I have doubts of any real IPC gain. It's going to be big enough as it is with the extra small cores. I'm beginning to think the "Improved Performance" is the small cores and that's it. Maybe enabling AVX-512. I don't know how much L3 they can add, that can't be much but you could say it's better.
There is a big core IPC increase with Raptor Cove and improvements in performance/watt. Intels says it has a much better CPU cache capability for gamers.
Cloudflare switching to ARM Server, Intel "free" by Q4.
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/design/cloudflare-bets-arm-servers-it-expands-its-data-center-network https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/976560820611031040 I have to admit i was surpassed. Because I remember Anandtech doing an Article on Centriq and it wasn't at all impressive. So the...forums.anandtech.com
Observe this post in particular:
Page 3 - Cloudflare switching to ARM Server, Intel "free" by Q4.
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.forums.anandtech.com
Golden Cove is already massive area-wise, and it's been on the drawing board for a long time. You would think they would have already worked it over multiple times to squeeze out more performance.
You said "Intel 14nm CPUs are severely gimped if constrained to 125W". I responded that actually that Intel processors are not gimped when limited in power. And now your response is that AMD is better? How does that even remotely have anything to do with your comment or my reply? The discussion is about PL2 power levels of processors.Compare that to the 5950x and get back to me. Perf/watt matters. That is what I mean by Intel being behind.
Intel's Alder Lake CPU Prices Leak via European Retailer
Intel's Alder Lake-S CPUs may carry a hefty price tagwww.tomshardware.com
If those prices are to be believed Intel might have something here.
If the top end SKU is priced like a 5950X then it means that it doesnt perform better, otherwise you could had expected a 20% premium for 5% better perf..
You said "Intel 14nm CPUs are severely gimped if constrained to 125W". I responded that actually that Intel processors are not gimped when limited in power. And now your response is that AMD is better? How does that even remotely have anything to do with your comment or my reply? The discussion is about PL2 power levels of processors.
Yes, the 5950x is a great chip and yes, it is far better than the equivalent that Intel sells right now in many use cases. But you still are flat out incorrect about "Intel 14nm CPUs are severely gimped if constrained to 125W". If you want to correct your statement, then delete the "if constrained to 125W" part. You could just leave it at "Intel 14nm CPUs are severely gimped" when you need more cores.
Yes. It always happens this way. Some small company, in a foreign currency, with VAT, giving a pre-release price list. They never quite translate into US prices for some reason. I just can't fathom why not.Ah, the expected doom-posting from news of pre-release prices
At first I thought the same, until I started reading the review piece associated to those graphs:Something is wrong with Tom's "power limit enforced" 11700k result. For some reason their power limit enforced shows higher power usage than their power limit unlocked result, both of which are breaking the Intel power 'spec' for the CPU.
motherboard vendors are free to exceed those recommendations, even at stock settings, to differentiate their motherboards. As such, performance has long varied by motherboard based on the respective power settings. Our standard policy is to allow the motherboard to exceed Intel's recommended power limits, provided the chip remains within warrantied operating conditions.
As such, be aware that our stock settings reflect performance with lifted power limits to reflect the experience most enthusiasts will encounter, provided they top the chip with a capable cooler.
At first I thought the same, until I started reading the review piece associated to those graphs:
In other words, the CPU was operating at motherboard stock, not Intel stock.
Something is wrong with Tom's "power limit enforced" 11700k result. For some reason their power limit enforced shows higher power usage than their power limit unlocked result, both of which are breaking the Intel power 'spec' for the CPU.
View attachment 49665
View attachment 49666
Gamers Nexus showed the difference when power limits are properly enforced, the CPU without power limits will be ~15% faster (edit: at 70+ W higher). That's just the 11700k. Some motherboards will allow even higher power usage for increased performance.
View attachment 49667
View attachment 49496
It seems that there is no N+0 SKUs for K series for initial release, it means that if you want an unlock processor, you have to buy these small cores.(facepalm)
I hope this list is wrong though.
AFAIK they're doing a limited release, the rest is coming in 2022.No non-K at initial release?
I'm not defending Tom's here, that portion of the review is all sorts of weird (at best). My point was we shouldn't care at this point, since the only reason it was brought into discussion turned out to be irrelevant: they did not measure actual stock performance.Still doesn't explain why the "motherboard limited" (which doesn't mean anything because motherboards can essentially set whatever limit they want) has higher power consumption than the "unlimited" results. They really need to rethink their setup, or at least their naming convention.
True. But at some point you have to "lock in" a design to move it along to actual being produced.
Regarding 1K unit pricing, if there is an increase, I don't expect the 12000K series to be more than $25 expensive in relation with the 11000K series (maybe $35 for the 12900K) and the KF series -$25 vs K series like in the previous gen (although with the VGA increase-even in the entry models- there was an opportunity for Intel to increase the difference to $30)
And the retail pricing in Europe at least, should be close if there is availability, Mindfactory for example was selling the 11000K series even below than 1K pricing (except 11900K/KF which had high demand or should i say low availability, although the last days is priced at 519€ including VAT...) so max 1K unit price difference in worst case scenario imo:
12900K vs 11900K $574-564 vs $539
12700K vs 11700K $424 vs $399
12600K vs 11600K $297 vs $262
This mean that the KF series which is the direct competition for the upcoming Zen3+cache CPUs will be at max:
$549-539 12900KF
$399 12700KF
$262 12600KF
Even if the new 12 core Zen3+ is $599 instead of $549, then for me it will be better value than 12900KF because it will be around 10% faster in both single thread and in multithreading, while the 8 core Zen3+ will be slightly slower in multithreading while costing $50 more in relation with 12700KF (although probably will be 10% faster in single thread) and the 6 core Zen3+ clearly slower than the 12600KF in multithreading but also more than 10% faster in single thread) but still at least 14% more expensive...
The easy choice for gamers will be the new 6 core Zen3+ at $299, for everyone else that is a casual gamer and do mostly work, the better value regarding performance/CPU price will be Intel 12000 series (except 12900K/KF maybe) and regarding the possible price increase, look at it this way: Even if AMD does not increase any price, it will offer you 15% more performance at the same price as Zen3, while Intel will offer probably up to +57% / +38% / +40% more multithreading performance in 12900K/12700K/12600K vs last gen. Also with the above assumptions a $249 5600X does not make sense for a new windows 11 system, 12600KF will be just 5% more expensive while offering at least comparable gaming and single thread performance but will be up to +20% faster in multithreading applications like rendering (performance differences assumed with windows 11 testbed) Although if Alder Lake needs DDR5 to show these performance differences and if you take account that the new Intel chipsets will be more expensive than Z590/B560 etc. while AMD won't need new chipsets, then the tables are turning in favour of AMD regarding performance/platform cost...
maybe, who knows.My guess is around $588 for the 12900k in the US.
Much better CPU cache for gamers doesn't sound trivial to me.
There is a big core IPC increase with Raptor Cove and improvements in performance/watt. Intels says it has a much better CPU cache capability for gamers.
It's a stopgap gen. I think expecting anything more than <5% IPC, 100-300MHz peak, and some more cache is just asking to be disappointed.
It's a stopgap gen. I think expecting anything more than <5% IPC, 100-300MHz peak, and some more cache is just asking to be disappointed.
The text says "Improved CPU Cache for Gaming" which if Intel added an additional 6 MB would fit.