Wednesday, September 22nd 2021

Intel Core i9-12900K "Alder Lake" Beats Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX at Cinebench R23 nT

An alleged Intel Core i9-12900K "Alder Lake-S" sample is shown beating the 32-core AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX HEDT processor at AMD's favorite benchmark, Cinebench R23, in its multi-threaded (nT) test. At this point it's not known whether the i9-12900K is overclocked, but the CPU-Z instance in the screenshot reads 5.30 GHz, which could very well be the processor's stock Thermal Velocity Boost frequency. The sample scored upward of 30000 points, putting it above the Threadripper 2990WX reference score in Cinebench.

The 2990WX is based on the "Zen+" microarchitecture, and released in 2018, but is a 32-core/64-thread chip that should have ripped through this rendering workload. The i9-12900K, on the other hand, has eight "Golden Cove" performance cores that have HyperThreading, in addition to 8 "Gracemont" efficiency cores that lack HTT. This benchmark was run on Windows 10, which lacks awareness of the Intel Thread Director, a hardware component that optimizes utilization of the two kinds of CPU cores. Windows 11 is known to feature better awareness of hybrid core architectures. The i9-12900K sample is possibly installed on a Gigabyte Z690 AORUS Ultra motherboard, and has 32 GB of DDR5-5200 memory (two modules, logically four 40-bit channels).
This would be a giant-slaying act by Alder Lake, as its motley crew of 8+8 cores is able to overcome an enormous CPU core-count deficit compared to the Threadripper 2990WX. To its credit, the 2990WX is a 3-year old processor based on a core with a much lower IPC than "Golden Cove." It also features a sub-optimal 2+2 channel DDR4 memory layout that AMD later corrected with the centralized memory controller on the IOD, with the Threadripper 3000 series.
Source: REHWK (Twitter)
Add your own comment

94 Comments on Intel Core i9-12900K "Alder Lake" Beats Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX at Cinebench R23 nT

#1
Tigger
I'm the only one
Hope this is real. it'll shut all the naysayers up, about the big little setup. So 8/16HT cores beats 32 :laugh: as i doubt it's using the smaller cores for this test, though could be. And i guess there'll be the oh but it's using DDR5 posts
Posted on Reply
#2
napata
That's like double the score of 11900k. Pretty good increase but it's fairly pointless for gaming at least, just look at the 5600x vs 5950x.
Posted on Reply
#3
Melvis
The 5950X scores almost the same as the 2990WX.....(Im guessing at stock clocks?) and R23 Supports AVX512? Which the Ryzen does not?
Posted on Reply
#4
Ferd
napatait's fairly pointless for gaming at least,
I wouldn’t say that, from a power efficiency standpoint it’s totally not pointless
Posted on Reply
#5
JalleR
for 24 threads of the latest and "greatest" I am not so surprised... but nice to see that intel has something that can compete with the market. because my 6900k system is getting old :)
Posted on Reply
#6
ZoneDymo
cool stuff, I mean personally Im more eyeing the 12600k with maybe a raptorlake upgrade later but yeah, looking good.

but, weirdo that I am, I am most pleased with CPU-Z recognising it as 8 + 8 cores and does not just say 16 cores / 24 threads, now if only task manager could show the same distinction.....come on microsoft!
Posted on Reply
#7
owen10578
If that is real. That is just under 2x the performance of a 5800X which is an 8-core. So considering 12900K is 8 big core 8 small core. I would say the 8 big cores probably performs better than Zen 3 cores and the small cores are not too far behind. Promising stuff.
Posted on Reply
#8
AnarchoPrimitiv
owen10578If that is real. That is just under 2x the performance of a 5800X which is an 8-core. So considering 12900K is 8 big core 8 small core. I would say the 8 big cores probably performs better than Zen 3 cores and the small cores are not too far behind. Promising stuff.
Well, I'd hope the 8 "big" cores would perform better than Zen3, Intel only has literally more than 6x the R&D budget of AMD, so outperforming Zen3 is the least they should be able to do...the real question is with reports of Zen4 having a 29% IPC uplift alone (not to mention going to 5nm and frequency boosts along with that v-cache), will Intel be able to compete against the newest products from AMD, not ones a year old...or in the case of this benchmark, 3 years old.
Posted on Reply
#9
Metroid
lol, the person tried so hard to beat a 3 year old cpu eheh, that 5.3ghz and the 500 watts speaks for itself hehe
Posted on Reply
#10
Ferd
AnarchoPrimitivnot to mention going to 5nm
I still can’t understand the fascination about moving to smaller transistors , if anything intel has proven that it doesn’t matter that much , not until you extract the most out the current process, not to mention that jumping from one process to another one creates lots of waste and useless tools that have to be repurposed...

Intel is doing it right imo , get the most out of what you have and perfect it , instead of spending more money on rnd to develop new processes, once you hit the wall , then you move on ....

That being said , i still think amd has a competitive edge , I just wish they could work on 7nm for a longer period and get the most out of it , they won’t have to spend more on rnd and tsmc will have more room to provide for other chip manufacturers.....
Posted on Reply
#11
user556
It's four physical memory channels, two per DIMM. They aren't logical channels at all.
Posted on Reply
#12
Tardian
It all boils down to Mine's the smallest. Pun intended. Let the trolling begin.
Posted on Reply
#13
docnorth
MelvisThe 5950X scores almost the same as the 2990WX.....(Im guessing at stock clocks?) and R23 Supports AVX512? Which the Ryzen does not?
I think Alder Lake for desktop does not support AVX512 instructions either.
Posted on Reply
#14
Xaled
Gruffalo.SoldierHope this is real. it'll shut all the naysayers up, about the big little setup. So 8/16HT cores beats 32 :laugh: as i doubt it's using the smaller cores for this test, though could be. And i guess there'll be the oh but it's using DDR5 posts
This is not a 8/16HT. it is either 16 cores (8+8) / 24 Threads (as stated in CPU-Z SS above)
or 8+8/32 Threads as stated here:
cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Intel-Core-i9-12900K-Alder-Lake-Desktop-CPU-5-GHz-Benchmark.png

And 5950x at 4700 already beats 2990WX:
www.notebookcheck.net/16-core-Ryzen-9-5950X-overclocked-to-4-7-GHz-on-all-cores-1-12V-outperforms-32-core-Threadripper-2990WX-in-Cinebench-R23.505662.0.html

So nothing really to get excited about. It is just Intel being Intel again ..
Posted on Reply
#15
Nanochip
If all of this is true then this is a significant breakthrough for x86. Smaller cores being used to beat bigger cores. Where have we heard that before? Cough, Apple.
XaledThis is not a 8/16HT. it is either 16 cores (8+8) / 24 Threads (as stated in CPU-Z SS above)
or 8+8/32 Threads as stated here:
cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Intel-Core-i9-12900K-Alder-Lake-Desktop-CPU-5-GHz-Benchmark.png

And 5950x at 4700 already beats 2990WX:
www.notebookcheck.net/16-core-Ryzen-9-5950X-overclocked-to-4-7-GHz-on-all-cores-1-12V-outperforms-32-core-Threadripper-2990WX-in-Cinebench-R23.505662.0.html

So nothing really to get excited about. It is just Intel being Intel again ..
You’re leaving out the part that the 12900k has 8 small cores whereas the 5950x and the 2990WX both have all large cores. So if this is true then big little is a good move for intel.
Posted on Reply
#16
YOUDIEMOFO
Gruffalo.SoldierHope this is real. it'll shut all the naysayers up, about the big little setup. So 8/16HT cores beats 32 :laugh: as i doubt it's using the smaller cores for this test, though could be. And i guess there'll be the oh but it's using DDR5 posts
Now Intel competes with three plus year old hardware.... HA!!! Great testing/comparisons methodology.

Intel will have an answer in a couple years because these processors are going up against AMD's 3D-V Cache. And don't stand a chance. Not yesteryears hardware.
Posted on Reply
#17
las
Alder Lake looks promising, 12900K also beat 5950X by 40% in Ashes of Singularity CPU Bench.

However, I will wait for DDR5 to mature before getting anything running on DDR5.

Not going from high-end DDR4 to entry level DDR5 thats for sure. Latency looks horrible. Can't wait to see more benches.

Probably won't upgrade before AMD has AM5 out and Intel releases chips on their 3 or 4 node anyway. By then, I will decide if it's going to be AMD or Intel. It's not that I lack CPU power anyway :D
Posted on Reply
#18
Richards
12600k will be the star of the show for intel ✔️
Gruffalo.SoldierHope this is real. it'll shut all the naysayers up, about the big little setup. So 8/16HT cores beats 32 :laugh: as i doubt it's using the smaller cores for this test, though could be. And i guess there'll be the oh but it's using DDR5 posts
Raptor lake will be even more powerful 8+16.. intel is playing 4d chess
Posted on Reply
#19
las
YOUDIEMOFONow Intel competes with three plus year old hardware
Except that 12900K beats 5950X in both gaming and Cinebench so far.

40% faster CPU score in Ashes and 2000 more points in Cinebench R23.

And this is 8C/16T + 8 Efficiency Cores vs 16C/32T.

AMD better wake up again. However, they lost the node advantage. AMDs good run might be over now (time to focus on value/perf again + GPU market - Nvidia sits at 83% dGPU marketshare now and Intel dGPUs are incoming, aiming for AMDs biggest segment; Low to Mid-end)

I would not be surprised if AMD has less than 10% dGPU marketshare in 2023..
Posted on Reply
#20
DeathtoGnomes
Clickbait.

The images clearly show this is on a PCIe5 board. Its like apples and oranges, comparing PCie5 to PCIe4 that Threadripper is still on. Just not enough information to make an accurate comparison, same old Intel marketing spin BS.

30549 vs 30054 is too narrow of a margin, LOL a 3-year old cpu vs a brand spanking new engineers sample.
Posted on Reply
#21
efikkan
owen10578If that is real. That is just under 2x the performance of a 5800X which is an 8-core. So considering 12900K is 8 big core 8 small core. I would say the 8 big cores probably performs better than Zen 3 cores and the small cores are not too far behind. Promising stuff.
Golden Cove should perform significantly better than Zen 3 per clock.
docnorthI think Alder Lake for desktop does not support AVX512 instructions either.
Then you're wrong.
The big cores (Golden Cove) will support AVX-512.
lasAlder Lake looks promising, 12900K also beat 5950X by 40% in Ashes of Singularity CPU Bench.
Yet another "useless" benchmark ;)
Let's wait for proper benchmarks of real world tests.
Posted on Reply
#22
Tigger
I'm the only one
XaledThis is not a 8/16HT. it is either 16 cores (8+8) / 24 Threads (as stated in CPU-Z SS above)
or 8+8/32 Threads as stated here:
cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Intel-Core-i9-12900K-Alder-Lake-Desktop-CPU-5-GHz-Benchmark.png

And 5950x at 4700 already beats 2990WX:
www.notebookcheck.net/16-core-Ryzen-9-5950X-overclocked-to-4-7-GHz-on-all-cores-1-12V-outperforms-32-core-Threadripper-2990WX-in-Cinebench-R23.505662.0.html

So nothing really to get excited about. It is just Intel being Intel again ..
Its 24. 8/16 big with HT+8 small=24 i doubt it's using the smaller cores for this test hence why i said 16 beating 32
Posted on Reply
#23
Nanochip
efikkanThen you're wrong.
The big cores (Golden Cove) will support AVX-512.
golden cove does support avx-512 but not on Alder Lake, only in Sapphire Rapids. In alder lake the avx 512 silicon is present on the chip but is disabled.
Posted on Reply
#24
kane nas
lasExcept that 12900K beats 5950X in both gaming and Cinebench so far.

40% faster CPU score in Ashes and 2000 more points in Cinebench R23.

And this is 8C/16T + 8 Efficiency Cores vs 16C/32T.

AMD better wake up again. However, they lost the node advantage. AMDs good run might be over now (time to focus on value/perf again + GPU market - Nvidia sits at 83% dGPU marketshare now and Intel dGPUs are incoming, aiming for AMDs biggest segment; Low to Mid-end)

I would not be surprised if AMD has less than 10% dGPU marketshare in 2023..
28% better performance compared to the 5600x I have at 4.9,w8 for reviews.
Posted on Reply
#25
DeathtoGnomes
kane nas28% better performance compared to the 5600x I have at 4.9,w8 for reviews.
utter garbage, at least use the same GPU to compare with.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment