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.
When set to the same clock speeds and core configurations as the i5-12600k, the i9-12900k consumes the same amount of power while delivering superior performance in gaming – which is up to half as much as the i9-12900k consumes at stock. This of course varies by title, in less intensive games the differences can be smaller.
I have a pool running on when the present worldwide use of hyperbole ends. Interested?How? According to this, the 12900K is only 12% faster in applications than the 5900X for 25% more money.
Appreciate if you can run with only P-cores and AVX-512. Curious if that scores higher than stock setting.I ran a couple quick benches. You can see my Handbrake results in our running thread here.
It may not seem like this to you, but that is a good choice. HOWEVER, I have read that reducing the power profile a little can only marginally affect performance, but it will run a lot cooler, and I would recommend that. Congratulations on the new CPU/system.I built my 12700K system today. Since I'm coming from a 4770K rig my subjective opinion isn't really valid since any modern CPU is going to feel like a huge upgrade. I can say this was the easiest build I'd ever completed. Absolutely no instability issues. I was careful to pick RAM that is validated for my motherboard. I was expecting problem with the new CPU design, new motherboard, etc. The hardest part was pulling the plug on the old 4770K for the last time. We accomplished quite a bit over the last 8 or 9 years!
I ended up with the 12700K because I felt it was the sweet spot since I could grab one from MC for $400. 32GB of DDR4- 3600 CL16 for $140. NH-U12A was $110. Motherboard was $190 and another $165 for the 1TB SN850. I couldn't justify DDR5 based on performance as well as motherboard and RAM pricing at this point in time.
I ran a couple quick benches. You can see my Handbrake results in our running thread here. I tested E cores only and it appears that Gracemont Handbrake throughput is just a little less than Skylake even though Skylake has HT. I also ran a single E core on Cinebench R23 and it scored 1000, or just about half the performance of a P core.
When running Cinebench R23 4.7/3.6 package power is 170W. I have the U12A cooler fan profiles set to run pretty quietly so max temps are about 70C. Overall I'm extremely happy with the new rig.
View attachment 53157
Where's the shiny new $2000 GPU box at?I built my 12700K system today. Since I'm coming from a 4770K rig my subjective opinion isn't really valid since any modern CPU is going to feel like a huge upgrade. I can say this was the easiest build I'd ever completed. Absolutely no instability issues. I was careful to pick RAM that is validated for my motherboard. I was expecting problem with the new CPU design, new motherboard, etc. The hardest part was pulling the plug on the old 4770K for the last time. We accomplished quite a bit over the last 8 or 9 years!
I ended up with the 12700K because I felt it was the sweet spot since I could grab one from MC for $400. 32GB of DDR4- 3600 CL16 for $140. NH-U12A was $110. Motherboard was $190 and another $165 for the 1TB SN850. I couldn't justify DDR5 based on performance as well as motherboard and RAM pricing at this point in time.
I ran a couple quick benches. You can see my Handbrake results in our running thread here. I tested E cores only and it appears that Gracemont Handbrake throughput is just a little less than Skylake even though Skylake has HT. I also ran a single E core on Cinebench R23 and it scored 1000, or just about half the performance of a P core.
When running Cinebench R23 4.7/3.6 package power is 170W. I have the U12A cooler fan profiles set to run pretty quietly so max temps are about 70C. Overall I'm extremely happy with the new rig.
View attachment 53157
I built my 12700K system today. Since I'm coming from a 4770K rig my subjective opinion isn't really valid since any modern CPU is going to feel like a huge upgrade. I can say this was the easiest build I'd ever completed. Absolutely no instability issues. I was careful to pick RAM that is validated for my motherboard. I was expecting problem with the new CPU design, new motherboard, etc. The hardest part was pulling the plug on the old 4770K for the last time. We accomplished quite a bit over the last 8 or 9 years!
I ended up with the 12700K because I felt it was the sweet spot since I could grab one from MC for $400. 32GB of DDR4- 3600 CL16 for $140. NH-U12A was $110. Motherboard was $190 and another $165 for the 1TB SN850. I couldn't justify DDR5 based on performance as well as motherboard and RAM pricing at this point in time.
I ran a couple quick benches. You can see my Handbrake results in our running thread here. I tested E cores only and it appears that Gracemont Handbrake throughput is just a little less than Skylake even though Skylake has HT. I also ran a single E core on Cinebench R23 and it scored 1000, or just about half the performance of a P core.
When running Cinebench R23 4.7/3.6 package power is 170W. I have the U12A cooler fan profiles set to run pretty quietly so max temps are about 70C. Overall I'm extremely happy with the new rig.
View attachment 53157
I have bad experiences with Gigabyte. Not sure how their mobos fare now. If you experience wonky behavior (sudden reboots, bluescreens etc.), it will likely be the mobo. But I hope the build goes well for you.GA-Z690 Aorus Elite DDR4
There are 8 charts there, and the 5950x only came ahead in two instances, by a small margin. Yet, somehow you couldn't figure out how to apportion a clear winner even in this clearly open and shut instance. This is why you get accused of bias. If the numbers fit your bias they're good, if it doesn't they're bad.OK, I just noticed this. It says its faster than the 5900x by 8%, NOT the 5950x. Well, the 5900x has 4 less cores, its only in logical cores that the 5900x has more. Now the 5950x wins a lot, and based on that probably wins. THIS the the CPU we were discussing. I won't even bother to add it all up, since its a FAIL while comparing to the 5950x, with the same number of cores.
What is interesting is that a lot of Intel's biggest wins are in highly threaded tasks like CPU rendering, which until now, was where the higher core count of the Ryzen series has typically made AMD the stronger option. With the additional E-cores, however, Intel makes up the difference and especially at the i5 level, takes a massive lead. But even in more common applications like After Effects and Photoshop, Intel holds a decent lead with the Core i9 12900K, and a very commanding lead at the i5 and i7 level.
In fact, we only found a single instance where the AMD Ryzen 5000 series was faster than the Intel 12th Gen processors. In the CPU portion of our Unreal Engine testing, the AMD Ryzen 5900X was about 9% faster than the Intel Core i9 12900K for the CPU. However, that was only with DDR4 memory and as soon as we switched to DDR5, Intel once again came out on top and beat the Ryzen 5900X by a solid 14%.
Overall, the 12th Gen Intel Core CPUs are terrific across the board, providing a large performance boost over the previous 11th Gen CPUs, and in almost every single case, handily out-performed AMD's Ryzen 5000 series. Intel's lead is larger at the i5 and i7 level, but even with the Core i9 12900K, Intel consistently came out on top.
One thing we do want to note is that these results are likely to change slightly in the coming weeks and months. The hybrid architecture is still very new, and there are likely further OS and thread scheduling optimizations to be made. In addition, DDR5 and PCIe 5.0 are both in their infancy, and should be able to provide greater benefits as new RAM and GPUs are released.
If that is the case, why is Intel selling E-cores only on the K SKUs? Why are they making 6+0 chips for the value segment instead of 4+8?
What some random guy on a forum wants, is not the market though
If all you do is lightly threaded stuff, why in the world would you buy a 12900k or a 5950x when there are much cheaper options that will do just as well?
So we're basically arguing about less than 1% of desktop users?
I have bad experiences with Gigabyte. Not sure how their mobos fare now. If you experience wonky behavior (sudden reboots, bluescreens etc.), it will likely be the mobo. But I hope the build goes well for you.
A 16 core epyc chip masquerading as a desktop processor? Clearly, the 5950x has been caught with its pants down in these iconic productivity tests? Look at how much ground it gives up in AUTOCAD to an i5! Not to speak of even trading blows with an i5 in Adobe suite. These tests clearly show the 5950x has been reduced to a one-trick pony on desktop, and even there, the 12900k is a very close second and the better choice as the all-rounder, top-performer chip to get.@Zucker2k Are you able to characterize those tests?
My G1.Sniper Z97 gave me hell with Corsair RAM. It finally went into a happy marriage with Kingston DDR3-1866. It's 99% stable now. This is my 3rd and likely last Gigabyte mobo (I always say this before their cheaper prices and supposedly long life solid state capacitors and other features dupe me yet AGAIN!)My x570 Aorus Master has been pretty good. Not perfect, but good. Giga has had more problems lately with things like integrated sound not working and other stupid stuff.
The thing about Zen3D that a lot of people are overlooking is that AMD did those tests at 4GHz. Anyone care to bet that's the point of optimal returns in games? With Alder Lake clocking P cores to the high GHz (4.7GHz+) in games, I don't think this is any longer about extrapolating data from percentages by which Alder Lake trumps Zen 3 in gaming.
Man, I have been here a long time. Longer than even my user account suggests, yet your post blew my mind. Because someone reached a different (and correct) conclusion than you, suddenly they are biased? ADL-S is an impressive part, but there is nothing Intel can possibly do that will make it consistently beat a 5950x in multicore workloads on a perf/watt basis. I don’t care about power consumption. Cap the 5950X at 142W and dump all the power into the 12900k. Even if you pushed the chip to the limits, It would still lose several benchmarks to the 5950X. Also yes, we get to compare the two chips because while Intel has to send power consumption through the roof to add more cores, AMD sticks with the 142W power consumption, regardless of the number of cores or the frequencies.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.
99% of desktop users have absolutely no need for a 12900k or 5950x. The argument that the 5950x only wins when you use a lot of threads, well of course, that's what it's made for. If all you do is lightly threaded stuff, why in the world would you buy a 12900k or a 5950x when there are much cheaper options that will do just as well? For those who can use the cores/threads, then the 5950x will either perform better or consume much lower power, or a bit of both. There are still several use cases for a 16c/32t CPU on consumer desktop, things people use it for include hobbyist or part time 3d art work, compiling, amateur engineering CAD programs, audio mixing, distributed computing, video transcoding, plus some stuff I'm probably forgetting. It's not a huge market, but it exists and again, if the argument is that most workloads don't need that many cores, then that's the end of the discussion right there because there's no need to talk about either CPU anymore and it's a whole different discussion around SKUs with less cores.
ADL is really strong starting at the 12700k and probably shines most in the 12600k (at least in terms of desktop SKUs), but Intel didn't really have an answer to the 5950x this round so they came up with an EE SKU and pushed ADL to the brink to try and capture that top tier. It probably worked well enough, but it certainly came with some caveats with how they got there.
Cap the 5950X at 142W and dump all the power into the 12900k. Even if you pushed the chip to the limits, It would still lose several benchmarks to the 5950X.
There are 8 charts there, and the 5950x only came ahead in two instances, by a small margin. Yet, somehow you couldn't figure out how to apportion a clear winner even in this clearly open and shut instance. This is why you get accused of bias. If the numbers fit your bias they're good, if it doesn't they're bad.
Then there's also this:
A 16 core epyc chip masquerading as a desktop processor? Clearly, the 5950x has been caught with its pants down in these iconic productivity tests? Look at how much ground it gives up in AUTOCAD to an i5! Not to speak of even trading blows with an i5 in Adobe suite. These tests clearly show the 5950x has been reduced to a one-trick pony on desktop, and even there, the 12900k is a very close second and the better choice as the all-rounder, top-performer chip to get.
Maybe if you leave the 12900k limited to its 5.2 GHz boost then sure, but if you are willing to hand-tune the 12900k then it can probably be made to win nearly everything except maybe a few integer workloads.
Maybe if you leave the 12900k limited to its 5.2 GHz boost then sure, but if you are willing to hand-tune the 12900k then it can probably be made to win nearly everything except maybe a few integer workloads.
It's going to depend on sustained power limit.Intel Core i9-12900K E-Cores Only Performance Review
In the mobile segment we can pretty much conclude ADL 6+8 will be better than AMD even with Rembrandt, both games, ST and MT performance.
Mobile ADL 2+8 will have a much harder time against AMD Rembrandt. In MT I think It will be comparable at best, ST perf will be better and games are questionable considering you only get 2P cores and as shown In above graphs, E-cores are not that good for gaming.
You mean in MT? The leaked CB23 score of 14288 for a 35W ADL 6*3GHz + 8*2.4GHz(Link) is 29.6% higher than 8C R9 5980HS 35W. Rembrandt shouldn't be much better than Cezanne.It's going to depend on sustained power limit.
Even against 6+8 RMB will be able to compete favourably at specific power targets.
You mean in MT? The leaked CB23 score of 14288 for a 35W ADL 6*3GHz + 8*2.4GHz(Link) is 29.6% higher than 8C R9 5980HS 35W. Rembrandt shouldn't be much better than Cezanne.