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

#51
Tigger
I'm the only one
Still so many people not accepting this is true, wow gonna be a lot of humble pie eaten when it is, oh wait no one will eat it, they just stick their heads in the sand and hope it goes away. Me i'll be buying myself a bottle of champers
Posted on Reply
#52
Emily
I use Ryzen and I want Alder Lake to be great. Give AMD too much time at the top and they'll just pull a Skylake.
Posted on Reply
#53
zlobby
matarintel back from the dead.
Eh, about that...
Posted on Reply
#54
Wirko
Gruffalo.SoldierMaybe they've hidden an extra 8 cores in this to make it seen more powerful
Maybe the only task of that Thread Director is to hide those extra cores from Windows, or at least from the Windows user.
Posted on Reply
#55
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
matarintel back from the dead.
Doubt it.
Posted on Reply
#56
Unregistered
Woopty-doo. Intel's new CPU beats the 2990WX - which was always a fairly crap processor to be fair.
Posted on Edit | Reply
#57
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
beedooWoopty-doo. Intel's new CPU beats the 2990WX - which was always a fairly crap processor to be fair.
Also the part where the 3970X scores around 47k on multicore Cinebench R23 with the same core and thread count and how the 2990WX was released 3 years ago. Good job, Intel... 2018 wants their processor back.
Posted on Reply
#58
Darmok N Jalad
My concern is what the thermal limits of Adler Lake will look like, and what the board designs will require. If the past 2 CPU generations are any indication, these will be hot, high-energy-consuming processors under full load. Intel of present time is really pushing the power consumption envelope, and it’s frankly out-of-hand . I won’t be too surprised if the 12900k beats what AMD currently has, but at what cost? Due to design targets, will the 12900k be as rare as hen’s teeth, like with the 10900k where the 10850k quitely launched with good supply instead? I’d be more content to see Adler Lake get close to AMD in all metrics, and bring thermals back down to reality. Are the efficiency cores are going to be a marketing smokescreen to cover up just how wasteful the performance cores will be?
Posted on Reply
#59
agentnathan009
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..
Ugh, sorry to burst your bubble but an overclocked 5959X can beat the 12900K by something like 1500 points. Yes, it is overclocked, but that highlights how little Intel pulled ahead in Cinebench. By the time they finally get the 12900K out AMD will be releasing better performing chips and beat them all over again. Where are you getting this elusive 2000 point lead for for Cinebench? Are you pulling these facts out of thin air?

Ashes is a synthetic benchmark that has little real world meaning, it gives you some idea of a CPU's capability, but not absolute. By the way, CPUs are so powerful nowadays that it hardly matters which one you pick, it can tell a video game who its daddy is! Oh, and a 3990X can play Crysis without a GPU, that is way more impressive anyway.

AMD has woken up, Zen is them waking up and finally kicking Intel out of their 2-3% performance increases per CPU generation. Zen took them from being light years behind in performance to exceeding Intel in performance in 4 years time, that is mighty impressive.

AMD hasn't lost any node advantages. You got sources for this misinformation? AMD is the leader in performance, and they are charging prices that reflect that, Intel could do well to spend some time in the value segment. Um, AMD APUs can probably kick Intel's low to mid range cards anyway, when Intel finally releases such cards. AMD may not have a lot of dGPU market share, but they are fighting two silicone giants, the fact that they are doing as well as they have been is amazing! Their server chips are in high demand, because they are far better and have lower TCO than Intel server chips. Intel has gotten their butt kicked so hard in the HEDT space that AMD's boot is sticking out of Intel's mouth.
Posted on Reply
#60
Nephilim666
My 24-core 3960X with custom PPT of 200W (stock is 280W) running at 3.7GHz all core beats the 32-core 2990WX in R23.
I imagine this 12900K is drawing more than my Threadripper.
Posted on Reply
#62
lesovers
Be nice to see all of the text in the CPU-Z screen shots and the orange Cinebench R23 score could be any processor even an AMD one, why is this hidden.
Also the 5950X can easily score over 31000 at under 4.7GHz all core.
Posted on Reply
#63
b1k3rdude
So as with all unsubstantiated reports of this type, that spread around the net with unverfiable facts/links. An as yet unreleased latest gen Intel chip beating a previous gen (albeit much higher core count) AMD chip. This smacks of the old intel switch and bait, of choosing benchmarks & scenarios that make their products looks good.
Posted on Reply
#65
las
MelvisNo it doesn't
Yeah it does, stock 5950X is 28K - 12900K scores 30K, OC or not, still impressive as this is a 8C/16T chip with 8 effciency cores on the side.
agentnathan009Ugh, sorry to burst your bubble but an overclocked 5959X can beat the 12900K by something like 1500 points. Yes, it is overclocked, but that highlights how little Intel pulled ahead in Cinebench. By the time they finally get the 12900K out AMD will be releasing better performing chips and beat them all over again. Where are you getting this elusive 2000 point lead for for Cinebench? Are you pulling these facts out of thin air?

Ashes is a synthetic benchmark that has little real world meaning, it gives you some idea of a CPU's capability, but not absolute. By the way, CPUs are so powerful nowadays that it hardly matters which one you pick, it can tell a video game who its daddy is! Oh, and a 3990X can play Crysis without a GPU, that is way more impressive anyway.

AMD has woken up, Zen is them waking up and finally kicking Intel out of their 2-3% performance increases per CPU generation. Zen took them from being light years behind in performance to exceeding Intel in performance in 4 years time, that is mighty impressive.

AMD hasn't lost any node advantages. You got sources for this misinformation? AMD is the leader in performance, and they are charging prices that reflect that, Intel could do well to spend some time in the value segment. Um, AMD APUs can probably kick Intel's low to mid range cards anyway, when Intel finally releases such cards. AMD may not have a lot of dGPU market share, but they are fighting two silicone giants, the fact that they are doing as well as they have been is amazing! Their server chips are in high demand, because they are far better and have lower TCO than Intel server chips. Intel has gotten their butt kicked so hard in the HEDT space that AMD's boot is sticking out of Intel's mouth.
You are in full denial mode I see :D
Yep, AMD used to fight 14nm, not the case anymore.
Posted on Reply
#66
ZoneDymo
lasYeah it does, stock 5950X is 28K - 12900K scores 30K, OC or not, still impressive as this is a 8C/16T chip with 8 effciency cores on the side.
I mean you cant really compare and then ignore if something is OC'd or not......because that is a defining feature of the performance/identity.
If the 12900k runs "only" 5ghz out of the box and with that "only" scores 27k, then it does not beat it.

But overall that is not really the point, like you said, this is 8 cores + 8 small cores, being similair in performance to a processor with 16 big cores and it seeming will cost 100 bucks less so yeah, still a SEEMINGLY good product....if the power consumption isnt through the roof that is


"You are in full denial mode I see"

I mean...on what? because the claim of OC'd 5950X's beating this score is just true, just go to the cinebench website and you see a loooong list of them with higher scores, about 4.6ghz and up against this 5.3ghz Intel chip.
Again, not bashing the intel chip here (I said before that I might actually be in the market for it for an upgrade finally) but idk why you say they are in denial.
You can also find a 2990WX "oc'd" to 4.1 ghz with a score of 37000....which is comfortably ahead of this chip.
But you also see another at the same speed-ish "only' doing 29000....maybe Cinebench is a fun, easy to understand benchmark that is not really that great an indicator of performance?
Posted on Reply
#67
las
ZoneDymoI mean you cant really compare and then ignore if something is OC'd or not......because that is a defining feature of the performance/identity.
If the 12900k runs "only" 5ghz out of the box and with that "only" scores 27k, then it does not beat it.

But overall that is not really the point, like you said, this is 8 cores + 8 small cores, being similair in performance to a processor with 16 big cores and it seeming will cost 100 bucks less so yeah, still a SEEMINGLY good product....if the power consumption isnt through the roof that is


"You are in full denial mode I see"

I mean...on what? because the claim of OC'd 5950X's beating this score is just true, just got the cinebench website and you see a loooong list of them with higher scores, about 4.6ghz and up against this 5.3ghz Intel chip.
Again, not bashing the intel chip here (again I might actually be in the market for it for an upgrade finally) but idk why you say they are in denial.
You can also fine a 2990WX "oc'd" to 4.1 ghz with a score of 37000....which is comfortably ahead of this chip.
But you also see another at the same speed-ish "only' doing 29000....maybe Cinebench is a fun, easy to understand benchmark that is not really that great an indicator of performance?
Funny, because AMD fans used to praise Cinebench as the greatest CPU bench of all time. JUST not the single thread test. They only accepted to talk about single thread numbers after 5000 series came out

If an early test of 12900K is getting 30K in Cinebench R23, then I have no doubt that it will easily get 32K in the hands of top overclockers. Anyway, does not really matter, if 8 high performance cores comes close to 16 high performance cores, thats impressive regardless. Watt usage, personally I could not care less, I look at performance only. If a CPU uses 125, 200 or 250 watt who cares, GPUs today can peak at 500+ watts both 6900XT and 3090 can almost hit 600 peak/spikes.

I could not care less about CPU power usage, since it won't be anything to worry about in gaming which is all this rig does. My 9900K at 5.2 GHz with no AVX offset runs at 100-150 watts in gaming, I need to run synthetic burn-in with AVX loads to get it to consume alot of watts. Sounds like a stupid excuse to talk about CPU watts for desktop rigs, only matters for mobile and hybrid design for mobile is going to be great anyway

And no I'm not an Intel fanboy, I have a Ryzen powered NAS + HTPC, and if I count my consoles too, I have more AMD chips in house than Intel chips, I'm simply happy about Intel FINALLY seems to deliver something truly new and good again. New CEO, left 14nm and soon dGPU's, next few years are going to be exiting.

I'm not personally interested in BUYING alder lake, I won't go DDR5 before the tech has matured (higher clocks - lower timings) anyway and I might as well go with AMD if it makes sense by then (2-3 years from now). I don't need CPU power AT ALL right now. 4 years on 9900K so far, 5.2 GHz since week 2 or so, back when I bought it, the alternative was Ryzen 2000 series. No regrets at all. This will age well, just like my 2600K @ 5 GHz did.
Posted on Reply
#68
ZoneDymo
lasFunny, because AMD fans used to praise Cinebench as the greatest CPU bench of all time. JUST not the single thread test. They only accepted to talk about single thread numbers after 5000 series came out

If an early test of 12900K is getting 30K in Cinebench R23, then I have no doubt that it will easily get 32K in the hands of top overclockers. Anyway, does not really matter, if 8 high performance cores comes close to 16 high performance cores, thats impressive regardless. Watt usage, personally I could not care less, I look at performance only. If a CPU uses 125, 200 or 250 watt who cares, GPUs today can peak at 500+ watts both 6900XT and 3090 can almost hit 600 peak/spikes.

I could not care less about CPU power usage, since it won't be anything to worry about in gaming which is all this rig does. My 9900K at 5.2 GHz with no AVX offset runs at 100-150 watts in gaming, I need to run synthetic burn-in with AVX loads to get it to consume alot of watts. Sounds like a stupid excuse to talk about CPU watts for desktop rigs, only matters for mobile and hybrid design for mobile is going to be great anyway

And no I'm not an Intel fanboy, I have a Ryzen powered NAS + HTPC, and if I count my consoles too, I have more AMD chips in house than Intel chips, I'm simply happy about Intel FINALLY seems to deliver something truly new and good again. New CEO, left 14nm and soon dGPU's, next few years are going to be exiting.

I'm not personally interested in BUYING alder lake, I won't go DDR5 before the tech has matured (higher clocks - lower timings) anyway and I might as well go with AMD if it makes sense by then (2-3 years from now). I don't need CPU power AT ALL right now. 4 years on 9900K so far, 5.2 GHz since week 2 or so, back when I bought it, the alternative was Ryzen 2000 series. No regrets at all. This will age well, just like my 2600K @ 5 GHz did.
Well to me power consumption is a sign of progress.
I dream of a future gpu with the performance of a RTX3080 / RX6800 that only needs a single 6pin to run.

To me simply allowing more power to be consumed without destroying the chip and therefor gettting faster results is just about the weakest form of progress one can do.
So even a cpu with for example 10 cores beating a 20 core cpu while needing 3x the power to accomplish that feat is just not interesting or impressive, I would sooner describe it as desperate.

But that is just my personal opinion.
Posted on Reply
#69
KarymidoN
NanochipApparently it also beat the 5950x too, despite having 8 less big cores (albeit supplemented by 8 small cores).
Thats AVX512 making some difference... But thats great News, it means AMD will have to beat this or drop their prices.
Posted on Reply
#70
Nanochip
KarymidoNThats AVX512 making some difference... But thats great News, it means AMD will have to beat this or drop their prices.
Wrong. Alder lake doesn’t have avx512. While the golden cove architecture does have silicon for avx512, it is only enabled in data center: Sapphire Rapids.

According to Anandtech,
www.anandtech.com/show/16881/a-deep-dive-into-intels-alder-lake-microarchitectures/5

“The biggest thing that gets the cut is that Intel is losing AVX-512 support inside Alder Lake. When we say losing support, we mean that the AVX-512 is going to be physically fused off.”
Posted on Reply
#71
95Viper
Stay on topic.
It is not about who is using what for their systems/rigs.
Stop the insults and name calling.
Posted on Reply
#72
Tomgang
Nice score for what is assumed to be a stock cpu. Now the question is at how much power consumption.

5950X can definitely go above 30K on cinebench r23. My own for comparison score 25286 stock, 29512 with pbo enabled and with a 4.65 ghz all core oc it goes to 31238 on aircooling.

Se it here
Post in thread 'Post your Cinebench R23 Score' www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/post-your-cinebench-r23-score.213237/post-4572011

Now I wunder how it will look with intel i9 12900K vs. Ryzen 9 6950X with amd zen 3+ with v-cashe.
Posted on Reply
#73
Melvis
lasYeah it does, stock 5950X is 28K - 12900K scores 30K, OC or not, still impressive as this is a 8C/16T chip with 8 effciency cores on the side.
No it doesnt. 5950X = 32000@5.1Ghz, 12900K = 30500@5.3GHz, dont get me wrong its a good score if its real but the fact is it just doesn't beat the 5950X, but gets close.

I do think the IPC of the 12900K will be higher then Zen 3 though (big cores) but not by a massive amount as some claim.

www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/post-your-cinebench-r23-score.213237/
Posted on Reply
#74
Nanochip
MelvisNo it doesnt. 5950X = 32000@5.1Ghz, 12900K = 30500@5.3GHz, dont get me wrong its a good score if its real but the fact is it just doesn't beat the 5950X, but gets close.

I do think the IPC of the 12900K will be higher then Zen 3 though (big cores) but not by a massive amount as some claim.

www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/post-your-cinebench-r23-score.213237/
a 5.3 GHz reading on an Intel i9 cpu doesn’t necessarily mean all cores were run at 5.3 GHz. This could just be thermal velocity boost clocking 1-2 cores to 5.3 GHz opportunistically, but not all. So this would be the stock configuration. And that is just for the 8 big Golden cove.

We don’t know what the frequency of the little Gracemont cores are, or how well they overclock if they overclock at all. We don’t know much of anything other than Intel seems to be coming back.

To get a sense for the ipc difference between the two architectures, we need to look at single core performance of both golden cove and Ryzen 5000, at a set frequency. Probably should also do the same for gracemont as well.
Posted on Reply
#75
las
matarintel back from the dead.
They were never dead tho ;) Intel dominated chip sales during covid, especially in the laptop segment. Businesses bought millions of laptops in past years. Working from home meant alot of new gear and Intel, owning their own fabs, was able to deliver in abundance. AMD was not, they rely on TSMC and AMD is not TSMC's primary focus, it will always be Apple + They have alot of other customers. Being fabless is not always a good thing you know...

In our company we bought like 800 intel laptops this year so far, only 5 ryzen laptops, why? Because Intel could actually deliver. 99.9% of orders are day 2 day. Only 1 Ryzen powered laptop was delivered within 2 weeks, the rest took 2-3 and even 6 months for one of them, to get delivered, All Thinkpads. We only buy Lenovo. And we buy directly AND from 3 other major retailers. NO-ONE could deliver.

AMDs mobile segment is a mess actually.

AMD has also been shooting themself in the foot on the desktop segment, with Intel having BETTER value/perf and much better availablity. Ryzen 3600/3600X were (and is) great value but AMD raised prices with 5000 series - 5600X is much more expensive now and lacks a non-X variant. AMD did this because TSMC is under pressure and they KNEW they were not able to deliver tons of chips, so they raised prices, leaving alot of sales for Intel to grab, and they did. Intel has been dominating the OEM market too.

This is simply pure facts, so it amuses me that some people actually think Intel has been in trouble in the last 1-2 years. Their financials are more than fine. Feel free to take a look.

I'm glad Intel don't have monopoly anymore tho. Great for consumers. So why would ANYHONE want to see Intel dead anyway? AMD would have done EXACTLY what Intel did, if they dominated the market like Intel did from around 2010 to 2019ish. It's business 101. When Intel released Sandy Bridge it was GAME OVER for AMD and Ryzen 1000 and 2000 were mediocre. TSMC 7nm was the primary reason why Ryzen 3000 and especially 5000 series became good and even great. Without TSMC AMD would probably still be using the subpar GloFo 12nm node, which is faaaar worse than Intel 14nm have ever been. GloFo 12nm is more like a 16nm node, at best (however 12nm sounds better right - thats the reason why nanometer has become an useless term today - you can't compare nanometer across fabs)

AMD has raised prices on several occations, when they actually had good products, however Nvidia and Intel always came back and beat them. AMD lowered prices as a result. This is also part of the reason why AMD products lose alot more value than Intel and Nvidia stuff. Just like Apple vs Android. AMD and Android prodcuts simply lose way more value, because they compete on pricing. Intel and Nvidia _generally_ keep their pricing till products go EoL, meaning you can actually sell the stuff when you upgrade, for more than peanuts.

Example; Ryzen 1800X launched at 500 dollars, 2 years later you could barely sell it for 50 dollars...
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment