News Intel Core i9-12900K vs Ryzen 9 5900X and 5950X: Alder Lake and Ryzen 5000 Face Off

[-Fran-]

How can Alder Lake win "pricing"? XD

You can run a 5950X in a B550 board that's half the price of a Z690 while keeping 95% of the performance and OC potential through PBO. I'd love to see anyone trying to keep the 12900K fed in an entry level Z690. And this is not even counting cooling requirements and assuming both use DDR4.

I fact, there's been reviews out there doing just that and showing the 5950X basically on par with it, while the whole platform costing about 1/3rd less. If you add DDR5 to the equation, about half the cost.

Outside of the USA, AMD's prices are lower now and Alder Lakes are over the moon. So what gives?

Regards.

 

[salgado18]

What I think is not fair is that Ryzens were not tested with PBO. Intel keeps warranty when releasing power limits and AMD doesn't, but it still is an option for the user, and PBO actually represents the best the chip can do. It wouldn't change much for the 5900x and 5950x, but the 5600x would be a lot more competitive against the i5, maybe event showing better performance and still consuming less power. Until PBO is added to the tests, I think these reviews will be biased towards Intel.

 

[TerryLaze]

How can Alder Lake win "pricing"? XD

You can run a 5950X in a B550 board that's half the price of a Z690 while keeping 95% of the performance and OC potential through PBO. I'd love to see anyone trying to keep the 12900K fed in an entry level Z690. And this is not even counting cooling requirements and assuming both use DDR4.

You could run the 12900k in a B mobo (if and when they become available) that can't go even one watt above 125W and still get 90% of the performance that you would get at no limit...
And if the mobo has even a little bit of overhead you can enable MTP and let it go as high as the mobo can handle closing that gap.

 

[RodroX]

While we argue about power efficiency, platform cost, availability, MSRP vs street price, etc. 75% of the whole wide world users are going to buy thier PC, or have it handle it by their employer and use it without even knowing theres a CPU, RAM and Motherboard inside lol. They wont know or care about 10th, 11th or 12th gen, Zen 2, Zen3 or Zen 4, or Apple's M1, M1 PRO and whaveter the name is for the bigger one.

For the 25% left, you then have those who buy intel because intel was all they knew and used their whole life (which is ok, really is fine!), the same goes for AMD, and then those that buy whats best in thier countries relative to price/performance/availability/ upgradability.

Its very healthy we have such a great community of tech enthusiast.

 

[m3city]

@TerryLaze
There you go, that screenshot does indirectly confirm what i feel about these CPUs. Freshly baked Intel is on par with 5950 in eco mode, or 5900 without limits = 140 W. Note, that the latter is 12/24 core/thread. Both from nearly year ago, conceived by a David-like company. Anyway, I think both CPUs are impressive - AMD for what it is and Intel for catching up. And both are plagued by availability shortages.. but not in EU at least. Whole AMD lineup incl threadripper is generally available, 5950 at approx 900$.

Edit: 12900K has the same price tag by the way.

 

[-Fran-]

You could run the 12900k in a B mobo (if and when they become available) that can't go even one watt above 125W and still get 90% of the performance that you would get at no limit...
And if the mobo has even a little bit of overhead you can enable MTP and let it go as high as the mobo can handle closing that gap.

Funny you use that graph, as it makes my point even stronger. The 5950X, as you can see is bonkers efficient in comparison and the cooling requirement also will lower the overall platform cost. At 88W locked (I'll assume) it's about 15% better in performance and reach parity at 125W for the Intel part. That's just insane. Also, the other very interesting comparison is the 8+0 at 88W with the 5800X: Alder Lake as about the same performance as Zen 3 in MT, so I can extrapolate that Intel won't be better at everything unless they push the power envelope and if you are looking to be power constrained (or thermally constrained), Alder Lake is the worst thing you can consider using.

That's actually sad. Specially considering that AMD is actually about to release Zen 3+ (or 3D) and these SKUs will drop in price. Outside the USA, they're already way way way better priced than Alder Lake. What is Intel even thinking here...

Regards.

 

[TerryLaze]

Funny you use that graph, as it makes my point even stronger. The 5950X, as you can see is bonkers efficient in comparison and the cooling requirement also will lower the overall platform cost. At 88W locked (I'll assume) it's about 15% better in performance and reach parity at 125W for the Intel part. That's just insane.

Nobody argued that intel is now much more efficient or even just as efficient as ryzen.
Cooling for 125W or for 88W is going to be the exact same cooler, the difference of 37W is going to take decades to make up the $200 more that the 5950 costs.

Also, the other very interesting comparison is the 8+0 at 88W with the 5800X: Alder Lake as about the same performance as Zen 3 in MT, so I can extrapolate that Intel won't be better at everything unless they push the power envelope and if you are looking to be power constrained (or thermally constrained), Alder Lake is the worst thing you can consider using.

Huh?! So they draw the same power and have the same performance but the one that can be pushed to use more power and have better performance is the bad option?
What do you think the 8+0 can draw at no limit? Do you think it will draw the same as 8+8?


The point still stands, you could use the 12900k at 125W locked and it would still have very good performance.

 

[gdmaclew]

Can't speak for the US however in Canada there is plenty of stock of all 3 ADL-S cpu's aswell as all the Zen 3 cpu's.

They are out of stock this Monday morning.

 

[-Fran-]

Nobody argued that intel is now much more efficient or even just as efficient as ryzen.
Cooling for 125W or for 88W is going to be the exact same cooler, the difference of 37W is going to take decades to make up the $200 more that the 5950 costs.

Kind of wrong. It does make a difference. There's plenty of very cheap coolers (think $15) that are rated for 95W TDP. In fact, most OEMs like the 95W mark, as much as the 65W. So no, it is a valid point to make and it is relevant.

Huh?! So they draw the same power and have the same performance but the one that can be pushed to use more power and have better performance is the bad option?
What do you think the 8+0 can draw at no limit? Do you think it will draw the same as 8+8?

The observation is very simple: Alder Lake doesn't add anything that Zen3, from the performance perspective, is not already providing when you take into account same cooling (or cooling parity). To get more, you have to enable the E-cores or get the 12900K to run at its ridiculously hilarious PL2 power envelope while the 5950X can get away with it with much less energy, requiring less cooling, making it a cheaper option overall for the reasons I have already stated; I just expanded that observation to the 5800X. That's the whole point.

The point still stands, you could use the 12900k at 125W locked and it would still have very good performance.

Sure, the same performance as the 5950X at 88W. Huzzah? xD

I'll throw you a bone though. The i5 is definitely good; hands down. Even at the higher TDP, it's just good. Too bad there's no B boards yet, because it makes no sense to me to pair it with a Z board, even entry level.

Regards.

 

[TerryLaze]

Kind of wrong. It does make a difference. There's plenty of very cheap coolers (think $15) that are rated for 95W TDP. In fact, most OEMs like the 95W mark, as much as the 65W. So no, it is a valid point to make and it is relevant.

Are you seriously arguing that somebody is going to buy a 5950x and is going to pair it with a $15 cooler?

Sure, the same performance as the 5950X at 88W. Huzzah? xD

For having half the real cores? Yes, huzzah!
At locked 125W the 12900k matches the performance of the 5900x running at 141W because it has more cores.
Also the real 125W setting is the one that says (125/241) that is an 125W average that you can get with a little more effort.
The locked down to 125W is for extremely poor mobos.

 

[-Fran-]

Are you seriously arguing that somebody is going to buy a 5950x and is going to pair it with a $15 cooler?

It is as stupid as buying a CPU for application workloads that puts 241W at full blast when the competition at ~150W can do the same. But hey, you have the option if you must.

For having half the real cores? Yes, huzzah!
At locked 125W the 12900k matches the performance of the 5900x running at 141W because it has more cores.
Also the real 125W setting is the one that says (125/241) that is an 125W average that you can get with a little more effort.
The locked down to 125W is for extremely poor mobos.

What does that even mean? The amount of cores shouldn't be relevant relative to the overall performance, unless you want to go the Bulldozer rabbit hole. That has been discussed to no end already. As long as you're using less power and doing the same or more work, it is better. Period. Intel is barely on par, so not something to celebrate necessarily. And, much like you mentioned above: why the hell would you buy a 12900K and use it at 125W? You're better off buying a 5950X at that point. For games they're also very comparable (leaving the i5/i7 and 5900X out) and you can do gaming on both, but the i9 is overall more money as an investment/cost/expense. Most people bet on the PCIe5 and DDR5 making a difference in the long run, but I really doubt it as it's been proven current DDR4-4400 can best most, if not all, current available DDR5 kits. Capacity maybe? I don't know how you could say the cost of the whole platform is justified with no hardware to make use of it and a fat assumption that when those devices land there will be a noticeable difference. And also assuming DDR5 will come down in price any time soon.

I'll stop here; too much of a time waste.

Regards.

 

[salgado18]

Are you seriously arguing that somebody is going to buy a 5950x and is going to pair it with a $15 cooler?

Then what's the point of the test with a 88W limit? That's not even the TDP of the cpu.
But the point remains that a cooler for 125W is a lot cheaper than a cooler for 240W+.

 

[TerryLaze]

Then what's the point of the test with a 88W limit? That's not even the TDP of the cpu.
But the point remains that a cooler for 125W is a lot cheaper than a cooler for 240W+.

Exactly because a cooler for 125w is much cheaper, the point is that the 12900k at 125W only loses 10% of performance.

 

[TerryLaze]

It is as stupid as buying a CPU for application workloads that puts 241W at full blast when the competition at ~150W can do the same. But hey, you have the option if you must.

The ~150W is just a guess and depends on how it's set up, without limit could mean that they don't follow AMDs limits.
The 5950x can easily draw 255W in cinebench if the 12900k can draw 241+

 

[spongiemaster]

How can Alder Lake win "pricing"? XD

You can run a 5950X in a B550 board that's half the price of a Z690 while keeping 95% of the performance and OC potential through PBO. I'd love to see anyone trying to keep the 12900K fed in an entry level Z690. And this is not even counting cooling requirements and assuming both use DDR4.

I fact, there's been reviews out there doing just that and showing the 5950X basically on par with it, while the whole platform costing about 1/3rd less. If you add DDR5 to the equation, about half the cost.

Outside of the USA, AMD's prices are lower now and Alder Lakes are over the moon. So what gives?

Regards.

Arguing price at the top end is just stupid. Nothing at the top of the performance ladder is a good value, and if that's what you're after, you need to be buying lower in the chain.

Every option is not a good option. Just because you can put a $750 CPU into a $100 motherboard, doesn't mean you should. Again, that's stupid. If you're spending $500+ on a CPU, don't cheap out on the other core components (motherboard, power supply, RAM). If you have to because the CPU sucked up most of your budget, then you should be buying a cheaper CPU. When you're easily clearing $1000 on your core components, not including GPU, then a couple extra $100's should not be breaking you.

 

[kwohlt]

What I think is not fair is that Ryzens were not tested with PBO. Intel keeps warranty when releasing power limits and AMD doesn't, but it still is an option for the user, and PBO actually represents the best the chip can do. It wouldn't change much for the 5900x and 5950x, but the 5600x would be a lot more competitive against the i5, maybe event showing better performance and still consuming less power. Until PBO is added to the tests, I think these reviews will be biased towards Intel.

"Intel keeps warranty when releasing power limits and AMD doesn't " You just answered your question why Tom's chose to compare the two CPUs as the manufacturer sells them. 'why didn't they go into BIOS and void the AMD warranty for this comparison'. Of course they wouldn't do that - does Motortrend install a warranty-voiding tune on one of cars in a comparison test before testing?

 

[-Fran-]

Arguing price at the top end is just stupid. Nothing at the top of the performance ladder is a good value, and if that's what you're after, you need to be buying lower in the chain.

Every option is not a good option. Just because you can put a $750 CPU into a $100 motherboard, doesn't mean you should. Again, that's stupid. If you're spending $500+ on a CPU, don't cheap out on the other core components (motherboard, power supply, RAM). If you have to because the CPU sucked up most of your budget, then you should be buying a cheaper CPU. When you're easily clearing $1000 on your core components, not including GPU, then a couple extra $100's should not be breaking you.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvr_6IAmeBQ


Look at the test setup.

EDIT: In case it is not abundantly obvious, that is exactly what is being discussed from my end. If you say it is stupid, well, it is not stupid as the B550 chipset CAN and, even more, WITH NO ISSUES, push the 5950X to perform at over 90% of the potential "true" performance you can get out of it. Hell, I'd even say the comparison is unfair there, but it helps to illustrate the reverse: AMD can just run on both platforms and there's very minimal trade off you make over X570 and B550. That is nice. Intel doesn't have the B660 out yet and I can bet the trade offs are going to be annoying.

Regards.

 

[Makaveli]

They are out of stock this Monday morning.

Who is they?

 

[spongiemaster]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvr_6IAmeBQ


Look at the test setup.

EDIT: In case it is not abundantly obvious, that is exactly what is being discussed from my end. If you say it is stupid, well, it is not stupid as the B550 chipset CAN and, even more, WITH NO ISSUES, push the 5950X to perform at over 90% of the potential "true" performance you can get out of it. Hell, I'd even say the comparison is unfair there, but it helps to illustrate the reverse: AMD can just run on both platforms and there's very minimal trade off you make over X570 and B550. That is nice. Intel doesn't have the B660 out yet and I can bet the trade offs are going to be annoying.

Regards.

I think you quoted the wrong post.

 

[salgado18]

"Intel keeps warranty when releasing power limits and AMD doesn't " You just answered your question why Tom's chose to compare the two CPUs as the manufacturer sells them. 'why didn't they go into BIOS and void the AMD warranty for this comparison'. Of course they wouldn't do that - does Motortrend install a warranty-voiding tune on one of cars in a comparison test before testing?

It's not the case of being fair to both (which it is), but to test the products in all their scope and features. Ryzen has PBO which voids the warranty, but it is there for users to do at their own risk. Much like Intel has overclocking options with the same issue. Now imagine that I have a 5900X from last year, no warranty anymore, and want to know how it compares to the 12900k. How can I do that if there is no test with PBO to compare to, when the i9 is just pushed to its absolute limits? Some tests shouldn't be run because of warranties? Let the reader know, and test everything.

 

[salgado18]

All that said, I still expect Tom's to release an in-depth analysis of Alder Lake, testing latencies, IPC of each core, everything. That should give us many answers.

 

[GeorgeRen]

No mention of thunderbolt.
I will wait until next year when AMD supports thunderbolt and PCI 5.0 .
Then another comparison should be really interesting.
With PCI 5.0 and thunderbolt new SSD's should be amazing.

 

[Why_Me]

12600k is not $289 in EU, it's not even 289 euro in EU, it's over 300 euro, even 320 which is more than 5600x...

How many stores do really have that unicorn price of $289?

I think is more BS than true, just to make intel look good on paper, while in reality they actually don't have a price advantage....

Does that include VAT?

 

[VforV]

Does that include VAT?

Yes. But the price parity was always like that because there's always the exchange rate too, between $ and euro.

So it was always the case that whatever price is in $ = same price, but in euro (because we have VAT), but not an even bigger price in euro. That's like adding twice to the same price...

So this is not a VAT issue, 12600k is just more expensive here and 5600x is 290 euro, so the CPU itself is actually cheaper, plus the platform is cheaper.

 

[TerryLaze]

"Intel keeps warranty when releasing power limits and AMD doesn't " You just answered your question why Tom's chose to compare the two CPUs as the manufacturer sells them. 'why didn't they go into BIOS and void the AMD warranty for this comparison'. Of course they wouldn't do that - does Motortrend install a warranty-voiding tune on one of cars in a comparison test before testing?

Well PBP/TDP is also not warranty-voiding for alder and that way they could bench everything apples to apples and really compare the two CPUs as the manufacturer sells them .