News Upcoming Core i9-12900K Takes on Core i9-11900k, Ryzen 9 5900X in New Benchmarks

The Ryzen 9 5900X still looks awesome here. Of course, this is one specific suite of tests.
In 3-4 months, when we have a dozen reviews, across a myriad of scenarios, is when we will get the full picture.

This article equates to looking through a keyhole at a particular flash card being held up to the hole on the other side and strikes a remarkably different tone than the previous article, hmmm? ----> https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/core-i9-12900k-destroys-ryzen-9-5950x-by-38-in-ashes-of-the-singularity.3725179/
 
Reactions: Why_Me and artk2219

Eximo

Titan
Ambassador
I suppose if they can offload some background tasks to the efficiency cores, that would be the best case. Not expecting the throughput of all 24 threads in any normal scenario.

But for most people just having the 8 cores and 16 threads is going to fill that niche for a while. Most systems are still quad cores.
 
Reactions: artk2219

salgado18

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2007
700
101
19,170
4
If we assume the efficient cores will have ~70% of the performance of the fast ones, then a workload on all cores would equal to ~13.6 fast cores. That is, obviously, if the software can work it out, and there is enough cooling. In that scenario, it would be slightly faster than the 5900x, which, when it receives the extra cache, should catch up. I think Alder Lake won't be a revolution, but more of an attempt at getting more out of a hot and hungry architecture.
 
Reactions: prtskg and artk2219
If we assume the efficient cores will have ~70% of the performance of the fast ones, then a workload on all cores would equal to ~13.6 fast cores. That is, obviously, if the software can work it out, and there is enough cooling. In that scenario, it would be slightly faster than the 5900x, which, when it receives the extra cache, should catch up. I think Alder Lake won't be a revolution, but more of an attempt at getting more out of a hot and hungry architecture.
I doubt the efficient cores will have anything close to 70% of the performance of the fast ones : for such results, you'd need a performance core running 15% slower - that's what AMD does with Zen2 and more recent.
No, I estimate the efficient cores to have closer to 25-35% the performance of a fast core at the same frequency (taking SMP/HT into account) but actually run at half the clock speed and only use 2-3% of the power. Considering that many tasks don't need more than that and are still responsive (imagine a media player : video and sound are uncompressed by dedicated hardware, a CPU core would only be needed to handle I/O and stream unpacking - a 500 MHz ARM core can do that and still have some cycles leftover), it's an interesting solution.
 

PCWarrior

Distinguished
May 20, 2013
162
46
18,620
3
8 Golden Cove P-cores @5GHz with hyperthreading are equivalent to 8x1.4042=11.23 Skylake Cores @5GHz with hyperthreading
8 Gracemont E-cores @3.7GHz without hyperthreading are equivalent to 8x3.7/5x1/1.25=4.74 Skylake Cores @5Ghz with hyperthreading

So the E-cores have like 42.2% of the performance of the P-cores. In any case MT performance of the 12900K should on average be around that of a 16c/32t Skylake with all cores clocked at 5GHz. And on some workloads it might perform better than that.

A 5900X when it runs on all cores it clocks at 4.4GHz, so, though it enjoys a 15-25% IPC advantage (depending on productivity workload) over Skylake, its frequency deficit (against a 5GHz Skylake) reduces its lead down to 1-10%. This makes it equivalent to 12.12-13.2 Skylake cores with HT clocked at 5GHz. It follows that the 12900K should be 21-32% faster.

3D cache in the best case scenario will improve performance by 15%. If also due to a combination of increased TDP and process maturity the all-core frequency reaches what is now achieved with maximum OCing (4.7GHz) then that’s another 6.8% improvement, resulting a total (1.15*1.068=1.23) 23% improvement. That will make the 6900X able to compete with the 12900K in some productivity benchmarks but still beaten in most, especially where the effect of the extra cache will amount to almost no gains.

And just like that, Cinebench results no longer mattered! :)
Yep. Now AMD fbs only care about SiSoft Sandra benchmarks...
 
I wonder how good the algorithms are that decide on what task goes to a performance core and what task goes to an energy-efficient core?

What about models that constantly work through different types of data? In one moment it works through a 5-second dataset on the energy-efficient core but the next moment is a 5 minute set that SHOULD be on the performance core. Can workloads be migrated between performance and energy-efficient cores (like on ARM's big.LITTLE cores)? What's the migration latency between cores?
 
Something I also find...interesting.

Why are there no productivity numbers in all the leaked benchmarks thus far? Some of us sometimes do things, other than gaming, on our computers. ;)

It also looks like the gaming benchmarks leaked thus far include the same 6 games, from multiple reviewers. Now, the reviewers don't come out and say that these are 'their' results, but it almost leads me to believe that it's just more 'bubblegum chew' on the exact same single set of benchmarks.

No, I don't want to wear the tinfoil hat just yet, but the wait for actual reviews and benches from the top 5-10 reviewers (including here at Tom's), is getting difficult.
 

Eximo

Titan
Ambassador
As a non-interested party (as in I have no plans to buy), this has been the most interesting CPU launch in a while.

Contrary to my earlier post, it does seem that you can enable a permanent high power setting. Which is pretty neat for enthusiasts. I suspect this was done on these gaming tests.

The memory boost concept is also very interesting, though that isn't something I would do on a desktop.
 
One of the things that ISN'T shown, in the leaked reviews, is the memory speeds and timings.
I'm guessing that the ones that show the 7-15% performance uplift of the 12900k is running on fast DDR5 against 3200MHz DDR4. Would be cool if I'm wrong though - we'll see.

After 'selling a kidney' to get my RX 6900 XT, I won't be buying this gen either unless I happen across a super gotta-be-a-pricing-error deal like I got with my Titan Xp.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY