• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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.
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
 
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.
 
@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%.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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:
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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
JoeRambo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top