Tuesday, July 20th 2021

Intel Core i9-12900K Allegedly Beats AMD Ryzen 9 5950X at Cinebench R20

With qualification samples of the upcoming Intel Core i9-12900K "Alder Lake-S" processors and companion Socket LGA1700 motherboards hitting the black-market, expect a deluge of benchmarks on social media. One such that stands out makes a fascinating claim that the i9-12900K beats AMD's current flagship Ryzen 9 5950X processor at Cinebench R20, which has been AMD's favorite multi-threaded benchmark. At stock speeds, with liquid cooling, the i9-12900K allegedly scores 810 points in the single-threaded test, and 11600 points in multi-threaded.

To put these numbers into perspective, a retail Ryzen 9 5950X scores 641 points in the single-threaded test, and 10234 points in multi-threaded, in our own testing. The i9-12900K is technically a 16-core processor, just like the 5950X, but half its cores are low-power "Gracemont." The "Alder Lake-S" chip appears to be making up ground on the single-threaded performance of the "Golden Cove" P-core, that's a whopping 25% higher than the "Zen 3" core on the 5950X. This is aided not just by higher IPC, but also the max boost frequency of 5.30 GHz for 1~2 cores, and 5.00 GHz "all-core" boost (for the P-cores).
Given the multi-threaded scores, it's safe to assume that either Intel or Microsoft has figured out a way to leverage the P-cores and E-cores simultaneously in peak multi-threaded workloads. This is possible when both the "Golden Cove" and "Gracemont" cores have the ISA capability needed by the workload, which in case of Cinebench R20, is AVX. "Gracemont" is Intel's first low-power core to support AVX, AVX2, and AVX-VNNI instruction sets. "Golden Cove" features a more lavish ISA that includes AVX-512 (select client-relevant instructions).
Sources: OneRaichu (Twitter), VideoCardz
Add your own comment

144 Comments on Intel Core i9-12900K Allegedly Beats AMD Ryzen 9 5950X at Cinebench R20

#1
Richards
If it just stock and no oc.. amd will be massacred intel is not playing.. 8+8 cores destroying 16 big cores
Posted on Reply
#2
Ferrum Master
The key question. At what power? I suspect 300W+ power hog.

I can get much more out of my 5950 when removing power limits. And I can as I run custom loop.

Do I need it? Naah.
Posted on Reply
#3
matar
Single-thread 810 wow impressed a big leap from 11gen.
Posted on Reply
#4
Hyderz
this is fantastic! good to see competition and us consumers can expect a nice cpu.
much better when intel was rocking 4c/8t :(
Posted on Reply
#5
GamerGuy
Okay, but isn't AMD readying higher end R9's with 3d cache? I wonder how these would do against the 12900K....
Posted on Reply
#7
TumbleGeorge
GamerGuyOkay, but isn't AMD readying higher end R9's with 3d cache? I wonder how these would do against the 12900K....
641+15%(from new cache)=737 vs 810...AMD lost in single so sure with more of 10%. Only from ecological point maybe red will be more green than blue :D
Posted on Reply
#8
GreiverBlade
well ... let's wait for the real opponent then ... beating previous gen contestant is always what upcoming gen do ...

it's not like the Gen 12 is meant to face Zen 3, i said that back about the "Intel beat [insert previous gen] with his upcoming [insert Intel cpu name]" and then AMD next gen which was made to be the actual counterpart of it did beat or equal it ...
although it's, also, not like a Zen 2 can't hold a candle to a Gen 11 Pond errr... Lake? right?


well good to see Intel not sitting on their thumb ... for once, but well, 2 question in 1 "at what power consumption and at what price." if it eat and cost more than a 5950X : then the 5950X is the winner given the result.
Posted on Reply
#9
Gruffalo.Soldier
I'm the only one
Maybe Intel has finally come out swinging. Looking good and about time if the numbers are correct.
Posted on Reply
#10
dicktracy
Lost to little cores nonetheless. It’s game over with Raptor Lake.
Posted on Reply
#11
Patr!ck
And as usual AMD fanboys keep talking about the Zen 3D variant like it will be some sort of mass production. That 3D cache variant will only find its way in the Ryzen 9 series. Ryzen 7 and below won't have it. Zen 3 laptops won't have it either. Which means Core i5 and Core i7 Alder Lake will still face the regular Zen 3 Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 chips. Ryzen 9 Zen 3D won't change anything because it will be a paper launched halo product with less IPC, no DDR5 and lower clock speeds. There's also the concern of what clocks will the Zen 3D chip be able to maintain with that additional cache and what level of power consumption will be involved.
Posted on Reply
#12
jigar2speed
dicktracyLost to little cores nonetheless. It’s game over with Raptor Lake.
You are going to go all rampant when it happens isn't it ?
Posted on Reply
#13
watzupken
Patr!ckAnd as usual AMD fanboys keep talking about the Zen 3D variant like it will be some sort of mass production. That 3D cache variant will only find its way in the Ryzen 9 series. Ryzen 7 and below won't have it. Zen 3 laptops won't have it either. Which means Core i5 and Core i7 Alder Lake will still face the regular Zen 3 Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 chips. Ryzen 9 Zen 3D won't change anything because it will be a paper launched halo product with less IPC, no DDR5 and lower clock speeds. There's also the concern of what clocks will the Zen 3D chip be able to maintain with that additional cache and what level of power consumption will be involved.
I am not sure if the 3D cache will end up only with Ryzen 9, but the same can be said about Intel's product stack. You will only get highest boost clock and more cores with the i9. As you go down the product stack, it gets slower and with less cores. At the end of the day, it all boils down to price. Sure the Alder Lake may be faster, but Ryzen got very popular not because they are consistently faster than Intel, but because they offered the best value. It was only until Zen 3 that AMD finally outperform Intel in most metrics. In my opinion, DDR5 will not be able to drive demand initially since they are expensive and not a whole lot faster than a fast and matured DDR4 memory.
Posted on Reply
#14
persondb
Rocket Lake also did great in Cinebench and we can see how that went. In any case while it seems like Intel is going to be competitive, I see the most potential in the i5 vs Ryzen 5 and i7 vs Ryzen 7 battles.

If Intel prices it right then the 12600K will compete against the 5600X and the 12700K against the 5800X and hell, those extra little cores would be really attractive for buyers, as say 6 Big cores from 5600X vs 6 Big Cores AND 4 little cores from 12600K.

My dream is that Intel keeps prices at around Rocket Lake SKUs. That would be so good for the mid range market. But Intel likely will want to raise prices.
Posted on Reply
#15
watzupken
dicktracyLost to little cores nonetheless. It’s game over with Raptor Lake.
While this is true, I think you are assuming that AMD will stick around with Zen 3 by the time Raptor Lake is released. In my opinion, just like the Ryzen 9 5950X, even if Intel were to double the number of efficient cores with Raptor Lake, it may not help much for most people. In fact, it will likely push power consumption even higher at full tilt.
persondbRocket Lake also did great in Cinebench and we can see how that went. In any case while it seems like Intel is going to be competitive, I see the most potential in the i5 vs Ryzen 5 and i7 vs Ryzen 7 battles.

If Intel prices it right then the 12600K will compete against the 5600X and the 12700K against the 5800X and hell, those extra little cores would be really attractive for buyers, as say 6 Big cores from 5600X vs 6 Big Cores AND 4 little cores from 12600K.

My dream is that Intel keeps prices at around Rocket Lake SKUs. That would be so good for the mid range market. But Intel likely will want to raise prices.
I think there are a few things to consider here when looking at cost. Not only do you need to consider the cost of the processor, but you need a good motherboard and DDR5. All which are not cheap. I've been trying to get a good B560 ITX board, but they cost a lot. In the end, I had to settle for a B460 because it is outdated and thus, cheaper.
Posted on Reply
#16
Crackong
lol
not even a R20 screenshot
Just rumor
Posted on Reply
#17
Intervention
Everytime Intel makes a new revision of the same node they will push for a new socket design as they historically have done in the past. A 2017 Asrock AB350 Gaming-ITXac with BIOS P6.61p will run a Ryzen 5600X no problem. 4 year old boards running latest gen cpu's. Granted you loose PCI-E 4.0 support but really? It makes no difference unless you want M.2's that support those speeds.
Posted on Reply
#18
R-T-B
InterventionEverytime Intel makes a new revision of the same node they will push for a new socket design as they historically have done in the past. A 2017 Asrock AB350 Gaming-ITXac with BIOS P6.61p will run a Ryzen 5600X no problem. 4 year old boards running latest gen cpu's. Granted you loose PCI-E 4.0 support but really? It makes no difference unless you want M.2's that support those speeds.
Alder Lake isn't the same node. We finally get to see 10nm.
Posted on Reply
#20
Hossein Almet
Hope it's going to be true, so that it'll give the reason to buy the 8 cores variant for my second gaming PC.
Posted on Reply
#21
dyonoctis
Patr!ckAnd as usual AMD fanboys keep talking about the Zen 3D variant like it will be some sort of mass production. That 3D cache variant will only find its way in the Ryzen 9 series. Ryzen 7 and below won't have it. Zen 3 laptops won't have it either. Which means Core i5 and Core i7 Alder Lake will still face the regular Zen 3 Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 chips. Ryzen 9 Zen 3D won't change anything because it will be a paper launched halo product with less IPC, no DDR5 and lower clock speeds. There's also the concern of what clocks will the Zen 3D chip be able to maintain with that additional cache and what level of power consumption will be involved.
There's only one person in the whole thread who talked about zen 3D, (in a vague way at that, he himself isn't even sure how those CPUs will fare) and that was enough to send you over the edge...

Anyway, I wonder how it will be priced, are they going to sell them for over 1000 because it's faster than the r9, or are they going to keep the same i9 price and undercut AMD ?
Posted on Reply
#22
londiste
persondbRocket Lake also did great in Cinebench and we can see how that went.
Rocket Lake Cinebench results largely mirror its performance across the board. 5800X-ish ST and lower MT results even with high power limit. There are obviously various exceptions to the big picture - mostly related to Rocket Lake's high frequency (in single thread applications) or Zen3's massive L3 cache.
persondbIf Intel prices it right then the 12600K will compete against the 5600X and the 12700K against the 5800X and hell, those extra little cores would be really attractive for buyers, as say 6 Big cores from 5600X vs 6 Big Cores AND 4 little cores from 12600K.
Intel's intended prices have been relatively stable across recent generations. x600K costs $260-270, x700K costs $370-380 (although Rocket lake 11700K was $400). 8000-series prices were slightly less. This is a little cheaper than Ryzen 5000 for now. We will have to wait and see.

New socket brings new platform concerns this time around as well. Intel's LGA1700 will not be directly compatible with current coolers. DDR5 should also be coming. Same applies to AM5.
Posted on Reply
#23
ZoneDymo
knowing Intel and their hubris, this will cost way too much but as always, take everything from this with a grain of salt.
Honestly these leaks.....I get it, its clicks etc but man is it a bunch of nonsense.

Speculation in general, what a pointless exercise.
Posted on Reply
#24
Xuper
Patr!ckAnd as usual AMD fanboys keep talking about the Zen 3D variant like it will be some sort of mass production. That 3D cache variant will only find its way in the Ryzen 9 series. Ryzen 7 and below won't have it. Zen 3 laptops won't have it either. Which means Core i5 and Core i7 Alder Lake will still face the regular Zen 3 Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 chips. Ryzen 9 Zen 3D won't change anything because it will be a paper launched halo product with less IPC, no DDR5 and lower clock speeds. There's also the concern of what clocks will the Zen 3D chip be able to maintain with that additional cache and what level of power consumption will be involved.
Don't bring crap about AMD fanboy from reddit/Videocardz to here. Patrick stop it.
Posted on Reply
#25
londiste
ZoneDymoknowing Intel and their hubris, this will cost way too much but as always, take everything from this with a grain of salt.
Speculations and pointless exercises aside, 10900K was $500, 11900K is $550. If (and that is a big if) 12900K is in the striking range of 5950X then the competition is $800.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Copyright © 2004-2021 www.techpowerup.com. All rights reserved.
All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners.