Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

Page 560 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

diediealldie

Member
May 9, 2020
54
49
51
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.
But with HEDT pricing. 16c core RKL requires an abysmal die size(8c = 264sqmm). 16c RKL cannot be in the desktop chip league due to massive costs.
 

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
3,893
4,484
136

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,310
806
136
From Ian's article today:
"For regular users, Intel is also offering a one-click immediate overclock feature. On launch, the Core i9 will be supported and overclock the P-cores +100 MHz and the E-cores +300 MHz immediately. It sounds like Intel is confident that all CPUs will be able to do this, but they want it to be user selectable."

Does this mean with the 12900K the Coves will go all-core to 5.2GHz and preferred cores to 5.3GHz out of the box?
More importantly does this mean the Gracemonts will go from 3.9GHz to 4.2GHz out of the box?

Assuming adequate power and cooling of course. This seems to imply that the Coves are already clocked to within an inch of their lives while the Monts have a bit more headroom built in.
 

eek2121

Golden Member
Aug 2, 2005
1,567
1,652
136
By Intels own admission, it uses a lot of power, and barely beats the 5950x with a hosed buggy OS and 100 watts more power (and heat) and they recommend water cooling. Those are not in question. Thats not good news.

But the final decision should be made after Nov 4th, I grant you that.
Having had the Windows 11 issue locally, and using the patch the day it was released, I can tell you that in 99% of workloads, it was more like 3-4%. In a few select workloads, it may reach 10%, and in the 2-3 workloads widely publicized, the gap was greater.
This is the most disgustingly deceiving slide in their whole presentation. The RKL team must be fuming.
No, they are showing progress. Nothing deceiving about it.

A lot of people are losing their minds over the power. GC has higher IPC than Zen 3. That is pretty much a known fact (unless you think they regressed from Rocket Lake. We also know that Intel has set power limits through the roof to allow the highest end chips to compete with the multicore workloads of the 5900/5950x. We know little else beyond leaked benchmarks. I've no doubt the chip will pull tons of power (if allowed) for multicore workloads. I also have no doubt that Alder Lake is Intel's most efficient chip yet. That is basically all we know right now. Wait for the reviews.
 
Last edited:

CHADBOGA

Platinum Member
Mar 31, 2009
2,062
712
136
What is the deal with DDR4 and DDR5 based motherboards for the launch of Alderlake?

Will both types be available at launch and will all Alderlake models run on either motherboard?

Some early adopters who are buying current DDR5 modules with modest clock speeds and high latencies, might end up looking pretty silly if cheaper DDR4 options of Alderlake are the faster systems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Arkaign

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
8,312
1,601
126
www.teamjuchems.com
What is the deal with DDR4 and DDR5 based motherboards for the launch of Alderlake?

Will both types be available at launch and will all Alderlake models run on either motherboard?

Some early adopters who are buying current DDR5 modules with modest clock speeds and high latencies, might end up looking pretty silly if cheaper DDR4 options of Alderlake are the faster systems.
I am betting that really good DDR4 is going to out perform the DDR5 systems for a while until the promised higher speed DDR5 sticks materialize, along with chipset support for them.

I mean, what is the latency on 4000 mhz+ DDR4 kits? Like CL20? Even CL18 on cursory NewEgg review. Given that it doesn't have some weird RKL like cutoff on the upper bounds of DDR4 this seems like a given.

DDR5 is going to bring the density, I guess.

This seems like a great time to wait an entire generation on the memory front if DDR4 is competitive, at least a high end kit of that might be worth something down the road. The current DDR5 is going to be like 2133 DDR4.
 

lobz

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2017
1,879
2,438
136
Having had the Windows 11 issue locally, and using the patch the day it was released, I can tell you that in 99% of workloads, it was more like 3-4%. In a few select workloads, it may reach 10%, and in the 2-3 workloads widely publicized, the gap was greater.


No, they are showing progress. Nothing deceiving about it.

A lot of people are losing their minds over the power. GC has higher IPC than Zen 3. That is pretty much a known fact (unless you think they regressed from Rocket Lake. We also know that Intel has set power limits through the roof to allow the highest end chips to compete with the multicore workloads 5900/5950x. We know little else beyond leaked benchmarks. I've no doubt the chip will pull tons of power (if allowed) for multicore workloads. I also have no doubt that Alder Lake is Intel's most efficient chip yet. That is basically all we know right now. Wait for the reviews.
You didn't understand me - you rarely seem to do so 😆 it IS deceiving. The real power efficiency test would be if you'd have limited both chips (all PLs) to 65W and then show both scores. Surely, 8 low power cores on a much more efficient node will be more efficient. But come on it's NOWHERE NEAR 4 times as efficient. The slide is as deceiving as it can be, since it only shows how much power can a 11900K use if you let it.

If you ask me, with extra 8 small cores and on a much more efficient process, getting 50% more MT performance is pretty underwhelming after so much hype.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Viknet

Accord99

Platinum Member
Jul 2, 2001
2,241
137
106
No. Using 12400 CPUz I come up with 34%.
Check me here.
ST score 682 @4.4GHz, MT score 4984 @4ghz.
(4984/6)(4.4/4)=914 (Single core score @ 4.4GHz)
~34%
yeah, seems high
CPU-Z is bit of an outlier in terms of how much it benefits from HT. On an 11800H, the single core score at 4.6 GHz is around 610 points but scores about 779 points running two threads on a single core (the 7 other cores disabled in the bios), a 27% gain and more than you would see in Cinebench.

But comparing the leaked 12400 scores vs 6 core Tiger Lake at the same clock speeds, the 12400's performance advantage does grow a bit with more threads. In CB20, the 12400's advantage goes from 19% to 22% from one thread to 12, and CPUZ 17.01.64 from 15% to 20%.
 

insertcarehere

Senior member
Jan 17, 2013
486
384
136
You didn't understand me - you rarely seem to do so 😆 it IS deceiving. The real power efficiency test would be if you'd have limited both chips (all PLs) to 65W and then show both scores. Surely, 8 low power cores on a much more efficient node will be more efficient. But come on it's NOWHERE NEAR 4 times as efficient. The slide is as deceiving as it can be, since it only shows how much power can a 11900K use if you let it.
That test is pitting a 250w PL1 11900k against a 241w (&125w + 65w) PL1 12900k, why must power efficiency tests be arbitrarily set at 65w baselines instead of something else?
 

lobz

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2017
1,879
2,438
136
That test is pitting a 250w PL1 11900k against a 241w (&125w + 65w) PL1 12900k, why must power efficiency tests be arbitrarily set at 65w baselines instead of something else?
Because the 11900K wouldn't have 1/4 the score at 1/4 the power. They must NOT be pitted against each other at any points, it's a free world after all. The test itself is also not deceiving at all. The narrative on the slide is, and very much so. I also think that was exactly what I wrote.
 

insertcarehere

Senior member
Jan 17, 2013
486
384
136
Because the 11900K wouldn't have 1/4 the score at 1/4 the power.
No kidding, but the slide never implied that it would.

They must NOT be pitted against each other at any points, it's a free world after all.
Are OEMs not allowed to compare power efficiency between products?

The test itself is also not deceiving at all. The narrative on the slide is, and very much so. I also think that was exactly what I wrote.
You wrote that the test was deceiving literally several posts up.

The narrative on the aforementioned slide says "Similar MT performance at 1/4 the power", which assuming the test is legitimate, would be an accurate claim from the numbers. Nothing on the slide claims "4x power efficiency" or 4x perf at iso-power as you implied.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,652
2,780
136
Because the 11900K wouldn't have 1/4 the score at 1/4 the power. They must NOT be pitted against each other at any points, it's a free world after all. The test itself is also not deceiving at all. The narrative on the slide is, and very much so. I also think that was exactly what I wrote.
I dont thing so, there is nothing deceiving at all with this slide.

What the slide shows is that you get the TOP performance at PL2 250W of last year chip at 1/4 the power this year (power at iso perf).
It also shows you that at iso PL2 power you get 55% efficiency (50% more performance at 241W vs 250W)

Yes it doesnt show the efficiency at 65W iso between the two chips but that doesnt make it deceiving.
 

Saylick

Golden Member
Sep 10, 2012
1,282
1,279
136
I wonder how well it cools given the smaller die. Yeah yeah, Intel made a slide pointing out a thinner die and TIM, but we'll let independent reviews confirm that.
 

insertcarehere

Senior member
Jan 17, 2013
486
384
136

ASK THE COMMUNITY