Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

Page 551 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
J

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
16,491
6,983
136
videocardz.com

Intel Alder Lake announcement and preorders confirmed for October 27th, launch on November 4th - VideoCardz.com

Intel launch date confirmed: November 4th Wccftech shares information on embargo dates for the upcoming Intel 12th Gen Core series. Intel is to announce Alder Lake desktop processors on October 27th. This is the embargo date that has been listed in the document that has been leaked today...
videocardz.com videocardz.com

Further confirmation that the launch is on the 27th and they've decided on Nov 4th for the release.
 
A

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,112
136
jpiniero said:
videocardz.com

Intel Alder Lake announcement and preorders confirmed for October 27th, launch on November 4th - VideoCardz.com

Intel launch date confirmed: November 4th Wccftech shares information on embargo dates for the upcoming Intel 12th Gen Core series. Intel is to announce Alder Lake desktop processors on October 27th. This is the embargo date that has been listed in the document that has been leaked today...
videocardz.com videocardz.com

Further confirmation that the launch is on the 27th and they've decided on Nov 4th for the release.
Click to expand...
Well, good timing for Christmas sales and post New Year sales (gotta spend those gift cards and checks).

Apparently, from WccfTech, this info is from this graphic:

LeakedAlderLakeIntro.png
 
Harry_Wild

Harry_Wild

Senior member
Dec 14, 2012
860
169
106
Intel’s 12th Gen “Alder Lake” desktop processors will be announced October 27th and released November 4th! Stay tune!
 
dullard

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,913
4,498
126
  • Like
Reactions: BorisTheBlade82, lightmanek and Mopetar
Hulk

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,118
3,660
136
eek2121 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Space Tyrant, lightmanek and IntelUser2000
IntelUser2000

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
8,686
3,787
136
@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%.
 
E

eek2121

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2005
3,384
5,011
136
dullard said:
It was addressed in your link: "he kept Gracemont/Efficient/Atom/Small cores at stock 3.7 GHz."
Click to expand...
Hulk said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hulk

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,118
3,660
136
IntelUser2000 said:
@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%.
Click to expand...

You believe the score or you believe it was achieved with Golden Cove only?
 
J

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,814
2,105
136
Det0x said:
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 :tearsofjoy:
Click to expand...

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.
One has to wonder what are the GEAR2->GEAR4 switching points?
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek
dullard

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,913
4,498
126
Det0x said:
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 :tearsofjoy:
Click to expand...
There already is DDR5 memory with both a higher frequency and noticeably lower latency than what that poster used:

6600 MT/s with CL36 is a 10.9 ns latency for the memory, who knows if the specific implementation would add more to that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek
dullard

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,913
4,498
126
mikk said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1451109571544555530

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Asterox

Asterox

Golden Member
May 15, 2012
1,042
1,837
136
Same story as with Rocket Lake, CPU-s are sold before official launch=still NDA in active.

wccftech.com

Intel Core i9-12900K Alder Lake CPUs Being Sold & Shipped To Customers Weeks Before Launch For $610 US

Intel unveils its Alder Lake CPUs including the Core i9-12900K next week but some lucky customers have already got the chip in their hands.
wccftech.com wccftech.com

Interestingly strange, Intel obviously doesn't care about Desktop.The rules are there, hm so that they can be broken at will.MindFactory again obviously not caring about the rules. :mask:
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97, Ajay and lightmanek
M

mikk

Diamond Member
May 15, 2012
4,291
2,381
136
dullard said:
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.
Click to expand...


It's about Golden Cove multithreading clock speed.
 
A

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,835
4,789
136
mikk said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1451109571544555530

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.
Click to expand...

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.

A separate voltage rail for the small cores is necessary for full throughput being efficient, currently small cores are overvolted by something like 20% over what would be enough to get good stability at 3.7, that s roughly 40% more power than necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97, Mopetar, Space Tyrant and 3 others
J

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,814
2,105
136
Abwx said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Lodix
Det0x

Det0x

Golden Member
Sep 11, 2014
1,455
4,948
136
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Wow
  • Haha
Reactions: Tlh97, Mopetar, Elfear and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom