News Intel 12th-Gen Alder Lake Release Date, Benchmarks, Specifications, and All We Know

[InvalidError]

New RAM (unless you go for a DDR4 motherboard leaving performance on the table, according to Intel).

People are already "leaving performance on the table" by not using the fastest DDR4 available within pricing reason today. With DDR5-4800-40 costing 50+% more than DDR4-4000-18, I'd imagine DDR5 won't be worth bothering with for a large number of people.

 

[-Fran-]

People are already "leaving performance on the table" by not using the fastest DDR4 available within pricing reason today. With DDR5-4800-40 costing 50+% more than DDR4-4000-18, I'd imagine DDR5 won't be worth bothering with for a large number of people.

That's quite "reaching for straws" in your argument...

Reviews normally use CPU accepted speeds for RAM and rarely use OC'ed RAM to compare, so it's kind of moot to bring that up. Sure, you can buy the most expensive and fastest RAM available, but not all CPUs will be able to run it that high. The 11th gen can run DDR4-4000 and up with somewhat no issues, but Ryzen still has issues going above it.

Regards.

 

[InvalidError]

Reviews normally use CPU accepted speeds for RAM and rarely use OC'ed RAM to compare, so it's kind of moot to bring that up. Sure, you can buy the most expensive and fastest RAM available, but not all CPUs will be able to run it that high. The 11th gen can run DDR4-4000 and up with somewhat no issues, but Ryzen still has issues going above it.

Most review sites I have seen ran the i5-10600k with DDR4-3000 or DDR4-3200 as baseline. THG is the only one doing only 2666MT/s for the stock setup. Doesn't make much sense to pay the significant premiums for Z-series board and unlocked K CPU only to cheap out with DDR4-2666 which is only $5-10 cheaper than DDR4-3200 and practically guaranteed to work regardless of official support status from Intel.

DDR4-4000 is far from being the most expensive memory available. Prices have actually come drastically since the last time I looked:

• 32GB of DDR4-2133-13 starts from $110
• 32GB of DDR4-3200-16 starts from $110
• 32GB of DDR4-4000-18 starts from $140
• 32GB of DDR4-4800-20 starts from $240
• 32GB of DDR5-4800-40 starts from $260 if we only consider in-stock prices

So, right now, some of the most ludicrous DDR4-4800 currently available would obliterate DDR5-4800 on latency (half as much) without giving anything up on bandwidth and still cost $20 less.

At this point, DDR4-4000 sounds like a really reasonable budget option for 12th-gen.

 

[-Fran-]

Most review sites I have seen ran the i5-10600k with DDR4-3000 or DDR4-3200 as baseline. THG is the only one doing only 2666MT/s for the stock setup. Doesn't make much sense to pay the significant premiums for Z-series board and unlocked K CPU only to cheap out with DDR4-2666 which is only $5-10 cheaper than DDR4-3200 and practically guaranteed to work regardless of official support status from Intel.

DDR4-4000 is far from being the most expensive memory available. Prices have actually come drastically since the last time I looked:

• 32GB of DDR4-2133-13 starts from $110
• 32GB of DDR4-3200-16 starts from $110
• 32GB of DDR4-4000-18 starts from $140
• 32GB of DDR4-4800-20 starts from $240
• 32GB of DDR5-4800-40 starts from $260 if we only consider in-stock prices

So, right now, some of the most ludicrous DDR4-4800 currently available would obliterate DDR5-4800 on latency (half as much) without giving anything up on bandwidth and still cost $20 less.

At this point, DDR4-4000 sounds like a really reasonable budget option for 12th-gen.

As I said, it'll depend directly on whether or not the CPU's IMC can handle the speeds. It would be interesting to test, no doubt, but if you're going to "save" $20 on Alder Lake's new platform and you'd be effectively locking yourself onto DDR4, sounds like a bad idea to me.

Memory fails me here, so I can't remember how Skylake did with the DDR3/4 motherboards when it launched and the speeds it could actually run back then. I do remember DDR3 fast was better than DDR4 slow, so I'm not expecting DDR5 to be a drastic change from it. That being said, choosing a DDR4 board will lock you out of a potential CPU upgrade and/or RAM upgrade down the line, no? It's not an easy to divide thing, I'd say. What has Intel said about socket longevity?

Regards.

 

[InvalidError]

As I said, it'll depend directly on whether or not the CPU's IMC can handle the speeds. It would be interesting to test, no doubt, but if you're going to "save" $20 on Alder Lake's new platform and you'd be effectively locking yourself onto DDR4, sounds like a bad idea to me.

The i9-11900K set the DDR4 speed record at 7156MT/s. I wouldn't worry too much about 4000MT/s being an issue unless Alder Lake comes with a massive regression.

As for "locking yourself in", Intel changes sockets every other generation. You are "locked" into relatively short-lived platforms no matter what you buy and gen-on-gen performance gains are rarely worth bothering with. For most people, this is a non-object as they will need all-new everything for their next CPU upgrade anyway.

That being said, choosing a DDR4 board will lock you out of a potential CPU upgrade and/or RAM upgrade down the line, no?

That is only a problem for compulsive upgraders or whose livelihood is directly affected by the amount of CPU-power they have available. Everyone I personally know either doesn't own a PC/laptop or only upgrades every 4-10 years like I do. I haven't done a CPU-only upgrade to an existing system in over 20 years.

 

[-Fran-]

The i9-11900K set the DDR4 speed record at 7156MT/s. I wouldn't worry too much about 4000MT/s being an issue unless Alder Lake comes with a massive regression.

They are sporting a new IMC, so you never know. That is why I was interested in comparing the DDR3->4 transition with Skylake and the max speeds it could support.

As for "locking yourself in", Intel changes sockets every other generation. You are "locked" into relatively short-lived platforms no matter what you buy and gen-on-gen performance gains are rarely worth bothering with. For most people, this is a non-object as they will need all-new everything for their next CPU upgrade anyway.

Have they mentioned anything about S1700? Any long term commitment like AMD or something?

That is only a problem for compulsive upgraders or whose livelihood is directly affected by the amount of CPU-power they have available. Everyone I personally know either doesn't own a PC/laptop or only upgrades every 4-10 years like I do. I haven't done a CPU-only upgrade to an existing system in over 20 years.

Hence you'd try to get "the best you can" from the get go, right? That's the point. DDR5, according to Intel, is going to be better for Alder Lake and, given how different DDR5 operates, I think they're also taking into account current DDR4 speeds on the upper end.

Interesting times for sure and there will be a lot of things to test with Alder Lake 😛

Regards.

 

[InvalidError]

Have they mentioned anything about S1700? Any long term commitment like AMD or something?

LGA1700 is only confirmed for Alder and Raptor Lake. Where Meteor Lake (14th gen) is concerned, rumors so far point toward LGA18xx, so yet another new socket as usual.

Hence you'd try to get "the best you can" from the get go, right? That's the point. DDR5, according to Intel, is going to be better for Alder Lake and, given how different DDR5 operates, I think they're also taking into account current DDR4 speeds on the upper end.

Intel doesn't typically report performance beyond the maximum supported stock specs, so my bet is that Intel's "DDR5 performance gains" are DDR5-4800 vs DDR4-3200 at garbage JEDEC timings, maybe 3600 if Intel bumps official support to track readily available budget-friendly DDR4 speeds.

Skylake is a bit of a gotcha since it is only officially compatible with DDR3L, not DDR3. Benchmarks on DDR3L-1866-9 had it mostly dead-even with DDR4-2133-15. If history repeats itself as it tends to do, then DDR4-4000-18 or 4200-20 should be able to stand its ground against DDR5-4800-40.

 

[Eximo]

My understanding is the socket is already LGA1800, just that this generation they are only assigning 1700 pins?

Two generation support would be the standard.

Curious if they will drop DDR4 support.

 

[-Fran-]

LGA1700 is only confirmed for Alder and Raptor Lake. Where Meteor Lake (14th gen) is concerned, rumors so far point toward LGA18xx, so yet another new socket as usual.

Intel doesn't typically report performance beyond the maximum supported stock specs, so my bet is that Intel's "DDR5 performance gains" are DDR5-4800 vs DDR4-3200 at garbage JEDEC timings, maybe 3600 if Intel bumps official support to track readily available budget-friendly DDR4 speeds.

Skylake is a bit of a gotcha since it is only officially compatible with DDR3L, not DDR3. Benchmarks on DDR3L-1866-9 had it mostly dead-even with DDR4-2133-15. If history repeats itself as it tends to do, then DDR4-4000-18 or 4200-20 should be able to stand its ground against DDR5-4800-40.

Ah, thanks for the refresher; maybe that's why I remember DDR3 was only better with the "fast" modules. I'd imagine then, if it can be extrapolated, DDR4 at or faster comparable clock/timings will be better. Then again, as I said, DDR5 does change how you access it a bit.

My understanding is the socket is already LGA1800, just that this generation they are only assigning 1700 pins?

Two generation support would be the standard.

Curious if they will drop DDR4 support.

Unfortunately, it is called LGA1700 because it has 1700 pins: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGA_1700

Regards.

 

[Eximo]

Unfortunately, it is called LGA1700 because it has 1700 pins: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGA_1700

Yes, this generation and next. But Intel is using the same physical dimensions for up to LGA1800. So they left room so we don't all have to get new coolers again.

Intel LGA 1700 & LGA 1800 Socket Design Leaks Out, Designed For Alder Lake & Next-Gen CPUs

The Intel LGA 1700 & LGA 1800 socket that has been designed for Intel's next-generation CPUs including Alder Lake desktop family has leaked.

wccftech.com

 

[-Fran-]

Yes, this generation and next. But Intel is using the same physical dimensions for up to LGA1800. So they left room so we don't all have to get new coolers again.

Intel LGA 1700 & LGA 1800 Socket Design Leaks Out, Designed For Alder Lake & Next-Gen CPUs

The Intel LGA 1700 & LGA 1800 socket that has been designed for Intel's next-generation CPUs including Alder Lake desktop family has leaked.

wccftech.com

Ah, dimensions wise they'll be the same, but not pin-wise. So the same as early Sandy Bridge up to Broadwell, was it? They had like 1 or 2 pins of difference between them, no? XD

Regards.

 

[Eximo]

Ah, dimensions wise they'll be the same, but not pin-wise. So the same as early Sandy Bridge up to Broadwell, was it? They had like 1 or 2 pins of difference between them, no? XD

1156, 1155, 1150, 1151v1, 1151v2, 1200

AMD is going LGA1718, if only they sat down and decided to make them truly compatible. I want to put an AMD CPU in an Intel board again....

 

[-Fran-]

1156, 1155, 1150, 1151v1, 1151v2, 1200

AMD is going LGA1718, if only they sat down and decided to make them truly compatible. I want to put an AMD CPU in an Intel board again....

Hm... It would be nice if they could use the same socket, yes, but I seriously doubt both AMD or Intel would ever go that route again. Coolers would definitely benefit from that for sure and could potentially drive costs down* for platform development (think F1 vs Indy?), but would create other issues for both Intel and AMD in their "freedom" to design stuff. Plus they'd depend on agreeing on a common socket, so yeah... Not going to happen xD

Regards.

 

[Eximo]

I was mostly joking. But we used to have third party chipsets too...

 

[InvalidError]

Then again, as I said, DDR5 does change how you access it a bit.

While DDR5 may split DIMMs into two optionally independent data channels, they won't necessarily get used that way on desktop PCs where the norm so far has been to bond the two DDR memory channels together for use as a single 128bits wide bus. DDR5's finer control over self-refresh and related low-level details could have some performance benefits that DDR4's lower latency may not be able to catch up with.

My bet is it will be tight and DDR4 will be the clear performance-per-dollar winner at launch. It may be a different story in a year or two, though you may need a new motherboard and CPU to use faster DDR5 by then anyway.

I was mostly joking. But we used to have third party chipsets too...

With both AMD and Intel using PCIe to connect the chipset to the CPU, there really is no reason for vendor-specific chipsets to exist anymore other than arbitrary vendor lock-in/out.

They'd still need different sockets and BIOS to accommodate the different VRM requirements, on-chip IOs, microcode, config data, etc. though.

 

[hotaru251]

The 12700K's $409 price point means that Intel has kept the Core i7 flagship at its same price point, where it lands between the $449 Ryzen 7 5800X and $399 Ryzen 5 5600X.

The Core i5-12600K's $289 price point remains the same as the prior-gen Core i5-11600K, meaning it lands right smack dab in gamer country, going toe-to-toe with the $299 six-core Ryzen 5 5600X

so uhh....idk the 5600x was both 399 and 299 🤔

 

[Jim90]

Regurgitating old news, Toms. Intel will be impressed 😉

 

[dalauder]

Maybe you missed that amd 8 core 5980hs 35w is 2.5x faster than intel top tier 10nm 4 core at 25W(I am sure the real consumption is higher when boosting ) so who has weaker cores? How much power will intel need to increase their score with 250% to match 5980hs which isn't even the flagship? I guess they will need 12 cores and 80W+ for this. In single core intel lose again with much more power consumption, their cores are only better in sucking the battery.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kImqzdaTihE

That's my thinking.

Most of these chips that beat comparable AMD chips pull TDPs that most AIO coolers can't even provide. You would need to carefully check reviews and buy a case that fits a 280mm cooler, that has good airflow, etc., to even hit the speeds that beat AMD. I don't think most people building their PCs, let alone OEMs, will provide that level of cooling.

I'd pretty sure that actually puts Intel back to 20% slower than AMD in real-world usage, instead of 15% in front.

 

[dalauder]

so uhh....idk the 5600x was both 399 and 299 🤔

Necro...