Intel Core i9-12900KS launches April 5; Maingear announces PCs packing "the world's fastest...

[GregonMaui]

But the M1 Ultra ISN'T faster... it may score higher on a synthetic benchmark... but will it run anything that you would buy an Intel CPU for faster than the 12900?

It also beats the fastest Ryzen desktop CPUs... I've noticed you've backed away from your original statement on that one...

We won't know for sure until April 5th (or later)...

That is a ridiculous statement unless you are again subsetting intels claim to be fastest gaming desktop chip. Both chips do video, photographic and audio editing, both chips run spreadsheets, word processors, etc, both chips run code editors and compilers. So you would not buy an Intel chip for any of that - good to know. Or are you really saying you wouldn’t buy a Mac to run windows stuff? Well that is true at least

 

[Squid Surprise]

That is a ridiculous statement unless you are again subsetting intels claim to be fastest gaming desktop chip. Both chips do video, photographic and audio editing, both chips run spreadsheets, word processors, etc, both chips run code editors and compilers. So you would not buy an Intel chip for any of that - good to know. Or are you really saying you wouldn’t buy a Mac to run windows stuff? Well that is true at least

I wouldn't buy an Intel to run MacOS... and I wouldn't buy an M1 to run Windows stuff... the VAST majority of people are already locked into 1 ecosystem or the other... hence these 2 CPUs don't compete...

Still waiting on your reply to Intel vs Ryzen as THAT is who they compete against...

 

[GregonMaui]

I wouldn't buy an Intel to run MacOS... and I wouldn't buy an M1 to run Windows stuff... the VAST majority of people are already locked into 1 ecosystem or the other... hence these 2 CPUs don't compute...

Still waiting on your reply to Intel vs Ryzen as THAT is who they compete against...

taking the 19000 ish Geekbench scores as a given. Here are three AMDs that are faster: 1) AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X at 25000, 2) AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X at 22000, 3) AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X at 19941. and here is a whole bunch of ranked chips for your dining pleasure: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/multicore
Seriously not hard to find.

So I guess we can agree, Intel should have said "fastest gaming desktop chip for windows PCs that are not AMD"?

 

[Squid Surprise]

taking the 19000 ish Geekbench scores as a given. Here are three AMDs that are faster: 1) AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X at 25000, 2) AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X at 22000, 3) AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X at 19941. and here is a whole bunch of ranked chips for your dining pleasure: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/multicore
Seriously not hard to find.

So I guess we can agree, Intel should have said "fastest gaming desktop chip for windows PCs that are not AMD"?

Threadripper is for Prosumers.... it's AMD's server chip (Epyc) slightly crippled for workstations... it's not really a DESKTOP CPU... and Intel beats it in single-core performance...

Also... the 3960 costs double the 12900... and the 3990 costs about $4000.... I hardly think we can compare these!

The AMD equivalent here is the 5950 - which the 12900 beats...

What's scary is that the 12900KS just about matches the 3960 - not bad for a part half the price!

 

[Sausagemeat]

What is bizarre is to say you are fastest when you are not. And it’s the M1 ultra, not M1. It is faster than the M1 released 2 years ago. I’m sure gamers would be happy with Intel (not going to waste my time). Work is work, as long as the software performs the job, doesn’t matter what it is

Is it faster? Faster at what? These chips mostly don’t run the same software so the comparison is difficult. And the M1 ultra is still a low power CPU, you couldn’t get the most out of a 12900KS system in the form factor that the Mac studio has.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of Apple and their M1. I think ARM based desktop CPUs are a disruptive technology that will put Intel and AMDs X86 parts to bed for the vast majority of personal use cases.

As for gaming, X86 is faster now. But at somepoint when ARM based devices are more mainstream (remember both Google and MS are developing their own ARM architectures and OS) some smart guy will work out that being able to sell games to users of ARM systems will make a lot of money. Maybe then we will see faster ARM parts, although probably not from Apple.

 

[DukeJukem]

I wonder if this will be similar to the old Quad Core models... Q9400, Q9500, Q9600.... You could pay extra for the "privilege" of owning the 9600... but if you were going to overclock, the 9400 could reach the exact same speeds (or better)...

Wonder if OCing the 12700/12900 will give you the same performance as the 12900KS...

Many people have posted videos on youtube about overclocking the 12900k. The answer is no.

 

[Aaron Fox]

It's all slower than my wafer-scale CPU.

 

[loki1944]

Thanks so much for trolling... but the increases have actually been quite substantial since then...

Not really; you can still hit 60+FPS on my 2008 i7 920 paired with a 1080Ti at 3440x1440. Running my i7 7800X@4.6Ghz it becomes very clear that increases after are even more minute to the point of Emperor's New clothes syndrome.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Not really; you can still hit 60+FPS on my 2008 i7 920 paired with a 1080Ti at 3440x1440. Running my i7 7800X@4.6Ghz it becomes very clear that increases after are even more minute to the point of Emperor's New clothes syndrome.

Yes... but use the exact same setup but with a 12700 instead.... you’ll get far better performance...
just because something is still “good enough” for your needs, doesn’t mean the entire cpu industry hasn't progressed.