• 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

Dave2150 said:
My 11900k uses much less power when gaming compared to Blender etc, even when one core is at 5.4Ghz, another two are at 5.3Ghz and the rest are at 5.1Ghz. Was a very fun CPU to overclock, though I got very lucky with a SP90 quality chip. Hoping my 12900k is of the same tier, though I doubt it!

Early batches of 11900k were much better clockers overall, I'm wondering if it'l be the same for the 12900k, which is why I wanted to secure one from the first batches (thanks OCUK!) at all costs :p
Click to expand...
Please show us your settings/benchmarks for your chip
 
humbug said:
I agree with you, the question is with everything in mind would you buy the 12600K?
Click to expand...
not when I already own 5800X.
Would I recommend it for someone looking to build a (rather expensive) gaming rig around 3080 or 6800XT? Only if waiting for Zen3D/Zen4 is not an option

HACO said:
SPECfp MT
Click to expand...
Wouldn't read much into Anandtech DDR4 vs DDR5 comparison.
For some reason they use a very slow DDR4-3200 2X32GB CL22 (!) kit. So both bandwidth and latency hampered.
vs DDR5-4800 CL40, also pedestrian, but technically higher speed than officially supported by ADL on 4-slot motherboards.

When comparison was between say Zen3 and Rocket lake, at least both were in same choked situation.

Not saying the results are wrong, the conclusion that DDR5 bandwidth helps MT tasks is correct. But Anandtech benchmarks of DDR4 and by extension all CPUs that use DDR4 are way lower than they could be.

Kitguru memory comparison did it properly.
https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/ddr4-vs-ddr5-intel-core-i9-12900k-testing/2/
Fast DDR4 kit is a bit better than a current "fast" DDR5 kit for most (not 100% multithreaded) tasks. But turns out also more expensive.
So I change my mind on recommending DDR4 for ADL. For budget systems it makes sense, for top end, DDR5 is fine.
 
yeah, for anyone building a gaming pc from scratch with a decent budget there seems to be no reason to go AMD, 12600k seems the CPU to go for, personally i will be holding onto my 5800x, performance difference dont really justify the upgrade cost on my opinion and i dont game at 1080P.
 
We have goodies :D

Not sure why the image didn't work.

http://imgur.com/a/bZjwMHd
bZjwMHd
 
I wasn’t impressed by this at all. Competing with a year old about to be refreshed and replaced design and beating it by a few percentage points didn’t sound that great to me.
Add to that the click bait titles and hyperbole in reviews that I felt was completely out of proportion compared to the actual results being shown and I felt it was a serious let down.

However now that I have slept on it I think it’s a decent first step.

Performance figures for gaming look great from a power consumption standpoint (vs the competition), while Intel has left the option to pull as much juice as the chip needs for more intensive workloads. This comes with the disadvantage of heat and power consumption, but realistically time is money to anyone likely to benefit from this and I expect they value that more than the additional power consumption and cooling costs.
The only place I can think of power consumption being an issue is in a rack where there’s a budget for it that cannot be exceeded.

I’m glad to see Intel doing something different and I hope it works out. It’s first gen tech on a new platform with both hardware, and software issues and quirks to overcome, and I expect that in time performance will improve. However, it’s first gen tech with both hardware, and software issues and quirks to overcome, so I will be waiting for the next gen when hopefully DDR5 is more competitive, PCIe 5 SSDs are available (and the platform makes better use of the available lanes), and Windows and the scheduler are more refined and better understood by those responsible for getting the best out of them.

There’s also the potential for disruption from AMD with both their refresh and the new platform. So thats another reason (for me) to wait.

So I personally am impressed, with caveats. But I definitely won’t be buying this gen. Perhaps if Intel had promised x generations of the CPU would be compatible with the platform, as AMD did for AM4, but not with the prospect for so much change to come in such a short time. And Intel do love forcing new motherboards on us.

This progress is good, and lower prices and better performance are good for everyone. Either way the competition should encourage both Intel and AMD to do more for less.
 
Distracted said:
I wasn’t impressed by this at all. Competing with a year old about to be refreshed and replaced design and beating it by a few percentage points didn’t sound that great to me.
Add to that the click bait titles and hyperbole in reviews that I felt was completely out of proportion compared to the actual results being shown and I felt it was a serious let down.

However now that I have slept on it I think it’s a decent first step.

Performance figures for gaming look great from a power consumption standpoint (vs the competition), while Intel has left the option to pull as much juice as the chip needs for more intensive workloads. This comes with the disadvantage of heat and power consumption, but realistically time is money to anyone likely to benefit from this and I expect they value that more than the additional power consumption and cooling costs.
The only place I can think of power consumption being an issue is in a rack where there’s a budget for it that cannot be exceeded.

I’m glad to see Intel doing something different and I hope it works out. It’s first gen tech on a new platform with both hardware, and software issues and quirks to overcome, and I expect that in time performance will improve. However, it’s first gen tech with both hardware, and software issues and quirks to overcome, so I will be waiting for the next gen when hopefully DDR5 is more competitive, PCIe 5 SSDs are available (and the platform makes better use of the available lanes), and Windows and the scheduler are more refined and better understood by those responsible for getting the best out of them.

There’s also the potential for disruption from AMD with both their refresh and the new platform. So thats another reason (for me) to wait.

So I personally am impressed, with caveats. But I definitely won’t be buying this gen. Perhaps if Intel had promised x generations of the CPU would be compatible with the platform, as AMD did for AM4, but not with the prospect for so much change to come in such a short time. And Intel do love forcing new motherboards on us.

This progress is good, and lower prices and better performance are good for everyone. Either way the competition should encourage both Intel and AMD to do more for less.
Click to expand...


70% faster than 11th gen is impressive never the less, it's like ryzen. Ryzen may not have being everyone cup of tea but it was a huge improvement over what amd had before just like 12th gen is huge over 11th
 
Distracted said:
I wasn’t impressed by this at all. Competing with a year old about to be refreshed and replaced design and beating it by a few percentage points didn’t sound that great to me.
Add to that the click bait titles and hyperbole in reviews that I felt was completely out of proportion compared to the actual results being shown and I felt it was a serious let down.

However now that I have slept on it I think it’s a decent first step.

Performance figures for gaming look great from a power consumption standpoint (vs the competition), while Intel has left the option to pull as much juice as the chip needs for more intensive workloads. This comes with the disadvantage of heat and power consumption, but realistically time is money to anyone likely to benefit from this and I expect they value that more than the additional power consumption and cooling costs.
The only place I can think of power consumption being an issue is in a rack where there’s a budget for it that cannot be exceeded.

I’m glad to see Intel doing something different and I hope it works out. It’s first gen tech on a new platform with both hardware, and software issues and quirks to overcome, and I expect that in time performance will improve. However, it’s first gen tech with both hardware, and software issues and quirks to overcome, so I will be waiting for the next gen when hopefully DDR5 is more competitive, PCIe 5 SSDs are available (and the platform makes better use of the available lanes), and Windows and the scheduler are more refined and better understood by those responsible for getting the best out of them.

There’s also the potential for disruption from AMD with both their refresh and the new platform. So thats another reason (for me) to wait.

So I personally am impressed, with caveats. But I definitely won’t be buying this gen. Perhaps if Intel had promised x generations of the CPU would be compatible with the platform, as AMD did for AM4, but not with the prospect for so much change to come in such a short time. And Intel do love forcing new motherboards on us.

This progress is good, and lower prices and better performance are good for everyone. Either way the competition should encourage both Intel and AMD to do more for less.
Click to expand...
Yeah the review titles were all clickbait. I don’t see any trouble for AMD here. ADL is gaming king only for 2 months. The 3D V-Cache Ryzen CPUs will most certainly beat ADL as average FPS seems to be just a hair ahead and AMD claims 15% improvement. Note their overclocking headroom is also higher than ADL as it runs much cooler.

I think Intel lost me at the motherboard pricing. I can either go DDR4 now and save costs but that’s a dead end just like AM4 as I don’t think Raptor Lake will support DDR4. So if I need to change the board anyway AM4 is a good option along with Ryzen 3D Cache as pricing is very good on the boards.
 
Also for anyone wanting an impressive deal on memory:

Gigabyte Aorus RGB 16GB (2x8GB) DDR4 PC4-26600C18 3333MHz Dual/Quad Channel Kit @ £49.99 inc VAT https://www.overclockers.co.uk/giga...-3333mhz-dual-quad-channel-kit-my-004-gi.html



GP-ARS16G33, 3333MHz RAM Speed, CAS 18-22-22-42 Timings, 1.25-1.40v VDIMM, Lifetime Warranty with OcUK.



Only £49.99 inc VAT.

ORDER NOW





Gigabyte Aorus RGB 16GB (2x8GB) DDR4 PC4-29800C18 3733MHz Dual/Quad Channel Kit @ £59.99 inc VAT https://www.overclockers.co.uk/giga...-3733mhz-dual-quad-channel-kit-my-005-gi.html



GP-ARS16G37, 3733MHz RAM Speed, CAS 18-22-22-42 Timings, 1.25-1.40v VDIMM, Lifetime Warranty with OcUK.



Only £59.99 inc VAT.

ORDER NOW





Crucial Ballistix RGB 32GB (2x16GB) DDR4 PC4-28800C16 3600MHz Dual Channel Kit @ £128.99 inc VAT https://www.overclockers.co.uk/cruc...00c16-3600mhz-dual-channel-kit-my-20u-cr.html



BL2K16G36C16U4BL, 3600MHz RAM Speed, CAS 16-18-18-36 Timings, 1.35-1.45v VDIMM, Lifetime Warranty with OcUK.



Only £128.99 inc VAT.

ORDER NOW
 
Gibbo said:
Also for anyone wanting an impressive deal on memory:

Gigabyte Aorus RGB 16GB (2x8GB) DDR4 PC4-26600C18 3333MHz Dual/Quad Channel Kit @ £49.99 inc VAT



GP-ARS16G33, 3333MHz RAM Speed, CAS 18-22-22-42 Timings, 1.25-1.40v VDIMM, Lifetime Warranty with OcUK.



Only £49.99 inc VAT.

ORDER NOW





Gigabyte Aorus RGB 16GB (2x8GB) DDR4 PC4-29800C18 3733MHz Dual/Quad Channel Kit @ £59.99 inc VAT



GP-ARS16G37, 3733MHz RAM Speed, CAS 18-22-22-42 Timings, 1.25-1.40v VDIMM, Lifetime Warranty with OcUK.



Only £59.99 inc VAT.

ORDER NOW





Crucial Ballistix RGB 32GB (2x16GB) DDR4 PC4-28800C16 3600MHz Dual Channel Kit @ £128.99 inc VAT



BL2K16G36C16U4BL, 3600MHz RAM Speed, CAS 16-18-18-36 Timings, 1.35-1.45v VDIMM, Lifetime Warranty with OcUK.



Only £128.99 inc VAT.

ORDER NOW
Click to expand...

Yeah, I’ll have some of those. Are they single or dual rank?
 
Dave2150 said:
My 11900k uses much less power when gaming compared to Blender etc, even when one core is at 5.4Ghz, another two are at 5.3Ghz and the rest are at 5.1Ghz. Was a very fun CPU to overclock, though I got very lucky with a SP90 quality chip. Hoping my 12900k is of the same tier, though I doubt it!

Early batches of 11900k were much better clockers overall, I'm wondering if it'l be the same for the 12900k, which is why I wanted to secure one from the first batches (thanks OCUK!) at all costs :p
Click to expand...
Come on Dave, you've been part of this community for nearly 20 years, share something useful for once and put up some AIDA64 Memory bench of your 4400Mhz C17 so we can compare it to Alderlake running DDR4 and DDR5.
 
My 12600kf is due around lunch time, I've also received a 5800x and b550 strix board this morning, I'm really not sure what to do haha

10400f b560 currently setup, 5800x and b550 board, as well as a 12600kf but no board or mount for my EK aio
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom