Intel's Core i9-12900K is up to 36 percent faster when you run it at maximum turbo power

nanoguy

Posts: 1,243   +24
Staff member
In brief: Intel's 12th generation Core processors are right around the corner, and everything we've seen so far indicates they'll be faster than their Rocket Lake predecessors and at least as fast as AMD's Ryzen 5000 series CPUs. A newly leaked benchmark seems to confirm that Alder Lake CPUs achieve this higher performance at a high power cost.

Intel’s first batch of Alder Lake CPUs is now official, but outside of a few lucky Newegg customers and some prolific leakers, very few people have access to one for any real-world testing.

If we go by Team Blue’s marketing claims, these new processors are supposed to be the first salvo fired back at AMD in the fight for the x86 performance crown. However, they’re also not directly comparable with existing x86 processors from AMD as well as Intel’s own offerings, since they use a hybrid architecture and can be more power-hungry during certain workloads.

One of the notable changes brought by Alder Lake is that Intel is redefining the power needs of its CPUs to offer a more realistic picture in spec sheets. Specifically, the company is deprecating the term “TDP” in favor of two new metrics — processor base power (PBP) and maximum turbo power (MTP). These are essentially the PL1 and PL2 power limits as defined in previous generations of Intel CPUs, and will allow consumers to make a more informed decision when buying these new models.

A detailed analysis of how these new CPUs perform in various workloads is coming, but since it’s still under embargo, we can only look at leaked performance numbers as we have for the past several months.

As spotted by Twitter user @9550pro, Weibo user WolfStame — who happens to be the Gaming Desktop Product Planning Manager of Lenovo’s China branch — accidentally posted a chart comparing Cinebench R20 test results for Alder Lake CPUs to previous generation Rocket Lake parts.

As you'd expect, all Alder Lake enthusiast-grade processors smoke their predecessors in the multi-threaded test. However, the more interesting aspect of the leaked chart is that it includes scores for both the 125-watt base power and the 241-watt turbo power modes of operation.

Looking at the results, the Core i9-12900K scores 7492 points when operating at base power and 10180 points when operating at maximum turbo power, which is a 36 percent performance boost at almost double the power consumption. The Core i7-12700K scores 6689 and 8677 points, respectively, which means you can squeeze up to 30 percent more performance in turbo mode (190 watts). No surprises here, but if you look at the Core i5-12600K, the performance boost is a modest 10 percent — barely worth the jump from 125 watts to 150 watts.

This seems to confirm earlier rumors that Alder Lake CPUs will be cutting-edge space heaters. To sweeten the deal, Intel is launching the new processors with aggressive pricing, although we’ll have to see how that translates for consumers in the coming weeks and months. However, LGA 1700 motherboards won't be cheap and DDR5 memory kits already cost an arm and a leg -- that is, if you manage to find any in stock at retail. Overall, it looks like early adopters for Alder Lake will have to pay dearly for the privilege.

Permalink to story.

 

Guberian

Posts: 196   +259
I feel as if this article is unnecessarily harsh. If you dont focus on the top end which prioritize perf and look at stock 12600k versus 11900k its actually pretty impressive. Using the top is not indicative of the entire architecture's qualitites.
 

theruck

Posts: 548   +345
11600k vs 12600k is 50% increase
nothing about temperatures
the author of the article should be ashamed. either report on what is real and objective truth or go write your own feelings and opinions to discussion boards.
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,597   +1,422
Nobody buying a desktop cares about power consumption. If it’s that important you buy a laptop which uses about 10-20% of the power of desktop, even an AMD one. Of course there will be people saying don’t buy it because of that but those people are usually emotionally attached to the other multi billion American corporation that makes CPUs.

It’s irrational to pick a more expensive and slower desktop CPU because it uses less power.

Alder Lake looks like it performs really well and is competitively priced, it’s poised to beat out AMDs excellent 5000 series CPUs, this is all great stuff for us consumers. Even if the article does slightly feel like a harsh attack on Intel.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,249   +4,363
That's nice.

Doc Brown made sure to update his technology to actually run on organic garbage instead of plutonium so intel better do the same. And if we could get the 1.21 gigawatts to run Alder Lake we're better off running a bitcoin farm instead.
 

Solace50

Posts: 19   +21
Nobody buying a desktop cares about power consumption. If it’s that important you buy a laptop which uses about 10-20% of the power of desktop, even an AMD one. Of course there will be people saying don’t buy it because of that but those people are usually emotionally attached to the other multi billion American corporation that makes CPUs.

It’s irrational to pick a more expensive and slower desktop CPU because it uses less power.

Alder Lake looks like it performs really well and is competitively priced, it’s poised to beat out AMDs excellent 5000 series CPUs, this is all great stuff for us consumers. Even if the article does slightly feel like a harsh attack on Intel.

Horribly false,
If you have an additional 120-200w of power coming from a single component you need to 1. supply the additional power from a larger PSU which could break PSU tiers as GPU's draw 300+ for high end machines. 2. You then have to worry about additional cooling as that additional power is now heat in the case. Would be interesting to see how much throttling occurs when paired with a gpu in a common setup and not a open bench or high end water cooled rig.

Even the lower consumption 5900/5950x hits 90c/tdp max and throttles with a standard ATX case with extra case fans and a 3080 pumping heat into it at stock settings. God only knows the amount of throttling a 12900x is going to have without high end cooling solutions. Note the "it will burn a hole in your motherboard comment", these are not real world test results, they are catered towards intel and likely done on a open bench or high end waterloop.

The only proper statement that can be made is,
If you have the time and money to design and afford the best of the best then you do not care about power consumption as its not a concerning factor for those with a 5k budget on a water looped pc.
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,597   +1,422
Horribly false,
If you have an additional 120-200w of power coming from a single component you need to 1. supply the additional power from a larger PSU which could break PSU tiers as GPU's draw 300+ for high end machines. 2. You then have to worry about additional cooling as that additional power is now heat in the case. Would be interesting to see how much throttling occurs when paired with a gpu in a common setup and not a open bench or high end water cooled rig.

Even the lower consumption 5900/5950x hits 90c/tdp max and throttles with a standard ATX case with extra case fans and a 3080 pumping heat into it at stock settings. God only knows the amount of throttling a 12900x is going to have without high end cooling solutions. Note the "it will burn a hole in your motherboard comment", these are not real world test results, they are catered towards intel and likely done on a open bench or high end waterloop.

The only proper statement that can be made is,
If you have the time and money to design and afford the best of the best then you do not care about power consumption as its not a concerning factor for those with a 5k budget on a water looped pc.
Lmao, no I am right and you are “false” actually. If this product outperforms the competition then it will sell well despite poor power consumption.

Also an extra 120-200w of power? Where did you get that number from? I hope not the TDP as it’s not representative. When tested 11th gen didn’t use anywhere near that much more on average.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,982
Horribly false,
If you have an additional 120-200w of power coming from a single component you need to 1. supply the additional power from a larger PSU which could break PSU tiers as GPU's draw 300+ for high end machines. 2. You then have to worry about additional cooling as that additional power is now heat in the case. Would be interesting to see how much throttling occurs when paired with a gpu in a common setup and not a open bench or high end water cooled rig.

Even the lower consumption 5900/5950x hits 90c/tdp max and throttles with a standard ATX case with extra case fans and a 3080 pumping heat into it at stock settings. God only knows the amount of throttling a 12900x is going to have without high end cooling solutions. Note the "it will burn a hole in your motherboard comment", these are not real world test results, they are catered towards intel and likely done on a open bench or high end waterloop.

The only proper statement that can be made is,
If you have the time and money to design and afford the best of the best then you do not care about power consumption as its not a concerning factor for those with a 5k budget on a water looped pc.
Give me a break... anyone buying a desktop PC simply calculates the power (and cooling) requirements for their PC and purchases the PSU (and fans/coolers) that fit(s) their needs.

Only if you were upgrading your CPU only would power and cooling requirements make a difference.. and since these require new motherboards, you can't even do that!

The only ones who would really care about this are boutiques - they will need to purchase better PSUs and cooling fans to sell their builds - but they will simply pass on the added cost to the customers.
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 2,074   +1,654
Horribly false,
If you have an additional 120-200w of power coming from a single component you need to 1. supply the additional power from a larger PSU which could break PSU tiers as GPU's draw 300+ for high end machines. 2. You then have to worry about additional cooling as that additional power is now heat in the case. Would be interesting to see how much throttling occurs when paired with a gpu in a common setup and not a open bench or high end water cooled rig.

Even the lower consumption 5900/5950x hits 90c/tdp max and throttles with a standard ATX case with extra case fans and a 3080 pumping heat into it at stock settings. God only knows the amount of throttling a 12900x is going to have without high end cooling solutions. Note the "it will burn a hole in your motherboard comment", these are not real world test results, they are catered towards intel and likely done on a open bench or high end waterloop.

The only proper statement that can be made is,
If you have the time and money to design and afford the best of the best then you do not care about power consumption as its not a concerning factor for those with a 5k budget on a water looped pc.
Dude do you even understand how PCs work? The temperature of the CPU is not an indicator of how much power it uses. My 5800X hits 91C quite frequently and is the hottest CPU I have ever owned. But that doesnt mean its guzzling power or that its throttling.

People dont care about power consumption on desktops, they use an online calculator to work out what PSU they need and buy it. Currently my RTX 2080 and 5800X never goes above 420w (MY PSU has a screen on it). So with a 750w PSU you will run anything out there. And in the end the energy cost difference between these parts are negligible. You shouldnt be buying Ryzen 5000 or Alder lake if you genuinely cared about energy efficiency.

Your comment just smells of desperation to put people off buying these new Intel CPUs. Let it go dude, AMD cant beat Intel every year.
 

Solace50

Posts: 19   +21
Dude do you even understand how PCs work? The temperature of the CPU is not an indicator of how much power it uses. My 5800X hits 91C quite frequently and is the hottest CPU I have ever owned. But that doesnt mean its guzzling power or that its throttling.

People dont care about power consumption on desktops, they use an online calculator to work out what PSU they need and buy it. Currently my RTX 2080 and 5800X never goes above 420w (MY PSU has a screen on it). So with a 750w PSU you will run anything out there. And in the end the energy cost difference between these parts are negligible. You shouldnt be buying Ryzen 5000 or Alder lake if you genuinely cared about energy efficiency.

Your comment just smells of desperation to put people off buying these new Intel CPUs. Let it go dude, AMD cant beat Intel every year.

Based on your reply you must be intellectually superior and right about everything in life lmao. Not wasting a moment on brain dead responses. For the other apes who think otherwise,

GamersNexus saw a peak power draw of 193 watts <- 5900x OCed
Oct. 20, 2021 — Intel's Core i9-12900K Beats The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X With A Massive 5.2 GHz Overclock & 330W Power Consumption Figure.

Not a 1:1 ratio given I'm citing a 5900x not 5950x however thats 130w difference lmao. People are all going off about how "higher consumption" does not matter in any aspect. Unlikely any of those people dealt with budgets or airflow designs on SFF.
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,597   +1,422
Based on your reply you must be intellectually superior and right about everything in life lmao. Not wasting a moment on brain dead responses.
Says the man who apparently genuinely believes poor power consumption will stop faster and cheaper components from selling lmao.
 
Last edited:

Shadowboxer

Posts: 2,074   +1,654
Based on your reply you must be intellectually superior and right about everything in life lmao. Not wasting a moment on brain dead responses. For the other apes who think otherwise,

GamersNexus saw a peak power draw of 193 watts <- 5900x OCed
Oct. 20, 2021 — Intel's Core i9-12900K Beats The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X With A Massive 5.2 GHz Overclock & 330W Power Consumption Figure.

Not a 1:1 ratio given I'm citing a 5900x not 5950x however thats 130w difference lmao. People are all going off about how "higher consumption" does not matter in any aspect. Unlikely any of those people dealt with budgets or airflow designs on SFF.
Says the dude who clearly doesnt understand how temperatures, TDP and power consumption are related lol.
 
Dude do you even understand how PCs work? The temperature of the CPU is not an indicator of how much power it uses. My 5800X hits 91C quite frequently and is the hottest CPU I have ever owned. But that doesnt mean its guzzling power or that its throttling.

People dont care about power consumption on desktops, they use an online calculator to work out what PSU they need and buy it. Currently my RTX 2080 and 5800X never goes above 420w (MY PSU has a screen on it). So with a 750w PSU you will run anything out there. And in the end the energy cost difference between these parts are negligible. You shouldnt be buying Ryzen 5000 or Alder lake if you genuinely cared about energy efficiency.

Your comment just smells of desperation to put people off buying these new Intel CPUs. Let it go dude, AMD cant beat Intel every year.
Are you seeing TCTRL or TDIE? TDIE is the one to look at. My 1700X runs around 70C under full load with a cheap Hyper 212 EVO cooler. Also, while it is true power usage isn't a big concern for desktops, it can be. People making SFF PCs, don't want to have expensive cooling, or who don't want to run an AC unit to keep their room from being 85F all the time. Some have expensive power rates. Running a CPU at high temps for a long time can reduce its life, and reduce performance. It also reduces max performance for overclocking. If your cores are power wasteful, it makes laptops slower.

The 5800X is quite efficient, and if you don't need all the speed you can easily lower frequency by changing power plan in Windows. The Intel CPUs still seem quite power hungry, and while this isn't a factor for everyone, it still does matter.
 

Tantor

Posts: 372   +645
Dude do you even understand how PCs work? The temperature of the CPU is not an indicator of how much power it uses. My 5800X hits 91C quite frequently and is the hottest CPU I have ever owned. But that doesnt mean its guzzling power or that its throttling.

People dont care about power consumption on desktops, they use an online calculator to work out what PSU they need and buy it. Currently my RTX 2080 and 5800X never goes above 420w (MY PSU has a screen on it). So with a 750w PSU you will run anything out there. And in the end the energy cost difference between these parts are negligible. You shouldnt be buying Ryzen 5000 or Alder lake if you genuinely cared about energy efficiency.

Your comment just smells of desperation to put people off buying these new Intel CPUs. Let it go dude, AMD cant beat Intel every year.

Whoa, that's kinda high for a 5800x. My 5800x peaks at 82C running S-TUI or Stress-NG in Linux. Okay, okay, I'm running a Thermalright TRUE Spirit 140 Power cooler. It's rated for up to 360 watts. Still, I would never allow an expensive CPU to cruise in 91c territory.

Lots of people care about CPU power. Anybody who builds mini-itx or in space constrained cases will care. You can put a 5950x in an old A320 mobo with weak VRMs, and it will run fine. That's because Zen is so power efficient.

You're right about people pouring cold water on the new Intel CPUs. Intel has been receiving a thrashing for the last five years. AMD fans can afford to let them party for a while.

I'm happy because AMD will ramp up their time schedule. We may get Zen 4 and 5 way early.

 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 2,074   +1,654
Are you seeing TCTRL or TDIE? TDIE is the one to look at. My 1700X runs around 70C under full load with a cheap Hyper 212 EVO cooler. Also, while it is true power usage isn't a big concern for desktops, it can be. People making SFF PCs, don't want to have expensive cooling, or who don't want to run an AC unit to keep their room from being 85F all the time. Some have expensive power rates. Running a CPU at high temps for a long time can reduce its life, and reduce performance. It also reduces max performance for overclocking. If your cores are power wasteful, it makes laptops slower.

The 5800X is quite efficient, and if you don't need all the speed you can easily lower frequency by changing power plan in Windows. The Intel CPUs still seem quite power hungry, and while this isn't a factor for everyone, it still does matter.
The 5800X is quite notorious for producing a lot of heat, its been ignored by most of the mainstream tech press. But there are even people who have made videos about it on youtube. Im using a Noctua NHD-15 with Industrial Grade PPC2000 fans and im still hitting the 90s. Its usually from the PBO as it only seems to happen in heavy, lightly threaded workloads. It isnt a problem, its not sitting there at 90+ all the time, it just spikes to it and the CPU is designed to be fine up to 90C.

Sure people exist out there who need to save power. But in general, when it comes to sales of units, high power consumption wont make a dent. Price and performance are what defines sales in high performance desktop parts and always have. People who prioritise power consumption dont even look at them. You can get a Ryzen 4300GE entire system that uses about 30watts and performs most things people do on a modern PC. If power consumption is your biggest concern this is the sort of part you buy, not a 5900X lol.

The only reason power consumption is being talked about is because it looks like the only thing AMD will have left over Intel after the release of Alder lake. Most desktop PC enthusiasts do not care about power consumption.

5800X Temps:
 

Arbie

Posts: 431   +753
The always testy, always well-informed, always very smart, and always interesting Charlie Demerjian has a big article on Alder Lake; check his SemiAccurate site. One main point is that big-little brings nothing to a desktop, and not much to a laptop. And yes that AL will be hot.

I'm not impressed by CPUs that can run faster if run hotter... because that's true across the board, though it will be more practical (less impractical) for some that for others. E.g. an AMD 5900X can probably be goosed to match Alder Lake, given equivalent cooling. Maybe not quite, but in any case very few people will find the extra performance to be truly worth the extra power. Color me AMD since 2017 - for saving our CPU butts.
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,597   +1,422
Me pointing out fallacy in you does not create factual claims to my beliefs. Assume less in life, it will do you good in the long run.
I made no fallacy. These parts will sell well if the performance and price is right whether it uses a lot of power or not.
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,597   +1,422
The always testy, always well-informed, always very smart, and always interesting Charlie Demerjian has a big article on Alder Lake; check his SemiAccurate site. One main point is that big-little brings nothing to a desktop, and not much to a laptop. And yes that AL will be hot.

I'm not impressed by CPUs that can run faster if run hotter... because that's true across the board, though it will be more practical (less impractical) for some that for others. E.g. an AMD 5900X can probably be goosed to match Alder Lake, given equivalent cooling. Maybe not quite, but in any case very few people will find the extra performance to be truly worth the extra power. Color me AMD since 2017 - for saving our CPU butts.
Personally I don’t care how many cores or what type of cores a CPU has. I care about how it performs. If these Alder lake CPUs outperform the competition in real world usage then it’s obviously onto something good.