Question Alder Lake - Official Thread

[Hulk]

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.

 

[jpiniero]

Intel Core i3-12100 Review: The New Ultra-Budget Gaming King – Art of PC

artofpc.com

i3 12100 review. Manages to be faster than the 3600 in the games that they tested.

 

[epsilon84]

Intel Core i3-12100 Review: The New Ultra-Budget Gaming King – Art of PC

artofpc.com

i3 12100 review. Manages to be faster than the 3600 in the games that they tested.

If only there were actual budget GPUs to go with budget CPUs haha...

Its actually impressive that a 4C/8T CPU can beat an 6C/12T CPU in gaming, albeit an ageing 3600 at that. Realistically speaking though, going forward I don't think anyone should seriously consider a 4C/8T CPU for gaming, especially since budget GPUs no longer exist (except on paper MSRPs maybe)

In a world where we are all spending $1000+ on GPUs, it doesn't make sense at all to penny pinch and try to save $50 - $100 to go from a 6 core to a 4 core.

 

[uzzi38]

Intel Core i3-12100 Review: The New Ultra-Budget Gaming King – Art of PC

artofpc.com

i3 12100 review. Manages to be faster than the 3600 in the games that they tested.

I don't particularly doubt the results but:

All benchmarks were recorded in 1080p at medium-to-high graphical settings. Credit goes to Testing Games. Ryzen 5 3600 benchmarks are included for comparison (at identical settings and with an Asus ROG X570 Crosshair VIII motherboard).

I'm going to wait until pretty much anyone else does the testing.

 

[JoeRambo]

Tested with highest end Z690 and DDR4 3600, not exactly budget combo. Without memory tuning and just 12MB of L3 ADL performance would take quite a penalty i guess?

 

[maddie]

Not only does one say average and the other say peak, but igors is a measurement over the complete time to render while the anandtech one is taking a single peak point.

But is it flawed? If this is the amount of watts needed to finish the job?

By your reasoning the 5600X is ~2.4 times as efficient as the 5950X.

90.87W vs 217.49W

Since this is generally accepted to be a garbage statement, your bolded statement is wrong. It might be useful to apply such reasoning at times.

 

[cytg111]

damnit, was gearing up to get the surface pro 8 ... but now I want one with alder lake...

 

[Zucker2k]

By your reasoning the 5600X is ~2.4 times as efficient as the 5950X.

90.87W vs 217.49W

Since this is generally accepted to be a garbage statement, your bolded statement is wrong. It might be useful to apply such reasoning at times.

Is efficiency not average draw vs work done within a certain period of time, or completion of a task? Looking at those numbers in isolation says nothing.

 

[Markfw]

Is efficiency not average draw vs work done within a certain period of time, or completion of a task? Looking at those numbers in isolation says nothing.

Except when the numbers are garbage, you can tell nothing at all.

 

[Zucker2k]

Except when the numbers are garbage, you can tell nothing at all.

So let's say the Ryzen chips had PBO turned on. They still lost in a lot of those benchmarks. So, the 12400 is basically beating a PBO-enabled 5600x, WHILE DRAWING LESS POWER!

 

[AtenRa]

Efficiency is measured by perf/watt or perf/wh

So let's say the Ryzen chips had PBO turned on. They still lost in a lot of those benchmarks. So, the 12400 is basically beating a PBO-enabled 5600x, WHILE DRAWING LESS POWER!

Thats not correct

 

[Mopetar]

So let's say the Ryzen chips had PBO turned on. They still lost in a lot of those benchmarks. So, the 12400 is basically beating a PBO-enabled 5600x, WHILE DRAWING LESS POWER!

Why would you compare it against Ryzen with PBO on when it's specifically going to tank the efficiency? The post I made a few pages back with benchmark and power data from Tom's showed that in yCruncher a 5600X with PBO on uses 46% more power for a 9% increase in performance.

If you want to compare absolute performance go ahead, but with PBO turned on the efficiency for an AMD chip is as bad as the top end Alder Lake CPUs that were clocked to their limits. If you're doing that, you don't care about efficiency, only how far you can push the bars.

 

[Dayman1225]

Intel now says there is no games with DRM that have issues with Alderlake and it’s P+E core architecture.

https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/s0q7qh

 

[Mopetar]

Thats not correct

For anyone who doesn't want to go through the video, here's the results when looking at all of the different benchmarks in the video between the 5600X and the 12400 [65w]

Applications:
Cinebench R23: Intel
7-Zip: AMD
Corona: Intel
Adobe Premier: Tie
Adobe Photoshop: Tie
Adobe After Effects: Intel
Factorio: Tie
Chromium Code Compile: Intel
Blender: Tie

Games:
F1 2021: AMD
Rainbow Six Siege: AMD
Watch Dog's Legion: Tie (or AMD barely)
SotTR: Tie (or Intel barely)
Riftbreaker: Intel
Hitman 3: AMD
Age of Empires IV: AMD
Far Cry 6: Intel
Horizon Zero Dawn: AMD
Cyberpunk 2077: Tie

The 5600X had lower power consumption in applications than the 12400 [65w], but higher power consumption than it in the gaming benchmarks.

The Intel CPU does better performance wise in applications, but worse in games. Outside of a few outliers, they're reasonably well matched for the most part.

 

[Mopetar]

Intel now says there is no games with DRM

If only your post could have stopped there.

And I think to myself, what a wonderful world.

 

[maddie]

Is efficiency not average draw vs work done within a certain period of time, or completion of a task? Looking at those numbers in isolation says nothing.

If you read the actual post I replied to, all becomes clear.

 

[Thala]

Efficiency is measured by perf/watt or perf/wh

It is either performance devided by power (perfunit/W) or work devided by energy (workunit/Wh) - perf/Wh makes no sense with respect to power effciency.

 

[AtenRa]

It is either performance devided by power (perfunit/W) or work devided by energy (workunit/Wh) - perf/Wh makes no sense with respect to power effciency.

You are correct, but since we dont have moving parts in computers the performance is the job/work done in a unit of time, for example how much time it will take to finish a render or how many jobs the computer can finish per unit time, for example how many different transactions it can do in a unit time.
Both of the above workloads are the performance/work done by the computer.

So perf/wh is perfectly fine


For example, if the Ryzen 5600X takes 10 hours to finish the render in Blender by using 60Wh and Ryzen 5950X takes 4 hours to finish the same render (job/work) using 120Wh then Ryzen 5950X is more efficient because it finished the same job/work at LESS than half the time using double the energy.

Or lets take the example of transactions per time unit, Ryzen 5600X can do 1000 transactions per hour using 60Wh when 5950X can do 2500 transactions per hour using 120Wh. Again Ryzen 9550X is more efficient because it can do more than double the work using only double the energy.

 

[epsilon84]

For anyone who doesn't want to go through the video, here's the results when looking at all of the different benchmarks in the video between the 5600X and the 12400 [65w]

Applications:
Cinebench R23: Intel
7-Zip: AMD
Corona: Intel
Adobe Premier: Tie
Adobe Photoshop: Tie
Adobe After Effects: Intel
Factorio: Tie
Chromium Code Compile: Intel
Blender: Tie

Games:
F1 2021: AMD
Rainbow Six Siege: AMD
Watch Dog's Legion: Tie (or AMD barely)
SotTR: Tie (or Intel barely)
Riftbreaker: Intel
Hitman 3: AMD
Age of Empires IV: AMD
Far Cry 6: Intel
Horizon Zero Dawn: AMD
Cyberpunk 2077: Tie

The 5600X had lower power consumption in applications than the 12400 [65w], but higher power consumption than it in the gaming benchmarks.

The Intel CPU does better performance wise in applications, but worse in games. Outside of a few outliers, they're reasonably well matched for the most part.

I'll have a look at the entire video later on, but just curious if the 12400 was running at 65W for the tests? Slightly surprised to see the 5600X ahead in gaming, though if the 12400W was limited to a 65W TDP that would be understandable.

 

[tamz_msc]

I'll have a look at the entire video later on, but just curious if the 12400 was running at 65W for the tests? Slightly surprised to see the 5600X ahead in gaming, though if the 12400W was limited to a 65W TDP that would be understandable.

They test both the Intel recommended spec and default settings for that motherboard without power limits in place.

 

[tamz_msc]

Impressive little CPU.

 

[epsilon84]

They test both the Intel recommended spec and default settings for that motherboard without power limits in place.

Thanks, just saw the video, running at 65W only has a small impact on gaming it seems. I guess it all comes down to game selection, or possibly GPU choice? HUB tests with a 6900XT, whereas THG tests with an RTX 3090, where the 12400 just edges the 5600X overall.

Ultimately, they are both fairly evenly matched, so it all comes down to pricing and thats where Intel has AMD beat, especially with the sub $200 12400F. AMD are still selling the 3600(!) for that price... yikes.

 

[jpiniero]

Alder Lake has finally gotten ahead of Rocket Lake at Newegg's "Best Sellers". Progress?

Ultimately, they are both fairly evenly matched, so it all comes down to pricing and thats where Intel has AMD beat, especially with the sub $200 12400F. AMD are still selling the 3600(!) for that price... yikes.

I don't think it's EOL but I doubt AMD is producing much so it may as well be.

 

[AtenRa]

Impressive little CPU.

Im not impressed,

Due to smaller Cache the 12100 loses any advantage of the new Alderlake mArchitecture making it slower in Gaming performance. It cannot even surpass the 11400 in gaming and lose in productivity badly from all the CPU in the review.
12100F will be an ok CPU if the price is max at $99 and you can also pair it with a cheap $80-100 B660, otherwise a higher price for the CPU and or platform will make it a no go to recommend for anything.

Only reason to actually consider this CPU now, is if you want to transfer to the new 1700 socket waiting for the next gen Raptor CPUs that will come at the end of the year.

 

[tamz_msc]

Due to smaller Cache the 12100 loses any advantage of the new Alderlake mArchitecture making it slower in Gaming performance. It cannot even surpass the 11400 in gaming and lose in productivity badly from all the CPU in the review.

Did we see the same video? It essentially ties the 11400 in gaming. The 11400 has a lead of 5% or less in titles in which it is ahead. With a realistic setup that is more GPU-bound, there should basically be no difference between the two in games.

 

[AtenRa]

Did we see the same video? It essentially ties the 11400 in gaming. The 11400 has a lead of 5% or less in titles in which it is ahead. With a realistic setup that is more GPU-bound, there should basically be no difference between the two in games.

With the new architecture the 12100 should had no problem destroying the 11400 in gaming, instead the 11400 scored wins. This is not what everyone was expecting out of the 12100 due to the high IPC the new architecture was promising.