News US Pricing Listed For Intel Alder Lake CPUs

Giroro

Honorable
Jan 22, 2015
884
281
11,390
13
Based on what we know so far about the 12900K, $700 is absolutely laughable.

People thought I was being cynical for calling this an 8-core processor, with Intel trying to trick the layman into paying 16-core pricing.
Looks like I was pretty close for the pricing. We'll have to wait and see on real world performance. But so far, things are not looking good.
 
Reactions: gg83

SkyBill40

Distinguished
Intel will get their devotees to shell out and have them tripping all over themselves to do so. Count on it. It's pretty laughable to see this pricing as it's not going to be anywhere close to this. I fully expect retailers to be tacking on premiums which will inflate the costs even higher. Given the chip shortage for everything else, this could be a launch with little to no other parts available. Guess we'll see soon enough.
 
Reactions: gg83

steve15180

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
28
5
18,535
0
Um, looking at your chart, Intel 12900k lists for about $100 less and has more cores and threads than
the 5950X. Great deal if it weren't for the fact that the 5950X is a 16 CORE, 32 THREAD processor.
And 8 of the Intel cores are not full boat cores.
One more question I haven't heard the answer for. The point behind big little is power savings and running small/background tasks so the big ones can do the heavy work. This means Microsoft will finally start taking advantage of more cores. Does this mean that if the work is shared properly amongst the cores in an AMD processor, it will be slower because the large cores can't do the background tasks as well as the Intel small cores? If not, what's the point? Will Microsoft make it so os and background tasks will not be handed off in such a fashion unless there is a little core for them?
 
Reactions: Makaveli

jpe1701

Honorable
Mar 13, 2015
1,376
40
11,990
200
Um, looking at your chart, Intel 12900k lists for about $100 less and has more cores and threads than
the 5950X. Great deal if it weren't for the fact that the 5950X is a 16 CORE, 32 THREAD processor.
And 8 of the Intel cores are not full boat cores.
One more question I haven't heard the answer for. The point behind big little is power savings and running small/background tasks so the big ones can do the heavy work. This means Microsoft will finally start taking advantage of more cores. Does this mean that if the work is shared properly amongst the cores in an AMD processor, it will be slower because the large cores can't do the background tasks as well as the Intel small cores? If not, what's the point? Will Microsoft make it so os and background tasks will not be handed off in such a fashion unless there is a little core for them?
I think you are over thinking it. Remember when Ryzen 3000 landed and not all of the CPU cores would hit max boost clock, only the faster cores could? AMD and Microsoft changed the windows scheduler so that it would target threads to the faster cores. Same deal here. AMD chips won't be affected.
 

samopa

Honorable
Feb 12, 2015
70
6
10,535
0
The sweet spot will be i7 12700, it has same power (P) core with i9 12900, and half number of slow (E) core, Their benchmark scores will be close, and their different in performance for everyday (common) task will be negligible. I even think their differences in performance for gaming will also negligible. Unless somehow Intel put some brake mechanism in order to prevent it.
 

PCWarrior

Distinguished
May 20, 2013
159
44
18,620
3
Golden Cove has 19% higher IPC compared to Sunny Cove which in turn has 18% higher IPC than Skylake. Thus, Golden Cove has 40% (1.19*1.18=1.4042) higher IPC than Skylake. And Gracemont cores have IPC (at least) equal to that of Skylake.

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

Adding up we have 11.23+4.74=15.97 Skylake Cores with hyperthreading. So by mere calculations the 12900K is expected to have MT performance that is equal to (or better than) that of a 16-core ring bus Comet-lake with all cores running at 5GHz. I don’t think that if Intel released a ringbus Skylake cpu with 16 cores running at 5GHz, anyone would dare say that it is “not a real 16-core” and that Intel is falsely advertising it as such in order to charge “16-core money”.

Ultimately this cpu’s price will be judged based on where it slots performance-wise compared to the current stack of cpus on the market. If it is as good or better than the 5950X then it can justify costing as much. But in this case, we are not talking about price parity. So far, the leaks place it at $640-$700 which is $100-$160 cheaper than the 5950X. That is 12.5%-20% cheaper and therefore better value (and even more so if it also beats it).

Imagine for a moment that Intel had an $800 16-core cpu and AMD came and offered one that matches it or surpasses it in performance for $640-$700. I am sure the AMD fboys would be cheering and calling AMD our lord and saviour while calling Intel greedy. In fact that’s what happened with 3950X ($750) and 9960X ($850 post Cascade lake release). But now that the shoe is on the other foot …
 
Last edited:

JayNor

Commendable
May 31, 2019
299
42
1,710
0
While the DDR5 potential is understood, Intel has yet to make a case for the 16 lanes of pcie5 on a consumer desktop chip.

Perhaps there will be some pcie5 demos at the launch, and all will become clear.
 
Sep 5, 2021
2
0
10
0
I owned the 5950x for a short period of time and took it back because my use case is one where I need a very fast processor, but also need the ability to support 5-6 monitors. The lack of an integrated graphics processor on the AMD left me to make the choice of keeping it or waiting for the 12900K, which does have an IGP, which will allow me to simultaneously use the onboard video ports and multiple discreet GPUs.

Intel has a proven history of coming back with great products when moving to new architectures and I am very confident that the new line will be exceptional. I will certainly be an initial adopter and hopeful that they have learned a valuable lesson from how AMD has raised the bar.
 
I owned the 5950x for a short period of time and took it back because my use case is one where I need a very fast processor, but also need the ability to support 5-6 monitors. The lack of an integrated graphics processor on the AMD left me to make the choice of keeping it or waiting for the 12900K, which does have an IGP, which will allow me to simultaneously use the onboard video ports and multiple discreet GPUs.

Intel has a proven history of coming back with great products when moving to new architectures and I am very confident that the new line will be exceptional. I will certainly be an initial adopter and hopeful that they have learned a valuable lesson from how AMD has raised the bar.
So... You had the money to buy a 5950X, but didn't buy a cheap GPU with it? And I'll tell you right away: you won't have a fun time trying to get 6 monitors working from an Intel iGPU. I don't believe you even can in theory.

Sounds to me like you're trying to make a "buyers remorse" statement due to your unpreparedness. What you're describing is not the fault of the 5950X, but entirely yours.

Regards.
 
One more question I haven't heard the answer for. The point behind big little is power savings and running small/background tasks so the big ones can do the heavy work. This means Microsoft will finally start taking advantage of more cores. Does this mean that if the work is shared properly amongst the cores in an AMD processor, it will be slower because the large cores can't do the background tasks as well as the Intel small cores? If not, what's the point? Will Microsoft make it so os and background tasks will not be handed off in such a fashion unless there is a little core for them?
This isn't a smart phone!
The small cores on alder are not there for power savings, they are there to get the most performance out of the power budget available.
The 5950x has 16 real cores but when all of them are running all of them turn into little cores, they go from 5.05 single core to 3.77 for each of them at all core.
With alder the P cores will retain full all core turbo when all cores, including the E cores, are all loaded.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-dive-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested/8
 
Sep 5, 2021
2
0
10
0
So... You had the money to buy a 5950X, but didn't buy a cheap GPU with it? And I'll tell you right away: you won't have a fun time trying to get 6 monitors working from an Intel iGPU. I don't believe you even can in theory.

Sounds to me like you're trying to make a "buyers remorse" statement due to your unpreparedness. What you're describing is not the fault of the 5950X, but entirely yours.

Regards.
I currently have an Intel 7700K, an Nvidia 1650 and am running 5 monitors for work and stock trading. The system is 3.5 years old and I wanted to upgrade to a fast processor while maintaining my ability to drive my 5 monitors. In addition to replacing the 7700K with the Ryzen 5950X, I wanted to augment my 1650 with my Radeon RX6800 for crypto mining. It was only after purchasing and setting everything up that I realized that I could not use both integrated and discreet graphics at the same time. Sure, I could drop down to a Ryzen 5600G which provides IGD, but why do that when Intel's newest processor is right around the corner. Technology is a tool, not my personal friend, so I do not hold allegiances to companies or brand names. Both Intel and AMD make fantastic products and each product is tailored to specific use cases. For mine, I need to be able to use both the onboard and GPU, so that I can isolate the RX6800 for crypto mining, while driving my other needs off of the 1650 and onboard graphics. Yeah, I should have read the details on the 5950's lack of integrated graphics, but that is my money to worry about. With regard to my desire for Intel over AMD, it comes down to Intel being very mindful of different customer use cases and offering integrated graphics on their higher end products, unlike AMD, who leave that functionality out.
 
I currently have an Intel 7700K, an Nvidia 1650 and am running 5 monitors for work and stock trading. The system is 3.5 years old and I wanted to upgrade to a fast processor while maintaining my ability to drive my 5 monitors. In addition to replacing the 7700K with the Ryzen 5950X, I wanted to augment my 1650 with my Radeon RX6800 for crypto mining. It was only after purchasing and setting everything up that I realized that I could not use both integrated and discreet graphics at the same time. Sure, I could drop down to a Ryzen 5600G which provides IGD, but why do that when Intel's newest processor is right around the corner. Technology is a tool, not my personal friend, so I do not hold allegiances to companies or brand names. Both Intel and AMD make fantastic products and each product is tailored to specific use cases. For mine, I need to be able to use both the onboard and GPU, so that I can isolate the RX6800 for crypto mining, while driving my other needs off of the 1650 and onboard graphics. Yeah, I should have read the details on the 5950's lack of integrated graphics, but that is my money to worry about. With regard to my desire for Intel over AMD, it comes down to Intel being very mindful of different customer use cases and offering integrated graphics on their higher end products, unlike AMD, who leave that functionality out.
/facepalm

Regards...
 
This isn't a smart phone!
The small cores on alder are not there for power savings, they are there to get the most performance out of the power budget available.
The 5950x has 16 real cores but when all of them are running all of them turn into little cores, they go from 5.05 single core to 3.77 for each of them at all core.
With alder the P cores will retain full all core turbo when all cores, including the E cores, are all loaded.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-dive-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested/8
I would be careful with the terminology. A CPU that downclocks to save power is not the same as a core with less transistors in it dedicated to logic. This is not even trying to be pedantic as the distinction is important. The new cores Intel is going with are akin to the Cell design, kind of, but the simple analogy is bigLITTLE from ARM; the big difference is asymmetry. Problem is, Intel wasn't able to nail the scheduler for an asymmetrical uArch for X86 and that leaves you with a full core that can't do certain AVX instructions because the efficient cores weren't build with those in. To be blunt, this is going to spawn a similar discussion to what AMD defined as a "core" with their CMT approach. The little/efficient cores are basically that same concept, but a bit better presented: they lack support of complex operations/instructions, clock way lower and don't have the same decoding pipeline as the performance/big cores.

I'm curious as to how it'll perform for sure and someone posted a very nice estimation. But, more to the brute performance, I'll be more interested in the quirks when it's released.

Regards.
 

PCWarrior

Distinguished
May 20, 2013
159
44
18,620
3
Pricing from on online retailer Provantage - pricing in US dollars. Prices are better than expected. Intel is really pricing Alderlake aggressively.
i9 12900K boxed BX8071512900K (link): $604.89
i9 12900K tray CM8071504549230 (link): $605.92

i9 12900KF boxed BX8071512900KF (link): $578.13
i9 12900KF tray CM8071504549231 (link): $578.49

i7 12700K boxed BX8071512700K (link): $422.17
i7 12700K tray CM8071504553828 (link): $420.26

i7 12700KF boxed BX8071512700KF (link): $395.61
i7 12700KF tray CM8071504553829 (link): $392.36

i5 12600K boxed BX8071512600K (link): $288.77
i5 12600K tray CM8071504555227 (link): $283.59

i5 12600KF boxed BX8071512600KF (link): $261.77
i5 12600KF tray CM8071504555228 (link): $263.15
 

Eximo

Titan
Ambassador
Definitely waiting for them to work the problems out of this one, for $550 the 5900X looks like a better prospect (or its 6000 series successor, won't take much to slap around the i9 I'm thinking). Also I don't really want heatsinks and fans for memory and chipsets... so I think I will hold out until the second runs of DDR5 CPUs.
 

PCWarrior

Distinguished
May 20, 2013
159
44
18,620
3
Definitely waiting for them to work the problems out of this one, for $550 the 5900X looks like a better prospect (or its 6000 series successor, won't take much to slap around the i9 I'm thinking).
According to leaked benchmarks Intel 12th gen qualification samples are already beating or matching or trading blows with AMD’s 5000 retail offerings. And that’s not even accounting for an expected 10% aggregated performance boost from final stepping, final clock speeds, final microcode, final Windows 11 scheduler and decent DDR5 modules. Also the pricing matchups favour Intel this time around. The $600/$575 12900K/12900KF rivals/beats the $800 5950X, the $420/$390 12700K/12700KF rivals / beats the $550 5900X and the $280/$260 12600K/12600KF rivals / beats the $450 5800X. AMD 6000 series won't be much of an upgrade for most workloads. And certainly they won't be cheaper than their 5000 series counterparts - they will simply more or less replace them at the existing price points. Then AMD will just opt to (occasionally) discount/firesale the 5000 series to match Intel. So even if you are holding out for a 5900X, that's not the right time to buy. It could soon be discounted to $420-$450.

Cinebench R23


Also I don't really want heatsinks and fans for memory and chipsets... so I think I will hold out until the second runs of DDR5 CPUs.
There is no chipset fan with Z690 boards. Leaked Z690 boards show there is no chipset fan. The reason AMD needed a fan on X570 was because the chipset was built on 16nm (marketed as ‘12nm’ by Glofo). And you are wrong about DDR5 needing more power than DDR4. Each generation of DDR is specifically designed to be more power efficient than the previous (and one way of achieving this using lower voltage). It also brings a form of on-chip ECC.
 

Eximo

Titan
Ambassador
According to leaked benchmarks Intel 12th gen qualification samples are already beating or matching or trading blows with AMD’s 5000 retail offerings. And that’s not even accounting for an expected 10% aggregated performance boost from final stepping, final clock speeds, final microcode, final Windows 11 scheduler and decent DDR5 modules. Also the pricing matchups favour Intel this time around. The $600/$575 12900K/12900KF rivals/beats the $800 5950X, the $420/$390 12700K/12700KF rivals / beats the $550 5900X and the $280/$260 12600K/12600KF rivals / beats the $450 5800X. AMD 6000 series won't be much of an upgrade for most workloads. And certainly they won't be cheaper than their 5000 series counterparts - they will simply more or less replace them at the existing price points. Then AMD will just opt to (occasionally) discount/firesale the 5000 series to match Intel. So even if you are holding out for a 5900X, that's not the right time to buy. It could soon be discounted to $420-$450.

Cinebench R23



There is no chipset fan with Z690 boards. Leaked Z690 boards show there is no chipset fan. The reason AMD needed a fan on X570 was because the chipset was built on 16nm (marketed as ‘12nm’ by Glofo). And you are wrong about DDR5 needing more power than DDR4. Each generation of DDR is specifically designed to be more power efficient than the previous (and one way of achieving this using lower voltage). It also brings a form of on-chip ECC.
Are you aware that with DDR5 they have also moved the power regulation to the memory module? And I am not referring to the JEDEC standard launch speed and low voltage. I am referring to the overclocked memory that we all typically buy. At launch, to get the speeds, they will be pumping the voltage and it hasn't gone unmentioned that we may be looking at much higher power demand for the memory modules.

Remains to be seen how power efficient the chipset is, and what each board will have. Intel typically uses last generation nodes to make them, so that would be 14nm as well there.

I wasn't planning on buying the 5000 series or the 6000 series or Alderlake for that matter, I thought I was clear I was going to wait until the second generation DDR5 boards. You can have your fun dealing with the early days of this stuff. Did it once with DDR3, not doing it again.
 

spongiemaster

Respectable
Dec 12, 2019
1,407
670
2,060
0
People thought I was being cynical for calling this an 8-core processor, with Intel trying to trick the layman into paying 16-core pricing.
That's just a stupid way of thinking. That's like someone refusing to pay more for a V6 engine than a V8 because 8 is a bigger number than 6, ignoring that there are factory V6 engines generating multiple times more HP than some factory V8 engines. If you're smart, you pay for performance, not for cores. For CPU's, if the multithreaded performance is equal, than the fewer cores it has, the better. As your software requires fewer threads, the CPU's with lower core counts will increasingly get faster vs the higher core count competition. If your software only uses 4 threads, then you're stuck using a maximum of 25% of your 16 core CPU's HP, while being able to utilize 50% of the potential of your 8 core.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY