Harry_Wild
Senior member
- Dec 14, 2012
- 571
- 59
- 91
Intel’s 12th Gen “Alder Lake” desktop processors will be announced October 27th and released November 4th! Stay tune!
It was addressed in your link: "he kept Gracemont/Efficient/Atom/Small cores at stock 3.7 GHz."Intel Core i9-12900K overclocked to 5.2 GHz on all Performance cores reportedly consumes 330W of power - VideoCardz.com
Supposedly the user achieved an all core 5.2 GHz overclock. I wonder if he disabled Gracemont for the test. I don't see the little cores getting to 5.2 GHz unless Intel was sandbagging.
Report reads the Gracemont cores were kept at stock 3.7GHz. I don't think there is anyway the 12900K could achieve that MT score without the Gracemont cores. It would mean Golden Cove would have better than 75% IPC advantage over Zen 3 (accounting for difference in clocks and core count) in CPUz.Intel Core i9-12900K overclocked to 5.2 GHz on all Performance cores reportedly consumes 330W of power - VideoCardz.com
Supposedly the user achieved an all core 5.2 GHz overclock. I wonder if he disabled Gracemont for the test. I don't see the little cores getting to 5.2 GHz unless Intel was sandbagging.
It was addressed in your link: "he kept Gracemont/Efficient/Atom/Small cores at stock 3.7 GHz."
Didn’t see that when I initially read it. Maybe it was edited? Regardless, I am curious if Gracemont has any headroom for higher clocks.Report reads the Gracemont cores were kept at stock 3.7GHz. I don't think there is anyway the 12900K could achieve that MT score without the Gracemont cores. It would mean Golden Cove would have better than 75% IPC advantage over Zen 3 (accounting for difference in clocks and core count) in CPUz.
You believe the score or you believe it was achieved with Golden Cove only?@Hulk I believe it. If you actually go to the Videocardz article, the 12900K by Yukki got 11400 points, while this one is getting 11900. So Either Golden Cove is 70% faster per clock or Gracemont clusters are helping a lot. Gracemont seems to add 35-40% to the multi-threaded cores. Pretty damn decent considering the reputation of Atom and Gracemont's known clock speed and lack of Hyperthreading.
The 5.2GHz overclock itself is only helping it by 5%.
I believe it was achieved with the help with the Gracemont cluster.You believe the score or you believe it was achieved with Golden Cove only?
There is 0% chance that it was done only with GC.You believe the score or you believe it was achieved with Golden Cove only?
Thats not bad actually. DDR4 3200CL20 + some 7-10ns. The previuos mad latencies seem to be fixed at gear2 level. Stock tests @ Anandtech JEDEC timings will be horribad, but that was expected anyway.View attachment 51694
Poster says this was done at "XMP".
Seems like this benchmark war for next gen will be fought around 50ms for both Intel and AMD
May the biggest L3 cache win![]()
There already is DDR5 memory with both a higher frequency and noticeably lower latency than what that poster used:View attachment 51694
Poster says this was done at "XMP".
Seems like this benchmark war for next gen will be fought around 50ms for both Intel and AMD
May the biggest L3 cache win![]()
It isn't supposed to be an efficient core. It is supposed to clock as high as possible for single-threaded and lightly-threaded tasks. That is why we are getting the efficient Goldmont cores. 8 now, 16 next year, who knows how many with Meteor lake in a year and a half, 32 with Arrow Lake. That is also why mobile will have just 6 Golden Cove cores and Ultra mobile will just have 2.
From 4.9-->5.2 Ghz= +100W
From 5.2-->5.3 Ghz=+70W
Voltage too high, Golden Cove scaling is off. At 4.0 Ghz (i5-12400) Golden Cove is probably a very efficient core but not at around 5 Ghz.
It isn't supposed to be an efficient core. It is supposed to clock as high as possible for single-threaded and lightly-threaded tasks. That is why we are getting the efficient Goldmont cores. 8 now, 16 next year, who knows how many with Meteor lake in a year and a half, 32 with Arrow Lake. That is also why mobile will have just 6 Golden Cove cores and Ultra mobile will just have 2.
Smaller cores are actually quite inefficient at full CPU throughput because they are fed the full voltage required by the big cores running at 5GHz.
From 4.9-->5.2 Ghz= +100W
From 5.2-->5.3 Ghz=+70W
Voltage too high, Golden Cove scaling is off. At 4.0 Ghz (i5-12400) Golden Cove is probably a very efficient core but not at around 5 Ghz.
It looks like architecture and/or 10nm++ process is still behind the competitors.
Yeah, i was disappointed to read they share same VCC domain as big cores. Those things really need their own VID tables and separate voltage rail to really shine in OC scenarios. Mobile origins of this CPU are showing up once more.Smaller cores are actually quite inefficient at full CPU throughput because they are fed the full voltage required by the big cores running at 5GHz.
Other known twitter guys are also posting the same
From 4.9-->5.2 Ghz= +100W
From 5.2-->5.3 Ghz=+70W
Voltage too high, Golden Cove scaling is off. At 4.0 Ghz (i5-12400) Golden Cove is probably a very efficient core but not at around 5 Ghz.
On a DT SKU this would necessitate a 100W VR just for the small cores, that s too much added cost and complexity for the benefit, and in mobile frequency of the P cores will be low enough as to render dual rails useless, seems to me that AMD s such solution for CPU and iGPU wasnt a success and that the common supply ended being generalised in OEMs designs.Yeah, i was disappointed to read they share same VCC domain as big cores. Those things really need their own VID tables and separate voltage rail to really shine in OC scenarios. Mobile origins of this CPU are showing up once more.