@@ezaike335 Good thing Max has a nice cushion from the RB20 performance when it was domination for the first few races. His WDC is close to him if he doesn't do badly for the remaining races and the car doesn't get more problems during his races. It's a bit of cliff edge for him. Anymore fall offs like 2-3 races like back to 5-6 and it'll be close.
Yall clown amd... but unlike Intel we knew that faster zen 5 modules were coming from the start. Can't get mad a company who told you that they have gaming centric parts coming but you the user don't want that you want the vanilla to be what the gaming parts are.
@@sspringss2727 even if we ignore the fact that they are actually worse, not on par as promised. That's just sad. For your sake I hope you're a troll. Still sad, but maybe not as sad.
@@pobbityboppity1110Honestly neither AMD nor Intel are better. Also when the whole burning CPUs happened also AMD was at first like contact the mainboard manufacture. Took a lot of community for something to happen there. The same with Intel. It also took them for ages when you think how long behind the scenes CPUs have been dying (I for instance got a replacement instantly so absolutely no problem there)
Intel made a big mistake with this launch. These CPU's are clearly not ready for market sale. They're essentially stacking negative reviews for a product line that could turn out to be good some day after updates and tweaks.
And it is a terrible choice of a generation to reset naming scheme. Now people will think that Core Ultra are some experimental handicapped products for niche uses.
@@No1l After what Intel did for 13th and 14th gens instability and "lol not replacing broken products", I aint going back to intel until they really justify it.
Inbuilt benchmarking sequences are not a realistic test of of CPU usage. Automated camera sweeps of cpu hot spots are interesting though - that’s much better
Those benchmarks are great! Im glad youre spending more time on the actual interesting parts and not having to tediously run those benchmarks yourself. Thanks for the video, Richard
There's only so much CPU performance we can chuck at an engine before we hit the theoretical limit, devs need to start optimising their shit properly and start utilizing everything we can throw at it.
They have been trying to optimize games for multicore since the xbox 360 so 20 years ago and they can't do it well because games are single core limited.
The whole "hurr durr just optimize" line is only trotted out by halfwits at this point, who think a game like Flight Sim 2020 would run fine on their 2500K if only devs would just oPtImIzE!!1 The reality is that for every terrible PC port with poor CPU utilization, there's a truly groundbreaking game stretching at the limits of what's possible with current hardware. If you want games to keep evolving, hardware needs to as well. There is no "theoretical limit" to CPU performance where we need to give up. AMD and Intel just need to deliver better products, rather than these half-baked architectures that are designed for server applications first and the desktop a very distant second. Zen 5 was a massive leap in datacentre applications, despite the lukewarm consumer reviews. There's plenty more both companies could be doing to serve the gaming market - they simply choose not to because there are bigger profits to be made elsewhere. Nvidia is exactly the same on the GPU side of things.
Happy you guys can communicate salient points in under 12 minutes. Have to watch other channels 30-40 minutes of meandering over minutia to get to the point.
I upgraded my CPU last yesterday with 5700X3D from 3800XT. Very happy with the results. I have it paired with Asus 4070Ti and G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 64GB. Very happy with my setup. Games do not stutter anymore and I'm getting better framerates.
I love the performance being normalised in percentage to the product being tested - it's so much clearer to read and compare than ever changing FPS numbers - really surprised to see this for the first time only now.
Seems like both Intel and AMD released their new CPU architectures before they were ready. And while that just resulted in disapponting gaming performance gains for AMD, it resulted in the same for Intel alongside stability issues. I think Zen 5 and Arrow Lake should have launched in early 2025. 9800X3D looks like it'll be interesting.
Zen 5 would at least boot up properly. Ultra 285K doesn’t even boot up! Leo @ Kitguru spent 15 minutes @ the beginning of his review just to show how to boot ARL up!
Really not surprising given Intel's messaging pre-launch. AMD slammed Intel on value workhouse cores CPUs way back and the complacency was laid bare back a few years ago. Now Intel has walked away from the power/temps dead end road to attempt to make their CPUs efficient (remember corporate OEMs don't want support headaches on high end builds) and that early gaming dominance is now shaky. Add in how terribly this launch was marketed and this gen is PR nightmare at best. It's all about price nowadays really.
I'm old enough to remember when intel used to dominate the CPU market with its 14mm rerererererefresh CPUs. How the turns have tabled when you're at the cutting edge of innovation with your 14mm CPUs
Yup. They were top tier. But once amd got Ryzen kinks ironed out they’ve been behind. Maybe we’ll see intel do the same with their new architecture/chips
I too can remember the far away times of 2017, when digital foundry had to inscribe benchmarking results on a clay tablets, and have them delivered by pigeon.
@@leong4352 At least 10th gen 14nm had good products. I wanted to see 10 core cpu on Raptor Lake IPC, no e cores, then let end user tune the system. Now there's nothing to do.
Intel didn't learn from 9700k, the first i7 without hyper-threading. Idk why they didn't launch 285KS without gpu & npu & e-cores basically make it 12/16 P cores only and charge 700$ for it. They just wasted die area for nothing. They could have two line ups where core 9 is just for gaming/ productivity & core ultra 9 for everything else
Their future lineups will have kind of dynamic cores, where it can act like a P core or E cores depending on the workloads. So I have high hope that when that happen, Intel can produce a CPU that can do both.
@chiyolate intel Beast Lake project is cancelled. You can search for it. Basically, if I'm baying a cpu for gaming / productivity, why should i spend money on integrated gpu & npu & e-cores ¿? Just think about it. AMD played it well 👏 efficiency and performance. They had a variety of products see for ex 8400G 8500G 8700G 7600X 7500F 7800X3D ...... Intel trying to do everything in one cpu
I don't get it either. Back in 2005, I played Kameo on my Xbox 360 and that game had no problem displaying hundreds of enemy orks at the same time on screen. That game is almost 20 years old and still blows many "next gen" games out of the water with the amount of stuff happening on the screen simultaneous. In today's games the game worlds are also much more static/ less interactive.
AAA games are disappointing. CPU progress has stalled. GPUs are incredibly expensive. Many games are unoptimized. Game studios are shutting down, leading to significant employee layoffs. We’re seeing unfinished games priced at $70. There’s widespread frustration with the DRM implemented in many titles. The goodwill towards publishers and studios is at an all-time low. Outlets like IGN and mainstream journalists often give 9 out of 10 ratings to mediocre games. Fans and developers are arguing on Twitter. There’s a lack of innovation in high-budget games. Exceptional games are being remastered and re-released, but they're often dumbed down to appeal to a general audience, losing their charm in the process. Publishers are neglecting their older intellectual properties. Corporations are spending billions to acquire other companies instead of investing that money in developing video games. Everyone seems to want to create a Fortnite clone. There are numerous copies of souls-like gameplay that lack true passion and creativity. Genres like racing, horror, beat 'em up, single-player FPS campaigns, and stealth games are being ignored. There’s franchise fatigue with series like Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty. Meanwhile, Nintendo continues to create exceptional games on tablet hardware. The gaming community is feeling increasingly alienated, as engagement often feels transactional rather than genuine. The focus on live-service models has shifted attention away from crafting standalone, cohesive narratives. There’s a growing demand for more diverse storytelling and representation in games, yet many AAA titles stick to safe formulas. The rise of microtransactions has left players frustrated with paywalls in what should be complete experiences. Every Big studio migrating towars UE5 and unreal engine is Stutterengine Can anyone sense the calm before the storm? Four years ago, when the PS5 and Series X launched, nobody could have predicted that by 2024, we would be looking at indie games as our saviors.
Lol it was way before PS5 and XBOX X. It was back More like the PS3 and XBOX 360 era started the whole "Release now and we can fix it later". When devs discovered that console gen with being the first of wide spread internet on there meant patches and updates can be done on them by downloads. As for representation we do get it. It's just most of them badly done. Some can be great though. BF5 shows how much representation and also how badly u do a game. AAA gaming in general has been mostly meh even before COVID.
This makes me feel good about my choice to stop waiting to upgrade my 4770k i7 PC from 2014 in may of 2023 i built a 13700k machine and im very happy with it
Excellent video and I really like that you made the point about testing being a snapahot and it is important to look at a variety of outlets to xover more scenarios.
The problem games are way too low and inconsistent for this to be an architecture problem. This is most likely something on Thread Director that is not playing well with Windows.
I think Intel should have released Arrow Lake as a XEON to not waste the RND but it is not a consumer focused CPU where gaming is a big part of buying.
I'll be sticking to my 5700X3D, thanks. You should add 5700X3D for testing, though, because it's around $200 now but can still compete in gaming with 300-400$ Intel CPUs.
The real CPU test is when you are playing online multiplayer game. I gained 80% uplift when playing online games when I went from Intel 9900k to Intel 13900k but in single player benchmarks it shows nothing like that.
Slightly odd to not cover performance per watt if that’s the supposed point of the release (according to Intel at least). Would like to see some numbers around that covered in video form.
Been an Intel guy since my first computer back in 91. Had a z890 motherboard and 285k pre-ordered but once I saw the benchmarks I canceled. First time in my life switching to AMD. I'm not mad, just a little disappointed. Intel is definitely moving in the right direction but there's obviously some maturity needed. This is the walk before you can run step. I'll see how they are in the next gen.
Intel should never have released the 14900k line. Of course there is regression if the power budget goes down that much. The 14900 line was an abomination, and if it never existed, this review would be a lot more positive, headlining "Intel closing the gap with AMD, but not quite there yet"
I wouldn't mind the performance regression if 1. it was slight and 2. it means a really massive efficiency boost. #1 goes beyond "slight" in some cases, but at that point the performance is already beyond what I care about anyway. But so far #2 hasn't really come into fruition. Yes it's more efficient than Raptor Lake, but it doesn't even beat Zen 5. I'm also a weirdo that doesn't let their system run full bore, so my priorities are different than most other people.
Very good and to the point. (i.e. don't upgrade if you are already in a good position). I feel like, while this is disappointing, it is architecture growing pains and probably not a sign of things to come.
AMD have got this cracked. There are two market segments for desktop CPU's - gaming, and productivity (mobile/laptop cpus are so good they can operate as boring office minipcs now). X3D for gaming and 9950X for productivity is a perfect combo to optimise the space.
Error Lake is not feeling too good right now. You say it's growing pain and I agree. HOWEVER, this comes at the worst possible timing for Intel and friends, TIMING is EVERYTHING. (that's what she said). 😆😆
Prescott, Rocket Lake, now this. There's no-one quite like Intel when it comes to performance regressions with their latest and greatest architectures. (remembers Phenom I, Bulldozer, and Zen 5) Well, almost no-one.
Ryzen 7 7800x really holding up in that MS Flight Simulator benchmark, only really one very brief dip below 60 FPS, which you are going to get no matter what, as there is no such thing as perfect performance. Every game dips at some point, that's your 1% lows. The 50 series Nvidia cards will give this game the extra framerate buffer over that 60 fps mark, I'd expect the lowest end one to be at least 8% faster than the 4090. On a side note, anyone looking for high refresh gaming at 120Hz or 144Hz, you're not going to get that from any hardware right now for games like Cyberpunk at 2160p with Ultra details and Ray Tracing switched on, DLSS or not, that was never on. The game is extremely demanding, even if you don't play on Ultra and go with optimised settings making sacrifices here and there. 1440p or lower is still probably the way to go for high refresh gaming. For its price, you should probably expect the 4090 in theory to breeze through Ultra, but in practice the card isn't powerful enough. 50 series is where you'll start to see these games get played comfortably and by then they could be considered old games, as crazy as that sounds. That's usually the way though, it's never the first generation of cards that tackle the latest games that well, you always have to wait for a couple more upgrades to come out before you can go back and play the games again cranking everything up to Max and playing them how the developers truly intended you to see the work.
Why is dd2 still cpu intensive? Even in the city It runs at 50~60 fps performance mode on a base ps5 which has a ryzen 3600 equivilant cpu. Why are CPU's 2~3 times faster even remotely struggling with this game? Smh crapcom is skimping on pc optimization again...
I personally think intel did the right thing by prioritizing efficiency rather than performance improvements this generation. Which is what intel should have done considering how high intels power consumption was getting
UM... has Intel basically been focusing on MOBILE designs and then cranking up the frequency/voltage for desktop which blows out the power requirements? Because it sure doesn't feel like this is optimized for desktops. At this point "e-cores" still make me laugh when the CPU power usage is through the roof. I'm guessing the "APO" optimization thingy is focused around managing POWER/temps more than anything else. Again, a focus on MOBILE?
Looks like AMD is reclaiming the throne in gaming CPUs. The last time I owned an AMD CPU was during Athlons reign. I am looking forward to upgrade my Intel to an AMD soon.
All recent CPU launches seem pretty crummy honestly. Usually I would say if you're building new to head for the newest platform, but if you're on a budget, AM4 with a 5700x3D is dirt cheap and super performant still. By the time you'll really need an upgrade a newer platform will likely be on the horizon or out, and like I alluded to, performance from current launches isn't exactly jumping off the charts.
For the most part this is a major pass on all review sites I have seen. No one is giving these Intel CPUs a thumbs up. That means more for the Intel Fan boys. LOL
With AMD and Intel basically using this generation as a time to update their architecture with no performance gains, they really should be pricing their chips much lower. The power efficiency would then be a decent selling point for people who skipped the last generation.
They are underwhelming but there's also something wrong with Windows 11 24H2 with certain Intel CPUs. All in all it's a step in the right direction and the next line up will probably impress more
Lots of assumptions being made about it being able to be fixed and to what extent. I still see E cores and lose interest with the problems they commonly cause for gaming. Microsoft remains awful at its OS. Just look at the AMD performance suddenly uncovered across multiple zen generations out of the blue.
I would mainly be interested in whether high temperatures also bother these processors. In my opinion, the temperature must be up to 80°C, otherwise the processors will die and bend.
I wonder if the better efficiency of Arrow Lake would make it more interesting for gaming laptops and handhelds. Not better performance, but I assume better battery life. That's something you will look into once we get such devices, right?
Hm, I think automatic benchmark runs will cause headaches. LTT Labs have been working on this for years, and I'm not sure if people trust it yet. Hardware Unboxed just showed some benchmark runs are simply not CPU limited, so you may need two different areas for GPU and CPU
It's not automatic benchmark runs that I distrust. It's LTT Labs that I distrust. I expect DigitalFoundry to do a much better job finding spots in the games for their automated benchmarks to take place in than LTT Labs would bother doing. Linus has made it very clear over the years in his podcast that he's more concerned with getting enough videos made and not spending more time and money having employees do proper reviews than he is about quality, accurate reviews. If he can't be bothered to put a water block on the GPU it was designed for, why would he bother finding a CPU heavy section of a game for a CPU benchmark?
Intel's fumble being sad and all, but can we get access to these benchmarking mods? They seem super cool, and it would be nice to be able to compare results to DF benchmarks with overclocked components.
I'll be interested over the coming weeks/months if Intel can get these 20xK series chips to 14th generation performance at the very least. I wonder if it has to do with the higher memory latency (which apparently was around 80-120ns). If this can be solved with a microcode update or something else then it would be on par with Zen 5% in terms of efficiency improvements with near similar performance. Right now it seems all over the place which is strange. Maybe the compute heavy tasks that have better memory access patterns are the ones running well, and the ones with less than optimal memory access which do better with 3D v-cache are the ones that really bring down it's performance because of the memory latency? That's really the only thing I can think of. I don't think it has anything to do with the scheduler because that was sorted out quite a while ago with big.little architectures a few generations back. If there are synthetic benchmarks that test memory latency (L1,L2,L3,Main) we could do direct comparisons. I also heard that there were driver issues with regards to graphics cards (involving instability), so maybe there's something there.
I'm def sticking w/ my 14700K+4090. Might consider Intel Bartlett-S if its a nice boost over 14900K and I get to keep my mobo. Fortunately no need to upgrade to a Nvidia 5000 gpu bc the 4090 is still held back by the cpu. We need more cpu performance.
For gaming its a bust, but for multicore productivity like turning 3D scans into meshes, decompressing files, etc it's a nice boost over the 14900k. Personally it's a skip for me, my 13900 still feels fresh and powerful, though I'll be keeping my eye on next years 385k and how it performs when paired with fast CUDIMM memory. Hopefully Intel learns from the 285k's shortcomings and releases a banger next year.
Intel must have either messed up or did something amazing for Richard to make a CPU video after all this time.
DF is getting back to doing CPU benchies. More to come
@@lasaldude The most uninformative tests. Where are the characteristics of the test bench?
Rich is about to explode in bespoke anger. In 120fps.
Rich, I really appreciate the larger text overlay. Thank you.
I agree I hate having to wear glasses.
ME TOO
It needs a black backdrop though. The bright colors can easily blend in with the games
Rich sounds very angry today...
Not Angry. Disappointed.
It's the steroids
This one’s personal.
@@mattlandrythis made me laugh so hard 😂😂😂
Not only him.
5800X3D continues to be the only good purchase I made in the past few years.
It's like the 1080ti
Rich sounds like he wants to kick my ass lol
It would be an honour.
He wants to kick Intel's ass
its your fantasy
dad's pissed!
Rich's Max Verstappen fan confirmed
Do we need more cpu power or better optimized games?
Ultra 9 285K the RB20 of CPU
@@ezaike335 Good thing Max has a nice cushion from the RB20 performance when it was domination for the first few races. His WDC is close to him if he doesn't do badly for the remaining races and the car doesn't get more problems during his races. It's a bit of cliff edge for him. Anymore fall offs like 2-3 races like back to 5-6 and it'll be close.
The new automated benchmark tools look impressive. Would definitely like to see a dedicated video on them.
It is cool. But an I the only one that is getting dizzy because it goes too fast?
Wow, its been a long time since you guys have done a proper CPU review.
Zen +5%
Ultra -2.85%
Intel out here turning AMD Ls into Ws.
If it were only -2.85%, it's honestly closer to -28.5% :/
Yall clown amd... but unlike Intel we knew that faster zen 5 modules were coming from the start. Can't get mad a company who told you that they have gaming centric parts coming but you the user don't want that you want the vanilla to be what the gaming parts are.
@@sspringss2727 even if we ignore the fact that they are actually worse, not on par as promised. That's just sad. For your sake I hope you're a troll. Still sad, but maybe not as sad.
@@sspringss2727Your a lost cause. On release vanilla Zen 5 was slower than vanilla Zen 4.
@@ZackSNetwork no you're a lost cause... sounding like a shill
My old 5800X3D is faster than the new Intel CPUs.
Do I have a fast CPU? or Does Intel screwed up?
Cheers from Poland to all DF viewers!
5800X3d is the GOAT
dont lie to yourself lol
5800X3D is still one of the best gaming CPUs so yes you have a high end fast CPU lol
No it’s not the 7600 is faster than the 5800x3D.
@@aronmayoIt’s not high end it’s 2 generations old and on par with a 7600.
Intel stubbornness to increase L3 Cache will cost them dearly
they have the 3D Cache tech, they need to feed those 24 cores with a proper cache size
By the way Intel has 256Mb L4 edram cahce back in broadwell generation (i5/i7 5xxx), but 6xxx skylake was some kind of regress
@@Xenotester Yep, and it delivered a massive 2% performance increase on their doomed Broadwell design, hence why it was one and done.
After that crashing debacle, which left me with a paperweight, Intel couldn't give me another CPU. I'm more than happy with my 7800X3D.
congrats with upgrade - 7800x3d is really great
That's scummy.
Definitely never buying Intel again either after seeing how they treat customer affected by their own defects.
@@pobbityboppity1110Honestly neither AMD nor Intel are better. Also when the whole burning CPUs happened also AMD was at first like contact the mainboard manufacture. Took a lot of community for something to happen there. The same with Intel. It also took them for ages when you think how long behind the scenes CPUs have been dying (I for instance got a replacement instantly so absolutely no problem there)
@interceptor001 difference was the manufacturers was at fault.
Waiting for 9900X3D. Intel f'ed it up...again.
Intel made a big mistake with this launch. These CPU's are clearly not ready for market sale. They're essentially stacking negative reviews for a product line that could turn out to be good some day after updates and tweaks.
They already delayed it for like a year though if I recall, I think maybe they didn't have much a choice
I doubt updates can help this one. Though I am not suprised that it is slower. After the crashing debacle they need to be safe.
Yeah I remember raptor lake refresh wasn't supposed to happen, it's why we got 3 releases on the same motherboard chipset.
@@oo--7714 What is worse is there has been mentions of instability issues as well. Time will tell.
And it is a terrible choice of a generation to reset naming scheme. Now people will think that Core Ultra are some experimental handicapped products for niche uses.
If gaming is your focus, you're still in good shape even with a 5700X3D.
I doubt we'll see anything that would compete with it for value from Intel anytime soon.
I'm gonna buy one for X-mas.
Intel Core i5-13600KF will be cheaper and much faster
@@No1l Wrong and also it will draw much more power and be much hotter
@@No1l After what Intel did for 13th and 14th gens instability and "lol not replacing broken products", I aint going back to intel until they really justify it.
All I have to say to those that are buying the new platform day 1: thank you for beta testing them for the rest of us.
Rich to Intel, "How dare you?"
Me: Hands over the ball as they run it into the redzone vs tossing it and losing the game. Still gets shit for it.
If this isn't the final nail in the coffin for Intel then I don't know what is.
It's not. It's a reset. It will cost them, but it was necessary.
This is not gonna make Intel go out of business so stop the BS.
Pretty neat to hear that Illusion is working for DF in some capacity.
Inbuilt benchmarking sequences are not a realistic test of of CPU usage. Automated camera sweeps of cpu hot spots are interesting though - that’s much better
no music for this one. understandably so
Maybe "Taps"?
Was expecting a Black Ops 6 video due to it being its release day, but got something so much better, a furious Rich 🔥
Those benchmarks are great! Im glad youre spending more time on the actual interesting parts and not having to tediously run those benchmarks yourself. Thanks for the video, Richard
There's only so much CPU performance we can chuck at an engine before we hit the theoretical limit, devs need to start optimising their shit properly and start utilizing everything we can throw at it.
Exactly
They have been trying to optimize games for multicore since the xbox 360 so 20 years ago and they can't do it well because games are single core limited.
The whole "hurr durr just optimize" line is only trotted out by halfwits at this point, who think a game like Flight Sim 2020 would run fine on their 2500K if only devs would just oPtImIzE!!1 The reality is that for every terrible PC port with poor CPU utilization, there's a truly groundbreaking game stretching at the limits of what's possible with current hardware. If you want games to keep evolving, hardware needs to as well. There is no "theoretical limit" to CPU performance where we need to give up. AMD and Intel just need to deliver better products, rather than these half-baked architectures that are designed for server applications first and the desktop a very distant second. Zen 5 was a massive leap in datacentre applications, despite the lukewarm consumer reviews. There's plenty more both companies could be doing to serve the gaming market - they simply choose not to because there are bigger profits to be made elsewhere. Nvidia is exactly the same on the GPU side of things.
@@CaptainKenway Not reading all that, stop defending poor optimisation
Happy you guys can communicate salient points in under 12 minutes. Have to watch other channels 30-40 minutes of meandering over minutia to get to the point.
I upgraded my CPU last yesterday with 5700X3D from 3800XT. Very happy with the results. I have it paired with Asus 4070Ti and G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 64GB. Very happy with my setup. Games do not stutter anymore and I'm getting better framerates.
Thank god it runs well in Starfield... /s
I love the performance being normalised in percentage to the product being tested - it's so much clearer to read and compare than ever changing FPS numbers - really surprised to see this for the first time only now.
Seems like both Intel and AMD released their new CPU architectures before they were ready. And while that just resulted in disapponting gaming performance gains for AMD, it resulted in the same for Intel alongside stability issues.
I think Zen 5 and Arrow Lake should have launched in early 2025.
9800X3D looks like it'll be interesting.
Zen 5 would at least boot up properly. Ultra 285K doesn’t even boot up! Leo @ Kitguru spent 15 minutes @ the beginning of his review just to show how to boot ARL up!
If you look at the results on HB and GN the 9000 series did very well against these Intel CPUs.
Really not surprising given Intel's messaging pre-launch. AMD slammed Intel on value workhouse cores CPUs way back and the complacency was laid bare back a few years ago. Now Intel has walked away from the power/temps dead end road to attempt to make their CPUs efficient (remember corporate OEMs don't want support headaches on high end builds) and that early gaming dominance is now shaky. Add in how terribly this launch was marketed and this gen is PR nightmare at best.
It's all about price nowadays really.
8:55 - Max Verstappen mentioned.
I'm old enough to remember when intel used to dominate the CPU market with its 14mm rerererererefresh CPUs. How the turns have tabled when you're at the cutting edge of innovation with your 14mm CPUs
14nm*. You know, unless you're talking about Intel during the vacuum tube days.
Yup. They were top tier. But once amd got Ryzen kinks ironed out they’ve been behind. Maybe we’ll see intel do the same with their new architecture/chips
Describing something as '14mm' and 'old enough' is a deliberate oxymoron.
I too can remember the far away times of 2017, when digital foundry had to inscribe benchmarking results on a clay tablets, and have them delivered by pigeon.
@@leong4352 At least 10th gen 14nm had good products. I wanted to see 10 core cpu on Raptor Lake IPC, no e cores, then let end user tune the system. Now there's nothing to do.
AMD Ryzen 7 7800x3D FTW!!!
Yes, but that's why it's going to start going up in price and it's all Intel's fault.
Awesome to hear about the benchmark automation. Should be nice to test game patches in the future as well.
Glad to see DF still testing pc hardware!
Intel didn't learn from 9700k, the first i7 without hyper-threading.
Idk why they didn't launch 285KS without gpu & npu & e-cores basically make it 12/16 P cores only and charge 700$ for it. They just wasted die area for nothing.
They could have two line ups where core 9 is just for gaming/ productivity & core ultra 9 for everything else
Their future lineups will have kind of dynamic cores, where it can act like a P core or E cores depending on the workloads. So I have high hope that when that happen, Intel can produce a CPU that can do both.
@chiyolate intel Beast Lake project is cancelled. You can search for it. Basically, if I'm baying a cpu for gaming / productivity, why should i spend money on integrated gpu & npu & e-cores ¿?
Just think about it.
AMD played it well 👏 efficiency and performance.
They had a variety of products see for ex 8400G 8500G 8700G 7600X 7500F 7800X3D ......
Intel trying to do everything in one cpu
I think it's the other way around. Games and software should find ways to use the CPU more efficiently.
I don't get it either. Back in 2005, I played Kameo on my Xbox 360 and that game had no problem displaying hundreds of enemy orks at the same time on screen. That game is almost 20 years old and still blows many "next gen" games out of the water with the amount of stuff happening on the screen simultaneous. In today's games the game worlds are also much more static/ less interactive.
This is true, but people have to make a purchasing decision based on how things are.
AAA games are disappointing.
CPU progress has stalled.
GPUs are incredibly expensive.
Many games are unoptimized.
Game studios are shutting down, leading to significant employee layoffs.
We’re seeing unfinished games priced at $70.
There’s widespread frustration with the DRM implemented in many titles.
The goodwill towards publishers and studios is at an all-time low.
Outlets like IGN and mainstream journalists often give 9 out of 10 ratings to mediocre games.
Fans and developers are arguing on Twitter.
There’s a lack of innovation in high-budget games.
Exceptional games are being remastered and re-released, but they're often dumbed down to appeal to a general audience, losing their charm in the process.
Publishers are neglecting their older intellectual properties.
Corporations are spending billions to acquire other companies instead of investing that money in developing video games.
Everyone seems to want to create a Fortnite clone.
There are numerous copies of souls-like gameplay that lack true passion and creativity.
Genres like racing, horror, beat 'em up, single-player FPS campaigns, and stealth games are being ignored.
There’s franchise fatigue with series like Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty.
Meanwhile, Nintendo continues to create exceptional games on tablet hardware.
The gaming community is feeling increasingly alienated, as engagement often feels transactional rather than genuine.
The focus on live-service models has shifted attention away from crafting standalone, cohesive narratives.
There’s a growing demand for more diverse storytelling and representation in games, yet many AAA titles stick to safe formulas.
The rise of microtransactions has left players frustrated with paywalls in what should be complete experiences.
Every Big studio migrating towars UE5 and unreal engine is Stutterengine
Can anyone sense the calm before the storm?
Four years ago, when the PS5 and Series X launched, nobody could have predicted that by 2024, we would be looking at indie games as our saviors.
Meanwhile, i buy $3000 brand new PCs every 2 years to play games from 2001 lol
Lol it was way before PS5 and XBOX X. It was back More like the PS3 and XBOX 360 era started the whole "Release now and we can fix it later". When devs discovered that console gen with being the first of wide spread internet on there meant patches and updates can be done on them by downloads. As for representation we do get it. It's just most of them badly done. Some can be great though. BF5 shows how much representation and also how badly u do a game. AAA gaming in general has been mostly meh even before COVID.
And you haven't even mentioned the pandering, DEI and Wokeness infestation that is plaguing many studios, publishers and review sites
Looking forward for you guys to test Microsoft Flight simulator 2024. New engine, new demands. Can't wait, you guys rock ♡
Performance is like a new generation product remined me of first ryzen.
The automated runs looks so cool!
The automated benchmarking tool sounds really really cool, would be great to get a dedicated video
Always glad to see DF reviewing hardware
Vintage Intel failure at this point. Just surprised there was room to be worse, even for Intel.
This makes me feel good about my choice to stop waiting to upgrade my 4770k i7 PC from 2014 in may of 2023 i built a 13700k machine and im very happy with it
Excellent video and I really like that you made the point about testing being a snapahot and it is important to look at a variety of outlets to xover more scenarios.
The automated benchmarking sounds very cool!
"why we need EVEN more cpu performance"
Cus developers wont optimized a shit on games, yes we know
These CPUs have some serious latency issues with the memory. Cache is super fast but with ram it is bad.
Feel like dad's just told us all off
Looks like it's finally time for AMD to step up! These next few years are gonna be interesting!
The problem games are way too low and inconsistent for this to be an architecture problem. This is most likely something on Thread Director that is not playing well with Windows.
Just shows what a massive engineering achievement the 7800x3d is for gaming considering how little power it uses.
I think Intel should have released Arrow Lake as a XEON to not waste the RND but it is not a consumer focused CPU where gaming is a big part of buying.
I'll be sticking to my 5700X3D, thanks.
You should add 5700X3D for testing, though, because it's around $200 now but can still compete in gaming with 300-400$ Intel CPUs.
Ouch. Now I truly know that I would never pick a fight with Rich down the pub. Or take the last of his coffee in the office.
The real CPU test is when you are playing online multiplayer game. I gained 80% uplift when playing online games when I went from Intel 9900k to Intel 13900k but in single player benchmarks it shows nothing like that.
Slightly odd to not cover performance per watt if that’s the supposed point of the release (according to Intel at least). Would like to see some numbers around that covered in video form.
Been an Intel guy since my first computer back in 91. Had a z890 motherboard and 285k pre-ordered but once I saw the benchmarks I canceled. First time in my life switching to AMD. I'm not mad, just a little disappointed. Intel is definitely moving in the right direction but there's obviously some maturity needed. This is the walk before you can run step. I'll see how they are in the next gen.
Intel should never have released the 14900k line. Of course there is regression if the power budget goes down that much. The 14900 line was an abomination, and if it never existed, this review would be a lot more positive, headlining "Intel closing the gap with AMD, but not quite there yet"
I've never seen Wichard fly off the handle like that before.
I wouldn't mind the performance regression if 1. it was slight and 2. it means a really massive efficiency boost. #1 goes beyond "slight" in some cases, but at that point the performance is already beyond what I care about anyway. But so far #2 hasn't really come into fruition. Yes it's more efficient than Raptor Lake, but it doesn't even beat Zen 5.
I'm also a weirdo that doesn't let their system run full bore, so my priorities are different than most other people.
Very good and to the point. (i.e. don't upgrade if you are already in a good position). I feel like, while this is disappointing, it is architecture growing pains and probably not a sign of things to come.
New architecture and a massive node shrink from 10nm to 3nm and a regression in performance 😂
And people are complaining about the performance of the PS5 and XSX 3700 Series. Wait till you pay $500 for the same performance 🙂
AMD have got this cracked. There are two market segments for desktop CPU's - gaming, and productivity (mobile/laptop cpus are so good they can operate as boring office minipcs now). X3D for gaming and 9950X for productivity is a perfect combo to optimise the space.
But... this does NOT reflect what PRINCIPLED TECHNOLOGIES is saying!!
(somebody will get that... )
It is so bad, that Rich didn't bother with a microphone.
This costs $600 BTW 😢
Error Lake is not feeling too good right now. You say it's growing pain and I agree. HOWEVER, this comes at the worst possible timing for Intel and friends, TIMING is EVERYTHING. (that's what she said). 😆😆
Prescott, Rocket Lake, now this. There's no-one quite like Intel when it comes to performance regressions with their latest and greatest architectures. (remembers Phenom I, Bulldozer, and Zen 5) Well, almost no-one.
Ryzen 7 7800x really holding up in that MS Flight Simulator benchmark, only really one very brief dip below 60 FPS, which you are going to get no matter what, as there is no such thing as perfect performance. Every game dips at some point, that's your 1% lows.
The 50 series Nvidia cards will give this game the extra framerate buffer over that 60 fps mark, I'd expect the lowest end one to be at least 8% faster than the 4090.
On a side note, anyone looking for high refresh gaming at 120Hz or 144Hz, you're not going to get that from any hardware right now for games like Cyberpunk at 2160p with Ultra details and Ray Tracing switched on, DLSS or not, that was never on. The game is extremely demanding, even if you don't play on Ultra and go with optimised settings making sacrifices here and there. 1440p or lower is still probably the way to go for high refresh gaming.
For its price, you should probably expect the 4090 in theory to breeze through Ultra, but in practice the card isn't powerful enough. 50 series is where you'll start to see these games get played comfortably and by then they could be considered old games, as crazy as that sounds. That's usually the way though, it's never the first generation of cards that tackle the latest games that well, you always have to wait for a couple more upgrades to come out before you can go back and play the games again cranking everything up to Max and playing them how the developers truly intended you to see the work.
Why is dd2 still cpu intensive?
Even in the city It runs at 50~60 fps performance mode on a base ps5 which has a ryzen 3600 equivilant cpu.
Why are CPU's 2~3 times faster even remotely struggling with this game?
Smh crapcom is skimping on pc optimization again...
I personally think intel did the right thing by prioritizing efficiency rather than performance improvements this generation. Which is what intel should have done considering how high intels power consumption was getting
UM... has Intel basically been focusing on MOBILE designs and then cranking up the frequency/voltage for desktop which blows out the power requirements?
Because it sure doesn't feel like this is optimized for desktops. At this point "e-cores" still make me laugh when the CPU power usage is through the roof. I'm guessing the "APO" optimization thingy is focused around managing POWER/temps more than anything else. Again, a focus on MOBILE?
Looks like AMD is reclaiming the throne in gaming CPUs. The last time I owned an AMD CPU was during Athlons reign. I am looking forward to upgrade my Intel to an AMD soon.
All recent CPU launches seem pretty crummy honestly. Usually I would say if you're building new to head for the newest platform, but if you're on a budget, AM4 with a 5700x3D is dirt cheap and super performant still. By the time you'll really need an upgrade a newer platform will likely be on the horizon or out, and like I alluded to, performance from current launches isn't exactly jumping off the charts.
For the most part this is a major pass on all review sites I have seen. No one is giving these Intel CPUs a thumbs up. That means more for the Intel Fan boys. LOL
With AMD and Intel basically using this generation as a time to update their architecture with no performance gains, they really should be pricing their chips much lower. The power efficiency would then be a decent selling point for people who skipped the last generation.
They are underwhelming but there's also something wrong with Windows 11 24H2 with certain Intel CPUs. All in all it's a step in the right direction and the next line up will probably impress more
Lots of assumptions being made about it being able to be fixed and to what extent. I still see E cores and lose interest with the problems they commonly cause for gaming. Microsoft remains awful at its OS. Just look at the AMD performance suddenly uncovered across multiple zen generations out of the blue.
I just bought 12600K, glad i skipped to wait for Ultra 200 Series and 13th and 14th gen that have problems. Upgrading from a i7 6950x.
I would mainly be interested in whether high temperatures also bother these processors. In my opinion, the temperature must be up to 80°C, otherwise the processors will die and bend.
After 7 years I still don't see a reason to upgrade
4:33 ryzen 5800x3d casually beating i9-14900k and i9 285k (by over 60%!). That`s a processor that you can run on a motherboard from 2017 xD
*while casually running at 90% CPU usage despite being an 8 core
Well given they going for efficiency it's good. Think first gen Ryzen
Really glad I picked up my 7800X3D now
I wonder if the better efficiency of Arrow Lake would make it more interesting for gaming laptops and handhelds. Not better performance, but I assume better battery life. That's something you will look into once we get such devices, right?
Well duh, the number went down, of course it’s slower
Intel done F'ed up this time. I've already seen their updated ads in CS tournaments. They will need every ad $ they can muster.
Hm, I think automatic benchmark runs will cause headaches. LTT Labs have been working on this for years, and I'm not sure if people trust it yet. Hardware Unboxed just showed some benchmark runs are simply not CPU limited, so you may need two different areas for GPU and CPU
It's not automatic benchmark runs that I distrust. It's LTT Labs that I distrust. I expect DigitalFoundry to do a much better job finding spots in the games for their automated benchmarks to take place in than LTT Labs would bother doing. Linus has made it very clear over the years in his podcast that he's more concerned with getting enough videos made and not spending more time and money having employees do proper reviews than he is about quality, accurate reviews. If he can't be bothered to put a water block on the GPU it was designed for, why would he bother finding a CPU heavy section of a game for a CPU benchmark?
This isn't a hardware problem. It's a game developer optimization problem.
It's mostly a hardware problem. These chips are slow.
Intel's fumble being sad and all, but can we get access to these benchmarking mods? They seem super cool, and it would be nice to be able to compare results to DF benchmarks with overclocked components.
Intel holds up sign like wile e. coyote saying "that's all folks!"
I'll be interested over the coming weeks/months if Intel can get these 20xK series chips to 14th generation performance at the very least. I wonder if it has to do with the higher memory latency (which apparently was around 80-120ns). If this can be solved with a microcode update or something else then it would be on par with Zen 5% in terms of efficiency improvements with near similar performance. Right now it seems all over the place which is strange.
Maybe the compute heavy tasks that have better memory access patterns are the ones running well, and the ones with less than optimal memory access which do better with 3D v-cache are the ones that really bring down it's performance because of the memory latency? That's really the only thing I can think of. I don't think it has anything to do with the scheduler because that was sorted out quite a while ago with big.little architectures a few generations back.
If there are synthetic benchmarks that test memory latency (L1,L2,L3,Main) we could do direct comparisons. I also heard that there were driver issues with regards to graphics cards (involving instability), so maybe there's something there.
Rich finally changed his Lightning
If anyone is looking for a really in depth complimentary video to this one, Gamers Nexus has one up. Really disappointed with Intel as of late.
I'm def sticking w/ my 14700K+4090. Might consider Intel Bartlett-S if its a nice boost over 14900K and I get to keep my mobo. Fortunately no need to upgrade to a Nvidia 5000 gpu bc the 4090 is still held back by the cpu. We need more cpu performance.
Intel continues to embarrass themselves.
For gaming its a bust, but for multicore productivity like turning 3D scans into meshes, decompressing files, etc it's a nice boost over the 14900k. Personally it's a skip for me, my 13900 still feels fresh and powerful, though I'll be keeping my eye on next years 385k and how it performs when paired with fast CUDIMM memory. Hopefully Intel learns from the 285k's shortcomings and releases a banger next year.