- Oct 9, 1999
- 4,885
- 3,293
- 136
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.
OK, you need to provide the commands to create this output. I will enable all cores, P and E, they are already enabled, but just so you know.Tweaking things between only P and combination or only 1P + all E is outside the param's for how it works as a whole.
Different monitoring programs though give different readings.
Glances::
View attachment 59515
Sensors:
View attachment 59516
Webmin:
View attachment 59517
sensors is built in / ssh monitoringoutput
So because he's had cancer, we should give him a pass on lying about a CPU just because he (by his own admission) hates the company in question? Again, let's be perfectly clear that this isn't just a matter of different priorities and preferences. His most recent example showed quite clearly that he doesn't care what the data is from, just that it shows AMD winning. And frankly, do we have any reason to believe his stance on power consumption isn't similar?Guys, Mark has had cancer. Give him a break and let him be.
I have not lied anywhere. Sow me where. The fact that I may have missed something in reading, and then pointed it out myself later certainly is not lying.So because he's had cancer, we should give him a pass on lying about a CPU just because he (by his own admission) hates the company in question? Again, let's be perfectly clear that this isn't just a matter of different priorities and preferences. His most recent example showed quite clearly that he doesn't care what the data is from, just that it shows AMD winning. And frankly, do we have any reason to believe his stance on power consumption isn't similar?
For example, claiming that AMD wins "almost everything" at 142W (because apparently we're just supposed to know that "everything" means "embarrassingly parallel compute tasks"), claiming that Alder Lake takes 240W+ in gaming, and your recent false claims about the benchmarks in that Tom's article.I have not lied anywhere. Sow me where. The fact that I may have missed something in reading, and then pointed it out myself later certainly is not lying.
Again, you lie. I never said Alder lake takes 240w+ in gaming. And as for the other, it was win 10 vs win 11, and I pointed that out. You need to stop accusing me, and start READING.For example, claiming that AMD wins "almost everything" at 142W (because apparently we're just supposed to know that "everything" means "embarrassingly parallel compute tasks"), claiming that Alder Lake takes 240W+ in gaming, and your recent false claims about the benchmarks in that Tom's article.
And since you were still doubling down on those results, are you going to admit they're wrong, or will you insist that Golden Cove is worse than than Skylake? Because it's blatantly obvious to everyone that you pulled the worst result you could find for Alder Lake, without even reading the context or applying an iota of common sense.
Honestly, it gets tiresome to point out your own tactics. You have to realize what you're doing, and thus are just making a mockery of discussion here. If you just want to talk about how much you love your 5950x, why not leave it in the AMD thread?
In response to someone looking for a CPU for gaming, you told them not to buy Alder Lake because it consumes 241W.Again, you lie. I never said Alder lake takes 240w+ in gaming.
1) You only pointed that out after quoting the result as representative.And as for the other, it was win 10 vs win 11, and I pointed that out.
Where did I pretend that was a 'huge win' for the 12900K? Mark exagerrates the situation a bit? LOL thats like the understatement of the century.To be honest, let's not pretend like that's a huge win for the 12900K. It's squaring off against a CPU that was a year old when the 12900K came out, and not winning everything. I think Mark does exaggerate the situation a bit, though I will also point out that most of those reviews do not focus on fixed power limits. @142W the 5950X probably does win a majority of MT benchmarks over the 12900K.
Either way its an act of desperation. The 5950x wins in almost everything except gaming at 142 watts. This monster does at least 241 watts or more and still looses most other than gaming(well, the 12900k+4%). And the 5800X3D will take care of that. So it makes it useless, and expensive. The P core is strong, and for single threaded apps, it is great. But consider this, if you are a gamer ? the 5800X3D will be the thing to get, and if you are a productivity person, the 5950x will be the thing to get. So that makes the single P core use case pretty niche.
How is it different? Dude... Seriously.That's a very different argument than the one you've been spending most of your time on. If you'd left it at that, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.
Well, he almost immediately proceeded to prove my point by insisting that the 12900k ~= 11900K in MT workloads. If that doesn't convince you that he has an agenda, then what would?How is it different? Dude... Seriously.
Insisting ? I posted a link to tomshardware, and when it was pointed out there was an inconsistancy, I investigated, and found the reason and reported it. Troll.Well, he almost immediately proceeded to prove my point by insisting that the 12900k ~= 11900K in MT workloads. If that doesn't convince you that he has an agenda, then what would?
For now the third time, you've called those results "not erroneous", and still haven't admitted to lying when you claimed the W10 results used a different and better benchmark suite than the W11. There was nothing in the article to suggest that, yet you claimed it anyway as an excuse for cherry picking the W10 results. It's honestly sad how you still cannot admit to being wrong about that, even if you avoid acknowledging that you did so deliberately.I posted a link to tomshardware, and when it was pointed out there was an inconsistancy, I investigated, and found the reason and reported it.
Where did I pretend that was a 'huge win' for the 12900K?
Let's reiterate what his claims were:
Why is there a need to move the goalposts all of a sudden and match power usage? By design the 12900K TDP is 241W, though yes you can artificially impose a 125W TDP in the BIOS and you are correct, the 5950X would then win virtually every MT benchmark, though gaming and ST performance would remain largely unaffected at 125W.How about you look at the performance of the 5950X vs 12900k in the same power envelope and then get back to us on what his claims were.
Anyway I think these points are repetitive and bordering on the useless since both AMD and Intel are poised to move on to other products. Alder Lake, for the brief window where it will remain relevant, will represent a compromise between the 5800X3D and 5950X, with better gaming performance than the 5950X and clearly better MT performance than the 5800X3D. The downside being that, sometimes, you will need serious cooling to help the thing reach its preprogrammed power targets. Or you can just lower those targets and lose some MT performance.
The downside being that, sometimes, you will need serious cooling to help the thing reach its preprogrammed power targets.
Why is there a need to move the goalposts all of a sudden and match power usage?
Unless we are classing a 280mm AIO as 'serious cooling' now?
That's because as soon as you 'equalise' the TDP you are artificially handicapping the 12900K. Not sure how much more simple I can make this.It was not sudden. It's been repeated multiple times, though people have a tendency to jump all over the guy who keeps bringing it up.
Yes. There are many cases that aren't compatible with AiOs at all, or have awkward mounts. At least the prices are coming down, though I question the reliability of units that can be sold for $65.
In any case, an AiO represents the most powerful cooling you can buy short of custom water (or more exotic), and even then not all AiOs are going to handle 241W. Anything running 150W or less can still be tamed by a wide variety of tower HSFs.
That's because as soon as you 'equalise' the TDP you are artificially handicapping the 12900K. Not sure how much more simple I can make this.
Btw, if AIOs aren't your thing, there are plenty of air coolers that can sufficiently cool a 12900K, so I really don't know where you are going with this argument:
Yes, but why is that an invalid commentary? Whose fault is it that the 12900k requires up to 241W to follow its default power spec, or more if the motherboard manufacturer decides to meddle with P1/P2 values?
They CAN, depending on what you do with one. If all you do is game, a 12900k may not cross 100W very often. If you game and stream in high resolutions, however, you will start to hit higher power usage. Please don't tell me you think $25 tower coolers with stock fans can handle ~240W, because even some AiOs can't deal elegantly with those loads. I was cranking out over 200W with my 1800x and an NH-D15 with custom fans (3000rpm Noctua industrialPPC) barely handled the load.
Intel has been schlepping 200W+ CPUs for awhile now, and we all ought to know what kind of cooling is or is not required to prevent throttling.
I think that is absolutely how things logically should be, so we can only be glad when we can verify that they actually are 😂My view of 5950x vs 12900K ( as owner of both ) and coming from enthusiast point of view, you know where you actually take time to tune memory, undervolt and underclock CPUs, find efficiency points, make sensible tradeoffs, undo damage inflicted by marketing departments etc
1) my 5950X is UNDISPUTED king of very efficient multi threaded performance. One needs to disable AMDs retarded boost "algorithms" and clock it with static voltage and at static frequency. But 16C of 4.4Ghz ZEN3 performance at incredible efficiency, great thermals, linear curve of power use over whole load range ( as in not letting retards from AMD marketing to chew 50W at 3 cores worth of load ). Golden stuff.
There is no way i can tune, configure or massage 12900K into so wide perf capacity at so great efficiency. E-cores are slow, hybrid scheduling is bad, 8C of GC even at efficient voltage/clock would provide fraction of capacity of 5950x in what it does.
now fine print of (1) is, that i am not using that system at all, it chugs work alone, accessed remotely. That brings us to reason why in (2)
2) my 12900K is UNDISPUTED king in performance and efficiency of every day use that does not require very efficient multi threaded performance. So basically everything normal people who do not render or run DC on their computers. And i mean everything, gaming, browsing web, office work, using whatever program they are using like some IDE or graphic design or CAD stuff.
fine print is obviously you have to prepare it by disabling E-Cores, undoing turbo boost to the point where it looses efficiency, using static clock and volts for cores and uncore etc. For me that point is 5Ghz / 4.5Ghz uncore / 3800C15 D4 ram
The problem with backing up my words is that benchmarks for smoothness are hard to come by. For example ADL might have 15% advantage in GB5 ST, but large part of it is irrelevant junk like encryption etc. CB23 might show big gains in rendering and advantage might be 30%+ in web benchmarks like Speedometer 2.0,. but that also represents just mostly performance of JavaScript engine.
Things that involve my work stuff, like loading projects in IDE, compiling, building etc feels way smoother on ADL. It is hard to quantify, as even if build takes 30% less on ADL, it might be due to I/O differences or some arcane settings. But what is timed, shows at least 25% advantage for ADL.
Gaming is also a forte of ADL. Games like Anno1800 never felt smooth in late game on Z3 and ADL is literally chewing through Last Epoch that is full of level loads every several minutes. Sure both keep 60FPS locked on 3090, but ADL is loading way faster. Is there a way to do scientific comparison? Probably not and i can't be bothered to move my 3090 again.
There is no way i can tune 5950x into beating 12900K in these workloads, i might gain 10% more clock at cost of MT efficiency, but then again 12900K can be tuned to 5.4+ghz low threaded, keeping the gap the same.
The stock configuration for the 12900K is 125W TDP, Intel says so very clerly in their 12th Gen Datasheet:Because the moment you start changing parameters on a CPU and out of its stock configuration, you're just moving the goal posts to suit your agenda