Carzy Zarx’s PC Gaming Emporium - Catch Up on All the Latest PC Gaming Related News

[Bofferbrauer2]

numberwang said:

JEMC said:

A couple of things:

1) You're not taking into account any IPC improvements that each new architecture brings to the table. That should be enough to put your "downclocka CPU enough to make it win the efficiency crown" statement. No it wont because it will use less power, but the other CPUs will still be able to do more at the same power thanks to the improvements they have.

2) This is not about downclocking or limiting CPUs until they look good. GamersNexus tested those processors out of the box, at its regular power and frequency settings, and AMD was more efficient out of the box. Then, they limited both CPUs to the same power to see how they would behave with both of them using the same amount of power, to see if Intel appears to be less efficient because they push those chips the most, and the result was still the same.

Simply put, AMD has a more efficient architecture than Intel.

If a 12100F is wining a chart about efficiency (compared to all other non X3D CPUs), that chart is poorly constructed (intentionally?). GamersNexus are turning towards the same snarky clickbait with skewed tests. Main issue here is that you have to equalize free parameters, i.e. set the same wattage across all tested CPUs. AMD does indeed lead in gaming efficiency with X3D chips, however Intel is leading in single thread performance and the high number of E-cores are very efficient in non-gaming applications. More meaningful watt-per-watt comparisons put AMD and Intel in the same efficiency class, depending on specific apps. Intel's unlocked CPUs are a double-edged sword, unlocking was once considered an expensive enthusiast feature and now you get it "for free" but the efficiency curve does drop drastically above 120W. GamersNexus know that trade-off but they constructed some bad charts to get internet points.

the 12100F is a CPU with 4P cores and no e-cores, with a top clock speed of just 4.3 Ghz. Most games don't make much use of more than 8 threads, so in gaming benchmarks it doesn't fall all that far behind. But at the same time it doesn't have any excessive baggage with extra cores that it doesn't use but still consume energy or clocking the cores way past anything that has a sembence of efficiency.

So in short, it has just enough cores for gaming (though barely), and while the lower clock speed slows them down, it still generates enough frames to not fall massively behind while consuming just a fraction of the bigger CPU's power.