nicalandia
Diamond Member
- Jan 10, 2019
- 3,330
- 5,281
- 136
But that's counting the E cores as threads as well?Based on leaked benches I think SMT up to 30% is possible with Golden Cove.
But that's counting the E cores as threads as well?Based on leaked benches I think SMT up to 30% is possible with Golden Cove.
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.
Is that the one without iGPU and without e cores?I am of the opinion that the 12600kf is going to be the real champ here.
Sans iGPU (actually of value these days), and with e-cores.Is that the one without iGPU and without e cores?
Looks like even the AMD patch didn’t help..
This is the most disgustingly deceiving slide in their whole presentation. The RKL team must be fuming.This looks promising and I would like the coming reviews to take a look at it.
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.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.
This is the most disgustingly deceiving slide in their whole presentation. The RKL team must be fuming.
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.
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.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.
Interesting, the 8+8 die is only 206 mm2. That's barely bigger than Tiger Lake H.
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.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
A tweet from Andreas Schilling:Where did you get the information from?
I don't think so as the backside shot of the CPU shows otherwise.
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.
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.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.
Are OEMs not allowed to compare power efficiency between products?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.
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.
Where did you get the information from?
I don't think so as the backside shot of the CPU shows otherwise.
Here’s some info. Looks like a de-lid has been done.