- Oct 9, 1999
- 4,228
- 2,016
- 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.
In your little world Skylake and Rocket Lake CPUs are better at gaming and more efficient than Zen3 based CPUs. Good for you.
In Real Life 5950X is the Gaming and SMT King, it basically bullied Intel entire UHEDT out of the Market
Way to shift the argument. Pay attention. I already said Intel was the defacto gaming king before the arrival of Zen 3, meaning yes, Zen 3 changed the gaming landscape. So, I've already conceded that Zen 3's gaming consumption is justified because in majority of cases it comes out on top. However, how do you justify the power consumption of previous Zen iterations that consumed more and produced less fps?
In a few hours we will see new reviews. Let's see how good ADL-S power consumption/performance is compared to all other platforms, Intel's included.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,414
- 8,356
- 126
Panino Manino
Senior member
- Jan 28, 2017
- 821
- 1,022
- 136
Bad day and time, just two hours earlier the world will finally see what that Elden Ring game is all about, will be the topic of the day.
Harry_Wild
Senior member
- Dec 14, 2012
- 834
- 150
- 106
Media embargo end November 4th 6:00 A.M. PST!
Eastern Time: 3:00 A.M.
Central Time: 4:00 A.M.
Mountain Time: 5:00 A.M.
Eastern Time: 3:00 A.M.
Central Time: 4:00 A.M.
Mountain Time: 5:00 A.M.
Uh, 6am PST would be 7am mountain, 8am central, and 9am eastern.
TheELF
Diamond Member
- Dec 22, 2012
- 3,973
- 731
- 126
They changed the naming around a bit because reviews where heavily abusing it, now it's processor base power for what we knew as power limits enforces so we have a TAU duration of PL2 and then back to PL1 and we have maximum turbo power which was power limits lifted and was the only thing that reviews would show as power draw.
It's the same thing just with different names so it's more clear even to morons what each setting is supposed to be doing.
One efficiency setting, one balls to the walls setting.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,414
- 8,356
- 126
LTT video review reupload: https://gofile.io/d/552bQV
Gideon
Golden Member
- Nov 27, 2007
- 1,646
- 3,711
- 136
Based on these 12600K looks like the best of the bunch by far. Not quite that big of a surprise, but still. 5800X producton preformance and better gaming preformance at 5800X power draw and consideraly cheaper price
Looks very nice. The 12600K looks like a clear winner against the 5600x. The 12900K looks like it may be bottlenecked by the GPU at ultra or very high settings in some of the titles. Some of the games like Far Cry 6 have less parallel engines, which play to the 12900K's higher single threaded performance vs the 5950x, that is much more competitive in games with more parallel engines that can exploit more cores. I don't know why some reviewers insist on using GPU intensive settings for testing CPU performance. They should test the games at 720p or so with low or medium settings if they really want to stress the CPU.
As for productivity, the 12900K is competitive with the 5950x but at the cost of much higher power consumption. All in all, I'd say it's an impressive first strike against AMD on desktop, considering how far behind the curve Intel has been of late.
As for productivity, the 12900K is competitive with the 5950x but at the cost of much higher power consumption. All in all, I'd say it's an impressive first strike against AMD on desktop, considering how far behind the curve Intel has been of late.
TLDR;
* 12900k within 3% of 5959x and 10% better better than 5900x in productivity
* 12900k is 5-10% better on average (Up to 25% in Far Cry 6) in
* 12900k uses as much as double the power of competitors in some productivity workloads
* 12600k is not far behind 12900k in gaming, faster than AMD in all but one game tested, MSFS, which seems to be plagued by anomalies
* 12600k is 30% faster than 5600x and only $10 more expensive, representing a generational leap over the 5600x
* 12600k never went above 125w, and beats 5600x by more percentage points in performance than power consumption.
Last line confirms what I said yesterday about ADL-S efficiency compared to Zen 3, when the chip is not being pushed way beyond power limits. Still, this is only one review so let's wait for the rest. Interesting few hours ahead.
Very shallow review. What is good to know, is that DDR5 5200CL38 can go toe to toe with DDR4 3600CL16 systems in gaming. So probably will continue to scale to the sky with gaming performance once proper memory is available.
12600K did better vs 5600X than I expected in that test. Curious what the exact power settings and such were and will wait for others as well because I do expect variance depending on settings.
OTOH 12900K is not quite as far ahead as I would have thought which makes me wonder if it was throttling with their cooler?
EDIT: On the basis of what LTT showed (And Anand, GN, HUB, TPU, ComputerBase etc are going to test more games to tell a more complete picture) Zen 3 with v-cache is probably going to be faster than this. I am really curious what the Anandtech results will look like with bone stock settings.
OTOH 12900K is not quite as far ahead as I would have thought which makes me wonder if it was throttling with their cooler?
EDIT: On the basis of what LTT showed (And Anand, GN, HUB, TPU, ComputerBase etc are going to test more games to tell a more complete picture) Zen 3 with v-cache is probably going to be faster than this. I am really curious what the Anandtech results will look like with bone stock settings.
Not the bloodbath you anticipated. I agree with the assessment that gaming numbers could be better with low latency DDR4, on both sides, but I'm more intrigued with ADL-S DDR4 vs DDR5 comparison.
tamz_msc
Diamond Member
- Jan 5, 2017
- 3,821
- 3,643
- 136
I disagree; the 12900K is only 10% faster than the 5900X in productivity, and in gaming the 12600K is hot on it's heels for half the price. If you're mainly gaming, then it makes no sense to go for the 12900K; if you're into productivity the 5900X is better value.
This must be the least appealing i9 till date - the i9 9900K was the undisputed gaming champion against Zen 2, the i9 10850K was priced aggressively and was a top-three gaming chip; the 12900K in comparison is pretty meh.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter