Intel Core i9-12900K

[arni-gx]

Spoiler

i am still dont understand, why there is no test full load watt of pc system when playing pc games ??

Spoiler

but, i have just realised, that i9 comet lake its much cooler than i9 rocket lake 8C 16T and i9 alder lake 16C 24T, eventhough i9 comet lake still has 14nm with 10C 20T.......nice......

also, its so interesting facts, that amd r9 5950x is much cooler than r9 5900x and r7 5800x or all alder lake cpu.......

 

[qubit]

can maintain well over 60 fps in the latest games with a 2700k? thanks for proving just how delusional I thought you were with that asinine claim. you are so full of it that it is laughable. even my oced 4700k, which is quite a bit faster, could not maintain 60 fps in some games even 3 years ago and most certainly had plenty of drops well below 60 fps. knock yourself out with the last word as no point in fooling with someone like you.

Yes, easily 70-100+ fps depending on game and exact scene being rendered and level of detail. Who the hell are you to tell me otherwise? You act like you know what you're talking about when you actually don't have a clue.

It's pointless trying to reason with you due to your bad attitude and personal attacks on me. You're breaking the forum rules, reported.

EDIT: And my CPU can do this without an overclock, too.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Yes, easily 70-100+ fps depending on game and exact scene being rendered and level of detail. Who the hell are you to tell me otherwise? You act like you know what you're talking about when you actually don't have a clue.

It's pointless trying to reason with you due to your bad attitude and personal attacks on me. You're breaking the forum rules, reported.

EDIT: And my CPU can do this without an overclock, too.

Never I jest, I was surprised your still rocking a 2600k, the subsystem upgrade alone will be epic.

 

[robb]

Yes, easily 70-100+ fps depending on game and exact scene being rendered and level of detail. Who the hell are you to tell me otherwise? You act like you know what you're talking about when you actually don't have a clue.

It's pointless trying to reason with you due to your bad attitude and personal attacks on me. You're breaking the forum rules, reported.

EDIT: And my CPU can do this without an overclock, too.

You are lying and you know it. There are numerous modern games where a 2700k cannot maintain 60 fps.

 

[qubit]

You are lying and you know it. There are numerous modern games where a 2700k cannot maintain 60 fps.

I didn't say every game did I? You really need to stop making assumptions about what I'm saying and stop with the personal attacks mkay? Don't go accusing people of being liars. It's offensive and makes you look ever more clueless.

If you'd simply spoken to me in a reasonable manner, I'd have elaborated on the exact circumstances where the performance holds up. As it is, I really can't be arsed. Reported again.

 

[robb]

I didn't say every game did I? You really need to stop making assumptions about what I'm saying and stop with the personal attacks mkay? Don't go accusing people of being liars. It's offensive and makes you look ever more clueless.

If you'd simply spoken to me in a reasonable manner, I'd have elaborated on the exact circumstances where the performance holds up. As it is, I really can't be arsed. Reported again.

So moving the goal posts I see. And then call me clueless? You said you maintain well over 60 fps even in newer games and all I told you was that you cant maintain over 60 fps in all newer games. Then your ridiculous reply was "Yes, easily 70-100+ fps depending on game and exact scene being rendered and level of detail". No where did you ever admit you cant hold 60 fps in any game so stop with the BS now trying to cover your rear end. But yes keep reporting me like a little child that knows he has been caught lying and does not want to be exposed.

 

[95Viper]

Alrighty, Stop the arguing and bickering.
Discuss the topic, and, not each other.
Follow the Guidelines; and, if, you have not seen or read them... they are here> Forum Guidelines
Read and understand them before posting.
Here are a few quotes to get you started:

Posting in a thread
Be polite and Constructive, if you have nothing nice to say then don't say anything at all.
This includes trolling, continuous use of bad language (ie. cussing), flaming, baiting, retaliatory comments, system feature abuse, and insulting others.
Do not get involved in any off-topic banter or arguments. Please report them and avoid instead.
Healthy debates will generally be allowed if the following criteria is met.
Useful sources and constructive wording.
Maintain the topic that they're taking place in.
No insults, trolling, shaming, hate or toxicity.
Avoid political or religious comment unless it is specifically relevant to a topic and in those cases is only acceptable if done in an unbiased manner.
Once it is considered over, do not drag it on only to have the last word.
Short and pointless posts like "yeah", "me too" or "haha" can be made on the rest of the internet, not here. Post count doesn't increase your e-penis.
Stay on topic, changing the topic won't help the discussion. Feel free to create a new thread instead.

Reporting and complaining
All posts and private messages have a "report post" button on the bottom of the post, click it when you feel something is inappropriate. Do not use your report as a "wild card invitation" to go back and add to the drama and therefore become part of the problem.

Behavior that is inappropriate/should be reported
Insulting other forum members (calling someone names makes you look stupid anyways).
Racist, hateful, toxic, and otherwise demeaning comments will not be tolerated; whether meant as a joke or not.
"Trolling"

 

[AusWolf]

"the new Socket AM5. An LGA package with 1,718 pins, AM5"

AM5 will have more pins therefore it must be faster

With that logic, LGA-1156 is exactly 1 faster than 1155.

I really wonder why it was given that award. It's more or less the same as recommending FX 9590, but this time Intel has performance edge at least, but unlike FX 9590, i9 is uncoolable. If 280mm AIO and D15 fails to cool it, then what can? Now minimum spec for it is 360mm AIO or custom loop? Good one Intel, I will wait till their flagship chips will need LN2 pot as minimum cooler.

It used to be clear with PL1 giving you a reasonable amount of performance and heat, but nothing serious. I don't know why Intel decided to disregard the TDP value with PL1 on Alder Lake. Oh wait, I know: to reclaim the performance crown. But at what cost?

 

[birdie]

Sadly that's incomplete, missing 7 CVEs from Intel guidance and a few recent microarchitectures.

Edit: Looking closer at the Intel site it looks like Alder Lake is indeed vulnerable to CVE-2020-24511 and CVE-2020-8698 that Rocket Lake wasn't. Supposedly fixed in microcode and hardware respectively, so most likely release BIOSes are safe.

The article includes only transient execution vulnerabilities. Both AMD and Intel have a lot more than that but those are different altogether.

 

[The red spirit]

It used to be clear with PL1 giving you a reasonable amount of performance and heat, but nothing serious. I don't know why Intel decided to disregard the TDP value with PL1 on Alder Lake. Oh wait, I know: to reclaim the performance crown. But at what cost?

They could have rereleased reheated Comet Lake once again. All they needed to do was to raise PLs and clocks. Anyway, this whole situation changes nothing, it's obvious that Intel is still in pinch and that AMD is a leader. But then gain, lower end Alder lake chips seem to be more reasonable and are a legit improvement, albeit a small one. So that's okay, flagship gets media pizzaz, low end offers reasonable value. As stopgap until next release it works, but once AMD comes out with something next, it will be RIP Intel on all fronts.

Regarding current line-up, did you notice that i7 has same 8P cores as i9, but with less E cores? That more or less means that in gaming and anything demanding they will be virtually the same thing, but i7 is possible to tame heat and power wise. Particularly, i7 12700KF seems to be good. It's over 200 dollars cheaper, but only has minimal downsides in gaming rig. It seems like far better value than i9. 12600KF seems to be cheaper than discounted 10600Ks. Still, I think that the most meaningful chip will be i5 12400(F). It has to be priced right (160-170 USD, 150-160 EUR) and be reasonably fast (minimum 5600X performance in games and MT tasks). That could be great release. But the most mysterious release is going to be i3. We have no idea how configured it will be. Maybe 4P/4E, maybe 4P/2E or maybe Intel will go bonkers and give us 6P only part. I think that 4P/2E config would be the most reasonable. I wonder what will happen to Pentium and Celeron lines. They were too unacceptable for gaming, but if Intel managed to make Pentium with 2P/2E config, then chip may actually be quite decent at gaming too. That would be really nice, a massive improvement to parts that nobody cares about. Celeron could be 6E or 4E config, which is not great, but I guess enough for people who buy them.

 

[AusWolf]

They could have rereleased reheated Comet Lake once again. All they needed to do was to raise PLs and clocks. Anyway, this whole situation changes nothing, it's obvious that Intel is still in pinch and that AMD is a leader. But then gain, lower end Alder lake chips seem to be more reasonable and are a legit improvement, albeit a small one. So that's okay, flagship gets media pizzaz, low end offers reasonable value. As stopgap until next release it works, but once AMD comes out with something next, it will be RIP Intel on all fronts.

RIP Intel? Are you mad? Alder Lake tears AMD to shreds in terms of pure performance. The downside is an enormous power consumption, but some people don't care about that. For them, the 12900K is the best CPU on the market, period. I don't understand these "Intel is dead" or "AMD is dead" kind of comments. AMD was under the weather for nearly a decade, but now they're alive and well. A lot more is needed to kill a company than a few generations of hot and hungry CPUs. Not to mention the i7 or i5 series which have always been the best selling range. Speaking of which...

Regarding current line-up, did you notice that i7 has same 8P cores as i9, but with less E cores? That more or less means that in gaming and anything demanding they will be virtually the same thing, but i7 is possible to tame heat and power wise. Particularly, i7 12700KF seems to be good. It's over 200 dollars cheaper, but only has minimal downsides in gaming rig. It seems like far better value than i9. 12600KF seems to be cheaper than discounted 10600Ks. Still, I think that the most meaningful chip will be i5 12400(F). It has to be priced right (160-170 USD, 150-160 EUR) and be reasonably fast (minimum 5600X performance in games and MT tasks). That could be great release.

And:

If that's what Intel will do, then I will boycott this bullshit. CPU shouldn't suck more than 100 watts. For graphics card, my limit is nothing more than 150 watts +- 10 watts.

If for you, a CPU isn't meant to eat more than 100 W, then the Core i9 lineup was never meant for you, as it isn't meant for most people. It's always been for those who don't care about power consumption, or heat, or value, just want the best performance available at whatever cost. One has to admit, the 12900K delivers that.

But the most mysterious release is going to be i3. We have no idea how configured it will be. Maybe 4P/4E, maybe 4P/2E or maybe Intel will go bonkers and give us 6P only part. I think that 4P/2E config would be the most reasonable. I wonder what will happen to Pentium and Celeron lines. They were too unacceptable for gaming, but if Intel managed to make Pentium with 2P/2E config, then chip may actually be quite decent at gaming too. That would be really nice, a massive improvement to parts that nobody cares about. Celeron could be 6E or 4E config, which is not great, but I guess enough for people who buy them.

Considering that E cores come in clusters of 4, I doubt we'll ever see configs of 2E. I can imagine a 2P/4E or 4P/4E situation (even a 4P/0E one), but not until Comet Lake i3s are off the shelves.

 

[Valantar]

RIP Intel? Are you mad? Alder Lake tears AMD to shreds in terms of pure performance.

I mostly wholeheartedly agree with what you're saying in this post, but that sentence needs moderation. "Tears to shreds" is quite the exaggeration. It wins out in most tests in Anandtech's review, but not all, and the margins aren't for the most part revolutionary. There are some solid wins in there, but also some solid losses. In TPU's CPU testing suite the 5950X is 3% ahead still - but the 12900K has a solid lead in games. All in all it's a good competitor for absolute performance, taking the lead pretty securely (which it ought to, launching a year later) and it's clearly the fastest for gaming (but also in a realm of performance where it really doesn't matter for actually perceptible in-game differences).

 

[The red spirit]

RIP Intel? Are you mad? Alder Lake tears AMD to shreds in terms of pure performance. The downside is an enormous power consumption, but some people don't care about that. For them, the 12900K is the best CPU on the market, period. I don't understand these "Intel is dead" or "AMD is dead" kind of comments. AMD was under the weather for nearly a decade, but now they're alive and well. A lot more is needed to kill a company than a few generations of hot and hungry CPUs. Not to mention the i7 or i5 series which have always been the best selling range. Speaking of which...

My remark "RIP Intel" is only about current line-up vs Zen 4, not about whole company going under.

If for you, a CPU isn't meant to eat more than 100 W, then the Core i9 lineup was never meant for you, as it isn't meant for most people. It's always been for those who don't care about power consumption, or heat, or value, just want the best performance available at whatever cost. One has to admit, the 12900K delivers that.

I actually doubt that. I think that i9 10900K might be faster if it had unlocked PLs and higher clocks.

I know that i9 isn't meant for me. I would never buy it. The problem is that flagships used to be 95 watts (Phenom X4 9950) or at most 125 watts (Sandy Bridge-E). I could see the appeal of those chips back then, but now I'm not sure if I would want something liek i9 even if I had more money than Bezos. Power be damned, but how are you supposed to cool it? So far no cooler has successfully cooled it. And some of those were 280mm AIOs. Is 360mm or 420mm enough? Is closed loop enough? Or do we need phase change to cool it down? I don't know, but to me it would feel like a major pain in ass to tame and if that's true, then what's the point? It doesn't deliver any luxury beyond 10% performance increase over 5950X. If I was rich AF, I wouldn't bother with consumer stuff and would build HEDT machine. Chips like 5950X and 12900K are essentially pointless, as those looking for power, go with HEDT and consumers just want something sane and what works and what is priced reasonably. The current "fuck all" budget chip is TR 3970X (3990X is bit weak in single core). Things like i9 or Ryzen 9 on mainstream platform are just products made for poor people to feel rich (they aren't exactly poor, but I feel snarky). Those platforms are always gimped in terms of PCIe lanes and other features and that's why TR4 platform is ultimate workhorse and "fuck all" budget buyers platform. And if that's too slow, then you slap phase change on TR, OC as far as it goes and enjoy it. Far better, than octa core with some eco fluff.

But if I was rich and just wanted something something that isn't obscenely excessive, I would just get i2 12600K, since it is the most reasonable high end chip on LGA 1700 platform.

Considering that E cores come in clusters of 4, I doubt we'll ever see configs of 2E. I can imagine a 2P/4E or 4P/4E situation (even a 4P/0E one), but not until Comet Lake i3s are off the shelves.

That would be a major oversight. What's the point of 2P/4E chip? An Atom W? It would be horrible in games and hell to schedule properly, because P cores are real cores and E ones are just padding. I personally don't see i9 12900K as a real 16 core chips, it's just 8 core chips with some Atoms to deal with background tasks, while running games.

 

[mechtech]

I mostly wholeheartedly agree with what you're saying in this post, but that sentence needs moderation. "Tears to shreds" is quite the exaggeration. It wins out in most tests in Anandtech's review, but not all, and the margins aren't for the most part revolutionary. There are some solid wins in there, but also some solid losses. In TPU's CPU testing suite the 5950X is 3% ahead still - but the 12900K has a solid lead in games. All in all it's a good competitor for absolute performance, taking the lead pretty securely (which it ought to, launching a year later) and it's clearly the fastest for gaming (but also in a realm of performance where it really doesn't matter for actually perceptible in-game differences).

ya, this is typical for people to say but really, like you mention its way off base.

+/- 0-5% after margins of error I would call it basically tied
+10% - I would say it edged out the competition in everything by 10% (basically like if you have $1and the other guy has $1.10 - not like that's much of a lead but it is noticeable)
+20% - I would say it consistently beats the competition by about 20%
+30% - soundly beats the competition in everything by about 30%
+50% - significantly outperforms the competition by 50%
etc. etc.
+100% - Torn to shreds - the competition doubled the performance of its competitor in everything
+1000% - utterly destroyed (like caveman race vs star trek level race)

That's the problem with words, they are not numbers and people can imagine whatever they what, and that's why it's good reason to put the % in after the words, then there is no imaginiation or beating around the bush.

 

[JustBenching]

My remark "RIP Intel" is only about current line-up vs Zen 4, not about whole company going under.



I actually doubt that. I think that i9 10900K might be faster if it had unlocked PLs and higher clocks.

I know that i9 isn't meant for me. I would never buy it. The problem is that flagships used to be 95 watts (Phenom X4 9950) or at most 125 watts (Sandy Bridge-E). I could see the appeal of those chips back then, but now I'm not sure if I would want something liek i9 even if I had more money than Bezos. Power be damned, but how are you supposed to cool it? So far no cooler has successfully cooled it. And some of those were 280mm AIOs. Is 360mm or 420mm enough? Is closed loop enough? Or do we need phase change to cool it down? I don't know, but to me it would feel like a major pain in ass to tame and if that's true, then what's the point? It doesn't deliver any luxury beyond 10% performance increase over 5950X. If I was rich AF, I wouldn't bother with consumer stuff and would build HEDT machine. Chips like 5950X and 12900K are essentially pointless, as those looking for power, go with HEDT and consumers just want something sane and what works and what is priced reasonably. The current "fuck all" budget chip is TR 3970X (3990X is bit weak in single core). Things like i9 or Ryzen 9 on mainstream platform are just products made for poor people to feel rich (they aren't exactly poor, but I feel snarky). Those platforms are always gimped in terms of PCIe lanes and other features and that's why TR4 platform is ultimate workhorse and "fuck all" budget buyers platform. And if that's too slow, then you slap phase change on TR, OC as far as it goes and enjoy it. Far better, than octa core with some eco fluff.

But if I was rich and just wanted something something that isn't obscenely excessive, I would just get i2 12600K, since it is the most reasonable high end chip on LGA 1700 platform.


That would be a major oversight. What's the point of 2P/4E chip? An Atom W? It would be horrible in games and hell to schedule properly, because P cores are real cores and E ones are just padding. I personally don't see i9 12900K as a real 16 core chips, it's just 8 core chips with some Atoms to deal with background tasks, while running games.

Unless you are rendering all day because you are working on Disney, I don't see where these arguments come from. Alder lake is EXTREMELY efficient in 99% of productivity workloads and gaming, bar rendering. That's the only task that they are not efficient at. In everything else a 12900k SMOKES the 5950x both in performance and efficiency. People need to actually see the reviews and stop spreading misinformation.

Check these results from igorslab, if it's efficiency you want, 12900k is your man. Unless you are just rendering of course.

 

[AusWolf]

I mostly wholeheartedly agree with what you're saying in this post, but that sentence needs moderation. "Tears to shreds" is quite the exaggeration. It wins out in most tests in Anandtech's review, but not all, and the margins aren't for the most part revolutionary. There are some solid wins in there, but also some solid losses. In TPU's CPU testing suite the 5950X is 3% ahead still - but the 12900K has a solid lead in games. All in all it's a good competitor for absolute performance, taking the lead pretty securely (which it ought to, launching a year later) and it's clearly the fastest for gaming (but also in a realm of performance where it really doesn't matter for actually perceptible in-game differences).

Fair enough. Correction: the 12900K is the best CPU at its price range, if you don't mind the heat and power consumption. I don't think it's meant to compete with the 5950X, but with the 5900X.

Things like i9 or Ryzen 9 on mainstream platform are just products made for poor people to feel rich (they aren't exactly poor, but I feel snarky).

Exactly my point.

 

[efikkan]

It seems like most of you is missing the most important advances of this CPU; higher performance per core means anything from basic desktop applications to productive tools will get a nice performance boost. In workloads like office applications, web browsing etc., Alder Lake represent a new tier of performance over Rocket Lake and Zen 3, which will result in more responsiveness and a better user experience. Even in popular productive tools for photo and video editing, it should be obvious how faster cores is more useful than more cores. Far too many of you are fixated about useless benchmarks like Cinebench.

Another key takeaway should be that for most real workloads, having more than 6-8 "big cores" isn't really beneficial. Even among enthusiasts such as this forum, most of you should be looking at i5-12600K, even for those "semi-pros" who do a little bit of content creation, editing or programming. The big concerns should be availability and potential issues with Windows for early adapters, but performance i5-12600K is a more attractive all-round desktop CPU than Ryzen 9 5900X.

How is this any different than before with good single threaded performance at the cost of horrible power consumption?

Power consumption is still worrying though, and the inability to cool the CPU properly at all with a U14s - which is not a small cooler! - is pretty shocking. This is a top-of-the-line CPU, sure, but it shouldn't require an AIO still.

To both of you;
The important question is under what's the real power consumption under which circumstances.
Does it matter if the CPU gets a little hot under an unrealistic workload? (And putting a CPU under such a load 24-7 is going to wear it out quickly anyways)
I'm pretty sure Noctua NH-U14S is more than sufficient for 99.9% of customers buying this CPU, and if anything an AiO is usually not going to improve that much over NH-U14S in a case, it's much better to upgrade the case fans and calibrate the fan curves. Do that, and you'll get a system that's very quiet under most real workloads, yet still can handle the extreme peaks.
AiO coolers are usually not a good choice anyways, far too much noise for little gains. If you need cooling for extreme overclocking, go custom loop.

What a reason to make E-Cores? Idle consumption isn't great with it, оverall perfomance is about the same. Maybe Windows should be improved a lot in that way, something like OS and it's services work on E-cores and keep other cores for work applications.

Marketing.
Most computers are sold by the big companies like Dell, HP, Lenovo etc., and most of their customers (even businesses) compare products based on "specs". Now that CPUs don't get more gains in clock speeds, they need to increase core count, even if it means adding "pointless" tiny cores. What the customer sees is 5 GHz 24 cores at 65W (for the OEM CPUs), even though they can't operate anywhere close to that sustained. This is why the upcoming mainstream architectures from Intel will contine to boost the tiny core count.

That would be because AnandTech uses JEDEC standard RAM. This is garbage to any DIY builder.

JEDEC speeds are the speeds most of you should use, this is the speed the memory controller is designed to operate at, and running it overclocked over time will result in data loss and eventually stability issues.

Overclocking memory is still overclocking, and should never be the default recommendation for DIY builders. It should be reserved for those wanting to take the risk.

Using overclocked memory in benchmarking is also misleading, as each overclock will be different, and people usually have to decrease their overclock after a while.

 

[AusWolf]

That would be a major oversight. What's the point of 2P/4E chip? An Atom W? It would be horrible in games and hell to schedule properly, because P cores are real cores and E ones are just padding. I personally don't see i9 12900K as a real 16 core chips, it's just 8 core chips with some Atoms to deal with background tasks, while running games.

Personally, I'm expecting i3 to be 4P/4E, though I also think speculation is totally pointless. I also think that we won't see them as long as Comet Lake i3 is on the market.

It seems like most of you is missing the most important advances of this CPU; higher performance per core means anything from basic desktop applications to productive tools will get a nice performance boost. In workloads like office applications, web browsing etc., Alder Lake represent a new tier of performance over Rocket Lake and Zen 3, which will result in more responsiveness and a better user experience. Even in popular productive tools for photo and video editing, it should be obvious how faster cores is more useful than more cores. Far too many of you are fixated about useless benchmarks like Cinebench.

As a previous owner of several Zen 2 and 3 CPUs ranging from the 3100 all the way to the 5950X, and the current owner of an 11700, I can confirm that we desperately need a boost in office applications. 8 cores near 5 GHz just don't cut it anymore for Excel.

The important question is under what's the real power consumption under which circumstances.
Does it matter if the CPU gets a little hot under an unrealistic workload? (And putting a CPU under such a load 24-7 is going to wear it out quickly anyways)
I'm pretty sure Noctua NH-U14S is more than sufficient for 99.9% of customers buying this CPU, and if anything an AiO is usually not going to improve that much over NH-U14S in a case, it's much better to upgrade the case fans and calibrate the fan curves. Do that, and you'll get a system that's very quiet under most real workloads, yet still can handle the extreme peaks.
AiO coolers are usually not a good choice anyways, far too much noise for little gains. If you need cooling for extreme overclocking, go custom loop.

It's pointless to buy a 12900K for situations where a U14S can cool it. You either need all the cores and speed you can get, or you buy something cheaper.

 

[efikkan]

As a previous owner of several Zen 2 and 3 CPUs ranging from the 3100 all the way to the 5950X, and the current owner of an 11700, I can confirm that we desperately need a boost in office applications. 8 cores near 5 GHz just don't cut it anymore for Excel.

Excel is super bloated, when I use it for basic spreadsheets at work on a i7-10700K it lags like crazy…
But the core count is not the issue, faster cores will help. But of course, with extreme bloat, there are limits to how much help there can be.

It's pointless to buy a 12900K for situations where a U14S can cool it. You either need all the cores and speed you can get, or you buy something cheaper.

That's nonsense.
NH-U14S can cool it just fine except for the extreme (mostly unrealistic) sustained loads on all cores.
Even for most demanding users, the bulk of their time is spent with mixed workloads, whether you're editing videos, photos etc., having all those short operations be faster greatly improves productivity, and that's where CPUs like i5-12600K - i9-12900K comes in.
If you are planning to run huge rendering jobs etc., you should probably buy a dedicated "server" for that.

 

[RandallFlagg]

JEDEC speeds are the speeds most of you should use, this is the speed the memory controller is designed to operate at, and running it overclocked over time will result in data loss and eventually stability issues.

Overclocking memory is still overclocking, and should never be the default recommendation for DIY builders. It should be reserved for those wanting to take the risk.

Using overclocked memory in benchmarking is also misleading, as each overclock will be different, and people usually have to decrease their overclock after a while.

No enthusiast uses that, and these are enthusiast sites. I never said it was an invalid test, just that it is an oddball scenario nobody fits into.

Even for those buying OEM, I mean really, who goes out and buys a $600 Maximus Hero and runs it at 2933 or 3200 CL22??? It's a laughable configuration.

Even OEMs will stick you with an A520 on AMD or H510/H610 on Intel when they pair it with DDR4-2666 or 2933 etc.

AnandTech is like a car enthusiast site that buys Mustang GTs and de-tunes them to see how many MPG they can get, then tries to come to some conclusion about how powerful or efficient the engine is. And their benchmark DB is so borked now, it's completely useless. TPU is worlds better, far more relevant, using very common enthusiast grade memory and parts on a very consistent set of benchmarks - and when they can't keep it consistent or something big changes, they retest everything.

And you know something, according to Alexa stats it pays off. TPU ranks about 5,600 while AT ranks like 13,500.

It's what anyone who has had a communications class knows, you speak to your audience, meaning to what they are concerned with and is relevant to them, as opposed to what is relevant and concerning to you the speaker.

 

[The red spirit]

Personally, I'm expecting i3 to be 4P/4E, though I also think speculation is totally pointless. I also think that we won't see them as long as Comet Lake i3 is on the market.

That's optimistic for sure, but may be true. The only reason why I suggested 4P/2E is that it should be rather cheap to make and would be a reasonable step up from i3 10100(F). But 4P/4E might just be too expensive for same budget bracket. But if Intel pulls it off, then that's going to be excellent. i3 then would gain tons of performance, it might be nearly 2 times faster than previous one in MT tasks. Sounds very good, but I think that may be bit too good to be true for i3. If it was so good, then it may seriously cut into i5 sales, since it could be seen as a viable replacement for 10400(F) or 11400(F). That's unprecedented for i3.

Anyway, it would be interesting to see new integrated graphics benches. Alder Lake chips might be competitive against Ryzen APUs. I have looked at this video:

Seems rather weak. I wonder if i3 will have overclockable GPU and fast RAM support and if Intel will stop with "XMP is overclocking" argument to justify making their H chipsets gimped.

i3 with overclockable iGPU, fast DDR5 and not gimped H610 board would be an interesting budget setup.

As a previous owner of several Zen 2 and 3 CPUs ranging from the 3100 all the way to the 5950X, and the current owner of an 11700, I can confirm that we desperately need a boost in office applications. 8 cores near 5 GHz just don't cut it anymore for Excel.

I'm curious what kind of Excel work you do that it lags? I have to do various Excel work for university and I'm sure that Pentium III would be more than fine for it, as long as nothing visual is going on.

 

[AusWolf]

Excel is super bloated, when I use it for basic spreadsheets at work on a i7-10700K it lags like crazy…
But the core count is not the issue, faster cores will help. But of course, with extreme bloat, there are limits to how much help there can be.

I'm curious what kind of Excel work you do that it lags? I have to do various Excel work for university and I'm sure that Pentium III would be more than fine for it, as long as nothing visual is going on.

I meant that as sarcasm. Excel runs fine on my Atom x5 based Compute Stick.

That's nonsense.
NH-U14S can cool it just fine except for the extreme (mostly unrealistic) sustained loads on all cores.
Even for most demanding users, the bulk of their time is spent with mixed workloads, whether you're editing videos, photos etc., having all those short operations be faster greatly improves productivity, and that's where CPUs like i5-12600K - i9-12900K comes in.
If you are planning to run huge rendering jobs etc., you should probably buy a dedicated "server" for that.

It's not nonsense. You need a high performance CPU for high performance applications. You don't spend 600 bucks on a CPU that sits idle 99% of the time, unless you do it for e-peen enlargement.

That's optimistic for sure, but may be true. The only reason why I suggested 4P/2E is that it should be rather cheap to make and would be a reasonable step up from i3 10100(F). But 4P/4E might just be too expensive for same budget bracket. But if Intel pulls it off, then that's going to be excellent. i3 then would gain tons of performance, it might be nearly 2 times faster than previous one in MT tasks. Sounds very good, but I think that may be bit too good to be true for i3. If it was so good, then it may seriously cut into i5 sales, since it could be seen as a viable replacement for 10400(F) or 11400(F). That's unprecedented for i3.

It might also be based on the rumoured 6P/0E chip. I guess we'll know when it comes out. I'm just speculating that 2E variants won't exist due to what I said above.

 

[JustBenching]

It's not nonsense. You need a high performance CPU for high performance applications. You don't spend 600 bucks on a CPU that sits idle 99% of the time, unless you do it for e-peen enlargement.

The 12900k outperforms everything in Autocad (by a big margin) yet it only consumes 87watts doing so. The same applies to a bunch of other productivity applications. Are you saying that one shouldn't buy a 12900k for those applications because tehy don't consume a truckload of power?

 

[AusWolf]

The 12900k outperforms everything in Autocad (by a big margin) yet it only consumes 87watts doing so. The same applies to a bunch of other productivity applications. Are you saying that one shouldn't buy a 12900k for those applications because tehy don't consume a truckload of power?

No. I'm saying that one buys a 12900K if its performance is needed, regardless of power consumed - and not for working on Excel spreadsheets.

 

[The red spirit]

I meant that as sarcasm. Excel runs fine on my Atom x5 based Compute Stick.

Jokes or not, but I have actually seen Celeron (Pentium 4 era, 3GHz model) lag horrendously in Excel. Once I needed some graphs it straight up froze for liek half minute and once it unfroze, it rendered it at less than 1 fps. It was some IT class hell. But more realistically, I have heard that some companies keep databases in Excel. Thousands of entries, all labeled and with tons of formulas to calculate many things. That kind of stuff might actually bring i7 to its knees.

It might also be based on the rumoured 6P/0E chip. I guess we'll know when it comes out. I'm just speculating that 2E variants won't exist due to what I said above.

At that point it would be way too close to i5 and might as well be called i5 12400 LE.