• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Specs of Top Intel 12th Gen Core "Alder Lake-S" Processors Surface

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
47,304 (7.52/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 8GB G.Skill Sniper X
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
Intel will debut its 12th Gen Core "Alder Lake-S" desktop processors either toward the end of 2021, or early 2022, introducing the LGA1700 socket, 600-series chipset, and more importantly, hybrid CPU core architecture to the desktop space. The 10 nm "Alder Lake-S" silicon features up to eight "Golden Cove" performance cores (P-cores), and up to eight "Gracemont" efficiency cores (E-cores), in a heterogenous CPU core setup rivaling Arm big.LITTLE. Specifications of the top Core i9, fairly-top Core i7, and mid-tier Core i5 parts were leaked to the web on Chinese social media.

The 12th Gen Core lineup will be led, predictably, by the Core i9-12900K, which succeeds the i9-11900K with a maxed out 8+8 (P+E) configuration, unlocked multipliers, the most cache, and the highest clock speeds. The P-cores ("Golden Cove" cores) are clocked up to 5.30 GHz (1-2 cores boost), and up to 5.00 GHz all-core / 8 cores; while the E-cores ("Gracemont" cores), are clocked up to 3.90 GHz (1-4 cores boost), with 3.70 GHz all-core / 8 cores boost. The total L3 cache on the silicon is 30 MB. The i9-12900K has a TDP of 125 W (PL1), with 228 W PL2. Intel will introduce several new overclocking features, including multiple memory gear ratios.



The 12th Gen Core i7 processors will be 8+4 core (P+E), have slightly lower clock speeds than the Core i9 parts, and possibly miss certain boost features. The Core i7-12700K will be the top part in the Core i7 extension. The P-cores feature maximum boost frequency of 5.00 GHz, with 4.70 GHz all-core boost; while the E-cores 3.80 GHz max boost, with 3.60 GHz all-core. The chip has 25 MB of L3 cache, and identical PL1 and PL2 values to the i9-12900K.

The Core i5 series will be made up to 6+4 core (P+E) parts. The unlocked Core i5-12600K is runs the P cores at up to 4.90 GHz, with up to 4.50 GHz all-core; while the E-cores are run at up to 3.60 GHz, with up to 3.40 GHz all-core. 20 MB of L3 cache, and the same 125 W PL1 and 228 W PL2 values as the other two unlocked parts.

There could be variants of the three that lack iGPU, but have identical CPU specs—i9-12900KF, i7-12700KF, and i5-12600KF.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
1,667 (0.78/day)
System Name Personal Gaming Rig
Processor Ryzen 7800X3D
Motherboard MSI X670E Carbon
Cooling MO-RA 3 420
Memory 32GB 6000MHz
Video Card(s) RTX 4090 ICHILL FROSTBITE ULTRA
Storage 4x 2TB Nvme
Display(s) Samsung G8 OLED
Case Silverstone FT04
Hey there 228W PL2
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
6,763 (1.39/day)
Processor Intel® Core™ i7-13700K
Motherboard Gigabyte Z790 Aorus Elite AX
Cooling Noctua NH-D15
Memory 32GB(2x16) DDR5@6600MHz G-Skill Trident Z5
Video Card(s) ZOTAC GAMING GeForce RTX 3080 AMP Holo
Storage 2TB SK Platinum P41 SSD + 4TB SanDisk Ultra SSD + 500GB Samsung 840 EVO SSD
Display(s) Acer Predator X34 3440x1440@100Hz G-Sync
Case NZXT PHANTOM410-BK
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi Titanium PCIe
Power Supply Corsair 850W
Mouse Logitech Hero G502 SE
Software Windows 11 Pro - 64bit
Benchmark Scores 30FPS in NFS:Rivals
cannot wait to see how an old 10900K CPU will trash this i9 garbage of 8 Cores + 8 Useless Cores... Specially in games or render apps.
 

Space Lynx

Astronaut
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
17,430 (4.68/day)
Location
Kepler-186f
Processor 7800X3D -25 all core
Motherboard B650 Steel Legend
Cooling Frost Commander 140
Video Card(s) Merc 310 7900 XT @3100 core -.75v
Display(s) Agon 27" QD-OLED Glossy 240hz 1440p
Case NZXT H710 (Red/Black)
Audio Device(s) Asgard 2, Modi 3, HD58X
Power Supply Corsair RM850x Gold
cannot wait to see how an old 10900K CPU will trash this i9 garbage of 8 Cores + 8 Useless Cores... Specially in games or render apps.

or better yet, use the weak cores by accident in old old games, limiting max frame rate possibilities for 240hz monitors. :roll:
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
1,761 (1.02/day)
Hey there 228W PL2
I wonder if this is the upper limit, or just some average number than Intel pulled out. To be honest, it is very hard to take their word for it nowadays. We've seen too many numbers from Intel of late, that don't really reconcile with the actual product. The TDP number is by far the most misleading number because the actual product requires between 2 to 3.5x that amount of power to reach that kind of performance that Intel is tooting.

cannot wait to see how an old 10900K CPU will trash this i9 garbage of 8 Cores + 8 Useless Cores... Specially in games or render apps.
I doubt that will happen. Even with the current Rocket Lake, the IPC gain is noticeable over Comet Lake. And if you take Tiger Lake H vs the older Comet Lake H, the gains is even more pronounced in games and in rendering software. While the Alder Lake is capped at 8 performance Golden Cove cores, the efficient cores from what I heard is almost as fast as Skylake (not sure if this is true until we hear more about it closer to launch). So if you have 8 efficient cores helping to make up for the 2 missing high performance cores in the 10900K, I think it is highly possible that Alder Lake will be quite a bit faster. The only hurdle for Intel is AMD's Ryzen 9 series.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2016
Messages
3,459 (1.17/day)
System Name The de-ploughminator Mk-III
Processor 9800X3D
Motherboard Gigabyte X870E Aorus Master
Cooling DeepCool AK620
Memory 2x32GB G.SKill 6400MT Cas32
Video Card(s) Asus RTX4090 TUF
Storage 4TB Samsung 990 Pro
Display(s) 48" LG OLED C4
Case Corsair 5000D Air
Audio Device(s) KEF LSX II LT speakers + KEF KC62 Subwoofer
Power Supply Corsair HX850
Mouse Razor Death Adder v3
Keyboard Razor Huntsman V3 Pro TKL
Software win11
So with windows 11 we can choose which application require high performance cores, similar to iGPU vs dGPU?
The only way 8+8cores config like this would sell is that Intel charge similarly to previous 8C CPU and not make a new pricing bracket (i11 and i13 SKUs :roll: )
 

Uroshi

New Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
12 (0.01/day)
I wonder if this is the upper limit, or just some average number than Intel pulled out. To be honest, it is very hard to take their word for it nowadays. We've seen too many numbers from Intel of late, that don't really reconcile with the actual product. The TDP number is by far the most misleading number because the actual product requires between 2 to 3.5x that amount of power to reach that kind of performance that Intel is tooting.


I doubt that will happen. Even with the current Rocket Lake, the IPC gain is noticeable over Comet Lake. And if you take Tiger Lake H vs the older Comet Lake H, the gains is even more pronounced in games and in rendering software. While the Alder Lake is capped at 8 performance Golden Cove cores, the efficient cores from what I heard is almost as fast as Skylake (not sure if this is true until we hear more about it closer to launch). So if you have 8 efficient cores helping to make up for the 2 missing high performance cores in the 10900K, I think it is highly possible that Alder Lake will be quite a bit faster. The only hurdle for Intel is AMD's Ryzen 9 series.
When they said the Gracemont cores are 90% of Skylake I wonder if they meant 90% of the 6700K cores (4.2GHz single core turbo, 4GHz all core). That wouldn't be so impressive to be honest.
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2020
Messages
1,624 (1.01/day)
Location
::1
[ ... ]
I doubt that will happen. Even with the current Rocket Lake, the IPC gain is noticeable over Comet Lake. And if you take Tiger Lake H vs the older Comet Lake H, the gains is even more pronounced in games and in rendering software. While the Alder Lake is capped at 8 performance Golden Cove cores, the efficient cores from what I heard is almost as fast as Skylake (not sure if this is true until we hear more about it closer to launch). So if you have 8 efficient cores helping to make up for the 2 missing high performance cores in the 10900K, I think it is highly possible that Alder Lake will be quite a bit faster. The only hurdle for Intel is AMD's Ryzen 9 series.
No.

IPC is fairly useless a metric for gaming performance. IPC isn't the bottleneck for game fps, not by a long shot. Memory (latency, primarily) is. Which is also the strongest selling point of Skylake, it's got the best IMC since forever basically. That's also why Skylake was holding its ground and at the beginning even eclipsing RKL in game performance - it's got a much better IMC.
 
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
1,667 (0.78/day)
System Name Personal Gaming Rig
Processor Ryzen 7800X3D
Motherboard MSI X670E Carbon
Cooling MO-RA 3 420
Memory 32GB 6000MHz
Video Card(s) RTX 4090 ICHILL FROSTBITE ULTRA
Storage 4x 2TB Nvme
Display(s) Samsung G8 OLED
Case Silverstone FT04
I wonder if this is the upper limit, or just some average number than Intel pulled out. To be honest, it is very hard to take their word for it nowadays. We've seen too many numbers from Intel of late, that don't really reconcile with the actual product. The TDP number is by far the most misleading number because the actual product requires between 2 to 3.5x that amount of power to reach that kind of performance that Intel is tooting.

Intel's TDP numbers are far beyond fixing so everybody looks for their "TrUe" power limit numbers now (PL1 and PL2)
PL1 and PL2 number were so far OKAY in varies reviews and testing, generally their CPUs never exceed the PL2 limit without overclocking.
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
13,844 (3.95/day)
Processor Intel i5-12600k
Motherboard Asus H670 TUF
Cooling Arctic Freezer 34
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 2TB Crucial MX500
Display(s) Dell U3219Q + HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
I'm curious to see how this heterogeneous architecture works. It seems 10nm will kill it regardless, but I'm still curious from a technical point of view. It could be a glimpse of things to come.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
12,592 (5.80/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Nebulon B
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock 4
Memory 2x 24 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR5-4800
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT 12 GB
Storage 2 TB Corsair MP600 GS, 2 TB Corsair MP600 R2
Display(s) Dell S3422DWG, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z333 2.1 speakers, AKG Y50 headphones
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Logitech MX Master 2S
Keyboard Logitech G413 SE
Software Bazzite (Fedora Linux) KDE
I wonder if this is the upper limit, or just some average number than Intel pulled out. To be honest, it is very hard to take their word for it nowadays. We've seen too many numbers from Intel of late, that don't really reconcile with the actual product. The TDP number is by far the most misleading number because the actual product requires between 2 to 3.5x that amount of power to reach that kind of performance that Intel is tooting.
I guess I'm still in the minority that thinks Intel's TDP is pretty straightforward - 125 W PL1, that means a CPU limited to 125 W power consumption except for short bursts of Tau. The turbo values are "up to", which means you can achieve them within PL2, or with unlocked power limits. Nobody ever said your CPU will run at 5.3 GHz all the time. The only reason people are crying is because 4-core chips (up to 7th gen) could maintain max turbo speeds within PL1, while modern 6 and 8-core chips can't - but officially, turbo has always been an "up to" value with no guarantee.

AMD's TDP formula on the other hand... :kookoo:
 

TheLostSwede

News Editor
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
17,778 (2.42/day)
Location
Sweden
System Name Overlord Mk MLI
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard Gigabyte X670E Aorus Master
Cooling Noctua NH-D15 SE with offsets
Memory 32GB Team T-Create Expert DDR5 6000 MHz @ CL30-34-34-68
Video Card(s) Gainward GeForce RTX 4080 Phantom GS
Storage 1TB Solidigm P44 Pro, 2 TB Corsair MP600 Pro, 2TB Kingston KC3000
Display(s) Acer XV272K LVbmiipruzx 4K@160Hz
Case Fractal Design Torrent Compact
Audio Device(s) Corsair Virtuoso SE
Power Supply be quiet! Pure Power 12 M 850 W
Mouse Logitech G502 Lightspeed
Keyboard Corsair K70 Max
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/yfsd9w
E core and P core are official terms. This seems legit.
E for Economy? P for Premium Economy?

The 8 big cores have Hyper Threading...so there will be 16 high performance threads plus an additional 8 low power threads, giving 24 threads in total.

A 10900K will not be faster.
Wouldn't that depend on the application? Not all things will be able to take advantage of the Atom cores.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
6,763 (1.39/day)
Processor Intel® Core™ i7-13700K
Motherboard Gigabyte Z790 Aorus Elite AX
Cooling Noctua NH-D15
Memory 32GB(2x16) DDR5@6600MHz G-Skill Trident Z5
Video Card(s) ZOTAC GAMING GeForce RTX 3080 AMP Holo
Storage 2TB SK Platinum P41 SSD + 4TB SanDisk Ultra SSD + 500GB Samsung 840 EVO SSD
Display(s) Acer Predator X34 3440x1440@100Hz G-Sync
Case NZXT PHANTOM410-BK
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi Titanium PCIe
Power Supply Corsair 850W
Mouse Logitech Hero G502 SE
Software Windows 11 Pro - 64bit
Benchmark Scores 30FPS in NFS:Rivals
I wonder if this is the upper limit, or just some average number than Intel pulled out. To be honest, it is very hard to take their word for it nowadays. We've seen too many numbers from Intel of late, that don't really reconcile with the actual product. The TDP number is by far the most misleading number because the actual product requires between 2 to 3.5x that amount of power to reach that kind of performance that Intel is tooting.


I doubt that will happen. Even with the current Rocket Lake, the IPC gain is noticeable over Comet Lake. And if you take Tiger Lake H vs the older Comet Lake H, the gains is even more pronounced in games and in rendering software. While the Alder Lake is capped at 8 performance Golden Cove cores, the efficient cores from what I heard is almost as fast as Skylake (not sure if this is true until we hear more about it closer to launch). So if you have 8 efficient cores helping to make up for the 2 missing high performance cores in the 10900K, I think it is highly possible that Alder Lake will be quite a bit faster. The only hurdle for Intel is AMD's Ryzen 9 series.
Actually the "old" i9 10900K is faster in games than the i9 11900K due to extra 2 Cores. Reviews are all over the internets...
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
12,592 (5.80/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Nebulon B
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock 4
Memory 2x 24 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR5-4800
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT 12 GB
Storage 2 TB Corsair MP600 GS, 2 TB Corsair MP600 R2
Display(s) Dell S3422DWG, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z333 2.1 speakers, AKG Y50 headphones
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Logitech MX Master 2S
Keyboard Logitech G413 SE
Software Bazzite (Fedora Linux) KDE
Joined
Jun 1, 2021
Messages
310 (0.24/day)
I think this has a way bigger potential in the market below the i9 and Ryzen 9, since well, if you compare an i5/7 to an Ryzen 5/7 then you would get the same number of big cores plus some additional little cores.

Depending on how Intel does their SKU for i3s, it could be really good as say 4+4 i3. It would probably be way better for marketing for office PCs too as the comparison would be lower core count AMD equivalents. For the higher end though, odds are that AMD will continue to be better.

That is, assuming that Intel doesn't fuck with perfomance and doesn't do terrible pricing.
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
13,844 (3.95/day)
Processor Intel i5-12600k
Motherboard Asus H670 TUF
Cooling Arctic Freezer 34
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 2TB Crucial MX500
Display(s) Dell U3219Q + HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
I guess I'm still in the minority that thinks Intel's TDP is pretty straightforward - 125 W PL1, that means a CPU limited to 125 W power consumption except for short bursts of Tau. The turbo values are "up to", which means you can achieve them within PL2, or with unlocked power limits. Nobody ever said your CPU will run at 5.3 GHz all the time. The only reason people are crying is because 4-core chips (up to 7th gen) could maintain max turbo speeds within PL1, while modern 6 and 8-core chips can't - but officially, turbo has always been an "up to" value with no guarantee.

AMD's TDP formula on the other hand... :kookoo:
The "problem", iirc, is that tau is not set in stone and some mobo makers just set it to forever, which makes the TDP limited only by the cooling solution (since PL2 is not sustainable under normal circumstances).
I don't hold this against intel, but who am I to stand in the way of a dose of good ol' hatin'?
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
12,592 (5.80/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Nebulon B
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock 4
Memory 2x 24 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR5-4800
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT 12 GB
Storage 2 TB Corsair MP600 GS, 2 TB Corsair MP600 R2
Display(s) Dell S3422DWG, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z333 2.1 speakers, AKG Y50 headphones
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Logitech MX Master 2S
Keyboard Logitech G413 SE
Software Bazzite (Fedora Linux) KDE
The "problem", iirc, is that tau is not set in stone and some mobo makers just set it to forever, which makes the TDP limited only by the cooling solution (since PL2 is not sustainable under normal circumstances).
I don't hold this against intel, but who am I to stand in the way of a dose of good ol' hatin'?
To be honest, I'm not quite sure about that. Hardware Unboxed did a pretty extensive review of a whole bunch of B560 and Z590 motherboards. In it, they listed my Asus TUF B560M-Plus Wifi in the "comes with unlocked Tau out of the box" category, which is only true if you enable the Asus Optimiser in BIOS, which you have to do manually. If you don't touch the BIOS, you'll have Intel default PL and Tau values, so HU's categorisation is pretty much flawed.

In my opinion, the problem is reviewers 1. not being specific enough about how they test CPUs, or what settings they change to achieve the given numbers, and 2. testing every CPU with a 360 mm AIO or a custom loop, which most people don't have. They focus too much on peak performance, and forget about the fact that every use case is different. TPU is pretty much the only somewhat reliable source in this regard.
 
Joined
Dec 3, 2012
Messages
654 (0.15/day)
Wouldn't that depend on the application? Not all things will be able to take advantage of the Atom cores.

I've No idea, until we see them in action.

It could be a similar scenario to when Hyper Threading was first introduced, the software had to catch up with the hardware.

It looks like AMD are going to do something similar as well in the future, so 'big' and 'small' cores seems to be the future.
 
Joined
Apr 16, 2013
Messages
549 (0.13/day)
Location
Bulgaria
System Name Black Knight | White Queen
Processor Intel Core i9-10940X (28 cores) | Intel Core i7-5775C (8 cores)
Motherboard ASUS ROG Rampage VI Extreme Encore X299G | ASUS Sabertooth Z97 Mark S (White)
Cooling Noctua NH-D15 chromax.black | Xigmatek Dark Knight SD-1283 Night Hawk (White)
Memory G.SKILL Trident Z RGB 4x8GB DDR4 3600MHz CL16 | Corsair Vengeance LP 4x4GB DDR3L 1600MHz CL9 (White)
Video Card(s) ASUS ROG Strix GeForce RTX 4090 OC | KFA2/Galax GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Hall of Fame Edition
Storage Samsung 990 Pro 2TB, 980 Pro 1TB, 850 Pro 256GB, 840 Pro 256GB, WD 10TB+ (incl. VelociRaptors)
Display(s) Dell Alienware AW2721D 240Hz| LG OLED evo C4 48" 144Hz
Case Corsair 7000D AIRFLOW (Black) | NZXT ??? w/ ASUS DRW-24B1ST
Audio Device(s) ASUS Xonar Essence STX | Realtek ALC1150
Power Supply Enermax Revolution 1250W 85+ | Super Flower Leadex Gold 650W (White)
Mouse Razer Basilisk Ultimate, Razer Naga Trinity | Razer Mamba 16000
Keyboard Razer Blackwidow Chroma V2 (Orange switch) | Razer Ornata Chroma
Software Windows 10 Pro 64bit
It looks like AMD are going to do something similar as well in the future, so 'big' and 'small' cores seems to be the future.
Future for portable/laptop devices, but I don't see why such thing can be "future" for desktop based systems. And they are doing it, because Intel is doing it. I mean it's cool way to "test the waters" for mobile market, but still.
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
13,844 (3.95/day)
Processor Intel i5-12600k
Motherboard Asus H670 TUF
Cooling Arctic Freezer 34
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 2TB Crucial MX500
Display(s) Dell U3219Q + HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
To be honest, I'm not quite sure about that. Hardware Unboxed did a pretty extensive review of a whole bunch of B560 and Z590 motherboards. In it, they listed my Asus TUF B560M-Plus Wifi in the "comes with unlocked Tau out of the box" category, which is only true if you enable the Asus Optimiser in BIOS, which you have to do manually. If you don't touch the BIOS, you'll have Intel default PL and Tau values, so HU's categorisation is pretty much flawed.

In my opinion, the problem is reviewers 1. not being specific enough about how they test CPUs, or what settings they change to achieve the given numbers, and 2. testing every CPU with a 360 mm AIO or a custom loop, which most people don't have. They focus too much on peak performance, and forget about the fact that every use case is different. TPU is pretty much the only somewhat reliable source in this regard.
Like I said, hate brings in page clicks. Who am I to stand in the way of that?
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
12,592 (5.80/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Nebulon B
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock 4
Memory 2x 24 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR5-4800
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT 12 GB
Storage 2 TB Corsair MP600 GS, 2 TB Corsair MP600 R2
Display(s) Dell S3422DWG, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z333 2.1 speakers, AKG Y50 headphones
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Logitech MX Master 2S
Keyboard Logitech G413 SE
Software Bazzite (Fedora Linux) KDE
Like I said, hate brings in page clicks. Who am I to stand in the way of that?
And the reason behind hate is misinformation 99% of the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bug
Joined
Dec 3, 2012
Messages
654 (0.15/day)
but I don't see why such thing can be "future" for desktop based systems. And they are doing it, because Intel is doing it. I mean it's cool way to "test the waters" for mobile market, but still.

Even desktops have their limits as to how big a silicon package you want to put inside a PC.

Silicion Die shrinkage is going at a slower pace than the ability/need to put more cores on them, so new ways have to be found to keep increasing processing power whilst keeping thermal & power requirements at a sane level.

..if 8 stripped down 'small cores' only use, as an example, 20-30% of the power of 8 'big' cores but have the equivalent processing power of 3 or 4 'big cores' then its the only way to do it.
 

TheLostSwede

News Editor
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
17,778 (2.42/day)
Location
Sweden
System Name Overlord Mk MLI
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Motherboard Gigabyte X670E Aorus Master
Cooling Noctua NH-D15 SE with offsets
Memory 32GB Team T-Create Expert DDR5 6000 MHz @ CL30-34-34-68
Video Card(s) Gainward GeForce RTX 4080 Phantom GS
Storage 1TB Solidigm P44 Pro, 2 TB Corsair MP600 Pro, 2TB Kingston KC3000
Display(s) Acer XV272K LVbmiipruzx 4K@160Hz
Case Fractal Design Torrent Compact
Audio Device(s) Corsair Virtuoso SE
Power Supply be quiet! Pure Power 12 M 850 W
Mouse Logitech G502 Lightspeed
Keyboard Corsair K70 Max
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/yfsd9w
I've No idea, until we see them in action.

It could be a similar scenario to when Hyper Threading was first introduced, the software had to catch up with the hardware.

It looks like AMD are going to do something similar as well in the future, so 'big' and 'small' cores seems to be the future.
I thought it had already been confirmed that unless you're on Windows 11, the Atom cores brings zero performance to the system, as Windows 10 doesn't seem to use them for anything.
Obviously other operating systems aren't supported as yet so...

HyperThreading was such a bust at launch. I remember when we tested that at PCW and it offered zero performance improvement. Intel tried so hard to find something where it would show an improvement, but failed.

Yes, seen those rumours too. It makes more sense in mobile devices imho, as I'm not really sure what the benefit would be in a desktop system except some power saving, which isn't that relevant.
 
Top