With the release of Alder Lake less than a week away and the "Lakes" thread having turned into a nightmare to navigate I thought it might be a good time to start a discussion thread solely for Alder Lake.
What is the performance per watt comparison look like in your use if you limit Alder Lake power to say 125W?So my take... Performance on sustained workloads, good, but a lot higher power use than 5950x. Gaming, they win by a small amount. For my use case (sustained 100% load, all cores) the power usage is a killer, so I won't be getting these. For a gamer ? its a winner. But the 12600k or 12700k....
Edit: I think the low power usage in games is due to the E cores being used primarily, as I doubt the CPU load is high, so the scheduler selects the E cores ????
I did not see a benchmark out there on that. Did you see one ?What is the performance per watt comparison look like in your use if you limit Alder Lake power to say 125W?
So my take... Performance on sustained workloads, good, but a lot higher power use than 5950x. Gaming, they win by a small amount. For my use case (sustained 100% load, all cores) the power usage is a killer, so I won't be getting these. For a gamer ? its a winner. But the 12600k or 12700k....
Edit: I think the low power usage in games is due to the E cores being used primarily, as I doubt the CPU load is high, so the scheduler selects the E cores ????
Gotta save the pennies for the GPUs, you know!
https://www.computerbase.de/2021-11/intel-core-i9-12900k-i7-12700k-i5-12600k-test/2/I did not see a benchmark out there on that. Did you see one ?
Oh, I thought that since you had reached a conclusion that you had seen a benchmark first. My mistake.I did not see a benchmark out there on that. Did you see one ?
What’s however a bit perplexing is that the core-to-core latencies between Gracemont cores is extremely slow, and that’s quite unintuitive as one would have expected coherency between them to be isolated purely on their local L2 cluster. Instead, what seems to be happening is that even between two cores in a cluster, requests have to travel out to the L3 ring, and come back to the very same pathway. That’s quite weird, and we don’t have a good explanation as to why Intel would do this.
Speaking of GPUs, Alder Lake not needing any discrete GPUs in a PC build while the big boy Zen 3s do does seem particularly valuable during this time....
https://www.computerbase.de/2021-11/intel-core-i9-12900k-i7-12700k-i5-12600k-test/2/
According to this 12900k @125w is roughly equivalent to a 5900X in MT (at presumably similar power levels).
This below quote from that link is what makes me leary of Alder Lake: (not to mention the temps)Oh, I thought that since you had reached a conclusion that you had seen a benchmark first. My mistake.
Yeah, in the Spec suite at least, the Golden Cove IPC over Zen 3 isn't much. GC should be boosting to 5.2 GHz vs. 5.05 GHz for the 5950x. When both are on the same DD4, it shows GC with ~1.7% and ~9% IPC lead in integer and fp respectively over Zen 3. That's a little weaker than I expected. Did anyone else try to isolate IPC or ST performance?
So my take... Performance on sustained workloads, good, but a lot higher power use than 5950x. Gaming, they win by a small amount. For my use case (sustained 100% load, all cores) the power usage is a killer, so I won't be getting these. For a gamer ? its a winner. But the 12600k or 12700k....
Where on that page does it shows that they are at same clock?Not really:
I think due to JEDEC timings and speeds Anandtech is showing the baseline that is pretty much the best case for Zen3 vs ADL comparison. ZEN is able to buffer horrible memory latency with huge caches and somewhat faster memory controller.
While people value Anandtech results as baseline, they are only relevant for OEM systems and frankly should not even be discussed on enthusiast forums, nor those IPC values hold much relevance. Chips with 1.7% SPEC IPC advantage don't go and beat ZEN3 by tens of % all around the web.
I fully expect Z3D to have better IPC in Anandtech testing, while at same time getting soundly beaten by those monster DDR5 6000 machines. The gap once memory subsystem is unchained is just huge and shown everywhere else except than on Anandtech.
Check out the TPU link.
Same here. If I was buying now with gaming as my main activity - I’d buy a 12600K and be done with it. Saving dollars towards an expensive GPU would be the main driver.
That’s only one class of application I use on my system; another class is virtual machines, and core count wins. I’m not fussy on power as I'm not running any DC projects on my system anymore, so long as I don’t have to shell out for an expensive 1.2KW PSU, I’m fine 🙂.
"In concrete terms, this means that a Ryzen 9 5950X in Eco mode with a maximum of 88 watts beats a Core i9-12900K with 88 watts by 8 percent in the editors' course"This below quote from that link is what makes me leary of Alder Lake: (not to mention the temps)
"AMD Zen 3 is more efficient
At the upper end of the power, it becomes clear that a Ryzen 5 5950X with 16 "large" Zen 3 cores is faster with 142 watts (max. permanent power consumption ex works) than a Core i9-12900K with up to 241 watts, i.e. much more efficient. And even in the 65-watt region, things are getting tight for Alder Lake. Although Ryzen 5000 with Zen 3 cores consumes comparatively little energy even under full load, this architecture can also work much more efficiently if the clock is lowered.
In concrete terms, this means that a Ryzen 9 5950X in Eco mode with a maximum of 88 watts beats a Core i9-12900K with 88 watts by 8 percent in the editors' course, the 65-watt configuration highlighted by Intel even by 33 percent (with 35 percent higher consumption). A test of the Ryzen 9 5950X with 65 watts is still pending, but both platforms should not take much at this level – AMD's classic approach with a type core is intel's hybrid approach here at least equal and at the upper end of performance still clearly superior.
"
So my take... Performance on sustained workloads, good, but a lot higher power use than 5950x. Gaming, they win by a small amount. For my use case (sustained 100% load, all cores) the power usage is a killer, so I won't be getting these. For a gamer ? its a winner. But the 12600k or 12700k....
Edit: I think the low power usage in games is due to the E cores being used primarily, as I doubt the CPU load is high, so the scheduler selects the E cores ????
Edit2: and the temps ??? I did not see what cooler, but a lot higher than Ryzen.
"In concrete terms, this means that a Ryzen 9 5950X in Eco mode with a maximum of 88 watts beats a Core i9-12900K with 88 watts by 8 percent in the editors' course"
So 8% less efficient (if that's how you calculate that) for $200 less, I guess in some countries electricity is expensive enough for this to make your money back pretty fast but otherwise...
Why is that weird? L3 cache lookup needs to happen during any request. Is Ian suggesting that Intel should prevent L3 lookups for all inter-core requests in the E-core cluster? That will lead to an even slower main memory access for most workloads.