The temperatures and power consumption were just too high for my taste
It is nice to see Intel being competitive and innovative again they really pulled this out of left field and I have to give them major credit there
It looks like the blue and red are finally going back to war which is great to see for consumers because that’s just going to keep prices down instead of one of the two just being highly overpriced.
It looks like the main problem with DDR5 Ram is it out before its time and nothing is ready for it. Not enough games have received updates and are optimized for it and probably won’t be for another few months to a year with the current covid situation
My own internal testing with a 12900k which I obviously couldn’t talk about till now was even more underwhelming than his. I was constantly thermal throttling while stock. No OC at all. I guess I need to work on my test rig bit and tweak some things.
Out of everyone who tested one of these new CPUs the person who had the most luck with them was of course the person with pretty much endless funds and that’s Linus Tech. My internal testing was closer with Hardware unboxed Linus got much better results than anyone but he also has pretty much endless funds at his disposal
The 12900k is kinda disappointing. The 8 core 12900k rivals the power consumption of a 16 core 5950X and trades blows on lower threat count apps. Not to mention the bloody price.
The 12600K on the other hand looks like it’s king of it’s hill unless the 5600X gets a price cut.
Overall, this feels like a battle of prices at this point.
Not sure if I agree on this. In some cases DDR4 edges out DDR5 and vice versa. It feels like there needs to be tweaking with the sub-timings of DDR5 and future firmware updates.
IMO Jim Keller was probably right. For the future Intel should have just made a cpu with tons of small cores like Apple. The days of ‘big’ cores being the main portion of the compute is probably starting to take a back seat.
This is the Intel CPU that has impressed me the most and for Content creators it is absolutely a beast and at that price it makes it a serious contender
I really have to hand it to Intel for changing their game up as much as they have in such a little bit amount of time they really came back with a vengeance.
I can’t wait to see the performance of 13th gen and Zen4 CPUs. It’s nice to see these two companies trading blows again because that keeps prices lower for us consumers. Which is a lot better than things being one-sided because then the company can play the name your price game
The swing in pricing between an intel 12900k build v a 5950x build is only a couple hundred which will just come down to the RAM and vs a 5900x build maybe 400-500$, I wouldn’t call that unlimited funds especially at those price points to begin with. And given that the 12900k seems to be pretty much consistently beating ryzen in the proper set up.
What will be more interesting will be how the lower core count i7/i5 chips stack up seeing as how intel is beating ryzen single threaded again.
According to the reviewers, they tend crush their price-equivalent counterparts from AMD in many ST and MT workloads. But they also run hot, use a lot more power, and are a year behind AMD’s Ryzen 5000-series tech. It will be interesting to see how AMD responds.
Personally, I don’t see a reason to upgrade yet from my 8700k desktop and 5900HS laptop, but I think things are only going to get more interesting. Given how screwed consumers have been over the past year+, I really hope this turns into a price war, too
One thing I’m interested to see is if both intel and AMD will take a page from Mac with the M1 chips and start making chips targeted at specific work loads. For example not the efficiency cores but hey these cores are targeted at specific functions that are used more in video processing than gaming.
In the future I’m not just seeing efficiency cores vs performance cores but cores specialized even more.
12600k looks reasonable but 12900k looks like it’s bumping up against the upper limits of what consumer-oriented coolers can handle… it’s good that Intel now has something that can compete with AMD in terms of performance but the way I see it, they’re not out of the woods yet. This is still a “holdover” release and it could mean trouble if they can’t manage better performance per watt on the high end in the next generation or two. I think the market for outrageously hot power hungry chips is waning.
The issue Intel would face there is software to take advantage of the specialized silicon.
With Macs and iDevices, Apple updates their own software (like Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, Xcode, etc) to make the fullest use of new SoC features as soon as they’re released, and because Apple Silicon will be in all Macs sooner than later, third party software makers quickly follow because they know that going forward, all their Mac customers will be able to benefit. Additionally, some third party software that’s built with macOS frameworks instead of something cross-platform often gain support for new silicon features automatically without the developer even doing anything.
On the x86 side of the fence things are more complicated. If Intel produced a new x86 CPU with a bunch of nifty accelerators bolted on, it’s going to be years before there’s significant adoption, especially if AMD CPUs don’t offer a similar feature. Furthermore that adoption varies between operating systems, so while Linux will probably take advantage of the new stuff pretty quickly it might take years for Microsoft to fully leverage it in Windows.
Not that Intel shouldn’t try, but it’s not going to be nearly as much of an overnight success story.
Apple definitely has the advantage since they control the entire hardware/software stack. But given the benefits apple is seeing it’s definitely possible that MS could start trying to work more closely with intel or AMD.
AMD is whooping Intels butt right now. Their 32/64-core EPYC server CPUs in particular are significantly more powerful than anything Intel has right now so they’re getting bullied in that area.
The 12900k is designed to compete against the 5950X and is about $100 cheaper. The 5950X is a true 32-thread CPU whereas the 12900k is a 24-thread CPU. The 12900k is outperforming the 5950X by about 8-10%, but you can’t find any 12900ks in stock right now because of the price gouging and cpu shortages. Also, it’s complete overkill for the average gamer who only really needs an 8 core CPU.
The 12600k is a solid competitor to the 5800x and cheaper.
The next gen AMD CPUs come out next year and will outperform anything Intel has so you’re better off waiting until then if you want any upgrades.
Supposedly all high end future CPUs will have an onboard GPU also. Even if it’s not used for gaming it’ll be useful for faster vector processing. Who knows if that design will make it outside of APUs though.
This on the T. The 12K series has some quirks to work out (DDR5 and power for example). With those fixed I can definitely see Intel coming back in beast mode.
For the most part it doesn’t matter. Servers are bought with the overall system in mind and not specific components usually. If a 16 core Server A can be replaced faster than Server B, then Server A has a leg up in how many you order. For HPC, yes AMD will wipe the floor with Intel.
Rumor mill for Zen 4 release is this year.
/shakes salt
Intel may bench better with their new 10nm arch 12th gen processor, but IMO, AMD is still kicking their butt considering how power efficient their 7nm arch processors are. I don’t know how in far you guys have gone with optimizing your AMD CPUs’ performance, but personally with my 5800x I have used some of 1smus’ software to get optimal CO values to use in combination with PBO2, and I couldn’t ask for more. My temps are always looking great, I’m seeing just about 5ghz when using only a couple threads for gaming. There has been issues with Ram overclocking around 3800mhz/1900flck for some users, but it’s still doable, personally I just pushed it to 3866/1933 with latency at 16, just to keep my PC 100% stable, but I am able to use it at CL14 as well. AMD has been using AM4 socket Mobos for quite an extended period of time, and I got a feeling that their next gen in a new socket is going to be a nut cracker for intel. 1smus’ Hydra and/or CTR software that he is continuously improving just keeps optimizing AMDs CPUs more as well.
Even their GPUs are actually doing pretty well for gaming. My Nitro 6900xt SE has crazy FPS no matter what game I’m playing, while recording in background as well, heat never an issue. I had purchased a water block for it, but it just hasn’t been necessary.
Sort of. The little cores on Intel’s newest CPU is extremely efficient. It’s the big cores that killed AL’s power. Problem is Intel isn’t going to release a CPU that’s 20% slower and eats 80% less power (making up numbers here for example).
IMO they should have tons of little cores like the newest Macs and maybe a few big cores as an offload module on chip.
I’m not sure why people are surprised that Intel’s latest generation of CPUs are going to have better performance then the AMD CPUs released a year ago.
Next year we’re going to start getting mainstream DDR5 support and a new series of Ryzen CPUs which if you add both together will beat out Intel.
The thing is Intel’s CPU’s aren’t faster than AMD’s 1 year old chips, Caithyra. They’re on par at a massive power increase. It comes down to prices as far as what works for a consumer.
AMD’s nor Intel’s DDR5 support is not very exciting yet, imo. AMD threw in 768MB of L3 cache on their EPYCs. Intel is trying to counter with 4GB of on board HBM DRAM on XEONs. Both of those are going to solve a lot more problems than DDR5.
I’m wondering what’ll run my games faster. A 128 core AMD EPYC or a 56 core Xeon.
