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
The crisis is down to two things.
Our country has very little energy storage, and on top of that reliant on imports to fulfil our demand. We had one of our cross channel links break down in September, I believe it is back to running at 50% utilisation now.
Second the wholesale prices have skyrocketed to record breaking levels unforeseen. The only reason these have not translated to retail prices is due to the regulator having a retail price cap, this price cap doesnt apply to industry, and our government had to make deals with some large manufacturers to keep their plants running.
My direct debit (monthly expenditure for electric) is currently £95 a month, to buy a 12900k in uk is £560. So closer to 5 months worth of energy cost for me.
In my last house (2004), and the house before that (1992), I could have a $300 utility bill. So ah, that's like an i9-12900K = 2 months of utilities during the summer. My mother in law used to have a 4000 sqft house and she would regularly have a $450 utility bill.
So I'd say, unless you live in a smallish 1 or 2br apt, 4 months of utilities = 12900K is like totally normal.
If we set aside our own bills, we could just use the UK average which is actually higher than my bill. Your bill is actually extremely low, it would seem you use very little electric. So yes less than half a year of electric can buy me a 12900k brand new cpu.
Bills also due to go up at least 30% in April next year, as the cap is losing the suppliers money.
And electricity bills went insane in France and some areas of Germany for various reasons (heating also, but again, we weren't talking about that ;) ) but not THAT high, that it would get to over 150€ a month :D ;) .
I will tell you in our 1570 sqft house our peak electric was over $250 - that house was about 420 sqft smaller than this one, so I have 25% more space and pay 40% lower electric (Edit: I also didn't WFH back then, which also affects utility bills).
This house is very efficient, inset LED lights in the ceiling, foam is not just in the walls but in the rafters in the attic so the attic stays like 80 or 85 in the summer, and there's a computer up there that keeps the attic cool/warm based on what is most efficient for the house.
That is just electricity. My current bill is $105 for electric, month before it was 125. Water/Gas/trash is normally about $60-$100.
So in Texas, the average KWH for a single family home is about 1,200KWH / month. Last month we used 1,050KWH.
My house has a HERS rating of 56. If I were in a "normal" new house, HERS rating would be 100 or nearly double my current cost.
The average UK energy bill is ~£1100 a year.
www.loveenergysavings.com/content-hub/energy-talk/how-much-is-the-average-uk-household-energy-bill/
Note the jump here, and will be a bigger one in April as the current cap is too low.
If you're using a 125 W Intel CPU instead of an 88 W AMD (65 W TDP) at 100% load, you're using 37 W more, that is 37 Wh in an hour.
Let's say you're running your PC at 100% load for 4 hours per day. That means a 100% utilisation of your CPU for 1461 hours per year.
37 W * 1461 h = 54.057 kWh per year. Considering an average UK unit rate of £0.2 per kWh, that gives you a £10.81 higher bill per year. Absolutely terrible! :ohwell:
The insanity is that the prices are a lot higher here (0.269 € per KWh) but in general the usage is A LOT lower (fun fact: an average home with 2 grown-up is calculated with 2500KWh .... per year) as the houses (even old ones) are quite efficient.... I'm planning a new "passive-house" which is a "low energy-house" according to European/German standards and I just checked, it would be at around 24 on that scale. That's why I was so surprised when you said "low energy" and still had bills like that. Here everything with an AC doesn't cover "low energy house", doesn't get "support" (gov. subsidies for low energy building) and in general is "frowned upon" (sadly - but hey, it's also not that much needed ^^). But yeah.... those DO use quite a bit of power to run all summer :).
Besides the prices for electricity (which would be insane to pay for with >1KWh per month) I think people would burn you alive if you'd do that here (as everyone is going crazy regarding "going green" *sigh*).
I had my render-farms at home and totally noticed it (and happy that my company is going to reimburse me :D ) as my power-usage peaked at 520KWh last month - again, a typical household with 150-250kw/h per month would last 2-3 Months with that alone :D.
Man, I miss the bay..... but there are also some good things here ^^ (besides beer and REAL bread ;) :D )
And I'm not even "extreme" - because Air-Air-Heatexchangers are considered "low efficiency" and even the good geothermal heat exchanger is "only decent" - like I said, people go crazy here about "going green" and even if you "do a lot of good stuff" you're still considered "average" :D. On the other side, for what I have to pay for real-estate here and building the house I could also buy a property around the Marine-Headlands in SF ..... totally fucked up (and would rather buy a house around Boulder, Reno, Bangor or similar - where the prices are still "normal" :D - and yes. in the US instead of Germany. Even with all the crazyness ^^ .... but not that easy regarding visas and everything).
TX would be more like living in San Bernardino or Riverside counties. Most of TX geographically is hot and dry, but the large metro areas where most people live are hot and muggy thanks to the many man-made lakes and reservoirs.
Having said that, the last few years it's been relatively cool in TX, and relatively hot in CA. Relative to the past 20 years or so anyway. Ofc even that is perspective, I lived in WI for a bit too and those people break out shorts when the temp goes above 50F. Below 60F is jacket weather here in TX.
But I get the difference in climate - the difference in power usage still sometimes blows my mind :D (2500kwh per year for a 2 person household here compared to 500-2500kwh per month in some areas of the US - and like I said, even in SF thanks to heating sometimes, too :D )