• 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 555 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,307
1,224
126
It's strange though. Look at AssCreed. I know the guy made multiple videos to maximize views but this is what he got:

12900K - ~ 86 fps
10900K - ~ 80 fps
12700K - ~ 74 fps
5800X - ~ 71 fps
5600X - ~ 70 fps

You would think the 12700K shouldn't be much slower than the 12900K. Also Comet Lake is beating Zen 3.
Dunno if that s only in this game but how did he manage to have the 10900K being 15% faster than a 5800X when Computerbase put them at 1% difference on the average and 3% for minimum fps..?..

 

arandomguy

Senior member
Sep 3, 2013
555
180
116
Dunno if that s only in this game but how did he manage to have the 10900K being 15% faster than a 5800X when Computerbase put them at 1% difference on the average and 3% for minimum fps..?..
You're using an aggregate result that doesn't even have the same game in the test suite. 5800x is 50%+ faster than the 10900k in the Valorant test in that particular test suite as an example.

Different work loads will have different results. Not just different games either but different settings or even test scenes.

Assassin's Creed from what I can recall tends to have favored CML/RKL.
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
7,638
2,520
136
Apple chose to compare the M1pro/max to the 11800H because laptops with Alder Lake aren't released. Changing from a i7 TGL-H to i9 TGL-H SKU realistically should have minimal impact on the perf/watt metrics being compared anyways.
Of course they didn't compare it to Alderlake, it doesn't exist!

They should have compared it to Core i9, if just for the performance. These are marketing tactics. "Oh, it's 50% faster and uses less power! Intel will NEVER catch up now!" When more than half of that gap could be cut by an existing chip.

@Hulk Perhaps the performance loss is minimal for the power level difference. Perhaps it fixes some bugs.

You can't take leaks at a face value. The original Athlon performed horribly. When it released it was a monster. The hardware couldn't have changed, but drivers and firmware(BIOS) can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and lobz

andermans

Member
Sep 11, 2020
110
106
76
Dunno if that s only in this game but how did he manage to have the 10900K being 15% faster than a 5800X when Computerbase put them at 1% difference on the average and 3% for minimum fps..?..

Maybe the performance issues with win11 and AMD CPUs everyone is talking about? The video description doesn't say one way or another which means it is a possibility?
 

zir_blazer

Golden Member
Jun 6, 2013
1,069
299
136
You can't take leaks at a face value. The original Athlon performed horribly. When it released it was a monster. The hardware couldn't have changed, but drivers and firmware(BIOS) can.
Totally offtopic, but interesed on that claim. You mean that there were leaks about the early K7 Athlon performance pointing that it was mediocre, then surprised everyone at launch day? As far that I know by doing some digital archaeology, a lot of technical details were known and speculated on before launch (Like the stupidly powerful x87 FPU), but I don't recall about any performance leaks.
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
7,638
2,520
136
I really don't care anymore. Wait for it to release, and it'll do how it'll do, simple as that. Since when has leaks based on protoype chips become an accurate representation of the product? Availability and perf/$ is more important for most people anyway.

I bought this Celeron 10th Gen platform chip since it was the cheapest, relatively modern, and it was available. Simple as that. The cheapest Zen platform at that time was $200, and this cost me 1/3rd.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
18,167
7,073
136
Availability and perf/$ is more important for most people anyway.
That is the million-dollar question, for sure. How many Alder Lake-S chips will you be able to buy at launch? Will it be a situation where Intel floods the market and sells out anyway due to people being starved for upgrades (see: Vermeer)? Will it be poor availability for a month or two followed by gradual increases? Will it be poor availability for months due to yield problems on 10ESF? We do not know.

I hope Intel has gotten all the yield problems out of their advanced 10nm nodes by now, and Tiger Lake-H seems to indicate that they can reliably fab a fairly-large die on 10SF, so why not 10ESF? We will see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and RanFodar

igor_kavinski

Senior member
Jul 27, 2020
513
287
96

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
10,309
2,499
136

eek2121

Golden Member
Aug 2, 2005
1,411
1,489
136
Didn't Intel update the behavior of Alder Lake-S to adhere to a PL2 of 210W?
PL1 should equal PL2. Both should be 125W! Of course they probably won't be able to do that this generation, but IMO if they do this, it is a step in the right direction. We will see.
 

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
10,309
2,499
136
Heh, so according to Igor, Intel will finally completely scratch their CPUs "TDP spec" - PL1 won't exists at all
Boards can set PL1 to whatever they want. They are just saying the recommended default for K is whatever PL2 ends up being.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
23,140
1,384
126
PL1 should equal PL2.
Why should the goal average power be equal to the goal peak power? I cannot think of a single reason in any field that peak and average should be the same for any feature. Think about it: your car's average speed should be its peak flat-course no-wind speed? Your coffee's average temperature is probably pretty tepid, so slightly warm should be the peak coffee temperature? A jacket ranges from thin ultra-light to thick winter down, so the average is a medium thickness--are you saying that medium warmth coats should be the peak thickness?

What needs to change is that people need to realize that PL1 is average power over time and NOT peak power.
 
Last edited:

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,724
1,354
126
Ha yeah. Plus I imagine for the vast majority of normal tasks it won't pull anywhere near that. It's not like many of us are forcing totally static continuous power levels through our CPUs. Even with a slight voltage bump to hit 5.2Ghz, my old 9900KS normally sat way way down on actual power outside of very specific benchmarks or multicore encoding.
 

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
8,224
1,501
126
www.teamjuchems.com
*sniff sniff* What's that smell? Is that desperation, Intel?
Was coming here to bring up the article :)

Yikes. PL1 (and PL2 to a lesser extent) settings have been my go-to in building Intel based systems with "normal" components to try to ensure they live long, healthy and please-don't-ever-call-me-about-them lives. I guess I'll still be able to dig in there and turn them down.

I know they almost are never relevant, but if they didn't matter why do they get set so darn high out of the box?
 

igor_kavinski

Senior member
Jul 27, 2020
513
287
96
Was coming here to bring up the article :)

Yikes. PL1 (and PL2 to a lesser extent) settings have been my go-to in building Intel based systems with "normal" components to try to ensure they live long, healthy and please-don't-ever-call-me-about-them lives. I guess I'll still be able to dig in there and turn them down.

I know they almost are never relevant, but if they didn't matter why do they get set so darn high out of the box?
What are your preferred values for those settings and how much is the performance loss for ensuring systems stay stable and reliable over a long period of time?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY