12900k temps.

[p0mpous]

Even on a 360mm AIO I had to undervolt mine a little to keep it cool.

[p0mpous]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von xSOSxHawkens:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Monk:

The 12900k pretty much spanked the 5950x without any of the expected oddness that Amd's interconnect can cause.

Really, if you can afford these chips, who cares about the power cost?

12900k..
Leads by 10-20% under most single thread and low thread loads.
Breaks even but on the top side in mid thread loads, often but far from always, tending to lead by 5-10%
Breaks even but on the down side in very high threaded loads.

To do the above it consistently produces 10-30c more heat, requires higher end coolers across the board, and consistently uses 30-50% or more power depending on loads.

Yeh... It sure "spanks" the 5950x haha...

Dont get me wrong, it is the fastest gaming chip. But its far from impressive.

The one thing I am impressed with though is the price. Intel knew they had to give somewhere, and for something that can def swing with the 5950x and take it despite the required power draw to do so, the price is right. If I were not already on b550 and x570 I would likely have considered intel for the GF build, but it still would have been a hard call even with the price.

Still, as is its not like its the bees knees. Its good enough. Its hot and power hungry but will do the job. Kinda like FX round 2 but with better IPC and from Intel.

(some source info bits https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-core-i9-12900k-vs-ryzen-9-5900x-5950x)

To give you an idea in cinebench the 12900k a CPU with 8 full fat cores is getting close to some 32 core threadripper CPU's, that shows you what the 12900K does in terms of IPC.

I mean Intel have been better in games and in terms of core per core performance the entire time.

The reality is in most real world scenarios the 12900k is doing better on less core, its IPC is well beyond anything from AMD.

Also I'm pretty sure AMD are changing socket so youd have to be an idiot to buy a 5950x right now.

So again what the 5950x is doing with a full 16 cores the 12900k can do with 8 P cores and 8 underpowered E cores, and in most use cases beats it.

Will add its only hot on stock voltage I managed to take 0.1v off of mine and still oc it.

[xSOSxHawkens]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Guydodge:

your cherry picking your arguments most of what you said is wrong..white knight all
you want 12900k is on top right now.maybe you can get your bragging back in the future but
its dead for now.

I didnt cherry pick anything, nor did I brag, I gave general statements that are factually supported in most (but not entirely all) cases. Intel does lead in performance, and I said as much. They also suck huge power and produce lots of heat, part of why the OP's similar performance chip is running 10-20c higher than the competition despite being on a better cooler. Real world consequence of the problems intel faces with both this and last gen in regards to heat and power use.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Monk:

Again, who cares about the extra £1 a month on the electric bill or needing a high end cooler, no one us buying a cheap cooler to keep a £700 chip cooled anyway.

When AMD beat Intel by 5-10% in some cases (not when fully tweaked) at 50% higher cost fanboys screamed how it smashed Intel, when it's reversed a mere 10-20% isn't enough to classify as being spanked?

This us why I dislike fanboys, go with the best performance you can afford regardless of who makes it.

Chances are AMD will hit back taking the crown with zen3d next, actual competition can only benefit the end user, but pretending Intel dudnt come out swinging with their chip let design is mad, frankly, I expected it to be a huge mess like zen1 was, but Intel seems to of nailed it.

I'll be sticking with my 9900k another generation or two most likely abd I'm genuinely excited to see who's on top when I next upgrade.

Lots of people care about effeicency. When Intel had is and AMD didnt the Intel fans were always super quick to pull it up as a point of pride. No reason AMD should not be both proud of, and recognised for, their current lead in that matter.

And yeh, I too hate the fanbois and, considering I am typing from an Intel/NV build atm and buy both, I dont mind saying that I consider my viewpoints valid and not bias. Even if they might differ from some others here. Intel isnt bad, but 12th gen isnt impressive to me.

You are right about Zen3d likely clawing back, I am excited there but concerened about Ratoreum or the likes. Time will see on that one. And yeh, the 9900k is great, specilly with good OC.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von pompous:

To give you an idea in cinebench the 12900k a CPU with 8 full fat cores is getting close to some 32 core threadripper CPU's, that shows you what the 12900K does in terms of IPC.

I mean Intel have been better in games and in terms of core per core performance the entire time.

The reality is in most real world scenarios the 12900k is doing better on less core, its IPC is well beyond anything from AMD.

Also I'm pretty sure AMD are changing socket so youd have to be an idiot to buy a 5950x right now.

So again what the 5950x is doing with a full 16 cores the 12900k can do with 8 P cores and 8 underpowered E cores.

Will add its only hot on stock voltage I managed to take 0.1v off of mine and still oc it.

Your CB claim is either A) Wrong, or B) refering to slow TR 1k or maybe 2k chips. And if its B then its no big deal, i9 and R9 chips have been surpassing 16-32c first and second gen TR for awhile.

Fact is CB20 scores for i9-12900k are ~7500 (PL1-125w) to ~10,200 (PL2-241w)

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-core-i9-12900k-roughly-35-faster-in-cinebench-r20-using-maximum-turbo-power-(pl2)-state.html

Fact is CB20 scores for R9-5950x are ~9800 (stock ~125w) to ~11,200 (PBO ~ 220-230w)

https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_9_5900x_and_ryzen_9_5950x_review/9


You are right that in most real world cases the i9 will have a minor lead, again though while needing more to do it, but thats not too big a problem for consumers. But the lead is minor and the power draw difference and heat not so much. You are on here posting for this exact reason, dont you see that? Your chip and my chip are quite similar in performance and trade blows, yet I am using the Freezer II 280 which is the exact same model but the lower choice. You have better cooling. Yet despite us having similar real world performance, within 5-10% traded blows depending on task, you run 10-20c hotter on the better cooler. Why? Because of the exact thing I am being critical of Intel for. Its not like you are not going to get your performance, you will, but when you see high temps or ask why, now you know. You pull more juice to do the same tasks.

You are also correct that AMD will be changing socket soon, but they have one more release on AM4, which will be the Zen3 refresh with high l3 cache to make up for the hits IF takes. Will be quite interested, but thats not till q1 2022 so a bit to wait yet. Right now unless you have specific reasons (already on the platform, need the cores, etc) you are right the 5950x isnt a great buy. Again, Intel nailed it on price here. About their only true saving grace this release. But if you are already on the AMD platform, its not like 12th gen gives any reason to want to jump ship. Specially with the DDR5 shortages as they are.

And hell ya, undervolt that baby. You might have a well binned chip and you might be able to get more from it. Undervolting for more performance has been a pretty solid way to go about things for a long time depending on the chips. The 4790k I am typing from (while old) is such an example, able to pull a locked stock 4.0Ghz all core on 1.00 volts even, and pull upwards of 4.8-4.9 for daily (keeps it quite relevant as a third rate keeping up with the likes of 7700k chips).

I would be super interested in seeing any first hand benchmarks you can produce, and to see how far you get the OC. I am a bit of a benchmark fiend and run them quite regularly and share results with many others. If you are on HWBot or the likes, or just like benchmarking, drop me a steam FR and we can swap scores and compare results in different benchmarks

[p0mpous]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von xSOSxHawkens:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Guydodge:

your cherry picking your arguments most of what you said is wrong..white knight all
you want 12900k is on top right now.maybe you can get your bragging back in the future but
its dead for now.

I didnt cherry pick anything, nor did I brag, I gave general statements that are factually supported in most (but not entirely all) cases. Intel does lead in performance, and I said as much. They also suck huge power and produce lots of heat, part of why the OP's similar performance chip is running 10-20c higher than the competition despite being on a better cooler. Real world consequence of the problems intel faces with both this and last gen in regards to heat and power use.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Monk:

Again, who cares about the extra £1 a month on the electric bill or needing a high end cooler, no one us buying a cheap cooler to keep a £700 chip cooled anyway.

When AMD beat Intel by 5-10% in some cases (not when fully tweaked) at 50% higher cost fanboys screamed how it smashed Intel, when it's reversed a mere 10-20% isn't enough to classify as being spanked?

This us why I dislike fanboys, go with the best performance you can afford regardless of who makes it.

Chances are AMD will hit back taking the crown with zen3d next, actual competition can only benefit the end user, but pretending Intel dudnt come out swinging with their chip let design is mad, frankly, I expected it to be a huge mess like zen1 was, but Intel seems to of nailed it.

I'll be sticking with my 9900k another generation or two most likely abd I'm genuinely excited to see who's on top when I next upgrade.

Lots of people care about effeicency. When Intel had is and AMD didnt the Intel fans were always super quick to pull it up as a point of pride. No reason AMD should not be both proud of, and recognised for, their current lead in that matter.

And yeh, I too hate the fanbois and, considering I am typing from an Intel/NV build atm and buy both, I dont mind saying that I consider my viewpoints valid and not bias. Even if they might differ from some others here. Intel isnt bad, but 12th gen isnt impressive to me.

You are right about Zen3d likely clawing back, I am excited there but concerened about Ratoreum or the likes. Time will see on that one. And yeh, the 9900k is great, specilly with good OC.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von pompous:

To give you an idea in cinebench the 12900k a CPU with 8 full fat cores is getting close to some 32 core threadripper CPU's, that shows you what the 12900K does in terms of IPC.

I mean Intel have been better in games and in terms of core per core performance the entire time.

The reality is in most real world scenarios the 12900k is doing better on less core, its IPC is well beyond anything from AMD.

Also I'm pretty sure AMD are changing socket so youd have to be an idiot to buy a 5950x right now.

So again what the 5950x is doing with a full 16 cores the 12900k can do with 8 P cores and 8 underpowered E cores.

Will add its only hot on stock voltage I managed to take 0.1v off of mine and still oc it.

Your CB claim is either A) Wrong, or B) refering to slow TR 1k or maybe 2k chips. And if its B then its no big deal, i9 and R9 chips have been surpassing 16-32c first and second gen TR for awhile.

Fact is CB20 scores for i9-12900k are ~7500 (PL1-125w) to ~10,200 (PL2-241w)

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-core-i9-12900k-roughly-35-faster-in-cinebench-r20-using-maximum-turbo-power-(pl2)-state.html

Fact is CB20 scores for R9-5950x are ~9800 (stock ~125w) to ~11,200 (PBO ~ 220-230w)

https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_9_5900x_and_ryzen_9_5950x_review/9


You are right that in most real world cases the i9 will have a minor lead, again though while needing more to do it, but thats not too big a problem for consumers. But the lead is minor and the power draw difference and heat not so much. You are on here posting for this exact reason, dont you see that? Your chip and my chip are quite similar in performance and trade blows, yet I am using the Freezer II 280 which is the exact same model but the lower choice. You have better cooling. Yet despite us having similar real world performance, within 5-10% traded blows depending on task, you run 10-20c hotter on the better cooler. Why? Because of the exact thing I am being critical of Intel for. Its not like you are not going to get your performance, you will, but when you see high temps or ask why, now you know. You pull more juice to do the same tasks.

You are also correct that AMD will be changing socket soon, but they have one more release on AM4, which will be the Zen3 refresh with high l3 cache to make up for the hits IF takes. Will be quite interested, but thats not till q1 2022 so a bit to wait yet. Right now unless you have specific reasons (already on the platform, need the cores, etc) you are right the 5950x isnt a great buy. Again, Intel nailed it on price here. About their only true saving grace this release. But if you are already on the AMD platform, its not like 12th gen gives any reason to want to jump ship. Specially with the DDR5 shortages as they are.

And hell ya, undervolt that baby. You might have a well binned chip and you might be able to get more from it. Undervolting for more performance has been a pretty solid way to go about things for a long time depending on the chips. The 4790k I am typing from (while old) is such an example, able to pull a locked stock 4.0Ghz all core on 1.00 volts even, and pull upwards of 4.8-4.9 for daily (keeps it quite relevant as a third rate keeping up with the likes of 7700k chips).

I would be super interested in seeing any first hand benchmarks you can produce, and to see how far you get the OC. I am a bit of a benchmark fiend and run them quite regularly and share results with many others. If you are on HWBot or the likes, or just like benchmarking, drop me a steam FR and we can swap scores and compare results in different benchmarks

In CB23 the 12900k can pull around 27k, this is stock, meanwhile a 32 core ryzen threadripper is pulling around 30k, the 5950x is pulling around 28k with again more full fat core, in most real world scenarios you arent using all cores so in most cases the 12900k is faster and its even comparable if not slightly better in most work based loads even though it only has 8 P cores.

https://gyazo.com/211ec45964038e3aa77e177af9b8acba
https://gyazo.com/fccbad8d2c9604d545bdc3120fb6ecca
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvr_6IAmeBQ&t=516s

As for efficiency you have to remember AMD was inefficient and performed badly at one point also the 12900k isnt inefficient as it out performs Ryzen in most cases with less cores.

[xSOSxHawkens]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von pompous:

In CB23 the 12900k can pull around 27k, this is stock, meanwhile a 32 core ryzen threadripper is pulling around 30k, the 5950x is pulling around 28k with again more full fat core, in most real world scenarios you arent using all cores so in most cases the 12900k is faster and its even comparable if not slightly better in most work based loads even though it only has 8 P cores.

As for efficiency you have to remember AMD was inefficient and performed badly at one point also the 12900k isnt inefficient as it out performs Ryzen in most cases with less cores.

Sorry but nope...

Ursprünglich geschrieben von TomsHardware:

Intel has made plenty of progress, but AMD still holds the crown of the most power-efficient chips. Not only do they suck less peak power, but they also accomplish more work per unit of power consumed. That results in an across-the-board win in power consumption, efficiency, and thermal output, so you'll end up with a cooler and quieter system. None of the chips in our faceoff come with a bundled cooler, but you'll need a beefier cooler to contain the Core i9-12900K than you will for the Ryzen processors.

Same article linked on page two*.

Intel has made progress, and yes AMD has had their crap effeciency times (such as FX). But just as AMD was (heavily) critisized then, so should Intel be critisized now. Less so for having better realitive performance vs competition than AMD did back then, but critisized none the less. They are putting out decent and many times even leading performance, but not without the obvious drawbacks.

Drawbacks like...

Ursprünglich geschrieben von pompous:

Even on a 360mm AIO I had to undervolt mine a little to keep it cool.

On a top of the line cooler, all because it draws

Ursprünglich geschrieben von pompous:

...like 265w or something.

Case closed. They are great performing chips, but due to the limits intel has in fabrication they are just not factually as effecient, and so they suck down more power to do the same work. This is supported by third party validated and respected data, and quotes such as the one above (tomshardware).

Good chip, runs hot, quite hot. Temps you have are a bit high even for it, undervolting is a good trick to use, def check things like airflow, rad position, and maybe pull the cooler and check the TIM pattern to see if there are any signs of air pockets or bad TIM spread. Make sure to clean off and reapply the same way if it was a good coverage, if it was bad reapply different and see if temps change. Might also try setting up the rad with push/pull if not already. If front mounted make sure the rad intake/outtake ports are lower rather than upper as the pump on the Freezer II is in the coldplate assembly and not the rad.

[max]

Surprising that 12900 reaches these high temps. I have 12700, on air cooling it idles at ambient+10c, while under load it's at about ambient+40c, I could hardly ask for anything better. I guess Intel still has work to do in improving thermals for their top end.

Energy efficiency of the 12th gen overall is not bad at all if you look beyond W. At idle it consumes very little. While at load its wattage is high, but it also completes tasks faster and switches to idle state sooner. So I wouldn't look just at its wattage, but rather how much energy it consumed for a given task. On the other hand, at idle, wattage is probably the right thing to look at it (as there's no task at hand).

[p0mpous]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von max:

Surprising that 12900 reaches these high temps. I have 12700, on air cooling it idles at ambient+10c, while under load it's at about ambient+40c, I could hardly ask for anything better. I guess Intel still has work to do in improving thermals for their top end.

Energy efficiency of the 12th gen overall is not bad at all if you look beyond W. At idle it consumes very little. While at load its wattage is high, but it also completes tasks faster and switches to idle state sooner. So I wouldn't look just at its wattage, but rather how much energy it consumed for a given task. On the other hand, at idle, wattage is probably the right thing to look at it (as there's no task at hand).

The 12900k can pull some serious power when under a full core load, I've seen as high as 285 watts in some cases, LTT did a video where they OCd it while cooling it with an AC unit and the CPU was pulling like 440 watts.

[ZAP]

If the 3D V-Cache Zen 3 refresh is as strong as rumored, people that dropped all that money on decent Z690 boards and DDR5 are gonna have a melt down.

[dOBER]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von pompous:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von max:

Surprising that 12900 reaches these high temps. I have 12700, on air cooling it idles at ambient+10c, while under load it's at about ambient+40c, I could hardly ask for anything better. I guess Intel still has work to do in improving thermals for their top end.

Energy efficiency of the 12th gen overall is not bad at all if you look beyond W. At idle it consumes very little. While at load its wattage is high, but it also completes tasks faster and switches to idle state sooner. So I wouldn't look just at its wattage, but rather how much energy it consumed for a given task. On the other hand, at idle, wattage is probably the right thing to look at it (as there's no task at hand).

The 12900k can pull some serious power when under a full core load, I've seen as high as 285 watts in some cases, LTT did a video where they OCd it while cooling it with an AC unit and the CPU was pulling like 440 watts.

But it cant be watt alone. My 10900k drawed over 250w aswell and peak was ~77°C prime95 small fft(5.3ghz allcore 1.42v). I have a 12900k aswell but could not test it because i still wait for ddr5 ram. Cant belive every cpu gets this hot. Saw videos already who had 5.5ghz on best pcores and 5.3/5.4 on bad pcores and they didnt peak "near 100°C".

[ZeekAncient]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von ZAP:

If the 3D V-Cache Zen 3 refresh is as strong as rumored, people that dropped all that money on decent Z690 boards and DDR5 are gonna have a melt down.

I don't think people should have a meltdown because new parts are better. When Alder Lake first released, I thought it was funny when I saw a bunch of people that owned AMD come online and bash Intel 12th Gen for this and that. And when AMD releases their Zen 3 refresh, I am sure it will come out and be very competitive with or better than 12th Gen and be more efficient. But isn't that how it is in the computer component game? You can always look forward to newer and better parts being released that surpass what you have. I don't think people should be having meltdowns cause of it. I also heard that while Intel's 13th Gen CPUs will be good, which will be more of a refresh of 12th Gen, that it it was Intel's 14th Gen chip that will be pretty groundbreaking and game changing. And not to mention what AMD has with Zen 4. So, I am thinking that CPU performance, and who owns the CPU performance crown, will probably be going back and forth between Intel and AMD for awhile. So that can only be good for the consumer. But I think that is something that early adopters of these CPUs will have to expect. That the parts they bought will probably not be the king of the block for that long before the other team comes out with their answer.

On a side note, apparently the less expensive Intel motherboard chip-sets that will release at the beginning of the year will be pretty competitive in the entry level market and their cheaper CPU SKUs are gonna be pretty enticing.

[Monk]

Why would people have a melt down? Something new and faster doesn't invalidate your purchase, sure if you buy the week of a new release abd it's MUCH slower (very unlikely to the point it has a meaningful impact really) it could be annoying, but, you still have use of it in the mean time.

If you always wait gir the next new thing, you will never get anywhere.

[p0mpous]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von ZeekAncient:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von ZAP:

If the 3D V-Cache Zen 3 refresh is as strong as rumored, people that dropped all that money on decent Z690 boards and DDR5 are gonna have a melt down.

I don't think people should have a meltdown because new parts are better. When Alder Lake first released, I thought it was funny when I saw a bunch of people that owned AMD come online and bash Intel 12th Gen for this and that. And when AMD releases their Zen 3 refresh, I am sure it will come out and be very competitive with or better than 12th Gen and be more efficient. But isn't that how it is in the computer component game? You can always look forward to newer and better parts being released that surpass what you have. I don't think people should be having meltdowns cause of it. I also heard that while Intel's 13th Gen CPUs will be good, which will be more of a refresh of 12th Gen, that it it was Intel's 14th Gen chip that will be pretty groundbreaking and game changing. And not to mention what AMD has with Zen 4. So, I am thinking that CPU performance, and who owns the CPU performance crown, will probably be going back and forth between Intel and AMD for awhile. So that can only be good for the consumer. But I think that is something that early adopters of these CPUs will have to expect. That the parts they bought will probably not be the king of the block for that long before the other team comes out with their answer.

On a side note, apparently the less expensive Intel motherboard chip-sets that will release at the beginning of the year will be pretty competitive in the entry level market and their cheaper CPU SKUs are gonna be pretty enticing.

In my experience AMD fanboys are some of the worst, I remember back in the day when the 4770k came out, I bought one right away and all these idiots kept trying to tell me that the FX 9590 was better if you just overclocked it, I knew this was just nonsense.

Remember vega? Remember how it was meant to destroy the 1000 series? AMD fanboys have a habit of overselling.

The next series of AMD CPU's will likely be slightly better at work station loads and slightly worse at gaming.

[Monk]

If the vega 56/64 had gone with regular gddr memory like nvidia they would of destroyed the 1070 and 80 as they matched their performance, but their hbm2 memory was about 200 bucks or 3 to 4 times that of what gddr cost, they would if been able to seriously undercut nvidia while offering the same performance.

As it was, they matched the performance, but cost as much or more while missing out on other nvidia benefits and their drivers were, well, its AMD...

Overall the vega 64 I ran in my couch rig for a time was a great card, mind you, I also got it for only like £400 as one of a handful lucky enough to pick up the special launch priced one (as far as I can tell there were only a handful at a lower price on launch day that sold out in seconds).

[p0mpous]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Monk:

If the vega 56/64 had gone with regular gddr memory like nvidia they would of destroyed the 1070 and 80 as they matched their performance, but their hbm2 memory was about 200 bucks or 3 to 4 times that of what gddr cost, they would if been able to seriously undercut nvidia while offering the same performance.

As it was, they matched the performance, but cost as much or more while missing out on other nvidia benefits and their drivers were, well, its AMD...

Overall the vega 64 I ran in my couch rig for a time was a great card, mind you, I also got it for only like £400 as one of a handful lucky enough to pick up the special launch priced one (as far as I can tell there were only a handful at a lower price on launch day that sold out in seconds).

They matched performance but they came out like a year later, thats a failure, a year later you should be ahead not equal that means youre actually behind.

[Monk]

Not always possible and seeing as the 10 series stayed around another 2 years, when only the 2080ti had any real performance increase (along with taking over the titans price spot), I don't think it was too bad, just, they ♥♥♥♥ themselves in the foot with the memory choice.

Likewise with the 6000 series they went cheap on the memory and it's a huge weakness of the cards, how the 6900xt would sing with faster memory, it would stomp the 3090 most likely in anything not using Ray tracing

[p0mpous]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Monk:

Not always possible and seeing as the 10 series stayed around another 2 years, when only the 2080ti had any real performance increase (along with taking over the titans price spot), I don't think it was too bad, just, they ♥♥♥♥ themselves in the foot with the memory choice.

Likewise with the 6000 series they went cheap on the memory and it's a huge weakness of the cards, how the 6900xt would sing with faster memory, it would stomp the 3090 most likely in anything not using Ray tracing

The issue not for AMD cards is that DLSS and raytracing is a real issue for AMD, the 6900xt in theory is faster, its better at raw rasterization until you start adding in DLSS.

When I was building my new PC 3090s were out of stock and they offered me a 6900xt and I just couldnt take it because it lacks the 3000 series features.