Monday, November 1st 2021
Intel Core i9-12900K 36% Faster Than Stock in Maximum Turbo Power Mode
The recently announced Intel Core i9-12900K is set to launch on November 4th alongside the i7-12700K, and i5-12600K which is the date when we will see reviews for the processors released. We have already seen numerous leaks regarding the processors performance leading up to the announcement and we have now received some new leaked performance figures for the processors when operating in Maximum Turbo Power (MTP). The MTP is defined by Intel as the maximum sustained power dissipation of a processor compared to TDP which is the base power draw. The performance difference between these two power modes has been revealed from Cinebench R20 multi-threaded results posted by Wofstame the Gaming Desktop Product Planning Manager for Lenovo China.
The Intel Core i9-12900K scores 7492 points when running at its TDP of 125 W and 10180 points or 36% faster when operating at the MTP of 241 W. This performance difference is less notable for the other processors with the Core i7-12700K seeing a 30% improvement between its 125 W and 190 W power modes while the Core i5-12600K sees a 10% improvement from the 125 W TDP to 150 W MTP. Intel appears to be extracting the maximum performance from their Core i9-12900K with diminishing returns from the increased power budget compared to the other processors.
Source:
@9550pro
The Intel Core i9-12900K scores 7492 points when running at its TDP of 125 W and 10180 points or 36% faster when operating at the MTP of 241 W. This performance difference is less notable for the other processors with the Core i7-12700K seeing a 30% improvement between its 125 W and 190 W power modes while the Core i5-12600K sees a 10% improvement from the 125 W TDP to 150 W MTP. Intel appears to be extracting the maximum performance from their Core i9-12900K with diminishing returns from the increased power budget compared to the other processors.
120 Comments on Intel Core i9-12900K 36% Faster Than Stock in Maximum Turbo Power Mode
Use those electrons, think of all the power utility workers you will help support :)
A stock (non-oc board) vrm is designed to deliver ~142 watts. AMD doesn't just sell these things to enthusiasts. Vendors designing boards for non-oc purposes build the vrm to AMD spec to curb costs. Greater than or equal to 142 watts @ PL2.
The boards everyone uses here deliver more than 142 watts to the socket for 5xxx processors. All-core OCs on 5xxx processors use more than 142 watts and PBO2 uses more than stock spec wattage per individual core(s).
Shocker: The AMD AM4 socket successor will deliver greater than 142 watts for PL2 at stock config.
Show me a game using 150w on Intel and then I start to worry.
For the "but rendering! encoding!" guys, just get out. If your life depends on that kind of tasts, then you have way better options. Don´t bother with mainstream platforms.
"Sounds like the best Deal in the history of deals, maybe ever" -Donald Intel Trump.
Go Intel
Removing power limits, 10789 reporting 220W PPT, or 609 points higher than 12900K at 241W
And your hyping Intel's moar core answer days before reviews, seems wise to me.
Those pointing at goggles rarely look over the rim of they're own.
I would suggest neither Intel nor AMD require any pity or scorn ATM ,for a change they're both on the job.
That much extra L3 is going to take up a large percentage of the package power budget. It will most likely be variable power managed depending on how much L3 is in use.
The upside: The extra cache will mean the cpu can achieve similar metrics (game, app, synthetic) at lower clock rates, in many cases, when compared to non 3DV skus.
The downside: The 142watt stock power draw at PL2 will most likely mean lower advertised boost clock speeds when compared to current Zen 3 skus. Maybe? Maybe a ranged boost clock speed depending on how much L3 is addressed? Not sure..
Given most expect to see faster base and boost clocks from one release to subsequent, some might view this as bad even though it's not.
...This thread is useless without posted results..
Updated today:
www.cgdirector.com/cinebench-r20-scores-updated-results/
Haven't seen any leaked reviews yet or trustworthy numbers but hey, only three more days to go.
To put it in PC terms, Watts consumed by a CPU isn't equal to its core/package temperature. There's a whole bunch of other factors at play.
Energy produced over X area dissipated by Y cooler at Z rate
It's going to be interesting when the 12th gen releases for the mobile market.
AMD run hotter on some chips because they have the higher heat density - 80mm2 vs 200mm2+
I mean... that alone explains a lot, heat wise.
On top of that, they measure temps different. Intel likes to report a more averaged temp, while AMD reports the peak temp - and far more often.
So if both chips measured 60C with a spike to 70C for 5ms, the intel wouldnt report that spike (Zen2 and 3 report every 1ms.... waaaaaaaay more often than intel - i cant find much, but estimates seem to be between 15ms and 30ms)
If games and browsing the internet is all you ever do, why bother with the i9? An i5 will do everything you want with less power draw.
If you are not interested in mutli-core performance then you have no use for an i9, the i7 will have the same number of P-cores.
And since according to you nobody ever needs more than gaming, why should Intel bother releasing anything more than an i5?
In context of the 12900K, just because it eats a lot of power when unlocked, we can't be sure that it'll also run hot - though the new 10 nm process (and increased density) suggest that it might. We'll see.