I'm curious, actually. To me, APU just means I can boot it to some sort of interface, without a graphics card. What's the line you would draw?
-
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.
Intel Core i9-12900K allegedly scores 30K points in Cinebench R23
- Thread starter Dave2150
- Start date
Yeah another epic Dave2150 AMD are doomed thread.
We almost have the full gang too.. should be awesome.
Cinebench doesn't really care about memory latency, so results in other things actually using memory are likely less stellar.
92.5ns latency is still very crappy and it isn't even chiplet design CPU:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/gear-4-mode-tested-on-alder-lake
That's definitely going to hurt at the least minimum fps in gaming.
No doubt AMD is waiting for DDR5's maturing and more reasonable latencies before releasing AM5.
(memory latency was one of the issues holding gaming performance of original Zen)
RIP already lol, yeah for Intel leaked results show it beating a year old chip. wait for Ze 3+ after Christmas to overtake intel again
i3 4+4 should be very close to 5800x in multi
Close to the 5600G maybe.
i3 4+4 should be very close to 5800x in multi
Well yeah that's simple extrapolation which basically says that 1 alder lake P cores + 1 Alder lake E core = 2 Zen 3 cores.
The only variance is clockspeed, if 12900k at 5.3ghz = 5950x then the 12600k or 12400k/f may only match a 5800x if it's also able to do over 5ghz
And there in is the true value of Alder lake - the potential that a $220 12400f could be overclocked to over 5ghz all core and match or slightly beat the 5800x
I thought the i3's wasn't getting small cores?i3 4+4 should be very close to 5800x in multi
The leaks coming out will show the absolute best case scenarios and with the change to DDR5 there will be certain situations where these new chips excel. How they will perform across all tasks will not be known until they hand them over to trustworthy reviewers.
I will not be upgrading my cpu/mobo and be a beta tester for DDR5, I will make the change when I need to and get a decent performance boost from it.
I will not be upgrading my cpu/mobo and be a beta tester for DDR5, I will make the change when I need to and get a decent performance boost from it.
If a 12900k with 16/24 matches a 5950X then a 12600k with 10/16 should comfortably beat a 5800X although its competitor CPU in price is the 5600X which would have to drop to under $200 to make any sense.
Do you realize that 12600k has 10 cores ? 6+4. It will obliterate 5800x in single and multi core. I'm not even talking about 5600X because this CPU will be slower than i3 Alder Lake if it will have 4+4 or 6+0 config.
i swear i keep hearing about these type of rumours about intel beating every other CPU under the sun for the last 3, 4 years, between the 9700k losing hyperthreading back then and the 11900k losing physical cores i wonder what they will come up with this time.
What we are getting this time is 10 core CPUs for £250 which when compared to CPUs like the 5600X that gave us just 6 cores but for the price of 8 then it's very compelling if the early benchmarks prove right.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,582
- Location
- Rutland
I'm curious to see what value the little cores add. I guess for gaming they won't be much use but for multithreaded workloads they're helpful.
What is the theory behind the little cores? They can't really be for efficiency like mobile implementations as Intel threw caution to the wind on power budgets some time back.
What is the theory behind the little cores? They can't really be for efficiency like mobile implementations as Intel threw caution to the wind on power budgets some time back.
crazy number of cores, magical performance, stupidly low prices, these rumours come up every single year,I apologise for being sceptical after so many years of the same kinda rumours.
They have 14 core 6+8 versions going into laptops so they can't be that power hungry.
I'm guessing the small cores will focus on light background tasks and heavy workloads while the big cores will be more useful for gaming.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,582
- Location
- Rutland
I get that on mobile that small efficient cores are useful but the small cores seem largely superfluous on desktop don't they? I'm not sure what they'd add over just using the silicon for full cores. It might help eek out some more performance per watt but Intel has shown they don't really care about efficiency much on the high end.
Intel's results speak for themselves.
the little cores are there to improve performance without blowing out the power budget.
Yes you're asking why don't they use 16 big cores and the answer is that no one wants a 500w CPU like the old 10980xe. So 8 little cores gives them basically 9900k power consumption while having extra multithreaded performance.
Intel has figured out what you haven't, that the performance per watt and per million transistors is higher on the small cores than big cores, so they only had a couple options : make 10 big cores for 250w or make 8 big and 8 little for the same 250w and it turns out 8 little skylake cores is better than 2 big golden cove cores
Last edited: