-
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.
AMD demonstrates Ryzen 9 5900X prototype with 3D V-Cache stack chiplet design
- Thread starter RavenXXX2
- Start date
Also, I'm not sure the large 10nm cores Alder Lake cores will use more power than Rocket Lake 14nm cores. You'd need to compare the power usage of the 12400K and 11400K for a fair comparison.
Technically, Intel's 10nm process has a slightly greater transistor density than TSMC's standard 7nm.
Technically, Intel's 10nm process has a slightly greater transistor density than TSMC's standard 7nm.
You need to compare to AMD. But what are you expecting from the big cores? In 4 thread workloads they will be fast. Think 7700K. Above 4 threads think 11900K.
Above 8 threads and situation becomes really complicated. Now you are dealing 2x ring bus connecting to a mesh. Probably though some type of crossbar.
The 12400 power usage seems pretty good so far, if rumours are correct:
https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-c...lake-cpu-tested-in-cpu-z-aida64-and-cinebench
78.5W in a stress test. Temps looked decent too, at 60 Celsius.
up to 130w for a 11400f (gear 1) in a stress test here:
https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i5-11400f/images/power-stress.png
It's not quite a fair comparison though as the 11400 boosts to 4.4ghz (all core), and the 12400 boosts to 4ghz (all core).
But it looks like the big cores are probably no less power efficient than comet lake or rocket lake cores, and might have improved efficiency.
I'd certainly expect the 12400 to give the 5600X (around 134w under stress) a run for it's money, in terms of power efficiency.
https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-c...lake-cpu-tested-in-cpu-z-aida64-and-cinebench
78.5W in a stress test. Temps looked decent too, at 60 Celsius.
up to 130w for a 11400f (gear 1) in a stress test here:
https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i5-11400f/images/power-stress.png
It's not quite a fair comparison though as the 11400 boosts to 4.4ghz (all core), and the 12400 boosts to 4ghz (all core).
But it looks like the big cores are probably no less power efficient than comet lake or rocket lake cores, and might have improved efficiency.
I'd certainly expect the 12400 to give the 5600X (around 134w under stress) a run for it's money, in terms of power efficiency.
Last edited:
Of course they would be. If you disable the small cores chips like the 3900X will walk all over the 12900K.
You seem obsessed with the small cores, they are an unimpressive distraction
I don’t see much point in buying a chip and disabling half of it. You are paying for all that silicon.
Soldato
lol OK. For better or worse, Intel are pushing the big little design, and their focus is the little cores; Raptor Lake is rumoured to be doubling them, whilst still retaining the same big core count.You seem obsessed with the small cores, they are an unimpressive distraction
If you're saying "well, the little cores in Alder Lake don't matter" and that proves to be true, Alder Lake is DOA and going to get crushed by Zen 3D. Gaming will hate DDR5, and there's zero guarantee the ST "gains" Intel are showing in synthetics will actually come to pass. Rocket Lake sure as hell didn't translate its IPC gains into the real world, and I'm not sure Alder Lake will either.
And frankly I find the leaked MT synthetics of the 12900K soundly beating a 5950X to be immensely suspicious; Gracemont is supposedly slightly less performant than Skylake and doesn't have HT. Golden Cove isn't significantly better than Cypress Cove, which in turn was a good chunk behind Zen 3 because it's still just Skylake. But then suddenly 8 cores a little better than Skylake and 8 cores a little worse than Skylake trounces 16 Zen 3 cores?
Bovine manure.
I think Intel will be keen to point out their 4-8 core performance and then their 8 core efficiency figures lumped together with a tiny disclaimer to give the impression you can expect the 16 core performance of Golden Cove at the power use of 16 Gracemont cores. Obviously you will never achieve either, but marketing is a wonderful thing.
Caporegime
@g67575 You're saying ADL cores are no less efficient than Rocket Lake cores as if that's a good thing..... No, that ###### atrocious.
Rocket Lake cores are very inefficient and to take that level of efficiency and apply it to their new 10nm is worse than already really bad.
AMD's performance per watt is already twice that of Intel on 14nm and again now on 10nm what do you think that's going to look like when AMD get off a now old 7nm and on to 5nm with Zen 4?
Rocket Lake cores are very inefficient and to take that level of efficiency and apply it to their new 10nm is worse than already really bad.
AMD's performance per watt is already twice that of Intel on 14nm and again now on 10nm what do you think that's going to look like when AMD get off a now old 7nm and on to 5nm with Zen 4?
Meh, nothing has been confirmed about Intel's 13th generation yet, it's probably just guess work.
I think they only prioritized the big.little design because they had no other choice for Alder Lake.
We didn't know much about the spec of Alder Lake until this year, so give it time. It wouldn't surprise me if they managed to optimize 10nm further. It's a shame Intel's 10nm appears to be limited to non EUV though.
But the next big step in performance will probably be based on Intel's 7nm EUV fab. process.
I think they only prioritized the big.little design because they had no other choice for Alder Lake.
We didn't know much about the spec of Alder Lake until this year, so give it time. It wouldn't surprise me if they managed to optimize 10nm further. It's a shame Intel's 10nm appears to be limited to non EUV though.
But the next big step in performance will probably be based on Intel's 7nm EUV fab. process.
Last edited:
Apple, Intel and soon AMD (zen 5) will all be using big little so it looks to be the way forward and not short term fix.
We know a lot about Alderlake. It’s Trentmont and Skylake. Intel had nothing to compete so has hashed together two old chips.
How do we know what AMD plans for Zen 5 though? They haven't announced the spec for Zen 4 yet, and they've had a lot of success with 16 core CPUs on Zen 3.
Lol, no Alder Lake is a different microarchitecture to Skylake, the 1st new architecture for desktop in a long time (6 years since Intel's 6th generation), take a look here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_CPU_microarchitectures#Pentium_4_/_Core_lines
It uses the Golden Cove Architecture.
Technically, Rocket Lake was a new microarchitecture (Cypress Cove), but it was effectively ruined by backporting it to 14nm, so offered basically no improvement vs Skylake.
You can see on that list that 'Intel 4' based Meteor Lake CPUs are the next big planned step for Intel.
Lol, no Alder Lake is a different microarchitecture to Skylake, the 1st new architecture for desktop in a long time (6 years since Intel's 6th generation), take a look here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_CPU_microarchitectures#Pentium_4_/_Core_lines
It uses the Golden Cove Architecture.
Technically, Rocket Lake was a new microarchitecture (Cypress Cove), but it was effectively ruined by backporting it to 14nm, so offered basically no improvement vs Skylake.
You can see on that list that 'Intel 4' based Meteor Lake CPUs are the next big planned step for Intel.
Last edited:
Alderlake is literally a short term fix. Big little is a means to an end. And in a high performance desktop PC not a good one unless it’s running on a battery.
Soldato
am4 still have another gen to go through (3d cache) and can upgrade up to 16 core CPU.
By the time is irrelevant and dead it will be when DDR5 6400mhz can do 16-16-16-32 and games need more than 8 core CPU which won't be until next gen consoles. (in 5 years from now)
I doubt we shall see Zen 4 before end 2022 - start 2023 and we do not know at what prices, motherboard prices, RAM prices. Also we shouldn't forget ADL is also a placeholder stop gap and Intel has a proven track record killing their platforms within 7 months!
Lol no, it uses two core different cores. Skylake 4c clusters with ring bus (Golden cove) MESH ATOM clusters with upto 8 cores (Gracemont) squash them both together add a cross bar, jumble up the NUMA, link some IO, twenty minutes in oven and you have an Alderlake.
Soldato
Seems your post will age well if the bellow benchmarks are an indication of the 12900K.
https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-radeon-rx-6600-tested-on-intel-core-i9-12900k-cpu-equipped-system
So you are an expert on processor microarchitecture now . How did they improve the performance of Alder Lake if its just Skylake cores + small cores bolted on?
It's not the same if the L3 cache has been increased to 30MB for the top model.
Or, do you think Intel has exaggerated IPC improvements? tbf wouldnt be the 1st time.
. How did they improve the performance of Alder Lake if its just Skylake cores + small cores bolted on?It's not the same if the L3 cache has been increased to 30MB for the top model.
Or, do you think Intel has exaggerated IPC improvements? tbf wouldnt be the 1st time.
Last edited:
Caporegime
That's interesting, is this the first actual game benchmark?
In Tomb Raider there are two CPU results and as i don't read mandarin i don't know what they are but in the first one the 5950X is substantially quicker than the 12900K, 454 for the 12900K and 533 for the 5950X.
That's a difference of 17% to the 5950X.
5950X on win 10 with the 12900K on win 11, Is this why Ryzen is gimped on win 11? eh?