Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

Page 558 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
8,472
1,801
136
www.teamjuchems.com
Not a terribly great article, but calling out a massive increase in internal volume and a move to liquid cooling for Dell XPS and Intel 12th Gen - it seems like Dell would only do both of these things grudgingly, larger cases have to cost more in logistics and everything else, liquid cooling has to have more support overhead than air cooling:


"You can add up to an incredible 128GB of DDR5-3600 RAM" from the article - super gross. Yikes.

so many people?
lol, anyone? Seems like Nov. 4th will be here soon enough.

That said, if you've been rocking a 8700K (a great buy at launch) or even a 9900K this might seem like a great time to bite.

Or even older and must buy Intel? Might as well get it done?
 
Last edited:

Panino Manino

Senior member
Jan 28, 2017
628
768
136
For what I understood, the 3DNow!™ will not be enough for AMD to keep ahead? Even paired with a new stepping and better clocks?
 

nicalandia

Golden Member
Jan 10, 2019
1,679
2,013
106
For what I understood, the 3DNow!™ will not be enough for AMD to keep ahead? Even paired with a new stepping and better clocks?
Intel barely have any lead on a crippled Win11, Amd 3D VCache will be enough to regain the lead in games on mature Win11
 

JasonLD

Senior member
Aug 22, 2017
476
431
136
Surprised so many people are pre-ordering such an unknown entity. I don't think intel will be as constrained by shortages as AMD for obvious reasons.
Better to just preorder and cancel later instead of waiting and see what happens and risk not being able to get it until next summer lol. Look what happened to people that went wait and see mode for Ryzen 5000 series and Ampere gpus
 

igor_kavinski

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2020
3,898
2,356
106
You gotta give the Intel executives credit for being upbeat during the event. If it were me and I knew my CPU sucked compared to the competition, I would have real trouble keeping my feelings from impacting my facial expressions. It's funny that Intel has been playing catch-up for quite a while now. AMD will respond with 3D cache and then Intel will again be left without a proper response until the next generation.
 

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
11,883
3,373
136
For what I understood, the 3DNow!™ will not be enough for AMD to keep ahead? Even paired with a new stepping and better clocks?
Might depend on the game and how sensitive it is to memory latency. Especially if they are comparing 3200CL14 to 4400CL36.
 

JasonLD

Senior member
Aug 22, 2017
476
431
136
You gotta give the Intel executives credit for being upbeat during the event. If it were me and I knew my CPU sucked compared to the competition, I would have real trouble keeping my feelings from impacting my facial expressions. It's funny that Intel has been playing catch-up for quite a while now. AMD will respond with 3D cache and then Intel will again be left without a proper response until the next generation.
Intel got pretty competitive pricing all around. They will probably be fine even with Zen 3D as long as they can supply well enough.
 

nicalandia

Golden Member
Jan 10, 2019
1,679
2,013
106
Might depend on the game and how sensitive it is to memory latency. Especially if they are comparing 3200CL14 to 4400CL36.
Zen3 is specially sensitive to Cache size. You can see that on the 8C/16T APUs with half cache have lower IPC than the 5800X at same clocks, no only on games but on just about everything

1635360254384.png

With the Massive 3D Cache you can see IPC increase not just in games
 

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
11,883
3,373
136
Zen3 is specially sensitive to Cache size. You can see that on the 8C/16T APUs with half cache have lower IPC than the 5800X at same clocks, no only on games but on just about everything
I guess the question is at what point do you get diminishing returns, esp since the extra L3 has a power cost. Ultimately for that you will have to wait for reviews.

Warhol/AM5 now would not have gone over well since it only supports DDR5, that's for sure. The situation will be better in a year.
 

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,603
1,712
136
Well official specs are official specs. Which means 4800 for ADL on a MB with 2 slots and 4400 on a MB with 4 slots but only 2 RAM modules. Looks like the IMC in general is not that great.
It is bad, simple as that. Beaten by CPU that does not even have MC on same die as CPU. Expect horrible memory subsystem numbers on Nov 4. And those numbers will hold CPU back in everything that is not CB or cpu-z test.

ADL memory scaling will be amazing, but only cause baselinec is horribad.
 

nicalandia

Golden Member
Jan 10, 2019
1,679
2,013
106
Also..


"Intel shows showing the 12900K being anywhere from slightly slower than the Ryzen 9 5950X, to being 30 percent faster. However, Intel does admit that these benchmarks were captured on Windows 11 before the performance patch for AMD CPUs was available, so the results aren’t as meaningful as they would have been had they tested the 5950X in its best performing mode, such as using Windows 10 or waiting for the patch to be available"
 

inf64

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2011
3,288
2,560
136
In respect of CML they state 12% better IPC for RKL and 19% on top of this for ADL, that make 33% from CML to ADL, yet the same slide say that the latter comparison is 28%...

From the numbers it seems that the eight E cores use 20% of the total power, wich mean a little less than 50W, that make around 190W for the P cores, so the design is not that inefficient, it s just over overclocked, litteraly.
Oh yes, I missed that slide, here it is:

1635360848602.png

It's really odd, no idea how are they calculating those numbers. They stated spec_rate_int_base in the slide.
I checked the spec int 2017 rate1 scores from here and adjusted for clock boost difference between 5800X and 11700K (patched scores). It turns out that 5800X has 11% higher IPC in that particular test than Cypress Cove - I used the geo-mean of all 10 subtests and compensated for 5Ghz vs 4.8Ghz boost clock difference. At least according to AT Zen3 has 10-11% better IPC than Cypress Cove, in the same test intel is quoting. Compare that with their 1.28/1.12=1.14 or 14% higher IPC for GC vs Cypress Cove. Something is off.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,376
126
For what I understood, the 3DNow!™ will not be enough for AMD to keep ahead? Even paired with a new stepping and better clocks?
Who knows really. The leaks seem really good though obviously memory speed is a big question.

I really predict DDR4 will be the optimal path for most people until the refresh in perhaps late 2022, low latency.

And the danger for AMD is absolutely not the 12900K. Sure it may split benches vs the 5950 and all that, but those are boutique SKUs.

The danger is that the 12600K and eventual 12400 are ludicrously good for the price.

Because the megacache Zen3+ is not going to be cheap to produce, or easy to get in volume with everyone beating down TSMC's door. It could easily be a situation where AMD does have SKUs that could compete with the 12400-12600-12700-12700K parts, but would get savaged in margin trying to make them.

To this day, supply of 5000 series is spotty at my Micro Center. 🤔

Too many unknowns to be sure, we still have no idea if Intel's yield and production volume for these new pieces will be poor, mediocre, good, or outstanding.
 

naukkis

Senior member
Jun 5, 2002
538
400
136
Also..


"Intel shows showing the 12900K being anywhere from slightly slower than the Ryzen 9 5950X, to being 30 percent faster. However, Intel does admit that these benchmarks were captured on Windows 11 before the performance patch for AMD CPUs was available, so the results aren’t as meaningful as they would have been had they tested the 5950X in its best performing mode, such as using Windows 10 or waiting for the patch to be available"
And to compare against 241W 12900K 5950x should also have PBO enabled.
 

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
4,104
4,903
136
Nov 4th. And yes, it looks bad to me. NOBODY is saying its efficient. The power usage is insane. The testing so far done without a patched OS ? And even Intel is not claiming it wins in anything..... YET
They're using the 12900K to try and reach multi-threaded performance parity with the 5950x. Since the 12900k only has 8 performance cores and the 'e' cores are frequency limited, they have to jack up the performance cores as much as possible to try to take on the 16 core Zen 3 CPUs. This obviously leads to horrible power use/efficiency.

I expect the lower core count SKUs to be much better products all around in their respective tiers.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
23,115
11,874
136
They're using the 12900K to try and reach multi-threaded performance parity with the 5950x. Since the 12900k only has 8 performance cores and the 'e' cores are frequency limited, they have to jack up the performance cores as much as possible to try to take on the 16 core Zen 3 CPUs. This obviously leads to horrible power use/efficiency.

I expect the lower core count SKUs to be much better products all around in their respective tiers.
Considering the monster that the 5950x is (see DC threads, beats 44 thread Xeons by 50%) I would guess a 5800x would be very competitive with the lower tiers. Lets see Nov 4th, but I wouldn;t bet a dime on them at this point. Not to mention, the power consumption on all levels is probably not good, it the top is that bad. Oh, and the 5600x probably is a little monster.....
 

nicalandia

Golden Member
Jan 10, 2019
1,679
2,013
106
Stock AMD configuration. Switching PBO on makes power-use comparable between Intel and AMD, both will boost as high as thermals allow. 5950x should have about 5% more performance for that - it will be really close.
Plus the crippled Windows 11 gimping the 5950X gaming performance, I suspect they will be about even with PBO and Windows 10 or a Patched Windows 11
 

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,597
1,691
126
This looks promising and I would like the coming reviews to take a look at it.

That s not that impressive, if you take a theorical 16 cores RKL at 14nm it would have 60% better MT perf at same power than a 8C RKL and barely 1/4 of the power at same MT perf.

Now shrink the thing to 10nm like ADL and you get the picture between what they have and what they could have got.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY