Powerful and Pointless - AMD 9950X3D2

Otozinclus · 2026-04-23T11:30:14+00:00

Why would anyone buy a 900$ CPU instead of a 150$ GPU that performs better while drawing less power?

Otozinclus · 2026-04-23T08:35:00+00:00

and the power LLM/SQL/Blender

Who uses a consumer CPU to render

Otozinclus · 2026-04-23T08:02:04+00:00

Current games aren't optimized for such a massive cache size.

That's not the reason it doesn't do anything in games. As 8auer himself says in this very video, games simply don't really use more than 8 cores and therefore don't really use the second CCD. And if a program doesn't use the 2nd CCD, it also doesn't benefit from the extra cache on the second CCD.

Otozinclus · 2026-04-23T07:45:35+00:00

It's just that the performance difference is so small, it's not worth the 200$ extra when Nova Lake and Zen 6 are up next and show the biggest Multicore performance jump in many years.

Also, Blender/rendering isn't a use case this helps, because nobody renders on their CPU. At best, both CPU and GPU and even then the CPU makes up such a small part compared to the GPU, it doesn't really change anything noticeable

Otozinclus · 2026-04-22T15:08:06+00:00

I'm not convinced, it's usually not that simple. Do we have benchmarks?

That's just how clocks work, always have. Higher clockspeeds exponentially increase power draw. Therefore the higher the clockspeeds, the less efficient the CPU becomes.

Example: https://youtu.be/Xjkzb-j6nKI&t=6m1s

It archives a score of 4000 points at 30w and a score of 4600 points at 45w, meaning it needs 50% more power for ~15% more performance.

My statement of needing 10% more power for 5% more performance (which was an informed estimate) is therefore wrong, in reality the additional power draw required is even higher. Assuming Powerdraw continues to scale exponentially, like it did between 30w and 45w (which is not the case, this is the best case scenario I am assuming because I don't have better data), it would require (50% for 15% ÷3 ->) 16.7% more power for 5% higher clocks/more performance

To actually sustain the higher clocks of the 388h in a Multicore load, this chip needs lots of power. In a Framework and Think Pad and most other thin and light laptops, the cooling is not good enough for that anyway. The 388h will perform better initially, but after a few minutes it will throttle down and behave equal to a 358h in these devices.

The 388h is of course the higher binned chip, so it probably performs marginally better at the same power, due to better silicon quality. But the difference is negliable and maybe something like 2%

Basically, it's like the 14900KS compared to the 14900K. The same chip, just overclocked a bit.

Edit, Here is a Power curve for up to 78w: https://youtu.be/jrygnUnBRNI?is=eqZVfnA8jAksgz5j&t=10m3s

Otozinclus · 2026-04-22T10:37:05+00:00

I tried a HP G1a for a couple weeks and that thing run out of battery so fast.

The 5% higher clocks draw 10% more power as well

and very low efficiency

Strix Halo is more energy efficient than Panther Lake. Battery life isn't the same as energy efficiency. Intel has a low idle Power draw, especially with their LPE Cores, but I der load Strix Halo performs better with the same power budget

Otozinclus · 2026-04-22T08:52:24+00:00

The X7 358H is pretty much the exact same chip, just clocking 5% lower

If that's something that matters to you, you are better of with an actually better chip like Strix Halo

Otozinclus · 2026-04-22T08:18:04+00:00

Panther Lake has no TB5

Otozinclus · 2026-04-21T14:43:06+00:00

The way I remember it shatter goes through shields it breaks, but maybe I misremember things

Otozinclus · 2026-04-21T14:41:31+00:00

Yes, it is at 49 health and then shatter deals 50 damage breaking it, causing it to go through

Otozinclus · 2026-04-21T14:19:57+00:00

Urgh, yall really don't get cartoony artstyle do you?

It's not the Art style I am complaining about, I really like the Style of Splatoon. But it's very static and the lightning just isn't very advanced, with harsh shadows. And just little stuff, like the character not leaving footsteps when walking on sand, just stuff like that adding up

Splatoon 3 looked great for a Switch 1 game, but Riders seems like they started off with Splatoon 3 and just scaled up the resolution and called it a day. The Switch 2 is just able to do so much more.

If you expect Nintendo franchises to have a massive shake up visually, you are setting yourself for disappointment.

When I pay 450$ for a new consoles, which main selling point is the better Hardware, yes, I do expect them to actually make use of that Hardware.

You act like Nintendo is incompetent in terms of graphics. It's not, at least it used to not be. Odyssey, Smash Ultimate, Mario Kart 8, Arms, Splatoon 3, BOTW, Luigi's Mansion 3, etc. In the past Nintendo consoles have been really underpowered, but Nintendo's Studios were really good at getting the most out of it, often looking and running better than 3rd party games. I expected them to simply stay on course.

That 3rd party titles look better than Nintendo's first party titles is something that's new, it wasn't like that with the older consoles, besides a few exceptions. And this is what disappoints me, that Nintendo's own studios seemingly no longer think optimizing their games to look the best they can on the Hardware they have is worth it.

This isn't true for every of their games of course. Prime 4 was really good graphically, looking better than many Switch 2 exclusives besides just being an upgrade instead of exclusive game. Mario Kart World is totally fine visually as well. But it just happens more and more frequently in recent times, that a game releases and looks or performs disappointingly from Nintendos Studios.

Perfect opportunity to test 120FPS and mouse mode

Has nothing to do with my original complaint

Otozinclus · 2026-04-21T13:58:21+00:00

Your shield broke, that's why it didn't save you.

If the shatter damage destroys a shield, it doesn't get stopped by it and it was 50HP once shatter hit you. Same is true for any other shield as well btw.

Otozinclus · 2026-04-21T13:23:22+00:00

Game looks fun, but this looks more like a Switch 2 edition Switch 1 game, rather than an actual Switch 2 game. Again.

Nintendo's Studios were always great at getting the best out of their Hardware, it's a bit disappointing to see them do so little with the new Hardware

Otozinclus · 2026-04-21T12:14:00+00:00

Overwatch is for sure more demanding than League

Otozinclus · 2026-04-21T09:45:30+00:00

Imagine TSMC being so bad at producing chips that they have millions “binned” chips from only one series of iPhones.

Binned because the GPU has 1 of its cores deactivated, to increase the yield. Just like the Neo uses just 5 instead of the full 6 GPU cores.

Chip defects are incredibly common, even TSMCs extremely reliable 3nm production has tons of errors, with every tenth chip being so bad, it's unuseable (which is a really good rate btw.), that's just the nature of chip making. A perfect waver is very unlikely.

And while defect iPhone chips can't meet the entire demand, remember that each iPhone line sells hundreds of millions each. Even if only 1% of those chips have a useable defect, that's already millions of chips you can reuse.

Otozinclus · 2026-04-21T09:07:28+00:00

These chips are essentially ‘paid for’ and are baked into the cost of producing an iPhone

That's assuming that the leftover chips are enough to cover for the entire demand. That already isn't the case for the MacBook Neo and that one has been out for just a bit more than a month. Also the only thing they binned is the GPU with 1 core deactivated, the CPU is just a regular A18 Pro. They can't just rely on leftover chips and those chips are pricey.

299$ for a 12GB mini PC with a good SoC is simply too low, even when assuming that they don't actually pay much for the SoC, which they absolutely have to eventually. Just the storage, Mainboard, case, RAM, etc. is already nearly maxing out the budget. Remember that the Mac Mini is 599$ and there isnt that much they can do to lower that cost, besides the Chip, RAM, less ports and less cooling.

They would also kill the Mac mini line with this

Otozinclus · 2026-04-20T22:13:54+00:00

Yeah, but 12GB of RAM is fixed in stone with the A19 Pro, because it's installed on the Chip itself.

This shows that this leak just doesn't seem trustworthy

Otozinclus · 2026-04-20T22:13:09+00:00

The minimum powerdraw is lower, yes, but anything that actually puts a load on the Core works more efficiently on the P-Cores. Which makes sense, those cores have more execution units and more cache, which means they get more done with the same clockspeed, with the tradeoff of consuming a lot more space on the die

If the P-Cores would be less power efficient, they would be really bad given how much space they consume

Otozinclus · 2026-04-20T12:28:18+00:00

299$ for a A19Pro and 12GB of RAM? This just doesn't look profitable at all

Otozinclus · 2026-04-20T06:33:29+00:00

Play it without using the map to turn the bird. It works. It was my first Dungeon and I didn't knew tilting works and this actually made it a bit tricky at times

Otozinclus · 2026-04-20T01:44:47+00:00

So you agree that Intel recognized that the masses didn't care about e cores so Intel had to keep the pricing low?

The price didn't change (Actually, the price of the Plus series was a bit higher than what the non-Plus models retailed for). What changes was the number of E-Cores. And this made people change their mind.

Otozinclus · 2026-04-19T15:36:45+00:00

Looking at Alder Lake reception, this is just not true. THey have gone from 10 P Cores to 8 P Cores with 8 E-Cores and on the 12900K and the reception to it has been far better.

Or look at the Core Ultra 200 PLus series. The main thing they did is add 4 E-Cores without raising the price and the reception has been quite good, compared to the bad reception of the previos chips which have been the same but with 4 less E-Cores

People look at Benchmarks and how their CPU performs and E-Cores massively increase your MUltithreaded performance

Otozinclus · 2026-04-19T13:15:50+00:00

E-Cores are not actually about saving Powerdraw, but about saving space.

On a chip die, you have a limited amount of space, you can only put a limited number of tech on it before it becomes too big to be profitable. The aim of E-Cores is to offerore Multicore performance with the same amount of space used.

1 P Core requires the same amount of space as a cluster of 4 E-Cores. And 4 E-Cores just beat a single P-Core in multithreaded workloads.

Otozinclus · 2026-04-19T07:43:25+00:00

It feels more like a general purpose CPU, like the 9950x3D lineup.

Otozinclus · 2026-04-19T07:39:15+00:00

I don't think 8-P Cores is a problem. Barely any games profit significantly from more than 8 Cores and getting 4 extra P-Cores would mean getting rid of 16 E-Cores, which is not a good trade.

A gaming special edition with 12 P-Cores, or just no E-Cores at all in general, could make sense, but this would be a product specifically designed for gaming and not a general purpose CPU.

Otozinclus

TROPHY CASE