I can't wait for the clock for comparisons. There should be juicy info in there for everybody.
Obviously we can agree to disagree on this, but I hope nobody will act all surprised when it turns out E cores on the desktop are used solely for area efficiency.
They serve those purposes too. Except for outright single thread performance, the gracemont cores should provide more multithreaded performance for area and power consumed. The latter category is yet unknown so don't quote me on that. HeheGreat analysis. At least for me this sentence explains a lot. I mean about the e's being there for area efficiency, not power/compute efficiency.
Yes 12400 is more efficient than the 5600x which is also close to 80W package power in other tests. However Intel cannot go as high as Zen 3 with the clock speeds to achieve this efficiency, 4 Ghz vs ~4.5 Ghz in multithread is quite a big difference. Assuming this 12400 test is representative.
If you want to talk about it later, then why post now? And why post with so many possible negative outcomes for Intel if you want to be neutral and really analyze the data? It seems like you really just wanted to seed bad press about Intel, you wanted to have your say, and then you wanted to try to shut others up claiming that we should wait to talk about it.I reserve all comments until a recognized authority like Anandtech has FULLY reviewed the final product. And actually, I want 3-5 of these before I will comment. First looks say it may be competitive, but at higher power usage. What if its only in a couple of benchmarks that it wins ? What if it fails in most things ? What if the power usage is way too high ? What if its a combination of all of these ? And at what magnitudes ? Lets talk once its out... And maybe even a week later.
At the same clock and power consumption, the difference should be even greater than 10%. And how come all of a sudden, you're now the one talking about Zen 3 inefficiencies at clock frequencies you had no problems with in the past? Oh wait, this is no longer RKL on 14nm++++. What I find funny is that you'll rather take a performance hit in order to claim parity in efficiency. Well, efficiency is all about performance per power consumption so I don't know why you're grasping at straws.i5 12400
- 4ghz all core turbo
- 4.4ghz singlecore
R5 5600X
- 4.4-4.5ghz all core turbo
- 4.6ghz singlecore
Yes 12400 is more efficient than the 5600x which is also close to 80W package power in other tests.
5600X is around 70W in Cinebench R20.
Intel Core i9-11900K & i5-11600K „Rocket Lake-S“ im Test: Leistungsaufnahme und Overclocking
Core i9-11900K und i5-11600K im Test: Leistungsaufnahme und Overclocking / Leistungsaufnahme in Anwendungen / Leistungsaufnahme in Spielenwww.computerbase.de
Thread Director and W11 scheduler? Not what a lot of naysayers suggested not too long ago.
View attachment 51246
It's Cinebench R20 not AIDA64 FPU which uses much more power on Intel CPUs. We don't have power consumption numbers from Cinebench but they should be lower. On Zen 3 Cinebench R20 isn't worst case either, Anandtech measured 76W in y-cruncher.
As i said Aida FP use less power than Cinebench, Y-Cruncher use AVX256 and will consume a little more, at a comparable level there s POVRay since it manage to saturate a core throughput with a single thread, and then above all there s Prime 95 wich is almost a power virus.
That being said possibly that Aida use more power than CB if the CPU support AVX512.
As i said Aida FP use less power than Cinebench, Y-Cruncher use AVX256 and will consume a little more, at a comparable level there s POVRay since it manage to saturate a core throughput with a single thread, and then above all there s Prime 95 wich is almost a power virus.
The 12400 figure is for package power, so 78w vs 98w. This level of efficiency is remarkable.Except people have run AIDA64 stress tests on the 5600x, and there's no indication that it either consumes less power there than Cinebench, or that the 5600x consumes significantly less power in that test than what we saw on the 12400 screenshot.
~76w package power (CPU + FPU)
https://ee.ofweek.com/2020-11/ART-8330-2801-30469451_4.html ~98w package power
https://www.expreview.com/76781.html ~85w power
View attachment 51248
https://news.xfastest.com/review/review-02/87558/amd-ryzen-5000-5950x-5900x-5800x-5600x/ ~75w delta between AIDA64FPU & idle
That 5600x PBO is on which loaded all cores with 4.6Ghz@1.32v, same review page also had 5800x power number ~123w which is in line with @Makaveli 's result ~127w that also PBO onThe 12400 figure is for package power, so 78w vs 98w. This level of efficiency is remarkable.
Apparently Win11 plays a BIG role here... but I still make assumption like before, very likely the small cores didn't work well if you compare Sandra to other tests...