• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Alder Lake-S leaks

People keep talking about 'just' the performance increase if they're pro-intel and 'just' the power increase if they're pro-amd...

12600 v 5600x is about 4% worse for power per performance (ie efficiency) in multi thread, and 14% worse in single threaded.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-12600k-alder-lake-12th-gen/20.html

efficiency-singlethread.png
efficiency-multithread.png

This is why.... Basically the 12900K uses twice as much power for the same performance overall.

Its a performance per watt improvement over the 10900K but its still bad.

Auc4ttI.png
 
@Miganto There are many things to talk about, but the crux of it is Intel have caught AMD in productivity performance at the expense of twice their power consumption.

Intel are about 10% better with gaming.
 
This is why.... Basically the 12900K uses twice as much power for the same performance overall.

Its a performance per watt improvement over the 10900K but its still bad.

But surely can we agree that performance > efficiency.

I bought the 5600X because of it's performance, the TDP is just the cherry on top.
 
But surely can we agree that performance > efficiency.

Depends. Most of us here would take a 2x performance gain at 3x power consumption, but would you take ~5% more performance at 2x power consumption? I don't. That's basically the situation here.
 
But surely can we agree that performance > efficiency.

Yes, i can and you're right.

I'm looking at the bigger picture because it doesn't stop here, Intel are pushing it to their extremes to catch AMD's old outgoing CPU's on a node two generations surpassed, the ADL core is 3X the size of AMD's old core.

AMD have a nuclear button that could crush Intel and looking at where Intel have gone its clear there is nothing Intel can do about AMD if they wanted to crush them.
 
Sure, no disagreements. Semantics are irrelevant, the new channel architecture makes memory bandwidth utilisation more efficient, which was a big issue in DDR4, as it limited scaling of 5950X and Apple M1 quite severely. M1 Pro/Max and Alder lake on DDR5 made that a lot better.

bw8z8tS.png

Even though on SPECfp ST tests, M1, Zen 3 and Alder lake are within 10% of each other, when it comes to SPECfp MT both M1 Max and Alder lake push ahead of 5950X despite having fewer cores, specifically half P cores. You can basically see 5900X and 5950X being the same in SPECfp, that's where the memory bottleneck is causing the problem.

Yup agree, sorry I thought you were confusing memory ranks too (most on here keep doing that), see I wish they kept it 64bit channel and added another 64bit channel and just changed the amount of pins on the new DDR5 to a new socket but they kept it same as DDR4 but moved the notch and doubled the channels by halving it. I still don't class it as a true dual channel RAM per module, to me more important is the platform/cpu channels that's why I love HEDT platforms for memory intensive tasks.


To me the platform/cpu is really what calls the shots on memory channels..
 
This would seem to backup what @Purgatory is saying; it is strictly speaking a dual channel platform, not quad channel though CPU-Z and HWInfo64 does report it as quad channel.

https://youtu.be/fhI9tLOg-6I?t=1589


Yup this is what I mean, seems Steve thinks the same too about this whole ram channels on modules thing.. I also thought he was confusing ranks too. I think we are both on the same page now.
 
But surely can we agree that performance > efficiency.

I bought the 5600X because of it's performance, the TDP is just the cherry on top.

You can’t have a successful product without both. Intel will struggle until they can produce 16 big cores at around 100 watts. That’s the benchmark.
 
im no fan boy or anything its good to see intel come back fighting amd have done really well bridging the gap .but at the end of the day for me its about games nothing more as ive have sayed this is better than what i have got i had the cash lying so i upgraded. it will be the first time buying a non overclocked system. i wonder if ocuk can provide me with some overclock settings?.
 
I know someone who wanted to move away from X58 finally to save on heat/power, but they've changed their minds now. I wonder how many cancellations or alterations to orders have been made due to DDR4/DDR5 and or heat/power.
 
I know someone who wanted to move away from X58 finally to save on heat/power, but they've changed their minds now. I wonder how many cancellations or alterations to orders have been made due to DDR4/DDR5 and or heat/power.

Reddit is full of people canceling their orders or canceling their motherboard that uses DDR5 and DDR5 RAM and getting a DDR4 motherboard and RAM for their new ADL cpu.

DDR5 is not going down well.
 
DDR4 was the same, it was actually worse than DDR3.

Early adoption tax, DDR5 will come good in time...
 
I know someone who wanted to move away from X58 finally to save on heat/power, but they've changed their minds now. I wonder how many cancellations or alterations to orders have been made due to DDR4/DDR5 and or heat/power.
The people moaning about a 100w difference will be the same people scrambling for the 450+w 4090/7900XT in 10 months time.
 
Not if efficiency is so bad and the CPU runs so hot that you need to spend lots of money on a cooler just to keep the thing in check.

That's just platform cost and being more uncomfortable in the summer months, running a 200 Watt + CPU is not nice in the summer, trust me i know.

But if the performance is there i agree Power efficiency > Performance, the problem ADL has its not really any faster in productivity than a Ryzen 5950X with half the power consumption. That's why to me at least it is objectively bad.
 
Yup agree, sorry I thought you were confusing memory ranks too (most on here keep doing that), see I wish they kept it 64bit channel and added another 64bit channel and just changed the amount of pins on the new DDR5 to a new socket but they kept it same as DDR4 but moved the notch and doubled the channels by halving it. I still don't class it as a true dual channel RAM per module, to me more important is the platform/cpu channels that's why I love HEDT platforms for memory intensive tasks.


To me the platform/cpu is really what calls the shots on memory channels..

No problem. The semantics are definitely inconsistent with prior generations!

The people moaning about a 100w difference will be the same people scrambling for the 450+w 4090/7900XT in 10 months time.

Well in that case saving 100w in CPU power consumption goes a long way to keep that PC cool :D:D
 
AMD have a nuclear button that could crush Intel and looking at where Intel have gone its clear there is nothing Intel can do about AMD if they wanted to crush them.

I don't think it's that simple or I could just pump 250W into my 5600X. They'd have to completely re-engineer the chips, they're just not designed to take those kinds of power loads under normal operating conditions.

The 5950x can only use 140w compared to the 12900k 240w at the same operating temperature. 12900k is a lot better at consuming power :cry::cry::cry:
 
I'm going to cancel my z690 and 12600kf, and go with a high end b550 and 5800x, then look at getting a zen3 3D chip next year
 
The people moaning about a 100w difference will be the same people scrambling for the 450+w 4090/7900XT in 10 months time.
Unlikely he runs a GT710, as he uses CPU not GPU, he's hung on for many years hoping and hoping even though I told him to get a 5900X last year, some people are just blindly loyal though.
 
Back
Top Bottom