• 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

humbug said:
Turn PBO off.
Click to expand...

I can do this and yes it definitely helps - but the cpu is then slower than the 3950x it replaced in anything that's multithreaded and there is my conundrum, why did I buy the 5950x if it's slower than the 3950x which was 100% stable with PBO and heavily overclocked memory
 
humbug said:
The 5950X is faster than the 3950X across the board, 10 to 25% faster. https://www.techspot.com/review/2131-amd-ryzen-5950x/

Look, i'm not being funny with you but you're telling me a Zen 3 CPU is slower than a Zen 2 CPU with the same number of cores and you think its a problem with the product rather than with you or your system, what in your mind do you think i think about that?
Click to expand...

Yes because my 3950x can run with PBO fine which makes it much faster than your benchmark. And when PBO is off my 5950x gets a lower cinebench r20 score than your benchmark. The problem is the product, it's being back to the pc store and they've replaced multiple components including putting in new cpu, I'm on my 3rd 5950x actually. And I didn't overclock or do the settings myself, all of it is setup by the store I use - so if you think a builder who puts together $5k custom PCs all day doesn't know what they're doing then that's fine
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Whats your R20 score on the 3950X?
Click to expand...

around 9800 with PBO on for the 3950x
Around 9300 with PBO off on 5950x
Around 11000 with PBO on for 5950x - but WHEA crashes galore

And I know why the 5950x with PBo off is slower than the 3950x with PBO on - it's mainly the clock speed, with PBO off the 5950x sits at 3.9ghz all core in R20 which is quite low but it's still pulling the full 140w it's allowed
 
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:
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:
Jay85 said:
I mean not to mention price of DDR5 as well, it really needs to be something mind blowing good for anyone to fork out for a new board, ram and cpu and maybe even a cooler if the socket size is different too. I've not read much into it yet so im making some assumptions here.
Click to expand...


The DDR5 is going to cost nearly the same as a new alder lake cpu

So I fully expect to have to pay about $500usd for good DDR5 ram
 
pcuser said:
To me PCI-E 4.0 is a good thing since it allows for more bandwidth to chipset an allows for faster nvme drives. It is of course good to have PCI-E 5.0 but it is strange to me since we haven't reached the limits of PCI-E 4.0 yet.



If I remember it correctly Intel had PCI-E 3.0 x8 lanes from processor to the chipset in Z590 instead of PCI-E 4.0 x 4 lanes. Hopefully with PCI-E 5.0 they will give more bandwidth to the chipset.
Click to expand...


I too struggle to think why we even need pcie 5. Our SSD's are only currently running at 4x4, so pcie4 still has room to support SSD's that are 4 times faster if the chipset and mobo provides it. As for GPUs, we're only just seeing GPUs use slightly more than 4x8 so we still have nearly double bandwidth available for faster GPUs


So do we need pcie5? Not really

Then why does it exist?

the only thing I can think of is that maybe it's more efficient and I hope it actually is. Chipsets now draw more power and run hotter due to pcie4
 
Danger Bri said:
I can see it being very expensive to upgrade if you include PCIe 5.0 and DDR5, especially at the early adopters prices. When you factor in the cost of the CPU and a new motherboard…..ouch. But people will pay the premium.

I will wait to see how AMD respond, and for DDR5 to settle. The PCIe thing isn’t a big deal to me.
Click to expand...

For me in 2022:

ddr5 ram (32gb or 64gb)
Gen 5 ssd
New mobo (probably an asus z690 maximus)
New cpu (probably the i9 12900k)
Rtx4080/4090
 
pcuser said:
12900k is expected to be 24 threads so prepare for the price tag.
Click to expand...

The price will be based on performance relative to AMD. Remember, Intel used to charge $2000 for 32 threads, until AMD launched the 3950x then Intel dropped the price in half.
 
wookiee87 said:
love to know what power the new intel chip pulls, plus what type of cooling was used?
Click to expand...

probably 200w

the power usage will be super close to what 10th and 11th gen has. All the savings in power from a smaller node is used to stack little cores on - overall power draw will be so so similiar to 14nm chips.

And lol @ cpuz not showing any info for the little cores
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom