• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

Page 561 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Last edited:
AtenRa said:
What I mean is that GC Cores are almost double the size compared to Tiger lake at the same node (for example both at 14nm).

We could have a 20 Core 10900K at 10nm at the same size as current AL 8+8.
Click to expand...

Tiger Lake is already on the same node at Intel 10nm and GC is not double the size (~10% w/ L3 cluster) , no products with Willow Cove are out at 14nm. Maybe 20 cores Comet Lake could fit in the same size as AL 8+8 but frankly we wouldn't know since no products* with similar cores are out on 10nm.

*cannon lake excepted.
 
Last edited:
insertcarehere said:
Tiger Lake is already on the same node at Intel 10nm and GC is not double the size (~10% w/ L3 cluster) , no products with Willow Cove are out at 14nm. Maybe 20 cores Comet Lake could fit in the same size as AL 8+8 but frankly we wouldn't know since no products* with similar cores are out on 10nm.

*cannon lake excepted.
Click to expand...

Sorry comet lake not tiger lake, my bad

Well since 10nm has almost 2x the density vs 14nm it could be made.
 
AtenRa said:
Sorry comet lake not tiger lake, my bad

Well since 10nm has almost 2x the density vs 14nm it could be made.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth. The intel CPU's have at least 50% more chip density than the 7nm Ryzen CPU's. Intel likes to point that out. The power consumption of intel chips, that's another story.
 
Seems like no information was given about the GPU. Not sure if that simply means the current K series releases are just focused on target audiences that they feel won't care or that there's essentially 0 changes over Rocket Lake.

Would've hoped for full HDMI 2.1 (4k/120hz) and an updated encode/decode bloc. Not expecting significant performance differences. On the outside chance maybe something to further help leverage the GPU as an accelerator, we're talking about hybrid architectures as the future after all.

The only thing of note I've found parsing various information is that HDMI 2.1 support is now there, however the huge caveat is that it doesn't seem to support full bandwidth as 4k is still limited to 60hz. As there is no other information I could find it's unclear what features, such as VRR, are supported.

No mention of Quick Sync in the launch slides either. So the video decode/encode bloc I guess would be unchanged from TGL/RKL.
 
Last edited:
Markfw said:
I realize I am in the minority (a big minority), but I honestly wanted a 16 core/24 thread or better that was efficient. My 142 watt 5950x's are killing it in DC, and my EPYC's do geat, but the cheap ones have dried up, so now I want cheap and lots of threads. BTW, I run mine 24/7/365@100% load, so efficiency is a must.
Click to expand...

Hell yeah, I am well aware of your beasties and find them invariably impressive, and for VERY good purpose. I'd take one MarkFW over all the miners in the world, you're putting that badass hardware to very real benefit for all of us.

I see a lot of parallels between this recent series of CPUs and the previous tit for tat eras in the industry. The 10900K and 11900K especially remind me of 'Emergency Edition' P4EE lol. A very decent uarch and mature process pushed beyond sanity in an effort to offer at least *something* against the megacore competition on better process tech, and the results were entirely questionable (arguably the only reason for them to exist was extremely poor availability of Zen3, and even then they're still poor value/perf for the vast vast majority of people over an i7 or perhaps even i5 in the case of typical gamers).

The 12900K, I'm hesitant to put in the same category one way or the other until I see what it's like in more sane guise (say set at 5Ghz/4Ghz all core, with good DDR4, and on a decent air cooler). There seems to be something akin to a parabolic efficiency loss in chasing those last few hundred Mhz, though I know for a lot of 'Halo' enthusiast types, they're much less concerned with raw efficiency vs 'look at this record score on whatever'.

Interesting times.
 
Arkaign said:
The 12900K, I'm hesitant to put in the same category one way or the other until I see what it's like in more sane guise (say set at 5Ghz/4Ghz all core, with good DDR4, and on a decent air cooler). There seems to be something akin to a parabolic efficiency loss in chasing those last few hundred Mhz, though I know for a lot of 'Halo' enthusiast types, they're much less concerned with raw efficiency vs 'look at this record score on whatever'.
Click to expand...
I would definitely put ADL-S in the same category: very decent uarch and mature process pushed beyond sanity to get top spots in the performance charts. There is no sane reason to push 240W TDP on a 8+8 consumer desktop product when the 6+8 mobile product works well at 45W / 65W. Do that on HEDT with a 20+ core SKU, that's something I would like to see.

DrMrLordX said:
This thread is very long. You just responded to a post from 2017. That particular user hasn't even posted anything since August.
Click to expand...
Don't talk to bots.
 
Intel must have gotten some amount of density increase with I7 versus 10SF given the core sizes.

coercitiv said:
I would definitely put ADL-S in the same category: very decent uarch and mature process pushed beyond sanity to get top spots in the performance charts. There is no sane reason to push 240W TDP on a 8+8 consumer desktop product when the 6+8 mobile product works well at 45W / 65W.
Click to expand...

From Intel's own slide, the 12900K gets an extra 20% in performance going from 125W to 240W in Blender. Might even be a bigger gap with faster memory. That's why. It's not beating anything Zen 3 at 125 W in high threaded apps.
 
jpiniero said:
Intel must have gotten some amount of density increase with I7 versus 10SF given the core sizes.



From Intel's own slide, the 12900K gets an extra 20% in performance going from 125W to 240W in Blender. Might even be a bigger gap with faster memory. That's why. It's not beating anything Zen 3 at 125 W in high threaded apps.
Click to expand...

So much about the stated efficency breakthrough...

Beside 241W peak is the same as the 5950X 142W peak provided you read it from right to left...
 
arandomguy said:
Seems like no information was given about the GPU. Not sure if that simply means the current K series releases are just focused on target audiences that they feel won't care or that there's essentially 0 changes over Rocket Lake.

Would've hoped for full HDMI 2.1 (4k/120hz) and an updated encode/decode bloc. Not expecting significant performance differences. On the outside chance maybe something to further help leverage the GPU as an accelerator, we're talking about hybrid architectures as the future after all.

The only thing of note I've found parsing various information is that HDMI 2.1 support is now there, however the huge caveat is that it doesn't seem to support full bandwidth as 4k is still limited to 60hz. As there is no other information I could find it's unclear what features, such as VRR, are supported.

No mention of Quick Sync in the launch slides either. So the video decode/encode bloc I guess would be unchanged from TGL/RKL.
Click to expand...


GPU clock speeds are known: https://download.intel.com/newsroom/2021/client-computing/12th-gen-processor-product-brief.pdf

Up to 1550 Mhz, this is a 250 Mhz increase from i9-11900K.
 
I'm waiting to see some workloads run at the same power for ADL and Zen 3 before I make any judgements.

For example, in a highly MT workload 16 Zen 3 cores running at 4GHz are probably going to be as fast or faster than 8GC's at 5GHz and 8GM's at 3.9GHz. We all know that for MT workloads lots of cores at lower frequency is very efficient. But the 5950X costs more up front so if you don't use the compute like that a lot then it might not be a good buy for you. The 12900K might be a good option if you generally need less compute but then have "bursty" workloads now and then. Like me when I load up a multitrack audio project and need really good ST performance to avoid dropouts. Or editing video and a certain preview effect needs full compute for like 4 seconds.

On the other end of the spectrum cost-wise, we could have the 12900K vs 5800X, now the tables are reversed and perhaps at the the same power performance could swing the other way?

Let's just be intellectually honest and explore all facets of performance and efficiency without bias.
 
Hulk said:
On the other end of the spectrum cost-wise, we could have the 12900K vs 5800X, now the tables are reversed and perhaps at the the same power performance could swing the other way?

Let's just be intellectually honest and explore all facets of performance and efficiency without bias.
Click to expand...

5800X has way less cores and is stretched TDP wise, on AMD own settings going from Eco Mode at 80W to default will increase power by 40% for 6% better perfs.

Best comparison is against the 5900X that is also 24T, guess that it s actually Intel s own real contender for the 12900K if we are to look at their pricing.
 
Abwx said:
5800X has way less cores and is stretched TDP wise, on AMD own settings going from Eco Mode at 80W to default will increase power by 40% for 6% better perfs.

Best comparison is against the 5900X that is also 24T, guess that it s actually Intel s own real contender for the 12900K if we are to look at their pricing.
Click to expand...

Yes. I agree 12900K vs. 5900X will be quite interesting.
 
jpiniero said:
Intel must have gotten some amount of density increase with I7 versus 10SF given the core sizes.



From Intel's own slide, the 12900K gets an extra 20% in performance going from 125W to 240W in Blender. Might even be a bigger gap with faster memory. That's why. It's not beating anything Zen 3 at 125 W in high threaded apps.
Click to expand...

IMO, If you are looking to compare efficiency of the cores, the correct thing to do would be to disable the gracemont cores, and half the 5950X (8 cores vs 8 cores), cap them both at 125W, and test them both and see which one performs better. On the Intel side we don’t have a 16 core GC part. I suspect this isn’t due to power, and more to do with die area. A 16 core GC chip would be huge.

That is why, IMO, the future is the atom core. Atom cores appear to be much more efficient in terms of die area and perf/watt.
 
AtenRa said:
At the expense of Single Thread Performance
Click to expand...
Jasper Lake-6W has pretty good STP&MTP against Dali-6W.
Alder Lake-N(0+8+(1?)) at a given TDP probably will do what Jasper Lake does against Dali to Mendocino at a given TDP.

Atom is good enough against Zen. Especially at the low-end.
 
Last edited:
eek2121 said:
That is why, IMO, the future is the atom core. Atom cores appear to be much more efficient in terms of die area and perf/watt.
Click to expand...

NostaSeronx said:
Atom is good enough against Zen. Especially at the low-end.
Click to expand...


Not where money matter as in Xeons, you wont find e-cores on 10nm and 7nm Xeons because they need the absolute best performance to compete with ZEN4/ZEN5 EPYC. They can't do that with Skylake type performance Xeons(they are already getting mauled by Zen3)
 
Last edited:
diediealldie said:
AFAIK, The size of Tiger Lake H 32EU was like ~190mm2. Sounds like an ADL-P is a real deal. Almost the same die size, similar manufacturing process but much more powerful and power-efficient. Tiger Lake H wasn't that bad either BTW.
Click to expand...
No, it was most certainly not! 🙂
 
nicalandia said:
Not where money matter as in Xeons, you wont find e-cores on 10nm and 7nm Xeons because they need the absolute best performance to compete with ZEN4/ZEN5 EPYC. They can't do that with Skylake type performance Xeons(they are already getting mauled by Zen3)
Click to expand...
Rather than have 15*4 GC-Server cores in mesh, would it not be better to have 15*4 Gracemont-Server quad-core clusters in mesh?
Then, Intel won't be sniped by 192C N2 & 96C V1 as well as 64C/96C/128C Zens.

Mind that third "Vec" ALU looks pretty ideal for AMX.
 
NostaSeronx said:
Rather than have 56 GC-Server cores in mesh, would it not be better to have 56 Gracemont-Server quad-core clusters in mesh?
Then, Intel won't be sniped by 192C N2 & 96C V1 as well as 64C/96C/128C Zens.
Click to expand...
Considering in many typical workloads ST still matters and the huge amount of cores is not so much for MT but rather for consolidating a lot of ST heavy servers, no, going with a massive amount of GM cores wouldn't help Intel much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top