The core i9 12900K used 2.3x power than the Ryzen 5950x in official benchmark

HeadRusch

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
1,571
You missed the point. If you limit one system to a lower wattage, it can’t boost. They crippled the ryzen system to make alder lake look good. It’s not that it used 250w- it’s that ryzen was limited to 105.
Well, to be fair to me I guess, I said if it turns out this is nonsense well, then Intel is being intel (in so many words). I was reacting more to the people who were pointing out the power draw for the CPU's......which for me, and I'm guessing a few others, is "who cares.....want moar framez".
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
29,862
Well, to be fair to me I guess, I said if it turns out this is nonsense well, then Intel is being intel (in so many words). I was reacting more to the people who were pointing out the power draw for the CPU's......which for me, and I'm guessing a few others, is "who cares.....want moar framez".

Then I guess the PSA for those like yourself is, wait for a real review before splashing around money on a new CPU, motherboard, and RAM...all of which are somewhat more expensive than what's out there right now.

If they are intentionally crippling the benchmarks from the competition and are also failing to show productivity benchmarks (the Intel way it seems), it has me wondering what else they aren't telling me and lying about.
 

HeadRusch

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
1,571
Then I guess the PSA for those like yourself is, wait for a real review before splashing around money on a new CPU, motherboard, and RAM...all of which are somewhat more expensive than what's out there right now.

If they are intentionally crippling the benchmarks from the competition and are also failing to show productivity benchmarks (the Intel way it seems), it has me wondering what else they aren't telling me and lying about.
I wouldn't disagree.
 

1_rick

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
2,674
To be fair, Intel 10nm has around the same transistor density as TSMC 7nm, which is why Intel's marketing scheme is calling this process "Intel 7."
Someone here claimed that this was true originally, but the reason 10nm was delayed so long was because they couldn't get it to work with that density and had to back off. Sure would be nice if there were a way to verify that claim.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,618
Does this surprise anybody? If it does you haven't been paying attention to Intel marketing for the last 5 years.
My thoughts, Intel is on the same process so why would anyone think they are suddenly going to have some massive break through to lower power consumption and heat?
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
5,779
Someone here claimed that this was true originally, but the reason 10nm was delayed so long was because they couldn't get it to work with that density and had to back off. Sure would be nice if there were a way to verify that claim.
It’s more complicated than that, Intel designed a new gate type which has evolved into the Gate All Around design that everybody is supposedly using for 3nm onwards. But they never made it work at 10nm and had to backpedal. Intels biggest problem here was they had designed their next generation or two of processors with the new gates then when that whole process failed they had to backpedal all their designs and start from scratch.

I am trying to find the original announcements of the gate design from 2017’ish… I think Anandtech did an article on it.

Intel Lateral Nanowire, is what they called it, I can find references to it but the links to specific articles are dead in most cases.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kac77
like this

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,620
Well, to be fair to me I guess, I said if it turns out this is nonsense well, then Intel is being intel (in so many words). I was reacting more to the people who were pointing out the power draw for the CPU's......which for me, and I'm guessing a few others, is "who cares.....want moar framez".
I’m on Threadripper and x299 for my two mains. Power limits are a lol. I can pull 350w for my cpu alone!
 

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
18,795
Gasp! Oh no! Not the scawy power usage monster! If its a badass, its a badass. Seriously, who cares? This is [H].
I've got enough capacity to cool anything AMD, Intel, Nvidia or anyone else can dream up, as long as i can slap a block on it im gtg. I aint scurred 😂
My only interest is high end bang for the buck when i can finally be bothered to find a gpu for a decent price. If ever. The more time that goes by the less i seem to care.
Wait a second! You care about GPU prices but not energy prices? Hmm, I've got a cheap GTX 480 to sell you :)
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
29,862
Wait a second! You care about GPU prices but not energy prices? Hmm, I've got a cheap GTX 480 to sell you :)

I get it that some people only use their computers for gaming or whatever and power draw is one variable that isn't as important as others. That's fine. But for some reason, these same people never consider the fact that some computers are 24/7 devices in certain workloads.
 

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
18,795
I get it that some people only use their computers for gaming or whatever and power draw is one variable that isn't as important as others. That's fine. But for some reason, these same people never consider the fact that some computers are 24/7 devices in certain workloads.
Back when I didn't have to pay my own electric bill, I would agree "Who cares how much power it sucks, as long as my games have high frame rates!" That's not the case anymore.
 

hititnquitit

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
1,742
Wait a second! You care about GPU prices but not energy prices? Hmm, I've got a cheap GTX 480 to sell you :)
Hell yess man! Power is cheap as hell. Particularly when i rarely get to enjoy my rig these days. Gpus are just stoopid. No way in hell im spending as much for one part as i will for the rest of my rig.
Haha, thanks but I've already got a box full of space heaters.
 

hititnquitit

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
1,742
I get it that some people only use their computers for gaming or whatever and power draw is one variable that isn't as important as others. That's fine. But for some reason, these same people never consider the fact that some computers are 24/7 devices in certain workloads.
Why would you assume that?
There's always more than one tool for a job. Ryzen, TR, EPYC, Xeon, plenty of options. AL is just the latest.
Just wait until Winter time.
Our furnace has been running for two weeks!
 

Mackintire

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
2,941
So there's a couple things at play here. Intel chips have a burstable turbo mode speed that can only be sustained for a short period, they also have a different slower turbo mode that can run "x" number of cores indefinitely.

The peak number is that short burstable number. AMD vCache acts like L4 cache and at lower core counts has some more narrow use cases, but at higher core counts 32 cores per socket and higher... it allows the cores not to become memory-starved improving performance for a greater number of applications.

The expectation is that AMD will maintain the lead in wide multicore execution with good power efficiency.

Intel will be able to provide a faster solution than AMD on the desktop for a number of processor options, but drawing more power to do so and narrowing Intel's profit margins

At lower thread counts, Intel's turbo mode with the new architecture will show huge gains...while pulling lots of power. Hopefully no more than 150% TDP

This is a bit better than Ice Lake, as that processor becomes fairly inefficient at normal tasks when any turbo mode is involved. Running as high as 185% TDP So much so that many datacenter operators don't want to use it for general compute workloads.

AMD processors with vCache are expensive, and I believe the performance delta between the two will ultimately come down to the threading and the software.

AMD still has a smaller more efficient processor under load.

Intel's new design will probably pull previously unseen levels of efficiency while performing office tasks or web browsing.

All in all Intel is closing the performance gap but not the efficiency gap while under load. This will make choosing a winner quite a bit more complex, depending on the task at hand.

Lots to unpack with this release...
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
5,779
So there's a couple things at play here. Intel chips have a burstable turbo mode speed that can only be sustained for a short period, they also have a different slower turbo mode that can run "x" number of cores indefinitely.

The peak number is that short burstable number. AMD vCache acts like L4 cache and at lower core counts has some more narrow use cases, but at higher core counts 32 cores per socket and higher... it allows the cores not to become memory-starved improving performance for a greater number of applications.

The expectation is that AMD will maintain the lead in wide multicore execution with good power efficiency.

Intel will be able to provide a faster solution than AMD on the desktop for a number of processor options, but drawing more power to do so and narrowing Intel's profit margins

At lower thread counts, Intel's turbo mode with the new architecture will show huge gains...while pulling lots of power. Hopefully no more than 150% TDP

This is a bit better than Ice Lake, as that processor becomes fairly inefficient at normal tasks when any turbo mode is involved. Running as high as 185% TDP So much so that many datacenter operators don't want to use it for general compute workloads.

AMD processors with vCache are expensive, and I believe the performance delta between the two will ultimately come down to the threading and the software.

AMD still has a smaller more efficient processor under load.

Intel's new design will probably pull previously unseen levels of efficiency while performing office tasks or web browsing.

All in all Intel is closing the performance gap but not the efficiency gap while under load. This will make choosing a winner quite a bit more complex, depending on the task at hand.

Lots to unpack with this release...
This is basically Intel’s Ryzen 1…. AMD has a 2 gen lead, let’s see what AMD brings to the table and what Intel can pull out of their magic hat. It won’t be a rabbit but maybe a Moose at the very least.
 

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,196
So there's a couple things at play here. Intel chips have a burstable turbo mode speed that can only be sustained for a short period, they also have a different slower turbo mode that can run "x" number of cores indefinitely.

The peak number is that short burstable number. AMD vCache acts like L4 cache and at lower core counts has some more narrow use cases, but at higher core counts 32 cores per socket and higher... it allows the cores not to become memory-starved improving performance for a greater number of applications.

The expectation is that AMD will maintain the lead in wide multicore execution with good power efficiency.

Intel will be able to provide a faster solution than AMD on the desktop for a number of processor options, but drawing more power to do so and narrowing Intel's profit margins

At lower thread counts, Intel's turbo mode with the new architecture will show huge gains...while pulling lots of power. Hopefully no more than 150% TDP

This is a bit better than Ice Lake, as that processor becomes fairly inefficient at normal tasks when any turbo mode is involved. Running as high as 185% TDP So much so that many datacenter operators don't want to use it for general compute workloads.

AMD processors with vCache are expensive, and I believe the performance delta between the two will ultimately come down to the threading and the software.

AMD still has a smaller more efficient processor under load.

Intel's new design will probably pull previously unseen levels of efficiency while performing office tasks or web browsing.

All in all Intel is closing the performance gap but not the efficiency gap while under load. This will make choosing a winner quite a bit more complex, depending on the task at hand.

Lots to unpack with this release...
All of this sounds spot on.

You really need to post more often.
 

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,789
I pay for power, but I also want to use my computer at 100%. If that costs a few more dollars in electricity per month, whatever. It's not much of a concern.

Intel might get the crown for gaming performance (especially since games are pretty heavy on a couple cores) but I still think AMD will have an all around better platform.

Especially if you do anything other than gaming on the PC, AMD is in a much better position. I can compile a whole 3D engine in like a minute and a half on my rig. It's great.
 

Mackintire

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
2,941
Ok...Since you're asking for me to pull out my crystal ball.

Basically, the next couple processor releases are fairly set, unless AMD or Intel screws up.

Here's what's most likely to occur for the server market: Desktop processors can/may have more refreshes, alterations etc...
  • Winter 2021 AMD releases Milian+ which has v-Cache...roughly 6 months later
  • Late spring or beginning of 2nd qtr 2022 Intel releases Sapphire Rapids, and narrows the gap....roughly 6 months later
  • Nov/Dec 2022 AMD releases Zen 4, widening the gap.....roughly 6 months later
  • Late spring or beginning of 2nd qtr 2023 Intel releases another processor which is an improved version of Sapphire Rapids on 5nm.... Which is expected to narrow the gap again.
  • At some point in 2024 AMD releases Zen 5, which includes big/little cores (Dr. Lisa Su confirmed this) This will be the first Zen design that didn't have Jim Keller's involvement. His role working on Zen and discussions on Zen 2- Zen 4 was to teach the engineering staff how to design a good microprocessor, and guide the design process. His role was not to do the fine detail work, but to ensure their overall design was sound and make big decisions only when they headed down the wrong path and to teach them why it was the wrong path. Keller himself, humble as always, refuses to say Zen or any of the subsequent releases was his design.
  • Mid-Late 2024 Intel introduces a completely New Processor architecture and expects to have a large lead over AMD .... or at least that is what Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger is telling people.
 

Mackintire

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
2,941
I pay for power, but I also want to use my computer at 100%. If that costs a few more dollars in electricity per month, whatever. It's not much of a concern.

Intel might get the crown for gaming performance (especially since games are pretty heavy on a couple cores) but I still think AMD will have an all around better platform.

Especially if you do anything other than gaming on the PC, AMD is in a much better position. I can compile a whole 3D engine in like a minute and a half on my rig. It's great.

My first tiny apartment 600 sq , I heated the second floor with a Core 2 Extreme QX6700 processor overclocked. When I finally decided to rebuild the PC, a month later I realized my electric bill dropped by $17 and the second floor temperature had dropped by 5 degrees.

That thing idled at 248 watts with my 17' Sony CRT power off.

Running the euphoria screen saver I think the whole setup was pushing 335 watts doing little else. Ok ok the RAID 10 setup using (4) 72GB Raptor HDs was not helping either. :whistle:
 

Brackle

Old Timer
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
8,023
Don't get me wrong I was interested in the new Alder Lake chips. But those power uses to finally catchup/beat AMD its....shocking. And now AMD has 1 more upgrade for AM4 users is a good thing.

It almost makes me wonder if its the DDR5 helping boost the FPS? Who knows though. We just need more competition!
 

BlueLineSwinger

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
1,195
I doubt they will ever get it working on 10 properly, if at all. No chance for 7. Just stick with older hardware.

No, Adler Lake and next few generations will work properly and be fully supported in Win10, if only for enterprise support (i.e., no IT dept. is going to be in any hurry to move to Win11).

That said, there are some aspects that will work better with Win11, such as how the scheduler works with the CPU's Thread Director to assign jobs to the P and E cores.

And yeah, it's time to let Win7 go.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
29,862
Don't get me wrong I was interested in the new Alder Lake chips. But those power uses to finally catchup/beat AMD its....shocking. And now AMD has 1 more upgrade for AM4 users is a good thing.

It almost makes me wonder if its the DDR5 helping boost the FPS? Who knows though. We just need more competition!

I'm sure that high end DDR4 (say 4000+) is probably better performing than low end DDR5 at this point due to the lower CL. It's really no different than the old high end DDR3 being faster than low end DDR4 when launched. Personally, I don't see it as being a good investment to buy lower end DDR5 now when a year from now it will be faster and cheaper. That being said, I wouldn't go out and buy high end DDR4 either, so if you're buying new, I'd buy DDR5 I guess.
 

mgty23

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
1,664

\

I was going to pick one up but going to wait for Meteor Lake or something better off buying a new GPU. Won't be much of a upgrade from my 10850K which I picked up right after X-Mas using a gift card. Plus it's going to run hot so I wonder what the life cycle of the cpu will be. You gotta figure 670.00 for the CPU 300.00 for the MB then DDR5 is going to be priced really high at first if you don't settle on a DDR4 MB.

propably fake,wait for official
 

Tengis

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 11, 2003
Messages
5,471
Hypervise, always. Then why not add some DOS 6.22, 9x and XP love to the mix too! ;-)
I cannot even begin to fathom why someone would still want to use Windows 7. The hate for each new version of windows never ceases to amaze me. If only Microsoft could find what Apple puts in the kool aid.

Even crazier, somewhere out there some guy is still using XP because "xP fOrEvEr LOL M$!"
 

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,620
I cannot even begin to fathom why someone would still want to use Windows 7. The hate for each new version of windows never ceases to amaze me. If only Microsoft could find what Apple puts in the kool aid.

Even crazier, somewhere out there some guy is still using XP because "xP fOrEvEr LOL M$!"
I still have XP.

In a virtual machine.
 

Lumpus

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Messages
426
Ah... a perfect thread for my Easybake oven pic with Intel Inside.... and now I can't find the bloody thing!
 

Delicieuxz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,307
Don't forget that Alder Lake doesn't work with existing versions of some DRM (like Denuvo) and so you won't be able to play a bunch of games with it unless developers update the DRM.

I'll be skipping Alder Lake. Wish Zen 4 would get here sooner, though.
 

Shoganai

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
1,427
Don't forget that Alder Lake doesn't work with existing versions of some DRM (like Denuvo) and so you won't be able to play a bunch of games with it unless developers update the DRM.

I'll be skipping Alder Lake. Wish Zen 4 would get here sooner, though.
That’s pretty stupid. Intel is always bragging about gaming, but their new chip will cut off many games. I guess if you own the game, you can find a pirated version with the DRM removed.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,531
Do y'all think there will still be work arounds to installing Windows 7 on Alder Lake chips?
No there won't even be work arounds to get it working properly on windows 10.
The way this chip works needs a custom scheduler... if you got it to run on win 7 8 or 10 you will not like the experience.
 
Top