Andrei F said:ST Scores : 1504 vs 1905 +26.6%
Integer Scores: 1415 vs 1622 +14.6%
FP Scores: 1631 vs 1881 +15.3%
Crypto Scores: 1902 vs 5727 +201%
Both around same frequency at 5288MHz.
Unfortunately the crypto score is outlandishly distorting the overall scores, +15% IPC is what you should actually be expecting from an Ice Lake derivative. GeekBench 6 is going to be removing the dedicated crypto tests as this is now causing issues.
It seem that Crypto just add AVX512 support and that's why RKL could take the lead in this item.
Maybe for clients not but most server loads uses SSL for basically everything, and speedup due to AES makes a lot of difference how much time the request takes to be routed to the worker nodes from the proxy / balancer.AES IMO is nowhere near general enough to be such a part of the score
A smart move from Intel, which lately has only been redirecting customers to the AMD camp.
Intel confirms B460 and H410 motherboards will not support 11th Gen Core Rocket Lake CPUs - VideoCardz.com
No Rocket Lake support on B460/H470 motherboards Intel will force budget-oriented customers to buy 500 series motherboards if they chose Rocket Lake CPUs. Intel has now confirmed that existing entry-level H410 and mid-range B460 motherboards will not be compatible with upcoming Intel Rocket Lake...videocardz.com
Wonder if there is any technical reason for this, or is it pure segmentation again?A smart move from Intel, which lately has only been redirecting customers to the AMD camp.
Intel confirms B460 and H410 motherboards will not support 11th Gen Core Rocket Lake CPUs - VideoCardz.com
No Rocket Lake support on B460/H470 motherboards Intel will force budget-oriented customers to buy 500 series motherboards if they chose Rocket Lake CPUs. Intel has now confirmed that existing entry-level H410 and mid-range B460 motherboards will not be compatible with upcoming Intel Rocket Lake...videocardz.com
Nope. In fact, we now have "H410" boards that actually come with a H470 chipset just to get around this.Wonder if there is any technical reason for this, or is it pure segmentation again?
Clutching for a technical reason, I guess as probably the last 14nm product, Rocket Lake might mean power hungrier than Comet Lake but still if Z490 supports Rocket Lake that would only make sense if Intel gave the mobo manufacturer the wrong spec for B460/H410 versus Z490.
Wonder if there is any technical reason for this, or is it pure segmentation again?
Clutching for a technical reason, I guess as probably the last 14nm product, Rocket Lake might mean power hungrier than Comet Lake but still if Z490 supports Rocket Lake that would only make sense if Intel gave the mobo manufacturer the wrong spec for B460/H410 versus Z490.
AlderLake-S ADP-S DDR5
Base Frequency 2.19 GHz
Maximum Frequency 27.2 GHz
I wonder if it's 2.72 Ghz maximum frequency.
1T score is on par with the 9900K, and 27.2/8 = 3.4, so that's where my guess is. This score makes the most sense between the 3.4-3.6GHz range.
B460 and H410 (Comet Point-V) are actually 22nm Kaby Point-H dies (originally 200 Series). The other 400 Series chipsets are 14nm Comet Point-H, and the 500 Series are 14nm Tiger Point-H. Intel just happened to use the same stepping designation (A0) for CMP-H as KBP-H, which I'm sure wasn't intentional at all.Wonder if there is any technical reason for this, or is it pure segmentation again?
Clutching for a technical reason, I guess as probably the last 14nm product, Rocket Lake might mean power hungrier than Comet Lake but still if Z490 supports Rocket Lake that would only make sense if Intel gave the mobo manufacturer the wrong spec for B460/H410 versus Z490.
Geez, that would be a pretty poor all core frequency. Ofc, it's probably an engineering sample on non optimized BIOS.1T score is on par with the 9900K, and 27.2/8 = 3.4, so that's where my guess is. This score makes the most sense between the 3.4-3.6GHz range.
There's something up with the memory tests too. Despite reporting as DDR5, the bandwidth and latency looks more like low clocked but very tightly tuned DDR4.Makes more sense but even with 3.4-3.6 Ghz it's a big IPC boost when I look to 4.7 Ghz i7-1165G7, this score is oddly high for 3.4-3.6 Ghz.
Intel will still need higher clocks to take on AMD, in addition to the IPC boosts. Even though I think Geekbench is like using a pair of binoculars to study the rings of Saturn.There's something up with the memory tests too. Despite reporting as DDR5, the bandwidth and latency looks more like low clocked but very tightly tuned DDR4.
Intel Corporation Alder Lake Client Platform vs Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. MS-7B17 - Geekbench Browser
But in any case, at 3.4GHz compared to 5GHz it's roughly a 1.45x IPC improvement over Skylake. At 3.6GHz it's roughly a 40% IPC improvement. Definitely on the higher side of things, but can't say it's totally unexpected. I was expecting more of the second though if I'm honest - more like a 40% improvement, but hey, both are good.
Well I certainly wouldn't expect Alder Lake to cap out at the mid-3GHz range ahahahahaha.Intel will still need higher clocks to take on AMD, in addition to the IPC boosts. Even though I think Geekbench is like using a pair of binoculars to study the rings of Saturn.
Well I certainly wouldn't expect Alder Lake to cap out at the mid-3GHz range ahahahahaha.
No chance of the final version going any lower than 4.3GHz, because then we're talking about potentially lower 1T perf than TGL-H actual.
5GHz and 40% IPC over Comet by the end of this year would be fabulous, .