• 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

4K8KW10 said:
These trolls and idiots will never understand that it doesn't matter what's written on the box, but what's written on the warranty list provided by the retailer. If the retailer gives 1-year warranty, then this is it.
Click to expand...

Come on dude, that's tray version not full retail, exactly the same for Intel CPU's, stop being stupid
 
I expect he will now either ignore everyone and carry on like nothing happened or dig deeper. What he won’t do (the respectable option) is put his hands up and admit he got it wrong on this occasion.
 
Stranger thing is that Intel attempting to copy ARM's big.LITTLE concept should be all about mobile first and perf/watt.

250W PL2 and even worse PL3 sounds like a total failure of mobile first.

Which isn't too say that Alder-Lake S on desktop will be failure, but it does speaks of Intel forcing the parts way past the part's and then process's performance/watt sweet point.

Probably in an attempt to win at any cost. Can't see the top model being cheap then. First as only few dies will make the cut, and also the platform to run them will be expensive in terms of motherboard power phases and the PSU. And that's before DDR5 which will presumably be required to push performance to the max.
 
cliffy said:
I thought the point of big + little cores was to keep power consumption down??
Click to expand...
It probably will, if the scheduler works. I don't think it was intended to help with stuff like blender, it'll be more effective for light or mixed workloads which desktop PCs spend most of their life doing.
 
cliffy said:
I thought the point of big + little cores was to keep power consumption down??
Click to expand...

Thats exactly what it's for and it's working as intended, increasing multithreaded performance for the same power consumption.

Rocket lake PL2: 250w, just 8 cores
Alder Lake PL2: 250w but has 16 cores and a bigger iGPU than Rocket Lake

Big.Little on desktop is not about "using less power". It's about "doing more with the same power".

Big.Little on portable devices is about "using less power to save battery life". Desktop PC does not care about battery life
 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
Rocket lake PL2: 250w, just 8 cores
Alder Lake PL2: 250w but has 16 cores and a bigger iGPU than Rocket Lake
Click to expand...
Zen 3: 16 cores at half that power

It's going to be very interesting to see how Alder Lake performs and if the architecture can be scheduled correctly, but it's still laughable that Intel still require boatloads of energy. Intel's big.little implementation should be about reducing energy as well as performance, otherwise what's the point?

And it's just going to get insane with Raptor Lake doubling the number of little cores.
 
LePhuronn said:
Zen 3: 16 cores at half that power
Click to expand...

And how is that relevant? Its two different architectures, it makes more sense to compare it to an older Intel CPU - maybe Zen3 could have 24 cores at half the power if they also used Big.Little

And anyway, PL2 on Intel is like PBO for AMD. Turn PBO on for a 5950x = 250w
 
Last edited:
LePhuronn said:
And it's just going to get insane with Raptor Lake doubling the number of little cores.
Click to expand...

If it was on the same node maybe. The Big cores for raptor lake will be made on "Intel 5" which is their 7nm process so it has performance per watt advantage over Alder lake's Big cores for power savings there that could go into adding more little cores.

Also currently the little cores are a fair bit behind the big ones in IPC (the little ones have roughly 50% of the IPC the big ones have) so there may be room to extract more performance from them at lower clock speeds over time - i.e if you can improve IPC by 10% then you can lower clock speed which reduces power draw and add more cores.
 
Last edited:
KompuKare said:
Stranger thing is that Intel attempting to copy ARM's big.LITTLE concept should be all about mobile first and perf/watt.

250W PL2 and even worse PL3 sounds like a total failure of mobile first.

Which isn't too say that Alder-Lake S on desktop will be failure, but it does speaks of Intel forcing the parts way past the part's and then process's performance/watt sweet point.

Probably in an attempt to win at any cost. Can't see the top model being cheap then. First as only few dies will make the cut, and also the platform to run them will be expensive in terms of motherboard power phases and the PSU. And that's before DDR5 which will presumably be required to push performance to the max.
Click to expand...

It is an odd strategy, but Intel need to get power in check and I’m sure most of the product stake will drop performance in favour of lower power use.
 
Grim5 said:
And how is that relevant? Its two different architectures, it makes more sense to compare it to an older Intel CPU - maybe Zen3 could have 24 cores at half the power if they also used Big.Little

And anyway, PL2 on Intel is like PBO for AMD. Turn PBO on for a 5950x = 250w
Click to expand...
Nearly but not quite, on mine i hit 220W at 100% load with all cores boosting to 4.6Ghz. I am certainly looking forward to the reviews and although sceptical i have told my brother to hang fire on an upgrade till its been released
 
cliffy said:
Nearly but not quite, on mine i hit 220W at 100% load with all cores boosting to 4.6Ghz. I am certainly looking forward to the reviews and although sceptical i have told my brother to hang fire on an upgrade till its been released
Click to expand...

What are running to hit 220watt? I’d imagine that is only while you have the thermal headroom and at the wall?
 
It would add up.

130 Watts for the CPU.
Fans 5 watts each. X4?
Punp? 5 Watts
RAM 10 Watts
Chipset 10 watts
Idle GPU 20 Watts
Drives 10 watts

205 Watts with some efficiency loss through the PSU 220 Watts at the wall sounds about right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom