• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

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.

Harry_Wild

Senior member
Dec 14, 2012
553
59
91
Intel’s 12th Gen “Alder Lake” desktop processors will be announced October 27th and released November 4th! Stay tune!
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
23,135
1,376
126

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,205
710
136
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.
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
7,627
2,519
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%.
 

eek2121

Golden Member
Aug 2, 2005
1,405
1,479
136
It was addressed in your link: "he kept Gracemont/Efficient/Atom/Small cores at stock 3.7 GHz."
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.
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

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,205
710
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%.
You believe the score or you believe it was achieved with Golden Cove only?
 

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,333
1,300
136
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:
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

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
23,135
1,376
126
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:
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

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
23,135
1,376
126

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.
 

Asterox

Senior member
May 15, 2012
665
1,051
136
Same story as with Rocket Lake, CPU-s are sold before official launch=still NDA in active.


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:
 

mikk

Diamond Member
May 15, 2012
3,290
1,093
136
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.

It's about Golden Cove multithreading clock speed.
 

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,307
1,224
126

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.
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.
 

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,333
1,300
136
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.
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

Senior member
Sep 11, 2014
558
805
136
Last edited:

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,307
1,224
126
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.
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.
 

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,157
2,195
136
For about 10% IPC increase versus Zen3, Golden Cove looks to be very inefficient power wise. I don't know if it's the issue with the process node or uarch. itself, but perf./watt is noticeably worse. Especially if you take into consideration die size and how much intel invested in beefing up the core.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY