Intel’s new Bartlett Lake flagship loses fight to a four-year-old CPU — Core 9 273PQE has 50% more P-cores but can’t surpass Core i9-13900K in games

Intel’s new Bartlett Lake flagship loses fight to a four-year-old CPU — Core 9 273PQE has 50% more P-cores but can't surpass Core i9-13900K in games

Marlin1975 Something seems off. I would think it should be able to beat a 9700x. Maybe a software glitch where its not taking advantage of the cpu properly? Reply

usertests 99% of newer games don't use more than 8 cores, sometimes not more than 2-4 cores, news at 11 (cores). Next-gen games should be pretty easy to run if the baseline is 6-ish Zen 6 cores in a PS6 handheld targeting up to 60 FPS. Probably more performance than 8-core Zen 2 at ~3.5 GHz, maybe with some goodies like AVX-512 support, but not a massive leap. Then you might need a fast 12-core to get to 144+ FPS. Reply

bit_user Marlin1975 said: Something seems off. I would think it should be able to beat a 9700x. Maybe a software glitch where its not taking advantage of the cpu properly? Well, it seems to have gotten bogged down by the industrial motherboard they used, which didn't have heatsinks on the VRM and therefore couldn't sustain a boost above 125W. I don't know if it's because of the 125W limit or just the CPU's turbo boost table (which dials back the clock frequencies, based on the number of active cores), but Bartlett Lake never got above 5.3 GHz, according to their charts. It generally worse than a i9-13900K on the same board, which always seemed to manage a P-core frequency of 5.5 GHz. Ryzen 9700X often (but not always) outperformed both, with a frequency of 5.5 GHz. As @usertests said, a lot of games don't use much more than 8 cores, and Zen 5 is a better microarchitecture than Raptor Cove (i.e. tends to outperform it, clock for clock). If you click through the different games, you can find some where i9-13900K (W680) and the 273 PQE come ahead of the 9700X: https://www.pcgameshardware.de/Core-i9-273PQE-CPU-284956/Tests/Gaming-Benchmark-Intel-Review-Mainboard-1535872/2/ Note that I don't see a way to switch the page to English. I tried looking at it via Google Translate, but that breaks the interactive charts. Reply

bit_user usertests said: 99% of newer games don't use more than 8 cores, sometimes not more than 2-4 cores, news at 11 (cores). In their tests, the following games seemed to exhibit multi-core scaling above 8 cores: Baldur's Gate 3 Cities: Skylines 2 Death Stranding 2 Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 Spider Man 2 Starfield: Terran Command Anno 117: Pax Romana That's 7 of the 15 games they tested! Not a lot of scaling, but enough that the 9950X places well ahead of the 9700X. In 4 of those tests, the 273 PQE also outperformed the 9700X. So, you should probably update your "99%" statistic. P.S. here are the other games where the 273 PQE outperforms the 9700X: Indiana Jones & the Great Circle Resident Evil: Requiem Star Wars: Outlaws So, that yields a total of 7 out of 15 games, where the 273 PQE beat the 9700X. In the last two of those, the i9-13900K (W680) also outperformed the 9700X. Reply

TerryLaze Engineering sample….wait for more results. https://i.imgur.com/bZfAcUa.jpeg bit_user said: Not a lot of scaling, but enough that the 9950X places well ahead of the 9700X. The 9950x also has more than twice the cache, and we all know how much cache can influence performance. A CPU with more cores having a better result doesn't have to have anything to do with more cores. Reply

bit_user TerryLaze said: Engineering sample….wait for more results. https://i.imgur.com/bZfAcUa.jpeg Nope. That picture is not from their article, nor does their article give any indication that they used an engineering sample. TerryLaze said: The 9950x also has more than twice the cache, and we all know how much cache can influence performance. It does, but the L3 cache can only be populated by the cores on that CCD. Unlike the Intel CPUs we've seen so far, the L3 is not global. That means a game can only take advantage of the 9950X's additional L3 cache if it's also spreading out its threads across both CCDs. That also poses the hazard of higher communication latency, which could overwhelm the benefits of more L3. So, it's really not as simple as you suggest. TerryLaze said: A CPU with more cores having a better result doesn't have to have anything to do with more cores. While my analysis was somewhat superficial, one could look at the ratio of 9800X3D vs. 9700X and compare that to the 9950X vs. 9700X to see how many of those games performed better primarily due to increased L3 cache. I'm betting it won't be most of the ones I listed. The launch of Zen 6 desktop CPUs will also be a great chance to see how well games scale beyond 8 cores / 16 threads. Reply

Corgano I find the framing in articles like these weird – like it's trying to imply an expectation that makes no sense to hold. By now we know the trade off; more processors in the package usually means better multi threaded performance and worse single threaded speed due to thermals or shared power budget or both. I wouldn't expect this to be faster in games (usually low thread count applications) than their lower core but higher clock previous chips. Like why would I expect that. You don't make a Lamborghini faster by putting the engine from a semi in it expecting higher torque number = more fast. Comes out in the wash as a nothing burger. Reply

-Fran- This smells like apples to oranges testing, or someone missed something intentionally in the testing disclosure. Regards. Reply

cp0x This would have been a decent chip to bring to market a few years ago. But now they're a few years late, and not really bringing it to market. Hopefully the chips they'll release in 6 months will have been worth the wait. Reply

Key considerations

  • Investor positioning can change fast
  • Volatility remains possible near catalysts
  • Macro rates and liquidity can dominate flows

Reference reading

More on this site

Informational only. No financial advice. Do your own research.

Leave a Comment