Question Alder Lake - Official Thread

[Hulk]

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.

 

[LikeLinus]

<anti-mark>5800x3D is an act of desperation to try to and win the gaming market because they think it's important.</anti-mark>

Not sure how any of this has to do with AMD, but I dang sure know that Mark will find a way to disparage Intel and promote AMD to its fullest!!!!

 

[LikeLinus]

By comparison, My 12700F does sometimes 300 watts with all threads going, and usually at least 200. And my criticism of the 12900k and 12900ks is mostly about high power consumption and heat. I need a big tower cooler for my 12700F.

So, you hate Ferrari's, Lambos, Porche and every sports car ever made. You don't see many people whiling while about the MPG of high performance sports cars, their MPG or RPMs they run, right?? what do you drive that is electric and destroys all over vehicles? Do you live "less is more" for your whole life?"

Watts and Power isn't everything. Period. Sometimes people want the best and you're trying to twist and turn a product that isn't even released, to something grand.
Very odd!

 

[Mopetar]

One could argue that the problem isn't Intel's technology. The actual problem is their insistence to be on top and their refusal and self-denial in accepting defeat. This is what is forcing them to create power hogging products. If they simply accept that they have a good product and their product is good at doing certain stuff, then they can simply market it as such and keep power levels in check because then they don't have to prove anything to anyone. People who see value in their product will still buy it.

Case in point: their ARC GPU. They know it can't compete on performance with the established players so they are being creative in their marketing and showing users what they would gain from their product. This same approach on the CPU side would benefit them too, if they can somehow overcome their massive ego.

You don't see ARM running ads showing how their CPU designs are better than Intel or AMD CPUs. They created their own niche and became successful as a result.

I think the best example of this is Nintendo. Both Sony and Microsoft were trying to design and sell what could be considered mid-range gaming PCs (at the time of launch) at subsidized prices or zero profit and Nintendo "noped" out of that and went on to have wild successes with the Wii, DS, and Switch by doing their own thing.

To some degree Intel did this by noticing AMD had nothing below $300 and putting some great products into those buckets. A 12400 beats out the 11900K (at well under half the price to boot) and it's hard to argue that unless they have money to burn that the average gamer should get anything else right now. Strange that we see AMD finally release the bottom half of the Zen 3 stack now. The previous sentence is hopefully obvious sarcasm.

The 12900KS will likely manage to be king in a few titles, but it's not even the 5800 X3D that will kill it. Intel's other chips already do that by themselves. I can't fault Intel for making a top end last percentage product for people who will buy it, but I'm not sure it's a product worth defending outside of a ruthless capitalist perspective. Unless money doesn't matter you can get any of those "lesser" CPUs and have at least few hundred dollars to spend on anything else. That anything else probably provides more of a benefit.

 

[LikeLinus]

Let me summarize, instead of you putting words in my mouth. ADL (my 12700F specifically)

Yeah, you lose EVERYONE HERE. "Your specific CPU", it isn't unbiased and is representative of your own CPU, testing and no one else.

I think the best example of this is Nintendo. Both Sony and Microsoft were trying to design and sell what could be considered mid-range gaming PCs (at the time of launch) at subsidized prices or zero profit and Nintendo "noped" out of that and went on to have wild successes with the Wii, DS, and Switch by doing their own thing.

Sorry, POST OF THE YEAR! Certain people here think that the 5950x or newer CPU is going to dominate the market and the other company is going bankrupt and all this such BS. It's a great example that less is more in a lot of cases. Intel is going to fail and go broke, LOL.

I love how they say the new Intel CPU is an "act of desperation", even though AMD hasn't even released anything yet. Plus, it's so close in supposed performance, how exactly is it dead? Do they think AMD is going to overtake Intel in OEM sales? lol

But, hey, the CPU that isnt released is going to destroy Intel and their latest trip is a desperation shot! Even though they are nowhere near going out of business. It's hilarious, if you read off their post. Intel is dead and bankrupt!

 

[igor_kavinski]

I gifted Alder Lake to my good friend. When building, I debated between the i5-12400 and the i5-12600K. In the end, I decided that he would prefer less electric bill, no E-core headache and an HP Omen mechanical keyboard more than the K CPU. He loves the keyboard so much that he stopped using his previous favorite one. Says the old one's keys feel stiff now. Glad that Intel didn't gimp the 12400 too much.

 

[ondma]

With all of the subdivisions in the Intel stack they have themselves become the "Silicon Lottery." I like the extra segmentation so there is less "hoping" for a good one. You pretty much know what the chip you buy will be able to achieve.

I think the interesting question will be how much better overclocking will be on the 12900

I think the best example of this is Nintendo. Both Sony and Microsoft were trying to design and sell what could be considered mid-range gaming PCs (at the time of launch) at subsidized prices or zero profit and Nintendo "noped" out of that and went on to have wild successes with the Wii, DS, and Switch by doing their own thing.

To some degree Intel did this by noticing AMD had nothing below $300 and putting some great products into those buckets. A 12400 beats out the 11900K (at well under half the price to boot) and it's hard to argue that unless they have money to burn that the average gamer should get anything else right now. Strange that we see AMD finally release the bottom half of the Zen 3 stack now. The previous sentence is hopefully obvious sarcasm.

The 12900KS will likely manage to be king in a few titles, but it's not even the 5800 X3D that will kill it. Intel's other chips already do that by themselves. I can't fault Intel for making a top end last percentage product for people who will buy it, but I'm not sure it's a product worth defending outside of a ruthless capitalist perspective. Unless money doesn't matter you can get any of those "lesser" CPUs and have at least few hundred dollars to spend on anything else. That anything else probably provides more of a benefit.

I would not buy either the KS or X3D. But even a few hundred dollars to have the very best CPU is relatively inexpensive compared to what one can spend on other hobbies or expenses. Look at watches, what does a Rolex cost? or sports cars or vacations or expensive features in a house. The problem I see with either CPU is that most likely their position as absolute "best" will probably be short lived with Zen 4 on the horizon.

 

[Hulk]

I think the interesting question will be how much better overclocking will be on the 12900

I would not buy either the KS or X3D. But even a few hundred dollars to have the very best CPU is relatively inexpensive compared to what one can spend on other hobbies or expenses. Look at watches, what does a Rolex cost? or sports cars or vacations or expensive features in a house. The problem I see with either CPU is that most likely their position as absolute "best" will probably be short lived with Zen 4 on the horizon.

Not to get too far off topic but a lot of hobbies is "what it does" vs. "satisfaction of ownership."

Assuming the hobby isn't primarily for making money (appreciation) then some things are acquired simply for pride of ownership, others for their performance. I have some comic books that have value and make me feel good to own them, look at them, but they "do" nothing. On the other hand my computer is totally about performance. I don't care what is under the case as long as it performs. This is of course totally subjective, which is why there are so many hobbies.

 

[Markfw]

Not to get too far off topic but a lot of hobbies is "what it does" vs. "satisfaction of ownership."

Assuming the hobby isn't primarily for making money (appreciation) then some things are acquired simply for pride of ownership, others for their performance. I have some comic books that have value and make me feel good to own them, look at them, but they "do" nothing. On the other hand my computer is totally about performance. I don't care what is under the case as long as it performs. This is of course totally subjective, which is why there are so many hobbies.

With some of the previous replies, "hobbies" and the 12900k and ks come into "on-topic" IMO.

With that said, one of my hobbies started out that my house was a lan party place for my son and all his friends who could not afford nice computers. When they were idle, I started playing in the DC arena. When cancer hit me (and by then the kids had moved on in life), the DC work turned into a hobby. But with all these computers working to help cure cancer, the electric bill started to become an issue, hence my reluctance in buying inefficient processors that use too much electricity. $800 a month is not a pittance.

Back to the 12900ks.... It is the most wretchedly inefficient processor Intel has possibly ever made. But if someone wants the best in gaming, and does not care about inefficiency (like Adamk47) Thats fine, each to his own. They just need to respect others opinions. But that is a real niche product. Not sure if the 5800X3D will be since it is efficient, and much more affordable Almost 1/2 the price of the 12900ks. And I think that myself and Adam are the two people that best fit your first sentence.

Edit: And on-topic again, the 12900k is 15% lower vs the 5950x in multi-threaded benchmarks according to this, and takes almost twice the power to do it !

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html

That chart uses the 3990x as the highest rated processor, and the rest are a percentage of that one, 5950x=53%, 12900k=38%

 

[Exist50]

Edit: And on-topic again, the 12900k is 15% lower vs the 5950x in multi-threaded benchmarks according to this, and takes almost twice the power to do it !
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html

And here you once again demonstrate the dishonesty you've been repeatedly called out for.

Right there, 12900k slightly leading the 5950x, and in not just multithreaded, but embarrassingly parallel benchmarks, the best case scenario for the 5950x.

And how ironic to talk about "respecting others opinions" when you consistently try to derail this thread, to the point of lying about the product line in question.

 

[LikeLinus]

But with all these computers working to help cure cancer, the electric bill started to become an issue, hence my reluctance in buying inefficient processors that use too much electricity. $800 a month is not a pittance.

So, what you are admitting, is that your 1000+ cores you gloat about cost you $800 a month for no results? Do you care to break that down by Intel or AMD cpu? Or is that too much work for you and is easier to hate one vendor vs. another?

Again, a million times, YOUR usage with 24/7 DC is NOT indicative of the usage with an intel CPU. You continue to hate hate hate, but do you care to provide the actual difference in real world usage, heat and performance? I'll donate $500 to cancer research if you can actually provide a massive difference between Intel and AMD for real research per CPU. Not a cluster, just a single CPU. You hate Intel so much that it makes everything you say seem ridiculous. I'm putting up money, are you? Or do you wanna hide behind your CPUs and make accusations?

 

[epsilon84]

Edit: And on-topic again, the 12900k is 15% lower vs the 5950x in multi-threaded benchmarks according to this, and takes almost twice the power to do it !

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html

That chart uses the 3990x as the highest rated processor, and the rest are a percentage of that one, 5950x=53%, 12900k=38%

Those numbers are clearly wrong, which should be blindingly obvious when you see the 11900K (8C/16T RKL) sit right below it at 36/37%.

And this doesn't stand out to you?!

Intel Core i9-9900KS

29.11%

Core i7-12700K DDR5 / DDR4

28.77% / 28.77%

So a 9900KS beats a 12700K in MT?! LOOOOLL

Enough said about that.

 

[Markfw]

And here you once again demonstrate the dishonesty you've been repeatedly called out for.

Right there, 12900k slightly leading the 5950x, and in not just multithreaded, but embarrassingly parallel benchmarks, the best case scenario for the 5950x.

And how ironic to talk about "respecting others opinions" when you consistently try to derail this thread, to the point of lying about the product line in question.

If you scroll down on that page about half-way through you see the items I mentioned and percentages. So knock off the derail and lying portion. The one benchmark you point out is a few applications(6), the one I pointed out is ALL benchmarks they have done. You just pick what suits your agenda.

 

[Markfw]

Those numbers are clearly wrong, which should be blindingly obvious when you see the 11900K (8C/16T RKL) sit right below it at 36/37%.

And this doesn't stand out to you?!

Intel Core i9-9900KS

29.11%

Core i7-12700K DDR5 / DDR4

28.77% / 28.77%

So a 9900KS beats a 12700K in MT?! LOOOOLL

Enough said about that.

Don't tell me, talk to Toms, I just linked it. Surprised me too. I thought the 5950x and 12900k were close in MT, like 4%, not 15%

Edit: I did find this text, which might explain it:

"We conducted these tests in Windows 10, which penalizes the 12th-Gen Intel scores. This is because Windows 10 doesn't target threads at the correct cores with the precision that we see in Windows 11. You can see the Windows 11 results in the album in the first album in the article, but suffice it to say that Alder Lake chips, like the Core i7-12900K, 12700K and 12600K, perform much better in Windows 11. "

However, no linux benchmarks, and not everyone uses windows. But the 12900k in win 11 winning by 3% (stock) vs loosing by 15% in win 10 is telling.

 

[epsilon84]

If you scroll down on that page about half-way through you see the items I mentioned and percentages. So knock off the derail and lying portion. The one benchmark you point out is a few applications(6), the one I pointed out is ALL benchmarks they have done. You just pick what suits your agenda.

Mark. Stop. For. A. Second. And. Think. Please.

According to your link,

12900K ~= 11900K
12700K ~= 9900KS

I have no idea what those numbers even represent, but they are in no way indicative of the relative MT performance between those CPUs.

The P cores *alone* in the 12700K/12900K would destroy the 9900KS/11900K.

Stop. And. Think.

Instead of blindly listing erroneous information.

 

[epsilon84]

Don't tell me, talk to Toms, I just linked it. Surprised me too. I thought the 5950x and 12900k were close in MT, like 4%, not 15%

Edit: I did find this text, which might explain it:

"We conducted these tests in Windows 10, which penalizes the 12th-Gen Intel scores. This is because Windows 10 doesn't target threads at the correct cores with the precision that we see in Windows 11. You can see the Windows 11 results in the album in the first album in the article, but suffice it to say that Alder Lake chips, like the Core i7-12900K, 12700K and 12600K, perform much better in Windows 11. "

However, no linux benchmarks, and not everyone uses windows.

So, we can discount those scores. Let's move on before we keep insisting there is performance regression from Alder Lake to Coffee Lake LOL

 

[Exist50]

If you scroll down on that page about half-way through you see the items I mentioned and percentages. So knock off the derail and lying portion.

From the article, since you apparently didn't read it:

We conducted these tests in Windows 10, which penalizes the 12th-Gen Intel scores. This is because Windows 10 doesn't target threads at the correct cores with the precision that we see in Windows 11.

So you deliberately chose a test condition for no other reason than it penalizes the Intel chips. I guess you're consistent, if nothing else.

The one benchmark you point out is a few applications(6), the one I pointed out is ALL benchmarks they have done. You just pick what suits your agenda.

Again, since you apparently didn't read the article:

The multi-threaded workload column is based on CPU benchmarks performance in Cinebench, POV-ray, vray, Blender (four tests - Koro, Barcellona, Classroom, bmw27), y-cruncher, and Handbrake x264 and x265 workloads. These CPU benchmarks represent performance in productivity-focused applications that tend to require more compute horsepower.

It's the exact same test suite. And you have the gall to accuse others of cherry picking. But thank you. At least this showed you're being deliberately dishonest about the Intel chip, and it's not merely different priorities.

 

[Markfw]

Mark. Stop. For. A. Second. And. Think. Please.

According to your link,

12900K ~= 11900K
12700K ~= 9900KS

I have no idea what those numbers even represent, but they are in no way indicative of the relative MT performance between those CPUs.

The P cores *alone* in the 12700K/12900K would destroy the 9900KS/11900K.

Stop. And. Think.

Instead of blindly listing erroneous information.

Its not erroneous, just win 10(and I assume linux) vs win 11.

 

[Markfw]

From the article, since you apparently didn't read it:


So you deliberately chose a test condition for no other reason than it penalizes the Intel chips. I guess you're consistent, if nothing else.



Again, since you apparently didn't read the article:


It's the exact same test suite. And you have the gall to accuse others of cherry picking. But thank you. At least this showed you're being deliberately dishonest about the Intel chip, and it's not merely different priorities.

Speaking of reading.... You missed the fact that I found the reason, and explained it before you posted.

 

[Exist50]

Speaking of reading.... You missed the fact that I found the reason, and explained it before you posted.

I started responding before you added that. Moreover, not only does it show you cherry picked the worst number you could find without reading the article, but you still claimed the test suite to be different despite it being the exact same thing. You were ignorant about a detail, so decided to lie about it to make your argument stronger.

And now that you're doubling down on these numbers, care to explain why you think Golden Cove is weaker than Skylake?

 

[epsilon84]

Intel Core i9-12900K vs. AMD Ryzen 9 5950X Benchmarks - OpenBenchmarking.org

openbenchmarking.org

This is probably the most all-encompassing geomean data I can find WR to the 12900K vs 5950X. 405 benchmarks. 12900K @ 71.49 beats the 5950X @ 67.78.

Yes, some of these will include lightly threaded tasks, I'm aware of that. Just putting it there before Mark complains about it.

Which brings me back to the 12900KS. Is it overpriced? Yes, halo processor. Does it objectively outperform the 5950X? Yes. Does it win every single benchmark? No.

 

[Markfw]

Intel Core i9-12900K vs. AMD Ryzen 9 5950X Benchmarks - OpenBenchmarking.org

openbenchmarking.org

This is probably the most all-encompassing geomean data I can find WR to the 12900K vs 5950X. 405 benchmarks. 12900K @ 71.49 beats the 5950X @ 67.78.

Yes, some of these will include lightly threaded tasks, I'm aware of that. Just putting it there before Mark complains about it.

Which brings me back to the 12900KS. Is it overpriced? Yes, halo processor. Does it objectively outperform the 5950X? Yes. Does it win every single benchmark? No.

I think if you go up in this thread, you will find where I post that the P-cores are stronger than the 5950x's, but there are only 8 of them, so anything over 8C/16T will get worse in proportion to the 5950s. So, yes, in some lightly threaded apps, its beats the 5950x. But when all cores are loaded (being 24 for 12900k or 32 for 5950x), the 5950x pulls ahead. 8 strong+8 weak <>16 pretty strong. It depends on the load, I proved it for myself in DC apps. There is a thread in the DC forum where I talk about this.
Also, no mention of power usage ? Let me read more....

So, yes, I will not argue, since I already said this ! (in effect)

Edit: I read the whole thing. No mention of power usage, but the 12900k is 5.5% faster per this, but at 70% more power ???? (just by the 142 vs 241 watt, no real data from the site)

 

[LikeLinus]

I think if you go up in this thread, you will find where I post that the P-cores are stronger than the 5950x's, but there are only 8 of them, so anything over 8C/16T will get worse in proportion to the 5950s. So, yes, in some lightly threaded apps, its beats the 5950x. But when all cores are loaded (being 24 for 12900k or 32 for 5950x), the 5950x pulls ahead. 8 strong+8 weak <>16 pretty strong. It depends on the load, I proved it for myself in DC apps. There is a thread in the DC forum where I talk about this.
Also, no mention of power usage ? Let me read more....

So, yes, I will not argue, since I already said this ! (in effect)

"so anything over 8C/16T will get worse in proportion to the 5950s. "

Please provide metrics or testing.

 

[LikeLinus]

And last, I am not the one derailing, I was talking about the 12900ks being hot power hungry, expensive and ridiculous.

"This kind of stupidity in a corporate environment is what makes companies go bankrupt. Not saying it will happen anytime soon, but they need to face reality, and be honest with their clients. And try harder. A little modesty might actually work. Well, that and a little better hardware"

Nope, you aren't derailing this thread or talking about things that have nothing to do with ADL.

 

[LikeLinus]

BUT... Companies buying server hardware are not so dumb.... Anymore. And between the people that have a clue on hardware, and the companies that have a clue buying server hardware, it can really hurt over time. Today is an example. Microsoft, and several businesses buying supercomputers are buying AMD. Many users are still buying AMD. If Intel doesn't "wake up and smell the roses" and stop with the marketing crap, and actually start providing some good hardware, their days are numbered.

Sorry, what does this have to do with ADL? I mean, you never even mention ADL! This is so completely off-topic, lol.

 

[Tech Junky]

@Markfw

Why are you spending $800/mo to run so many systems? Wouldn't it be cheaper to put them in a COLO and use their power at a reduced cost?