Sunday, September 26th 2021
SiSoftware Compiles Early Performance Preview of the Intel Core i9-12900K
It's not every day that a software company that specializes in benchmarking software decides to compile the performance data of unreleased products found in their online database, but this is what SiSoftware just did for the Intel Core i9-12900K. So far, it's a limited set of tests that have been run on the CPU and what we're looking at here is a set of task specific benchmarks. SiSoftware doesn't provide any system details, so take these numbers for what they are.
The benchmarks consist of three categories, Vector SIMD Native, Cryptographic Native and Financial Analysis Native. Not all tests have been run on the Core i9-12900K and SiSoftware themselves admit that they don't have enough data points to draw any final conclusions. Unlike other supposedly leaked benchmark figures, the Core i9-12900K doesn't look like a clear winner here, as it barely beats the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X in some tests, while it's beaten by it and even the Core i9-11900K in other tests. It should be noted that the Core i9-11900K does use AVX512 where supported which gives it a performance advantage to the other CPUs in some tests. We'll let you make up your own mind here, but one thing is certain, we're going to have to wait for proper reviews before the race is over and a winner is crowned.
Update: As the original article was taken down and there were some useful references in it, you can find a screen grab of it here.
Sources:
SiSoftware, via @TUM_APISAK
The benchmarks consist of three categories, Vector SIMD Native, Cryptographic Native and Financial Analysis Native. Not all tests have been run on the Core i9-12900K and SiSoftware themselves admit that they don't have enough data points to draw any final conclusions. Unlike other supposedly leaked benchmark figures, the Core i9-12900K doesn't look like a clear winner here, as it barely beats the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X in some tests, while it's beaten by it and even the Core i9-11900K in other tests. It should be noted that the Core i9-11900K does use AVX512 where supported which gives it a performance advantage to the other CPUs in some tests. We'll let you make up your own mind here, but one thing is certain, we're going to have to wait for proper reviews before the race is over and a winner is crowned.
Update: As the original article was taken down and there were some useful references in it, you can find a screen grab of it here.
69 Comments on SiSoftware Compiles Early Performance Preview of the Intel Core i9-12900K
This one supported both DDR2 and DDR3 (not both at once though)
I believe AL DDR4/5 support is more for flexibility of MoBo manufacturers, until CAS latencies come down, DDR5 may be a hard sell for some enthusiasts so the manufacturer can just make ddr4 and ddr5 variants of their boards
Then the AMD 16c becomes a tradeoff rather than clear winner.
Rocket lake was competitive in single threaded and lost heavily in multi, and used more power...
Alders lake has to compete against Zen3+ and its added 15% ish FPS gains.
The box says The world First 8 dimms mobo, with bonus Global Star cpu cooler, i like it a lot :D
Zen3+'s 15% FPS gains was when running the CPUs at a lower clock speed.
FPS gains flatten out when the CPU is no longer the bottleneck, with most current games that happens a little over 4 GHz for Skylake family CPUs. This is also the reason why Rocket Lake showed little gains in gaming over Skylake. So until games become more CPU demanding, we should expect Alder Lake and other new CPUs to show minimal gains in games, despite having much faster cores.
The reason why RKL didn't bring gains was because it was an afterthought backport that got better cores and no other upgrades. The reason why AMD is able to make big gen on gen gains, and go beyond the imaginary bottleneck that you are implying with their 5000 series CPUs and beat Comet Lake by big margin in some games, is because their generational updates are comprehensive, and they are going to do that again with Zen4. Alder Lake is a comprehensive upgrade and overhaul this time around as well, and it should not have the same problems as Rocket Lake. It is RKL arch bottlenecking itself not games bottlenecking it.
It's a known fact that at higher resolution CPUs aren't the bottleneck for FPS. It's the GPU that is.
We have entered the Era where only scientific work, benchmarks, and poorly optimized software are the reasons CPUs aren't "fast enough".
Again, I understand why this generalization is used when talking to people who are just getting into this for example, but to bring something like that up in a more advanced discussion is rather embarrassing.
www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5800x/15.html
"On popular demand from comments over the past several CPU reviews, we are including game tests at 720p (1280x720 pixels) resolution. All games from our CPU test suite are put through 720p using a RTX 2080 Ti graphics card and Ultra settings. This low resolution serves to highlight theoretical CPU performance because games are extremely CPU-limited at this resolution. Of course, nobody buys a PC with an RTX 2080 Ti to game at 720p, but the results are of academic value because a CPU that can't do 144 frames per second at 720p will never reach that mark at higher resolutions. So, these numbers could interest high-refresh-rate gaming PC builders with fast 120 Hz and 144 Hz monitors. Our 720p tests hence serve as synthetic tests in that they are not real world (720p isn't a real-world PC-gaming resolution anymore) even though the game tests themselves are not synthetic (they're real games, not 3D benchmarks)."
The architecture difference in out of order execution between AMD and Intel are so close that cache hits and cache size seem to be the determining factor. Neither is going to be able to pull a huge win unless they have some never before seen act of pre-determined calculations so cache hits are always 100%, or they find a way to reduce latency to 0ns. Either are impossible so it's down to cache and latency to cache.
What have I been doing for 16 years? Building servers for medical offices, working, having kids that have grown into teens able to drive not that it's any of your fucking business. I have also been paying attention to the evolution and revolution of tech, you are merely getting your fingers wet, let me know when you wake-up at 6AM the first time you fall asleep.at a on site install waiting for a RAID array to rebuild.
FPS is a mesure of GPU performance, not CPU performance. And when the CPU is fast enough to fully saturate the GPU, the GPU becomes the bottleneck. This should be elementary knowledge, even to those without a CS degree.
If someone released a CPU with 10x faster cores tomorrow, it would not change the performance in most current games.That's an absurd statement.
Rocket Lake does in fact have higher single threaded performance. What the developers thought and felt during the development is irrelevant.Clearly you are not familiar with Sunny Cove's design, or other CPU designs for that matter.
Both Sunny Cove and Golden Cove offer 19% IPC gains over their predecessor. The issues with Rocket Lake are tied to the inferior production node, not the underlying architecture.CPU overhead is mostly linear with frame rate.
When the resolution is lower, the GPU bottleneck becomes less and the CPU bottleneck greater since the frame rate increases. With most games today you have to run them at 720p and/or low details with an absurdly high frame rate to show a significant difference between CPUs. This becomes a pointless and futile effort when actual gamers will not run the hardware under such conditions.
Nevermind I guess.