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.
When comparing the M1 Max and 12900k, it's difficult to set them to a common performance target without (as you observed) skewing efficiency results. You can't really get an M1 Max to burn 200W+ on CBR23, but you sure can do it with a 12900k!
Because that is the wrong way to look at CB MT. CB MT is an exercise in perf with core scaling, that is fundamentally a question of how many cores you can cram into a socket of some number of tolerable watts. If you set an anchor as some perf number but compare two different die sizes, it doesn't say a whole lot about efficiency. The smaller die will typically lose badly because it is forced to run up the curve to hit that perf number.
Of course, the original review didn't compare a 12900k in its entirety to the M1 Max. They disabled 2 P-cores to simulate a 6+8 Alder Lake-P, which is scheduled to come out on notebooks that will (nominally) compete with the MacBook Pros with M1 Pros & Max's.
Er, technically the M1 Max die is enormous, but it has a lot more in there than IceStorm and FireStorm cores. If you take only the cores + cache of M1 Max then it is going to be smaller than Alder Lake-S though.
That aside, how do you then compare the efficiency? There are only so many good benchmarks in common between the M1 Max and 12900k, and it'll be awhile til we see an Alder Lake with a die area comparable to that of any M1 chip (again, not counting the iGPU + fixed function hardware bloat). Thanks to the heterogeneous nature of both chips, if you restrict thread count then you have to decide which cores to use? Plus Alder Lake hasn't got separate voltage rails for its core clusters, which is problematic.
See posts from dmens, his entire point was that comparing an M1 Max @ 30W to a hobbled 12900k (or really any other Alder Lake) @ 35W is dirty pool since you're pushing the M1 Max to a point on its v/f curve where it's going to suffer. At least it is if you're trying to make an actual comparison based on efficiency, instead of an arbitrary performance comparison at a point near 30-35W. Yes, eventually there will be a 6+8 config Alder Lake-P out there with a published TDP of 35W (or so), so eventually this matchup may really happen. But if you're trying to make any broad statements about the relative efficiencies of the designs, such a comparison won't be entirely accurate.
Er, technically the M1 Max die is enormous, but it has a lot more in there than IceStorm and FireStorm cores. If you take only the cores + cache of M1 Max then it is going to be smaller than Alder Lake-S though.
That aside, how do you then compare the efficiency? There are only so many good benchmarks in common between the M1 Max and 12900k, and it'll be awhile til we see an Alder Lake with a die area comparable to that of any M1 chip (again, not counting the iGPU + fixed function hardware bloat). Thanks to the heterogeneous nature of both chips, if you restrict thread count then you have to decide which cores to use? Plus Alder Lake hasn't got separate voltage rails for its core clusters, which is problematic.
See posts from dmens, his entire point was that comparing an M1 Max @ 30W to a hobbled 12900k (or really any other Alder Lake) @ 35W is dirty pool since you're pushing the M1 Max to a point on its v/f curve where it's going to suffer. At least it is if you're trying to make an actual comparison based on efficiency, instead of an arbitrary performance comparison at a point near 30-35W. Yes, eventually there will be a 6+8 config Alder Lake-P out there with a published TDP of 35W (or so), so eventually this matchup may really happen. But if you're trying to make any broad statements about the relative efficiencies of the designs, such a comparison won't be entirely accurate.
My 5800X can do over 1800 single and 12000 multi
Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. MS-7B79 - Geekbench
Benchmark results for a Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. MS-7B79 with an AMD Ryzen 7 5800X processor.browser.geekbench.com
Er, technically the M1 Max die is enormous, but it has a lot more in there than IceStorm and FireStorm cores. If you take only the cores + cache of M1 Max then it is going to be smaller than Alder Lake-S though.
That aside, how do you then compare the efficiency? There are only so many good benchmarks in common between the M1 Max and 12900k, and it'll be awhile til we see an Alder Lake with a die area comparable to that of any M1 chip (again, not counting the iGPU + fixed function hardware bloat). Thanks to the heterogeneous nature of both chips, if you restrict thread count then you have to decide which cores to use? Plus Alder Lake hasn't got separate voltage rails for its core clusters, which is problematic.
See posts from dmens, his entire point was that comparing an M1 Max @ 30W to a hobbled 12900k (or really any other Alder Lake) @ 35W is dirty pool since you're pushing the M1 Max to a point on its v/f curve where it's going to suffer. At least it is if you're trying to make an actual comparison based on efficiency, instead of an arbitrary performance comparison at a point near 30-35W. Yes, eventually there will be a 6+8 config Alder Lake-P out there with a published TDP of 35W (or so), so eventually this matchup may really happen. But if you're trying to make any broad statements about the relative efficiencies of the designs, such a comparison won't be entirely accurate.
This is the fastest valid 5800X on Geekbench. Note that there are some faster results on Linux/macOS, but I skipped those.
Why you people seek to defend a multi-trillion dollar company with a monopoly on it’s own platform baffles me. Apple has great chips, but early indications (and not just the benchmark already shown) indicate ADL-P will be extremely competitive, even though Intel is on an inferior node.
We will see when Intel launches ADL-P along with it’s GPUs. Leaks show that their GPUs are much more efficient than NVIDIA. If Intel ends up beating Apple at perf/watt it will be very interesting. After all, why did Apple actually drop Intel if there are no benefits to end users? Oh that is right, there IS a benefit. Higher profit margins for Apple.
Keep in mind I am not anti Apple. I own stock with them, have an iPhone, do my work on a Mac, etc. I just get tired of people making bogus claims about the efficiency of their hardware.
Yeah just the same way we saw a 12900K pulling 217W in AIDA FPU.I don't think so. We have seen a 12400 leak running at 4.0 Ghz in AIDA64 FPU using 78W, it would probably need 70W in Cinebench MT and roughly 3.9 Ghz to stay within 65W. From 4.0 or 3.9 Ghz down to 3.4 Ghz is a different world. If it drops down to 3.4 Ghz in every test after 56s something is not right which isn't even a problem, it's an ES 12400 and the bios possibly isn't fully optimized for the upcoming 65W SKUs.
IIRC only K CPU have infinite turbo, "vanilla" CPU will go back to base clock after the burst.
Non-K parts not having infinite turbo is a myth, the CPU type has no influence on turbo settings: it's all decided by the motherboard, at UEFI level. I've seen both Z and B chipset boards with unlocked power & turbo timer settings for non-K CPUs at stock. Everything comes down to VRM quality and whatever the manufacturer decides.You can still set the locked parts to have infinite Tau, just that the recommended stock setting is to not do that.
It is a myth if only Intel intends and mobo makers do as they see fit.It's the "intended" behavior from Intel.
The fact the MoBo can ignore that doesn't make it a myth.
The intended behavior from intel is Pl2 for tau seconds and then Pl1, even for the unlocked K parts.It's the "intended" behavior from Intel.
The fact the MoBo can ignore that doesn't make it a myth.
The intended behavior from intel is Pl2 for tau seconds and then Pl1, even for the unlocked K parts.
That's what I understood...Intel is also making these processors have ‘infinite Turbo time’, meaning that with the right cooling, users should expect these processors to run up to the Turbo power indefinitely during heavy workloads.
If you want to remove variables, run ST and generate the perf/power curve. Leave aside the fact that ADL has much bigger p-cores and it will not scale as well on core counts per socket, by running ST you can see the architectural intent on how much area and power engineers are willing to spend to execute a single thread.
M1 max appears to be designed to operate at 30W and far beyond, and Apples performance claims would be inaccurate without that power draw.
Why you people seek to defend a multi-trillion dollar company with a monopoly on it’s own platform baffles me.
The intended behavior from intel is Pl2 for tau seconds and then Pl1, even for the unlocked K parts.
Here's Igor on the subject....Non-K parts not having infinite turbo is a myth, the CPU type has no influence on turbo settings: it's all decided by the motherboard, at UEFI level. I've seen both Z and B chipset boards with unlocked power & turbo timer settings for non-K CPUs at stock. Everything comes down to VRM quality and whatever the manufacturer decides.
Here's a very clear example from ASRock, see how VRM quality has a massive influence on max power (and may have further effect on Tau):
View attachment 52598
BFB stands for Base Frequency Boost.
That's what I understood...
No, we blame reviewers that take super hardcore overclocking mobos, don't change any setting and then try to sell the performance but also the power draw as normal, stock, default, or whatever else.So if Intel puts that in their design docs and nobody follows it, I guess we just blame the OEMs? Also, I thought PL1=PL2 now?
Intel Reportedly Doubles Alder Lake Power Consumption, PL1 is Now the Same as PL2 @ 241W | Hardware Times
Intel appears to have gone a bit overboard with Alder Lake, not only in terms of performance but also the power draw. As per data unearthed by our German friend Igor, the BIOSes of the upcoming Z690 motherboards have set the PL1 values equal to PL2, making the latter rather redundant. This...www.hardwaretimes.com
No, we blame reviewers that take super hardcore overclocking mobos, don't change any setting and then try to sell the performance but also the power draw as normal, stock, default, or whatever else.
Overall very good results for ADL + DDR4. I also saw some 4100 gear1 results on cheapest MSI Z690 results.
Turbo/boost settings for ST workloads are far more aggressive than in MT, though. Plus you aren't necessarily saturating interconnect (where applicable) and caches, if that matters.
The Intel-x86-Apple-GeekBench-Cinebench free for all deathmatch has been very long in the making 😆
Alder Lake-S is designed to operate at 241W and beyond, and Intel's performance claims would be inaccurate without that power draw . . .
(also, you should look at how much of M1 Max's power spec is dedicated to the actual CPU cores, vs. other parts of the die).
Some testing done on Norwegian fourm:
Stock win 11 pro from a z490 install:
12900k(8c/16t)@5.3Ghz / 5Ghz ring
16GB DDR4 @4000 MT/s Cl15 Gear1
3090@2130ish Mhz
View attachment 52602
Testing 8c/16t vs 16c/24t
SoTR 8c/16t: 277fps vs 16c/24t: 279fps
CS:GO 8c/16t: 898fps vs 16c/24t: 950fps
Division 2 8c/16t: 315fps vs 16c/24t: 296fps
FarCry6 8c/16t: 188fps vs 16c/24t: 189fps
R6 Siege 8c/16t: 823fps vs 16c/24t: 816fps
He is getting DDR5 testing rig up and running next week which will be tested aginst DDR4 system, using the same SP90 CPU
*edit*
Some other highly tuned DDR5 system for comparison:
Dram 6200, 1.35v VDDQ 1.2
View attachment 52603
View attachment 52604
*edit 2*
Even 4100 can be done in gear1 mode. (slower uncore speed = worse latency then first ddr4 picture)
4100MT/s CL14 Gear1