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.
It's not killing the deal, it just shows Intel still isn't executing on all cylinders. They made a big deal about their new engineering design process, we need to see that methodology of theirs in action, the sixth pillar was Software. Just as @CakeMonster said, eventually the E-cores will help with the longevity of the CPU, although I suspect most ADL-S owners will upgrade for ST performance uplift first, MT second. And to that effect, I wonder how many owners of ADL-S would have rather traded their E-cores for a fatter L2 cache or fatter L3 cache, or both.Is it me, or are all these "issues" about E cores, kind of killing the whole P-core/E-core deal thing ?
I imagine Intel will complain to Asus and get them to change the bios going forward.
More like release uCode update and get MS to update it in Windows and leave user's computers unbootable after Windows Update.
A good workaround would be a Hackintosh
Sweet, non-k OC:
der8auer overclocks at an i5-12400 All Core 5.2 GHz.
I imagine Intel will complain to Asus and get them to change the bios going forward.
Just curious. Is there a Star Trek episode where Klingons eat Kangaroo or Koala BBQ?In reality, there is a much higher chance that the Klingons will invade Australia.
Just curious. Is there a Star Trek episode where Klingons eat Kangaroo or Koala BBQ?
The problem with the E-cores on the desktop is not what you can do with them, but rather what you could have done with the space instead. Intel chose to win Cinebench when they might have had an undisputed gaming crown.
I think we can all agree on why Intel added those E cores: they had a MT deficit against AMD and they needed an easy way to be on par with AMD given what they had available. Intel's big cores could never be competitive with AMD because while they offered tremendous performance per core, they took up too much die space for Intel to match 16 Zen 3 cores at the same price point. A core's performance scales sublinearly with its area, so Intel realized that they could cheaply boost their MT performance without blowing up the size of the monolithic die by optimizing for the other end of the spectrum. AMD's cores just happen to be somewhere in between Gracemont and Golden Cove on the perf/area spectrum, but likely closer to the Gracemont side simply because it takes so many extra transistors just to eeke out a little bit more ST performance.I don't think excluding E cores for anything else would have done Intel any good. They could have added an additional two P cores with the space being used by the E cores, but very few games would be able to take advantage of the additional cores. Look at how little difference there is between a 12900K and a 12600K in most games. The E cores don't use up much power, but even if they weren't there, Intel has already pushed the top-end Alder Lake CPUs to the limit so there's no room left there.
The only thing I can think of that might have worked would be to use all of that space for a larger L3 cache, similar to what AMD is doing with Zen 3D in order to regain the gaming performance crown. Maybe Intel shied away from this approach initially based on their own experiences of having a large eDRAM L4 cache on Haswell or they felt that the uplift in gaming wouldn't been enough to sell CPUs that didn't stack up as favorably in other benchmarks where the extra L3 makes little difference.
To me it looked like he was measuring power draw at the 12V CPU connector, ignoring the loss through the power stage. If that is the case, the internal CPU sensor readings are closer to the truth, hence ~100W package power draw.On the plus side, the included HSF must be pretty stout if it allows the CPU to sustain operation @ 122W.
To me it looked like he was measuring power draw at the 12V CPU connector, ignoring the loss through the power stage. If that is the case, the internal CPU sensor readings are closer to the truth, hence ~100W package power draw.
The 12400, 12600 and 12700 are OK and perform well for their class but for real multi-thread stuff I would go for the 5900 or 5950. I won't even mention the inflated Z690 mobo prices....Is it me, or are all these "issues" about E cores, kind of killing the whole P-core/E-core deal thing ? Personally, I love the equal cores that AMD has right now due to their efficiency and performance. I had the money, and almost got a 12900k, but after all this, I got my 4th 5950x for $649.
Sorry Intel.
Actually, I agree with you. Those are not bad. Its the E-core thing, and the thread director, etc...and I don't need a gaming proc, I need CORES !!! I have even recommended a 12700k for a gamer or two, on this forum ! But yes, the mobo prices and DDR5 is another issue.The 12400, 12600 and 12700 are OK and perform well for their class but for real multi-thread stuff I would go for the 5900 or 5950. I won't even mention the inflated Z690 mobo prices....
Oh, the point stands, I think the cooler is quite ok and I wish they had done this sooner. The fact that it manages to cool the CPU up until 90-100W means it will perform very well in terms of acoustics @ 65W where it's meant to be used.Point still stands, albeit not QUITE to the same extent. There are plenty of CPUs out there in the same price range that, historically, have not included HSFs that are so capable.
The CPU is released already, available in stores.when is the official release/review NDA date of the 12400? it seems some sites already run with reviews
Well, relying on Anandtech for timely reviews is your first mistake...oh so it just happens the site i visit every day does not have a review of the 12400/12500
Well, relying on Anandtech for timely reviews is your first mistake...
Unless it is a phone!
More Non-K OC, this time it's the i3 and Celeron:
Overclocking Celerons like it was 1998.