Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Core i3 14100 / i5 14500 vs. AMD Ryzen 5 8500G / 8600G In 500+ Benchmarks

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • yump
    replied
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    The test suite involves running each test multiple times, in the interest of achieving more stable results. Simply timing the entire suite would sort of defeat that point.

    The Geomean scores are intended to provide the summary you're looking for.
    The measure he's looking for would be the harmonic mean. Sorts the same as the total runtime of running every test, once.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by Anux View Post
    Does the i5 really peak at 200 W or is that a measurement error?
    Depends on what you mean by peak. While its PL2 is only 154 W, there's actually a PL4 that's much higher. Consuming up to PL4 is allowed for up to 10 ms, before it'll get throttled back to PL2. So, it's plausible that's an accurate reading.

    Originally posted by blackshard View Post
    That is real/realistic: it has a PL2 of 154watt, so yes, it can really draw lot of power for several seconds
    If the default power limits aren't being overridden by the motherboard BIOS, then you should not see boosting above 154 Watts "for several seconds".​
    Last edited by coder; 24 February 2024, 03:59 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by andyprough View Post
    That i3 hangs in there pretty good with cpu's twice the price.
    There are no >= $280 CPUs in this comparison.

    The i3 is only hanging with the others at lightly-threaded tasks. Anything that's highly-threaded puts it at a significant disadvantage.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
    Michael
    Use a Kill A Watt of the entire system, I have found that what is reported at the outlet does not jive with the readings you get from software.
    If you don't trust software reporting, then the best way is probably to use a PSU which can report CPU power consumption (e.g. Corsair models featuring iCue). Some reviewers use a specialized solution for monitoring the current between the PSU and motherboard, though I don't know about the commercial availability of such devices.

    Measuring at the wall is generally the least desirable, since it doesn't tease apart power used by peripherals and PSU ineficiencies, plus it waters down the differences that we really want to see, which is in strictly the CPU power.

    Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
    I would also do a test that simply looks at the amount of time it takes to run the complete test suite from start to finish, because as you mentioned these processors trade punches, in some test Intel is ahead and in some AMD is ahead and I think it would be interesting to see in the grand scheme of things, which is actually fastest.
    The test suite involves running each test multiple times, in the interest of achieving more stable results. Simply timing the entire suite would sort of defeat that point.

    The Geomean scores are intended to provide the summary you're looking for.

    Leave a comment:


  • drakonas777
    replied
    Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
    The games I play, Resident Evil, Street Fighter, Tekken, Mortal Kombat are best played on a console, I would rather buy a PS5 than build a gaming PC.

    The system I described would be good enough for video and audio work, which is my primary hobby.

    It also perfect for the OCL accelerated AI programming I dabble in.​
    Fair enough. If A310 can practically satisfy your needs in these areas then it's not something I'd argue with.

    Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
    And while you and I have a difference of opinion regarding how NVIDIA's ARM CPUs will pan out, I still can't bring myself to spend big bucks on outdated hardware like you describe.

    But you did get me thinking so I went back to Micro Center's and saw that the i5-12600KF is just $140, so that would be my choice for a budget CPU.​
    I have no opinion on NVIDIA consumer ARM CPUs, because there are none and info about them is not concrete. I mentioned R5 5600 + RX6600 in the context of budget gaming, which, as clarified by your last post, is not what you had in mind, so you can ignore it.

    12600KF at 140USD would be a good choice for your mentioned workloads. It's only 15USD more than 5600 and has no included cooler, but you get better ST and extra 4 E cores. Good tradeoff in my books.

    Unfortunately in my region 12600KF is ~220EUR while 5600 is ~120EUR, so I guess lucky you to live in USA


    Last edited by drakonas777; 23 February 2024, 03:12 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • sophisticles
    replied
    Originally posted by drakonas777 View Post
    This does not make any sense. If you care about gaming then A310 is way to weak and not mature enough for that. If you don't care about gaming then there is no reason to waste 100 dollars for a very low end GPU when 14100 already has an iGPU. If you care about maximum performance per dollar for budget gaming then Intel is out of the question in the first place, since R5 5600 + RX6600 is the best combo for this.
    The games I play, Resident Evil, Street Fighter, Tekken, Mortal Kombat are best played on a console, I would rather buy a PS5 than build a gaming PC.

    The system I described would be good enough for video and audio work, which is my primary hobby.

    It also perfect for the OCL accelerated AI programming I dabble in.

    And while you and I have a difference of opinion regarding how NVIDIA's ARM CPUs will pan out, I still can't bring myself to spend big bucks on outdated hardware like you describe.

    But you did get me thinking so I went back to Micro Center's and saw that the i5-12600KF is just $140, so that would be my choice for a budget CPU.

    Leave a comment:


  • blackshard
    replied
    Originally posted by Anux View Post
    Does the i5 really peak at 200 W or is that a measurement error?
    That is real/realistic: it has a PL2 of 154watt, so yes, it can really draw lot of power for several seconds

    Leave a comment:


  • blackshard
    replied
    Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post

    I disagree. DDR5 is not much more expensive than DDR4, and the 5 makes Intel UHD 770 competitive in graphics over AMD with DDR4. Both igpus are ram bandwidth limited. I would rather get a modern Intel with DDR5 than any AM4. At least with the Intel you can always add a gpu later and have a very competitive gaming pc if you so wish, while the AM4 is obsolete.

    Sometimes people really need to leave their amd fanboysm aside.
    There is no amd fanboyism from my side. I'm actually in active search for components for a budget system. I evaluated both ddr5 intel and amd systems and finally I noticed I can get 5600g + a520 microatx + 16gb of ddr4 3200 ram for less than 200€

    It's a budget system, I don't expect it to be particularly expandable, performant or cutting edge.

    The i3-14100 with ddr5 costs a little more (60/70€ euros more, +30% than the am4 option) and is newer than 5600g, but its performances are so-so. With such 260/270€ budget an 8500g is then in the same league because it is tied with the i3.

    Am4 is kept alive some more by amd for lower end targets, see for example the recent release of 5500gt and 5600gt options.
    Last edited by blackshard; 23 February 2024, 11:23 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • drakonas777
    replied
    Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
    For me, I would pick the i3-14100 and pair it with a $100 Arc A310 ECO.​
    This does not make any sense. If you care about gaming then A310 is way to weak and not mature enough for that. If you don't care about gaming then there is no reason to waste 100 dollars for a very low end GPU when 14100 already has an iGPU. If you care about maximum performance per dollar for budget gaming then Intel is out of the question in the first place, since R5 5600 + RX6600 is the best combo for this.

    Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
    because all indications are that next year NVIDIA will launch its ARM based desktop CPU and there are rumors that AMD will also launch an ARM based desktop CPU, so it may be that these processors are made obsolete real fast.​
    There is only one "indication" - a single article by reuters based on opinions from several people "familiar with matter". In other words it's nothing more than ordinary rumors at this point. Talks about x86 being obsolete in the near future is pure copium. It's quite opposite to be honest: aside Snapdragon X Elite (which BTW is realistically a 2025 product and still eats 80W in the max perf mode) nothing interesting is happening on high performance consumer ARM front. Apple's ARM implementation is stagnating since 2020 and is largely unchanged since original M1. Reference Cortex X series is not improving as much as one could expect while at the same time X5 may be even somewhat problematic (https://www.techpowerup.com/319330/a...ption-concerns). Does not feel like a path to making x86 absolete. Not in the short term at least.
    Last edited by drakonas777; 23 February 2024, 10:08 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • biffzinker
    replied
    Originally posted by jaxa View Post
    The meme cores don't seem to help the i5-14500 much. I'd like to see AMD do their own spin on it, with an 8+16 Zen 5/5C.
    There is four of AMD's meme cores in the 8500G to look at in this comparison. The 8500G has two Big Zen4 cores, and 4 smaller Zen4c cores.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X