- Oct 9, 1999
- 4,961
- 3,392
- 136
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.
I suspect that the NEXT chip after Alder Lake will be the one to get... but it remains to be seen what AMD can do with DDR5 on board.
DDR4 vs 5 could also have an impact here ... damnit now we need 4 channel ddr4 vs 2 channel ddr4 vs 2 channel ddr5 @ fixed clock rate testingUsing lower clocks does not change the relative percentage difference in an almost perfectly CPU limited benchmark.
Anyway, they test the 12700K with 5.2 GHz P core and 4 GHz E core with both 3700CL14 Gear 1 DDR4 and 5200CL32 DDR5 with tuned subtimings. The 5900X runs at 4.9/4.7 per ccx OC and 3800CL14 with tuned subtimings as well.
On a 11800H, CB20 single-thread scores are:You're wrong. It changes the score/GHz. You can test it yourself.
On a 11800H, CB20 single-thread scores are:
2.8 GHz: 353 (126 points per GHz)
3.5 GHz: 439 (125 points per GHz)
4.2 GHz: 534 (127 points per GHz)
Accounting for measurement noise, CB 20 scales essentially perfectly with clock speed.
Yeah, the recent Cinebenchs are pretty unaffected by memory speed and cache sizes. It's probably why a few sites picked them for IPC testing for this benchmarking round.Cinebench isn't terrible picky about memory, right? ~85% is more typical scaling, IIRC, and is usually down to memory appearing relatively closer/further.
In saying that, I'm not 100% convinced on this big.little arch for desktop. It certainly hasn't helped the power output at all which suggests those P cores must be power hungry to say the least. It will be interesting to see which ratio of P and E cores they do for mobile. Apple went 8 and 2 for their Pro and Max cpu's but I suspect if Intel goes the same it will be pretty power hungry.
configuration | Tact | Package power | duration | energy | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P-Cores | E-cores | P-Cores | E-cores | |||
Performance, consumption and efficiency depending on the P-Cores | ||||||
2 | 8th | 5.100 MHz | 3.700 MHz | 93 watts | 123 s | 11,439 Ws |
2 | 8th | 4,800 MHz * | 3.700 MHz | 69 watts | 125 s | 8.625 Ws |
* manually restricted |
Something is up with the 12900K e-cores only Handbrake HEVC score. 93fps with all cores, P's and e's operating. 87fps for e-cores only? Doesn't make sense. That must be an error?
probably not , H.264 and H.265 have some inherent scaling limits, E cores are probably wide enough to hit the same limits , probably both memory / io limited at the same pointSomething is up with the 12900K e-cores only Handbrake HEVC score. 93fps with all cores, P's and e's operating. 87fps for e-cores only? Doesn't make sense. That must be an error?
The 10700 only scores 53fps with the same number of cores running higher clocks with HT.
Thanks, that helps me out with HT/SMT performance and efficiency numbers I was searching forAn observation from the compterbase review.
Thanks, that helps me out with HT/SMT performance and efficiency numbers I was searching for
I've been measuring HT efficiency ever since P4 and from P4 all the say to the last Skylake based CPU it was always from 19-24% in Cinebench(R11 thru CB15/20 which are HT friendly), I have not been able to find any hard number on Rocket Lake but since is pretty wide I would assume that it was the first Intel Consumer CPU to reach at least 30% but I don't have the data. That 31% is mighty impressive for Alder LakeThey have a direct HT comparison. They get 31% performance improvement from HT on P cores. Their test suite for this though is again, entirely renderer based which are typically very friendly to HT. I don't expect the average HT uplift to be this high.
View attachment 52362
Fixed..The performance of the 12700k and 12900k didn't surprise me much, as I suspected they'd fall where they did.
For me the biggest surprise was the sub $300 12600k.
Oops, my bad.Fixed..
For posterity:
As usual it is this Russian channel that does the OC testing properly. They tested the 12700K, which seems to have not many reviews.
Anyway, they test the 12700K with 5.2 GHz P core and 4 GHz E core with both 3700CL14 Gear 1 DDR4 and 5200CL32 DDR5 with tuned subtimings. The 5900X runs at 4.9/4.7 per ccx OC and 3800CL14 with tuned subtimings as well.
What's interesting about their test is that some games like the low latency that DDR4 offers while other games like the higher bandwidth of DDR5. There is no clear answer as to what memory you should choose. The 12700K wins but by a narrow margin over the 5900X. Funny thing is, Intel can't touch AMD in StarCraft II with DDR5. 64MB of L3 does wonders for the 5900X in that game.
probably not , H.264 and H.265 have some inherent scaling limits, E cores are probably wide enough to hit the same limits , probably both memory / io limited at the same point