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.
Unless I'm understanding it incorrectly, tau is supposed to be 56 seconds.Unless I'm misunderstanding with Alder Lake Tau is no more. PL2 will be maintained as long as power supply and cooling is adequate.
It says 213w in that link?A 5900X use 120-125W in Cinebench R20, PPT is not equal to power in all MT applications.
Intel Core i9-11900K & i5-11600K „Rocket Lake-S“ im Test: Leistungsaufnahme und Overclocking
Core i9-11900K und i5-11600K im Test: Leistungsaufnahme und Overclocking / Leistungsaufnahme in Anwendungen / Leistungsaufnahme in Spielenwww.computerbase.de
Unless I'm understanding it incorrectly, tau is supposed to be 56 seconds.
Has there been any iso-clock testing with a reasonable workload like HEVC encoding at sane clock speeds? If not, I'd expect someone like The Stilt to come up with a perf vs power graph in something like Cinebench.Also, based on everything that we've seen so far, Golden Cove seems to be on par or better in power efficiency than Zen 3 Core for Core, at the same clock. The inefficiency only stems from the massive all-core frequencies Intel is pushing the the flagship 12900k, especially. Looking forward to some detailed power analysis tomorrow.
That is true if PL1=PL2, which no doubt will be set by most motherboards capable of sustaining such power levels.This is what I was getting at. From Ian's last ADL piece:
"For users who understand the former PL1/PL2 methodology, it still technically exists under the hood here, where Base is PL1 and Turbo is PL2, but Tau is effectively infinite for K processors. "
That'd be nice to see.Has there been any iso-clock testing with a reasonable workload like HEVC encoding at sane clock speeds? If not, I'd expect someone like The Stilt to come up with a perf vs power graph in something like Cinebench.
Also, based on everything that we've seen so far, Golden Cove seems to be on par or better in power efficiency than Zen 3 Core for Core, at the same clock. The inefficiency only stems from the massive all-core frequencies Intel is pushing the the flagship 12900k, especially. Looking forward to some detailed power analysis tomorrow.
As implemented in Golden Cove and Zen 3 respectively, it's looking very much so. Unfortunately, the apple to apple test would be the i5 12400 vs R5 5600x test, both with 6 cores and 12 threads, but there's no sign of the former at the moment so we'd need to wait for a while longer.Interesting, would you say that Intel 7 is fundamentally equal to TSMC 7nm+ or maybe better?
Intresting no doubt, if we look at this comparison and what he said in year 2016.Raptor Lake will just follow same road or PL1 around 250W.
An end to scaling: Intel's next-generation chips will sacrifice speed to reduce power
Last week at ISSCC, Intel acknowledged that the next-generation chip technologies its pursuing could dramatically reduce power consumption -- but they'll simultaneously reduce speed.www.extremetech.com
"William Holt, head of Intel’s Technology and Manufacturing Group, made the announcement at the International Solid State Circuits Conference (ISSCC) this past week, when discussing some of the options Intel is evaluating. These technologies aren’t coming next year or the year after — all of the tech in question would be introduced after 2021."
Zen3
yellow is stock, R5 cant eat more than 90W
green, Eco mode
Zen 4 will have the same or maybe even a little lower CPU power consumption.
Intel, "hm sacrifice speed to reduce power consumption". Unexpected competition arrived, blah forget it we don't care.
Maybe i'm crazy, but 125W TDP should be the absolute maximum TDP for Desktop processors.In real world year 2021 and future, "150W CPU package power" should be maximum and not a hair more.
It says 213w in that link?
That is true if PL1=PL2, which no doubt will be set by most motherboards capable of sustaining such power levels.
Yeah, 213 - 55. Still leaves you some odd 165w to work with. How're you doing your extrapolations?That s total system on the wall, the idle wall power is on the previous graph, they ll be updated with ADL soon...
What I'd like to see is a a review that shows both package power and wall power for power consumption. Throughout the advent of the Zen architecture and subsequent iterations those chips always consume more power in gaming, even when churning out inferior fps. Something isn't right about a "power efficient" platform that is only power efficient when you measure power in software, but as soon as you measure at the wall it's no longer that power efficient.
Additionally, that platform is plagued with heat issues, and most enthusiasts resorting to undervolting and secondary cooling (even 5600x owners, a chip that supposedly consumes no more than 88watts tops at stock). Yeah, I've heard about heat spots and all that but guess what, Intel goes to 250w on the package alone and suffers from heat spotting too, and whatever other heating effects pumping 250w into your chip can cause. So, I think this needs to be looked into, the delta between wall and reported package power using a similar brand and tiered motherboard, a barebones bench table, and peripherals to reduce/eliminate any differences between setups.
1800x
View attachment 52270
2700x
View attachment 52271
3900x
View attachment 52272
5950x
View attachment 52273
Woweeeee! Instant webpage rendering will be fun to see! 120hz better be double going forward for display technology.G-Skill announces DDR5 7000MHz CL40 RAM
G.SKILL shows off its DDR5-7000 CL40 overclocked memory - VideoCardz.com
G.SKILL Showcases DDR5-7000 CL40 Extreme Speed Memory (2 November 2021) – G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd., the world’s leading manufacturer of extreme performance memory and gaming peripherals, is thrilled to announce the achievement of DDR5-7000 CL40-40-40-76 32GB (2x16GB) extreme...videocardz.com
Intel's XMP 3.0 goes up to DDR5 6666MHz CL40
Setting power above 125 W is for two types of people:Supposed 12900K powerlimit scaling
Of course. Did you read my accompanying post?What is this suppose to be showing that is full system power consumption.
This part of your post is totally wrong "Throughout the advent of the Zen architecture and subsequent iterations those chips always consume more power in gaming, even when churning out inferior fps. "Of course. Did you read my accompanying post?
Priority is scaled for tasks and task-time across/between both core types.Game Dev Guide for 12th Gen Intel Core Processor Hybrid Architecture
The 12th Gen Intel© Core™ processor is a new performance hybrid architecture that combines two core types.www.intel.com
..When primary thread pool thread get assigned to E-core performance will suffer due thread-syncronization problems. Using different speed cores will bring lots of new problems - Intel optimization simply points to target priority threads only to high performance cores.
Both core types are on the same bus with the same speed and latency characteristics. They react to instruction set queues at the same pace...They expect to run their heavy stuff on one set of cores and dispatch lighter stuff to the second set of cores.
Latency is how fast they are going to react, not how fast they are going to complete a task..
Alder Lake is actual 7nm process on an actual TSMC 7nm node.Just wait till Intel moves on from 10nm to 7nm, it going be rocking again.
It's become increasingly clear to me (and others have mentioned this as well) that the hybrid strategy Intel is employing in ADL is about conserving die space, and not so much a power saving strategy, even though that is inherent in the small core implementation.
Oh, and not to derail this thread more than you already have, but those graphs do NOT take into account that the system could be getting more FPS with some systems, and the power draw could be the video card working harder for the better CPU. So saying ANYTHING about CPU power draw while gaming can NOT be gotten from those graphs.This part of your post is totally wrong "Throughout the advent of the Zen architecture and subsequent iterations those chips always consume more power in gaming, even when churning out inferior fps. "
In the first place, Zen 3 wins in almost all cases in games. And as for the rest, I don't remember them being power hogs, so I don't know where you get that. Looking at the 3900x, all the systems are within a few watts of each other. Not that I believe that, but its your own slide !
And why are we talking about Zen power consumption in an Alder Lake thread. No reviews to compare to yet....
Yeah, 213 - 55. Still leaves you some odd 165w to work with. How're you doing your extrapolations?
All these may only be true in some instances for Zen 3. It's no secret, AMD platform is not gaming efficient. Intel was the defacto gaming king until Zen 3 yet the graph clearly shows AMD systems sucking significantly more power while producing less fps. Look up the gaming reviews for these chips. The argument you're advancing is the same argument I've advanced in the past, except that in those cases, Intel produced more fps while consuming less, meaning the gpu was working harder and consuming more as a result, but the platform still remained more power efficient. That shows the cpu is consuming significantly less.Oh, and not to derail this thread more than you already have, but those graphs do NOT take into account that the system could be getting more FPS with some systems, and the power draw could be the video card working harder for the better CPU. So saying ANYTHING about CPU power draw while gaming can NOT be gotten from those graphs.
Now lets get back to taking about Alder lake, until the reviews come out tomorrow, then we can discuss anything in the reviews, including power draw of both camp's CPU's.
10% is significant on it's on. In addition, produces less fps compared to Intel competitors.356 * 10% = 35w
356 + 35 = 391w
2700x (worst case) = 386w
< 10%
Is 10% "sucking significantly more power" ?