With Intel's new line does base clock rate matter? (e.g. 12700 vs 12700K)

[Mr Jack]

With the current generation of CPUs, unlike my current 6600K, there seems to be a massive difference between base and boost clock rate. For example with the 12700 the base rate is a lowly 2.1Ghz, but it boosts to 4.9GHz. Meanwhile the biggest difference between the 12700 and the 12700K (other than allowing overclocking, obvs.) is that the base rate in the 12700K is much higher at 3.6GHz, while the boosted rates are almost identical at 4.9 and 5.0. That higher base rate also pushes the base power draw up 60W.

Performance-wise, is this difference in base rate important? Or can the chips be trusted to hit those boost rates as soon as needed? Or, put another way, if I'm not looking at overclocking is it worth paying for a higher base rate or should I just consider the turbo rate?

If relevant, I'm more interested in the performance for software development work than for gaming (but the latter is nice too).

 

[mickyflinn]

12700 lower base frequency is to make it a 65w cpu theoretically but it will still perform very near the 12700k as it boosts. If you have no plans to overclock the 12700 is better choice unless you want the best of the best.

 

[Mr Jack]

12700 lower base frequency is to make it a 65w cpu theoretically

Thanks for the answer, that confirms what I thought. Do I take it from your smiley that this wattage figure is rather misrepresenting its draw in normal usage? And the real world draw is similar between the chips?

 

[mickyflinn]

Thanks for the answer, that confirms what I thought. Do I take it from your smiley that this wattage figure is rather misrepresenting its draw in normal usage? And the real world draw is similar between the chips?

At load there be simmlar power draw at idle the 12700 will be less , you still want a decent cooler for heavy workloads, A 200w tdp cooler is what you should get to keep temps in order.

Always best to checkout reviews .

 

[Tetras]

With the current generation of CPUs, unlike my current 6600K, there seems to be a massive difference between base and boost clock rate. For example with the 12700 the base rate is a lowly 2.1Ghz, but it boosts to 4.9GHz. Meanwhile the biggest difference between the 12700 and the 12700K (other than allowing overclocking, obvs.) is that the base rate in the 12700K is much higher at 3.6GHz, while the boosted rates are almost identical at 4.9 and 5.0. That higher base rate also pushes the base power draw up 60W.

Performance-wise, is this difference in base rate important? Or can the chips be trusted to hit those boost rates as soon as needed? Or, put another way, if I'm not looking at overclocking is it worth paying for a higher base rate or should I just consider the turbo rate?

If relevant, I'm more interested in the performance for software development work than for gaming (but the latter is nice too).

The base clocks are a load of rubbish, but the actual behaviour depends on the motherboard. As mickyflinn said, need to check out reviews to get the real info on power.

 

[HangTime]

Generally I don't think it matters too much, it's more for binning and headline TDP numbers. If you put a good cooler on it, and raise all the power limits, boost durations etc in the BIOS, the lower chip should be fine (that's what I did with my 11900F, 2.5 base clock but it boosts to 5.2, I assume Alderlake is similar).

 

[g67575]

I think the 12700 or 12700f offer pretty good value, as they are cheaper than AMD's latest AM4 CPU (5800X3D), and they tend to perform better overall, and are only slightly behind in games. There's probably something to be said for buying a 2nd hand 12700K and overclocking it, which should help it to keep up with AMD's latest AM4 chip.

I'd say the 4 E-Cores are of limited use, but they might make some tasks a little quicker. It's a shame Intel hasn't produced an 8 core CPU with no E-cores for less money, as I think that would offer the best bang for buck for gamers.

It looks like higher P-core counts have only been deemed worthwhile on enthusiast and server grade hardware (in other words, not standard LGA1700 motherboards). To actually be a worthwhile upgrade compared to CPUs like the Comet Lake based 10900K (10 cores), I think this is what Intel should plan for in 2022.

Based on this:
https://images.anandtech.com/doci/17259/Slide_575px.png

Maybe Intel is already close to power limits for the LGA1700 socket? Power usage on the 12900K can be over 300 watts, even at stock settings.

we know that the Sapphire Rapids generation is going to use P-Cores only, seems logical to assume that they would be able to offer 40 P-Cores or more, at this is what Intel is currently offering with their existing server 10nm CPUs, which use the 'Sunny Cove' core. AnandTech is estimating upto 56 cores for Golden Cove servers.

I think Intel has been slow to roll out enthusiast / server grade 10nm Golden Cove CPUs, because of delays to the release of the previous generation of server CPUs.

 

[g67575]

56 cores confirmed for Sapphire Lake (Golden Cove cores) server CPUs here:
https://www.techpowerup.com/293959/...-boosts-to-3-3-ghz-at-420-watts?cp=2#comments

Looks like the same 2MB L2 cache per core that Raptor Lake desktop CPUs are rumoured to be getting.

Huge power limits of over 700watts on the tested LGA4677 motherboard.

Looks like ~420watts power consumption will be typical under load.

It certainly shows that Intel is far from finished with Golden Cove cores though, will be interesting to see if they can offer more than 8 Golden Cove cores to consumers.

 

[Wing-Man]

As base clock ever mattered? My i5 6500 gamed just fine back in the day. And people went mad for the i5 8400 when that came out.

low base clock with a high boost is normal and nothing new. It’s so they can have a low TDP and look like a power efficient cpu.