Wednesday, September 29th 2021
Another Day, Another Intel Core i9-12900K Benchmark Leak
Remember that Core i9-12900K CPU-Z leak from last week? It had the multi-threaded score blurred out and now we know why. A new CPU-Z screenshot has shown up on Twitter and although the single threaded score is still beating the AMD Ryzen 5950X baseline single core score by a comfortable margin, it's behind when we're switching to the multi-threaded score.
It shouldn't really come as a surprise that eight big and eight small CPU cores doesn't beat AMD's 16 big cores, but this was apparently expected by some. This is not saying that Intel doesn't get close as you can see, but it's also worth keeping in mind that Intel runs on 24 threads vs. AMD's 32 threads. The Core i9-12900K is said to be running on stock clocks, but no other information was provided. Once again, take this for what it is while we wait for the actual launch date and proper benchmarks.
Source:
@9550pro
It shouldn't really come as a surprise that eight big and eight small CPU cores doesn't beat AMD's 16 big cores, but this was apparently expected by some. This is not saying that Intel doesn't get close as you can see, but it's also worth keeping in mind that Intel runs on 24 threads vs. AMD's 32 threads. The Core i9-12900K is said to be running on stock clocks, but no other information was provided. Once again, take this for what it is while we wait for the actual launch date and proper benchmarks.
35 Comments on Another Day, Another Intel Core i9-12900K Benchmark Leak
I wonder what's got into Intel's mind. Why can't they bring the power consumption down, even though they have used 10 nm process node... no... Intel 7 process node...
5950X 648
11900K 695
12900K 803
Single core scores in CineBench R20 benchmark (from Hardware Unboxed review of the 11900K) and scaling the 12900K from the CPU-Z results;
5950X 641
11900K 625
12900K 722
The 12900K is only 12.7% faster compared to the 5950X in the single core CineBench R20 benchmark!
This assumes the 12900K is not overclocked in the CPU-Z benchmark and is at stock speeds as this would make the results much worst for the 12900K.
12th gen looks great compared to 11th gen which was a mistake. Still not enought to justify an upgrade tho. As i have said in other threads I can gladly wait till DDR5 has matured before building a next gen platform
I can't wait to see Meteor Lake on Intel 4 tho, 15-20% on top of Alder Lake and by then DDR5 hopefully improved in terms of clockspeeds and timings - Windows 11 too (I guess these chips needs W11 to perform their best)
That being said all these tech news outlets quoting these leaks and comparing them to Ryzen is crazy to me considering the past few years worth of intel releases.
I'm no fanboy just AMD got it right with Ryzen I remember all the rubbish they were spouting when bulldozer and pile-driver was due to release and we all know how that turned out.
We're in the most flexible part of the customer base. When we see great chips, we jump on them regardless of brand - despite all the fanboyism people express in words, the wallet and quality perception is what truly matters.
Right now Intel is suffering from bad mindshare, with hotter and higher TDP chips, hardware with security flaws, shaky motherboards that come with excessive stock settings and a lot of other odd crap you could accuse AMD of not too long ago.
It remains a question if Alder Lake can turn that around on its own ;) We'll see what customers will pick, but right now the idea that Zen is great is somewhat cemented into even the less informed minds. And rightly so, I'd say.
I have played around with a 5800X @ 4.8 and in most stuff the performance is on par with my 9900K with OC. Some 9900K won, some 5800X won. However my CPU is 3 years old at this point and I'm in no rush to upgrade before we see some truly next gen leaps and this probably won't happen before 2023+
I do alot of emulation of this rig and AMD hardware is really not the greatest for this. Playing Zelda using CEMU the 5800X was nowhere near my 9900K for example. I am playing Zelda BOTW at 100+ fps at all times on this chip, mostly 140-180 fps range. 5800X had some weird drops and stutter at times and barely did 80 fps average in comparison with way lower 0.1% fps. Alot of emulation software is still optimized for Intel/Nvidia and this is not something you fix fast. Alot of the games are single thread or very few threads too, which is why Ryzen 1000, 2000 and partly 3000 series have pretty bad perf here.
If 5800X was out back when I upgraded, I would have picked that, no doubt - that said my 9900K have been awesome and still is, it's within all the top chips in gaming and emulation still ESPECIALLY when paired with 4000/CL15 memory so I have no regrets at all. Probably one of my best CPUs of all time, my old 2600K at 5 GHz might come close tho... Hitting 5 GHz was crazy back in 2011ish - It performed like a top chip for 5-6 years
Alderlake top end has 8 performance cores with hyperthreading plus 8 eco cores making it 24 THREADS
Ryzen 9 has 12 performance cores with SMT making it 24 THREADS
saying they have the same amount of cores here is just a tad off
In case you missed it:
And since the finger-marker blocking the specs can be easily reversed by changing the contrast on the image it's running on a Gigabyte Z690 AORUS ULTRA.