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.
Intel needs something like a 4P+16E part to battle it out with 5950X on both the performance and power fronts.I do F@H on GPU, Rosetta@home on CPU and WCG on CPU. All I know is that the 12900k only beats the 5950x in most benchmarks@241 watts. At 125w it does not do near as well, and I only use 142 watts all day, every day.
That's a cop out, what about non AVX-512 loads?
I have seen no benchmarks for these with Alder lake. Please provide them.So, you still are basing all of your decisions and posts on assumptions, not Rosetta@home or WCG benchmarks? Your assumptions may be correct, but if you want to know why people think you have a brand alignment, that is the reason. I just want real data on the actual applications that I use to base my decisions on.
I would provide the benchmarks if I had them. That is why I asked you to provide them:I have seen no benchmarks for these with Alder lake. Please provide them.
Edit: Google of ""rosetta@" home benchmarks alder lake" requiring Rosetta came back with NO hits. I have to base my choices on other benchmarks. If you can find me benchmarks showing Alder lake more efficient and faster than a 5950x with a full 24/7 load, then great. Otherwise quit saying I have a brand alignment. BTW, My Xeon 14 core E5-2683v3 is about 1/3th the output of my 5950x in WCG. (the only Intel I have left running 24/7) If you want to loan me a 12900k system, I will be glad to benchmark.
You kept posting that you would wait until you had multiple reviews to comment. Since you are commenting, I thought that you had relevant reviews.You are probably correct, but what data are you basing that on?
Why is it my responsibility to provide benchmarks that don't exist ? I can make CPU choices based on best available data, and it doesn't have to conform to your requirements. So stop telling me I have a brand alignment.I would provide the benchmarks if I had them. That is why I asked you to provide them:
You kept posting that you would wait until you had multiple reviews to comment. Since you are commenting, I thought that you had relevant reviews.
When was the last truly positive Intel post you made? When was the last truly negative AMD post?Why is it my responsibility to provide benchmarks that don't exist...So stop telling me I have a brand alignment.
As I said in the Intel thread, I will wait until multiple reviews have proven something to even comment.
Yes, the 12900k is a joke IMO,
Thing is, even on the more 'efficient' 5950x platform, they're still resorting to all kinds of undervolting tricks in order to bring power consumption lower and realize higher, longer boosts, but they won't give you any allowance on Alder Lake except talk about the 12900k and 241w wah wah wah! Meanwhile, Alder Lake has more undervolting tricks, and the software to (XTU) to dial everything in to your heart's content. I don't want to use the 'H' word but what else can you say when people running Curve Optimizer on their 5600xes and 5800xes, etc. are constantly shouting from the mountain tops about power as if those on the Intel platform don't have those skills.
The last positive Intel comment was on Alder lake. ( I am not going to search back and find them, but it was days ago) I said the 12600k and maybe even the 12700k would be good for gaming, especially if you even lowered the power a little more. They are not bad, but can be optimized. Like ECO mode for AMD. The 12900k is the one I dislike. As far as negative AMD, before Ryzen, a lot of bad comments.When was the last truly positive Intel post you made? When was the last truly negative AMD post?
You don't have to post benchmarks that don't exist. But when you claim that you will reserve judgement until the benchmarks exist, and then judge anyways given that you admit the benchmarks don't exist, you lose credibility as a poster.
This is simply a clear case of someone with clear brand loyalty bias (based on posts) trying his hardest to justify the relevance of his favorite cpu on the desktop. That's all well and good but that's just ONE of many apps on desktop. All the total scientific research apps on desktop combined constitute a niche of a niche, yet that's all you hear all day everyday. It's classic thread crapping at this point. 12900k is the better cpu because it has no weaknesses, even if you cut PL2 power in half. Yes, it hardly wins in multithreaded workloads against the 5950x when it's constrained to that level but it's still faster in ALMOST everything, including gaming. That's a desktop chip doing what a desktop chip is supposed to do; high ipc combined with high clocks and bursty = chews through all sorts of codes (non-parallel) with ease. Niche comparisons against HEDT-like chips like the 5950x only highlights how versatile the 12900k actually is. It has no business matching the 5950x, much less beating it in parallel workloads like CB.
I believe the major hangup here is that while a benchmark workload can be taken as an indicator, it cannot be taken as a direct correlation to all workloads. This includes distributed computing. People are of course going to take you to task without the concrete apples to apples proof. Even then, it's just another in a long line of use cases that can be argued over.Why is it my responsibility to provide benchmarks that don't exist ? I can make CPU choices based on best available data, and it doesn't have to conform to your requirements. So stop telling me I have a brand alignment.
The question is which one is much more suited to the desktop? Gaming, browsing, etc.? The chip that only stretches its legs by virtue of its 32 threads when you're out of bounds of the typical desktop workloads (see above), or the one that wins in almost all typical desktop workloads except for highly parallel codes 99% of desktop users don't even know anything or care about?12900K isn't faster in almost everything when constrained to 125W. If it was, Intel wouldn't have pushed it to 240W. It's still very fast and wins most lightly to moderately threaded programs, but if that's your target, then considering either a 12900k or 5950x doesn't make much sense.
See hitmans post as well as mine above. I am sick of being called biased. Everyone but a few understand that I like whatever is best at the time. Right now, except for gaming, and maybe a few other cases, its still AMD. In servers its AMD. Laptops I am no expert on.This is simply a clear case of someone with clear brand loyalty bias (based on posts) trying his hardest to justify the relevance of his favorite cpu on the desktop. That's all well and good but that's just ONE of many apps on desktop. All the total scientific research apps on desktop combined constitute a niche of a niche, yet that's all you hear all day everyday. It's classic thread crapping at this point. 12900k is the better cpu because it has no weaknesses, even if you cut PL2 power in half. Yes, it hardly wins in multithreaded workloads against the 5950x when it's constrained to that level but it's still faster in ALMOST everything, including gaming. That's a desktop chip doing what a desktop chip is supposed to do; high ipc combined with high clocks and bursty = chews through all sorts of codes (non-parallel) with ease. Niche comparisons against HEDT-like chips like the 5950x only highlights how versatile the 12900k actually is. It has no business matching the 5950x, much less beating it in parallel workloads like CB.
So, in a case where no benchmarks exist, and current similar benchmarks @125watt show 5950x winning mostly, why is it wrong to choose that ? And why do I have to justify a logical choice ? Did I say you were a fool for choosing the 12900k ? NO, because for you its a perfect choice, even I can see that.I believe the major hangup here is that while a benchmark workload can be taken as an indicator, it cannot be taken as a direct correlation to all workloads. This includes distributed computing. People are of course going to take you to task without the concrete apples to apples proof. Even then, it's just another in a long line of use cases that can be argued over.
That's the part people are having problems with. You are stating that as a fact without DC benchmark data. Just my opinion.In DC work, which is what I primarily am currently interested in, the 5950x is the best.
Its the best based on AVAILABLE DATA, as I said, its the best performing while being efficient in most workloads against the 12900k. Do you argue that ? EPYC is the king, but I can only buy those when a good deal shows up in ebay.That's the part people are having problems with. You are stating that as a fact without DC benchmark data. Just my opinion.
Very well. Is DC work a typical desktop work? You'd change all your systems to epyc if you could afford it, but is epyc a desktop cpu? You're talking about code that's highly parallel so the more cores and thread you throw at it, the more efficient and performant would the result be. Desktop is a different environment, where a 5600x should do better than a 64 core epyc. It's all about speed. This is not to say that the 5950x isn't speedy. It was the best desktop chip less than a month ago because AMD could clock it high and Zen 3 had an ipc advantage on top. All that changed with ADL; highest ipc, highest clocks. Yes, the clocks come at the expense of power but that's why it's not a server chip where power considerations are paramount.See hitmans post as well as mine above. I am sick of being called biased. Everyone but a few understand that I like whatever is best at the time. Right now, except for gaming, and maybe a few other cases, its still AMD. In servers its AMD. Laptops I am no expert on.
In DC work, which is what I primarily am currently interested in, the 5950x is the best. Each person has to read benchmarks and decide whats best for their use case. Before Alder lake, there was no reason to buy anything Intel. Now there are a few cases, and gaming is certainly a BIG use case Intel currently wins.
Did I ever say it was king in desktop NO. Right now, most likely the 12600k is the winner, but I don't judge general desktop, as I don't use a general case anymore.Very well. Is DC work a typical desktop work? You'd change all your systems to epyc if you could afford it, but is epyc a desktop cpu? You're talking about code that's highly parallel so the more cores and thread you throw at it, the more efficient and performant would the result be. Desktop is a different environment, where a 5600x should do better than a 64 core epyc. It's all about speed. This is not to say that the 5950x isn't speedy. It was the best desktop chip less than a month ago because AMD could clock it high and Zen 3 had an ipc advantage on top. All that changed with ADL; highest ipc, highest clocks. Yes, the clocks come at the expense of power but that's why it's not a server chip where power considerations are paramount.
I simply pointed out the "why" in regards to the reason people are arguing with you. Any additional assessment of my post is reading things too deeply.So, in a case where no benchmarks exist, and current similar benchmarks @125watt show 5950x winning mostly, why is it wrong to choose that ? And why do I have to justify a logical choice ? Did I say you were a fool for choosing the 12900k ? NO, because for you its a perfect choice, even I can see that.
In DC work, which is what I primarily am currently interested in, the 5950x is the best.
I have seen no benchmarks for these with Alder lake.
I don't know why I have to repeat myself, but I will one more time.These two quotes sum my point up better than I could.
My point is that you don't have available data regarding long periods of Alder Lake.I don't know why I have to repeat myself, but I will one more time.
Since there are no benchmarks for Rosetta/WCG for Alderlake, based on available data, at 142 watts or less, the 5950x is the best in most benchmarks for large workloads that run for long periods. That is why I LOGICALLY CHOSE IT. In addition to EPYC 32/48/64 core when I get a good deal.
So your point is ?
The question is which one is much more suited to the desktop? Gaming, browsing, etc.? The chip that only stretches its legs by virtue of its 32 threads when you're out of bounds of the typical desktop workloads (see above), or the one that wins in almost all typical desktop workloads except for highly parallel codes 99% of desktop users don't even know anything or care about?
Edit: And even then it's close enough to not matter to most people.
So I hate to link every review I saw that says the 5950x does better than the 12900k at 125 watts in highly threaded workloads ? I don't have the time. If you don't read enough, thats your problem. Again, see Hitmans post above, he knows. A lot of people know, except you.My point is that you don't have available data regarding long periods of Alder Lake.
You instead have an assumption. You have reached a conclusion without data after claiming that you'll wait for data. Therefore, you have lost credibility on your posts. This could be corrected by clearly stating your assumptions with each post when you outright claim a winner and a loser. When you have facts, post the facts. When it is just your opinion, post it as an opinion and what you base that opinion on. To be even better, form your opinion on more data than you have been looking at (not just peak power, but long term performance and power).