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

#76
Melvis
Nanochipa 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.
Well going from that screen shot its showing an idle CPU and its clocked at 5.3GHz which means its most likely OC, an idle CPU would show a clock speed of base clock speed so like 3.2Ghz or whatever, but it doesnt so im pretty sure this is an OC result.
Posted on Reply
#77
Vayra86
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.



You are in full denial mode I see :D
Yep, AMD used to fight 14nm, not the case anymore.
LOL. You're posting this in a single post.

Are you alright mate? I know you for scraping the bottom of the barrel for a pro-Intel/Nv argument but this is next level right here. You didn't even see it. So an 8C/16T chip at over DOUBLE the rated TDP is irrelevant for your comparisons. Gotcha, its good you're confirming your perspectives on things for the rest, so we can avoid the nonsense entirely.

Let's just wait and see what Alder Lake does in a normal use case, you know, where you can actually use normal cooling instead of a contraption that mimics LN2.
Posted on Reply
#78
Nanochip
MelvisWell going from that screen shot its showing an idle CPU and its clocked at 5.3GHz which means its most likely OC, an idle CPU would show a clock speed of base clock speed so like 3.2Ghz or whatever, but it doesnt so im pretty sure this is an OC result.
That’s not how it works. My cpu when idle sometimes reads 5.2 GHz, sometimes it reads 800 MHz. It just depends on when you take the screenshot. It’s boosting up and down all the time. And even when it shows 5.2 GHz, under an all core load, it clocks down to 5.0 GHz.

The default was to boost to 5.1 GHz and clock down to 4.6 GHz under an all core load. If you took the screenshot when it was 5.1 GHz you’d swear it was overclocked, when it wasn’t.

the i9 by default boosts to 5.3 GHz when lightly loaded, but I don’t know what golden cove’s defaults are for an all core clock so I don’t want to speculate. What I’m saying is we can’t draw any conclusions either way that this cpu is clocked to 5.3 GHz under an all core load. It might not even be stable at that frequency for all 8 cores. Don’t know, but I doubt it.
Posted on Reply
#79
Tigger
I'm the only one
The multiplier on CPU-Z shows 8-51 yet it's at 100x53 so i guess it is oc'd unless 51 is not the boost multiplier. Even so they have only oc'd it by 200mhz(100x51-100x53) so not a massive oc anyway.
Posted on Reply
#80
las
MelvisWell going from that screen shot its showing an idle CPU and its clocked at 5.3GHz which means its most likely OC, an idle CPU would show a clock speed of base clock speed so like 3.2Ghz or whatever, but it doesnt so im pretty sure this is an OC result.
CPUz shows max boost clock that is probably not all-core clock. Should be 5 GHz or so. My 9900K on stock speed shows 5 GHz in CPUz, regardless of actual clockspeed.

I bet we will see people hitting 5.4-5.5 GHz all-core overclocks on the better Alder Lake chips, for 24/7 use.

If max boost clock is 5.3 on stock, then 5.3 on all cores is going to be almost guaranteed with extra voltage, meaning that alot of chips will go higher.
Posted on Reply
#81
Melvis
NanochipThat’s not how it works. My cpu when idle sometimes reads 5.2 GHz, sometimes it reads 800 MHz. It just depends on when you take the screenshot. It’s boosting up and down all the time. And even when it shows 5.2 GHz, under an all core load, it clocks down to 5.0 GHz.

The default was to boost to 5.1 GHz and clock down to 4.6 GHz under an all core load. If you took the screenshot when it was 5.1 GHz you’d swear it was overclocked, when it wasn’t.

the i9 by default boosts to 5.3 GHz when lightly loaded, but I don’t know what golden cove’s defaults are for an all core clock so I don’t want to speculate. What I’m saying is we can’t draw any conclusions either way that this cpu is clocked to 5.3 GHz under an all core load. It might not even be stable at that frequency for all 8 cores. Don’t know, but I doubt it.
lasCPUz shows max boost clock that is probably not all-core clock. Should be 5 GHz or so. My 9900K on stock speed shows 5 GHz in CPUz, regardless of actual clockspeed.

I bet we will see people hitting 5.4-5.5 GHz all-core overclocks on the better Alder Lake chips, for 24/7 use.

If max boost clock is 5.3 on stock, then 5.3 on all cores is going to be almost guaranteed with extra voltage, meaning that alot of chips will go higher.
No no thats how it works, if your CPU is at idle it will show its base clock speed, always has, it only shows higher clock speeds if the CPU is actually in use, and what we have here in the screen shot is an idle CPU with CPUZ showing 5.3GHz and the only way this can happen is if the CPU is manually clocked (OC) to that speed, this is how CPUZ works and has always worked.
Gruffalo.SoldierThe multiplier on CPU-Z shows 8-51 yet it's at 100x53 so i guess it is oc'd unless 51 is not the boost multiplier. Even so they have only oc'd it by 200mhz(100x51-100x53) so not a massive oc anyway.
Some one noticed it ;)
Posted on Reply
#82
Nanochip
MelvisNo no thats how it works, if your CPU is at idle it will show its base clock speed, always has, it only shows higher clock speeds if the CPU is actually in use, and what we have here in the screen shot is an idle CPU with CPUZ showing 5.3GHz and the only way this can happen is if the CPU is manually clocked (OC) to that speed, this is how CPUZ works and has always worked.
Completely disagree bro. My cpu-z values bounce around all the time even when the cpu is supposedly idle. There are always tasks in the background. So define “idle.” the kernel scheduler is scheduling threads to run on the cpu in each instant. You don’t know what was going on in the background of the test alder lake system that might have caused the cpu to spike to 5.3 GHz at the moment the screenshot was taken.

For me, with cpu-z, it shows momentary spikes in frequency then it clocks back down. It’s continuous. I can show 800 MHz in one screenshot then 5.2 GHz in another screenshot all taken in the same 5 second window of time. If I only showed you the 5.2 GHz screenshot you’d swear it was overclocked to 5.2 GHz, not knowing anything about the per-core turbo ratios. Or that it clocks down to 800 MHz some of the time.

Also another relevant point is the windows power plan. Under ‘balanced’ the cpu will clock down to its base 800 MHz frequency much more often, particularly when the system is “idle” whereas under “high performance” it tends to bounce around in between the top turbo ratios in my case between 5.0 to 5.2 GHz even at “idle.”

Anyways, have a good day.
Posted on Reply
#83
R0H1T
NanochipThis could just be thermal velocity boost clocking 1-2 cores to 5.3 GHz opportunistically, but not all.
Well it could run the entirety of the test at 5.3Ghz if the power limits are set to some absurd values in the BIOS ~ which btw is almost always the case with Intel these days!
Posted on Reply
#84
95Viper
Post on topic.
Not about members.
Stop baiting, insulting, and trying to create drama.

Thank You.
Posted on Reply
#85
Melvis
NanochipCompletely disagree bro. My cpu-z values bounce around all the time even when the cpu is supposedly idle. There are always tasks in the background. So define “idle.” the kernel scheduler is scheduling threads to run on the cpu in each instant. You don’t know what was going on in the background of the test alder lake system that might have caused the cpu to spike to 5.3 GHz at the moment the screenshot was taken.

For me, with cpu-z, it shows momentary spikes in frequency then it clocks back down. It’s continuous. I can show 800 MHz in one screenshot then 5.2 GHz in another screenshot all taken in the same 5 second window of time. If I only showed you the 5.2 GHz screenshot you’d swear it was overclocked to 5.2 GHz, not knowing anything about the per-core turbo ratios. Or that it clocks down to 800 MHz some of the time.

Also another relevant point is the windows power plan. Under ‘balanced’ the cpu will clock down to its base 800 MHz frequency much more often, particularly when the system is “idle” whereas under “high performance” it tends to bounce around in between the top turbo ratios in my case between 5.0 to 5.2 GHz even at “idle.”

Anyways, have a good day.
Well I completely disagree as well as I will show you with a screen shot I just did of my own system running MANY tasks running in the back ground (including a game) and my CPU is at idle speed, so I dont know whats going on with your CPUZ but it isnt the same as mine .......so I just proved to you that you can have a a sh@t load of things running in the back ground and still have the CPU at idle speeds, and with this screen shot we have been given shows the same thing but with stuff all running in the back ground and the CPU is at idle and yet its clocked at 5.3GHz, this is for sure a OC result, not a stock result.
Posted on Reply
#86
Nanochip
MelvisWell I completely disagree as well as I will show you with a screen shot I just did of my own system running MANY tasks running in the back ground (including a game) and my CPU is at idle speed, so I dont know whats going on with your CPUZ but it isnt the same as mine .......so I just proved to you that you can have a a sh@t load of things running in the back ground and still have the CPU at idle speeds, and with this screen shot we have been given shows the same thing but with stuff all running in the back ground and the CPU is at idle and yet its clocked at 5.3GHz, this is for sure a OC result, not a stock result.
LOL bro you’re using Ryzen for your assumptions? Don’t you realize Intel and Ryzen have completely different cpu power management, and frequency scaling? You can’t claim that someone’s Intel experience of the cpu-z program is invalid, when you’re using Ryzen for your assumptions!

On my Intel system, depending on the windows power plan, if it’s set to balanced, the cpu frequency continuously changes. There are continuous momentary spikes in frequency depending on work load, and then it clocks back down. 800 MHz in one moment, then then 5.2 GHz in another moment. Sometimes other frequencies in between. If I take a screenshot at the exact correct moment you will see 5.2 GHz and swear it is overclocked. But then I can show you another screenshot a half second later and the frequency is back to the base clock. And if the power plan is set to high performance, the cpu doesn’t hit its base clock at all, instead frequency bounces around between 5.0 GHz and 5.2 GHz. Thus using more power at “idle.”

Perform the same experiment on a modern Intel system and report back.
Posted on Reply
#87
Melvis
NanochipLOL bro you’re using Ryzen for your assumptions? Don’t you realize Intel and Ryzen have completely different cpu power management, and frequency scaling? You can’t claim that someone’s Intel experience of the cpu-z program is invalid, when you’re using Ryzen for your assumptions!

On my Intel system, depending on the windows power plan, if it’s set to balanced, the cpu frequency continuously changes. There are continuous momentary spikes in frequency depending on work load, and then it clocks back down. 800 MHz in one moment, then then 5.2 GHz in another moment. Sometimes other frequencies in between. If I take a screenshot at the exact correct moment you will see 5.2 GHz and swear it is overclocked. But then I can show you another screenshot a half second later and the frequency is back to the base clock. And if the power plan is set to high performance, the cpu doesn’t hit its base clock at all, instead frequency bounces around between 5.0 GHz and 5.2 GHz. Thus using more power at “idle.”

Perform the same experiment on a modern Intel system and report back.
I dont have "modern" Intel systems, I have an older i7 and a 6th Gen that I can show you if you want? and im pretty sure the results will be the same.....been doing this along time now and im pretty sure it wont change anything. Shrugs
Posted on Reply
#88
Nanochip
MelvisI dont have "modern" Intel systems, I have an older i7 and a 6th Gen that I can show you if you want? and im pretty sure the results will be the same.....been doing this along time now and im pretty sure it wont change anything. Shrugs
I don’t doubt your expertise bro. But I am telling you on my 10th and 11th gen intel boxes, the cpu frequency is volatile, especially if Windows power plan is set to ‘balanced.’ It is always changing. Sometimes it’s at the base frequency (800 MHz) and other times it ramps to the max turbo frequency (5.2 GHz). Even at ‘idle’ with nothing going on in the background. And if I were to change the max single-core turbo frequency to 5.3 GHz, it would ramp to that, but I chose stability and cooler temps over running at 5.3.

So depending on when I take the CPU-Z screenshot you will either see 5.2 GHz, 800 MHz, or other frequencies in between. It’s the same behavior on Linux as well as Macintosh OS.
Posted on Reply
#89
Nike_486DX
Not sure if Windows 7 has awareness of the two kinds of cpu cores lol. And if we are talking about energy efficient cores (POINTLESS for desktops), then they for sure will underperform compared to normal cores, so it wont be like a real "16 core" processor, but instead just a lame "8 performance + 8 energy efficient" cores.

Not a fan of AMD, i am using 2066 i9 7900X, with Windows 7. Thats 2017 well-performing hardware which is both easy to upgrade and is accessible to everyone (unlike TRX40 platform, where the mobo alone will cost you $*@:").
Posted on Reply
#90
Ernest1ca
Defo it's not an apple to apple comparison. Its just a peasant blinding technique. Its promising, but the show will be heated up when AMD comes on ddr5.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment