Leaked Benchmarks Indicate IPC Rocket Lake-S to be slower than AMD Ryzen 5000

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Mar 22, 2021.

  1. kanenas

    kanenas Master Guru

    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    200
    GPU:
    rtx 2070 ,5700xt
    the 5600x I own operates at 65 watts while after oc it reaches 104 watts
     
    cucaulay malkin likes this.
  2. cucaulay malkin

    cucaulay malkin Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,701
    Likes Received:
    1,342
    GPU:
    RTX 3060 Ti
    my 10700f stays at 40w in gaming

    btw 45w for internet browsing is ridiculously high should be under 10w
    I have firefox with 10 tabs (incl. a video playing), edge with ms office forms,ms teams running, mpc with a video paused and package tdp is reading 3-8w
    I think my whole system doesn't take 45w.1070 reads 16-17w in idle (dual monitor).
    that's 25w for cpu+gpu,cpu alone should never run 45w in idle/light load.maybe your'e reading from the ups ? My reading from ups is 56w whole system+one monitor
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2021
    Airbud, kanenas and nizzen like this.
  3. chispy

    chispy Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,084
    Likes Received:
    1,328
    GPU:
    RX 6900xt / RTX3090
    Oh dear a regression cpu from intel. For the guys in the USA you can buy a 10850k 10 core 20 threads for $279US at microcenter in store only :D .
     
    Venix and cucaulay malkin like this.
  4. cucaulay malkin

    cucaulay malkin Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,701
    Likes Received:
    1,342
    GPU:
    RTX 3060 Ti
    damn
     

  5. Undying

    Undying Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    16,626
    Likes Received:
    5,540
    GPU:
    Aorus RX580 XTR 8GB
    -Tj-, chispy and Turanis like this.
  6. kanenas

    kanenas Master Guru

    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    200
    GPU:
    rtx 2070 ,5700xt
    Μy 5600x
    1.073v for 4.450ghz
    1.150v for 4.650ghz(profile 1)
    1.259v for 4.750@allcores(profile2)oc
    1.307v for 4.8@allcores.
     
    Fox2232 likes this.
  7. kapu

    kapu Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,852
    Likes Received:
    477
    GPU:
    Radeon 6800
    I never get over 45w in gaming. But im also heavy UV. Max boost 4650 SC. Not that i need more so why bother. You get easily -10C undervolting while getting a bit better performance than stock.
     
  8. cucaulay malkin

    cucaulay malkin Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,701
    Likes Received:
    1,342
    GPU:
    RTX 3060 Ti
    I pretty much run locked 1.25v 4.600mhz on 10700f and it's still sipping power in idle/light load
    no idea how it works on ryzen
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2021
  9. Neo Cyrus

    Neo Cyrus Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,935
    Likes Received:
    727
    GPU:
    Asus TUF 3080 OC
    I'm not even sure why Intel bothered with backporting this line to 14nm++++++++... wait how many +s are we at now? The 11 series is almost the same as the 10, which is almost the same as the 9, which is almost the same as the 8, etc... it's time for AMD to blow them out of the water so maybe they'll finally make something new again. I really don't like the sound of their upcoming big/little chip, bit/little has always seemed like retarded desperation to me.
    Stop trying to make me jelly that MC is a 'Murica only store.:(
     
    chispy likes this.
  10. TLD LARS

    TLD LARS Master Guru

    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    78
    GPU:
    AMD 6900XT
    That statement does not tell much.
    I can make a screenshot of my Ryzen 1700 using less then 40W when gaming, that does not make my 1700 more power efficient then the 10700f.
    The only thing that tells me, is that the game does not use CPU performance and therefore a lot of the CPU is just sleeping during the low load.

    When the work load changes the heat rises, just like the 11700k turns up the heat a lot when AVX hits the chip.
     

  11. Venix

    Venix Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,897
    Likes Received:
    808
    GPU:
    Palit 1060 6gb
    @Neo Cyrus big little is not stupid when energy efficiency is on mind 4 small cores taking care of all the light tast while the fast power hungry cores do the lifting or sleeping when they are not needed makes sense z but are they better than say 2 full sized cores used at the same way ? No clue! What i am expecting as a possibility is intel gaming performance to have regression on games if you allow the little cores to have workload equally distributed to em by the game , except if the windows scheduler is up to date to not do that in time.

    Will be easily fixed by setting the affinity right if something like that happens
     
  12. Borys

    Borys Member Guru

    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    49
    GPU:
    MSI 1660 Gaming X
    Any news about this?!?!
    Intel is now obsolet, slower, hotter and more vulnerable than AMD...
    They will need 2 or 3 years to start a new competition....
     
  13. Neo Cyrus

    Neo Cyrus Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,935
    Likes Received:
    727
    GPU:
    Asus TUF 3080 OC
    Big/little shouldn't need to be a thing on desktop chips, when a proper architecture can power down to practically nothing while under low load as modern (at least Zen 2 and newer, don't remember older) CPUs can, it makes Intel look like they're reeking of desperation. It seems like they want to simplify their design list and use something super similar for desktops as mobile.

    I have a ton of tabs open including playing 1440p/60fps video and yet my CPU OC'd to 4.25-4.35GHz (per CCX OC, not flat) with the voltage turned up is still only showing a max of 17W power draw if Ryzen Master is to be believed.

    There's very few desktop users that give a flying frack about having ultra power efficiency. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather use that die space for a real core rather than whatever low power crap Intel have come up with this time. I want to see Intel actually compete against AMD, not come up with nonsense then try to keep selling based purely on brand name/recognition and slimy marketing lies as they have been so far.
     
    carnivore likes this.
  14. Trihy

    Trihy Member Guru

    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    23
    GPU:
    Onboard
    Nice, motherboards are hitting the shelfs and it's already a dead end platform. And will be forgotten in 3 or 4 months.

    Sadly that's the only record for rocket lake.
     
  15. Venix

    Venix Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,897
    Likes Received:
    808
    GPU:
    Palit 1060 6gb
    @Neo Cyrus well yeah we agree really, i keep a scepticism about it's usefulness on desktop computers too ,except if intel pull a rabbit out of their hat .
    The other point i can see on it ..... It's the marketing potential .... If those tiny cores can power down to 1 watt or something like that, intel will market the frack out of it most likely spend more energy on the advertising campaign about it than those cpus will save combined :p

    And cpus can power down since Athlon64 ! With the introduction of cool and quiet1.0 ! I remember my a64 3000+ from 2ghz clocking down to 800
    And me freaking out when opening cpuz for the first time seeing that thinking my cpu has a problem, a quick visit to guru 3d here back then put me at ease . And i missed when intel added that feature too since my cpus where p3-a64-a64x2-phenom2-i7(ivybridge)-ryzen
     

  16. Trihy

    Trihy Member Guru

    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    23
    GPU:
    Onboard
    Why would anyone choose alder lake? It's 8 big + 8 atom cores top.

    Who would need 8 atoms cores on desktop?

    12 big + 4 atoms is enough. 16 big + 4 atoms. But 8 + 8 is a nonsense for desktop.

    Tell me a desktop pc enthusiast that doesn't hate atom cores.
     
  17. cucaulay malkin

    cucaulay malkin Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,701
    Likes Received:
    1,342
    GPU:
    RTX 3060 Ti
    yes it's the point I was trying to make to the dude I was talking to.read up.
     
  18. brogadget

    brogadget Active Member

    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    24
    GPU:
    2xR9 280x 3GB
    So a $200 cheaper 18 core kind of an "old i9-10980XE" maybe the better choice...!?!?!

    And Big Little for Desktops is pure nonsense at all....For me now it´s two more Intel generations to skip: Rocket Lake booster to the moon and Little Alder Lake...
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2021
    Undying likes this.
  19. kapu

    kapu Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,852
    Likes Received:
    477
    GPU:
    Radeon 6800
    Sure no.
     
  20. kakiharaFRS

    kakiharaFRS Master Guru

    Messages:
    710
    Likes Received:
    224
    GPU:
    KFA2 RTX 3090
    as someone who had both brands at the same time, one on each side of my desk

    AMD is cooler for the same perf no doubt about it (the larger die surface helps a lot, threadripper is super cool because of that)
    Intel "just works" AMD requires advanced knowledge and/or time
    AMD modified their architecture to fix their "gaming" performance which wasn't very good in the 3000 series in 1080p
    Intel silicon lottery became pretty bad in the recent years, AMD with lower clocks makes this less of a problem

    Would still recommend Intel for "non-geek" users who want something that "just works" AMD experience out of the box is pretty bad
    not everyone wants to mess around with BIOS settings, energy savings tweaks etc..Intel is almost plug and play on the other hand

    as a geek who tweaks computers all day long I would buy a 5800x + X570/B550 now, gaming was the only thing Intel had left and they lost it
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2021
    Fox2232 likes this.

Share This Page