• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Rumor Intel Alder lake details - 12900K Will have 8 performance cores and 8 small cores

Dec 14, 2008
33,968
2,569
1,360
rip AMD



8 big cores will score around 8250points in cinebench r20 at 5ghz all core, while Zen3 8core 5800x scores 6250 points at 4,8ghz.

Looks like Alder Lake has 27% better IPC than Zen3 in CB r20. 12900k with 8 big and 8 smaller cores will be faster than 16 core Zen3
This seems like total bullshit rumor. There is no way Intel found a way to make Gracemont (warmed over Atom) have a higher IPC than Skylake.
 

small_law

Member
Nov 30, 2017
405
367
380
I’m just so suspicious of big/little architectures. You’re going to find yourself on the little cores more than you want to be. Just a ton of bad experiences I had with Samsung big little and Android. Give it a generation to get sorted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Celcius and ZywyPL

ZywyPL

Member
Nov 27, 2018
5,987
10,630
725
I’m just so suspicious of big/little architectures. You’re going to find yourself on the little cores more than you want to be. Just a ton of bad experiences I had with Samsung big little and Android. Give it a generation to get sorted.

That's exactly my biggest concern of the whole design, how will Windows determine which task should go to which core? How often the little ones will be given the heaviest tasks and run at 100%, still not keeping up, while the big ones will get something light and sit at 20-30% and waiting for other tasks to be done? I think Windows itself will be Aldee Lake's biggest enemy,no matter how good the actual CPU will be.
 

ethomaz

is mad because DF didn't do a video on a video of a video of a video on PS5
Mar 19, 2013
41,551
43,860
1,310
39
Brazil
Now you're intentionally misconstruing my arguments. That's incredibly disingenuous.

Nowhere did I compare the Apple M1 with the 12900X and in my immediate post, I clarified exactly what my argument is. You've simply chosen to ignore it.

The mention of the Apple M1 was an attempt to explain how Apple proved it possible to engineer an ARM chip with considerably higher performance than equivalent intel cores. I don't consider that to be a difficult concept to grasp, ethomaz.

And I think you do understand the point. You're just choosing to argue in bad faith for the sake of "winning".
But M1 cores are very weak compared with Intel cores.
 

StateofMajora

Member
Aug 7, 2020
1,608
2,027
380



Why on earth would ever anyone need a big.LITTLE design in a stationary PC that's plugged into the wall?? I don't even like the philosophy behind the design in smartphones to begin with. In the meantime recent rumors say that Zen4 will be up to 16C, up to 170W, at 5nm process node.
Yeah it seems like a 32 thread part from amd would make this obsolete, on the surface anyway.

But games are nowhere near close to using 16 cores, so the intel chip is 8c16t and if those cores are faster than zen it would still be better. If the little cores can be used simultaneously that could unburden the big cores do they can be fully used.

Time will tell but I fully expect this to beat zen 3 at least by a lot. Zen 4 is a different matter
 
Last edited:

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Mar 31, 2011
6,466
4,664
1,095
Looks more like you've been living under a rock for some time. Intel is years behind TSMC by now....
Also, kiddie gamers who don't mind a second heater in their room are just a tiny fraction of the market and efficiency is a major factor in the rest of it.

Tiny fraction of the market?

Ohh kay
 

Haggard

Member
Nov 25, 2020
778
1,482
460
What am i missing?
You posted an AMD / Intel Marketshare comparison when I was talking about the marketshare of enthusiast "Moah Powah!" gamers. We´ve always just been a tiny fraction of the PC market.
In 95% of the market power, efficiency and price have to be evenly balanced or a product will not catch on. Simply taking the power crown while simultaneously sporting crappy efficiency isn`t worth anything unless you`re dirt cheap...which Intel really isn`t known for.
 
Last edited:

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Mar 31, 2011
6,466
4,664
1,095
You posted an AMD / Intel Marketshare comparison when I was talking about the marketshare of enthusiast "Moah Powah!" gamers. We´ve always just been a tiny fraction of the PC market.
In 95% of the market power, efficiency and price have to be evenly balanced or a product will not catch on. Simply taking the power crown while simultaneously sporting crappy efficiency isn`t worth anything unless you`re dirt cheap...which Intel really isn`t known for.
[citation needed]
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Haggard

Armorian

Banned
Jan 17, 2018
3,298
5,283
520
That picture is sad. Intel has been trash for a few years and now and still has 70% of the market.

Imagine when intel gets good again, AMD has no chance.

It's not like AMD is trying very hard to change that, they released very good CPUs (5xxx) but also raised the price...
 

SantaC

Member
Jun 11, 2004
22,022
5,169
2,055
It's not like AMD is trying very hard to change that, they released very good CPUs (5xxx) but also raised the price...
Obviously they dont have the money that intel has and trying to make a profit. Would you rathee have intel at 99% of the market again?
 

longdi

Banned
Jun 7, 2004
8,933
6,710
1,890
my 5950x r20 got to 11600 at about 200w.
the sc is less peformant at only 630 iirc.

5950x costs 799. amd is on deep trouble
 

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Mar 31, 2011
6,466
4,664
1,095
Zen3 is dead, Intel is back to the game.

Looks like ill be waiting for Alderlake and those PCIE5 DDR5 motherboards.

I dont think 3D cache will be able to bridge this performance gap.

Considering the i9 is almost certainly going to be much cheaper than the 5950X.

We were sleeping on Intel and they already back in the game.

Hell Id think the i7 should keep up if not outright beat the R9s.

Now about those air coolers?
 
Jan 7, 2018
2,515
3,067
605
my 5950x r20 got to 11600 at about 200w.
the sc is less peformant at only 630 iirc.

5950x costs 799. amd is on deep trouble
Is that 630 score for ST? Then wow, but I'll still probably wait for Zen 4 to decide. [the uplift from Z2 to Z3 was huge to ignore]

ST is still by far the most dominant factor in games. [as long as you have 8 cores with HT]

edit: nvm yeah it's 633 for ST. >> https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/leaked-i...e-it-up-to-28-quicker-than-amds-finest-ryzen/
 
Last edited:

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Mar 31, 2011
6,466
4,664
1,095
I'm always amused by how many people automatically assume Intel will regain the performance crown. It's a completely new architecture that isn't remotely close to being as mature as 14nm. It will take a few generations of optimization. Intel fanboys automatically think that 10nm will automatically have all the refinements that 14nm had.

In fact, it was speculated that one of the reasons it has taken so long to get 10nm on desktops was that they could not hit the performance that matured 14nm CPUS were hitting.

Time will tell of course.

Still believe Intel aint gonna regain the performance crown?
a QS not even OC'd "yes watercooled" is beating the 16 core 5950X.

And the i9 isnt gonna cost as much as the 5950X.

And looking at that Single Core jump.....god damn.
Intel are def back in the game.

Zen 4 needs to be quite a jump to literally keep up.


 
Last edited:

ethomaz

is mad because DF didn't do a video on a video of a video of a video on PS5
Mar 19, 2013
41,551
43,860
1,310
39
Brazil
Yeap... people are thinking the smaller cores are smaller than current ones... it is is not... it just the big cores are really way bigger than actual cores.

A drop os 10% in TDP with double the cores is really interesting.
 

Papacheeks

Member
Jan 30, 2013
7,592
3,695
790
Watertown, NY
Over 200w for 28% increase? Also the fact these are watercooled tells me they are hitting high clocks, and power hungry not power efficient. Also we have not reached PCIE GEN 4 saturation yet, so amount of power needed from the board is going to be nutts.

Also heat issues.

AMD is waiting until they can get power requirements down before they go in on PCIE5 which to me is smarter.

Also these are Synthetic benchmarks, and Cinebench now is not the be all for realtime benchmarks.

Real question will be how it performs in latest apps and games.
 
Last edited:

pratyush

Member
Jun 29, 2020
332
721
275
I will just say this much. Alderlake may not be the turning point but Meteorlake onwards, I think Intel will have regained a lot of market share.

7nm process node is actually up and running and needs another year for refinement. Intel 7nm is actually comparable to TSMC 5 ( maybe closer to 3). Plus Meteorlake ( or the one after that) will be on TSMC 3nm as far I know. So after this generation, there won't be any Tech node gap.

Only Apple is ahead in IG and performance at lower wattage which is essential for thinkbooks and that would take some years to beat.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mrBarrelNut

pratyush

Member
Jun 29, 2020
332
721
275
With 10nm vs 5nm they simply can`t beat AMD, at least not as long as performance per watt is a factor at all. They´d have to stoop to unheard new pricing lows for a new flagship product.....
If they`d already use TSMC´s 3nm capacities for it then that would be an entirely different thing, but the way things are with Intel being years behind in manufacturing processes i´m not holding my breath for any of their products.
Doesn`t help that AMD`s next gen is already confirmed to be going for those 3nm processes either.

Intel as already lined up 3nm process alongside Apple. Also their 7nm process is quite competitive and if all goes well, by 2023 they will be mass producing chips at 7nm. In meantime they will be using 3nm for 2023 onwards chips which will basically eliminate any node gap.

One thing more, TSMC tech node is different from Intel tech node and it's no longer as easy as width of transistor calculation. So expect 7nm of Intel to be equal in power and cell density of TSMC 3nm
 

mrBarrelNut

Member
Jan 3, 2019
178
332
275
Really looking good for Intel. When parts actually become available again I'll build a new PC for gaming and stuff. Thumbs up for Alder Lake + PCIe 5 + DDR5.
 

PhoenixTank

Member
Jul 13, 2017
1,464
1,640
745
And the i9 isnt gonna cost as much as the 5950X.
I don't expect Intel to do consumers any favours if they take the performance lead by such a margin. Yields have always been something hanging over the head of 10nm and will factor into the price if there is still a problem for top end chips.
Competition with the stacked cache 5950X(T?) might keep it in line but I'm excited to see what the market line up looks like with these upcoming parts.
 

Papacheeks

Member
Jan 30, 2013
7,592
3,695
790
Watertown, NY
I will just say this much. Alderlake may not be the turning point but Meteorlake onwards, I think Intel will have regained a lot of market share.

7nm process node is actually up and running and needs another year for refinement. Intel 7nm is actually comparable to TSMC 5 ( maybe closer to 3). Plus Meteorlake ( or the one after that) will be on TSMC 3nm as far I know. So after this generation, there won't be any Tech node gap.

Only Apple is ahead in IG and performance at lower wattage which is essential for thinkbooks and that would take some years to beat.

Isn't intel using TSMC for alderlake?

Intel made several big announcements about its 7nm tech at today's Intel Unleashed: Engineering the Future event and divulged that it expects that the majority of its products in 2023 to still be produced in-house using its own manufacturing technology. But there's a caveat: Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger said the company will also release "leadership CPU products" in 2023 with CPU cores that are fabricated with an unspecified process node from third-party foundry TSMC, and those CPUs will come to both the client and data center markets.

This development comes on the heels of Intel's announcement last year that its 7nm process was delayed, possibly forcing it to do the unthinkable — turn to external foundries to produce its core logic, like CPUs and GPUs, for the first time in the company's history.

 
Last edited:

pratyush

Member
Jun 29, 2020
332
721
275
Isn't intel using TSMC for alderlake?




No Alderlake is on 10nm super fin process. Their next Discrete Graphics card and next CPU lineup are on TSMC process. I expect 2023 lineup to be on TSMC process and after that moved to inhouse process. Smart move as this gives them time to rectify any issue without any significant pressure
 
Last edited:

Haggard

Member
Nov 25, 2020
778
1,482
460
Intel as already lined up 3nm process alongside Apple. Also their 7nm process is quite competitive and if all goes well, by 2023 they will be mass producing chips at 7nm. In meantime they will be using 3nm for 2023 onwards chips which will basically eliminate any node gap.

One thing more, TSMC tech node is different from Intel tech node and it's no longer as easy as width of transistor calculation. So expect 7nm of Intel to be equal in power and cell density of TSMC 3nm
Someone is being extremely optimistic here 😂
You should stop taking PR talk at face value.... Especially considering that Intel hasn't produced anything decent in nearly 5 years.
 
Last edited:

ethomaz

is mad because DF didn't do a video on a video of a video of a video on PS5
Mar 19, 2013
41,551
43,860
1,310
39
Brazil
PC Gamer make a graph with the leaked scores.
And noted that i9 12900K has less threads than Ryzen 9 5950X... 5950X has 16 cores with 32 threads total while 12900K has 16 cores with 24 threads (8 cores with 16 threads + 8 cores with 8 threads).

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DonkeyPunchJr

Armorian

Banned
Jan 17, 2018
3,298
5,283
520
PC Gamer make a graph with the leaked scores.
And noted that i9 12900K has less threads than Ryzen 9 5950X... 5950X has 16 cores with 32 threads total while 12900K has 16 cores with 24 threads (8 cores with 16 threads + 8 cores with 8 threads).


Very impressive single core result.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DonkeyPunchJr

hangdang69

Member
Dec 5, 2016
183
103
295
Still chugging along withy 6700k. Been trying to get a new GPU to upgrade my 980ti since last year when the 30xx series released. If I can't get one for much longer, I might just wait till these new line of CPUs are out and build a new PC
 
Jan 21, 2019
4,128
4,940
460
PC Gamer make a graph with the leaked scores.
And noted that i9 12900K has less threads than Ryzen 9 5950X... 5950X has 16 cores with 32 threads total while 12900K has 16 cores with 24 threads (8 cores with 16 threads + 8 cores with 8 threads).

I’m not blown away that intel will be blowing away AMD now that they sorted their tech out. This was my anticipated result and a big reason why I’m waiting to build another one.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: ethomaz

pratyush

Member
Jun 29, 2020
332
721
275
PC Gamer make a graph with the leaked scores.
And noted that i9 12900K has less threads than Ryzen 9 5950X... 5950X has 16 cores with 32 threads total while 12900K has 16 cores with 24 threads (8 cores with 16 threads + 8 cores with 8 threads).

I expect Zen 4 to catch up ( and probably even beat it) when it is released next year but this is seriously impressive improvement from 11th gen.

From now onwards atleast each half of year will have new king in CPU. Good times for consumer as AMD has really forced Intel to invest heavily in its R&D
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: RNG

Haggard

Member
Nov 25, 2020
778
1,482
460
Intel hasn't made "Anything decent" in 5 years? Are you for real?
You might want to check when Intel's manufacturing issues started.
They were stuck on 14nm for ages and they have not recovered from that since.
TSMC is dancing circles around them.
 
Last edited:

pratyush

Member
Jun 29, 2020
332
721
275
You might want to check when Intel's manufacturing issues started.
They were stuck on 14nm for ages and they have not recovered from that since.
TSMC is dancing circles around them.
Dude you really have no idea what you are talking about.

Intel 10nm woes was because the target set for cell density and yield were completely unrealistic and they didn't have the technology to match with their expectations. Intel refined 10nm Super Fin is actually on par with TSMC 7nm node. Their 7nm is now being redesigned to make it more realistic and achievable. Cell density wise it is much more denser than TSMC 5nm and slightly lower than Samsung 5nm.

Since 7nm is not ready yet, they have already booked 3nm for their next gen CPU alongside Apple. So your one constant moan about node gap will also be addressed.

TSMC is a fab company and Intel is not exclusively a Fab company. So i am not sure what is your point. Anyway this will be my last response on this topic.
 

Haggard

Member
Nov 25, 2020
778
1,482
460
Dude you really have no idea what you are talking about.

Intel 10nm woes was because the target set for cell density and yield were completely unrealistic and they didn't have the technology to match with their expectations. Intel refined 10nm Super Fin is actually on par with TSMC 7nm node. Their 7nm is now being redesigned to make it more realistic and achievable. Cell density wise it is much more denser than TSMC 5nm and slightly lower than Samsung 5nm.

Since 7nm is not ready yet, they have already booked 3nm for their next gen CPU alongside Apple. So your one constant moan about node gap will also be addressed.

TSMC is a fab company and Intel is not exclusively a Fab company. So i am not sure what is your point. Anyway this will be my last response on this topic.
So much text just to say "I don't care about the actual situation and don't want to be reminded of facts"

Sidestepping much?
 
Last edited:

small_law

Member
Nov 30, 2017
405
367
380
That's exactly my biggest concern of the whole design, how will Windows determine which task should go to which core? How often the little ones will be given the heaviest tasks and run at 100%, still not keeping up, while the big ones will get something light and sit at 20-30% and waiting for other tasks to be done? I think Windows itself will be Aldee Lake's biggest enemy,no matter how good the actual CPU will be.
Mobile versus desktop isn't a truly fair comparison, but all I know is when the Samsung chips would throttle, which was often, everything got pushed to the little cores. A lot of it is going to be thermal performance. At least wait until benchmarks and real-world performance data comes out.