be fine. More on looking for efficiency and the system doesn't run loud and stays cool so step in the right direction. Unless you got a wad of cash to blow every year on the latest and greatest, its not gonna matter much. If upgrading from much older system (which I bet there's a lot of folks out there), this should be a good option (assuming there aren't any further quality surprises). Otherwise wait it out for the next step up in a year or so and put your hard-earned money towards something else right now that will impact gaming performance greater (I highly doubt Nvidia 50 series graphics cards are gonna be cheap). Anyone remember Pentium-D nearly two decades ago after the long series of Pentium 4 single core processors prior to release of (dominance) of Intel's Core 2 architecture? I think we're sort've seeing the same thing going on here.... I hope Intel learns their lesson once again this time around and stays focused on their customers.

[@JamesSmith-sw3nk]

I am surprised that these guys don't like/know how to use "E-cores". I have an i7 13700k and it's great for multi-tasking. I can assign something big like cpu mining to the "P-cores" and use the "E-cores" for web browsing, media playback even play older games on. It's like having 2 pc's in 1. My 5800x3d cpu on my gaming rig is great for gaming but it can't multi-task like the 13700k does. Assign your "P-cores" to that new AAA game and let the "E-cores" handle everything else in the background.

[@xellestar]

Assign how?

[@Amaan_OW]

That sounds like a horrible user experience

[@predabot__6778]

You're using your CPU for Crypto-coin Mining...? In 2024? Why, if I may ask?

[@moviesynopsis001]

@@predabot__6778 He was just using a made up example to show what they can do.

[@snap_oversteer]

I want the scheduler to take care of that, I have a desktop and not a supercomputer with 1000s of cores. And I will not forgive Intel for removing AVX-512 from 12th gen and on because they didn't want to implement it on E-cores.

[@midibenni]

Not a single word of the Intel 285K Quad Channel RAM Controller. This benifts games, because its quaddouble`ing gaming load speed

[@christophermullins7163]

All memory modules are already dual channel. On any more consumer CPU you have 4 32 bit channels. It is how ddr5 works. And plus if it is true and benefits games.. it is already factored into the benchmarks that show it a few percent slower than 14900k so it's really a mute point.

[@lharsay]

It's like Intel's and AMD's ultra low end laptop chips the i3 N305 and r5 7520U only supporting one DDR5 RAM stick but being listed as dual channel.

[@christophermullins7163]

@@lharsay precisely. It's simply that ddr5 has a different interface than DDR4. This is not a quad channel system in that the CPU can send and receive data from 4 ddr5 sticks at once. It would be nice and Igpus would be able to sing with that setup but it's just not the way it works unfortunately.

[@mfrunyan]

we need to give up on the chase for higher framerates. the games aren't good enough for it to be worth the time or money.

[@evalangley3985]

Intel is really done. They went to TSMC to compete with AMD, and it is even worst than with their own process nodes since they cannot OC their chips to Oblivion anymore with TSMC. Intel really lost in EVERY segment against AMD Zen 5... gaming, productivity, server, AI, compute...

[@YasukeNakamoto]

Yea but AMD builds blue screen on me, I almost never have crashes on intel systems. The 7950x3d was a nightmare for a $3000 build. I’d take more efficiency and stability over higher FPS from 3D cache tbh

[@evalangley3985]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA... I am suing AMD for CPU and GPUs and I never get a BSOD... You just failed at PCMR...

[@YasukeNakamoto]

@@evalangley3985 I’ve built like 8 gaming PCs, all of my intel builds have been super stable is all I’m saying. I’m going with core 9 ultra this go around.

[@paulboyce8537]

REBAR/E Cores for AMD/Nvidia GPU +-5% making it zero zilch nada to have single task from P Cores to feed the GPU. CPU has very small impact and biggest difference you see if you run 4090 for 1080p that you would never do outside testing/comparison. But that said RAM speed has a good impact and CUDIMM up to 10000 speed and over will have a boost 10-15% compared. AMD don't support CUDIMM. Arrow Lake given specs from the slides 250W and memory speed 6500 is very under powered and rated. There are information already putting the extreme at 295W for the 285K. Also E Cores are overclockable by 1000MHz boosting this CPU to heights never seen before. Z890 with PCIe 5.0 and extra power 8 pin to give 150W and direct unrestricted lane to CPU pairing "REBAR on steroids" if you wish to give unhindered pairing for GPU/CPU. Doesn't take much to see that Arrow Lake is tailor made for INTEL ARC architecture. APO 10-50% gain. 250-295W (285K) + 250-275W (Battlemage Xe2) = 500-570W of combined performance. Xe vs Xe2 is 50% gain. Predicted clock speed is 3000mhz if not more from 2400mhz (boost) to give a good lift also. This already looks better than 5080 (400W).

[@svingarm9283]

AMD is the king now, and always will be :) INTEL is just not good

[@cuongtang9539]

thats okey my 12700k is fast enough

[@wololo10]

Just fix your dram speed AMD

[@evalangley3985]

You don't need it when you have 3D V-cache....

[@MakeSh00t]

Intel works for money not for customer , while amd work for gamers... different story but amd released 9000 not for gamers but for benchmarkers... they becoming intel but we will see what they want to do.

[@TheOne214]

Yes its true the i9 14900k is faster in gaming compared to ultra 9 285k and same goes for the i7 14700k its faster in games as well compared to the ultra 7 265k and close to ultra 9 285k in gaming performance.

[@Gattberserk]

AI is destroying gamers... its all about AI and company decided not to give shit about gamer. Its ok, its about time we gamers teach these mega corporation a lesson, especially after the AI bubble has burst.

[@deadpool790]

I might be wrong but I thought Arrow Lake would be the chips intel commissioned TSMC to produce since they are unable to produce 3nm themselves. If they are 3nm TSMC made its quite disappointing that they only if not even with their previous 14900k which uses a higher node but intel made. So it pretty much tells me their designs really do need to change even with these being more efficient its never a good look to lose to previous generation cpu.

[@Vanu-i4o]

The fastest gaming CPU right now is a 14900K and it still wont beat that :/ I dunno why Intel cannot just release a P core only CPU that has been top tier binned and locked all cores because boosting and E cores make performance worse. Why are we in this dumb realm of gimmicks for CPUs?

[@badz1497]

...and become the primary heater for your house in the winter in the process? you do know that Intel was having power consumption problem with their 13th and 14th gen, right?

[@Vanu-i4o]

@@badz1497 Why would I care in a desktop?

[@badz1497]

@@Vanu-i4o you might not care, but lots of others do. and by the looks of it, even Intel cares, because if they don't they would have done it already

[@motoxtim34]

Yet another L. Maybe in 2030 they will come out with something to match the 7800x3d

[@HiN00bs12]

The MEGA L goes to the gaybox fanqueers!

[@mikeuk666]

​@HiN00bs12 did you learn that in the school yard today Ryan Miller? 😂

[@nostrum6410]

Arrowlake will likely match it

[@StroggKingu]

Sure, you only just need to buy proportionally fast GPU like 4080 super, and use it on full throttle above your monitor refresh.

[@TheMichaelparis]

the only advantage that overhyped cpu got is in full HD on low settings with a 4090 and gets smoke everywhere else by i5s...

[@impuls60]

Intel is doing a terrible job. They went all in to save their main income server market with better ecores. What they should have done was to give us 10p cores with hyperthreading with no ecores. With such a large company they have the resources to make 2 variants. Or a bigger cpu with everything and increase the price on cpu and reduce it the chipset. On that 3b node you dont need a massive VRM anyway.

[@evalangley3985]

Well, CPU are taking a part of the RT workloads and now will also take a part of the AI workloads.

[@Ukyo82]

Intel is fine problems are exaggerated, X3d not amazing too they are temperature sensitive and not tough as other AMD CPUs that why with problem bios last year we see motherboard burning with X3d chips

[@spuchoa]

The problem is not the current APIs (Vulkan/DX12), it is the game engine that is bad, like Unreal Stutter 5. A good game engine like the one that Doom uses is what we need.

[@nostrum6410]

Aftet seeing 7800x3d selling at newegg for 920$. Arrowlake for gaming might be better value

[@nightryder21]

Umm its selling for $480. Stop spreading bs

[@nostrum6410]

@nightryder21 i guess ignorance truly is bliss, as it's clearly the only one available on newegg. Stop spreading bs

[@byteframe_primarydataloop]

Intel isn't competing with AMD, they are competing with Apple.

[@nivea878]

i bet, 9800x3d will have temp issues with the 3d cache because its so sensitive, i really do need not more than my 12700K

[@REDA-SB]

Useless upgrade. AMD 7000 series is the king of the market rn

[@_n8thagr8_63]

does anyone really care about being 5% slower in 1080p? Seems like a useless statistic for fanboys to argue about

[@oneanother1]

Seriously, its like amd is behind this marketing propaganda as if their zen5x3d is going to be the greatest ever. All the amd fanboys are eating it up and the CPU hasn't even been released yet. You know you can't rely on amd benchmarks either. Last I heard is zen5 is struggling to sell. Last gen CPUs are all fine for 4090 GPUs. Its not like zen5x3d is going to improve massively to see any meaning difference on a 4090. You know amd is going to overprice the x3d at launch, because they are relying on hype nowadays and fake benchmarks.

[@LeonardTavast]

I wish GPUs had the same pricing and CPUs. Imagine paying 600 dollars for the top of the line instead of 1600 dollars as is currently the case. A man can dream.

[@Pullo83]

[curb your enthusiasm theme music]

[@michaelbernard1750]

amd over rated sorry not a fan ive had a few amd cpu and nothing but problems and if iam honest iam loyal intel all day every day

[@jjlw2378]

X3D is overhyped. I own both 13900k and 7800x3d. Intel is much more fun and provides the best overall CPUs. I'm not sure that DF has experience with Intel 13th/14th gen because every game I've ever played worked better with E-Cores enabled. The best configuration is typically HT OFF, disable all but one cluster of e-cores. X3D is so locked down that you can't extract any meaningful performance out of the chip, while with Intel, it's easy to get 10%+. Unfortunately, Intel is going to be crap going forward with these locked down, boring, tile based garbage CPUs. X3D will flourish even though they're just a bandaid for the obvious infinity fabric flaws with all Zen products.

[@heyguyslolGAMING]

The leaked Intel benchmarks look bad, like really bad. I don't know who would buy those chips. Maybe the leaked benches are wrong but I doubt they are that far off from reality. The 9950x seems to make the most sense bc it competes w/ the 7800x3D for gaming and can be used for productivity. I wonder if Intel drops their prices once AMD launches the 9800x3D.

[@nostrum6410]

Also some that look really good

[@mattspeer01]

God Intel sucks these days, what an embarrassment of a company.

[@Gattberserk]

Jim keller give them a god of a CPU like royal cores, but Pat the CEO cancelled it cos it wasnt useful for AI. Like well done, intel is heading for closing down for sure.

[@Brol1y]

It should be at least 50% moore performarce between generations. 10-15% its a waste of money

[@harrylarkins1310]

Well be prepared to wait 10 years between each cpu then.

[@oneanother1]

Its usually gamers who will upgrade for the performance boost of next gen GPUs. So its not worth it if you don't have any gaming performance boost. 10% increase in performance in gaming is massive. And multi core works loads are best with power efficiency. Next gen isn't worth upgrading if you are already on previous gen. Who knows how long the motherboards will keep support of more CPU generations.

[@HarryS77]

We're running up against physical limits, right? If you want more performance, you can increase clock speed, but increase beyond a certain point and you have issues with heat and stability. You can decrease transistor size, but eventually the same issues arise, stability and heat. You're unlikely to see a 50% increase in performance between generations until there's a revolutionary change in manufacturing, materials, or the method of computation, like optical transistors.

[@nostrum6410]

That's why most don't upgrade every gen

[@RobyLV]

There are few people that do not mind tuning their hardware (like me), I am blessed to have 14900KS CPU. It is more efficient than top AMD gaming CPUs (if tuned correctly). Like for example my power usage never exceeded 40W (usually 35W-40W) finishing GOW:R running 138FPS (limited by my screen refresh rate) with FG (I found for Sony games best settings are: 8P cores + HT @ 4Ghz with voltage as low as it goes, for me it is at around 0.95V as reported by HWiNFO), CPU temp hovering between 36C-38C. I watched some youtube benchmarks, I usually see 50W-60W while heating up to 65C on AMD CPUs (7800X3D) while gaming - same settings and same framerate.