• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Intel Core i9-12900K "Alder Lake" Beats Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX at Cinebench R23 nT

kane nas said:
28% better performance compared to the 5600x I have at 4.9,w8 for reviews.
Click to expand...
utter garbage, at least use the same GPU to compare with.
 
Melvis said:
The 5950X scores almost the same as the 2990WX.....(Im guessing at stock clocks?) and R23 Supports AVX512? Which the Ryzen does not?
Click to expand...
You are on the right track.
Zen and Zen+ does AVX2 instructions at half rate, meaning it takes double the cycles for each AVX2 instruction compare to even Zen2.
A stock 5800X scores almost as high as a stock 1950X with double the cores in R23.
 
las said:
Except 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..
Click to expand...
This thread isnt about a 12900 vs 5950x, its about the 12900 vs. a 3 year old Threadripper
 
Do not get me wrong, I want Intel to succeed here but at 125w tdp and 500 watts real and 5.3ghz, that reminds me a 14++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.
 
efikkan said:
Then you're wrong.
The big cores (Golden Cove) will support AVX-512.
Click to expand...
@Nanochip’s reply was faster, anyway that’s why I wrote Alder Lake for desktop (i.e. not server). Server CPU’s are indeed rumored to support AVX512, contrary to desktop CPU’s.
 
Even a 5950X almost matches 2990WX running @4,3GHz in windows using R23. And this 12900K is probably running @5GHz or more also. So?
 
HD64G said:
Even a 5950X almost matches 2990WX running @4,3GHz in windows using R23. And this 12900K is probably running @5GHz or more also. So?
Click to expand...
The 12900K only has 8 big cores with 8 small cores filling in the difference. 4 small cores fit in the same area as one big core. And yet the mighty AMD 5950x, with its full fat 16 cores of glory falls to a chip with small cores. This is astonishing. Especially given the fact that intel is rumored to double the small core count in Raptor Lake.

If all of these performance leaks are true then AMD is in for some pain and intel indeed might have a breakthrough in x86 performance. We saw what happened in the 14nm stagnation days; those days could be behind us.

i am excited because I want to see competition come back. Also, I want AMD and Intel x86 to embarrass Apple… Apple made this big deal about needing to leave x86 in the dust, but if Intel and AMD bring massive performance increases, with PCs faster than their corresponding Apple Silicon Mac counterparts, then Apple will look dumb for dumping all over x86. Long live x86!
 
Last edited:
DeathtoGnomes said:
This thread isnt about a 12900 vs 5950x, its about the 12900 vs. a 3 year old Threadripper
Click to expand...
The biggest issue with that TR was its weird memory configuration ~
2990WX%20vs%202950X%20v2_575px.jpg

It's arguably the worst TR sold due to that. With basically 16 cores being starved of direct memory access!
 
this comparison is pointless. Comparing an old HEDT with freshly baked beans ? Let just wait for the actual flagship comparison of mainstream desktop processors. 12900k vs 5950x
 
Ill believe it when I see it in actual reviews. If true this is great for competition..
 
HD64G said:
Even a 5950X almost matches 2990WX running @4,3GHz in windows using R23. And this 12900K is probably running @5GHz or more also. So?
Click to expand...
Yeah, no news here, sorry. At some point Intel has to get caught up, which it looks like Alderlake does but comparing leaked benchmarks to an old HEDT platform is just stupid, and the desktop platform it will be compared to and competing with has also been on the market for a year so yeah... keep things in perspective.
 
wow the new flagship processor beat a 3 y/o processor, what a shocker!
 
people just don't want to accept after all the 14nm++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ bullshit that intel might actually have something. Remember C2D anyone. Intel are very good at pulling something out of the hat. I'm neither pro Amd or Intel, just sick of all the anti Intel bullshit, so I really hope this is as good as it seems. Switch back to intel anyone? I will if its worth it. Follow the power, and with a custom loop not arsed if it runs a bit hotter, my loop has the capacity.
 
Nanochip said:
Apparently it also beat the 5950x too, despite having 8 less big cores (albeit supplemented by 8 small cores).
Click to expand...
You know that the tested CPU is at stock clocks? And if so, how much w does it consume?
 
Metroid said:
lol, the person tried so hard to beat a 3 year old cpu eheh, that 5.3ghz and the 500 watts speaks for itself hehe
Click to expand...

Somebody paid attention. This and instruction set AND the fact 2990WX is the shittest TR they ever released.

Let's see a real side by side at the same TDP, because TDPs do matter, Intel, even if you don't like it anymore. Its a nice soundbite anyway for them, but I think the good old water chiller was playing along too.
 
Arc1t3ct said:
Team blue will shred the competition for sure. It's Core2 all over again!
Click to expand...

More like they just build a wider and more diversified CPU, use more silicon, to target a TDP / perf metric they can't reach the normal way. In semiconductor land, bigger dies are not easier to market and diverse floorplans are even more difficult. Its the whole reason behind Zen's success: everything can scale and be product.

Don't get me wrong, if the fruit hangs that high, it just does, but I doubt they're better performers in a like-for-like scenario - at the same TDP, with similar memory access.
 
Gruffalo.Soldier said:
Hope this is real. it'll shut all the naysayers up, about the big little setup. So 8/16HT cores beats 32 :laugh: as i doubt it's using the smaller cores for this test, though could be. And i guess there'll be the oh but it's using DDR5 posts
Click to expand...
Member when Intel hid the water chiller for their big release to show their 200W CPU running like 400W that it couldn't realistically sustain? Member?


I member....
 
Steevo said:
Member when Intel hid the water chiller for their big release to show their 200W CPU running like 400W that it couldn't realistically sustain? Member?


I member....
Click to expand...

Maybe they've hidden an extra 8 cores in this to make it seen more powerful
 
Gruffalo.Soldier said:
Only people with air coolers complain about CPU's running hot :laugh:
Click to expand...
People spending shit tons of money on professional workstations and even more so in datacenters care about hot running CPUs....

Honestly in the grand scheme of things nobody cares that some enthusiasts are willing put up with a CPU thats on the edge of thermal runaway in order to be competitive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top