The first 12th-gen Intel "Alder Lake" CPUs to hit the market will target enthusiasts

jpuroila

Posts: 388   +235
There's K, KF, and there is also the X (Extreme) skew for those of us who also want more memory bandwidth and PCIe lanes. AMD don't have an equivalent else I would not even consider getting another Intel CPU. The i7-5960X has provided me with excellent performance since 2014.
You've never heard of threadripper, nor noticed that Intel stopped making new HEDT products several years ago?
 

Bobbydpue

Posts: 226   +147
Ryzen's are overall better chips with more cores, and there is no doubt about it. Intel chips are only for fanboys right now. Expensive CPU's and mobos with an inferior technology for manufacturing them (10 nm vs 7 nm --> moving to 5 nm next year). No way for Intel to catch up with AMD for the foreseeable future. They slept too many years on their laurels after their impressive Sandy Bridge architecture in 2011.
You're being a fanboy. Specific performance for the software platforms you use is what matters and not just core numbers. My 5950x is a huge waste for playing games and at $1000 it was way more expensive than an Intel CPU that performs just as good on my 21:9 monitor which is bottlenecked by my GPU anyway. Intel didn't sit back and let AMD design better CPUs. Intel designed CPUs just as good if not better than AMD, but Intel's fabs couldn't keep up with TSMC fabs. AMD doesn't make CPUs they just design them. Intel designs and fabricates CPUs in-house. You should be patting TSMC on the back for doing such a good job they deserve at least half the praise you are giving AMD.

Just for all the other fanboys out there there is no standard for measuring a process node. Intel's 10nm is roughly as dense as TSMC's 7nm process which was explained in this article and many others by people on both sides.

Finally motherboards have increased in price over the past 10 years for both AMD and Intel. Good motherboards used to be cheap now decent ones are in the mid 100s now when they used to be $50 - $60. A good quality X570 motherboard is about as expensive as the same quality Intel motherboard and AMD's CPUs are just as expensive as Intel's if not more so in many cases. AMD didn't charge low prices in the past because they love their customers they did so because they had to. Now that AMD has caught up and in some ways surpassed Intel they've raise their prices because people like me will pay them.
 
Last edited:

Farkinell

Posts: 192   +300
Can someone explain the point of the big.LITTLE cores on a platform other than mobile?

CPU's run in a low power state for light work anyway so why have the little cores at all, plus in a mains-powered desktop the tiny energy savings by running threads on the little cores don't seem worth the sacrifice of a huge amount of potential performance by just having all big cores.
 

Bobbydpue

Posts: 226   +147
I think the word "enthusiasts" is misused here, and in fact means suckers. There won't be anything good from Intel, you can give up all your hope from start...

The way they completely fumbled the 11-th gen was in itself astonishing - the first ever generation that's slower than the previous, quite a feat.

This one will come out even more expensive, with some components, like DDR5 being astronomically expensive, so whoever tries to get into it first will be the top sucker.
No enthusiast is the correct term. You think Intel coming out with a disappointing launch is an isolated event that only happened to Intel? Did you forget about all of AMD's disappointing CPUs before Ryzen?

I don't play any games that are limited by my 9900k or my 5950x. They both play games just as good as the other. I bought the 5950x and 9900k because I'm an enthusiast, I like tech and I like building computers.

How can you say anything definitive about Intel's unreleased CPUs? Yes intel was the higher priced CPU manufacturer for years and people hated it, even though pricing them higher never hurt their sales numbers, but do you think AMD isn't doing the same thing? AMD has increased their prices especially with this latest generation and the next generation will likely be even more expensive if AMD keeps the status as a tech media darling.

Stop being a fanboy for any company, none of them care about you and stop insulting people who are enthusiastic about new tech and are willing to spend their money on it. It's their money. If enthusiasts didn't buy top tier CPU's we would never have more than 8 cores on a desktop class CPU they would all be on HEDT or higher platforms.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,741   +2,915
You're being a fanboy. Specific performance for the software platforms you use is what matters and not just core numbers. My 5950x is a huge waste for playing games and at $1000 it was way more expensive than an Intel CPU that performs just as good on my 21:9 monitor which is bottlenecked by my GPU anyway. Intel didn't sit back and let AMD design better CPUs. Intel designed CPUs just as good if not better than AMD, but Intel's fabs couldn't keep up with TSMC fabs. AMD doesn't make CPUs they just design them. Intel designs and fabricates CPUs in-house. You should be patting TSMC on the back for doing such a good job they deserve at least half the praise you are giving AMD.

Just for all the other fanboys out there there is no standard for measuring a process node. Intel's 10nm is roughly as dense as TSMC's 7nm process which was explained in this article and many others by people on both sides.

Finally motherboards have increased in price over the past 10 years for both AMD and Intel. Cheap motherboards are in the mid 100s now when they used to be $50 - $60. A good quality X570 motherboard is about as expensive as the same quality Intel motherboard and AMD's CPUs are just as expensive as Intel's if not more so in many cases. AMD didn't charge low prices in the past because they love their customers they did so because they had to. Now that AMD has caught up and in some ways surpassed Intel they've raise their prices because people like me will pay them.

So in short you made a poor purchase decision by getting a CPU you can‘t take advantage of ?

Speaking of mainboards - you can get cheap B520 AM4 boards for under €50, B550 boards starting at €70 and none of them will bottleneck performance on a Ryzen 5000 CPU….

https://www.mindfactory.de/Hardware/Mainboards/Desktop+Mainboards/AMD+Sockel+AM4.html/listing_sort/6
 

VitalyT

Posts: 5,952   +6,211
How can you say anything definitive about Intel's unreleased CPUs?
I'm not a fan of either platform, even though I did buy a new 5900X system recently. My certianty comes from the fact that Intel isn't bringing gen 12 because they've got something good, they are doing it because they are desperate to catch AMD at least somehow. Their 11 gen was half-baked, and a total disaster, and many things suggest their gen 12 is likely to be even more of a ghost-like or half-baked product.
 

BSim500

Posts: 859   +1,978
Can someone explain the point of the big.LITTLE cores on a platform other than mobile?
It's mostly marketing. When you hit process node limits that in turn limit maximum number of big cores you can fit on, you can "cheat" and say "We built a 26-core CPU!" (of which 10x are real cores and 16x Intel Atom's glued onto the side). Big-Little designs can also mess with older games (some of which manually request certain core affinities) which is no issue for CPU's where all cores are the same, but for Big-Little CPU's could end up with critical game threads being accidentally assigned to some little cores and lower frame-rates on 12th Gen vs 6th Gen Skylake in some games...
 

Bobbydpue

Posts: 226   +147
So in short you made a poor purchase decision by getting a CPU you can‘t take advantage of ?

Speaking of mainboards - you can get cheap B520 AM4 boards for under €50, B550 boards starting at €70 and none of them will bottleneck performance on a Ryzen 5000 CPU….

https://www.mindfactory.de/Hardware/Mainboards/Desktop+Mainboards/AMD+Sockel+AM4.html/listing_sort/6
Did you not read my entire post. I said why I bought a 5950x and a 9900k It's in my post. It was also a response to a previous post which I quoted. I don't understand why people make posts like this unless they just want to argue and not giving another thing to think about.

Also I meant the average cost of motherboards. No one should buy a lowest tier motherboard unless they don't plan on upgrading the CPU or RAM it in ever.
I'm not a fan of either platform, even though I did buy a new 5900X system recently. My certianty comes from the fact that Intel isn't bringing gen 12 because they've got something good, they are doing it because they are desperate to catch AMD at least somehow. Their 11 gen was half-baked, and a total disaster, and many things suggest their gen 12 is likely to be even more of a ghost-like or half-baked product.
How can you be certain about anything? Intel is not limited by its CPU design team they are limited by their fab there is no way to know 100% their next CPU will be terrible and if it's not good, why does it matter? If a product sucks I don't buy it. I don't' care who's badge is on the box. Didn't AMD bring Ryzen to market because they were desperate to catch Intel? And Ryzen wasn't their first try either. How can you be 100% sure when there are never any real indications before a product has reached third parties? Remember how bulldozer was going to be amazing and then it wasn't or how Vega was going to be a 1080ti killer and then it wasn't. Hype doesn't prove anything.
 
Last edited:

godrilla

Posts: 283   +142
In the near future ? Where are the NVME's that come even close to utilizing the full bandwidth of PCI-gen 4 ?
I believe gigabyte made a raid card back at launch of x570 that did was talk about affecting gpu performance on same board.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,741   +2,915
Also I meant the average cost of motherboards. No one should buy a lowest tier motherboard unless they don't plan on upgrading the CPU or RAM it in ever.
Also I meant the average cost of motherboards. No one should buy a lowest tier motherboard unless they don't plan on upgrading the CPU or RAM it in ever.
Those are not far from the average prices. If I don‘t need high end boards‘ features or want to overclock, why do I need to get an expensive board ? My sub $100 new B450 board will support a 5900x and most likely 5950x just fine. Same for sub $100 B550 boards. That‘s the advantage when CPU don‘t draw high amounts of power, I.e. require more expensive boards.

Now combining a 5950X with a cheapo board seems silly but it‘s possible. Combining a 5600X with a $60 B520 board using the stock cooler would make a nice budget combo, even compared to e.g. a 10400F on Z490 or B560.

For me, the upgrade path from my 2700X will be either a 5800X or a 5900X, depending on attractive EOL prices - am in no rush and the system does what it‘s supposed to and with GPU prices being what they are….
 

Geralt

Posts: 668   +972
May help if you read the article. Intels 10nm will be on par with AMDs 7nm. So no, AMDs 7nm wont be leaving INTEL in the dust like ppl think.
Intel ran with 14nm+++ and it competed with AMD until AMDs 4th gen. Yes AMD are finally good but Intel will be right there in 2022.
I read but I didn't believe. 7 looks better than 10 in my book.
 

Geralt

Posts: 668   +972
You're being a fanboy. Specific performance for the software platforms you use is what matters and not just core numbers. My 5950x is a huge waste for playing games and at $1000 it was way more expensive than an Intel CPU that performs just as good on my 21:9 monitor which is bottlenecked by my GPU anyway. Intel didn't sit back and let AMD design better CPUs. Intel designed CPUs just as good if not better than AMD, but Intel's fabs couldn't keep up with TSMC fabs. AMD doesn't make CPUs they just design them. Intel designs and fabricates CPUs in-house. You should be patting TSMC on the back for doing such a good job they deserve at least half the praise you are giving AMD.

Just for all the other fanboys out there there is no standard for measuring a process node. Intel's 10nm is roughly as dense as TSMC's 7nm process which was explained in this article and many others by people on both sides.

Finally motherboards have increased in price over the past 10 years for both AMD and Intel. Good motherboards used to be cheap now decent ones are in the mid 100s now when they used to be $50 - $60. A good quality X570 motherboard is about as expensive as the same quality Intel motherboard and AMD's CPUs are just as expensive as Intel's if not more so in many cases. AMD didn't charge low prices in the past because they love their customers they did so because they had to. Now that AMD has caught up and in some ways surpassed Intel they've raise their prices because people like me will pay them.
With a Ryzen 5800 it is enough for you to game. More cores is better for productivity. I never said that more cores is better for games. You are the fanboy here.
 

Bobbydpue

Posts: 226   +147
Those are not far from the average prices. If I don't need high end boards‘ features or want to overclock, why do I need to get an expensive board ? My sub $100 new B450 board will support a 5900x and most likely 5950x just fine. Same for sub $100 B550 boards. That‘s the advantage when CPU don‘t draw high amounts of power, I.e. require more expensive boards.

Now combining a 5950X with a cheapo board seems silly but it‘s possible. Combining a 5600X with a $60 B520 board using the stock cooler would make a nice budget combo, even compared to e.g. a 10400F on Z490 or B560.

For me, the upgrade path from my 2700X will be either a 5800X or a 5900X, depending on attractive EOL prices - am in no rush and the system does what it‘s supposed to and with GPU prices being what they are….
That part of my post was about how much motherboard a person got for their money 10 years ago compared to today on both AMD and Intel platforms. You asked who needs an high end motherboard well it's not a choice between entry level or high-end only. There are mid spec motherboards, too. The price of the cheapest featureless motherboards available shouldn't be used to say one platform is better value than another. A €55 motherboard for AMD and a €66 motherboard for intel are both terrible motherboards only suitable for very specific use cases or the tightest of budgets, they do not represent the value of a brand or the capability of their highest tier processors.

If the 5000 series of processors are the last CPUs on the platform their prices will likely remain high since everyone who wants to extend the life of the platform will only have the 5000 series to buy. Just because you can socket a CPU into your motherboard doesn't mean you won't have any issues. I've had terrible stability issues with budget B450 motherboards along with 2000, 3000 and 5000 series CPUs. I've used RAM on and off the QVL, did bios updates and for a lot of the kits base memory frequency is often the only stable way to run the computer.
 

Bobbydpue

Posts: 226   +147
With a Ryzen 5800 it is enough for you to game. More cores is better for productivity. I never said that more cores is better for games. You are the fanboy here.
You said " Ryzen's are overall better chips with more cores, and there is no doubt about it" and I said the following: " Specific performance for the software platforms you use is what matters and not just core numbers." Where is the argument here? My post was right down the middle. You said Ryzen was just better and I said the way you use your computer matters more than core numbers. Then I talked about how my AMD Ryzen 5950x wasn't ideal for gaming and in a previous post I defended the term enthusiast using that CPU as an example. Who am I fanboying for?

" I never said that more cores is better for games" I didn't either.

The 5800x doesn't make sense for most people which is why it was the first Ryzen 5000 series CPU with wide availability and it's the first one that's been marked down. The best Ryzen 5000 CPUs for most people are the 5600x and the 5900x. The cost of the 5800x was too close to the 5900x. For $100 the 5900x gave the buyer 50% more cores. Anyone who had the money for a 5800x was better off saving a bit more for the 5900x.
 
Last edited:

Irata

Posts: 1,741   +2,915
That part of my post was about how much motherboard a person got for their money 10 years ago compared to today on both AMD and Intel platforms.
Looking at a 2013 buyer‘s guide, low and mid range boards have similar prices while high end boards seem a good bit cheaper. Then again, looking at what was sold as high end back then, they don‘t really look better (tech/ feature wise) than boards that cost at best the same today.


You asked who needs an high end motherboard well it's not a choice between entry level or high-end only. There are mid spec motherboards, too. The price of the cheapest featureless motherboards available shouldn't be used to say one platform is better value than another. A €55 motherboard for AMD and a €66 motherboard for intel are both terrible motherboards only suitable for very specific use cases or the tightest of budgets, they do not represent the value of a brand or the capability of their highest tier processors.
The difference is if a €70 board is sufficient to run a CPU at its full performance, or not. Sure, they‘ll offer fewer features and a lower build / component quality, but as long as e.g. a Ryzen 5600X performs as intended on a €70 board, why not?

If otoh a $120+ board is the minimum to get the reviewed performance (referring to e.g. Techspot‘s B560 reviews) that‘s a different story altogether.

If the 5000 series of processors are the last CPUs on the platform their prices will likely remain high since everyone who wants to extend the life of the platform will only have the 5000 series to buy. Just because you can socket a CPU into your motherboard doesn't mean you won't have any issues. I've had terrible stability issues with budget B450 motherboards along with 2000, 3000 and 5000 series CPUs. I've used RAM on and off the QVL, did bios updates and for a lot of the kits base memory frequency is often the only stable way to run the computer.
2700X runs fine with highest XMP settings on my B450 Tomahawk Max, but admittedly that was one of the better B450 boards.
 

Strawman

Posts: 362   +214
I'm not a fan of either platform, even though I did buy a new 5900X system recently. My certianty comes from the fact that Intel isn't bringing gen 12 because they've got something good, they are doing it because they are desperate to catch AMD at least somehow. Their 11 gen was half-baked, and a total disaster, and many things suggest their gen 12 is likely to be even more of a ghost-like or half-baked product.

You do realize that the 11th gen, when it comes to the architecture, is pretty much tied with the 5xxx Ryzen's in performance? The power consumption has to do with the fabrication nodes, and AMD doesn't have any. It is Intel vs TSMC.

Also, funnily enough, from the moment AMD joined the CPU market, the prices of mainstream CPU's have tripled. 300-350€ was the top mainstream CPU from 2009 with the first i7 up to 2018. Now we have CPU's selling for up to 1k on retail.

Thanks AMD, holy be thy name.
 

Strawman

Posts: 362   +214
Looking at a 2013 buyer‘s guide, low and mid range boards have similar prices while high end boards seem a good bit cheaper. Then again, looking at what was sold as high end back then, they don‘t really look better (tech/ feature wise) than boards that cost at best the same today.



The difference is if a €70 board is sufficient to run a CPU at its full performance, or not. Sure, they‘ll offer fewer features and a lower build / component quality, but as long as e.g. a Ryzen 5600X performs as intended on a €70 board, why not?

If otoh a $120+ board is the minimum to get the reviewed performance (referring to e.g. Techspot‘s B560 reviews) that‘s a different story altogether.


2700X runs fine with highest XMP settings on my B450 Tomahawk Max, but admittedly that was one of the better B450 boards.
The heck are you talking about? Most of the b560 boards can run the 11400f with power limits off, and even a 100€ mobo can run the 11600k with plimits off. Considering the 11600k is actually ~50-60€ cheaper than the 5600x AND has an iGPU, I'm not really sure what point you are trying to raise exactly. Ryzen's have bad value, even with cheaper motherboards.
 

Geralt

Posts: 668   +972
You said " Ryzen's are overall better chips with more cores, and there is no doubt about it" and I said the following: " Specific performance for the software platforms you use is what matters and not just core numbers." Where is the argument here? My post was right down the middle. You said Ryzen was just better and I said the way you use your computer matters more than core numbers. Then I talked about how my AMD Ryzen 5950x wasn't ideal for gaming and in a previous post I defended the term enthusiast using that CPU as an example. Who am I fanboying for?

" I never said that more cores is better for games" I didn't either.

The 5800x doesn't make sense for most people which is why it was the first Ryzen 5000 series CPU with wide availability and it's the first one that's been marked down. The best Ryzen 5000 CPUs for most people are the 5600x and the 5900x. The cost of the 5800x was too close to the 5900x. For $100 the 5900x gave the buyer 50% more cores. Anyone who had the money for a 5800x was better off saving a bit more for the 5900x.
What a mess of egos. Forget it.