Intel Core i9-12900HK Review: Can Intel's Fastest CPU Beat Apple's M1 Pro?

Status
Not open for further replies.

HardReset

Posts: 1,681   +1,336
I understand you feel you must defend AMD on every thread... but you might just want to give this up...
So far you have not given single argument why 12900HK makes sense at all. I have given many. I won't give up until you have some too.

Your first comment clearly tells you have absolutely no idea about this:
What’s telling is that AMD is barely mentioned despite just releasing the 6000 series... While I’m sure their shills will post eventually, this shows yet another loss for Ryzen in the high performance mobile market.
In other words, Intel tried to match AMD's gaming performance using integrated GPU but failed miserably. Intel put best GPU they could on 12900HK, AMD put much better with much lower power consumption. And that's supposed to be "win" for Intel🤦‍♂️
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,981
So far you have not given single argument why 12900HK makes sense at all. I have given many. I won't give up until you have some too.

Your first comment clearly tells you have absolutely no idea about this:

In other words, Intel tried to match AMD's gaming performance using integrated GPU but failed miserably. Intel put best GPU they could on 12900HK, AMD put much better with much lower power consumption. And that's supposed to be "win" for Intel🤦‍♂️
I was arguing for the entire Intel alder lake lineup… and it’s pretty obvious where you would use it… when you want a laptop that can perform well!

it smokes AMD in every performance chart while plugged in - and YES, people use laptops plugged in! Especially when paying for high performance ones!!
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,681   +1,336
I was arguing for the entire Intel alder lake lineup… and it’s pretty obvious where you would use it… when you want a laptop that can perform well!

it smokes AMD in every performance chart while plugged in - and YES, people use laptops plugged in! Especially when paying for high performance ones!!
It only smokes AMD's mobile APU (not desktop one) and only when Not using integrated graphics.

If you want laptop that performs well, you'll want 1. to plug it in and 2. use desktop CPU. 12900HK is useless product when paired with external graphics (compared against 12900K) so it makes me wonder why benchmarks don't include that too.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,981
It only smokes AMD's mobile APU (not desktop one) and only when Not using integrated graphics.
It is a mobile CPU... why would you be comparing it to an AMD desktop CPU?
The Alder Lake DESKTOP CPUs perform better than their mobile parts too...

And once again (I've posted this NUMEROUS times on various threads in response to your foolish posts), if you are spending this much on a CPU, you are a fool not to get a discrete GPU.

If you don't intend to use a discrete GPU, then you should be buying the 12500 or cheaper... once you are going 12900 (or AMD's 6900), you are wasting your money if you aren't pairing it with a decent GPU!
If you want laptop that performs well, you'll want 1. to plug it in and 2. use desktop CPU. 12900HK is useless product when paired with external graphics (compared against 12900K) so it makes me wonder why benchmarks don't include that too.
You don't need to put desktop CPUs into a laptop... not sure what you're blathering about here... Unless you need ultra-mobility and are willing to sacrifice performance, you go dGPU...

And the 12900 smokes the 6900 every time...
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,681   +1,336
It is a mobile CPU... why would you be comparing it to an AMD desktop CPU?
The Alder Lake DESKTOP CPUs perform better than their mobile parts too...

And once again (I've posted this NUMEROUS times on various threads in response to your foolish posts), if you are spending this much on a CPU, you are a fool not to get a discrete GPU.

If you don't intend to use a discrete GPU, then you should be buying the 12500 or cheaper... once you are going 12900 (or AMD's 6900), you are wasting your money if you aren't pairing it with a decent GPU!
Because "mobile CPU's" are mobile CPU's only because they are called "mobile". Only things that make these "mobile CPU's" mobile are lower power consumption, better integrated graphics and different package.

Then Intel and AMD are both foolish. Why they waste silicon on Huge integrated GPU if CPU is meant to be paired with discrete CPU anyway? Basically you're saying AMD and Intel are both stupid.

Just like I said, if you are going to use discrete CPU anyway, these "mobile CPU's" suck because desktop CPU is both cheaper and faster. And since GPU is discrete, battery life is poor anyway.
You don't need to put desktop CPUs into a laptop... not sure what you're blathering about here... Unless you need ultra-mobility and are willing to sacrifice performance, you go dGPU...

And the 12900 smokes the 6900 every time...
Once again, desktop CPU is both faster and cheaper. Mobile CPU has only two advantages: 1. better integrated GPU and 2. lower power consumption. Number one doesn't matter with discrete GPU and 2. don't matter when not using battery. Why use mobile CPU then? Well...

6900 smokes 12900 with integrated GPU and that's only thing that matters when using these parts.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,981
Because "mobile CPU's" are mobile CPU's only because they are called "mobile". Only things that make these "mobile CPU's" mobile are lower power consumption, better integrated graphics and different package.
and....
Then Intel and AMD are both foolish. Why they waste silicon on Huge integrated GPU if CPU is meant to be paired with discrete CPU anyway? Basically you're saying AMD and Intel are both stupid.
you still have time when you want to work unplugged... just nothing too intensive.... hence the ability to ALSO have an igpu !
Just like I said, if you are going to use discrete CPU anyway, these "mobile CPU's" suck because desktop CPU is both cheaper and faster. And since GPU is discrete, battery life is poor anyway.
but you want it to be PORTABLE!
Once again, desktop CPU is both faster and cheaper. Mobile CPU has only two advantages: 1. better integrated GPU and 2. lower power consumption. Number one doesn't matter with discrete GPU and 2. don't matter when not using battery. Why use mobile CPU then? Well...

6900 smokes 12900 with integrated GPU and that's only thing that matters when using these parts.
No it doesn’t.... because the majority of people who spend this much will be operating plugged in!
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,681   +1,336
You can call any CPU "mobile", there is no exact definition for mobile CPU.
you still have time when you want to work unplugged... just nothing too intensive.... hence the ability to ALSO have an igpu !
How many times I have to tell same thing: fast and huge iGPU and iGPU are different things. 12900HK has fast and huge iGPU, 12900K has much slower one. Die sizes are 217 mm2 and 215 mm2, very close same. Guess which one has more performance cores on CPU 🤔
but you want it to be PORTABLE!
Even if it has little more weight it's still portable. And if weight is an issue, then AMD again wins there.
No it doesn’t.... because the majority of people who spend this much will be operating plugged in!
Then desktop CPU's are much better and there is no need for huge iGPU. Essentially you are saying AMD and Intel both made crap.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,981
You can call any CPU "mobile", there is no exact definition for mobile CPU.
Mobile - anything that goes in a laptop...
How many times I have to tell same thing: fast and huge iGPU and iGPU are different things. 12900HK has fast and huge iGPU, 12900K has much slower one. Die sizes are 217 mm2 and 215 mm2, very close same. Guess which one has more performance cores on CPU 🤔
Doesn’t matter... if it’s in a laptop that is expensive (and if you have an AMD 6900 or Intel 12900, it’s gonna be pricy), then you need a dgpu!
Even if it has little more weight it's still portable. And if weight is an issue, then AMD again wins there.
no, a mini desktop (unless it’s an all-in-one) is NOT portable - cause you still need to carry the monitor, keyboard, mouse.... only fools carry those... the rest of us buy laptops!
Then desktop CPU's are much better and there is no need for huge iGPU. Essentially you are saying AMD and Intel both made crap.
Again - you still want to use your laptop unplugged SOMETIMES - and that’s where the igpu comes in handy... but that’s for light gaming and web browsing, etc... doesn’t matter whether you have AMD or Intel for that...
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,681   +1,336
Mobile - anything that goes in a laptop...
There you go https://www.msi.com/Laptop/GT76-Titan-10SX

10900K (desktop CPU) on laptop. Like I said, desktop CPU's can be used (and are used) on laptops.
Doesn’t matter... if it’s in a laptop that is expensive (and if you have an AMD 6900 or Intel 12900, it’s gonna be pricy), then you need a dgpu!
First you say CPU performance is all that matters. Then you say laptop CPU should have huge iGPU so that CPU performance suffers *nerd*
no, a mini desktop (unless it’s an all-in-one) is NOT portable - cause you still need to carry the monitor, keyboard, mouse.... only fools carry those... the rest of us buy laptops!
I talked about laptops here. Hotter CPU = more weight = less portable.
Again - you still want to use your laptop unplugged SOMETIMES - and that’s where the igpu comes in handy... but that’s for light gaming and web browsing, etc... doesn’t matter whether you have AMD or Intel for that...
Exactly. So why put fast and huge iGPU for light tasks? Because then CPU performance suffers if keeping die size same. And previously you said CPU performance is everything. Both things (huge iGPU and good CPU performance) same time make no sense at all.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,981
Lol, that was a special edition laptop… and the “desktop cpu” was optional and very expensive… it’s also a couple of years old… it’s the exception, not the rule.
10900K (desktop CPU) on laptop. Like I said, desktop CPU's can be used (and are used) on laptops.
In a VERY rare case - try again!
First you say CPU performance is all that matters. Then you say laptop CPU should have huge iGPU so that CPU performance suffers *nerd*
No, I said if you are paying for an EXPENSIVE laptop - then CPU and GPU performance are important. If you require a top of the line CPU, you almost certainly will require a top-of-the-line GPU - and that means a dgpu… and once you do that, AMD doesn’t make sense.
I talked about laptops here. Hotter CPU = more weight = less portable.

Exactly. So why put fast and huge iGPU for light tasks? Because then CPU performance suffers if keeping die size same. And previously you said CPU performance is everything. Both things (huge iGPU and good CPU performance) same time make no sense at all.
Because you still have to use it every so often unplugged! It might be only 10-20% of your use - but if you paid thousands for it, you want to be able to use it ALL the time :)
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,681   +1,336
Lol, that was a special edition laptop… and the “desktop cpu” was optional and very expensive… it’s also a couple of years old… it’s the exception, not the rule.

In a VERY rare case - try again!
Like I said, desktop CPU's could be used on laptops. Here's AMD https://eurocom.com/ec/benchmark(251)NightskyARX315

Another "exception" https://www.dell.com/ae/p/alienware-area51m-r2-laptop/pd
No, I said if you are paying for an EXPENSIVE laptop - then CPU and GPU performance are important. If you require a top of the line CPU, you almost certainly will require a top-of-the-line GPU - and that means a dgpu… and once you do that, AMD doesn’t make sense.
Really? I have no data how much 6900HX costs but easy to suspect that's around same as i9-12900HK that is priced $635.00. Your logic that expensive CPU also requires high end GPU and that means external one, does not make sense. Both AMD and Intel equipped most expensive mobile CPU's with best integrated graphics they could. Even when it meant sacrificing CPU performance.

If you are right, then Intel and AMD are both stupid.
Because you still have to use it every so often unplugged! It might be only 10-20% of your use - but if you paid thousands for it, you want to be able to use it ALL the time :)
Again, what that has to do with high end iGPU? Previously usage on battery was supposed to be light...
 

human7

Posts: 51   +33
This is pointless. Who cares? Apple can make a chip 10 times more powerful, I still wouldn't bother with that OS or that monopoly, and I suspect most people feel the same.

I care because:
1. I like to pick on my coworkers who chose to use a Mac instead of a PC for their work or personal laptops, so being able to say that x86 has more performance per watt and total performance are fun ways to jab at them.
2. Competition is good. We saw competition from AMD get Intel's butt in gear, and now Apple is pushing into the space with decent CPUs so there will be even more incentive for them to make good quality products. I just hope Intel's GPUs push AMD and Nvidia to do even better, even if it's mostly in the entry to mid-range area.

I'm actually impressed that AMD/Intel were able to keep up as well as they did with Apple though because Apple's chips are on a more advanced lithographic process I think.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,981
Like I said, desktop CPU's could be used on laptops. Here's AMD https://eurocom.com/ec/benchmark(251)NightskyARX315

Another "exception" https://www.dell.com/ae/p/alienware-area51m-r2-laptop/pd

Really? I have no data how much 6900HX costs but easy to suspect that's around same as i9-12900HK that is priced $635.00. Your logic that expensive CPU also requires high end GPU and that means external one, does not make sense. Both AMD and Intel equipped most expensive mobile CPU's with best integrated graphics they could. Even when it meant sacrificing CPU performance.

If you are right, then Intel and AMD are both stupid.

Again, what that has to do with high end iGPU? Previously usage on battery was supposed to be light...
Lol - you picked a 6k+ laptop as your other example? And notice how they’re both INTEL :)
It actually proves my point… if you are going expensive - then battery is irrelevant and you want the most powerful internals you can get - which are Intel, NOT AMD…

And once again, since you will still want to be unplugged SOMETIMES, an igpu is still needed - and since you’re paying too dollar, you’d want the best igpu… that is why Intel and AMD put their best igpus in their best CPUs!
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,681   +1,336
Lol - you picked a 6k+ laptop as your other example? And notice how they’re both INTEL :)
It actually proves my point… if you are going expensive - then battery is irrelevant and you want the most powerful internals you can get - which are Intel, NOT AMD…
I also gave Ryzen laptop example that is faster than those Intel's.

That just proves that if you want best laptop, you put desktop CPU in there.
And once again, since you will still want to be unplugged SOMETIMES, an igpu is still needed - and since you’re paying too dollar, you’d want the best igpu… that is why Intel and AMD put their best igpus in their best CPUs!
And still you say Intel is better while AMD has much faster iGPU and better battery life. Just because Intel has faster CPU. So in your opinion, all that matters is CPU performance. That desktop CPU's do better. Also better iGPU also means weaker CPU (or more expensive and/or bigger power consumption and heavier laptops). Therefore your opinion suddenly changed from "best CPU perfomance" into "fast iGPU". Too bad, you cannot have both *nerd*
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,981
I also gave Ryzen laptop example that is faster than those Intel's.

That just proves that if you want best laptop, you put desktop CPU in there.

And still you say Intel is better while AMD has much faster iGPU and better battery life. Just because Intel has faster CPU. So in your opinion, all that matters is CPU performance. That desktop CPU's do better. Also better iGPU also means weaker CPU (or more expensive and/or bigger power consumption and heavier laptops). Therefore your opinion suddenly changed from "best CPU perfomance" into "fast iGPU". Too bad, you cannot have both *nerd*
Except you CAN have both... you take the best cpu - the Intel one! And the best DGPU....the Nvidia one!
notice how neither of those options are AMD....

and the IGPU on the cpu is still decent for the rare times you are unplugged....

tell me you understand this very basic point?
 

mailpup

Posts: 7,756   +837
TS Special Forces
HardReset and Squid Surprise, please discontinue your personal argument in this thread. If you haven't made your points yet, you ain't gonna. Thank you.
 

brucek

Posts: 1,153   +1,712
I wonder how many consumers actively consider both Mac and Windows before making a purchase decision?

My intuition is that most users will start their purchase process with a platform already firmly in mind. For instance, gamers won't be looking at Mac and editors using Final Cut Pro won't be looking at Windows. Even users who in theory could get everything they need from either platform might end up feeling (or flat out be told) that they must use the platform that their employer, client, or colleagues decided on long ago.
 

Watzupken

Posts: 635   +519
I think when one is considering the best portable and yet very power processor, you cannot avoid not mentioning the Apple M1 based MacBooks. Sure Intel and AMD can jostle all they want for performance crown, but the moment you remove the laptop from the power mains, you would expect either performance or battery life to tank, you have to choose a poison. So if it is for productivity/ creator use cases, I think there is always a place for Apple’s Mac and MacBooks. Of course, the weakness of M1 chip is in gaming, which I feel is more because of the OS/ software, and less of the hardware. Having used an M1 MacBook Air recently, I have to say that for my use case, the MBA basically smokes all the Intel and AMD based laptops I have used previously when it comes to performance, battery life and noise (no noise at all).
 

rmcrys

Posts: 195   +159
1) after SpectreV2 mitigations all companies will be happy to show us, how cool they are getting our money + giving us those patches that take us 30% of performance afterwards. So they can sell us again new chips with those issues fixed

2) AMD had the crown, but as intel was being kicked in the back hard from AMD and Apple, they went all-in, so that is why AMD 6000 series (as a tiny update from the 5000) are no match. Let's see what the 7000 brings us...

3) the M1 is irrelevant for most comparisons but office/web and video/ audio/ Photo editing, as most 3D apps or games are windows only.

Apple has a great hardware that now is limited hard by Macos (or iPad OS) and by Apple's decisions. So I got a Mac Mini M1 8 GB for multimedia editing which is fast a better buy than a windows PC. But a higher jump to M1 Pro or better would be silly, as I wouldn't need the speed benefits for multimedia editing and the biggest performance would be seen on 3D (don't use) and on Games. But as game compatibility is useless on Mac, why bother?!

So if you want a generic laptop for most home uses? MacBook Air or Pro 13.

Anything else for some 3D or gaming? Look elsewhere... at least until Apple and Microsoft allow officially dual boot W11 ARM and MacOS.
 

waclark

Posts: 439   +305
OK and because you are using it as desktop replacement, it makes no sense to use mobile parts instead desktop ones.
It makes sense because I still want portability, I just don't need a super thin and light laptop nor do I want to carry a microATX case either.
I said huge iGPU. 12900K (desktop model) has iGPU too. It's much slower and takes less die space. Basically 12900K has more CPU cores instead larger GPU. For casual use, 12900K has good enough GPU and for gaming 12900HK GPU is too slow. 12900HK simply doesn't make sense at all. 12900K is cheaper and faster on everything expect when using integrated GPU that won't be used on heavier loads. 12900HK has better battery life but who cares if battery performance is poor or very poor?
Well, I don't know the specs on the iGPU, but I imagine there are some non-gaming use cases that might favor decent built-in graphics. With any CPU/GPU products there always seems to be one or more models that hit the sweet spot of price/performance. If you don't see a use for the HK, then I suggest you not use it.
 

waclark

Posts: 439   +305
I think when one is considering the best portable and yet very power processor, you cannot avoid not mentioning the Apple M1 based MacBooks. Sure Intel and AMD can jostle all they want for performance crown, but the moment you remove the laptop from the power mains, you would expect either performance or battery life to tank, you have to choose a poison. So if it is for productivity/ creator use cases, I think there is always a place for Apple’s Mac and MacBooks. Of course, the weakness of M1 chip is in gaming, which I feel is more because of the OS/ software, and less of the hardware. Having used an M1 MacBook Air recently, I have to say that for my use case, the MBA basically smokes all the Intel and AMD based laptops I have used previously when it comes to performance, battery life and noise (no noise at all).
I have a MBA M1. It's a great machine, but I can't say that it smokes all the Intel laptops I've had or currently have. Yes, it's quiet and it definitely has better battery life when unplugged. But performance-wise, it's good but not head-and-shoulders better. In fact, there are a couple of things where it can bog down, in particular some web sites seem to really cause problems. It's hard to know if it's the web site, the browser or the machine/OS but on a couple of sites when typing replies to posts it will be dog slow. I have to close the browser or reboot the machine to get it back to normal.

It's a good machine and I like it for my day-to-day work. Clearly, gaming is limited but I have a gaming machine for that.
 

evolucion8

Posts: 81   +37
I believe I stated that… can you give another explanation ?
Very simple, stating that you "suspect" that AMD never expected that Alder Lake like if AMD was some sort of single person who is driven by feelings instead of a big team driven by science, innovation and logistics shows that. No company wants to play second fiddle, if AMD haven't launched anything yet to compete with Alder Lake, is just that, AMD has nothing yet to compete with Alder Lake.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,981
Very simple, stating that you "suspect" that AMD never expected that Alder Lake like if AMD was some sort of single person who is driven by feelings instead of a big team driven by science, innovation and logistics shows that. No company wants to play second fiddle, if AMD haven't launched anything yet to compete with Alder Lake, is just that, AMD has nothing yet to compete with Alder Lake.
But they ARE releasing something shortly that is expected to... are you telling me that, had they known how well Alder Lake would perform, they might not have tried to hurry their latest Zen architecture along?

Again, obviously nothing can be proven short of getting some AMD execs with truth serum injected in them.... but I'd love to hear another explanation...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.