The red boys didn't seem to mind when it was 1800x vs 7700k... :rolleyes:

And what might the power draw and thermals be, I wonder? Intel, man...always inflating the PR to vomit levels.

HenrySomeoneThe red boys didn't seem to mind when it was 1800x vs 7700k...

That was Top VS Top, or AMD need to wait until 9900k to benchmark is 1800x?
Why not test CPU at the same power consumption then (140w 5950x vs a 400w 11900k)? PL2 is clearly a way to cheat in short benchmark...

HenrySomeoneThe red boys didn't seem to mind when it was 1800x vs 7700k... :rolleyes:

What's the comparison? Those were the top two from each brand available at the time

This ones a bit different, mostly because the new hybrid cores messes with comparing.

No more different than bulldozer really and if it sucks similarly Intel will hear about it.

CPU-Z is a pure synthetic workload that scales almost perfectly with very little bearing on real-world usage.

What we have here is an unreleased, unknown TDP, 10-core CPU that REQUIRES windows 11, and was presumably tested with DDR5 beating a one-year-old, 65W, DDR4-limited, 6-core CPU that works on any OS

Nothing to see here, move along now...

MelvisA 10 core 16 Thread CPU beats a 6 core 12thread CPU with lower clocks, amazing!!!!

A similarly price i5 beats a similarly price Ryzen 5 5600X, even the 12400 beats the 5600X and i'm sure at much lower price
Intel Core i5 K was always and will always be under 300$ & non-K i5 XX400 under 200$

this CPU is a beast, the fact that an i5 is even in the same category as 32 Core Epyc, the almighty 18 Cores 9980XE, 12 Core 3900XT is amazing,

rainxh11A similarly price i5 beats a similarly price Ryzen 5 5600X, even the 12400 beats the 5600X and i'm sure at much lower price
Intel Core i5 K was always and will always be under 300$ & non-K i5 XX400 under 200$

this CPU is a beast, the fact that an i5 is even in the same category as 32 Core Epyc, the almighty 18 Cores 9980XE, 12 Core 3900XT is amazing,

This trully is a huge performance leap!! It will take AMD years to catch up...

rainxh11this CPU is a beast, the fact that an i5 is even in the same category as 32 Core Epyc, the almighty 18 Cores 9980XE, 12 Core 3900XT is amazing,

Why the 12900 (8P+8E core) draw in multithread score with the 5950 (16 core) while but 12600 (6P+4E core) win against 5600x (6 core) but loose to the 5900x (10 core) with a better Pcore/Ecore ratio than 12900?:rolleyes:
This benchmark and scores are pure s**t

The e-cores are great tag team partners to the p-cores when they are going to work

The E cores within the same dies space area are roughly a 4 to 1 ratio to the P cores. 3.7GHz x4 is 14.8GHz in total combined even if you only use 75% of that effectively combined that's 11.1GHz ok fine only use 50% that's 7.4GHz shrug use just a merely 25% of that 4 to 1 big LITTLE ratio of space to core density that gimpy E cores off that's 5.55GHz and still more than the P core throwing the kitchen sink at voltage to bump up max frequency by like 100MHz from 5.2GHz to 5.3GHz.

Call me crazy, but I think the E cores are far more efficient provided you aren't in major need of the instruction set differences or pure clock frequency scaling. That said is there a balance certainly, but how many P cores to you realistically need and are you better off with more E cores in place of them as a rule of thumb!? I mean we'll find out more about that when it launches. At the very least I see it as increased competition against AMD far better than 14nm with another plus added to it and hemorrhaging yields for a 25MHz to 50MHz turbo clock speed bump while doubling TDP to do it. Win or loose it still puts Intel in a more credible position until they figure it out further. I still seems like a clear foot forward.

In summary I think it would probably be rather hard for Intel to continue on and do worse than where Intel has been since Ryzen launched honestly and if people can't see that oh well. You don't have to like Intel, but like the potential of better competition. Just think what a decade of back and fourth credible competition between Intel and AMD might bring about in CPU performance.

Why_MeWon't happen. Just look at the way overpriced Ryzen 3600.

Ya and the fact that we have seen TSMC raising prices several times over past while. AMD has no control over those prices. There is a price to being fabless. Let’s hope TSMC doesn’t jack wafer prices even more! Especially for gpus sake.

mechtechYa and the fact that we have seen TSMC raising prices several times over past while. AMD has no control over those prices. There is a price to being fabless. Let’s hope TSMC doesn’t jack wafer prices even more! Especially for gpus sake.

IIRC, AMD has been among the less hurt by the fab rising price. TSMC kept the price increase to a minimum for AMD and Apple, I think.

Why_MeI'm going to guess it's more expensive than the 5600x not to mention the Z690 boards will probably be a hose job in regards to pricing. That's why I'm more interested in the B660 boards and locked cpu's. As of now ... at least for new gaming builds, Intel has it over AMD when you need to budget for a gpu.

i5 10400F w/B560 board and 3200mhz RAM > overpriced Ryzen 3600

i5 11400F wB560 board and 3200mhz RAM trades blows with the 5600x and does it for cheaper.

Reviews will determine that, not one leaked bench or more ftm , it looks good no doubt but this isn't Tom's F£#@&g hardware ,we don't do just buy it round here or the more you buy the more you save.
As of now I can't buy this so tune the hype down.

rainxh11A similarly price i5 beats a similarly price Ryzen 5 5600X, even the 12400 beats the 5600X and i'm sure at much lower price
Intel Core i5 K was always and will always be under 300$ & non-K i5 XX400 under 200$

this CPU is a beast, the fact that an i5 is even in the same category as 32 Core Epyc, the almighty 18 Cores 9980XE, 12 Core 3900XT is amazing,

I wouldn't call the 9980XE or even the 10980XE "Almighty". 10980XE with its 18 cores is consistently slower than a 16 core 3950X (Let alone 5950X). Without knowing the price of the 12600K it's just silly to compare it to 5600X. I really hope it will be priced the same as the 5600X or even lower. That would make AMD reduce prices on their entire lineup. Yay for us!

Chrispy_CPU-Z is a pure synthetic workload that scales almost perfectly with very little bearing on real-world usage.

What we have here is an unreleased, unknown TDP, 10-core CPU that REQUIRES windows 11, and was presumably tested with DDR5 beating a one-year-old, 65W, DDR4-limited, 6-core CPU that works on any OS

Nothing to see here, move along now...

my thoughts exactly.

This is the usual Intel marketing BS to get people 'excited' about its products, nothing more.

TheoneandonlyMrKReviews will determine that, not one leaked bench or more ftm , it looks good no doubt but this isn't Tom's F£#@&g hardware ,we don't do just buy it round here or the more you buy the more you save.
As of now I can't buy this so tune the hype down.

If the issues caused by Windows 11's scheduler and Zen 3 are anything to go by, Alder Lake will live or die by Microsoft's hand; Getting the theoretical performance in a purely synthetic test is one thing, actually keeping all 6P+4E cores loaded with real workloads is another matter entirely. Intel's thread director is a new, unproven solution to a problem that Intel themselves have created. Making the assumption that Microsoft's scheduler is flawless AND that Intel's thread director is flawless is a couple of assumptions that are unlikely to both be true.

The fact that Microsoft can completely break performance on Zen 3's existing, understood, well-known, uniform CPU architecture does not bode well for Alder Lake on brand-new, poorly-understood, unknown, non-uniform CPU architecture.

• If Intel and Microsoft both get it right, then Alder Lake will be a paradigm shift where everyone benefits (except AMD, they'll need to play catch-up).
• If either Intel or Microsoft get it wrong it'll be a nightmare that will offer little real-world gain but keep Intel's marketing department spewing out FUD to feed the various fanboys ammo for their eternal bickering. The hope at least is that these are software issues that will be overcome in time; Whether that's within the market lifespan of Alder Lake is another question, to which the usual answer is 'probably not, but we'll learn from the mistakes of this generation and iterate/improve on them for the successor'.

and 12400 is also faster. with 6 threads 12 cores, same as 5600x.
I think many people didn't really read the anandtech coverage of Golden Cove and Gracemont cores. Guys, Golden Cove is one beefy MF, compared to Zen 3. I expect in some cases it will be even 30-40% faster.

BigBonedCartmanWow Intel made a chip faster than a year old AMD model, preorder now to receive Intel’s exclusive built in convection heater

This is one of those things that is irritating about Zen 3 - AMD made 1 million Zen 3 in 2020. Compare that to over 400M Intel chips per year. You're talking about a 'launch' that probably took like 8 hours of TSMC production for the entire quarter. Intel probably could have popped out a million of any current / future chip on any node including ones not yet ready, for bragging rights, like AMD did. AMD did not have the market properly supplied until around March.

yeeeemanand 12400 is also faster. with 6 threads 12 cores, same as 5600x.
I think many people didn't really read the anandtech coverage of Golden Cove and Gracemont cores. Guys, Golden Cove is one beefy MF, compared to Zen 3. I expect in some cases it will be even 30-40% faster.

This.

Golden Cove has way more cache and you have to remember that Zen3 is a tweaked variant of Zen2 where the biggest single change was simply unifying the L3 cache. As good as Zen3 is, it's basically a 2019 design at this point. Going into 2022 it will be ready for a vcache upgrade to help it fight off Golden Cove, but the real IPC upgrade for AMD is slated to come with Zen4 and DDR5 where 29-40% improvements are rumoured:

www.techpowerup.com/278321/amd-zen-4-reportedly-features-a-29-ipc-boost-over-zen-3

It's also worth noting that Gracemont E-cores are likely to be half-decent. Those of us used to using Tremont cores, either in the latest Pentium Silver or as Atom server solutions will know that they're plenty fast enough to get modern jobs done at a reasonable pace and have something like 80% the IPC of a 10th Gen Comet-Lake core. Four threads running on the E-cores are definitely going to run better than four threads using SMT across two P-cores.

Chrispy_The fact that Microsoft can completely break performance on Zen 3's existing, understood, well-known, uniform CPU architecture does not bode well for Alder Lake on brand-new, poorly-understood, unknown, non-uniform CPU architecture.

Aside the performance impact (whether that's positive or negative, remains to be seen), I'm very interested in compatibility with old software

Chrispy_

• If Intel and Microsoft both get it right, then Alder Lake will be a paradigm shift where everyone benefits (except AMD, they'll need to play catch-up).

I'm not entirely sure about the AMD part. Ryzen is quite versatile. Though I imagine that they might have to introduce some energy efficiency adjustments (whether on silicon or through firmware or other software-side adjustments, that's not really important right now)

yeeeemanand 12400 is also faster. with 6 threads 12 cores, same as 5600x.
I think many people didn't really read the anandtech coverage of Golden Cove and Gracemont cores. Guys, Golden Cove is one beefy MF, compared to Zen 3. I expect in some cases it will be even 30-40% faster.

Totally agreed. Golden Cove is incredibly fast. But it's also very inefficient. This is why they simply can't pack 16 of those puppies in a single package (At least not in the mainstream desktop platform packaging)

TheoneandonlyMrKReviews will determine that, not one leaked bench or more ftm , it looks good no doubt but this isn't Tom's F£#@&g hardware ,we don't do just buy it round here or the more you buy the more you save.
As of now I can't buy this so tune the hype down.

I never once hyped the i5-12600K .. in fact the complete opposite.

Why_MeI'm going to guess it's more expensive than the 5600x not to mention the Z690 boards will probably be a hose job in regards to pricing. That's why I'm more interested in the B660 boards and locked cpu's. As of now ... at least for new gaming builds, Intel has it over AMD when you need to budget for a gpu.

i5 10400F w/B560 board and 3200mhz RAM > overpriced Ryzen 3600

i5 11400F wB560 board and 3200mhz RAM trades blows with the 5600x and does it for cheaper.

RandallFlaggThis is one of those things that is irritating about Zen 3 - AMD made 1 million Zen 3 in 2020. Compare that to over 400M Intel chips per year. You're talking about a 'launch' that probably took like 8 hours of TSMC production for the entire quarter. Intel probably could have popped out a million of any current / future chip on any node including ones not yet ready, for bragging rights, like AMD did. AMD did not have the market properly supplied until around March.

Insane.. amd will need to have the whole like 15k wafers 7nm production to them selfs im order to compete with intel in terms of scale

RichardsInsane.. amd will need to have the whole like 15k wafers 7nm production to them selfs im order to compete with intel in terms of scale

We don't know yet what the yields are on their Intel 7 fabrication process. Though being a different fab, some supply issues might be mitigated, starting with having the whole fab for themselves.

I don't recall if we ever knew what share of TSMC's 7nm process is allocated to AMD (probably a very substantial one, and I'd personally guess around 50% of the entire 7nm capacity at the very least), but we do know AMD splits their allocation between their CPUs, GPUs and the SoCs for the Xbox and the PS5, so yeah, they have a lot of product to push out and not enough allocation or 7nm fabs.