Friday, December 17th 2021
Intel Prepares Pre-Binned Core i9-12900KS Processors Clocked at 5.2 GHz
According to the latest round of rumors coming from tech media VideoCardz, Intel could be preparing an answer to AMD's 3D V-cache in the form of... pre-binned Core i9-12900KS? As per the report, Intel could be making a pre-binned, pre-overclocked Core i9-12900KS processor with an all-core turbo boost frequency of 5.2 GHz. This alleged clock speed will push the processor to some fantastic heights and increase the overall performance of the regular Core i9-12900K processor. With AMD's Ryzen processors with 3D V-cache incoming, Intel has prepared this solution to keep up with the increasing pressure from AMD.
So far, we don't know the specific requirements for Core i9-12900KS to reach 5.2 GHz. However, we assume that Voltage needs a big boost, making cooling and power supply requirements increase. This special edition Alder Lake design should launch around the same time frame that AMD reveals its 3D V-cache enabled Ryzen processors, so Intel doesn't let AMD steal the performance crown.
Source:
VideoCardz
So far, we don't know the specific requirements for Core i9-12900KS to reach 5.2 GHz. However, we assume that Voltage needs a big boost, making cooling and power supply requirements increase. This special edition Alder Lake design should launch around the same time frame that AMD reveals its 3D V-cache enabled Ryzen processors, so Intel doesn't let AMD steal the performance crown.
37 Comments on Intel Prepares Pre-Binned Core i9-12900KS Processors Clocked at 5.2 GHz
The two other 12600ks we oc’d topped out at 5.1ghz around 1.3-1.32 and the 12700k sample was an absolute dog and wouldn’t run stable at 5.0 ghz even at 1.35v so we just left it at stock.
Point is when the silicon is good these can clock like crazy, so it may not be massively different from the current one in terms of temps or wattage if they can hit those clocks at around same volts that the 4.9 ghz sample is using.
All things are relative, and perception improves with experience and knowledge. If you know 'what 120 fps looks and feels like' you will be more likely to notice it not running at that framerate.
The real question is, does it impact gaming, and for that, the biggest factor is not the FPS, but the frame time stability. Even a lowly 50 FPS can be perceived as perfectly smooth, in fact its sometimes even preferable because of 'cinematic experience' or to counteract motion blur.
Everything else is just epeen and marketing. The height of FPS is largely irrelevant above 50~60. And let's not forget input latency. Cool story, 60 FPS Vsynced... but not with 20ms delay on input. Another thing you see in games is that the simulation (game logic) is actually interleaved and runs at half (or fraction of) the FPS you get on screen. Space Engineers, for example.
The 12900K as a 24-thread solution capped at 125W is a very good match for the 5900X as a 24-thread solution (nominally 105W, max 142W). The reason the 12900K looks stupid in power consumption is because Intel literally doubled the consumption to try and catch the 5950X in multi-threaded workloads. Emphasis on try. At 125W the 12900K is great on power efficiency - better than its thread-count equal, the 5900X and not far off what a 5950X can achieve.
If you're a gamer then there's no need to even bother with higher PL2 on a 12900K or even a the i7 for that matter. 125W will get you 99.x percent of the performance for well under half the power consumption. You're just throwing silly motherboard costs, heat, noise, and power wastage at the last 0.5% with a 250W stock power budget on the 12900K, de-restricted it'll throw another 100W under the bus at least and you'll see no benefits that couldn't also be chalked up to measurement margins-of-error.that's what cryptomining rigs are for, silly :DI have a laptop with a 100Hz display but no VRR and a puny 4700U's Vega7 so I'm quite frequently targeting 50fps with vsync on and let me tell you with 100% certainty that 50fps feels like ass these days. 60Hz is an absolute minimum for something to look even vaguely smooth at speed, but like you say - framerate and input latency stability are more important at those lower framerates, so 50fps is a safe target for an integrated graphics option as it stands a fighting chance of never dropping a frame like that.
It varies quite alarmingly on the how fast the content is moving and how much contrast there is. Sometimes 50fps can look great and smooth, other times 60fps can be very noticeably inadequate for the illusion of motion. On my high-refresh displays I can clearly see the difference between 90Hz and 120Hz, I'd genuinely struggle to spot the difference between 120, 144Hz, and 165Hz in a blind test so I'm guessing my point of diminishing returns is somewhere north of 90fps.
To be entirely fair? Even the regular K processors released so far are not a must-have this time around, since B660 and locked processors will sustain PL1=PL2 for an indefinite amount of time, an i9-12900 processor seems like the one I would personally pick amongst these.