Intel's Core i9-12900K pushed to 8 GHz alongside overclocked DDR5 memory

nanoguy

Posts: 1,045   +15
Staff member
In brief: Intel's Alder Lake CPUs and motherboards have just started shipping to enthusiasts around the world, and the overclocking community didn't waste any time pushing them to their limits. The latest result was achieved by popular overclocker HiCookie, who managed to push an Intel Core i9-12900K to a whopping 8 GHz.

Intel’s Core i9-12900K is already a beast in terms of performance at stock settings, but that didn't stop overclocking enthusiasts from pushing it further to find its limits. Last month, a popular figure in the overclocking community managed to get Team Blue’s latest flagship CPU to a respectable 6.8 GHz for the Golden Cove (performance) cores and 5.3 GHz for the Gracemont (efficiency) cores. This translates to a 31 percent overclock on the P-cores and a 36 percent overclock on the E-cores — enough to set new Geekbench 4 and Geekbench 5 world records in both single-core and multi-core tests.

This week, Taiwanese overclocker HiCookie has managed to get even more impressive results when trying to overclock the P-cores, with the highest stable clock being a respectable 8 GHz. HiCookie proudly announced the result on Gigabyte’s Spanish Twitter account for the Aorus sub brand, along with screenshots of the CPU-Z submission. The 8 GHz overclock required setting the multiplier to 80x and the V-core to 1.81V.

To achieve this, the overclocker used liquid nitrogen (LN2) cooling, a Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Tachyon motherboard, and a single 16-gigabyte stick of DDR5 memory. Along with the CPU overclock, HiCookie also pushed the DDR5 module to an effective speed of 8,300 MHz from the default 4,800 MHz spec.

For reference, Intel’s Rocket Lake flagship has only been pushed to around 7.33 GHz, while the highest recorded overclock for the Core i9-10900K (Comet Lake) is 7.7 GHz. The highest CPU overclock ever recorded was done on an AMD FX-8370 (Piledriver), which was pushed to over 8.7 GHz.

Judging by this first batch of overclocking results, Team Blue's latest flagship desktop processor may have the potential to reach new heights, provided someone finds an even higher quality sample to play with.

If you’re interested in learning more about the Core i9-12900K, be sure to check out Steve’s extensive review.

Permalink to story.

 

umbala

Posts: 508   +871
I have a feeling this P-core and E-core nonsense will be short lived. Intel used to make 8-core CPUs where *ALL* 8 cores were HIGH PERFORMANCE cores. But now they want you to buy into this garbage of 4 performance cores + 4 efficient cores are somehow better because it gives developers more work and more headaches. This is just a lame attempt to imitate the bigLITTLE configurations that have been used by ARM for years. It's just a distraction from the fact that Intel has fallen behind AMD and has no clear path to catch up quickly, so they resort to gimmicks.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 4,534   +3,902
I have a feeling this P-core and E-core nonsense will be short lived. Intel used to make 8-core CPUs where *ALL* 8 cores were HIGH PERFORMANCE cores. But now they want you to buy into this garbage of 4 performance cores + 4 efficient cores are somehow better because it gives developers more work and more headaches. This is just a lame attempt to imitate the bigLITTLE configurations that have been used by ARM for years. It's just a distraction from the fact that Intel has fallen behind AMD and has no clear path to catch up quickly, so they resort to gimmicks.
Except that it's 8 of each core... not 4.... and as it outperforms AMD's best CPUs (not including Threadripper), I'd say it might be better after all... maybe that's why ARM and Intel are doing it? Because it works? Nah... must be a gimmick
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,972   +1,565
I have a feeling this P-core and E-core nonsense will be short lived. Intel used to make 8-core CPUs where *ALL* 8 cores were HIGH PERFORMANCE cores. But now they want you to buy into this garbage of 4 performance cores + 4 efficient cores are somehow better because it gives developers more work and more headaches. This is just a lame attempt to imitate the bigLITTLE configurations that have been used by ARM for years. It's just a distraction from the fact that Intel has fallen behind AMD and has no clear path to catch up quickly, so they resort to gimmicks.
You should check the Alder lake review before commenting. The Big/Little architecture is faster than even the 5950X in most tests.

Personally I dont care what they call their cores, I only care about the performance. I stopped caring about core count a long time ago in the FX days when my FX8350 was performing worse than a quad core despite having 8 cores. Which we then later found out werent proper cores.

At the end of the day its how it performs that matters.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 6,967   +5,484
I have a feeling this P-core and E-core nonsense will be short lived. Intel used to make 8-core CPUs where *ALL* 8 cores were HIGH PERFORMANCE cores. But now they want you to buy into this garbage of 4 performance cores + 4 efficient cores are somehow better because it gives developers more work and more headaches. This is just a lame attempt to imitate the bigLITTLE configurations that have been used by ARM for years. It's just a distraction from the fact that Intel has fallen behind AMD and has no clear path to catch up quickly, so they resort to gimmicks.
I have to agree. I did check out the Alder Lake review and I found myself rather unimpressed. In a way, it reminds me of the old days of the MHz battles that meant little. sIntel is using this gimmick because if they were all P-cores, everyone would be able to fry eggs on sIntel CPUs. As I see it, they are just throwing in the E-cores because they are pretending to be concerned about power consumption. :rolleyes:
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,972   +1,565
I have to agree. I did check out the Alder Lake review and I found myself rather unimpressed. In a way, it reminds me of the old days of the MHz battles that meant little. sIntel is using this gimmick because if they were all P-cores, everyone would be able to fry eggs on sIntel CPUs. As I see it, they are just throwing in the E-cores because they are pretending to be concerned about power consumption. :rolleyes:
You ought to check the 12600K reviews. Its got 6 P cores and 4 E cores and comfortably beats a 5800X.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,401   +1,034
You ought to check the 12600K reviews. Its got 6 P cores and 4 E cores and comfortably beats a 5800X.
10 core vs 8 core, well, barely faster and consumes much more power. Adding compatibility issues, I see no reason to go with 12600K. This whole P+E cores thing is meant for beta-testers. Who pay full price, of course.
 

nodfor

Posts: 139   +248
These results are bugged most likely, according to derbauer


7 Ghz was still doable in this video with LN2 cooling.
 

Robkaminski

Posts: 6   +19
10 core vs 8 core, well, barely faster and consumes much more power. Adding compatibility issues, I see no reason to go with 12600K. This whole P+E cores thing is meant for beta-testers. Who pay full price, of course.

The 12600k seems like the most logical? Watch LTTs latest video on the 12900k/12600k. Looks like an absolute beast on frames and doesn't consume ridiculous power.
 

Yenega

Posts: 302   +206
The 12600k seems like the most logical? Watch LTTs latest video on the 12900k/12600k. Looks like an absolute beast on frames and doesn't consume ridiculous power.

The i7-12700K is the sweet spot. You get 8C/16T + 4 E-Cores and performance is very close to the i9 but price is almost 200 dollars less. Still able to hit 5+ GHz on all p-cores too

However the i5 aint bad, personally I would not buy a 6 core part today tho. It's just a matter of time before 8 cores delivers way better minimum fps (already happens today in some games, if you look at Ryzen 5600X vs 5800X)
 
FYI to Adrian Potoroaca and whoever is the editor for this publication, when you publish incorrect news, it is considered professional journalistic practice to amend your article and publish a correction. It has now been many days since we learned that these results are fake, and that gigabyte publicized them knowing they were incorrect. Please have this article reflect that.