Image: Intel

Intel’s upcoming 12th Gen flagship “Alder Lake” processor, the Core i9-12900K, will offer better performance than AMD’s best Zen 3 mainstream desktop CPU. That’s according to new Cinebench R20 benchmark scores shared by hardware leaker OneRaichu, who claims that his Core i9-12900K qualification sample managed single-thread and multi-thread scores of 810 and 11,600 respectively, without any sort of overclock. In comparison, the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X only manages a single-thread score of 643 and multi-thread score of 10,409 based on Guru3D’s rankings. OneRaichu has warned Intel fans not to get too excited however, as these are select benchmarks that likely reflect only specific workloads. Additionally, it’s theorized that Intel’s Core i9-12900K could reach up to 200 watts when its turbo mode is fully leveraged.

Intel Core i9-12900K features a hybrid architecture featuring 8 high-performance Golden Cove cores as well as 8 high-efficiency Gracemont cores. This configuration gives 16 cores and 24 threads, as the smaller cores do not support hyperthreading. In terms of clocks, the 12900K should boost up to 5.3 GHz on Golden Cove and up to 3.9 GHz with Gracemont. This processor is based on a 10nm Enhanced SuperFin fabrication process and will be the first mainstream desktop CPU to support both DDR5 memory technology as well as the latest PCIe Gen5 interface.

Sources: OneRaichu, Guru3D (via VideoCardz)

Join the Conversation

24 Comments

  1. Looks like Intel has pulled off an old-school AMD by brute-forcing power to get the performance. Your move AMD. What’s it gonna be?
  2. Looks like Intel has pulled off an old-school AMD by brute-forcing power to get the performance. Your move AMD. What’s it gonna be?

    Wait for the mitigation patches to nerf Intel’s performance gains gotten through insecure processing?

    Demonstrate you can run two 5950Xs in the same wattage envelope of the 12900K?

  3. Wait for the mitigation patches to nerf Intel’s performance gains gotten through insecure processing?

    They didn’t even really get performance gains out of it – it was a stupid oversight. Costly one, but the kind of thing that is inevitable with humans in the loop. There’s no such thing as a secure system.

    Demonstrate you can run two 5950Xs in the same wattage envelope of the 12900K?

    I’m sure that will be gotten to. Intel is pulling ahead in single-core, which is expected, but that cost may still be too high, depending on workload. Have to get it down to watts per unit of work and so on to really compare.

  4. Can’t wait to see how they define TDP on this.

    I agree. At some point, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Intel shipping their x900K chips with an AIO and a PSU. They could make a killing if they managed to cut some kind of deal for ’em. I’m still in awe of the things we’ve seen since the 10900Ks regarding temps and TDP.

  5. I could get my 9900K to pull >200W with a modest overclock, and with a dying 280mm AIO, run over 100c. Hits high 70’sc tops with a new 360mm AIO.

    We know Intel’s 10nm process ain’t the greatest for power usage and I’m definitely not in a hurry to upgrade myself, but I also don’t see these numbers as being too far out there given the performance being hinted at.

  6. I’ll gladly suffer the TDP for double the single core performance on my i7 4790k’s.
    810 is insane in R20.
    Last time I paid 1 large for a CPU was a 1GHz Coppermine.
    Come a long way since my first custom build.
  7. I could get my 9900K to pull >200W with a modest overclock, and with a dying 280mm AIO, run over 100c. Hits high 70’sc tops with a new 360mm AIO.

    We know Intel’s 10nm process ain’t the greatest for power usage and I’m definitely not in a hurry to upgrade myself, but I also don’t see these numbers as being too far out there given the performance being hinted at.

    For sure, with some fine tuning they can be pretty nice. I’m just amazed when people go all out with ’em what the numbers end up being. From clocks to temps and TDP it’s pretty staggering to me still, but hey, that what it’s all about. I grew up around hot rodders and racers, I get it.

  8. I honestly don’t give a **** about TDP. I just care about performance and whether or not I can keep it cool enough to do what it was designed to do. Since I tend to run a custom loop, that’s rarely a real consideration.
  9. I run @ stock on one Workstation, and 4.4GHz on my second workstation.
    ASRock Rack Workstation boards w/ enthusiast chipsets. Z97/H97M WS, etc.

    I’d probably kick up an i9 12900K by 400MHz.
    Depends how well my Triple Barrel fans and 1U HSF work.
    I can get -15C in a 1U but it’s loud as a Hoover Vacuum, which really doesn’t matter on a loud stage.

    Think I’ll get a 5700G, then build an i9 12900K later.
    i7 4790K’s we’re my last NOS/NIB stock. Both have 3 years of use and since I really nail the core from core locked apps the wear and tear is starting to show.

    View attachment 1179

  10. The cost will also be interesting.

    I can’t help but wonder if this thing will really be competing against Threadripper, not the 5950x

  11. The cost will also be interesting.

    I can’t help but wonder if this thing will really be competing against Threadripper, not the 5950x

    I guess it depends on how many PCIe lanes are provided for the 12900K. Threadripper has a ton of lanes available to it, and that is what separates it from the standard Ryzen lineup.

  12. I guess it depends on how many PCIe lanes are provided for the 12900K. Threadripper has a ton of lanes available to it, and that is what separates it from the standard Ryzen lineup.

    Fair, I was thinking purely from a price point though. When comparing chips I like to compare dollar to dollar.

    I have a fixed budget, what does it buy me from each vendor?

  13. I guess it depends on how many PCIe lanes are provided for the 12900K. Threadripper has a ton of lanes available to it, and that is what separates it from the standard Ryzen lineup.

    And I agree. I think the base offerings from both AMD and Intel are ridiculous in the PCIe lane category. IMHO 40 lanes should be the absolute minimum available to a CPU, unless it is something severely cost reduced, like a Celeron or Atom or something.

    24 Lanes split with the chipset is so ridiculously bad it isn’t even usable, IMHO.

  14. And I agree. I think the base offerings from both AMD and Intel are ridiculous in the PCIe lane category. IMHO 40 lanes should be the absolute minimum available to a CPU, unless it is something severely cost reduced, like a Celeron or Atom or something.

    24 Lanes split with the chipset is so ridiculously bad it isn’t even usable, IMHO.

    I like where your heart is, but answer this: for most users, including most gamers, what’s needed aside from a GPU?

    Onboard sound, or USB to something else, and with an Intel NIC and at least two M.2 slots and… well, even ITX has that covered.

    I won’t make any claims about being able to quietly cool an ITX system, but even for myself, I’ve added… USB cards and a 10GbE NIC, in addition to the GPU. And since Canon/Nikon/Sony/etc. released software to turn their cameras into webcams (and I’ve used my 6D and various lenses as just such), you don’t even need a capture card to stream. All the good audio interfaces are USB too.

    Now, I’ll also say that I’ve been looking long and hard at HEDT, particularly Threadripper, but that’s mostly because I want more M.2 slots, and USB4 if AMD is bringing that too, since that’s basically TB3. But mass storage? In the NAS. And that’s all I can really think of. And that reason won’t last for long.

  15. Is it a really 16 core CPU or a 8+8?

    I’m curious as how will windows 11 use the cores.

    Good question.

    It’s 8+8, and only the high speed cores have HT, so 24 simultaneous threads.

    Will need some Windows tweaks to handle the bigLITTLE arrangement

    Intel Core i9-12900K features a hybrid architecture featuring 8 high-performance Golden Cove cores as well as 8 high-efficiency Gracemont cores. This configuration gives 16 cores and 24 threads, as the smaller cores do not support hyperthreading. In terms of clocks, the 12900K should boost up to 5.3 GHz on Golden Cove and up to 3.9 GHz with Gracemont.

  16. Good question.

    It’s 8+8, and only the high speed cores have HT, so 24 simultaneous threads.

    Will need some Windows tweaks to handle the bigLITTLE arrangement

    I probably missphrased my question. My point is, will all cpu threads run simultaneously?

  17. I probably missphrased my question. My point is, will all cpu threads run simultaneously?

    I’d figured that they would, but now that I think about it, could definitely go either way.

    So we’ll see!

  18. I probably missphrased my question. My point is, will all cpu threads run simultaneously?

    I would think they could if there is a reason to, like gaming on 1 monitor will use the big cores and browsing on another could use some smaller ones etc..

  19. I would think they could if there is a reason to, like gaming on 1 monitor will use the big cores and browsing on another could use some smaller ones etc..

    Depends a lot on how it’s built – they run at different frequencies and power envelopes – wouldn’t do much good to power up the small cores if it has to downclock the big cores to 3.7

    M1 can run all 8 of its cores simultaneously but I don’t know how it clocks everything, and it rarely will do so – if there is a heavy intensive process it will load the fast cores only and then you see the UI and other front processes still running on the slower cores. There it’s tied heavily to a process QOS setting they use in their scheduler, so there is a big software component Microsoft is going to have to provide.

Leave a comment