Intel Core i9-12900K Review: Alder Lake Arrives

Status
Not open for further replies.

bravesgood

Posts: 31   +37
Intel have destroyed AMD after just one year. The 12900K is significantly cheaper than the 5950X and it’s smoking it. This is where things should be, Ryzen 5000 is 2020 hardware. It should be par for the course for 2021 hardware to beat it.

Buyers won’t be put off by the power consumption. You don’t buy a top end unlocked K series CPU if you care about power efficiency. These Alder lake parts will outsell their competitors by an order of magnitude.

I look forward to seeing the benchmarks of the 12600K. Which I feel is a more realistic purchase for most people.

Definitely not significantly cheaper. If you can afford a $600 CPU, you can afford a $700 CPU. It would have been embarrassing if Intel didn't beat a CPU that's over a year old now..on their second try. LOL
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 2,074   +1,654
Dam, Intel went and eviscerated AMD! Its good to see, maybe now AMD will knock down their prices, which lets face it were hiked this time last year with the 5000 series and I paid for that lol.

But its 12 months too late for me and I cant see my 5800X dying anytime soon at all.

I find the power consumption arguments amusing, clutching at straws much? lol.
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,597   +1,422
Definitely not significantly cheaper. If you can afford a $600 CPU, you can afford a $700 CPU. It would have been embarrassing if Intel didn't beat a CPU that's over a year old now..on their second try. LOL
Lol, it’s only $100! I’d say that’s significant. It’s certainly better than the price increases we had from AMD last year.

Also I find your comment about second try amusing. AMD took three tries to beat Intels 2016 architecture and didn’t do it until 2020, only to have Intel take back the crown just 12 months later. Lol.

Anyway, let’s see how the 12600KF does. I feel the real bloodbath for Ryzen will be there. Beating an overpriced 16 core is one thing. But beating the 5600X on both price and performance would be a far more impressive and useful to consumers feat.
 

fps4ever

Posts: 905   +1,336
The problem is they chose a bunch of GPU limited games... I will be interested in seeing their "mega 30 game roundup" whenever they get around to it.
The problem is they chose a bunch of GPU limited games... I will be interested in seeing their "mega 30 game roundup" whenever they get around to it.

Yeah, it seems weird but I don't know if that is the same story across other reviews yet as I haven't had much time today to research.
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 2,074   +1,654
I want to call Steves price of the Asus TUF Gaming X570 Gaming Plus being $160. I have this board and I paid $200 for it one year ago. I cant find it today for less than $195. Steve claims $160 for this board and then claims that AMDs platform is $20-$40 cheaper which is a bit unfair imo. These are small differences so maybe there was an offer on the TUF board that has now expired. From what I can see Z690 boards dont cost much more at all then X570 boards generally but they do have more features like PCIe5, DDR5 and Thunderbolt, making them far better value. In fact if you opt for a DDR4 board they are coming in a little cheaper than X570 but still has PCIe5 and thunderbolt.

The cost of the cooler is the real difference although I dont think the 5950X is going to be happy on a cheap cooler.
 

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,522   +2,767
It's certainly fast and it also uses too much power to really be outright impressive.

Roll on the mainstream parts because they are definitely the ones to watch. The 12600K for $320 is the one that'll be in demand.

It should be somewhat more manageable thermals wise. Looks very fast versus the 5600X especially with gaming. If nothing else I think we could expect 5600X prices to drop somewhat now.

I considered the 5600X to be the best CPU for joe everybody the past year, the 12600K probably looks to take that mantle until the next round...
 

Geralt

Posts: 1,126   +1,742
But there are plenty of coolers that will handle the CPU without throttling... Will they cost more... YES... should that matter if you are purchasing a top-of-the-line CPU? NO!

You want practical, buy the i7 or i5...
With that criterion, we'll end up with a nuclear plant and an ocean to cool the CPU down. The idea is that the flagship CPU should be fast and with optimal power consumption to reduce heat. This is so in my book.
 

defaultluser

Posts: 410   +332
Spring for a 3090? They has several they just tend to be amd biased around here so they keep the 3090's in their personal rigs at home (that way they can continue to enjoy the benefits without giving up their "we are AMD fans like you all" approach to engagement.

Nah, I think the choice has more to do with the (not officially acknowledged by NVIDIA) multi-core scaling problem.

https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforc...-has-a-driver-overhead-problem-geforce-vs-ra/

And the 1080p performance between the two cards is nearly identical.
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,597   +1,422
With that criterion, we'll end up with a nuclear plant and an ocean to cool the CPU down. The idea is that the flagship CPU should be fast and with optimal power consumption to reduce heat. This is so in my book.
I would be careful about making these claims. There is a possibility that the next gen Ryzen parts might use more power than Alder lake. The efficiency crown changes quite frequently.

I mean I will laugh so hard if Ryzen 6000 with its 3D cache (or whatever marketing buzzword AMD is giving it) performs a little bit faster but uses more power. These companies always ramp up voltages and clocks when they don’t have a new architecture to jump to.

Also you need to correct your “book”. Flagship unlocked K series Intel CPUs or Ryzen 9 16 core parts are always all about performance and overclocking and not about power consumption. Go back through the flagship parts over the years and they all use way way more power than the average CPU and have never been optimised for power consumption.

The power consumption argument people are making here is so transparent, it’s cringe af.
 

maxxcool7421

Posts: 132   +206
Dam, Intel went and eviscerated AMD! Its good to see, maybe now AMD will knock down their prices, which lets face it were hiked this time last year with the 5000 series and I paid for that lol.

But its 12 months too late for me and I cant see my 5800X dying anytime soon at all.

I find the power consumption arguments amusing, clutching at straws much? lol.

... lol not even. Invented all new tech to just match a 1yr old AMD design. I'd still pay for a threadripper if winning ''cinebench wars'' was all I cared about.

But seriously .. All the extra silicon for the Ecores, special schedulers .. special on die routing ... special compiler requirements ... just to match a 5950 most of the time?. It is ''neat'', but this is not what intel promised me. This is disappointing.. but then nobody will but this cpu outside a prebuilt box since everyone is sitting on 3 year old videocards (unless you're a rich bragart) .. I do not see this selling well outside of oems.

>What I am interested in< .. is the workstation variants of those things .. *that* I can use and buy... get this sad consumer excuse off my plate and back in the kitchen .. needs work
 

Shirley Dulcey

Posts: 31   +26
What would impress me is savage price cuts on Ryzen 5000, maybe some 1000 series pricing. That would benefit us consumers. Maybe that way AMD can restore their reputation. Currently they charge more than Intel for silicon and that’s just backwards.

I expect to see price cuts on the existing Ryzen 5000 processors when the updated versions arrive. That should bring the price/performance situation back in line.
 

theruck

Posts: 548   +345
Quite a dissappointment. with all the buzz before release I would expect that the i5 12600k would beat the AMD best cpus... so the Apple like wow efect from Intel does not come and will not come anytime soon if this is the best card played we might need to wait few more years for something technologically competitive with AMD and Apple silicone
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 2,074   +1,654
... lol not even. Invented all new tech to just match a 1yr old AMD design. I'd still pay for a threadripper if winning ''cinebench wars'' was all I cared about.

But seriously .. All the extra silicon for the Ecores, special schedulers .. special on die routing ... special compiler requirements ... just to match a 5950 most of the time?. It is ''neat'', but this is not what intel promised me. This is disappointing.. but then nobody will but this cpu outside a prebuilt box since everyone is sitting on 3 year old videocards (unless you're a rich bragart) .. I do not see this selling well outside of oems.

>What I am interested in< .. is the workstation variants of those things .. *that* I can use and buy... get this sad consumer excuse off my plate and back in the kitchen .. needs work
I guess you havent actually seen the numbers, in most tests the 12900K wins against the 5950X, its factually incorrect to claim they are matched, the 12900K is demonstrably faster on average. and its a LOT cheaper. Certainly here in the UK it is, over £100 cheaper. Even the Z690 boards arent coming in much higher if at all the X570 and they have a lot more features like PCIe5 and Thunderbolt etc. Intel is now ahead of AMD, I dont actually care if they are using E cores or whatever, core count really doesnt matter to me, actual performance does. So if 8P cores + 8E cores work out faster than 16 Zen 3 cores then clearly the Intel design is better.

Also have you seen the 12600K reviews on other sites? Go read them if you want to learn exactly how Intel have "eviscerated" AMD. And thats where most people will be buying.


I understand a lot of AMD fans are going to have a hard time coping with the news that their beloved 5000 series is no longer kicking bums and taking names. But it was always going to happen at somepoint or another. I have a 5800X and I have no shame in admiting that it is now second tier to Intels Alder lake.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,665   +1,322
I guess you havent actually seen the numbers, in most tests the 12900K wins against the 5950X, its factually incorrect to claim they are matched, the 12900K is demonstrably faster on average. and its a LOT cheaper. Certainly here in the UK it is, over £100 cheaper. Even the Z690 boards arent coming in much higher if at all the X570 and they have a lot more features like PCIe5 and Thunderbolt etc. Intel is now ahead of AMD, I dont actually care if they are using E cores or whatever, core count really doesnt matter to me, actual performance does. So if 8P cores + 8E cores work out faster than 16 Zen 3 cores then clearly the Intel design is better.
How about limiting CPU power consumption on same level and see which one is faster? But of course power consumption doesn't matter now. It only matters when Intel has lower...
Also have you seen the 12600K reviews on other sites? Go read them if you want to learn exactly how Intel have "eviscerated" AMD. And thats where most people will be buying.


I understand a lot of AMD fans are going to have a hard time coping with the news that their beloved 5000 series is no longer kicking bums and taking names. But it was always going to happen at somepoint or another. I have a 5800X and I have no shame in admiting that it is now second tier to Intels Alder lake.
There was one pause for me in the Core i9 12600K's benchmarking, however, and that's when it came to Assassin's Creed: Valhalla. This game simply will not boot on either of our Intel Alder Lake test systems, and it's an ongoing issue (likely related to the DRM issues Intel has officially confirmed with Alder Lake) that Intel has told me it is looking into, with Ubisoft's help.
Intel's "gaming chip" cannot even run most AAA games 🤦‍♂️ :joy:

Also 5600X has much lower power consumption. So again, Intel is not better. Intel is "better" if you look through blue glasses.
 

maxxcool7421

Posts: 132   +206
While it is hardly the Ryzen stomping that many predicted, the single generation leap is way beyond impressive. Gotta give them two thumbs up for that.

This really is not much of a generational leap. We need to wait for 'core limited' and 'speed/ghz' level tests where we can see 8 core Alders versus 8 core last gen VS 8 core limited 5800x tests

 

maxxcool7421

Posts: 132   +206
I guess you havent actually seen the numbers, in most tests the 12900K wins against the 5950X, its factually incorrect to claim they are matched, the 12900K is demonstrably faster on average. and its a LOT cheaper. Certainly here in the UK it is, over £100 cheaper. Even the Z690 boards arent coming in much higher if at all the X570 and they have a lot more features like PCIe5 and Thunderbolt etc. Intel is now ahead of AMD, I dont actually care if they are using E cores or whatever, core count really doesnt matter to me, actual performance does. So if 8P cores + 8E cores work out faster than 16 Zen 3 cores then clearly the Intel design is better.

Also have you seen the 12600K reviews on other sites? Go read them if you want to learn exactly how Intel have "eviscerated" AMD. And thats where most people will be buying.


I understand a lot of AMD fans are going to have a hard time coping with the news that their beloved 5000 series is no longer kicking bums and taking names. But it was always going to happen at somepoint or another. I have a 5800X and I have no shame in admiting that it is now second tier to Intels Alder lake.

Shrug .. tom-shardware is the same as here.. it is 'good' and 'neat' but gaming is on >>average<< about +/- 10% .. hardly worth a full platform rebuy. To each thier own. But after all the ridiculous uber hype slides from intel marketing ... this is utterly disappointing since I am not a cinebench user
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,640   +2,418
I want to call Steves price of the Asus TUF Gaming X570 Gaming Plus being $160. I have this board and I paid $200 for it one year ago. I cant find it today for less than $195. Steve claims $160 for this board and then claims that AMDs platform is $20-$40 cheaper which is a bit unfair imo. These are small differences so maybe there was an offer on the TUF board that has now expired. From what I can see Z690 boards dont cost much more at all then X570 boards generally but they do have more features like PCIe5, DDR5 and Thunderbolt, making them far better value. In fact if you opt for a DDR4 board they are coming in a little cheaper than X570 but still has PCIe5 and thunderbolt.

The cost of the cooler is the real difference although I dont think the 5950X is going to be happy on a cheap cooler.

Took me 20 seconds to find that searching the internet on newegg.com

 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
Shrug .. tom-shardware is the same as here.. it is 'good' and 'neat' but gaming is on >>average<< about +/- 10% .. hardly worth a full platform rebuy. To each thier own. But after all the ridiculous uber hype slides from intel marketing ... this is utterly disappointing since I am not a cinebench user
Neither platform is EVER a reason to purchase as an upgrade from the other company's flagship... Unless you have too much money and need bragging rights.

If you had already purchased a 10900 (or 11900 for some stupid reason), you'd still be a fool to purchase a 5950 as an upgrade... yes, it's better - but certainly not "better enough" to justify spending north of $2000 on a whole new system.

The point of these reviews is to inform the reader who is already planning on a new PC which one to purchase...

If you are running something 7-8 years old and need (or want) a new PC... what do you buy now?

Well, until this week, the answer was almost always "whatever AMD CPU fits your needs/budget"... now, the answer is a lot murkier...

If you just want professional/workstation tasks, I'd stick with the 5950... (or spring for a threadripper if you have the cash), but if you want the best gaming PC... well, Intel has a pretty good case for choosing them now.
 

maxxcool7421

Posts: 132   +206
I guess you havent actually seen the numbers, in most tests the 12900K wins against the 5950X, its factually incorrect to claim they are matched, the 12900K is demonstrably faster on average. and its a LOT cheaper. Certainly here in the UK it is, over £100 cheaper. Even the Z690 boards arent coming in much higher if at all the X570 and they have a lot more features like PCIe5 and Thunderbolt etc. Intel is now ahead of AMD, I dont actually care if they are using E cores or whatever, core count really doesnt matter to me, actual performance does. So if 8P cores + 8E cores work out faster than 16 Zen 3 cores then clearly the Intel design is better.

Also have you seen the 12600K reviews on other sites? Go read them if you want to learn exactly how Intel have "eviscerated" AMD. And thats where most people will be buying.


I understand a lot of AMD fans are going to have a hard time coping with the news that their beloved 5000 series is no longer kicking bums and taking names. But it was always going to happen at somepoint or another. I have a 5800X and I have no shame in admiting that it is now second tier to Intels Alder lake.

But thanks to intel I am looking forward to the new price-war this release will trigger however. :) I have been on this 4ghz all core 1950x 4 years now... I will still be stuck on a 1080ti but getting into either platform after some price cutting will be easier to chew on
 

Kosmoz

Posts: 600   +1,110
I already posted on Steve's video review on HUB, but like some others here said, the sum of it is:

+7% at 1080p vs Zen3 is really not impressive at all.

Alder Lake comes one year later, it's much more expensive (the entire platform, CPU + big water cooler, expensive MB and DDR5), consumes more power even though it has 8 big + 8 little cores vs Zen3's 16 big cores (so that's laughable), it's hotter, it needs Win11 and DDR5 (though it malfunctions sometimes) and this is the result? Yeah, not impressed...

Zen 3D will have no problem achieving at least parity in performance, if not beat it, while also being on a cheaper platform and more efficient.

And then comes Zen4 with DDR5, when it's more matured... that one also will come before Raptor Lake.
 

maxxcool7421

Posts: 132   +206
Neither platform is EVER a reason to purchase as an upgrade from the other company's flagship... Unless you have too much money and need bragging rights.

If you had already purchased a 10900 (or 11900 for some stupid reason), you'd still be a fool to purchase a 5950 as an upgrade... yes, it's better - but certainly not "better enough" to justify spending north of $2000 on a whole new system.

The point of these reviews is to inform the reader who is already planning on a new PC which one to purchase...

If you are running something 7-8 years old and need (or want) a new PC... what do you buy now?

Well, until this week, the answer was almost always "whatever AMD CPU fits your needs/budget"... now, the answer is a lot murkier...

If you just want professional/workstation tasks, I'd stick with the 5950... (or spring for a threadripper if you have the cash), but if you want the best gaming PC... well, Intel has a pretty good case for choosing them now.
Not going to disagree ... ;) either platform from my current will be a large leap. the new hotness though just doesn't live up to the hype we were fed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.