Performance

I’m not a big one on posting first-party benchmark results, but the high-level overview from Intel was this:

  • At 3.3 GHz, 12900K is +19% better in Single Thread Performance over the 11900K
  • Over the 11900K, the 12900K is +19% better at 1080p High with RTX 3090
  • Over the 11900K, the 12900K gets +84% better fps when concurrently streaming
  • Over the 11900K, the 12900K is +22-100% better in content creation (Adobe)
  • Over the 11900K, the 12900K is +50% faster in BlenderMT at 241W (vs 250W)
  • Over the 11900K, the 12900K performs the same in BlenderMT at only 65W (vs 250W)

All of Intel’s tests were using Windows 11, with DDR5-4400 vs DDR4-3200. Intel did have a small one slide of comparisons against AMD in gaming with an RTX 3090, however they stated they were done without the latest L3 patch fix, and admitted that they would have preferred to show us full results. By the time this article goes live, we may have seen those results at Intel’s event.

This is a reasonable set of data, very focused on the Core i9, but when the reviews come out we’ll be able to see where it sits compared to the other parts, as well as the competition. The only thing that concerns me right now leading up to the launch is the behavior of demoting workloads to E-cores when not in focus when on the Balanced Power Plan (mentioned on the Thread Director page). It won’t be until I get hands-on with the hardware as to whether I see it as an issue or not.

Another factor to mention is DRM. Intel has made statements to this, but there is an issue with Denuvo as it uses part of the CPU configuration to identify systems to stop piracy. Due to the hybrid nature, Denuvo might register starting on a different core (P vs E) as a new system, and eventually lock you out of the game either temporarily or permanently. Out of the top 200 games, around 20 are affected and Intel says it still has a couple more to fix. It’s working with Denuvo for a high-level fix from their side, and with developers to fix from their end as well. Intel says it’s a bit harder with older titles, especially when there’s no development going on, or the IP is far away from its original source. A solution to this would be to only launch those games on specific cores, but look out for more updates as time marches on.

Conclusions

Well, it’s almost here. It looks like Intel will take the ST crown, although MT is a bit of a different story, and might rely explicitly on the software being used or if the difference in performance is worth the price. The use of the hybrid architecture might be an early pain point, and it will be interesting to see if Thread Director remains resilient to the issues. The bump up to Windows 11 is also another potential rock in the stream, and we’re seeing some teething issues from users, although right now users who are looking to early adopt a new CPU are likely more than ready to adopt a new version of Windows at the same time.

The discourse on DDR4 vs DDR5 is one I’ve had for almost a year now. Memory vendors seem ready to start seeding kits to retailers, however the expense over DDR4 is somewhat eyewatering. The general expectation is that DDR5 won’t offer much performance uplift over a good kit of DDR4, or might even be worse. The benefit of DDR5 then at this point is more to start on that DDR5 ladder, where the only way to go is up. This will be Intel’s last DDR4 platform on desktop it seems.

On the processors themselves, the Core i5 and Core i7 parts look very competitive and in line with respective popular AMD processors. Both the Core i5 and Core i7 have extra E-cores, so we’ll see if that comes in handy for extra performance, or they’ll just end up burning power and performance per watt needs re-examining. The Core i9 challenge is probably sided on Intel for single thread, but all the questions will be over proper multi-threaded performance.

Intel 12th Gen Core, Alder Lake
AnandTech Cores
P+E/T
E-Core
Base
E-Core
Turbo
P-Core
Base
P-Core
Turbo
IGP Base
W
Turbo
W
Price
$1ku
i9-12900K 8+8/24 2400 3900 3200 5200 770 125 241 $589
i9-12900KF 8+8/24 2400 3900 3200 5200 - 125 241 $564
i7-12700K 8+4/20 2700 3800 3600 5000 770 125 190 $409
i7-12700KF 8+4/20 2700 3800 3600 5000 - 125 190 $384
i5-12600K 6+4/20 2800 3600 3700 4900 770 125 150 $289
i5-12600KF 6+4/20 2800 3600 3700 4900 - 125 150 $264

After not much CPU news for a while, it’s time to get in gear and find out what Intel has been cooking. Come back on November 4th for our review.

Package Improvements and Overclocking
Comments Locked

395 Comments

View All Comments

  • Hifihedgehog - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link

    Most people don't care about your $10.00 in energy savings.
  • Teckk - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link

    Why even go with big little/power and efficiency cores in desktop then if energy doesn’t even matter?
  • Hifihedgehog - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link

    I agree there. I would much rather see all performance cores on a desktop SKU. big.LITTLE makes more sense in a mobile application where battery life and standby power are important.
  • The Hardcard - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link

    But isn’t about more power? Aren’t nearly all workloads that can peg more than six cores parallelized? What exceptions are there?

    So you have 4 E- cores in the space of one P - core and those E - cores boost muti-threaded performance. When iwould a ninth or higher P -core count do better?
  • nandnandnand - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link

    The efficiency cores are essentially Comet Lake cores but at lower clocks and no hyperthreading. They can fit many of them onto the die. For highly multi-threaded workloads, the more efficiency cores the better. Which is why Intel will be doubling them for Raptor Lake, and maybe doubling them again after that.

    Intel is betting you won't need more than 8 performance cores because they will handle up to 8 (or 16) single-thread sensitive tasks. Even games that can use at least 8 cores probably don't treat all of the threads as if they need the highest clocks 100% of the time.

    It could take multiple generations before Intel has a good reason to bump performance cores to 12.
  • Spunjji - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link

    This has been mentioned enough times that people should know, but to be clear, the E cores are there to boost multithreaded performance without bloating the die size.
  • kwohlt - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link

    Because given the choice between 10 pCores OR 8 pCores + 8 eCores (given the same power and thermal constraints), the 8+8 build is not only offering better performance in most workloads, it's also more scalable (see Raptor Lake doubling eCores again next week, so 13600K = 6+8, 13700K = 8+8, 13900K = 8+16).
  • Mikewind Dale - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link

    I could see big.LITTLE being beneficial for corporations with large numbers of computers, where everyone is using basic applications like Chrome, Word, etc. The efficiency cores could save the corporation a lot of electricity and cooling costs.

    But for workstations performing tasks like video-editing, the efficiency cores may not be worthwhile.
  • nandnandnand - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link

    I could see businesses using the cheaper 6-core die (i5-12400) with no efficiency cores.

    The Alder Lake 2+8 ultra mobile die put in an all-in-one or small form factor mini PC would also be a good choice. That die has up to 96 graphics EUs.

    Workstation users should eventually be using efficiency cores. Just imagine if Intel made a CPU with 8-16 performance cores and 128-256 efficiency cores. If an application can scale to use hundreds of cores, you want hundreds of efficiency cores.
  • Teckk - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link

    The peak power consumption doesn't seem to fit the case. Why even go for this for basic apps, where an i5 would do just fine?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now