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.
Not the bloodbath you anticipated. I agree with the assessment that gaming numbers could be better with low latency DDR4, on both sides, but I'm more intrigued with ADL-S DDR4 vs DDR5 comparison.
T
* 12600k is 30% faster than 5600x and only $10 more expensive, representing a generational leap over the 5600x
* 12600k never went above 125w, and beats 5600x by more percentage points in performance than power consumption.
Last line confirms what I said yesterday about ADL-S efficiency compared to Zen 3, when the chip is not being pushed way beyond power limits. Still, this is only one review so let's wait for the rest. Interesting few hours ahead.
Just 3% behind 5950x in productivity on average, while being faster in everything else less threaded and gaming? I don't think so at all.I disagree; the 12900K is only 10% faster than the 5900X in productivity, and in gaming the 12600K is hot on it's heels for half the price. If you're mainly gaming, then it makes no sense to go for the 12900K; if you're into productivity the 5900X is better value.
This assumes ADL isn't extracting all the performance from current gaming cards. Moreover, gaming doesn't scale linearly, and Zen 3D is only going to be faster in certain titles. I won't get my hopes up too much.Looks a bit underwhelming to me tbh. Gaming not by that much ahead (less than I expected), Zen 3 with V-Cache should be enough for AMD to take the "gaming crown" back.
As for productivity, well. Performance by it's own is not that bad, but power consumption though.
Linus has the 12600K leading by 40-45% in rendering, and the power consumption at 125W is ~65% higher than the 75W of 5600X in the Blender test.* 12600k never went above 125w, and beats 5600x by more percentage points in performance than power consumption.
We can argue than lowering power consumption on 12600K will result in lower relative performance drop (meaning 12600K may still end up close in efficiency with 5600X at ISO power), but then again we're still talking 6+4 cores versus 6 cores, so I don't understand how your comment from yesterday regarding Golden Cove holds up. If anything it seems this early review confirms the opposite.Last line confirms what I said yesterday about ADL-S efficiency compared to Zen 3
I disagree; the 12900K is only 10% faster than the 5900X in productivity, and in gaming the 12600K is hot on it's heels for half the price. If you're mainly gaming, then it makes no sense to go for the 12900K; if you're into productivity the 5900X is better value.
Setting power above 125 W is for two types of people:
1) Those who want performance above all.
2) People who want to say the chip has terrible performance per watt.
That is why good reviews tend to show things at stock (125W) and when pushed to extremes.
I disagree; the 12900K is only 10% faster than the 5900X in productivity, and in gaming the 12600K is hot on it's heels for half the price. If you're mainly gaming, then it makes no sense to go for the 12900K; if you're into productivity the 5900X is better value.
The 5950X is 6% faster than the 12900K in productivity; while that's impressive on its own, the pricing means that the 5900X is a whopping $100-125 cheaper than the 12900KF/K going by Newegg pricing.Just 3% behind 5950x in productivity on average, while being faster in everything else less threaded and gaming? I don't think so at all.
CPU stock and mobo stock is not the same, you could also have said that a lot of overclockers will do these things, doesn't make it stock though.Sadly, 125W isn't stock for the 12900k. On a lot of boards, it's going to pull as much power as possible until:
So you're going to leave everything else out and concentrate on productivity, and the dollar value of 10%? Okay? HeheThe 5950X is 6% faster than the 12900K in productivity; while that's impressive on its own, the pricing means that the 5900X is a whopping $100-125 cheaper than the 12900KF/K going by Newegg pricing.
In terms of perf/$ in productivity, the math is pretty clear - the 5900X is a clear winner.
It's also a good bit slower.The 5950X is 6% faster than the 12900K in productivity; while that's impressive on its own, the pricing means that the 5900X is a whopping $100-125 cheaper than the 12900KF/K going by Newegg pricing.
In terms of perf/$ in productivity, the math is pretty clear - the 5900X is a clear winner.
There isn't anything else to say about the i9. Gaming wise, the 12600K equals it. Productivity wise, the 5900X is only 10% behind while being significantly cheaper. It's neither here nor there, and it's only going to be of interest to the extreme OC public.So you're going to leave everything else out and concentrate on productivity, and the dollar value of 10%? Okay? Hehe
The 5950X is 6% faster than the 12900K in productivity; while that's impressive on its own, the pricing means that the 5900X is a whopping $100-125 cheaper than the 12900KF/K going by Newegg pricing.
In terms of perf/$ in productivity, the math is pretty clear - the 5900X is a clear winner.
I'll take 10% slower performance for 17% cheaper price any day. And that's only accounting for the CPU price alone.It's also a good bit slower.
Keep that thought. 12700k incoming!I'll take 10% slower performance for 17% cheaper price any day. And that's only accounting for the CPU price alone.
Halo products are always unimpressive, at least I consider them so.If we're gonna bag on the 12900k for looking bad in terms of perf/$ in productivity vs the 5900X, it should also be pointed out that the same performance metrics used to justify this statement make the 5950X look even worse from a perf/$ perspective. Did people use that as justification to make the 5950x seem "unimpressive"?
There isn't anything else to say about the i9. Gaming wise, the 12600K equals it. Productivity wise, the 5900X is only 10% behind while being significantly cheaper. It's neither here nor there, and it's only going to be of interest to the extreme OC public.
Yeah and compared to the 5950x the 12900k is less than 10% slower and is $200 cheaper.I'll take 10% slower performance for 17% cheaper price any day. And that's only accounting for the CPU price alone.
Yeah It'll make the i9 look even more silly.Keep that thought. 12700k incoming!
You dont need DDR5 for 12600K and if you comparing ryzen without igpu then compare it to intel without GPU and thats 12600KF.This driving me nuts.People always comparing ryzen without igpus to 12600K/12700K/12900K with igpus.Just did a price comp at OCUK.
12600K + Z690 Tomahawk + 32GB 5200C38 ram is £850.
5600X + X570 Tomahawk + 32GB 3600C16 ram is £610.
The 12600K is good value, the platform as a whole is not for just gaming (EDIT: and for just gaming you could easily go B550 and save some money on the 5600X build). If you want productivity you have enough budget to get a 5800X and still pay less or you can pay £80 more and drop in a 5900X.
Take it easy then. We're just getting started.This driving me nuts.
The best news so far is gaming power consumption.
Gaming power consuption is good.
Also they only show maximum peak instead of average and not at stock settings but with power limits lifted, if they aren't only showing overclocking numbers.Gaming consumption for Intel has been widely divergent from so called "productivity" power consumption ever since Intel started clocking closer to the limit out of the box.
Due to divergent methods of dynamic clocking along with differing design targets in silicon/manufacturing with AMD's Zen this has since resulted a disconnect in terms of how power consumption actually compares depending on the task load, as a task like encoding/rendering is very different than gaming.
I've ranted about this issue before in terms of how tech reviewers for the most part solely convey power consumption numbers via a task such as rendering/encoding or similar and therefore rely on that as a measure solely for efficiency. This has created a very muddled narrative in terms of power consumption/efficiency with the public, especially as their performance content and target audience leans much more so (if not entirely) into gaming (or at least non rendering/encoding/etc. tasks).
Reviewers really should have power consumption data in idle, "desktop" (eg. browsing, video watching, etc.) gaming, productivity burst, and productivity throughput scenarios, as opposed to just the last one.