News Core i9-12900K Outperforms Core i9-11900K In After Effects Benchmark

VforV

Respectable
Oct 9, 2019
288
135
1,870
1
This is really not a good and relevant benchmark comparison.

As an AMD user, I actually expect and I really think Intel will do much better than this with Alder Lake... So this is nothing, the same way as AM5 hacked info saying it will have PCIe 4.0 one year away from launch.

Useless reporting (I'm blaming all the tech sites running with this, not only this site), but I guess anything makes the news nowadays... meh. :cautious:
 

watzupken

Notable
Mar 16, 2020
494
208
1,070
1
I feel it makes no sense to compete Alder Lake against the Rocket Lake. It is a low bar for Intel. Instead, they should compete Alder Lake against Tiger Lake, since Alder Lake is expected to replace Tiger Lake in the mobile space as well.
 
This is cool, but let’s see if the CPU requires its own power supply when going at full load.

I’m still mad at Intel’s 9000 series.
That's why they removed avx512 from al their desktop CPUs, now there is no way for reviewers to reach ~300W results and it will very much top out close to the stated 228 pl2 , a bit above if they still allow unlocked power limits.
 

VforV

Respectable
Oct 9, 2019
288
135
1,870
1

PCWarrior

Distinguished
May 20, 2013
159
44
18,620
3
Here is how several cpus compare in Puget Systems’ After Effects benchmark when tested with identical components (RAM, SSD, GPU, PSU, etc) and at stock settings (no overclocking, no unlocked power limits).

As you can see, past 8 or 10 cores, After Effects does not scale with core count. Past 8 or 10 cores, the cpus differentiate from one another based on their per-core performance dictated by IPC (which in some cases can be benefitted by additional cache) and clock speeds when 8 cores are active. Also, under stock conditions, the 11900K scores 1426 and the 10900K scores 1341. The score for the 12900K being 1575 is therefore 10.4% higher than that of stock 11900K and 17.4% higher than that of stock 10900K. These are decent gains over the last flagships for After Effects. It is also 4.1% faster than the 5900X and 5950X.

Also bear in mind here that this is a qualification sample, and we don’t know at what clock speed it was running at (it might have been running at lower than final stock frequencies even if it was overclocked relative to its current stock frequencies). Also revised microcode and revised stepping can easily increase performance further. We might see a score higher than 1600 with final retail units at stock settings and higher than 1700 with adaptive boost.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: TCA_ChinChin

HideOut

Distinguished
Dec 24, 2005
432
17
18,795
1
So the headline is "Intels newest CPU outperforms a design that was about 7 years old". And thats headlines? I mean damn. Thats about captain obvious there dont you think?
 

spongiemaster

Respectable
Dec 12, 2019
1,407
670
2,060
0
So the headline is "Intels newest CPU outperforms a design that was about 7 years old". And thats headlines? I mean damn. Thats about captain obvious there dont you think?
This sample does beat out a 7 year old design, but that's not what this article is about. Intel 11th gen is basically Ice Lake which is 2 years old. If it's captain obvious, it somehow still wasn't obvious enough for you to get it.
 

VforV

Respectable
Oct 9, 2019
288
135
1,870
1
Nowhere near 300+ watts, zen cpu's just don't overclock well at all, they're pretty much maxxed out in stock form.
Great, that's what I want.

I don't care about crazy OC with 300w or more and I don't care or have that "5Ghz syndrome", a lot of Intel fanbois have it.

If I had a CPU that would run at 2GHz, but would have the performance of a 5Ghz one I would be more than happy. I care about overall performance, not clock speeds.

It's exactly as I though, even though Alder Lake has less big cores vs Zen3 it's still less efficient and consume more power and probably because of this runs hotter, which means it needs better cooling.
 
If I had a CPU that would run at 2GHz, but would have the performance of a 5Ghz one I would be more than happy. I care about overall performance, not clock speeds.
And if I looked like a 20 year old and was as healthy as a 20 year old I wouldn't care that I'm almost 50...
Clockspeeds do increase performance and while it does lose scaling after some point so does IPC.
It's exactly as I though, even though Alder Lake has less big cores vs Zen3 it's still less efficient and consume more power and probably because of this runs hotter, which means it needs better cooling.
10ms spikes do not increase your power consumption and don't even show up in a heat graph.
 

VforV

Respectable
Oct 9, 2019
288
135
1,870
1
And if I looked like a 20 year old and was as healthy as a 20 year old I wouldn't care that I'm almost 50...
Clockspeeds do increase performance and while it does lose scaling after some point so does IPC.

10ms spikes do not increase your power consumption and don't even show up in a heat graph.
1. I was just making a hypothetical point about clock speed not being the one to rule them all. CPU performance can be had, even at lower clock speeds as proven by Zen3 with lower clock speed that is faster in most cases than any intel CPU at over 5Ghz.
I'm not obsessed with 5Ghz like some people are...

2. So you really want to tell me that Alder Lake will not consume more power than Zen3? And will be also hotter and harder to cool, thus needing a more expensive cooler? So is less efficient while having fewer big cores?
 
1. I was just making a hypothetical point about clock speed not being the one to rule them all. CPU performance can be had, even at lower clock speeds as proven by Zen3 with lower clock speed that is faster in most cases than any intel CPU at over 5Ghz.
I'm not obsessed with 5Ghz like some people are...

2. So you really want to tell me that Alder Lake will not consume more power than Zen3? And will be also hotter and harder to cool, thus needing a more expensive cooler? So is less efficient while having fewer big cores?
Only that this isn't the case.
Intel with locked power (the way that intel tells people it should run) runs faster and uses the same 120W in average as zen with PBO does and even zen without PBO is still at around 100-110W so not even worth mentioning.
As you linked yourself above the 12900 with a stated average of 125W TDP will max out at 188W if locked (same as the 11900) and 253 in "performance" unlocked power limits (same as the 11900) .
So if you run it with locked power (the way that intel tells people it should run) it also will average at around 120-125W.
10ms spikes do not even show up in anything.
Raptor Lake PL2188W (253W Perf)


https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-11700k-cpu-review/2
 
Also the cores of the11900 are larger than the 10900 at same power so easier to cool and the cores of the 12900 will be larger still and have the smaller cores to make the cooling surface even bigger so it will be even easier to cool.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts