News Intel's Flagship Core i9-12900K 'Alder Lake' Smashes Ryzen 9 5950X in Geekbench

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
svan71 said:
Intel latest beats what is soon to be AMD last GEN, amazing
Click to expand...

Sad part is it doesn't even "beat" AMD's soon to be last generation. The 5950X when properly configured scores above 18K in Geekbench 5 multi core testing. That beats the score that the 12900K was able to post. Its also important to note that the 11900K's single core performance was only 2% behind the 12900K tested. The same 11900K that GamersNexus called "a waste of sand that could have been in swimwear". 2% greater single core performance might make the 12900K equal to Ryzen 5000 in gaming as the 11900K fell slightly shy of reclaiming that crown.
 
  • Like
Reactions: artk2219 and Krotow
waltc3 said:
Always skeptical of comparisons using only a single benchmark...😉 Caveat Emptor.
Click to expand...
Emptor who? No one is buying it now - on the basis of a single benchmark or on any other basis either, because it is not available. And by the time it is available, all the potential buyers are informed of the caveats by a range of thorough reviews.

You say "caveat emptor" about the prospect of buying something risky. Not about something that has not YET been tested, but will be tested with 100% certainty well before it can be purchased.
 
  • Like
Reactions: artk2219
PL2 on the flagships sucks, suggesting that AL's smaller cores are testiment that TDP issues are still rife, even under a new arch and node used.
Still need a new mobo, DDR5 (high pricing?) and live with the early bugs. Bigger PSU probably also needed vs zen. Higher power bills too if used for lotsa multi-work. A disappointment already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: artk2219, Redneck5439 and Krotow
barryv88 said:
PL2 on the flagships sucks, suggesting that AL's smaller cores are testiment that TDP issues are still rife, even under a new arch and node used.
Still need a new mobo, DDR5 (high pricing?) and live with the early bugs. Bigger PSU probably also needed vs zen. Higher power bills too if used for lotsa multi-work. A disappointment already.
Click to expand...

The whole reason why that PL2 is so high is due to Intel's need to hit 5.3Ghz boost clocks. Looking at all the raw data thus far the 12900K will close the multi core gap with the 5950X, but won't be able to beat it. Therefore the only recourse is for Intel to regain the "gaming crown" and that means single core performance. Looking at all available data the 12900K should outperform the 11900K by ~5 - 10% overall in single core execution, and this time I'm sure Intel worked overtime to ensure it will directly translate into gaming performance. I would expect the 12900K to hold a ~6% or greater lead in gaming over Ryzen 5000. But the only way Intel can do this is by hitting that 5.3Ghz boost clock because IPC (at the same clock speeds) with Ryzen 5000 is still going to be very close. Ryzen 5000 processors are extremely efficient but they sacrificed a bit of performance to make them so efficient (Ryzen 5000 processors don't boost much past 5Ghz- single core). Intel is taking the other approach in that they don't care how much power their processors suck down while boosting as long as they can achieve slightly better performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: artk2219 and barryv88
VforV said:
Intel needs 2 generations to beat 1 YEAR LATER, AMD's Zen3. Bravo! 😆

And 3 months later AMD is like: Zen3+ anyone? It's still on AM4... easy upgrade? 🆒
Click to expand...

That is why Intel fanboys are slamming AMD's 3D V-Cache (stacking) so badly on all the forums. The 12900K is going to have a slight single core performance lead and a slight gaming performance lead over Ryzen 5000, however from what I'm seeing the 5950X and 5900X in their classes will retain their multi core edge over Alder Lake. AMD has already demonstrated that in some situations 3D V-Cache technology can improve gaming performance by up to 15% on their existing 1 year old Ryzen 5000 processors. If Alder Lake edges out existing Ryzen 5000 processors by ~6% in gaming what will happen when AMD releases a Zen 3 refresh with the cache stacking? It really is looking like AMD doesn't need Zen 4 to compete against Alder Lake, all they will need is the Zen 3 refresh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: artk2219, VforV and Krotow
sydneyblue203 said:
Im curious if these new chips will only work on windows 11
Click to expand...

Alder Lake will "work" on Windows 10, but Windows 11 was purposely built around Alder Lake with close working ties between Intel and Microsoft to ensure the scheduler handles the cores properly. It will technically run on Windows 10 but high priority tasks that should be performed on Golden Cove may be put off on the little cores by mistake and hinder performance. The Geekbench 5 test run with this article was on Windows 11 Pro so the 12900K wasn't held back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: artk2219
Redneck5439 said:
That is why Intel fanboys are slamming AMD's 3D V-Cache (stacking) so badly on all the forums. The 12900K is going to have a slight single core performance lead and a slight gaming performance lead over Ryzen 5000, however from what I'm seeing the 5950X and 5900X in their classes will retain their multi core edge over Alder Lake. AMD has already demonstrated that in some situations 3D V-Cache technology can improve gaming performance by up to 15% on their existing 1 year old Ryzen 5000 processors. If Alder Lake edges out existing Ryzen 5000 processors by ~6% in gaming what will happen when AMD releases a Zen 3 refresh with the cache stacking? It really is looking like AMD doesn't need Zen 4 to compete against Alder Lake, all they will need is the Zen 3 refresh.
Click to expand...
Indeed, I also think it will happen exactly like that.

But hey let's not take away the dreams of intel fanbois, so dream on fellas... at least until Zen3+ comes and those dreams go poof, that is. 😛
 
  • Like
Reactions: Redneck5439 and artk2219
Love all the AMD fans and Intel fans.
When you get something with that many cores does 1 or 2% better even matter?

Funny thing is in all the post that are sounding like AMD fans that is what their using in their siggies of their PC's🤔
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RodroX
VforV said:
More fuel for the fire:
Alleged Intel Alder Lake-S Desktop CPU Tested, Runs Really Hot at Up To 93C While Consuming 250W of Power

So more power, worse thermals and 1 year later than Zen3. Ok.
Click to expand...
It's the same amount of power, 250W was also the PL2 for the 11900k.
Also PL2 should only run for 56sec, running it for an hour means that power limits are lifted which makes the result irrelevant, it's basically like showing overclocking numbers and passing them off as normal numbers.

The 12 the gen will have dark silicone in the form of the fused off AVX wich will mean more surface for the same heat which should result in better thermals.

Zen 3 was already beaten by rocket lake.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-11700k-cpu-review
JAfWaMM.jpg

View: https://i.imgur.com/JAfWaMM.jpg
 
TerryLaze said:
Zen 3 was already beaten by rocket lake.
Click to expand...
Hahaha. At what? The worst intel generation since, ever? Yes, it was beaten at being that.

Show me the 11900k, not cherry picked skewed results. I take my reviews from HU and GN, this site is more and more just entertainment.

It's funny how the entire world knows how bad RKL was/is, yet here it the one guy turning black into white and bad into good. Amazing.

Oh yeah, I forgot to laugh, so let me: ha.ha.ha.

This topic stinks of so much ignorance and shilling and simping, it makes me vomit. So keep it. I don't care about any BS reply that comes next.

Actually I'll just do one better. You're blocked. There, no more wasting my time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Redneck5439
VforV said:
Hahaha. At what? The worst intel generation since, ever? Yes, it was beaten at being that.

Show me the 11900k, not cherry picked skewed results. I take my reviews from HU and GN, this site is more and more just entertainment.

It's funny how the entire world knows how bad RKL was/is, yet here it the one guy turning black into white and bad into good. Amazing.

Oh yeah, I forgot to laugh, so let me: ha.ha.ha.

This topic stinks of so much ignorance and shilling and simping, it makes me vomit. So keep it. I don't care about any BS reply that comes next.

Actually I'll just do one better. You're blocked. There, no more wasting my time.
Click to expand...

Someone doesn't know of or remember the initial pentium 4 release, and how the new models were clocked 40 and 50% higher and barely beat out the previous model while needing new a new motherboard, expensive proprietary memory, running hotter, and using more power. I still use that as my marker for a bad release, bulldozer was also a bad release but atleast you didnt have to completely change out your motherboard and memory if you had a supported board and were using DDR3.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/661/24

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel,264-23.html

This line towards the end is so cringy, similar to "just buy it", "Pentium 4 at 1.4 GHz goes for $644, Pentium 4 at 1.5 GHz costs $819 right now. It's not exactly a bargain, but, hey, who really cares about price if it really is all about style? "
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Soaptrail and VforV
artk2219 said:
Someone doesn't know of remember the initial pentium 4 release, and how the new models were clocked 40 and 50% higher and barely beat out the previous model while needing new expensive proprietary memory, running hotter, and using more power. I still use that as my marker for a bad release, bulldozer was also a bad release but atleast you didnt have to completely change out your motherboard and memory if you had a supported board and were using DDR3.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/661/24

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel,264-23.html

This line towards the end is so cringy, similar to "just buy it", "Pentium 4 at 1.4 GHz goes for $644, Pentium 4 at 1.5 GHz costs $819 right now. It's not exactly a bargain, but, hey, who really cares about price if it really is all about style? "
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. I did not know that, so thanks for the info.

I do remember having a Pentium 4 3.0Ghz and I was very pleased with it, but at that time I did not know much about PCs, IT and tech, so please forgive my noobness. 😀
 
  • Like
Reactions: Soaptrail
VforV said:
I stand corrected. I did not know that, so thanks for the info.

I do remember having a Pentium 4 3.0Ghz and I was very pleased with it, but at that time I did not know much about PCs, IT and tech, so please forgive my noobness. 😀
Click to expand...

No worries it happens lol, the later model P4's weren't the worst, similar in that they were running hot and using alot of power, but they gave you decent enough performance for the money, if not always the fastest performance. Rocket Lake reminds me of that, though the performance disparity isnt as high as vs Athlon 64, and its motherboard prices tend to temper the value proposition that they could represent, not like Intel really cares anyway, they're still selling literal boatloads of chips.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VforV
Zerk2012 said:
Love all the AMD fans and Intel fans.
When you get something with that many cores does 1 or 2% better even matter?

Funny thing is in all the post that are sounding like AMD fans that is what their using in their siggies of their PC's🤔
Click to expand...

To me it really don't matter which is faster as I don't plan on buying a new system anytime soon. I just like accurate reporting, and its easy to take a quick peek on the internet and see the numbers are off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VforV
Makaveli said:
To me it really don't matter which is faster as I don't plan on buying a new system anytime soon. I just like accurate reporting, and its easy to take a quick peek on the internet and see the numbers are off.
Click to expand...
As of now none of it matters, for the numbers you never know how what they used was configured.

It just looked funny to me all the AMD users get posed.

Edit the last 3 Intel processors I bought was because AMD had really nothing as good at the time for my use.
I5 2500K, i7 4790K, i5 10600K
You could argue the point on the 10600K but it's still a good CPU.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom