Intel Core i9-12900KS

[fevgatos]

But the 5950x is much easier to cool than the 12900k.

Not true? Im pretty sure you can't cool a 5950x @200 watts with a u12a. My 12900k stays at 76c @220 watts

So what? If you limit the AMD CPU that one will also run cooler.

What part of "if you limit both to the same power limit" didnt you understand?

 

[InVasMani]

Stock load 5950X 57C vs Intel 12900KS stock load 92c is pretty lopsided. So it idles for more wattage and is hotter at load at the same time and overclocked things don't get better as these chips are already pushed beyond the point they should've for the architecture design. Hell the 5950X runs cooler than the 12600K and idles at less power consumption for multi-threaded load and stress test are also lower according to TPU. The 12900KS is a abomination in the context of things relative to the 5950X.

The 5800X is looking pretty solid as well though it runs hotter than the 5950X, but it's energy consumption is a bit more neutral balanced for mixed workloads. I think 5950X might've been better overall had it had like 100MHz to 200MHz less boost and 100MHz to 200MHz higher base frequency looking at TPU's charts it appears like that trade off would've been worth it.

 

[Mussels]

If you're gaming or idling around the web, does power consumption really matter all that much? Not everyone is running Blender or whatever 24/7.

It certainly matters less, yes.
Thing is... not all of us are short sighted.

I'm in many, many facebook groups for PC gamers. The last 2-3 years have been filled with quad core users bitching of 100% CPU usage in modern games, holding back their GPU's and overloading previously 'good enough' cooling


I'll simplify answers to a few users here into one single answer/question:

You may be happy with how efficient and cool it runs for your tasks now, but if those tasks change and you're hitting those high power usages all the time - are you still going to be happy with your purchase?
Are you going to be forced to re-design your system for better cooling, lower noise, etc?

 

[Deleted member 24505]

It certainly matters less, yes.
Thing is... not all of us are short sighted.

I'm in many, many facebook groups for PC gamers. The last 2-3 years have been filled with quad core users bitching of 100% CPU usage in modern games, holding back their GPU's and overloading previously 'good enough' cooling


I'll simplify answers to a few users here into one single answer/question:

You may be happy with how efficient and cool it runs for your tasks now, but if those tasks change and you're hitting those high power usages all the time - are you still going to be happy with your purchase?
Are you going to be forced to re-design your system for better cooling, lower noise, etc?

I suppose that depends on your cooling. I probably wouldn't have to, but some on air may well have too.

 

[fevgatos]

I suppose that depends on your cooling. I probably wouldn't have to, but some on air may well have too.

Nah, im on a small single tower air cooler. It can handle cbr23 at 65c so I'm sure it can handle any game with the 12900k

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Nah, im on a small single tower air cooler. It can handle cbr23 at 65c so I'm sure it can handle any game with the 12900k

I guess some would consider my cooling a bit ott, but it's part looks, part performance.

 

[Undertoker]

I have both a 12900K and a 12900KS in two Asus boards , a K in an Asus hero and the KS in an extreme board.
The K variant has an SP number of 82 , the KS has an SP number of 92, with 100 on the P cores, it’s clearly a better binned sample.
When I first plugged in the KS to the extreme board running the 702 bios it read an SP of 200!, then 96 on the first boot, then after a bios update to 1403 it dropped to 92 who knows why….
But it does run really well and peaks at 5.7Ghz regularly, usually sitting at between 5.3 and 5.5ghz constantly - on an AIO !
The KS will do also do 5.3GHz on all 8 cores stable and the strangest thing is that it never goes over 80 Degrees C, I’d heard these KS CPU’s are supposed to run really hot and I’m only using an NZXT Z63 280mm AIO. - it just doesn’t get hot at all, in fact I assumed I’d have to buy a better cooling solution but the Z63 more than copes really comfortably. I’m amazed and I’ve benched it hard as well.
As regards seeing a huge difference with a KS over a K variant then clearly you won’t really, it is a small increase and this is simply a halo product, nothing more it’s a “nice to have“ your not going to notice any fps increase gaming, you will notice it pulls a few more watts.
But if you like playing around overclocking for example as I do then the KS is certainly worth buying, simply because it’s a way better binned cpu to do it with.
if money is the issue for you then go with the K variant, you may get lucky and get a decent sample in the silicon lottery but I’m guessing most of the best binned chips are used for the KS now.
overall I’m happy with it, but I still also have my old 9900KS as well and having a wonderful example of the latest and best is a nice thing to have.
I also run a 3090 strix GPU and I can say I wasn’t at all tempted by the 3090ti like I was the KS over the K
for me the issue with the 3090ti is the insane power draw, I can tell you after several hours gaming I often end up sitting in my pants gaming as the room gets so very hot, so there is no way I’d ever go for the 3090ti gpu, unless they vastly improve the power draw I genuinely believe my next build will be an AMD build.

With European governments frankly taking the total piss with the price of electricity as well this has to be a consideration for all of us and Nvidia need to consider this very carefully moving forward or these draconian governments will legislate and do what they do best - ruin it for everyone.

As with any halo product there is a premium to pay and if 150usd is an issue for you - clearly don’t buy one - but don’t whine and get salty because others choose to do so.
It’s the very best cpu there is currently and like all top end kit, you pay for that halo badge
This clearly is a cpu made for those who want the very best , it isn’t “value” and if your whining about a days wages to pay for a cpu you’ll use for the next few years then clearly the 12600k or 12700k or an AMD 5800X 3D is the one for you and not the 12900KS, so leave it to us enthusiasts

That said I do love seeing the salty, mocking and clearly bitter comments about it , they do make me chuckle, I don’t understand how a cpu can upset you that much, just don’t buy it and move on

 

[THU31]

It is interesting that the power draw of the 3090 Ti bothers you, but that of the 12900KS does not. And it consumes around three times more power than the 5800X3D, even in gaming. And I honestly doubt you will notice the difference in performance without a framerate counter.

But if my day's wages could buy me this CPU, I doubt I would ever complain about anything.

 

[John Naylor]

Would love to see an extra performance per dollar comparison in a "typical system" .. and by that I mean, a system where all the components are an appropriate match for someone investing $700+ in the CPU....perhaps 3-4 tiers in various price categories where each CPU grouping would have an appropriate tier category... maybe $500+ / $300 - $400 / $200 - $300 / < $200

 

[progste]

Would love to see an extra performance per dollar comparison in a "typical system" .. and by that I mean, a system where all the components are an appropriate match for someone investing $700+ in the CPU....perhaps 3-4 tiers in various price categories where each CPU grouping would have an appropriate tier category... maybe $500+ / $300 - $400 / $200 - $300 / < $200

what would "appropriate" mean though? In some configurations you can get away being cheap on most component except CPU and GPU (in the example of a gaming PC), the only meaningful thing could be taking into account power consumption and a motherboard/PSU able to handle it.

 

[MerrHeLL]

the biggest reason I prefer the Ryzens is the actual power use in real world conditions. A 5950X during most gaming loads uses more like 100-120 watts. Easy games like LOL its closer to 80-100 watts. It only uses a total of 194 watts with PBO enabled and 100% load on all 16 cores and 32 threads. Something like Handbrake.

I do want to try an i9 12900 KS and probably will, but the 12900 K/KS average power use for ordinary usage and gaming usage is much higher than the Ryzen. Gaming on the 12900 K/KS keeps the cpu drawing over 200 watts for long periods of time. I'm hoping another die shrink will help intel on power draw.

 

[fevgatos]

the biggest reason I prefer the Ryzens is the actual power use in real world conditions. A 5950X during most gaming loads uses more like 100-120 watts. Easy games like LOL its closer to 80-100 watts. It only uses a total of 194 watts with PBO enabled and 100% load on all 16 cores and 32 threads. Something like Handbrake.

I do want to try an i9 12900 KS and probably will, but the 12900 K/KS average power use for ordinary usage and gaming usage is much higher than the Ryzen. Gaming on the 12900 K/KS keeps the cpu drawing over 200 watts for long periods of time. I'm hoping another die shrink will help intel on power draw.

Totally not true. The 12900k sips power in gaming compared to the 5950x. Igor's lab and other sites have reviews about this, the 12900k is way way more efficient than the 5950x in lightly threaded tasks like games.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Here is my 12700k gaming, less than 50 watts, at 1440p

 

[MerrHeLL]

Here is my 12700k gaming, less than 50 watts, at 1440p
View attachment 253782

That helps a lot. Thanks. I found a comparison from Igor that seems to explain. https://www.igorslab.de/en/intel-co...ng-in-really-fast-and-really-frugal-part-1/9/

Here is my 12700k gaming, less than 50 watts, at 1440p
View attachment 253782

This helped too https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/rn3i1f

 

[Mussels]

Here is my 12700k gaming, less than 50 watts, at 1440p
View attachment 253782

Us HWinfo64 and show the min/max/average for a game session instead of a single peak GPU limited value

You do realise your CPU would use a lot more power with a more powerful GPU, or lower settings?


Heres mine over 2 hours of gaming (V Rising, which for some reason is absurdly demanding on hardware):

 

[MerrHeLL]

Us HWinfo64 and show the min/max/average for a game session instead of a single peak GPU limited value

You do realise your CPU would use a lot more power with a more powerful GPU, or lower settings?


Heres mine over 2 hours of gaming (V Rising, which for some reason is absurdly demanding on hardware):
View attachment 253797
Its a lot better for the 12700K than initial reviews were leading us to believe. I'm going to build one now that I see this. I'm currently sporting a 5950X with a 3080 but its so underutilized. I think I'll upgrade my PLEX server with that Ryzen 9. one of the things I love about the Ryzen 9's is how you can multitask like crazy and they never slow down. If I like the 12700K better than the 5950X, I'll keep it for my main desktop. If not, I'll give it to one of my sons. I like to game on one monitor, browse 30+ tabs at a time on the other monitor and also run photoshop for various edits of pictures and meme's while I'm surfing. The ryzen 9 has not disappointed there. Thanks for sharing your experience with Alder Lake.

 

[AusWolf]

the biggest reason I prefer the Ryzens is the actual power use in real world conditions. A 5950X during most gaming loads uses more like 100-120 watts. Easy games like LOL its closer to 80-100 watts. It only uses a total of 194 watts with PBO enabled and 100% load on all 16 cores and 32 threads. Something like Handbrake.

I do want to try an i9 12900 KS and probably will, but the 12900 K/KS average power use for ordinary usage and gaming usage is much higher than the Ryzen. Gaming on the 12900 K/KS keeps the cpu drawing over 200 watts for long periods of time. I'm hoping another die shrink will help intel on power draw.

I can only join the others in saying that Intel CPUs are extremely efficient in lightly threaded workloads. My 11700 only needs a maximum of 50-60 W in games (not even that in older ones). It's multi-threaded work, like rendering, where AMD CPUs really show their teeth in the efficiency department.

 

[ratirt]

Us HWinfo64 and show the min/max/average for a game session instead of a single peak GPU limited value

You do realise your CPU would use a lot more power with a more powerful GPU, or lower settings?


Heres mine over 2 hours of gaming (V Rising, which for some reason is absurdly demanding on hardware):
View attachment 253797
View attachment 253798

Exactly that.
The problem I see with some people here when they try to show off a CPU.
When power consumption showdown is involved they use 4K and 60FPS cap and it does 50Watts or around
When they show performance they use 720p with medium settings.
It is kinda silly sometimes reading the comments and posts and how people blindly try to twist the truth no matter what.

 

[THU31]

The 12900KS is ridiculous. Even though games do not use all the cores, the CPU will still clock super high with crazy high voltages. This is where the power consumption comes from.

You can lower the power limit by 50% and you will only lose like 10-15% performance. Then again, if all you do is gaming and not productivity, i9 is a complete waste of money whether you limit the power or not.

 

[fevgatos]

Exactly that.
The problem I see with some people here when they try to show off a CPU.
When power consumption showdown is involved they use 4K and 60FPS cap and it does 50Watts or around
When they show performance they use 720p with medium settings.
It is kinda silly sometimes reading the comments and posts and how people blindly try to twist the truth no matter what.

Im playing warzone at 5120x1440 with mixed settings (mostly medium) and dlss, alternating between cpu and gpu bound at 220 to 300 fps and the 12900k never exceeds 100watts.

Of course there are games that it gets up to 150 at ultra low settings (like cyberpunk) but the point remains, intel is more efficient than all zen except the 3d in gaming.

Its a pretty well known fact that in lightly threaded workloads and games intel is both way faster and way more efficient

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Im playing warzone at 5120x1440 with mixed settings (mostly medium) and dlss, alternating between cpu and gpu bound at 220 to 300 fps and the 12900k never exceeds 100watts.

Of course there are games that it gets up to 150 at ultra low settings (like cyberpunk) but the point remains, intel is more efficient than all zen except the 3d in gaming.

Its a pretty well known fact that in lightly threaded workloads and games intel is both way faster and way more efficient

Pointless arguing with the AMD heads, they will constantly just try to prove you wrong. My 12700k hardly uses anything gaming i know that, whether it is over 2 hours or 5 mins. It might spike up sometimes but i would expect all CPUs to do that.

We own Intel ADL CPU's we are flogging a dead horse on TPU trying to defend them. Sometimes I think maybe i should just switch to AM4/5800x and join in the pitch forking.

 

[progste]

Pointless arguing with the AMD heads, they will constantly just try to prove you wrong. My 12700k hardly uses anything gaming i know that, whether it is over 2 hours or 5 mins. It might spike up sometimes but i would expect all CPUs to do that.

We own Intel ADL CPU's we are flogging a dead horse on TPU trying to defend them. Sometimes I think maybe i should just switch to AM4/5800x and join in the pitch forking.

Don't lie man, I've been around these forums for some years and I've alway seen you argue like this, we know you love it way too much.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Don't lie man, I've been around these forums for some years and I've alway seen you argue like this, we know you love it way too much.

Not any more. I give up, this is definitely AMD biased here now.

 

[AusWolf]

Pointless arguing with the AMD heads, they will constantly just try to prove you wrong. My 12700k hardly uses anything gaming i know that, whether it is over 2 hours or 5 mins. It might spike up sometimes but i would expect all CPUs to do that.

We own Intel ADL CPU's we are flogging a dead horse on TPU trying to defend them. Sometimes I think maybe i should just switch to AM4/5800x and join in the pitch forking.

I don't even understand reviews anymore, to be honest.

First, they test performance in games. Second, they test power consumption in rendering. Then they draw the conclusion that Intel CPUs are inefficient and run hot. I mean... WHAT?

Edit: My point is: what can we expect from regular users and forum visitors when even highly respected (Youtube) reviews are turning more and more towards sensationalism, clickbait and show?

 

[fevgatos]

Pointless arguing with the AMD heads, they will constantly just try to prove you wrong. My 12700k hardly uses anything gaming i know that, whether it is over 2 hours or 5 mins. It might spike up sometimes but i would expect all CPUs to do that.

We own Intel ADL CPU's we are flogging a dead horse on TPU trying to defend them. Sometimes I think maybe i should just switch to AM4/5800x and join in the pitch forking.

Amd can do no wrong. I still remember the bashing the 7700k received ( i was bashing it as well). Yet fast forward to 2022, we have the 5800x 3d, which is basically a worse (and more expensive) version of the 7700k, and people are going nuts over it.