Intel produces another generation of space heaters

The performance per core do look extremelly impressive too if not by watt, does the benchmark used is good one ?

Because that 175% to 190% the performance by core than the Ryzen 5xxx at stock level....

Does kind of match the R20 one:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antony...900k-12700k-and-12600k-alder-lake-processors/

Specially if the big core can run a bit faster in big core only mode, I imagine in game where the performance in the first 6, 7, 8 when pushed it thread really matter it could translate in a giant difference and where AMD ability to have more cores matter not.
 
Last edited:
DPI said:
Yep, but the way you cope/downplay the new fastest CPU on the market is to suddenly insist power consumption is the most important metric.
Click to expand...
Nobody's downloading it. We're just nothing that they're hot stuff. Again.
 
Eh, it's not on the consumer market yet where it can be judged in real world usage.

As for "suddenly"......no. People have cared about cpu power consumption for a long time. Well, not so much power consumption but heat generation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Axman
like this
NightReaver said:
Eh, it's not on the consumer market yet where it can be judged in real world usage.

As for "suddenly"......no. People have cared about cpu power consumption for a long time. Well, not so much power consumption but heat generation.
Click to expand...
I ran a 125W CPU once...thing heated up whatever room it was in, no matter the size. That and the Xfire 6950s :) 105W is where I max out
 
Dan_D said:
Most people couldn't care less about desktop CPU power consumption. As long as they can keep it cool enough to maintain reliability, most people just don't care.
Click to expand...
You’re right. They’re happy with pentiums, celerons, i3s and i5s. For people who shop specifically for a cpu, the TDP matters, that’s why they put it in the description. Higher tdp means either more noise or more expensive cooling. Sure those people may be willing to deal with the sacrifices, but power consumption drives cost, be it money or sanity.
 
Dan_D said:
Most people couldn't care less about desktop CPU power consumption. As long as they can keep it cool enough to maintain reliability, most people just don't care.
Click to expand...

Virtually no one care about power consumption (has long has it do not push a PSU upgrade) but many care about the direct proxy that is the heat generation and the either more expansion or noisier cooling that come with, including Hp-Dell of the world (has it rise the PSU and cooling solution cost).

And with California new law, I imagine that a lot of important player do start to care about actual consumption has well, I think dell-hp could not sell pre-build with big gpu in some states because of the power usage rules.
 
LukeTbk said:
And with California new law, I imagine that a lot of important player do start to care about actual consumption has well, I think dell-hp could not sell pre-build with big gpu in some states because of the power usage rules.
Click to expand...
Those rules are full of opportunties for rules-lawyering, btw. Adding a selection of I/O gives vendors the chance to increase the system power limits quite a bit.
 
Dan_D said:
Most people couldn't care less about desktop CPU power consumption.
Click to expand...
Most of them will probably never be in a situation where they'd see big consumption, either. Dell's desktops are, by and large, 35 and 65W systems, as I'm sure you know, and Dell is obsessive about keeping to stock power limits even at the cost of computing power.
 
Dan_D said:
Most people couldn't care less about desktop CPU power consumption. As long as they can keep it cool enough to maintain reliability, most people just don't care.
Click to expand...
People don't care because most people buy sane CPUs.

I'm not saying I care too much on my main rig... like most here I don't care as long as my cooling system can handle things without sounding like a Jet... at least not unless I want it too. :) (and like most people here I want to be able to make it sounds like a Jet to impress other geeks)
 
I don't understand why people are complaining - the OC'd 12900K has 30% higher single thread performance than the 5950X (which boosts to a similar 5.x GHz) at a downright reasonable 1.385V, and performs like a 12-core Zen3 in Cinebench. That's unbelievable gen-on-gen performance and honestly gets within striking distance of the M1's IPC, but can boost to 5GHz versus the M1's 3.x GHz.
If you're the performance king by this much you're allowed to pull as much power as you want, there will always be customers. I for one welcome the first real leap in x86 performance since Nehalem came launched in late '08.
 
Last edited:
Alder is looking interesting...
On the other hand... the good will I was feeling cause Intel was trying something actually NEW. Was sort of burned with Windows 11 scheduler crap. Not that I'm a windows person or anything... just being reminded of the WinTel AMD bending over of days past, as its happening again either by accident, or by accidently on purpose. Well anyway it brings back some sore feelings.

Alder is sort of starting to look like a bust. IMO The first gen is going to have software issues... the top of the line sure will better AMDs chips from last year. (at least by some metrics... and on Win 11 lol) DDR 5 is likely going to be a PITA to find and costly... and boards with DDR4 are going to be far from enthusiast class.

I think AMD has outsmarted Intel this round. They are going to offer a +1 with their 3D cache that will almost assuredly regain them the benchmark crown single and multi core.... and slot into existing mature DDR 4 boards to do it. (well assuming Microsoft doesn't disable their 3D cache in Win 11... fuck that should be a joke but it isn't) For the masses the mid range options are all going to be DDR 4 anyway.... and the mid range Alder parts in low end boards aren't going to shine. AMD can afford to wait for the gen after to move to DDR 5.
 
bwang said:
and performs like a 12-core Zen3 in Cinebench
Click to expand...
I am missing that part from that thread, but the cpu-z benchmark show more than 20% than a 12 core zen3 than a stock 12900k and that with no small core, in cinebench at stock:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antony...900k-12700k-and-12600k-alder-lake-processors/

Almost 40% above I think.

ChadD said:
They are going to offer a +1 with their 3D cache that will almost assuredly regain them the benchmark crown single and multi core...
Click to expand...

If the rumor of the sort are a good indication:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antony...900k-12700k-and-12600k-alder-lake-processors/

That seem very unlikely, would need an over 25% jump. The next generation AMD should, a revision would be surprising.
 
LukeTbk said:
I am missing that part from that thread, but the cpu-z benchmark show more than 20% than a 12 core zen3 than a stock 12900k and that with no small core, in cinebench at stock:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antony...900k-12700k-and-12600k-alder-lake-processors/

Almost 40% above I think.



If the rumor of the sort are a good indication:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antony...900k-12700k-and-12600k-alder-lake-processors/

That seem very unlikely, would need an over 25% jump. The next generation AMD should, a revision would be surprising.
Click to expand...
Those benches don't impress me at all. Single threaded in cinebench ? Who cares, AMD still wins in Multi core... if I'm rendering for a living I still want a Ryzen. I don't see how this benchmark makes Intel look good in anyway. Sure single thread is up... so what its still a 8 core part. Intel themselves will NOT be showing off Cinebench scores... not cause it doesn't say anything useful, but rather as it does. :)

The only things I can think of that I would care about single threaded performance in at this point are a few games... which I KNOW are better served by tripling the CPU cache. AMD is saying 12-25% more game performance with the 3Dcache chips. No doubt the games that will see actual 25% numbers will be the ones that are still heavily single threaded. Where Intel might look good with single thread performance... yes AMDs increased cache will likely end up winning. I'm not feeling very good for Intel after seeing these benches... they are far less impressive then people are raving about. (unless Microsoft has some magic Win 11 Scheduler that actually makes good use of those 8 mini cores)
 
bwang said:
I don't understand why people are complaining
Click to expand...

Copium.

bwang said:
If you're the performance king by this much you're allowed to pull as much power as you want, there will always be customers. I for one welcome the first real leap in x86 performance since Nehalem came launched in late '08.
Click to expand...

Of course. I for one am looking forwarding to VR frametimes decreasing even further with the big IPC uplift with 12900k. And I will always rather take 8 uber-powerful cores, over 16 less-powerful cores to reach the same MT performance, if given the choice. Gotta remember that when you go beyond 8cores/16threads, the scaling for many applications and games falls off a cliff - 12c/24t and 16c/32t don't scale as perfectly and linearly as a synthetic Cinebench score. Most of us aren't "rendering for a living".
 
Last edited:
I think it's funny when people root for one corporation over another like it's a local sports team. Excuse me, popcorn's done.
 
JSHamlet234 said:
I think it's funny when people root for one corporation over another like it's a local sports team. Excuse me, popcorn's done.
Click to expand...
The hobby is a lot more entertaining... when there is actual competition. :) If we all threw in on one side... there wouldn't be any; how boring indeed. lol
It is cool to see Intel trying something different... even if it isn't really aimed at enthusiasts. Imagine what Alder could have been if they had managed to built it on a smaller process and shove 16 real cores into it.
 
ChadD said:
Alder is looking interesting...
On the other hand... the good will I was feeling cause Intel was trying something actually NEW. Was sort of burned with Windows 11 scheduler crap. Not that I'm a windows person or anything... just being reminded of the WinTel AMD bending over of days past, as its happening again either by accident, or by accidently on purpose. Well anyway it brings back some sore feelings.

Alder is sort of starting to look like a bust. IMO The first gen is going to have software issues... the top of the line sure will better AMDs chips from last year. (at least by some metrics... and on Win 11 lol) DDR 5 is likely going to be a PITA to find and costly... and boards with DDR4 are going to be far from enthusiast class.

I think AMD has outsmarted Intel this round. They are going to offer a +1 with their 3D cache that will almost assuredly regain them the benchmark crown single and multi core.... and slot into existing mature DDR 4 boards to do it. (well assuming Microsoft doesn't disable their 3D cache in Win 11... fuck that should be a joke but it isn't) For the masses the mid range options are all going to be DDR 4 anyway.... and the mid range Alder parts in low end boards aren't going to shine. AMD can afford to wait for the gen after to move to DDR 5.
Click to expand...
Alder Lake as a product is sort of crap for the enthusiast market and I think everyone knows that. It goes back to Intel's long-standing tradition of not building a die specifically for mainstream enthusiasts (hence why every -K CPU since Sandy Bridge has had an on-die GPU). The answer is probably to disable the E-cores altogether and not deal with scheduler nonsense.

I think for this gen AMD holds on, and may even be the preferred market choice based on platform costs and memory support, but Alder Lake (specifically, Golden Cove) is a huge breakthrough in the cores themselves. ADL is good enough that its worth buying now, and bodes very well for upcoming Golden Cove based HEDT ("Sapphire Rapids"), which is slated to have many P-cores and no E-cores.

I for one welcome the return of real competition in the sector, AMD was getting a little too confident what with their price hikes, short supply, lack of real midrange parts, and $4000+ high end. Alder Lake and its successors should keep prices in check for some time, and that's good for all of us.


LukeTbk said:
I am missing that part from that thread, but the cpu-z benchmark show more than 20% than a 12 core zen3 than a stock 12900k and that with no small core, in cinebench at stock:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antony...900k-12700k-and-12600k-alder-lake-processors/
Click to expand...
Looks about the same to me - I think the fair comparison is stock 12900K vs "overclocked" (probably, PBO) 5950X, since we know stock AMD abides by power limits and stock Intel does not.
 
bwang said:
I for one welcome the return of real competition in the sector, AMD was getting a little too confident what with their price hikes, short supply, lack of real midrange parts, and $4000+ high end. Alder Lake and its successors should keep prices in check for some time, and that's good for all of us.
Click to expand...
And they didn't even bother with an updated Threadripper lineup, because Intel didn't have a HEDT part that required one, I eagerly await the HEDT lineup so I can see what Intel brings to the table in 2022. I once again pushed back my workstation upgrade because the Lenovo Threadrippers were too much money, but the Xeon-W's were too little performance, I am hoping with a little heat under them AMD might come to play. And I am really hoping Intel can bring that heat because I am seeing that much of what I do work-wise I can now do on the M1 Max better than I can on my current setup and I don't want to make that leap, I have no problem visiting the MacOS ecosystem but I don't want to live there.
 
DPI said:
Yep, but the way you cope/downplay the new fastest CPU on the market is to suddenly insist power consumption is the most important metric.
Click to expand...

Well, thats been the game for years. CPU or GPUs. Oh no, those FX space heaters are such a waste! Buy a faster, more expensive Intel and then overclock it anyway to use even more power! But like, heat matters man! Oh, hey I'm gonna buy an i5 K model and overclock the heck outta it and spend $150 on AIO water cooling for it. I mean the i7 is just too much money and who needs more than 4c/4t?

Then there was the Nvidia blow dryer/grill memes back to low power and better performance but more cost with maxwell and beyond. New AMD gpus being better than old ones because the new ones used 50w less power but cost $50-100 more (Polaris vs Navi).

Heck, toss in the debate about WD's Green drives too. Look at all that power saved! Only to have those drives die within a 2 year warranty enough that the whole name gets retired for about 5 years and firmware fixes to stop drives from dying so much.
 
Ranulfo said:
Well, thats been the game for years. CPU or GPUs. Oh no, those FX space heaters are such a waste! Buy a faster, more expensive Intel and then overclock it anyway to use even more power! But like, heat matters man! Oh, hey I'm gonna buy an i5 K model and overclock the heck outta it and spend $150 on AIO water cooling for it. I mean the i7 is just too much money and who needs more than 4c/4t?

Then there was the Nvidia blow dryer/grill memes back to low power and better performance but more cost with maxwell and beyond. New AMD gpus being better than old ones because the new ones used 50w less power but cost $50-100 more (Polaris vs Navi).

Heck, toss in the debate about WD's Green drives too. Look at all that power saved! Only to have those drives die within a 2 year warranty enough that the whole name gets retired for about 5 years and firmware fixes to stop drives from dying so much.
Click to expand...

i5s have 6 cores now instead of only 4. They're actually pretty competent chips for their price.
 
ZodaEX said:
i5s have 6 cores now instead of only 4. They're actually pretty competent chips for their price.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. To make my reference more clear, I was comparing the FX era vs say Haswell/Skylake i5 chips. The i5 post sandy/ivybridge were mostly nonsense until 10th gen when they gave them all hyperthreading and even then I realized I should have bought a 2600k instead of the 2500k but there were plenty of people who wouldn't listen to those of us with that experience 2-3 years later.
 
bwang said:
Looks about the same to me - I think the fair comparison is stock 12900K vs "overclocked" (probably, PBO) 5950X, since we know stock AMD abides by power limits and stock Intel does not.
Click to expand...
The statement I was responding too talked about
bwang said:
and performs like a 12-core Zen3 in Cinebench
Click to expand...

12 core (5900x) not 16, maybe it was a typo ?
 
Still haven’t moved on from my 8086k (generally satisfactory) and 1070Ti (terrible supply).

No clue if Windows 11 is supported but I can a) write software and b) play some counterstike.
 
ChadD said:
The hobby is a lot more entertaining... when there is actual competition. :) If we all threw in on one side... there wouldn't be any; how boring indeed. lol
It is cool to see Intel trying something different... even if it isn't really aimed at enthusiasts. Imagine what Alder could have been if they had managed to built it on a smaller process and shove 16 real cores into it.
Click to expand...

So far all we've seen are leaks and rumors. That single-thread performance probably is really good though. My guess is that when the real reviews appear in 2 weeks or so, it's going to be a fairly even match on productivity applications but a blood bath in gaming for 12900K vs 5950X. For the lower SKUs, I think it's going to be a win for Intel across the board.
 
cjcox said:
Given the likely price of gas this winter, maybe there will be a huge demand for Intel space heaters?
Click to expand...
If you're lucky enough to have electricity, were in for another one of Biden's "Dark Winters".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top