All core will be possible if molten VRM is your thing. But 5.8 GHz is pure hopium.Alder Lake 12900KS has a 5.5 Ghz ST boost and 5 Ghz all core boost already, how is 5.1 Ghz All cores on 13900K delusional?
Intel Core i9-12900KS Benchmark, Test and specs
Intel Core i9-12900KS benchmark results and review of this cpu with specs including the number of cores, threads, memory bandwidth, pcie lanes and power consumption. Benchmarks in Cinebench R23 and Geekbench 5www.cpu-monkey.com
View attachment 57211
TheELF
Diamond Member
- Dec 22, 2012
- 3,846
- 655
- 126
A hundred Mhz more all core isn't going to melt anything that isn't melting now, if we assume the same amount of cores it should be pretty in line with what we have now.
The 5.8Ghz single core is hopium indeed though, the same 5.2 as the normal 12900k or 1-2 hundred Mhz more is the most that would make sense. The 5.5 of the KS is extremely high binned in the first place and not the standard of this gen.
TheELF
Diamond Member
- Dec 22, 2012
- 3,846
- 655
- 126
Yeah but the rumors are of double the e-cores and those have to be counted towards the total, with additional e-cores running at full speed there would be less power for the p-cores to run at high clocks.
DrMrLordX
Lifer
- Apr 27, 2000
- 20,632
- 9,753
- 136
That's not what he said.
They can't just magically change the v/f curve limitations imposed by the process.
True. But you can't just take the existing CB23 score, bump up the score up by 7%, then double the contribution of the E-core cluster and call it a day. That's not how it's going to work. Not unless Intel ups the TDP and PL values.
???
Why?
You really think Intel is going to have twice as many Gracemont cores, all running @3.9GHz in a workload like CBR23?
With unrestricted TDP, Power Efficiency be damned, sure why not?
To OP: Too many variables.
* Intel's current IPC advantage can be 0% (CB) and up to 20% or so (CPU hard limited games).
* Next gen Apple's manufacturing process is still unknown.
* Golden Cove seems to be wide and big so there are might be bottlenecks to be removed in Raptor.
* Raptor power efficiency seems better as the mobo specs revealed.
* Zen 4 might be frequency optimized unlike its predecessors as hinted at CES.
* AM5 might improve on power delivery and allow AMD to go into higher power levels.
* The leaked Zen 4 spec doesn't look like a departure from Zen 3.
* Intel's current IPC advantage can be 0% (CB) and up to 20% or so (CPU hard limited games).
* Next gen Apple's manufacturing process is still unknown.
* Golden Cove seems to be wide and big so there are might be bottlenecks to be removed in Raptor.
* Raptor power efficiency seems better as the mobo specs revealed.
* Zen 4 might be frequency optimized unlike its predecessors as hinted at CES.
* AM5 might improve on power delivery and allow AMD to go into higher power levels.
* The leaked Zen 4 spec doesn't look like a departure from Zen 3.
Not likely. Apple will smoke both AMD and Intel in low power situations. I have an M1 Max MacBook Pro and even under heavy loads I'm still amazed at how quiet and cool it stays. I'm sure Apple could have pushed for another 10% performance at the expense of 50% more power, but that's not something they would do.
While Apple isn't doing anything magical that AMD or Intel couldn't also do as far as CPU design is concerned, the fact that they don't have to break down x86 instructions will always give them an edge. Otherwise they just have a really good design team that can keep up with some of the best in the business.
You are talking about DLVR. That will only help with partial load. It's a tech for low TDP SKUs where every watt counts. That's why it was announced for mobile only. Desktop Raptor Lake won't benefit from it. I think 5.8 / 5.1 GHz is too much wishful thinking for the P-core. But something like 5.5 / 4.8 + 3.8 (E) GHz could be doable at 250W. OTOH Zen 4 could achieve similar clock speed single core if 5 GHz all core is possible according to AMD.
That's special selected silicon with higher power consumption. That doesn't count. Especially because Raptor Lake has to share its TDP with 8 more E-cores.
At the moment we have the following scenario for the top SKUs:
single core: Zen 3 < Alder Lake +15%
multicore: Alder Lake < Zen 3 +10%
gaming: Zen 3 < Alder Lake +5-10%
My expectation is Zen 4 will increase single core IPC by ~20-25% and clock speed by ~10% (something like 4.9 -> 5.4 GHz). So, overall single core performance could increase by ~30-35%. Multicore performance could be increased even more due to the 5nm process and higher all core clock speed, ~40-50%. Assuming top Raphael SKU will still offer 16 cores.
I don't expect Raptor Lake to increase single P-core IPC by much, maybe 5-10%. With 5% higher clock speed (something like 5.2 -> 5.5 GHz) it could be 10-15% faster. Currently performance distribution between P-cores and E-cores seems to be something like 3:1 on average. Which means the P-cores are responsible for ~75% of the multi core performance, the E-cores for ~25%. So, by doubling the number of E-cores we could see 25% higher multicore performance. Including the core improvements something like 40-50% should also be possible, just like Zen 4. But that's theory. Raptor Lake is still 10nm. There won't be much efficiency improvements. That's why Raptor Lake's clock speed should be more limited by power consumption than Zen 4. So, I rather expect 20-30% more performance multicore for Raptor Lake.
To sum it up, single core performance of Zen 4 and Raptor Lake should be very close. Maybe with slight advantages for Zen 4 (except in some pointless synthetic stuff, of course). Multicore performance should see Zen 4 as the winner, probably even increasing the gap again. Gaming is hard to guess. V-Cache based Zen 4 actually should win this easily. But we won't see it this year anymore. Zen 4 without V-Cache? With similar improvements as Zen 3 it could have the upper hand over Raptor Lake. Otherwise it's a tight race again.
TheELF
Diamond Member
- Dec 22, 2012
- 3,846
- 655
- 126
You guys have to keep in mind that that demo was running a game, which uses much less power and allows much higher clocks, ZEN 4 will have to hit high clocks in at least cinebench if not even in a torture test with AVX if it's going to compare favorable against intel.
If 5Ghz all core is the best it can do under very light load as games are then anything else will be running much lower clocks...or the power draw will be much higher, if the arch even allows it.
But no matter what, this is just a very early ES so we have to wait and see how it will turn out.
- May 16, 2002
- 24,340
- 13,445
- 136
I don't know where you get that from. The only thing the 12900k beats AMD (the 5950x specifically) in , is gaming and a few single core benchmarks anyway, so AMD is already favorable. Zen 4 will be better in every respect, and so will raptor lake. Its WAY too early to be staging things like AMD is already not favorable. the 5950x is already the winner in MT scenarios.
Um, not really. Golden Cove is very strong in certain multithreaded apps like code compiling and encoding and punches well above its weight compared to Zen 3. That's why I think Golden Cove has a higher IPC in the double-digit range than Zen 3 compared to what some of the other posters stated.
- May 16, 2002
- 24,340
- 13,445
- 136
I did not mean in all tests, but on average...... Geesh... Still 3 out of the number out there is pretty small, and and only 2 of those are by more than margin of error.Um, not really. Golden Cove is very strong in certain multithreaded apps like code compiling and encoding and punches well above its weight compared to Zen 3. That's why I think Golden Cove has a higher IPC in the double-digit range than Zen 3 compared to what some of the other posters stated.
And of course, taking twice that wattage to do it doesn't count, huh...
Edit: and Anands review agrees with me, its in between the AMD 5900x and the 5950x
Quote:
"At a retail price of around $650, the Core i9-12900K ends up being competitive between the two Ryzen 9 processors, each with their good points. The only serious downside for Intel though is cost of switching to DDR5, and users learning Windows 11. That’s not necessarily on Intel, but it’s a few more hoops than we regularly jump through. "
Last edited:
I don't know man, I think Intel 7 is more power efficient than what most people think.
Go on the Intel Reddit board and you will find plenty of reports of people undervolting their 12900Ks and shaving off 50 to 80w off the stock power usage and exceeding the 5950x power efficiency in Cinebench.
Alder Lake is just horribly overvolted because Intel wanted to make a great showing in multithreaded performance vs the 5950x and 5900x.
But it's still impressive that Alder Lake can outperform Zen 3 easily in these multithreaded applications despite having significantly less big cores.
Check again. The TPU review showed the 12700K beating the 5950x in MVS C++ compilation. Also, the Phoronix review had the 12600K ahead of the 5800x.
And like I mentioned above, these CPUs respond very well to undervolting. You can easily shave off 50w to 80w of the max TDP without affecting performance by undervolting because the CPUs are essentially overvolted from the factory.
Ajay
Lifer
- Jan 8, 2001
- 12,321
- 5,886
- 136
The 30% power reduction bit was delusional at w/higher clocks. I’ll eat crow if true - but it’s a very high bar.Alder Lake 12900KS has a 5.5 Ghz ST boost and 5 Ghz all core boost already, how is 5.1 Ghz All cores on 13900K delusional?
Intel Core i9-12900KS Benchmark, Test and specs
Intel Core i9-12900KS benchmark results and review of this cpu with specs including the number of cores, threads, memory bandwidth, pcie lanes and power consumption. Benchmarks in Cinebench R23 and Geekbench 5
View attachment 57211
Saylick
Platinum Member
- Sep 10, 2012
- 2,352
- 4,397
- 136
Yeah, 30% reduction with higher clocks and on the same node? And all it took was adding some voltage regulators on package? Highly questionable.
DrMrLordX
Lifer
- Apr 27, 2000
- 20,632
- 9,753
- 136
Intel can push power consumption only so far. They're already pushing the limits on what you can cool with a huge dual-tower HSF. At least as far as Raptor Lake clocks are concerned (not sure about his Zen4/Raphael clocks), @gruffi seems to be in the right ballpark.
Raptor Lake will save some power in high utilization scenarios from being able to run Gracemont clusters on separate voltage rails. But those gains won't be enough to offset the addition of 8 more Gracemont entirely. We should still expect lower Gracemont clocks than Alder Lake in full-bore MT scenarios.
Again huge amounts of hopium around code compilation, which is super memory intensive. Of course DDR5 kicks ass, which Zen 3 doesn’t have. But Zen 4 will.
AFAIK, code compiling is mostly CPU, cache and memory latency intensive rather than bandwidth. Look at the LLVM compilation graph. Phoronix used DDR5-4400 spec RAM for Alder Lake in that review, but the 12900K is nearly 75% faster than the 12600K despite having the same memory bandwidth. The 12900K and the 12600K differ greatly in cache and core count however.
For Zen 3, DDR4-3600 was used and you see good scaling from the 5600x to the 5800x to the 5900x. The scaling dramatically diminishes with the 5950x likely due to the application not scaling well to 32 threads. It has nothing to do with memory bandwidth.
Either you compare both at stock or both undervolted. Everything else is quite pointless. Undervolting also doesn't mean anything for production. It's still 10nm. Probably with some minor improvements. Don't expect any miracles for desktop Raptor Lake.
Not impressive. When 5 GHz OC falls apart you know that the other results are likely with significantly higher clock speeds. So, power consumption also should be significantly higher than 5950X. That "Software Compilation" chart also doesn't reflect full utilization. This is only partial load. So, it's pointless to talk about the number of cores. Btw, software compiling also depends a lot on disk and memory performance. It's not just about CPU performance.
Sure, there might be cases where Alder Lake offers more performance multicore. Which is the result of more IPC and higher clock speeds (or even DDR5). But on average Zen 3 is still faster and more power efficient. The more cores are being utilized the better Zen 3 will perform compared to Alder Lake. And all this comes at a very high price for Intel. You have to look at a crucial aspect, especially for the professional market, area efficiency. Zen 3 is not less area efficient than Gracemont, probably even better. Despite Intel's 10nm is a little more dense than TSMC's 7nm. Leave alone Golden Cove. It's huge compared to Zen 3, ~7 vs ~4 mm², and quite area inefficient.
Good thing that we have Phoronix to check facts, in compilation results 12900K is tying 5950x and power is -10W to +30W
12900K "bad efficiency" is completely inflicted by Intel themselves, both retarded marketing decisions and unfortunate engineering "shortcuts" to make mobile cpu into desktop CPU.
Phoronix is a special case. Especially with those outdated compiler optimization settings. Although I'm a big fan of Linux and use it at office it's still not very meaningful for the client market.
I think this chart demonstrates Intel's biggest problem very clearly.
The big.LITTLE implementation is mediocre at best. You often have to disable the E-cores to get best results. And then it's sometimes not better than its predecessor. So, I wonder how more E-cores can really change anything. Intel needs a better and more area efficient P-core. But that likely won't happen before 2024 and the newly designed "Royal Core".
I think this chart demonstrates Intel's biggest problem very clearly.
The big.LITTLE implementation is mediocre at best. You often have to disable the E-cores to get best results. And then it's sometimes not better than its predecessor. So, I wonder how more E-cores can really change anything. Intel needs a better and more area efficient P-core. But that likely won't happen before 2024 and the newly designed "Royal Core".
DrMrLordX
Lifer
- Apr 27, 2000
- 20,632
- 9,753
- 136
Not sure why you're bragging on the 12900k's compiler performance. 12900k on the Linux kernel compilation bench takes 200W vs 5950X 142W and performance is a dead heat. GNU Debugger compilation was almost as bad.
Last edited:
TheELF
Diamond Member
- Dec 22, 2012
- 3,846
- 655
- 126
Well one of those two must clearly be wrong...
Intel Core® i9-12900K™ Review: A New Breed of CPU Flagship - News and Reviews
It’s no secret that Intel has remain rather stagnant in the last few years letting AMD to creep up in the CPU market. The Intel 12th Generation CPUs marks
hungrygeeks.com.ph
Here is another with similar scores.
Intel Core i9-12900K & Core i5-12600K im Test: Angriff mit 10 nm und Hybrid-Architektur
Alder Lake im Benchmark-Test: Wir haben die Leistungsfähigkeit in neun verschiedenen Anwendungen getestet und bilden daraus den Gesamt-Index.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 20K
-
Solved! Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 12K
-
-
-
Question Geekbench 6 released and calibrated against Core i7-12700
- Started by igor_kavinski
- Replies: 275
Facebook
Twitter