Intel Core i9-12900K "Alder Lake" Beats Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX at Cinebench R23 nT

[95Viper]

Stay on topic.
It is not about who is using what for their systems/rigs.
Stop the insults and name calling.

 

[Tomgang]

Nice score for what is assumed to be a stock cpu. Now the question is at how much power consumption.

5950X can definitely go above 30K on cinebench r23. My own for comparison score 25286 stock, 29512 with pbo enabled and with a 4.65 ghz all core oc it goes to 31238 on aircooling.

Se it here
Post in thread 'Post your Cinebench R23 Score' https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/post-your-cinebench-r23-score.213237/post-4572011

Now I wunder how it will look with intel i9 12900K vs. Ryzen 9 6950X with amd zen 3+ with v-cashe.

 

[Melvis]

Yeah it does, stock 5950X is 28K - 12900K scores 30K, OC or not, still impressive as this is a 8C/16T chip with 8 effciency cores on the side.

No it doesnt. 5950X = 32000@5.1Ghz, 12900K = 30500@5.3GHz, dont get me wrong its a good score if its real but the fact is it just doesn't beat the 5950X, but gets close.

I do think the IPC of the 12900K will be higher then Zen 3 though (big cores) but not by a massive amount as some claim.

Post your Cinebench R23 Score

Download Cinebench R23 Benchmarks FFXV Benchmark Cinebench R23 "Multi" Scores are clickable, leading to the original post. NameCPUCoreClockSingleMultiCooling mirrormaxEPYC 7742 (x2)128C/256T@ 3160 MHz 100981 cbAir nepuEPYC 770264C/128T@ 2499 MHz 48844 cbAir Bret WeeksRyzen Threadripper...

www.techpowerup.com

 

[Nanochip]

No it doesnt. 5950X = 32000@5.1Ghz, 12900K = 30500@5.3GHz, dont get me wrong its a good score if its real but the fact is it just doesn't beat the 5950X, but gets close.

I do think the IPC of the 12900K will be higher then Zen 3 though (big cores) but not by a massive amount as some claim.

Post your Cinebench R23 Score

Download Cinebench R23 Benchmarks FFXV Benchmark Cinebench R23 "Multi" Scores are clickable, leading to the original post. NameCPUCoreClockSingleMultiCooling mirrormaxEPYC 7742 (x2)128C/256T@ 3160 MHz 100981 cbAir nepuEPYC 770264C/128T@ 2499 MHz 48844 cbAir Bret WeeksRyzen Threadripper...

www.techpowerup.com

a 5.3 GHz reading on an Intel i9 cpu doesn’t necessarily mean all cores were run at 5.3 GHz. This could just be thermal velocity boost clocking 1-2 cores to 5.3 GHz opportunistically, but not all. So this would be the stock configuration. And that is just for the 8 big Golden cove.

We don’t know what the frequency of the little Gracemont cores are, or how well they overclock if they overclock at all. We don’t know much of anything other than Intel seems to be coming back.

To get a sense for the ipc difference between the two architectures, we need to look at single core performance of both golden cove and Ryzen 5000, at a set frequency. Probably should also do the same for gracemont as well.

 

[las]

intel back from the dead.

They were never dead tho Intel dominated chip sales during covid, especially in the laptop segment. Businesses bought millions of laptops in past years. Working from home meant alot of new gear and Intel, owning their own fabs, was able to deliver in abundance. AMD was not, they rely on TSMC and AMD is not TSMC's primary focus, it will always be Apple + They have alot of other customers. Being fabless is not always a good thing you know...

In our company we bought like 800 intel laptops this year so far, only 5 ryzen laptops, why? Because Intel could actually deliver. 99.9% of orders are day 2 day. Only 1 Ryzen powered laptop was delivered within 2 weeks, the rest took 2-3 and even 6 months for one of them, to get delivered, All Thinkpads. We only buy Lenovo. And we buy directly AND from 3 other major retailers. NO-ONE could deliver.

AMDs mobile segment is a mess actually.

AMD has also been shooting themself in the foot on the desktop segment, with Intel having BETTER value/perf and much better availablity. Ryzen 3600/3600X were (and is) great value but AMD raised prices with 5000 series - 5600X is much more expensive now and lacks a non-X variant. AMD did this because TSMC is under pressure and they KNEW they were not able to deliver tons of chips, so they raised prices, leaving alot of sales for Intel to grab, and they did. Intel has been dominating the OEM market too.

This is simply pure facts, so it amuses me that some people actually think Intel has been in trouble in the last 1-2 years. Their financials are more than fine. Feel free to take a look.

I'm glad Intel don't have monopoly anymore tho. Great for consumers. So why would ANYHONE want to see Intel dead anyway? AMD would have done EXACTLY what Intel did, if they dominated the market like Intel did from around 2010 to 2019ish. It's business 101. When Intel released Sandy Bridge it was GAME OVER for AMD and Ryzen 1000 and 2000 were mediocre. TSMC 7nm was the primary reason why Ryzen 3000 and especially 5000 series became good and even great. Without TSMC AMD would probably still be using the subpar GloFo 12nm node, which is faaaar worse than Intel 14nm have ever been. GloFo 12nm is more like a 16nm node, at best (however 12nm sounds better right - thats the reason why nanometer has become an useless term today - you can't compare nanometer across fabs)

AMD has raised prices on several occations, when they actually had good products, however Nvidia and Intel always came back and beat them. AMD lowered prices as a result. This is also part of the reason why AMD products lose alot more value than Intel and Nvidia stuff. Just like Apple vs Android. AMD and Android prodcuts simply lose way more value, because they compete on pricing. Intel and Nvidia _generally_ keep their pricing till products go EoL, meaning you can actually sell the stuff when you upgrade, for more than peanuts.

Example; Ryzen 1800X launched at 500 dollars, 2 years later you could barely sell it for 50 dollars...

 

[Melvis]

a 5.3 GHz reading on an Intel i9 cpu doesn’t necessarily mean all cores were run at 5.3 GHz. This could just be thermal velocity boost clocking 1-2 cores to 5.3 GHz opportunistically, but not all. So this would be the stock configuration. And that is just for the 8 big Golden cove.

We don’t know what the frequency of the little Gracemont cores are, or how well they overclock if they overclock at all. We don’t know much of anything other than Intel seems to be coming back.

To get a sense for the ipc difference between the two architectures, we need to look at single core performance of both golden cove and Ryzen 5000, at a set frequency. Probably should also do the same for gracemont as well.

Well going from that screen shot its showing an idle CPU and its clocked at 5.3GHz which means its most likely OC, an idle CPU would show a clock speed of base clock speed so like 3.2Ghz or whatever, but it doesnt so im pretty sure this is an OC result.

 

[Vayra86]

Yeah it does, stock 5950X is 28K - 12900K scores 30K, OC or not, still impressive as this is a 8C/16T chip with 8 effciency cores on the side.



You are in full denial mode I see
Yep, AMD used to fight 14nm, not the case anymore.

LOL. You're posting this in a single post.

Are you alright mate? I know you for scraping the bottom of the barrel for a pro-Intel/Nv argument but this is next level right here. You didn't even see it. So an 8C/16T chip at over DOUBLE the rated TDP is irrelevant for your comparisons. Gotcha, its good you're confirming your perspectives on things for the rest, so we can avoid the nonsense entirely.

Let's just wait and see what Alder Lake does in a normal use case, you know, where you can actually use normal cooling instead of a contraption that mimics LN2.

 

[Nanochip]

Well going from that screen shot its showing an idle CPU and its clocked at 5.3GHz which means its most likely OC, an idle CPU would show a clock speed of base clock speed so like 3.2Ghz or whatever, but it doesnt so im pretty sure this is an OC result.

That’s not how it works. My cpu when idle sometimes reads 5.2 GHz, sometimes it reads 800 MHz. It just depends on when you take the screenshot. It’s boosting up and down all the time. And even when it shows 5.2 GHz, under an all core load, it clocks down to 5.0 GHz.

The default was to boost to 5.1 GHz and clock down to 4.6 GHz under an all core load. If you took the screenshot when it was 5.1 GHz you’d swear it was overclocked, when it wasn’t.

the i9 by default boosts to 5.3 GHz when lightly loaded, but I don’t know what golden cove’s defaults are for an all core clock so I don’t want to speculate. What I’m saying is we can’t draw any conclusions either way that this cpu is clocked to 5.3 GHz under an all core load. It might not even be stable at that frequency for all 8 cores. Don’t know, but I doubt it.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

The multiplier on CPU-Z shows 8-51 yet it's at 100x53 so i guess it is oc'd unless 51 is not the boost multiplier. Even so they have only oc'd it by 200mhz(100x51-100x53) so not a massive oc anyway.

 

[las]

Well going from that screen shot its showing an idle CPU and its clocked at 5.3GHz which means its most likely OC, an idle CPU would show a clock speed of base clock speed so like 3.2Ghz or whatever, but it doesnt so im pretty sure this is an OC result.

CPUz shows max boost clock that is probably not all-core clock. Should be 5 GHz or so. My 9900K on stock speed shows 5 GHz in CPUz, regardless of actual clockspeed.

I bet we will see people hitting 5.4-5.5 GHz all-core overclocks on the better Alder Lake chips, for 24/7 use.

If max boost clock is 5.3 on stock, then 5.3 on all cores is going to be almost guaranteed with extra voltage, meaning that alot of chips will go higher.

 

[Melvis]

That’s not how it works. My cpu when idle sometimes reads 5.2 GHz, sometimes it reads 800 MHz. It just depends on when you take the screenshot. It’s boosting up and down all the time. And even when it shows 5.2 GHz, under an all core load, it clocks down to 5.0 GHz.

The default was to boost to 5.1 GHz and clock down to 4.6 GHz under an all core load. If you took the screenshot when it was 5.1 GHz you’d swear it was overclocked, when it wasn’t.

the i9 by default boosts to 5.3 GHz when lightly loaded, but I don’t know what golden cove’s defaults are for an all core clock so I don’t want to speculate. What I’m saying is we can’t draw any conclusions either way that this cpu is clocked to 5.3 GHz under an all core load. It might not even be stable at that frequency for all 8 cores. Don’t know, but I doubt it.

CPUz shows max boost clock that is probably not all-core clock. Should be 5 GHz or so. My 9900K on stock speed shows 5 GHz in CPUz, regardless of actual clockspeed.

I bet we will see people hitting 5.4-5.5 GHz all-core overclocks on the better Alder Lake chips, for 24/7 use.

If max boost clock is 5.3 on stock, then 5.3 on all cores is going to be almost guaranteed with extra voltage, meaning that alot of chips will go higher.

No no thats how it works, if your CPU is at idle it will show its base clock speed, always has, it only shows higher clock speeds if the CPU is actually in use, and what we have here in the screen shot is an idle CPU with CPUZ showing 5.3GHz and the only way this can happen is if the CPU is manually clocked (OC) to that speed, this is how CPUZ works and has always worked.

The multiplier on CPU-Z shows 8-51 yet it's at 100x53 so i guess it is oc'd unless 51 is not the boost multiplier. Even so they have only oc'd it by 200mhz(100x51-100x53) so not a massive oc anyway.

Some one noticed it

 

[Nanochip]

No no thats how it works, if your CPU is at idle it will show its base clock speed, always has, it only shows higher clock speeds if the CPU is actually in use, and what we have here in the screen shot is an idle CPU with CPUZ showing 5.3GHz and the only way this can happen is if the CPU is manually clocked (OC) to that speed, this is how CPUZ works and has always worked.

Completely disagree bro. My cpu-z values bounce around all the time even when the cpu is supposedly idle. There are always tasks in the background. So define “idle.” the kernel scheduler is scheduling threads to run on the cpu in each instant. You don’t know what was going on in the background of the test alder lake system that might have caused the cpu to spike to 5.3 GHz at the moment the screenshot was taken.

For me, with cpu-z, it shows momentary spikes in frequency then it clocks back down. It’s continuous. I can show 800 MHz in one screenshot then 5.2 GHz in another screenshot all taken in the same 5 second window of time. If I only showed you the 5.2 GHz screenshot you’d swear it was overclocked to 5.2 GHz, not knowing anything about the per-core turbo ratios. Or that it clocks down to 800 MHz some of the time.

Also another relevant point is the windows power plan. Under ‘balanced’ the cpu will clock down to its base 800 MHz frequency much more often, particularly when the system is “idle” whereas under “high performance” it tends to bounce around in between the top turbo ratios in my case between 5.0 to 5.2 GHz even at “idle.”

Anyways, have a good day.

 

[R0H1T]

This could just be thermal velocity boost clocking 1-2 cores to 5.3 GHz opportunistically, but not all.

Well it could run the entirety of the test at 5.3Ghz if the power limits are set to some absurd values in the BIOS ~ which btw is almost always the case with Intel these days!

 

[95Viper]

Post on topic.
Not about members.
Stop baiting, insulting, and trying to create drama.

Thank You.

 

[Melvis]

Completely disagree bro. My cpu-z values bounce around all the time even when the cpu is supposedly idle. There are always tasks in the background. So define “idle.” the kernel scheduler is scheduling threads to run on the cpu in each instant. You don’t know what was going on in the background of the test alder lake system that might have caused the cpu to spike to 5.3 GHz at the moment the screenshot was taken.

For me, with cpu-z, it shows momentary spikes in frequency then it clocks back down. It’s continuous. I can show 800 MHz in one screenshot then 5.2 GHz in another screenshot all taken in the same 5 second window of time. If I only showed you the 5.2 GHz screenshot you’d swear it was overclocked to 5.2 GHz, not knowing anything about the per-core turbo ratios. Or that it clocks down to 800 MHz some of the time.

Also another relevant point is the windows power plan. Under ‘balanced’ the cpu will clock down to its base 800 MHz frequency much more often, particularly when the system is “idle” whereas under “high performance” it tends to bounce around in between the top turbo ratios in my case between 5.0 to 5.2 GHz even at “idle.”

Anyways, have a good day.

Well I completely disagree as well as I will show you with a screen shot I just did of my own system running MANY tasks running in the back ground (including a game) and my CPU is at idle speed, so I dont know whats going on with your CPUZ but it isnt the same as mine .......so I just proved to you that you can have a a sh@t load of things running in the back ground and still have the CPU at idle speeds, and with this screen shot we have been given shows the same thing but with stuff all running in the back ground and the CPU is at idle and yet its clocked at 5.3GHz, this is for sure a OC result, not a stock result.

 

[Nanochip]

Well I completely disagree as well as I will show you with a screen shot I just did of my own system running MANY tasks running in the back ground (including a game) and my CPU is at idle speed, so I dont know whats going on with your CPUZ but it isnt the same as mine .......so I just proved to you that you can have a a sh@t load of things running in the back ground and still have the CPU at idle speeds, and with this screen shot we have been given shows the same thing but with stuff all running in the back ground and the CPU is at idle and yet its clocked at 5.3GHz, this is for sure a OC result, not a stock result. View attachment 218402

LOL bro you’re using Ryzen for your assumptions? Don’t you realize Intel and Ryzen have completely different cpu power management, and frequency scaling? You can’t claim that someone’s Intel experience of the cpu-z program is invalid, when you’re using Ryzen for your assumptions!

On my Intel system, depending on the windows power plan, if it’s set to balanced, the cpu frequency continuously changes. There are continuous momentary spikes in frequency depending on work load, and then it clocks back down. 800 MHz in one moment, then then 5.2 GHz in another moment. Sometimes other frequencies in between. If I take a screenshot at the exact correct moment you will see 5.2 GHz and swear it is overclocked. But then I can show you another screenshot a half second later and the frequency is back to the base clock. And if the power plan is set to high performance, the cpu doesn’t hit its base clock at all, instead frequency bounces around between 5.0 GHz and 5.2 GHz. Thus using more power at “idle.”

Perform the same experiment on a modern Intel system and report back.

 

[Melvis]

LOL bro you’re using Ryzen for your assumptions? Don’t you realize Intel and Ryzen have completely different cpu power management, and frequency scaling? You can’t claim that someone’s Intel experience of the cpu-z program is invalid, when you’re using Ryzen for your assumptions!

On my Intel system, depending on the windows power plan, if it’s set to balanced, the cpu frequency continuously changes. There are continuous momentary spikes in frequency depending on work load, and then it clocks back down. 800 MHz in one moment, then then 5.2 GHz in another moment. Sometimes other frequencies in between. If I take a screenshot at the exact correct moment you will see 5.2 GHz and swear it is overclocked. But then I can show you another screenshot a half second later and the frequency is back to the base clock. And if the power plan is set to high performance, the cpu doesn’t hit its base clock at all, instead frequency bounces around between 5.0 GHz and 5.2 GHz. Thus using more power at “idle.”

Perform the same experiment on a modern Intel system and report back.

I dont have "modern" Intel systems, I have an older i7 and a 6th Gen that I can show you if you want? and im pretty sure the results will be the same.....been doing this along time now and im pretty sure it wont change anything. Shrugs

 

[Nanochip]

I dont have "modern" Intel systems, I have an older i7 and a 6th Gen that I can show you if you want? and im pretty sure the results will be the same.....been doing this along time now and im pretty sure it wont change anything. Shrugs

I don’t doubt your expertise bro. But I am telling you on my 10th and 11th gen intel boxes, the cpu frequency is volatile, especially if Windows power plan is set to ‘balanced.’ It is always changing. Sometimes it’s at the base frequency (800 MHz) and other times it ramps to the max turbo frequency (5.2 GHz). Even at ‘idle’ with nothing going on in the background. And if I were to change the max single-core turbo frequency to 5.3 GHz, it would ramp to that, but I chose stability and cooler temps over running at 5.3.

So depending on when I take the CPU-Z screenshot you will either see 5.2 GHz, 800 MHz, or other frequencies in between. It’s the same behavior on Linux as well as Macintosh OS.

 

[Nike_486DX]

Not sure if Windows 7 has awareness of the two kinds of cpu cores lol. And if we are talking about energy efficient cores (POINTLESS for desktops), then they for sure will underperform compared to normal cores, so it wont be like a real "16 core" processor, but instead just a lame "8 performance + 8 energy efficient" cores.

Not a fan of AMD, i am using 2066 i9 7900X, with Windows 7. Thats 2017 well-performing hardware which is both easy to upgrade and is accessible to everyone (unlike TRX40 platform, where the mobo alone will cost you $*@:").

 

[Ernest1ca]

Defo it's not an apple to apple comparison. Its just a peasant blinding technique. Its promising, but the show will be heated up when AMD comes on ddr5.

 

[Melvis]

I don’t doubt your expertise bro. But I am telling you on my 10th and 11th gen intel boxes, the cpu frequency is volatile, especially if Windows power plan is set to ‘balanced.’ It is always changing. Sometimes it’s at the base frequency (800 MHz) and other times it ramps to the max turbo frequency (5.2 GHz). Even at ‘idle’ with nothing going on in the background. And if I were to change the max single-core turbo frequency to 5.3 GHz, it would ramp to that, but I chose stability and cooler temps over running at 5.3.

So depending on when I take the CPU-Z screenshot you will either see 5.2 GHz, 800 MHz, or other frequencies in between. It’s the same behavior on Linux as well as Macintosh OS.

Well since your the owner of one and ive waited this long you could of given us a screen shot??

Doesnt matter anyway I was right from the start as there has been plenty of posts/leaks since then that confirm its an OC result so

 

[tps3443]

My 4+ year old 7980XE would beat the 2990WX in R23. Big whoop.

That CPU was getting ready for kindergarten!!

Funny how people actually compared the 7980XE to a turd bucket OG 1950X Threadripper.