Tuesday, March 15th 2022
Intel Starts Shipping Core i9-12900KS to Early Customers
Intel's ambitious new flagship desktop processor, the Core i9-12900KS, started shipping to early customers before retail embargo. By this we don't mean enthusiasts with privileged ties to the company, but retailers. PC enthusiast DAGINATSUKO was able to purchase one online for roughly USD $790, before the store they purchased from took down the listing.
Pictures of the retail i9-12900KS reveal a darker-themed box than that of the i9-12900K, with "Special Edition" written on the front-face. The chip features an S-Spec code "SRLDD." We also learn a few interesting tidbits about the i9-12900KS from this source. Apparently, its processor base power (PBP) is set at 150 W, and its maximum turbo power (MTP) at 260 W. The standard i9-12900K comes with 125 W PBP and 241 W MTP. The increased power limits support a more aggressive boosting algorithm, with the maximum Turbo Boost clocks on the P-cores set at 5.50 GHz, compared to 5.20 GHz on the i9-12900K. The P-core base frequency is increased by 200 MHz, too, now at 3.40 GHz.
Source:
VideoCardz
Pictures of the retail i9-12900KS reveal a darker-themed box than that of the i9-12900K, with "Special Edition" written on the front-face. The chip features an S-Spec code "SRLDD." We also learn a few interesting tidbits about the i9-12900KS from this source. Apparently, its processor base power (PBP) is set at 150 W, and its maximum turbo power (MTP) at 260 W. The standard i9-12900K comes with 125 W PBP and 241 W MTP. The increased power limits support a more aggressive boosting algorithm, with the maximum Turbo Boost clocks on the P-cores set at 5.50 GHz, compared to 5.20 GHz on the i9-12900K. The P-core base frequency is increased by 200 MHz, too, now at 3.40 GHz.
45 Comments on Intel Starts Shipping Core i9-12900KS to Early Customers
Intel: ADD. MORE. WATTAGE.
The plus side to that is you'd have memory chips top and bottom so you access them more easily and quickly where the further CPU chips otherwise would have more of a latency penalty incurred. There is still latency involved, but the round trip latency would peak quite as severally potentially. The other plus is heat distribution would be kind of ideal using the efficiency L chips as a buffer between P cores.
I still think they need to go all the way and mix arm64 with x86, letting the OS run off super low wattage parts (or run true 15W TDP x86 parts and lock the OS to them)
And this was using 360mm AIO. Tho admittedly they were in a hot room and the fans were running at low rpm/not tuned in bios.
That's part of why the 12900K is more efficient than the 12700K and the 12600K is less efficient than the 12700K. It's attributed in part due to the additional multipliers and speed shift along with the additional caches. They do add more heat, but that's expected.
Where the P cores excel is single thread performance, but they definitely don't fare as well on multi-thread performance for the die space they take up. The E cores were assumed to help with heat in part to muster and extract more single thread performance from the P cores aiding them by offloading some performance tasks to the E cores. I'd say in practice they don't do that as convincingly as they probably could and should right yet, but if they subdivide them into more multipliers on the E cores that could very quickly and dynamically provide a nice granularity change for the better.
Intel needs to better work around the design limitations with it's follow up. They could absolutely stand to learn from what hardware and software makers did with the SID chip and with NES sound chip working around those limitations in clever ways. That's the type of ingenuity that's needed. Find solutions and work around angles that makes them still overall compelling as a whole.
I could get lost just tinkering with the 129000K chip seeing how it works and the number of ways to extract performance and efficient out of it. It's probably much less simple and straight forward than people might presume because there are implications depending on usage and favoring pushing the E cores or P cores to a higher clock frequency and even mixing a bit of scaling between each of them linearly within the flaws of both designs and temperature limits of the chip as a whole. It's complex beast once you realize there are multipliers and frequencies for both, but also BCLK plays another role.
Speaking of BCLK it would be nice if it could get to the point where invidiaul cores/cluster have their own BCLK domain that can be adjust to push BCLK higher or lower and adjust the memory divider of them higher or lower dynamically. The implications on heat and power are fairly relevant especially if you could turn clusters on/off and switch to a lowest power cluster then speed shift back to a higher power one when and where needed.
I have no dog in this race just thought I'd point that out.
Yep better hurry and release it for 800.us before amd releases it's 3d version for 450.us that is suppose to match 12900k performance :laugh:Hi,
Hard to take you seriously seeing you haven't even bothered to fill in your system spec's which would show under your avatar
Whether or not you've subbed any benchmarks "I sure haven't seen any so far" sadly the R20-R23 boards aren't updated very often or at all
But feel free to sub on my realbench leader board with clocks/ temp min-max showing using hwinfo64 open love to see some low temps :cool:
www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/leader-board-show-your-realbench-score.264150/
www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-alder-lake-12th-gen/21.htmlIf i could be bothered i could easily find other reviews that say it runs hot but i decided to link TPU's own as this is where we are. So no im not basing this on one example. If your 12900K runs cooler than in the reviews then great but also remember that R23 is a short workload so by nature it wont get as hot a longer renders or games that don't stress all cores that run cooler.
Also im not seeing people across forums etc saying how cool their 12900K runs like it's a common thing. Rather opposite in fact.