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.
The 11400 scored wins because it's no slouch, with it being a 6C/12T CPU. And the selection of games is such that except for perhaps CS:GO, all of the other games show some scaling with core count.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.
I don't see why you think a 4 core, 4.3 GHz turbo chip with 60W power should destroy a 6 core, 4.4 GHz chip with 65W power (that also costs $60 more).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.
A fast quad like the 12100 is still plenty for 1080p 60 FPS gaming, especially in single-player games.12100 does okay for a quad. Wouldn't recommend anything below a 12400 for most users though, except maybe Grandma.
A fast quad like the 12100 is still plenty for 1080p 60 FPS gaming, especially in single-player games.
Gigabyte at least mentions dual channel on their H610 spec sheets. So I figure we just give it a day and see who issues a correction.
H610M HD3P (rev. 1.0) Specification | Motherboard - GIGABYTE Global
Lasting Quality from GIGABYTE.GIGABYTE Ultra Durable™ motherboards bring together a unique blend of features and technologies that offer users the absolute ...www.gigabyte.com
I don't see why you think a 4 core, 4.3 GHz turbo chip with 60W power should destroy a 6 core, 4.4 GHz chip with 65W power (that also costs $60 more).
Like @epsilon84 said, those IPC increases cannot overcome far fewer cores. I have to ask you again, if there is a 40% IPC improvement per core at the same power level, but one chip has 50% more cores, why would you think the 40% gain would dominate the 50% more cores? If you haven't noticed 40% is smaller than 50%. The fact that the two chips are roughly comparable, shows that Intel's graph of 40% more performance was roughly correct. And that doesn't even include the fact that the 12100 is NOT at the same power consumption.Because of 10nm vs 14nm and also of the huge IPC gains of AlderLake mArchitecture.
...
and
...
@AtenRa The IPC increase isn't enough to overcome a 50% core deficit in the vast majority of cases, including games.
Like I said earlier, the new ADL quads are decent in their own right compared to previous quad cores, but for anyone intending to build a new machine today, I feel the relative small jump in price to an i5 12400/F is more than justified for the performance uplift as well as 'future proofing' - the latest game engines have already moved beyond 4 cores and show significant scaling up to 6 cores. If you are lucky enough to nab a half decent GPU in 2022... do yourself a favour and get a 6 core CPU minimum.
I agree with your IPC improvement cannot overcome a 50% core deficit statement.@AtenRa The IPC increase isn't enough to overcome a 50% core deficit in the vast majority of cases, including games.
Like I said earlier, the new ADL quads are decent in their own right compared to previous quad cores, but for anyone intending to build a new machine today, I feel the relative small jump in price to an i5 12400/F is more than justified for the performance uplift as well as 'future proofing' - the latest game engines have already moved beyond 4 cores and show significant scaling up to 6 cores. If you are lucky enough to nab a half decent GPU in 2022... do yourself a favour and get a 6 core CPU minimum.
Like @epsilon84 said, those IPC increases cannot overcome far fewer cores. I have to ask you again, if there is a 40% IPC improvement at the same power level, but one chip has 50% more cores, why would you think the 40% gain would dominate the 50% more cores? If you haven't noticed 40% is smaller than 50%. The fact that the two chips are roughly comparable, shows that Intel's graph of 40% more performance was roughly correct. And that doesn't even include the fact that the 12100 is NOT at the same power consumption.
For the gaming improvement graph, that is a 11th generation i9 vs 12th generation i9. In fact, the 12th generation i9 that does better has more cores to work with and a faster turbo speed. But where this conversation started is an 11th generation i5 vs 12th generation i3 with fewer cores and slower clock frequencies. Thus, I have to ask you why anyone would expect the 12100 to outperform the 11400.
You forgot #1 priority for games: GPU. Then you forgot #2 priority: clock speed of the CPU of which the 3300X has a higher frequency than the 2600X.Look above, also
Ryzen 3300X which is only 4 Core 8 Threads completely obliterates the 6-core 12-threads Ryzen 2600X in gaming, it even reaches Ryzen 2700X gaming performance in most of the games.
So for games, priority number one is still the IPC and memory latency and then Core count. And thats true for 4 core 8 threads CPUs and above, otherwise Core i9 9900K would always be faster vs lower count CPUs but as we all know thats not correct.
You forgot #1 priority for games: GPU. Then you forgot #2 priority: clock speed of the CPU of which the 3300X has a higher frequency than the 2600X.
3300X base 3.8 GHz vs 2600X 3.6 GHz.3300X has a turbo boost of 4.3GHz and 2600X turbo boost is 4.25GHz.
3300X base 3.8 GHz vs 2600X 3.6 GHz.
The 12600K has a ~20% frequency advantage over the 12400 and scores ~10% better in games. How exactly were you expecting a 3.8-4Ghz SKU to equally match one clocked around 4.6-4.8Ghz in gaming?12400 (18MB L3) should have been equal to 12600K (20MB L3) in gaming but it also exhibits the same Gaming IPC regression as 12100.
The 12600K has a ~20% frequency advantage over the 12400 and scores ~10% better in games. How exactly were you expecting a 3.8-4Ghz SKU to equally match one clocked around 4.6-4.8Ghz in gaming?
you did not mean this comment seriously...3300X base 3.8 GHz vs 2600X 3.6 GHz.
I have 4 words for ya!How is this even possible?
View attachment 55820
Intel's Most Entry-Level Alder Lake CPU, The Dual-Core Celeron G6900, Has Single Core Performance On Par With a 5.3 GHz Core i9-10900K
The Intel Celeron G6900, Entry-Level Alder Lake, dual-core CPU has been tested and offers better single-threaded performance than i9-10900K.wccftech.com
I double-checked, the 12600K clocks at 4.5Ghz in games and the 12400 runs at 4Ghz.