Sunday, September 26th 2021

SiSoftware Compiles Early Performance Preview of the Intel Core i9-12900K

It's not every day that a software company that specializes in benchmarking software decides to compile the performance data of unreleased products found in their online database, but this is what SiSoftware just did for the Intel Core i9-12900K. So far, it's a limited set of tests that have been run on the CPU and what we're looking at here is a set of task specific benchmarks. SiSoftware doesn't provide any system details, so take these numbers for what they are.

The benchmarks consist of three categories, Vector SIMD Native, Cryptographic Native and Financial Analysis Native. Not all tests have been run on the Core i9-12900K and SiSoftware themselves admit that they don't have enough data points to draw any final conclusions. Unlike other supposedly leaked benchmark figures, the Core i9-12900K doesn't look like a clear winner here, as it barely beats the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X in some tests, while it's beaten by it and even the Core i9-11900K in other tests. It should be noted that the Core i9-11900K does use AVX512 where supported which gives it a performance advantage to the other CPUs in some tests. We'll let you make up your own mind here, but one thing is certain, we're going to have to wait for proper reviews before the race is over and a winner is crowned.

Update: As the original article was taken down and there were some useful references in it, you can find a screen grab of it here.
Sources: SiSoftware, via @TUM_APISAK
Add your own comment

69 Comments on SiSoftware Compiles Early Performance Preview of the Intel Core i9-12900K

#2
R0H1T
Good scores, I'm still a bit iffy with the big.Little setup on Windows!

Also the dual ddr4/5 support is a definite plus, but will be interesting how many mobos actually support it.

The latest setting under win11 (build 22000.194) ~
Posted on Reply
#3
Darmok N Jalad
R0H1TAlso the dual ddr4/5 support is a definite plus, but will be interesting how many mobos actually support it.
In all my years, I can’t recall many boards supporting 2 kinds of memory. Granted, I might have missed something! The last time I could recall, it was when SDRAM came out over 25 years ago. I had a board that supported both RAM and SDRAM, though you could only use one or the other. Usually the dual support means the CPU will support both, but it’s vendor’s choice on which one to implement. I think Apollo Lake also had DDR3/DDR4 support, but no boards supported both. It would probably be a really complex design, too.
Posted on Reply
#4
TheoneandonlyMrK
Soo Avx 512 = win


Anything else = Fail

Puts the geekbench and Avx edition cinebench scores in proper perspective.

Intel clearly hopes we'll ditch anything not avx512, doubtful.

And clearly a return of Intel's artful Dodger testing, independent reviews only please because Intel's blurb isn't worth the typing.
Posted on Reply
#5
Chaitanya
Darmok N JaladIn all my years, I can’t recall many boards supporting 2 kinds of memory. Granted, I might have missed something! The last time I could recall, it was when SDRAM came out over 25 years ago. I had a board that supported both RAM and SDRAM, though you could only use one or the other. Usually the dual support means the CPU will support both, but it’s vendor’s choice on which one to implement. I think Apollo Lake also had DDR3/DDR4 support, but no boards supported both. It would probably be a really complex design, too.
There have been motherboards at transitions which supported both outgoing and incoming memory on same board. But those always were niche boards allowing users to use old RAM while offering option to get new RAM when it gets cheaper.
Posted on Reply
#6
R0H1T
Darmok N JaladIn all my years, I can’t recall many boards supporting 2 kinds of memory. Granted, I might have missed something! The last time I could recall, it was when SDRAM came out over 25 years ago. I had a board that supported both RAM and SDRAM, though you could only use one or the other. Usually the dual support means the CPU will support both, but it’s vendor’s choice on which one to implement. I think Apollo Lake also had DDR3/DDR4 support, but no boards supported both. It would probably be a really complex design, too.
Well that's kind of the point ~ it's (mostly) useless unless mobos support it & even then it could be sketchy if not implemented properly!
Posted on Reply
#7
Metroid
Is just me or those images show that the 5900 wins on 99% of the tests by a large margin?
Posted on Reply
#8
lexluthermiester
What I'm reading from the numbers above is that AMD's 12core Ryzen is faster than Intel's new hybrid 16core design. Just throwing it out there.. Me thinks this new scheme is not as good a performer as Intel wants it to be.
MetroidIs just me or those images show that the 5900 wins on 99% of the tests by a large margin?
It's not just you, that's what the images clearly show.
Posted on Reply
#9
Aldain
MetroidIs just me or those images show that the 5900 wins on 99% of the tests by a large margin?
yes
Posted on Reply
#10
qcmadness
MetroidIs just me or those images show that the 5900 wins on 99% of the tests by a large margin?
To be fair, SiSoftware benches are multi-thread friendly.
Posted on Reply
#11
lexluthermiester
qcmadnessTo be fair, SiSoftware benches are multi-thread friendly.
While true, all of the subject CPUs are high core count and the 12core is beating out a 16 core. Whether or not Intel has hit the mark they were aiming for is anyone's guess, but the Ryzen is the clear victor here. Now for some other benchmarks... Passmark, Cinebench, 3DMark... These results are needed to gain a bigger picture.
Posted on Reply
#12
techguymaxc
TheoneandonlyMrKSoo Avx 512 = win


Anything else = Fail

Puts the geekbench and Avx edition cinebench scores in proper perspective.

Intel clearly hopes we'll ditch anything not avx512, doubtful.

And clearly a return of Intel's artful Dodger testing, independent reviews only please because Intel's blurb isn't worth the typing.
Incorrect

[MEDIA=twitter]1327358373373898752[/MEDIA]
Posted on Reply
#13
TheoneandonlyMrK
techguymaxcIncorrect

[MEDIA=twitter]1327358373373898752[/MEDIA]
Oh right, I was miss informed.
Posted on Reply
#14
agentnathan009
lexluthermiesterWhat I'm reading from the numbers above is that AMD's 12core Ryzen is faster than Intel's new hybrid 16core design. Just throwing it out there.. Me thinks this new scheme is not as good a performer as Intel wants it to be.


It's not just you, that's what the images clearly show.
Well, you have to give Intel and MS time to optimize for the new design even though the design style has existed for some time in the mobile space. Zen wasn't so impressive at launch with issues that it had when it was first released, but software has been better optimized as of late whereas it was already optimized for Intel at the time.
Posted on Reply
#15
First Strike
This is the most misleading benchmark I've ever seen. SIMD for a non-HPC computer + Cryptography that is usually done by integrated accelarators + God knows what financial analysis means. Geekbench would look like the embodiment of justice compared to this.

It's okay to have only garbage data, but it's not okay to pretend them to be groundbreaking and spread them.
Posted on Reply
#16
Muaadib
Darmok N JaladIn all my years, I can’t recall many boards supporting 2 kinds of memory. Granted, I might have missed something! The last time I could recall, it was when SDRAM came out over 25 years ago. I had a board that supported both RAM and SDRAM, though you could only use one or the other. Usually the dual support means the CPU will support both, but it’s vendor’s choice on which one to implement. I think Apollo Lake also had DDR3/DDR4 support, but no boards supported both. It would probably be a really complex design, too.
I have an ASRock N68C-GS FX that supports both DDR2/DDR3. It was due to it supporting both AM2+ and AM3 CPUs, 2 DIMMs were DDR2 and the other 2 were DDR3.
Posted on Reply
#17
DeathtoGnomes
wasnt there a PR about the 12900 beating 5900x ? I dont see it.
Posted on Reply
#18
Oberon
First StrikeThis is the most misleading benchmark I've ever seen. SIMD for a non-HPC computer + Cryptography that is usually done by integrated accelarators + God knows what financial analysis means. Geekbench would look like the embodiment of justice compared to this.

It's okay to have only garbage data, but it's not okay to pretend them to be groundbreaking and spread them.
Suddenly people are up in arms about Sandra, which has been around and in use for almost 25 years. There's plenty of information about what each benchmark entails available on their website if you actually want to find out.

Here's a screenshot of the whole article since it has been taken down, just in case more people want to claim things like it isn't optimized for Intel's hybrid architecture, or that the results are invalid because it's running on Windows 10, or whatever other justification they want to come up with beyond "the product isn't out yet."

[MEDIA=imgur]TyOlSb3[/MEDIA]
Posted on Reply
#19
Tom Yum
MuaadibI have an ASRock N68C-GS FX that supports both DDR2/DDR3. It was due to it supporting both AM2+ and AM3 CPUs, 2 DIMMs were DDR2 and the other 2 were DDR3.
I had a ECS Socket A board back in the day that supported DDR and SDR memory, same 2 and 2 DIMM setup. And even further back, Socket 3 (486) that had 4 30 pin SIMMs and a 72 pin SIMM during that transition.

It will depend on whether either Alder Lake or Zen4 include both DDR4 and DDR5 controllers on die.
Posted on Reply
#20
TheoneandonlyMrK
OberonSuddenly people are up in arms about Sandra, which has been around and in use for almost 25 years. There's plenty of information about what each benchmark entails available on their website if you actually want to find out.

Here's a screenshot of the whole article since it has been taken down, just in case more people want to claim things like it isn't optimized for Intel's hybrid architecture, or that the results are invalid because it's running on Windows 10, or whatever other justification they want to come up with beyond "the product isn't out yet."

[MEDIA=imgur]TyOlSb3[/MEDIA]
Agreed, it's been a substantial and reliable indicator of performance for a long time, I have used it on every Pc since core 2 era, and it scaled as it should have.
Posted on Reply
#21
bogami
What is shown raises doubts about performance! Core i9-12900K. it is likely to shine only when using the actual advances brought by DDR5. He has nothing to show for now. Even the i9-11900K has more show for , with 8 cores less .:oops:
Posted on Reply
#22
MikeSnow
R0H1TGood scores, I'm still a bit iffy with the big.Little setup on Windows!

Also the dual ddr4/5 support is a definite plus, but will be interesting how many mobos actually support it.

The latest setting under win11 (build 22000.194) ~
Which tool did you use to get to those settings?
Posted on Reply
#23
ShurikN
Considering Alder Lake was touted as the next coming of Jesus, these preliminary results don't look that impressive.
Posted on Reply
#24
OGoc
Darmok N JaladIn all my years, I can’t recall many boards supporting 2 kinds of memory. Granted, I might have missed something! The last time I could recall, it was when SDRAM came out over 25 years ago. I had a board that supported both RAM and SDRAM, though you could only use one or the other. Usually the dual support means the CPU will support both, but it’s vendor’s choice on which one to implement. I think Apollo Lake also had DDR3/DDR4 support, but no boards supported both. It would probably be a really complex design, too.
The transition from 3rd to 4th gen Core had that option but it was mostly seen in server and embedded applications. You would build the mobo to support DDR3.

In consumer applications, the feature is mostly irrelevant because mobo's will just build around DDR5. Although there are exceptions as Muaadib pointed out.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment