Monday, November 1st 2021
Intel Core i9-12900K 36% Faster Than Stock in Maximum Turbo Power Mode
The recently announced Intel Core i9-12900K is set to launch on November 4th alongside the i7-12700K, and i5-12600K which is the date when we will see reviews for the processors released. We have already seen numerous leaks regarding the processors performance leading up to the announcement and we have now received some new leaked performance figures for the processors when operating in Maximum Turbo Power (MTP). The MTP is defined by Intel as the maximum sustained power dissipation of a processor compared to TDP which is the base power draw. The performance difference between these two power modes has been revealed from Cinebench R20 multi-threaded results posted by Wofstame the Gaming Desktop Product Planning Manager for Lenovo China.
The Intel Core i9-12900K scores 7492 points when running at its TDP of 125 W and 10180 points or 36% faster when operating at the MTP of 241 W. This performance difference is less notable for the other processors with the Core i7-12700K seeing a 30% improvement between its 125 W and 190 W power modes while the Core i5-12600K sees a 10% improvement from the 125 W TDP to 150 W MTP. Intel appears to be extracting the maximum performance from their Core i9-12900K with diminishing returns from the increased power budget compared to the other processors.
Source:
@9550pro
The Intel Core i9-12900K scores 7492 points when running at its TDP of 125 W and 10180 points or 36% faster when operating at the MTP of 241 W. This performance difference is less notable for the other processors with the Core i7-12700K seeing a 30% improvement between its 125 W and 190 W power modes while the Core i5-12600K sees a 10% improvement from the 125 W TDP to 150 W MTP. Intel appears to be extracting the maximum performance from their Core i9-12900K with diminishing returns from the increased power budget compared to the other processors.
120 Comments on Intel Core i9-12900K 36% Faster Than Stock in Maximum Turbo Power Mode
A. Intel CPU's produce a lot of heat
B. Intel CPU's run hot
Reality is more like:
1. Intel requires big heatsinks/coolers
2. AMD requires heatsinks with good contact/baseplates
I'm running my i7-11700 with a tiny be quiet! Shadow Rock LP at 75 °C max in Cinebench R23 all-core with a 125 W PL1. The R5 3600 couldn't keep this temperature at stock (88 W) with the same cooler.
In my experience it would be more like:
1. Intel requires tweaking to deliver performance that suits your cooling (unless it's a 65 W part kept at stock),
2. AMD requires good contact with the cooler and good case airflow, or a lowered power target.
For reference a 5800X gets about 15k multi CB 23 and about 6.1K multi CB 20
i.e. 5800X is slower and will draw more power than the 115W of the 12600K :
"Intel Core i9-12900K and i5-12600K lead ominous Alder Lake assault on UserBenchmark's charts as highest Ryzen chip languishes in 17th position"
www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i9-12900K-and-i5-12600K-lead-ominous-Alder-Lake-assault-on-UserBenchmark-s-charts-as-highest-Ryzen-chip-languishes-in-17th-position.576855.0.html
Meanwhile, a 3600 or 5600x runs on the wraith stealth
Why does such a tiny ass cooler work so well for them? The mounting screws, higher pressure helps them a lot (and i dont get why the bigger stock coolers dont use them, too) Edited: I see how it shows 115W, but it also shows PL1 and PL2 at 202W
I dont quite trust that it's not running close to either of those
Same guy, 12700K, 158W and 67C. My AIO will keep my 10850K below that temp at 158W. This score smashes the 5900X, and draws less power too.
So there is a pattern developing..
We just have a long history of intel leaks being faked before reviews.
Is there a second power package for the E cores just off screen, too?
gofile.io/d/sVNYVP
Intel Core i5 12600K (158 FPS) $289 USD
I mean I get it. Everyone wants to see comparisons between absolute equal systems - but that'll never happen. Even with the same cooler, the same PSU, the same GPU, the exact same case-fan-speeds and room-temperature you'll not get a 100% comparison. Why? The same cooler performs differently on any cpu. No matter if you're talkin 8th/9th/12th gen Intel or Intel vs AMD. They are designed for a specific purpose for a specific cpu or a "will fit all" scenario not taking into account where/how the heat-areas are and the general requirements to get the heat from zone a/b/c away but a general "just slap it on" mentality.
That's like saying "the big air intake-compressor solutions of the 80s just flatly screwed ontop of the v8's are better than custom injector/turbocharged designes with single-valve configurations because they fit more engines than those stupid ultra-specific designs that work only for one engine and only one generation of that engine even though the next engine has the same dimentions and the valves/cylinders at the same place!!!".
Every cooler manufacturer decides which brand to focus on the most and accepts that with this he'll not have a 100% perfect solution for the other brand - but one that is "working". Also they want to cover as many generations as possible which prevents them from fine-tuning the heat-dissipation to certain areas (especially as the heatspreaders on top of the cpu are also not always 100% even and you'd need to lap those too, to get the best surface contact out of your combination of cooler/CPU --- or, in the best case of course delid and have a direct-contact). But also - no one could pay for a design like that (which takes care of different heat-zones and requirements and specific preasure-fit to certain areas of the die with even a 99% perfect fit).
But we'll always hear "but my cooler (which was designed with gen xyz of intel/amd in mind) works better on this cpu with this TPD than with THIS one with a different layout! This means this generation is better/worse!
The only thing we should take from those comparisons is how well they do with which load and how much energy is needed for it - and, if you want: cooler xyz works well with this generation (or better/worse than with intel/amd in comparison) and you're good if you have that one (but doesn't automatically mean that any cooling solution rated at xyzTDP will be bad for this chip or the chip in general doesn't work with any cooling solution below this TDP or whatever. Just - this one rated for this doesn't do as well with chip X while he did great with chip Y).
1. The average user (or even the average PC enthusiast) doesn't care about physics. They just want a CPU that works in their system.
2. The vast majority of people love drawing general conclusions out of their own specific experiences. They don't have the perspective to see further, which is not necessarily a bad thing, just a fact.
3. Speaking of perspective, the average user doesn't have the money (or willingness) to try various different systems just to see how they work, so their only source of information is the online reviews. Unfortunately, journalism in general is trending towards emotional influencing and away from factual presentations. You'll sooner hear a youtuber say "oh Jesus Christ's mother, is this chip hot" or "AMD is super efficient" than discuss how you'd have to set up your power limits with different levels of cooling and airflow. Our average user has no choice but to give credit to these (often false, or at least one-sided) comments about specific use cases that are far from what he/she needs the CPU for to begin with.
I was lucky enough to have tried several different Zen 2 and 3 chips before I settled with my Core i7-11700 as the brain in my main rig for the next few years. The 5950X is a beast and I had no problem cooling it with a 240 mm AIO in a mid tower case. I just wanted to save some money and desktop space by going SFF (once again after the last couple years). In that situation, even a 3600 didn't work - hence the 11700, which I'm absolutely happy with. I also have a 3100 which I'm also happy with in my HTPC - being the coolest and least hungry modern AMD CPU. These are all excellent CPUs, but you need to know what you want to use them for, and in what kind of system with what kind of cooling setup. It also doesn't hurt to know your options in terms of power limit configurations and expected performance. Unfortunately, the media isn't filled with such information (unlike catchy titles and results taken from extreme scenarios).
In general, I don't think it's only the user's fault that they're misinformed. The media plays a huge role. Personally, I think it's awesome to see so such distinct, but very capable architectures from Intel and AMD. :)
..and if he's paying £2000 for electric ( I suspect he means gas supply as well) , then that is down to his wastefulness. My combined Gas & Electric bill is just £60 a month for comparison, with Electric accounting for about £40 of that.