Thursday, July 15th 2021
Specs of Top Intel 12th Gen Core "Alder Lake-S" Processors Surface
Intel will debut its 12th Gen Core "Alder Lake-S" desktop processors either toward the end of 2021, or early 2022, introducing the LGA1700 socket, 600-series chipset, and more importantly, hybrid CPU core architecture to the desktop space. The 10 nm "Alder Lake-S" silicon features up to eight "Golden Cove" performance cores (P-cores), and up to eight "Gracemont" efficiency cores (E-cores), in a heterogenous CPU core setup rivaling Arm big.LITTLE. Specifications of the top Core i9, fairly-top Core i7, and mid-tier Core i5 parts were leaked to the web on Chinese social media.
The 12th Gen Core lineup will be led, predictably, by the Core i9-12900K, which succeeds the i9-11900K with a maxed out 8+8 (P+E) configuration, unlocked multipliers, the most cache, and the highest clock speeds. The P-cores ("Golden Cove" cores) are clocked up to 5.30 GHz (1-2 cores boost), and up to 5.00 GHz all-core / 8 cores; while the E-cores ("Gracemont" cores), are clocked up to 3.90 GHz (1-4 cores boost), with 3.70 GHz all-core / 8 cores boost. The total L3 cache on the silicon is 30 MB. The i9-12900K has a TDP of 125 W (PL1), with 228 W PL2. Intel will introduce several new overclocking features, including multiple memory gear ratios.
The 12th Gen Core i7 processors will be 8+4 core (P+E), have slightly lower clock speeds than the Core i9 parts, and possibly miss certain boost features. The Core i7-12700K will be the top part in the Core i7 extension. The P-cores feature maximum boost frequency of 5.00 GHz, with 4.70 GHz all-core boost; while the E-cores 3.80 GHz max boost, with 3.60 GHz all-core. The chip has 25 MB of L3 cache, and identical PL1 and PL2 values to the i9-12900K.
The Core i5 series will be made up to 6+4 core (P+E) parts. The unlocked Core i5-12600K is runs the P cores at up to 4.90 GHz, with up to 4.50 GHz all-core; while the E-cores are run at up to 3.60 GHz, with up to 3.40 GHz all-core. 20 MB of L3 cache, and the same 125 W PL1 and 228 W PL2 values as the other two unlocked parts.
There could be variants of the three that lack iGPU, but have identical CPU specs—i9-12900KF, i7-12700KF, and i5-12600KF.
Sources:
VideoCardz, David Eneco (Twitter)
The 12th Gen Core lineup will be led, predictably, by the Core i9-12900K, which succeeds the i9-11900K with a maxed out 8+8 (P+E) configuration, unlocked multipliers, the most cache, and the highest clock speeds. The P-cores ("Golden Cove" cores) are clocked up to 5.30 GHz (1-2 cores boost), and up to 5.00 GHz all-core / 8 cores; while the E-cores ("Gracemont" cores), are clocked up to 3.90 GHz (1-4 cores boost), with 3.70 GHz all-core / 8 cores boost. The total L3 cache on the silicon is 30 MB. The i9-12900K has a TDP of 125 W (PL1), with 228 W PL2. Intel will introduce several new overclocking features, including multiple memory gear ratios.
The Core i5 series will be made up to 6+4 core (P+E) parts. The unlocked Core i5-12600K is runs the P cores at up to 4.90 GHz, with up to 4.50 GHz all-core; while the E-cores are run at up to 3.60 GHz, with up to 3.40 GHz all-core. 20 MB of L3 cache, and the same 125 W PL1 and 228 W PL2 values as the other two unlocked parts.
There could be variants of the three that lack iGPU, but have identical CPU specs—i9-12900KF, i7-12700KF, and i5-12600KF.
45 Comments on Specs of Top Intel 12th Gen Core "Alder Lake-S" Processors Surface
The only way 8+8cores config like this would sell is that Intel charge similarly to previous 8C CPU and not make a new pricing bracket (i11 and i13 SKUs :roll: )
IPC is fairly useless a metric for gaming performance. IPC isn't the bottleneck for game fps, not by a long shot. Memory (latency, primarily) is. Which is also the strongest selling point of Skylake, it's got the best IMC since forever basically. That's also why Skylake was holding its ground and at the beginning even eclipsing RKL in game performance - it's got a much better IMC.
PL1 and PL2 number were so far OKAY in varies reviews and testing, generally their CPUs never exceed the PL2 limit without overclocking.
AMD's TDP formula on the other hand... :kookoo:
A 10900K will not be faster.
Depending on how Intel does their SKU for i3s, it could be really good as say 4+4 i3. It would probably be way better for marketing for office PCs too as the comparison would be lower core count AMD equivalents. For the higher end though, odds are that AMD will continue to be better.
That is, assuming that Intel doesn't fuck with perfomance and doesn't do terrible pricing.
I don't hold this against intel, but who am I to stand in the way of a dose of good ol' hatin'?
In my opinion, the problem is reviewers 1. not being specific enough about how they test CPUs, or what settings they change to achieve the given numbers, and 2. testing every CPU with a 360 mm AIO or a custom loop, which most people don't have. They focus too much on peak performance, and forget about the fact that every use case is different. TPU is pretty much the only somewhat reliable source in this regard.
It could be a similar scenario to when Hyper Threading was first introduced, the software had to catch up with the hardware.
It looks like AMD are going to do something similar as well in the future, so 'big' and 'small' cores seems to be the future.
Silicion Die shrinkage is going at a slower pace than the ability/need to put more cores on them, so new ways have to be found to keep increasing processing power whilst keeping thermal & power requirements at a sane level.
..if 8 stripped down 'small cores' only use, as an example, 20-30% of the power of 8 'big' cores but have the equivalent processing power of 3 or 4 'big cores' then its the only way to do it.
Obviously other operating systems aren't supported as yet so...
HyperThreading was such a bust at launch. I remember when we tested that at PCW and it offered zero performance improvement. Intel tried so hard to find something where it would show an improvement, but failed.
Yes, seen those rumours too. It makes more sense in mobile devices imho, as I'm not really sure what the benefit would be in a desktop system except some power saving, which isn't that relevant.
If the cinebench r20 score was/ is true it passed a 10980xe score by a few hundred points
Default configuration 10900k really does sux it takes a few bios setting changes to become better at anything Intel power saving crapola.
Single core is what this platform is all about which is 200 points above 10900k just on the 11900k