Intel VS AMD is happening again? LET THEM FIIIIIIIIIIGHT! That said, thank you for such a comprehensive review! Comparing DDR4 and 5 on top of everything else is absolutely mad.
Don't get me wrong it is an impressive performer. But as a whole this seems very underwhelming. To get the full performance of this chip you have to buy DDR5 and a 360mm AIO. Which means this option is more expensive than the 5950X for only modest gains. And it is barely faster than 5900X in gaming but cost a ton more. All the gaming performance is 1080p (and yes testing in 1080p is the right choice to highlight CPU performance for sure) too...which is a best case. Gains will be even less in 1440p or 4k. Also you have to use awful Windows 11 for best performance. Before someone says you don't need DDR5 ... you are right but eventually you will want it and your platform will have to be replaced. I think the more exciting thing to see will be the 12600k vs 5600X. Cause honestly the 12900k vs 5900 and 5950 seems lackluster. Blistering hot and near double power to barely beat a 1 year old Ryzen chip. Awesome video Steve! Love all your work. This channel is awesome.
Hopefully this will still light a fire under AMD's butt and force a decent price drop all while they are readying their next gen processors that will also utilize DDR5... unless they are prepping a final AM4 CPU with decent improvements in performance and efficiency while well priced.
Excellent review as always Steve! I love that you were able to include DDR4 testing as well. I agree with your conclusion too, this is a recommend-able CPU or there's at least a discussion to be had, and that's the kind of competition that keeps things spicy. Would be interesting to see AMD drop the 5950X to $700 or $650 🔥
@@AgentSmith911 no one cares about power consumption. We dump liquid metal on shunt resistors on GPUs to push more power to our GPUs. Power efficiency is a red-herring by AMD fanboys. Even with a Ryzen, people are dumping as much power in them as they can to push to peak performance. Besides the 12600k is pretty tame in power consumption, and still packs a wallop in gaming performance, and given the price, seems to be the shining star of this launch.
@Twigg Sherman Agree! Last thing I care about when I build a gaming PC is " I wonder how much power I'm using"??? Lmao. I don't care! I think it's funny these people bash intel for power consumption. And they are sitting there with 3080s and 3090s in their PCs... 🤦♂️
I really like the addition of Factorio, benchmarks like that and Civilization Turn Timers give more game benchmark metrics that aren't just FPS but directly measure something CPU related are great especially as a strategy gamer where I feel it's often neglected that some games really love single thread regardless of whether you're running a 3090 at 1080p or not and provide measurable differences to the experience.
Big time, I hope they add more cpu intensive games like strategy games. Gamer's nexus does it too, I hate how most tech channels just benchmark cringe fps games 24/7.
I would like to see something like Assetto Corsa Competizione as well, the more cars the more it crushes the CPU since it has a full simulation for each.
I've been considering Factorio (for years actually, but never got around to it); What would you say is a limiting factor in a CPU for a game like that?... Also, at what point?... Because I've played 'Prison Architect' before, for example, which started chugging at a certain amount of entities. However, that was apparently an issue with the coding and usage of cores or threads (or lack thereof) and fixed on the game's side (cause even people with good CPUs had the issue). I assume that with Factorio it happens once you have massive projects going?... I don't know the game enough as to how quickly that would happen. I use a Ryzen 5 2600, so... You know, that's solid, but not especially "up there". - So I don't know, is that really going to hamper simulation-games?...
"Thanks, Steve!" Seriously, thank you. We needed a Hardware Unboxed-grade comparison of DDR4 vs. DDR5 RAM, and the results may help people save quite literally hundreds of dollars. Keep up the great work, and here's to you getting over that hay fever soon!
Steve:"If your gaming system is starting to show its age..." Me staring at my Sandy Bridge machine:"Yeah, time's passed...I'm sure he wasn't trying to offend you..."
Sandy Bridge up to Broadwell is definitely showing its age now, being limited to 4C8T and DDR3. But unless you have a really good modern GPU running at 1080p, it should still be fine for another 2-3 months until Zen 3VC comes out and then you can upgrade if needed.
@@sonicbroom8522 Wife's brother is using an older PC of mine, Q9650 on a G45 board with 8 GB DDR3 paired with a GTX 560 Ti, running Windows 10 x64 at 1600x900. Highly usable and plays a lot of the stuff kids these days seem to love; PUBG, Freefire, Warzone and what not.
From what the likes of Tom of MLiD, Paul of NAAF and others have said on this, the problem is thermal density, the chip cap has to get a lot of heat out of an ever smaller area as these process nodes advance, so although the AIO has the theoretical cooling performance there's a limit to how quickly the heat can be pulled through the various layers and carried away, hence why even a really big AIO doesn't help that much (hence why Intel has made the upper layers slightly thinner, but this can be risky as it means mounting pressure damage becomes more likely). By contrast, an old node such as SandyBridge (or SB-E) was much easier to cool even when given a substantial oc.
@@mapesdhs597 this is exactly the same problem AMD is/was facing with their zen architecture, although they use a lot less energy than intel, they always seemed to run hot, simply because the chiplets are so tiny
According to the Factorio devs themselves, the biggest limiting factor to UPS is memory latency (which would explain why DDR4 got so much better results) Bigger cache helps with that, but I'd imagine cache latency also matters a lot.
People who don't understand benchmarking probably don't know just how incredibly hard you work to make sure all the results are as consistent and comparable as reasonably possible. I hope this becomes a 1 million channel in 2022 as you really deserve it.
Agreed, harboring no ill will to any other tech channel, but HUB really does deserve that million subscriber mark, we get good honest technical reviews without the "vlog" type baggage. Eh.. maybe I'm just showing how really old I am.....
@@crisnmaryfam7344 did you even watch the video that you linked? Because Roman came to the same conclusion than Steve, it's hard to see a difference outside specific benchmarks, which do not apply to gaming for the most part.
Very solid performance but those cooling requirements are not OK... Amazing work one this one though Steve! Re-benchmarking all these applications must have been extremley tiring! You've done us all a great service, thank you!
Idk they're not that bad, i mean it's faster than 5950x in most productivity benchmarks and it's cheaper, so shouldn't be that much of a mess to get a better cooler. And while gaming i think even a pretty decent air cooler will do just fine. Now all of this is assuming the CPU won't breakdown long term.
I agree. When a quality air cooler or 240 AIO isn't enough to keep a CPU under throttling levels I have to draw the line there. It's a great product though nice to see Intel and AMD in a full scale arms race!
you can just cap the power, it's enthusiast chips though so they push it to the limits. When you cap the power the same as Ryzen its faster than Ryzen still. The extra power draw is for marginal not linear gains.
That's the tradeoff for Threadripper like consumer CPU that makes a Threadripper look like Bulldozer chip. The clockspeed of the 12900K for a 16 core chip and IPC from Golden Cove is crazy.
@@saricubra2867 seems you're hyped over this new Intel chip. It justs beats last year's Ryzen... mostly due to DDR5 than anything else...and needs a nuclear reactor to power it. Hardly groundbreaking stuff. It will likely be slapped down by the next Zen
It's insane? The cooling requirements? Are you telling me amd fan bois don't use aio coolers? No one cares about power consumption and heat. Get over it. Amd lost.
No BS, except the clickbait title... I'm glad that Intel is coming back to compete, but to say Ryzen is "dethroned" when they're benching against year old chips is disingenuous as hell.
@@x8jason8x The “Throne” was held by 5950X in terms of overall multi core performance, and Intel did in fact “dethrone” AMD with the new chip in performance terms. Yes, they did it at almost double the power consumption but it doesn’t make the title any less true.
@@isolatedintegration1154 Right... except the video doesn't really say that, in fact it only seems they've had moderate gains, and they're still just overclocked to hell and back Core series wastes of sand, never mind that Ryzen DDR5 standards don't exist yet. Intel beat AMD to market on DDR5 and still can't convincingly beat them, it's actually 50/50ish depending on the task. Dethroned is disingenuous clickbait.
might be the real benefit. But some results here seems to show the DDR5 part of the Alder Lake memory controller is not performing that well, just like the Windows 11 scheduler.
@@rinhato8453 At this point after however many vega apus I'm starting to doubt rdna will ever make it into them, and certainly not rdna2 right off the bat. Shame too they would be godsend in the current market. Even if they would get like rx580 performance that would still be a capable 1080 alternative to overpaying for a discreet gpu.
@@wujekcientariposta I rather suspect the memory controller is not good enough (just like the old K10 was not performing that well with DDR3 compared to DDR2) or the BIOS tables aren't refined enough for those new DRAM chips and PCB layouts so they put default JEDEC tertiary timings to fill missing data on XMP configs. iGPUs are always a deception performance wise, but bandwidth is their major bottleneck nowadays so DDR5 will profit them.
When comparing the price, it should be as the whole platform because all things you need to pair with this CPU are way more expensive than what you need with AMD CPU.
yes goo point whole platform, what a joke i wonder giving the fact u need a good motherboard witch is cost you double the price vs amd, /crazy price here est europe for intel z690 good motherbord/ now i wonder who will be so stupid to pay for Asus Rog Strix Z690F - 623 $ /536 Euro or for Gigabyte Aorus Z690 - 581 $ / 500 euro, while u can take X570 Tomahawk for - 270 $/ 232 Euro, adding the low cooling requirement to Noctua/ 240mm aio vs 320 mm/420mm aio for 12900k, and all just for gain 2% average impruvement in games
Well, yes, but that happens every time a new necessarily breaking change in hardware happens. Yes Intel likes to make chipsets incompatible for seemingly no reason. But here we have a enough of a change that a bigger socket is kind of justifiable. Both brand new core layout and the need for DDR5 support. Tht doesn't make it all cost less of course, but this is gonna happen eventually with pretty much anyone and shifting hardware standards.
This will be skewed regardless as launch prices are always gouged. If you can get 97% of the performance with DDR4 and a $270 mobo but still beat an R9 that's a solid value. There's $800 x570 boards out there too. These are targeted towards the stupid people. Shitty part is Intel still holds that brand recognition and there's more idiotic intel buyers than AMD buyers so Intel platform prices always drop slower.
Yeah, that's the CPU I'm most interested too. But the motherboard price is total BS. Manufacturers almost doubled their margin on these boards just because this is new platform pre-christmas and they know people will pay for it. That's why I wouldn't buy it before the Mobo prices drop 15% at least. I don't want to support this kind of consumer-squeezing.
@@damara2268 Indeed. I was more interested in it from a technical perspective than a consumer, as I already have a 5600X and probably won't upgrade for another 2 gens, lol.
Other reviews really showed that it is the CPU to look at but given the absolute pointlessness of K chips, I'd wait a few months for their non-K SKUs, because that's where you're really going to be able to get great bang for the buck, especially once you shave off that Z chipset.
@@damara2268 They got us by the Nut Satchel. You have to appreciate some of the features that goes into an 8 layer PCB with 2oz Copper and loaded with connectivity features (latest and greatest standards)...
@@1Patient each new gen brings new features lol, that doesn't mean new gen should be much more expensive every time. If it went like this then have fun buying low end board at 500$ soon
Turn off Thermal Velocity Boost that gives no performance gain whatsoever and bamm, power consumption is suddenly okay. I don't understand why intel is wasting power with this garbage.
They dont need Zen4 to beat Intel now.. Their 3D V-cache technology that's coming very soon in AM4 platform has already demonstrated +15% gaming performance and +25% productivity performance. AMD is going to win easily this battle. Next year will be very interesting though!
Wow, 10-20% more performance than the 5950x in applications, a whole lot of 2.5% more performance in gaming and loosing in some stuff and use 60% more power... Good job Intel you created a new heater... Edit: According to Gamersnexus testing the Intel takes 100% more power than the 5950x for those marginal performance gains....
CPU pulling 50% more power does 5% better, and Ryzen is dethroned? Really HWU? You really needed that clickbait title so much? That said, it was a commendable and fair review. Cheers.
my 65W cpu=5600x going 75W avg in stock and oc to 4.85Ghz 1.381Vcore I stay under 61C gaming and under 90W. so long a cpu base W is lower than 100 its fine for me, I just really need to oc. I do not like to get fps drop when cpu boost clock is done so I prefer loocked Ghz.
Most early am4 motherboards don’t have the power delivery to properly supply a 5950x. And on the other hand if you don’t have an AM4 motherboard then you’re now investing in what is essentially a dead platform (particularly if you wait for Zen3D).
@@johnm91326 It depends because it also allows to find great deals in the used market. But yeah AM4 300 chipset generation of motherboard is terrible and buyers will have to search if the MB is compatible with the upcoming Zen3d CPUs.
This video just reinforces the amazing efficiency of the current Ryzen product stack. Intel can match, and even slightly beat AMD in some cases, but you'll have to like living in a much hotter room...
Uh, for gaming the Intel was beating AMD at the same power draw. There was only some specific scenarios in which Intel would draw significantly more power.
@@florin604 technically that's still a win. But afterall it's already at the point of diminishing return, and if gaming is the only concerns then all of the flagship CPUs are pointless now - a 5600X/10700K is enough
I'm just gonna say that I have a measly 5600x and a 3060 Ti and my room gets definitely toasty. I've even disabled PBO because I was getting little to no performance gain @1440p while the CPU was drawing nearly double as much power. Don't understimate power draw...
Glad Intel is trying to keep up. Though, consuming almost twice the power, they get to outperform AMD again. I'm still betting on next-gen AMD tho. Imagine them fully utilizing DDR5. Either way, Intel-AMD Competition is good for us consumers.
That's such a classic Intel move. "We need to make chips faster than AMD" "Uh, sir, we can do that, but they'll run ridiculously hot and consume far more power" "But they'll be faster?" "Well, yes, but-" "Do it."
No one really cares about the power consumption, if you can afford this chip.. chances are you also bought at least a 2060 or an NVidia 30 series GPU. Intel has also stated they have a response for AMD's future chip release which means they know what AMD has.
@@ivofixzone6410 that is a funny comparison because American muscle took a dive with the oil embargo in the 70s and prices on electricity are expected to rise. Not to mention, a large market is the server market and power efficiency is critical so AMD is still ahead. Plus laptops require the most efficiency so still not great for Intel.
@@juliantaffa4089 What you mean by "classic Intel move"? That's literally what AMD used to do, not what Intel has always done, just because now that's the opposite way makes it a "classic Intel move"
Dayum, the video quality on this one is off the charts. Those close-ups of the CPUs are criiisp! I just want to say I appreciate the effort required for that crispy quality.
Whew, what a rollercoaster. I was really interested in both gaming and productivity, and it settles it for me. No way could I go alder lake with those cooling requirements, I do too many heavy all-core workloads and currently use an aircooler just fine on Zen3. Thanks for the amazing work.
@@TheCompyshop I'm really hoping companies like Asrock come out with some interesting boards with unique PCIE lane configurations. We're at the point bandwidth wise with PCIE 5.0 and M.2 slots you can get really creative with the configurations now a days. It was unfortunate to find my 2nd M.2 slot is SATA only on this B450 matx motherboard
So what I get from this is, Intel is definitely getting on track again. That being said, for an individual that needs content creation on a budget with some gaming on the side, the 5900x is a great option lol
can't believe just yesterday the 5900X was literally one of the top 3 consumer CPUs around and now it's a "budget" option lol. the average person does NOT need this much processing power
@@KILLTHEREDDITOR I mean, in context to things such as Threadripper, 5950x, etc. lol. But yes, for the most part the average person in no way needs a 5900x, or 900k variant really. But them techfiles that need the latest and greatest this is what they live for lol
Not only the cpu/ but the motherboard to, what a joke i wonder giving the fact u need a good motherboard witch is cost you double the price vs amd, /crazy price here est europe for intel z690 good motherbord/ now i wonder who will be so stupid to pay for Asus Rog Strix Z690F - 623 $ /536 Euro or for Gigabyte Aorus Z690 - 581 $ / 500 euro, while u can take X570 Tomahawk for - 270 $/ 232 Euro, adding the low cooling requirement to Noctua/ 240mm aio vs 320 mm/420mm aio for 12900k, and all just for gain 2% average impruvement in games
Thank you for all your sleepless hard work, Steve! It's appreciated! A couple of things: I do appreciate that you tested both with DDR4 and DDR5, which is something that other reviewers have skipped over for the moment. You did miss one use case for DDR5 though: Where you need tons of RAM. Given that you can buy (once the initial demand dies down) 32GB sticks of DDR5, you could populate your ADL mb with 128GB. While not many are in that situation of needing more than 64GB, for those that do, DDR5 seems to offer strong benefits right now.
Their ddr4 -5 tests are bogus, as shown by non paid independent reviews... - ruclips.net/video/6Y9S1wEtR3g/видео.html DDR5 makes up all the diff between AMD am4 and intel 12 gen, ALL OF THE DIFFERENCE. Am5 will destroy intel yet again... proof is in the testing.. Legit unpaid testing.
@@RichWhiteUM yeah, it's been a while since we invented heat pump system which have a better efficiency than any tech involving Joule effect and which is reversible during heat waves.
For a chip that took more than a year just to barely beat a 5950x with all the new tech (DDR5/PCIe5) It's underwhelming, and it consumes too much power that It makes me think Intel deliberately pushed it beyond its efficiency threshold just to get the "dethronement" they needed so bad. 12600K though is definitely a winner, best value CPU right now if available.
@@turkepic3637 and it should force AMD to drop the price of the 5600X and 5800X because they're stupidly priced for a mid range CPU. whatever value crown the 2600/2700X had disappeared with the zen 3 line.
Exactly my thoughts, Intel wins today with their 12th Gen cpu's...They have finally caught up. But on the other hand AMD should be laughing by now knowing they gonna be winning easily end of year. They have already demonstrated their 3D V-cache technology thats coming in AM4 platform this year bringing 15+% avg gaming performance and 25+% productivity perfomance. And then AMD has also ZEN 4 relaesing Q3 of 2022 which is gonna be a different kind of beast. Its gonna be an interesting battle!
Pros - Glad to see Intel actually being in the fight again and pushing some potentially interesting new features/architecture. Cons - Most of the performance still seems very much like the past few rounds of Intel CPUs in that it simply uses more raw power and heat to get improvements.
Yeah I'm not really impressed, Currently got a 5800x. DDR5 seems disappointing..but I'm glad thier is competition..letting AMD + intel battle it out is great for us consumers
you can just cap the power, it's enthusiast chips though so they push it to the limits. When you cap the power the same as Ryzen its faster than Ryzen still. The extra power draw is for marginal not linear gains.
Tbh Ryzen 5000 needs insanely good cooling too. The only thing is that the z690 motherboards cost a lot more. Maybe ddr5 if someone plans to use that but there no reason to.
I guess maybe for some, but I am still using the same custom loop I designed for a Phenom II X4 965BE (280 +240 Rad), Bring on the heat! With 360 AIO water coolers approach the price of creating a custom loop ( more work, but better performance) Maybe Alder Lake will help bring back the custom WC work :)
@@elus89 are you insane? you cannot buy a cooler that handles your CPU only in one use case, You need to cover the maximum power draw with the cooler. What happens when you stream+game, or when you video encode, OR when a game comes out in two years that hammers all cores? Or even if windows update starts using some cores while you are gaming... You get smoke from your PC case? Ideally you buy a cooler that handles the CPU in full core Prime95 stress test without overheating and throttling.
*Looks like Ryzen is still going strong when it comes down to real-world experience - even without the advantage of DDR5. Would be nice to see when the next Ryzen release comes with DDR5 support.*
AMD is holding up here, but even then it still managed to lose the performance crown. The new Zen 3+ probably will put it back up there. However, it is the lower-end, that the next video will discuss, that AMD seems to be completely obeliterated. 12600K seems to run circles around 5600X with 10 USD more, and straight up beating 5700X and competing with 5800X. And Intel is not done yet with 12400 probably will be coming soon, while AMD have nothing cheaper than 5600X. This is probably why they sent both i9 and i5 since while i9 may took performance crown, it is the i5 that is obeliterating AMD there.
@@ArchusKanzaki That performance gain comes at the cost of massive electricity bills and excessive heat generation. Intel can't win to AMD this way for long while side lining the role of "nanometre" in chip design.
@@arichatterjee5580 Alder Lake is on Intel 7, and Intel 5 is currently on the pipeline too. They're also fighting back on "nanometre" so expect even more heated competition there too. There are rooms for AMD to grow especially with their confidence in chiplet designs however for now, Intel does take the win. Regarding "electricity consumption", LTT have their graphs on their performance when gaming, and it is still on the realm of 100-ish watts. It is only during Blender with high CPU load you will even see 250-ish watts. You can take it both ways, either as AMD is very efficient for what is given, or Intel is even capable of doing that, on stock, without overclocking. Also I am betting that AMD will be using more electricity in their next generation too to be able to compete with Intel. As for heats, 3080 and 3090 have very big beefy cooler designs. With the advent Alder Lake, and AMD will be using more electricity in the future, it just means that Noctua now actually have a reason to create something that is even more efficient than NH-D15. Heats are something that can be solved, it is not deal-breaker. Even with electricity, it only means that 1000W PSU, might have reasons for existing now.
I was surprised by the power draw and the CPU temps, which leads me to wonder how hard Intel is pushing these CPUs and whether both of these factors (high temps and power draw) might lead to a shorter life. Regardless, it's good to see that Intel is back in the game, so to speak, and will push AMD to be even more competitive.
Problem is the motherboards are pushing the chips with factory overclocks. When pulled back to Intel's recommended settings power and thermals are vastly lower.
@@faultyservice Someone didn't wait until 15 seconds later to leave a comment lmao, he said he switched to an adequate 360mm AIO right after to remove the mounting pressure variable
the motherboards are extremely expensive. the powerdraw is super high. the required cooling is massive and expensive. all that for 5 more fps than ryzen 5000 that came out 13 months ago. "dethroned". the next gen ryzen will dethrone this with ease.
Well yea this is for enthusiasts. For people who want 4k at over 120 frames.on triple a a a. No use getting this without a 3080 or higher and even then I'd wait for 4k series for enthusiasts as 3k isn't amazing at 120 plus frames in 4k
@@pr43561 no matter for what resolution its still not that good. The tests were run with a memory kit that costs over 350$. And you need Aio for this space heater, motherboard are minimum 200$, thats around 500-700$ without a cpu.
Well if you only use it for gaming, it’s pretty dumb to buy a high core count CPU. The productivity performance isn’t bad, and even it didn’t beat 5950X by much, at least it will make AMD to lower the prices. Glad to see Intel finally offers something competitive.
But it's also cheaper than 5950x, quite evenly match in gaming performance and sometimes even edge out in productivity workload. AMD has been doing amazing job but they're steadily hiking up their CPU price ever since Intel's decline. It's time for them finally revise their price. In fact Intel's i5 12600k will probably forced them to.
Given 12900K is practically impossible to OC on a normal 240mm AIO due to thermal limitations, when you pump more power to 5950X under aggressive PBO it will perform nearly the same while having similar or lower wattage and temps.
the 12900k is currently on par with the 5950X in terms of cooling in every situation except benchmark tests literally designed to push the limits. those temps were not seen during ANY of the actual performance tests related to gaming. if you are pushing the extremes mining or running these tests, is the only time you see these temps. pretty obvious to see if you aren't desperately clinging to sunk cost fallacy cause you bought AMD.
@@Solanthuss if you game in real world conditions you will see no difference using and ir Intel. Unless you use a low resolution at minimum detail with the best GPUs the performance should be indistinguishable...
@@Max-fw3qy if you are gaming with the top end cpus and only doing gaming on your pc you are dumb for just wasting money. These 8+ cpu core processors are made for multitasking and workstations. So in real world scenarios, you are going to hit those power issues regularly with Intel.
@@Solanthuss They just oc'd the 12900K to the max to match 5950x stock in cb. You can apparently drop the power limit to 125W and lose about 10% of performance. And that is nice perf per watt.
I strongly dislike the trend in the industry to use so much power. No one would buy a car with 10% more power Horse Power that needs double the fuel. The 12900k needs about 100 to 150 Watts more than the 5900X / 5950X. I could light my entire house with LED Lamps and have plenty of room left to use my TV. WTF is this?
As a long time Intel fanboy I can honestly say I am not upset that I bought a Ryzen 9 5950x instead of waiting. The Intel's wattage use and temps are a little concerning seeing as it only beats Ryzen by a hair in most categories.
@@elus89 If you are gaming, you are not going to need anything like 5950X or 12900K. With 6900XT of 3090 you are not going to play at 1080p, and even at 1080p the differences are almost nonexistent. 1440p will deliver almost the same results from 5600X upward, but perhaps a slightly wealthier gamer should get 5900X. Though at the moment it's absolutely clear that vcache versions will take the gaming crown, so buying a new Alder Lake platform doesn't make any sense. But it's true that from gaming perspective the CPU power usage doesn't matter much.
If the 12900k requires a 360mm liquid cooler for the performance we see in this review, is it *really* that fast, or is it just factory overclocked to within an inch of its life?
It isn’t because intel basically guarantee’s a 100mhz overclock on the P core and like 300 one the E cores (with their auto overlock) No doubt it can be pushed higher still,
@@johnm91326 I actually meant stock, MCE disabled & Intel boost specifications applied. So no overclock & no motherboard BIOS stuff removing any & all limits for boosting behaviour.
As Paul of NAAF put it yesterday, the problem with all this is what Intel has done is simply slot their products right inbetween the Zen3 parts based on performance and pricing, but taking cooling into account means their top SKU carries a nasty price sting. Where is the real competition here? We have in the past criticised both AND and NVIDIA for producing GPUs which are x% faster but also x% more expensive (or the opposite), never competing directly against the rival product, so surely Intel deserves the same scrutiny. Yes they have vastly improved on their previous products, but at least at the high end they are not really competitive at all, not once all factors are taken into consideration. It's too easy to focus on just the fps numbers and forget about the total platform cost. I doubt high end gamers care much about power consumption, but the cost of a more potent cooler is relevant in the final analysis. It's as if these companies don't want to step on each other's toes, it's all very cosy. People like JayZ have described this launch as a, "KO to Ryzen", which is ridiculous, it's nothing of the kind. Where is the big picture thinking here? I also wish there was heavier critique of the notion that very high frame rates in games like R6S have any relevance at all, because they don't. As other comments here have said, the far more interesting matchup will be the 12600K/F vs. 5600X, but if it just ends up being an x% performance difference for an x% price difference then who cares. Let us not forget that AMD could have released a far more sensible 5600 long ago, but they didn't because there was no need to, exactly the same thing Intel did for years after SB launched. I think the more interesting lesson, for AMD, is that resting on their perceived laurels in a market they for the moment dominate, like Intel did for so long, was incredibly stupid. They had a chance to really gain some ground but needlessly threw it away, with perhaps Threadripper being the biggest disappointment in that regard.
can you please tell me about a time you bought a top-tier CPU and didn't immediately throw the stock cpu cooler in the trash. you label the requirement to cool the CPU as if it should be considered to be part of the cost of the card, but the same is true for any of these CPU's. it is simply a realistic outlook on the market for these CPU's to expect the user is going to go with custom AIO or better. as we ALL will. sorry you're butthurt, salty, whatever, but lets focus on shit that matters yah?
@@Supcharged you do need expensive watercooling if you want semi-competitive performance because intel’a power efficiency is crap and it just won’t perform well with any sort of power limits in place.
Motherboard prices are a worry. Alder Lake seems more expensive than Zen 3 overall due to high prices of boards and ddr5 so it doesn’t seem as good a value when taken together.
@@ThunderingRoar $150 board would be fine if you are not willing to overclock but why would you not overclock if you have such a good cpu in first place? Never match low end motherboards with high end procesors.
Amazing vid as usual, don't ever stress about getting a video out by a certain time! We will all watch it regardless so save ur lively hood and get rest when u need man
Yeh, I feel like board manufacturers are just taking best advantage of new platform launch pre-christmas so they're jacking prices as much as possible. That's why even the worst z690 go for 250$. I hope people aren't gonna buy that and prices will drop. I'm very very sure that board manufacturers DON'T NEED 100% margin and even higher for some boards. The CPUs themselves are okay and have a nice price though, especially the i5 seems like a total steal. The board prices make alder lake kinda a bad choice right now. It's very stupid.
what a joke i wonder giving the fact u need a good motherboard witch is cost you double the price vs amd, crazy price here est europe, now i wonder who will be so stupid to pay for Asus Rog Strix Z690F - 623 $ /536 Euro or for Gigabyte Aorus Z690 - 581 $ / 500 euro, while u can take X570 Tomahawk for - 270 $/ 232 Euro, oh yeah i forgot adding the low cooling requirement 5900x Noctua/ 240mm aio vs 320 mm/420mm aio for 12900k, and all just for gain 2% average impruvement in games
Well after watching this I'm more than happy with my 5950x, nice to see intel competitive but going by those gaming benchmarks I can't see how amd will fail to get back on top of the charts when they release the v-cache zen 3 cpu's.
The 5950x is still the best cpu because it is very well balanced. It has great performance while consuming 130w less than the 12900k. This gap is huge. Do people realize what it takes to cool a 250w cpu. I can't wait the next summer 😅. However the 5950x is too expensive.
@@kardeon4503 Maybe I'm biased because I have a 5900X, but even this strikes a good balance. I'd like to see the performance difference between this and the 12700K. Hopefully this just prompts AMD to reduce pricing of their CPU's until the 3D V-Cache CPU's come out next year.
@@upon1772 You are not biased and you are right. The 5900x has always offered a better ratio performance/price than the 5950x. I wish i could have buy one. But i am very happy with my 5600x.
@@kardeon4503 But folks, you have to realize. This CPU isn't guzzling 130W more than AMD while gaming. If you're not a content producer, the power draw is basically 100% the same.
Dethroned my arse... Intel had the 11th gen against Ryzen 5000. AMD will come back with the 5000 v-cache, which will easily match, or even beat 12th gen. Intel 12th gen also consumes like 250 watts against AMD's 100 on average. Based on 10th and 11th gen availability, we'll probably won't see much 12900/K, Intel might come out with a 12850/K too. So overall, come on guys.
Thanks for all the hard work! This is an amazingly detailed benchmark video and it should be the new standard. Please keep the pinkish purple background lighting. It's incredibly pleasing to the eyes.
Super excited when saw this video and watched from 00:00 till the end immediately and including a single ad interruption. First channel i searched was hardware unboxed despite the availability of the other many tech channels. Love you all at Hardware Unboxed
I don't think this is enough tbh. Yeah, they can claim the crown for a few percentage points while using almost double the power and requiring to plug an air conditioner right besides the case. This is an arms race, AMD can also push the clocks to the limits and give you a new heater for the winter and beat Intel like this.
I would also factor in the cost of a new liquid cooler to cool the new Intel CPUs so it stays at reasonable temperatures, while also factoring in heat like other power-hungry CPUs and GPUs of old (and some new!). At that point, I wonder if the overall cost or running the new CPUs would eventually cost more than a similarly performing AMD processor; making them less value both in terms of cost and value. Regardless, in terms of cost to performance (which it always should be in terms of), things are close - even closer factoring in cooling and wattage (which, again, should be the terms).
I m pretty sure it s not enough with the 5000 series V-cache comming first quarter next year they will be quite a lot faster but yeah we will see soon enough ;-)
Man this just makes me want to see what amd has to battle this, and also the refreshes to see how refined they can make each one. Next few yrs is going to be interesting. Not upgrading myself for a while but this is all good news for us.
Given AMD's average performance uplift with 3D V cache is 15%, it's safe to say Alder Lake's lead in gaming is going to be short lived. But they will have the value choice with the 12600K as long as AMD does not make some big price drops for the 5800X.
the Zen3 refresh with VCache in january/february next year will most likely make Alderlake obsolete. Cache is important for gaming and even some productivity stuff. I hate to say it, but it seems to me that Intel is failing even when doing great. I wanted more from this so that AMD is forced to drop prices. But unfortunately I don't see that happening. Also from the power standpoint this new architecture is in a dead end, requiring 250W coolers for productivity workloads. They need a new node to be able to make something, and they rebranded their 10nm into Intel 7 to make it seem competitive. Increasing maximum power draw by 100% is not competitive :(
recommend you make a video to determine best value combination of memory+12600K+mobo, seeing how the CPU is roughly the same price at retail as the 5600X but may be more costly in terms of mobo+RAM.
I would suspect the sometimes lower DDR5 results are due to the rather insane CL36 timings? Also, good addition to test both power usage in high corecount workloads and gaming. As this could unnecessarily throw off potential buyers if all they did was game on their system.
That's not really now it works, as explained in a recent Q&A timings are given in clock ticks, so if the frequency isn’t the same, you’re comparing apples to oranges. Basically as the frequency goes up, the time for a tick interval goes down and this is why faster RAM always seems to have higher timing values. Using DDR3 vs DDR4 as an example, latency of CL9 DDR3-1600 memory is comparable to DDR4-4300 CL19 memory. But the bandwidth of DDR4 is much higher.
There are some architectural differences to ddr5 which allows much better latency at the exact scene CL values, so if both ddr4 and DDR5 are running at 4000 megahertz with the same cas latency, ddr5 would be Faster
@@Hardwareunboxed Not exactly comparable, but if you take the CL timing divided by the frequency, the DDR4 kit still wins by a fair margin in terms of latency (which a rather crude measure of latency, but still)
Great work! Insane increase in app perf, but 1 year just to match Ryzen 5000 in games for Ryzen 5000 prices and new LGA1700 mb's. It seems like Zen3D will be the new CPU king just in a 3 months, still using AM4.
The issue is really that everything is still limited by GPU performance. You can't really say that Intel is only 2.5% better when everything above the 11700 is GPU throttled.
@@detoi4371 Zen 3D is still on N7, and current gen is so plentiful that prices started dropping like a month ago. And tell me all about how you know everything about AMDs N5 allocation again? TSMC is bringing no less than 5 fabs online throughout '22. Two of which are N7/N7P/N6 class, and three which are N5/N5P/N4/N3 class.
@@ryanwallace983 yeah, without any idle/office task power consumption comparison, it's foolish to get conclusion about the efficiency of the small cores. Also Intel lithography doesn't seem on par with AMD/TSMC one, so the thermal envelope might be one of the reason why those small cores don't have at least SMT x2 to further improve efficiency.
@@PainterVierax dont even bother talking about comparing lithography-it’s a fools errand to do so The architecture used for the efficiency cores is intels atom line, supposedly they draw 40% less power than skylake at the same performance level or 40% more perf at the same power level So yes, they are that efficient
@@ryanwallace983 The problem here is that you're comparing mobile/embedded dies with desktop dies. Since Intel still use monolithic dies the two chips aren't on the same process node (Alder Lake's E-cores are still on a die made with a performance-oriented process) so it's impossible to make reliable assumptions.
That's what I was hoping for! Intel needs to come punching back up so that AMD doesn't get used to being on top. That would be bad for consumers. Let the corporations fight for market share with the best they have. We are the ones who end up winning anyways.
A little PBO tuning and that 5950x will hit 30k cinebench all day....actually excited to see what amd's answer will be because this isnt the huge slap everyone was saying it was supposed to be
Very thorough and impression review. Thank you for your perspective. The value analysis section of the video is incredible. I would have liked to see a power consumption chart for a game where the 12900K performed significantly better than the AMD counterparts. In Cyberpunk the average frame rate performance was very even and so was the power consumption. Looking at the power consumption in Age of Empires would be interesting, for example.
7:30 Lol, never expected factorio to be part of the test parcour. I'm honestly spending too much time in this game, so seeing it here makes me very happy. 😊 7:50 Wait, how were you saying that DDR5 was faster when it was slower on the graph?
This is only happening due to AMD's advances and their pressure on Intel. The clock speeds Intel is pulling for these scores makes these less than impressive to me. Curious as to the performance per watts specs.
@@adamtajhassam9188 AMD used to be more power efficient actually, before FX series. Phenom II series was more energy efficient than the first Core series it went up against. It was 2nd Core series with Sandy Bridge that brought Intel greatly ahead and at same made them lot more power efficient, while FX series were actually more power hungry than Phenom II's...
Wow, sites like PCGamer are really hyping up the performance gains over Ryzen 9 and have given it much higher ratings than they ever did for Ryzen 2 and 3. They're saying the price of the Alder Lake processor is going for $590 which is odd.
$589 is the official 1K unit tray price. Intel doesn't have a suggest retail price, instead retailers set the price themselves. Best Buy lists theirs at $620 and Newegg at $650. Both out of stock, as is expected for day 1.
Sadly PC and Gaming media are and have been for a long time nothing more than paid shills. I remember when Gamespot actually reviewed games fairly. Then they stripped all the user reviews and everything out of their site, got rid of most of the usefull functions of the site. These days you need to find trustworthy ppl like HardwareUnboxed, Gamers Nexus and a few others and let them actually "show you" the truth
The amd 5950x benchmarks where with PBO turned off, right? It would be nice to make a comparison with PBO turned ON, considering the giant headroom they have. PBO turned off limits way to much 5950x CPU's.
Steve I love you guys but you’re nuts if you think people need to spend over $200 USD on a motherboard for a 5900X or a 5950X. I’ve been using the Asus X570-P Prime with a 5950X and it cost $129.99. Half the price of your recommended X570. By the way, I bought that motherboard based on your recommendation of the VRM performance.
In fairness, he didn’t say you have spend $200+ on a mobo for a Ryzen 59XX cpu, just that most would or probably should. But to your point, it’s also fair to point out that there exist good quality, budget-friendly 400 and 500-series mobos that will work for the high end AMD CPU’s, while the same can’t be said for the 12900k, at least for now.
Hey, great review! One thing I would love for you guys to cover is the efficiency of the E cores because not everyone is always running their system at full-tilt all the time, and overall power usage while using light tasks is arguably more important.
That's my only hope in this regard. But aren't normal CPUs already idling at around 20W, if I recall correctly (think that was what my 2012 CPU was idling at), so what's it really gonna do?
I didnt get to see that actual Intel press briefing but IIRC Jayz2cents said the scheduler mostly pushes what ever task is being done to the P cores. THen if something comes along that needs more power and the Pcores are full it will push the lowest IPC needed tasks to the Ecores "If that is true or not I have no idea, it is probably way too simple of an understanding"
@@dralord1307 Considering there are J and N "Celerons" in mini computers for 230 bucks including RAM and 128GB SSD, one has to wonder, can these CPUs achieve 5W idle power? I'm not sure the advantages are so huge as Intel likes to position it by just tagging them as the "efficient cores"...
@@Quast Intel has been sued and lost before for faking their benchmarks. They are legally required to post all information bout their benchmarks. So I would never take anything intel says without it being proven by a 3rd party trusted reviewer. That said I trust AMD a bit more. But still want the proof not just the claims
I'm glad competition has returned, though the architecture is clearly still at an efficiency deficit to Ryzen even if raw performance is now a bit higher. I'll be interested to see the new AMD chips earlier next year.
I would like to see a couple of follow up tests where you max out DDR4 in Gear 1 (Rocketlake usually wasn't stable in gear 1, past about 3733mhz) and compare it to DDR5 6000. And also toss in some faster DDR4 in Gear 2 and compare it to DDR5 at the same speed. Like some DDR4 4400 or something like that, compared with DDR5 4400.
Awesome. Now maybe AMD will lower their prices👍 This definitely isn't worth an upgrade which needs an expensive Z690 board and DDR5 kit but If I was building a new PC today Intel is definitely the compelling buy right now.
Great review Steve, I'm currently waiting on a RAM kit and my CPUs from newegg and one of our contributors is waiting on a RAM kit as well. quite impressed with the performance of the i9 but am more interested to get my hands on the i5 in the next few days - Alex
Doubt there are many or any games out there that can optimally use all available cores on these high end CPU's, they might be perfect for those who uses their PC for work.
When games start being built from scratch to leverage the CPUs of the new consoles where an approx 3700X begins to CPU-limit games to around 60 or even 30fps, that's where these faster CPUs will come in handy. Particularly if you want to crank up things like particles, physics objects, or stream while playing. Or play at high refresh rates on a high refresh display. I know that my personal minimum is around 90fps now for any fast-paced game that uses the mouse so a Zen 2 CPU won't cut it for high-end games more than another year or two.
oh misread - was speaking more for IPC hopefully games will be built to leverage multithreading more, but that said, they'll still benefit from this architecture as the little cores should be able to handle all background & OS-level tasks to keep your game being interrupted by windows update or whatever.
According to linus' video, an NH d15 was struggling to keep the temps under 90 on the performance cores on the 12900K when under productivity load. The 12600K is amazing, 12900k not so much.
@@InnuendoXP yeah I had a 4790k that lasted me 6 years , went with 10700k and OC'd it to 5.1 GHz , 6 months ago and had same gpu ( 2080 ) , noticed considerable increase in minimum fps, had CPU at 100% in some titles with 4790k , now it's around 40-50% at best. I bet this processor will last me another 3-5 years without seeing any bottleneck.
Intel VS AMD is happening again?
LET THEM FIIIIIIIIIIGHT!
That said, thank you for such a comprehensive review! Comparing DDR4 and 5 on top of everything else is absolutely mad.
Exactly. Win for the customers!
Not much of a fight when they took two generations to do it.
the issue is DDR5, every single reviewer used it, which makes no sense
No FATALITY, tho
I love it! I love the competition so that CPUs will get faster every year! Thank you AMD for making Intel stop being complacent.
Don't get me wrong it is an impressive performer. But as a whole this seems very underwhelming. To get the full performance of this chip you have to buy DDR5 and a 360mm AIO. Which means this option is more expensive than the 5950X for only modest gains. And it is barely faster than 5900X in gaming but cost a ton more. All the gaming performance is 1080p (and yes testing in 1080p is the right choice to highlight CPU performance for sure) too...which is a best case. Gains will be even less in 1440p or 4k. Also you have to use awful Windows 11 for best performance.
Before someone says you don't need DDR5 ... you are right but eventually you will want it and your platform will have to be replaced.
I think the more exciting thing to see will be the 12600k vs 5600X. Cause honestly the 12900k vs 5900 and 5950 seems lackluster. Blistering hot and near double power to barely beat a 1 year old Ryzen chip.
Awesome video Steve! Love all your work. This channel is awesome.
Hopefully this will still light a fire under AMD's butt and force a decent price drop all while they are readying their next gen processors that will also utilize DDR5... unless they are prepping a final AM4 CPU with decent improvements in performance and efficiency while well priced.
Correct assessment
@@NightMotorcyclist I mean I don’t see them lowering prices. The 12900k isn’t much faster and is more expensive
@@NightMotorcyclist their next cpu s Will Come early 2022, Same 5000 cpu s but with 3d stacked memory, i think it Will be the last of am4 platform
Yeah kinda thinking the same myself. I mainly game at 4k so other than bragging rights, this isn't really worth it for me personally that is for sure
Excellent review as always Steve! I love that you were able to include DDR4 testing as well. I agree with your conclusion too, this is a recommend-able CPU or there's at least a discussion to be had, and that's the kind of competition that keeps things spicy. Would be interesting to see AMD drop the 5950X to $700 or $650 🔥
I wonder how AMD will answer with Zen 4. Hopefully they continue with their great power efficiency considering how power hungry the 12900k is.
@@AgentSmith911 no one cares about power consumption. We dump liquid metal on shunt resistors on GPUs to push more power to our GPUs. Power efficiency is a red-herring by AMD fanboys. Even with a Ryzen, people are dumping as much power in them as they can to push to peak performance. Besides the 12600k is pretty tame in power consumption, and still packs a wallop in gaming performance, and given the price, seems to be the shining star of this launch.
@Twigg Sherman Agree! Last thing I care about when I build a gaming PC is " I wonder how much power I'm using"??? Lmao. I don't care! I think it's funny these people bash intel for power consumption. And they are sitting there with 3080s and 3090s in their PCs... 🤦♂️
@@twiggsherman3641 A 2% wallop. Not impressed.
@@theexmann spot the AMD fanboy. The 12600k is beating the 5600x by 15-20 fps for 10 bucks more. That is a wallop, stay sad.
I really like the addition of Factorio, benchmarks like that and Civilization Turn Timers give more game benchmark metrics that aren't just FPS but directly measure something CPU related are great especially as a strategy gamer where I feel it's often neglected that some games really love single thread regardless of whether you're running a 3090 at 1080p or not and provide measurable differences to the experience.
They need MSFS2020 in there as well.
personaly I think they should benchmark with tear down (it would be a great test for single threaded performance)
Factorio with a mega factory is also said to be a good memory benchmark
Big time, I hope they add more cpu intensive games like strategy games. Gamer's nexus does it too, I hate how most tech channels just benchmark cringe fps games 24/7.
HUB, thank you for the double effort to provide DDR4 and DDR5 on day 1 👍
Indeed that was a pleasant surprise
Factorio is a welcome addition to the benchmarks. Great for people that play primarily simulation games, that are not limited by the GPU.
Yes. I wish something like Cities Skylines was part of the line up as well, but factorio is nice.
I would like to see something like Assetto Corsa Competizione as well, the more cars the more it crushes the CPU since it has a full simulation for each.
Looks like I've found my next CPU, Intel really got their act together.
Rust is demanding on hardware, love to see it included.
I've been considering Factorio (for years actually, but never got around to it); What would you say is a limiting factor in a CPU for a game like that?...
Also, at what point?... Because I've played 'Prison Architect' before, for example, which started chugging at a certain amount of entities. However, that was apparently an issue with the coding and usage of cores or threads (or lack thereof) and fixed on the game's side (cause even people with good CPUs had the issue).
I assume that with Factorio it happens once you have massive projects going?... I don't know the game enough as to how quickly that would happen.
I use a Ryzen 5 2600, so... You know, that's solid, but not especially "up there". - So I don't know, is that really going to hamper simulation-games?...
"Thanks, Steve!"
Seriously, thank you. We needed a Hardware Unboxed-grade comparison of DDR4 vs. DDR5 RAM, and the results may help people save quite literally hundreds of dollars. Keep up the great work, and here's to you getting over that hay fever soon!
Steve:"If your gaming system is starting to show its age..." Me staring at my Sandy Bridge machine:"Yeah, time's passed...I'm sure he wasn't trying to offend you..."
Sandy Bridge up to Broadwell is definitely showing its age now, being limited to 4C8T and DDR3. But unless you have a really good modern GPU running at 1080p, it should still be fine for another 2-3 months until Zen 3VC comes out and then you can upgrade if needed.
I have a Core 2 Quad 9550 from 2008. Get on my level
@@sonicbroom8522 fx 8300 and a tape mod Q6600.
@@sonicbroom8522 Wife's brother is using an older PC of mine, Q9650 on a G45 board with 8 GB DDR3 paired with a GTX 560 Ti, running Windows 10 x64 at 1600x900. Highly usable and plays a lot of the stuff kids these days seem to love; PUBG, Freefire, Warzone and what not.
@@YTSZAZU based
That power draw and heat output gives me Netburst feelings
that comment needs a PCMR PTSD trigger warning
Netburst if Netburst caught up to Athlon
600WCPU + rumored 600W GPU, bet Next to next to Next gens go up 800W for these...making a high end system go above 3KW beasts
Netburst+Conroe
At least it has the performance to back it up. Netburst was just power hungry but can't even match the performance of AMD.
That temps for a 360mm AIO are insane...
From what the likes of Tom of MLiD, Paul of NAAF and others have said on this, the problem is thermal density, the chip cap has to get a lot of heat out of an ever smaller area as these process nodes advance, so although the AIO has the theoretical cooling performance there's a limit to how quickly the heat can be pulled through the various layers and carried away, hence why even a really big AIO doesn't help that much (hence why Intel has made the upper layers slightly thinner, but this can be risky as it means mounting pressure damage becomes more likely). By contrast, an old node such as SandyBridge (or SB-E) was much easier to cool even when given a substantial oc.
@@mapesdhs597 this is exactly the same problem AMD is/was facing with their zen architecture, although they use a lot less energy than intel, they always seemed to run hot, simply because the chiplets are so tiny
Indeed, that's why amd still firmly leads..
What are you talking about. I run a stock cooler on a 3900X. Peaks around 72C in a ambient room of 26C.
@@df3yt run prime95 then you will see your 3900x with the stock cooler thermal throttle.
According to the Factorio devs themselves, the biggest limiting factor to UPS is memory latency (which would explain why DDR4 got so much better results)
Bigger cache helps with that, but I'd imagine cache latency also matters a lot.
People who don't understand benchmarking probably don't know just how incredibly hard you work to make sure all the results are as consistent and comparable as reasonably possible. I hope this becomes a 1 million channel in 2022 as you really deserve it.
Agreed, harboring no ill will to any other tech channel, but HUB really does deserve that million subscriber mark, we get good honest technical reviews without the "vlog" type baggage. Eh.. maybe I'm just showing how really old I am.....
or people who do understand it, understand that they cannot trust this channel. ruclips.net/video/6Y9S1wEtR3g/видео.html
@@crisnmaryfam7344 did you even watch the video that you linked? Because Roman came to the same conclusion than Steve, it's hard to see a difference outside specific benchmarks, which do not apply to gaming for the most part.
Very solid performance but those cooling requirements are not OK...
Amazing work one this one though Steve! Re-benchmarking all these applications must have been extremley tiring! You've done us all a great service, thank you!
Idk they're not that bad, i mean it's faster than 5950x in most productivity benchmarks and it's cheaper, so shouldn't be that much of a mess to get a better cooler. And while gaming i think even a pretty decent air cooler will do just fine. Now all of this is assuming the CPU won't breakdown long term.
I agree. When a quality air cooler or 240 AIO isn't enough to keep a CPU under throttling levels I have to draw the line there. It's a great product though nice to see Intel and AMD in a full scale arms race!
yeah with this kind of TDP on a big.little design... Looks like they've pushed this silicon as far as it can go. It doesn't look good
@@jaronmarles941 Or just don't get this cpu.
@@loganwolv3393 It is not cheaper if you have to invest in better cooling with that price difference.
Thanks so much for the Factorio benchmark. Here's a game I've sunk 100s of hours into and is really dependent on the CPU.
We need to add factorio bench to all other cpu reviews from now on, CPU intensive games need love
Anybody with a mega base feels your pain
FYI pretty sure Factorio is a game that loves memory timings (hence the DDR5 result)
Space Engineers would probably be a good benchmark as well. Due to how it loves cpu and ram. It is pretty demanding on gpus as well
@@minhluong4596 i agree
It's good that Intel is competitive again, but... that power draw, holy crap. No thank you.
you can just cap the power, it's enthusiast chips though so they push it to the limits. When you cap the power the same as Ryzen its faster than Ryzen still. The extra power draw is for marginal not linear gains.
@@critcri When you cap the power the same as Ryzen its faster than Ryzen still.
@@b3at2 Should hope so, the Ryzen chips are a year old
That's the tradeoff for Threadripper like consumer CPU that makes a Threadripper look like Bulldozer chip.
The clockspeed of the 12900K for a 16 core chip and IPC from Golden Cove is crazy.
@@saricubra2867 seems you're hyped over this new Intel chip. It justs beats last year's Ryzen... mostly due to DDR5 than anything else...and needs a nuclear reactor to power it. Hardly groundbreaking stuff. It will likely be slapped down by the next Zen
That power draw is insane… and so are the cooling requirements
It's insane? The cooling requirements? Are you telling me amd fan bois don't use aio coolers? No one cares about power consumption and heat. Get over it. Amd lost.
@@MrWarface1 🤡. Not even an AMD fanboy
@@MrWarface1 let go brandon! intel fanboy cry
intel put two engine to beat amd single engine
Is not surprising, Threadripper like perfomance, 5.3GHz max turbo with a massive IPC gain.
This channel is god-tier when it comes to no-bs, head-to-head comparisons and conclusions. Keep up the amazing work.
linus tech tips: im offended 😡
@@jake9854 linus tech tips did shit job with the ddr5 vs ddr 4 rather than making normal graphs
No BS, except the clickbait title...
I'm glad that Intel is coming back to compete, but to say Ryzen is "dethroned" when they're benching against year old chips is disingenuous as hell.
@@x8jason8x The “Throne” was held by 5950X in terms of overall multi core performance, and Intel did in fact “dethrone” AMD with the new chip in performance terms. Yes, they did it at almost double the power consumption but it doesn’t make the title any less true.
@@isolatedintegration1154 Right... except the video doesn't really say that, in fact it only seems they've had moderate gains, and they're still just overclocked to hell and back Core series wastes of sand, never mind that Ryzen DDR5 standards don't exist yet. Intel beat AMD to market on DDR5 and still can't convincingly beat them, it's actually 50/50ish depending on the task.
Dethroned is disingenuous clickbait.
Now I'm interested in iGPU test on "K" series with DDR4 vs DDR5 ram ...
Btw, thanks for the review video!
might be the real benefit. But some results here seems to show the DDR5 part of the Alder Lake memory controller is not performing that well, just like the Windows 11 scheduler.
Next gen APUs with DDR5 and RDNA2 are gonna be 👀
@@PainterVierax I suspect the timings are not up there enough yet for these games.
@@rinhato8453 At this point after however many vega apus I'm starting to doubt rdna will ever make it into them, and certainly not rdna2 right off the bat. Shame too they would be godsend in the current market. Even if they would get like rx580 performance that would still be a capable 1080 alternative to overpaying for a discreet gpu.
@@wujekcientariposta I rather suspect the memory controller is not good enough (just like the old K10 was not performing that well with DDR3 compared to DDR2) or the BIOS tables aren't refined enough for those new DRAM chips and PCB layouts so they put default JEDEC tertiary timings to fill missing data on XMP configs.
iGPUs are always a deception performance wise, but bandwidth is their major bottleneck nowadays so DDR5 will profit them.
When comparing the price, it should be as the whole platform because all things you need to pair with this CPU are way more expensive than what you need with AMD CPU.
yes!
yep
yes goo point whole platform, what a joke i wonder giving the fact u need a good motherboard witch is cost you double the price vs amd, /crazy price here est europe for intel z690 good motherbord/ now i wonder who will be so stupid to pay for Asus Rog Strix Z690F - 623 $ /536 Euro or for Gigabyte Aorus Z690 - 581 $ / 500 euro, while u can take X570 Tomahawk for - 270 $/ 232 Euro, adding the low cooling requirement to Noctua/ 240mm aio vs 320 mm/420mm aio for 12900k, and all just for gain 2% average impruvement in games
Well, yes, but that happens every time a new necessarily breaking change in hardware happens.
Yes Intel likes to make chipsets incompatible for seemingly no reason. But here we have a enough of a change that a bigger socket is kind of justifiable. Both brand new core layout and the need for DDR5 support.
Tht doesn't make it all cost less of course, but this is gonna happen eventually with pretty much anyone and shifting hardware standards.
This will be skewed regardless as launch prices are always gouged. If you can get 97% of the performance with DDR4 and a $270 mobo but still beat an R9 that's a solid value. There's $800 x570 boards out there too. These are targeted towards the stupid people. Shitty part is Intel still holds that brand recognition and there's more idiotic intel buyers than AMD buyers so Intel platform prices always drop slower.
As an SFF guy with a budget, the power thing is a bit of a deal breaker, but I'll be keeping an eye on the 12600k
Yeah, that's the CPU I'm most interested too.
But the motherboard price is total BS. Manufacturers almost doubled their margin on these boards just because this is new platform pre-christmas and they know people will pay for it. That's why I wouldn't buy it before the Mobo prices drop 15% at least.
I don't want to support this kind of consumer-squeezing.
@@damara2268 Indeed. I was more interested in it from a technical perspective than a consumer, as I already have a 5600X and probably won't upgrade for another 2 gens, lol.
Other reviews really showed that it is the CPU to look at but given the absolute pointlessness of K chips, I'd wait a few months for their non-K SKUs, because that's where you're really going to be able to get great bang for the buck, especially once you shave off that Z chipset.
@@damara2268 They got us by the Nut Satchel. You have to appreciate some of the features that goes into an 8 layer PCB with 2oz Copper and loaded with connectivity features (latest and greatest standards)...
@@1Patient each new gen brings new features lol, that doesn't mean new gen should be much more expensive every time.
If it went like this then have fun buying low end board at 500$ soon
Nice performance, but DAMN!, that power usage and temps though. Guess they'll come in handy this winter :))
what about the summer ? my room is terrible in summer :(
Don't get a PC it you are worried about power usage.
Turn off Thermal Velocity Boost that gives no performance gain whatsoever and bamm, power consumption is suddenly okay. I don't understand why intel is wasting power with this garbage.
maybe AMD will figure people will factor their electricity bill into the price & leave Zen 3 prices right where they are.
It's mainly on the 12900K, specifically the "K". The other ADL-S SKUs have much lower PL2s.
Glad to see competition return. Now let's see Zen 4 crush Alder Lake, then Intel crush that, then AMD crush that...
The ideal market. Very happy currently.
They dont need Zen4 to beat Intel now.. Their 3D V-cache technology that's coming very soon in AM4 platform has already demonstrated +15% gaming performance and +25% productivity performance. AMD is going to win easily this battle. Next year will be very interesting though!
Exactly! Being a fanboy does you no benefit. Who ever offers the best performance to price ratio will get my money!
@@donghyunshin21 could use a bit better gpu availability though...but yeah, this has been what I was waiting for to change my sandy bridge cpu
Fight fight fight fight
Wow, 10-20% more performance than the 5950x in applications, a whole lot of 2.5% more performance in gaming and loosing in some stuff and use 60% more power...
Good job Intel you created a new heater...
Edit:
According to Gamersnexus testing the Intel takes 100% more power than the 5950x for those marginal performance gains....
Yep.. And turning on PBO on the 5950x gets the same CB scores while still at significantly lower power and temps.
CPU pulling 50% more power does 5% better, and Ryzen is dethroned? Really HWU? You really needed that clickbait title so much? That said, it was a commendable and fair review. Cheers.
my 65W cpu=5600x going 75W avg in stock and oc to 4.85Ghz 1.381Vcore I stay under 61C gaming and under 90W. so long a cpu base W is lower than 100 its fine for me, I just really need to oc. I do not like to get fps drop when cpu boost clock is done so I prefer loocked Ghz.
Considering you can slot that ryzen 9 5950x into a motherboard from 2017 I'd say AMD is still competing in a way. Now they need to get AM5 going.
Was thinking that too. 5950X holds value by sheer install base. Lots of potential for future resell.
Most early am4 motherboards don’t have the power delivery to properly supply a 5950x. And on the other hand if you don’t have an AM4 motherboard then you’re now investing in what is essentially a dead platform (particularly if you wait for Zen3D).
@@johnm91326 It depends because it also allows to find great deals in the used market. But yeah AM4 300 chipset generation of motherboard is terrible and buyers will have to search if the MB is compatible with the upcoming Zen3d CPUs.
You can’t put it in a 300 series board.
@@johnm91326 Well, an Intel platform is dead every two CPU gens on average, so...
This video just reinforces the amazing efficiency of the current Ryzen product stack. Intel can match, and even slightly beat AMD in some cases, but you'll have to like living in a much hotter room...
Uh, for gaming the Intel was beating AMD at the same power draw. There was only some specific scenarios in which Intel would draw significantly more power.
@@elus89 by 2%
@@florin604 technically that's still a win. But afterall it's already at the point of diminishing return, and if gaming is the only concerns then all of the flagship CPUs are pointless now - a 5600X/10700K is enough
I'm just gonna say that I have a measly 5600x and a 3060 Ti and my room gets definitely toasty. I've even disabled PBO because I was getting little to no performance gain @1440p while the CPU was drawing nearly double as much power. Don't understimate power draw...
This is probably more TSMC than AMD. TSMC 7nm must be more mature than "Intel 7".
Glad Intel is trying to keep up. Though, consuming almost twice the power, they get to outperform AMD again. I'm still betting on next-gen AMD tho. Imagine them fully utilizing DDR5. Either way, Intel-AMD Competition is good for us consumers.
That's such a classic Intel move.
"We need to make chips faster than AMD"
"Uh, sir, we can do that, but they'll run ridiculously hot and consume far more power"
"But they'll be faster?"
"Well, yes, but-"
"Do it."
No one really cares about the power consumption, if you can afford this chip.. chances are you also bought at least a 2060 or an NVidia 30 series GPU. Intel has also stated they have a response for AMD's future chip release which means they know what AMD has.
Agree, Intel gone like American muscle car (powaaaaa) and nothing else, while AMD is like German well thought, precision instrument of an automobile.
@@ivofixzone6410 that is a funny comparison because American muscle took a dive with the oil embargo in the 70s and prices on electricity are expected to rise. Not to mention, a large market is the server market and power efficiency is critical so AMD is still ahead. Plus laptops require the most efficiency so still not great for Intel.
@@juliantaffa4089
What you mean by "classic Intel move"? That's literally what AMD used to do, not what Intel has always done, just because now that's the opposite way makes it a "classic Intel move"
Dayum, the video quality on this one is off the charts. Those close-ups of the CPUs are criiisp! I just want to say I appreciate the effort required for that crispy quality.
Whew, what a rollercoaster. I was really interested in both gaming and productivity, and it settles it for me. No way could I go alder lake with those cooling requirements, I do too many heavy all-core workloads and currently use an aircooler just fine on Zen3. Thanks for the amazing work.
Yea honestly if you are looking for an upgrade like I am, just wait the 3 months for Ryzen 6000.
@@TheCompyshop I'm really hoping companies like Asrock come out with some interesting boards with unique PCIE lane configurations. We're at the point bandwidth wise with PCIE 5.0 and M.2 slots you can get really creative with the configurations now a days. It was unfortunate to find my 2nd M.2 slot is SATA only on this B450 matx motherboard
but they're designed to run at higher temps, you don't need anything different than what you had with Ryzen.
@@lightbox8019 An SOC is not a capacitor.
@@na-oq5ji what?
So what I get from this is, Intel is definitely getting on track again. That being said, for an individual that needs content creation on a budget with some gaming on the side, the 5900x is a great option lol
can't believe just yesterday the 5900X was literally one of the top 3 consumer CPUs around and now it's a "budget" option lol. the average person does NOT need this much processing power
That and Intel had to jack up power consumption by 80% to compete with 5950X.
@@KILLTHEREDDITOR I mean, in context to things such as Threadripper, 5950x, etc. lol. But yes, for the most part the average person in no way needs a 5900x, or 900k variant really. But them techfiles that need the latest and greatest this is what they live for lol
@@isolatedintegration1154 And DDR5.
Not only the cpu/ but the motherboard to, what a joke i wonder giving the fact u need a good motherboard witch is cost you double the price vs amd, /crazy price here est europe for intel z690 good motherbord/ now i wonder who will be so stupid to pay for Asus Rog Strix Z690F - 623 $ /536 Euro or for Gigabyte Aorus Z690 - 581 $ / 500 euro, while u can take X570 Tomahawk for - 270 $/ 232 Euro, adding the low cooling requirement to Noctua/ 240mm aio vs 320 mm/420mm aio for 12900k, and all just for gain 2% average impruvement in games
I love how these days the "Final Thoughts" are just a solid 1/3 of the video :D
Thank you for all your sleepless hard work, Steve! It's appreciated!
A couple of things: I do appreciate that you tested both with DDR4 and DDR5, which is something that other reviewers have skipped over for the moment. You did miss one use case for DDR5 though: Where you need tons of RAM. Given that you can buy (once the initial demand dies down) 32GB sticks of DDR5, you could populate your ADL mb with 128GB. While not many are in that situation of needing more than 64GB, for those that do, DDR5 seems to offer strong benefits right now.
Their ddr4 -5 tests are bogus, as shown by non paid independent reviews... - ruclips.net/video/6Y9S1wEtR3g/видео.html DDR5 makes up all the diff between AMD am4 and intel 12 gen, ALL OF THE DIFFERENCE. Am5 will destroy intel yet again... proof is in the testing.. Legit unpaid testing.
Heating your home for "free" seems like a nice bonus, you just need to tie that new CPU into your Hivac system.
Fanboy Be like:
Its Bloody cold in my basement room, so inviting deal...
I used to think this a great idea until summer heat wave slapped my ass
It's not free when you look at the electric company's bill...
@@RichWhiteUM yeah, it's been a while since we invented heat pump system which have a better efficiency than any tech involving Joule effect and which is reversible during heat waves.
For a chip that took more than a year just to barely beat a 5950x with all the new tech (DDR5/PCIe5) It's underwhelming, and it consumes too much power that It makes me think Intel deliberately pushed it beyond its efficiency threshold just to get the "dethronement" they needed so bad.
12600K though is definitely a winner, best value CPU right now if available.
Yeah , the 600's are generally the best of the Intel line
@@turkepic3637 true
@@turkepic3637 and it should force AMD to drop the price of the 5600X and 5800X because they're stupidly priced for a mid range CPU. whatever value crown the 2600/2700X had disappeared with the zen 3 line.
Exactly my thoughts, Intel wins today with their 12th Gen cpu's...They have finally caught up. But on the other hand AMD should be laughing by now knowing they gonna be winning easily end of year. They have already demonstrated their 3D V-cache technology thats coming in AM4 platform this year bringing 15+% avg gaming performance and 25+% productivity perfomance. And then AMD has also ZEN 4 relaesing Q3 of 2022 which is gonna be a different kind of beast. Its gonna be an interesting battle!
Thats a great point.
Pros - Glad to see Intel actually being in the fight again and pushing some potentially interesting new features/architecture.
Cons - Most of the performance still seems very much like the past few rounds of Intel CPUs in that it simply uses more raw power and heat to get improvements.
Yeah I'm not really impressed, Currently got a 5800x. DDR5 seems disappointing..but I'm glad thier is competition..letting AMD + intel battle it out is great for us consumers
Im not impressed in performance at all. Although im happy they are on par at a lower price as that means AMD will have to sort out pricing of stuff
more heat.. high price... and z690 insane price+ddr5.. ofc ddr4 mobos r cheaper and more "Normal" at 220 ish$ sooo. 220 mobo+12700k.. looks fine
you can just cap the power, it's enthusiast chips though so they push it to the limits. When you cap the power the same as Ryzen its faster than Ryzen still. The extra power draw is for marginal not linear gains.
I'm going to Micrcenter tomorrow to get the 12900k bundle for 399 bucks. Killer deal. After that, 4080 something.
Good job !
On the value comparison, I'd put in the price of the watercooling needed to handle the 250W of the new 12900k.
*For productivity.
For gaming, you don't. He covered this.
Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360, EK AIO basic 360, Silverstone PF360 and Deepcool's 360mm options can all be had for less than most high end air coolers
Tbh Ryzen 5000 needs insanely good cooling too. The only thing is that the z690 motherboards cost a lot more. Maybe ddr5 if someone plans to use that but there no reason to.
I guess maybe for some, but I am still using the same custom loop I designed for a Phenom II X4 965BE (280 +240 Rad), Bring on the heat! With 360 AIO water coolers approach the price of creating a custom loop ( more work, but better performance) Maybe Alder Lake will help bring back the custom WC work :)
@@elus89 are you insane? you cannot buy a cooler that handles your CPU only in one use case, You need to cover the maximum power draw with the cooler. What happens when you stream+game, or when you video encode, OR when a game comes out in two years that hammers all cores? Or even if windows update starts using some cores while you are gaming... You get smoke from your PC case? Ideally you buy a cooler that handles the CPU in full core Prime95 stress test without overheating and throttling.
*Looks like Ryzen is still going strong when it comes down to real-world experience - even without the advantage of DDR5. Would be nice to see when the next Ryzen release comes with DDR5 support.*
AMD is holding up here, but even then it still managed to lose the performance crown. The new Zen 3+ probably will put it back up there.
However, it is the lower-end, that the next video will discuss, that AMD seems to be completely obeliterated. 12600K seems to run circles around 5600X with 10 USD more, and straight up beating 5700X and competing with 5800X. And Intel is not done yet with 12400 probably will be coming soon, while AMD have nothing cheaper than 5600X. This is probably why they sent both i9 and i5 since while i9 may took performance crown, it is the i5 that is obeliterating AMD there.
@@ArchusKanzaki That performance gain comes at the cost of massive electricity bills and excessive heat generation. Intel can't win to AMD this way for long while side lining the role of "nanometre" in chip design.
that's a bold statement
@@arichatterjee5580 Alder Lake is on Intel 7, and Intel 5 is currently on the pipeline too. They're also fighting back on "nanometre" so expect even more heated competition there too. There are rooms for AMD to grow especially with their confidence in chiplet designs however for now, Intel does take the win.
Regarding "electricity consumption", LTT have their graphs on their performance when gaming, and it is still on the realm of 100-ish watts. It is only during Blender with high CPU load you will even see 250-ish watts. You can take it both ways, either as AMD is very efficient for what is given, or Intel is even capable of doing that, on stock, without overclocking. Also I am betting that AMD will be using more electricity in their next generation too to be able to compete with Intel.
As for heats, 3080 and 3090 have very big beefy cooler designs. With the advent Alder Lake, and AMD will be using more electricity in the future, it just means that Noctua now actually have a reason to create something that is even more efficient than NH-D15. Heats are something that can be solved, it is not deal-breaker. Even with electricity, it only means that 1000W PSU, might have reasons for existing now.
Crazy how that r23 result didn't translate at all in rendering performance.
I was surprised by the power draw and the CPU temps, which leads me to wonder how hard Intel is pushing these CPUs and whether both of these factors (high temps and power draw) might lead to a shorter life.
Regardless, it's good to see that Intel is back in the game, so to speak, and will push AMD to be even more competitive.
Problem is the motherboards are pushing the chips with factory overclocks. When pulled back to Intel's recommended settings power and thermals are vastly lower.
If you look at other reviews the cpu temps are nowhere near as high.
Power draw surprised u? Lol
Why is the ryzen 5950x score so low in cinebench? A normal "pbo on" score is 26-30k
This is the first Alder Lake review I watched because you're a unbiased Legend Steve. Good work mate!
same I always watch Hardware Unboxed first.
:) same for me.
@@faultyservice Someone didn't wait until 15 seconds later to leave a comment lmao, he said he switched to an adequate 360mm AIO right after to remove the mounting pressure variable
@@faultyservice did you even watch the video? 1 minute later he shows the results while using the MSI cooler with proper mounting
Sure... You could watch this channel first... But then you wouldn't be caving to all the click bait BS.
the motherboards are extremely expensive.
the powerdraw is super high.
the required cooling is massive and expensive.
all that for 5 more fps than ryzen 5000 that came out 13 months ago.
"dethroned".
the next gen ryzen will dethrone this with ease.
Exactly this. And ddr5 costs a ton
Well yea this is for enthusiasts. For people who want 4k at over 120 frames.on triple a a a. No use getting this without a 3080 or higher and even then I'd wait for 4k series for enthusiasts as 3k isn't amazing at 120 plus frames in 4k
@@pr43561 no matter for what resolution its still not that good. The tests were run with a memory kit that costs over 350$. And you need Aio for this space heater, motherboard are minimum 200$, thats around 500-700$ without a cpu.
Well if you only use it for gaming, it’s pretty dumb to buy a high core count CPU.
The productivity performance isn’t bad, and even it didn’t beat 5950X by much, at least it will make AMD to lower the prices. Glad to see Intel finally offers something competitive.
But it's also cheaper than 5950x, quite evenly match in gaming performance and sometimes even edge out in productivity workload. AMD has been doing amazing job but they're steadily hiking up their CPU price ever since Intel's decline. It's time for them finally revise their price. In fact Intel's i5 12600k will probably forced them to.
Given 12900K is practically impossible to OC on a normal 240mm AIO due to thermal limitations, when you pump more power to 5950X under aggressive PBO it will perform nearly the same while having similar or lower wattage and temps.
the 12900k is currently on par with the 5950X in terms of cooling in every situation except benchmark tests literally designed to push the limits.
those temps were not seen during ANY of the actual performance tests related to gaming.
if you are pushing the extremes mining or running these tests, is the only time you see these temps. pretty obvious to see if you aren't desperately clinging to sunk cost fallacy cause you bought AMD.
@@Solanthuss if you game in real world conditions you will see no difference using and ir Intel. Unless you use a low resolution at minimum detail with the best GPUs the performance should be indistinguishable...
@@Max-fw3qy if you are gaming with the top end cpus and only doing gaming on your pc you are dumb for just wasting money. These 8+ cpu core processors are made for multitasking and workstations. So in real world scenarios, you are going to hit those power issues regularly with Intel.
@@Solanthuss They just oc'd the 12900K to the max to match 5950x stock in cb. You can apparently drop the power limit to 125W and lose about 10% of performance. And that is nice perf per watt.
I strongly dislike the trend in the industry to use so much power. No one would buy a car with 10% more power Horse Power that needs double the fuel.
The 12900k needs about 100 to 150 Watts more than the 5900X / 5950X. I could light my entire house with LED Lamps and have plenty of room left to use my TV. WTF is this?
No one cares about electricity yet. Soon.
As a long time Intel fanboy I can honestly say I am not upset that I bought a Ryzen 9 5950x instead of waiting. The Intel's wattage use and temps are a little concerning seeing as it only beats Ryzen by a hair in most categories.
king
Same here. Using my 5950X until it explodes. Amazing and efficient chip.
If you're gaming it's not a concern though. You have to aim for heavy all core tasks to get into trouble with the Intel chip.
@@elus89 If you are gaming, you are not going to need anything like 5950X or 12900K. With 6900XT of 3090 you are not going to play at 1080p, and even at 1080p the differences are almost nonexistent. 1440p will deliver almost the same results from 5600X upward, but perhaps a slightly wealthier gamer should get 5900X. Though at the moment it's absolutely clear that vcache versions will take the gaming crown, so buying a new Alder Lake platform doesn't make any sense.
But it's true that from gaming perspective the CPU power usage doesn't matter much.
Wouldn't call 15% faster in cinebench a hair lol ppl stop with the copium
If the 12900k requires a 360mm liquid cooler for the performance we see in this review, is it *really* that fast, or is it just factory overclocked to within an inch of its life?
It isn’t because intel basically guarantee’s a 100mhz overclock on the P core and like 300 one the E cores (with their auto overlock) No doubt it can be pushed higher still,
Would be interesting to see with Intel specification limits in place 🤔
@@MLWJ1993 Obviously that is an overclock so their power limits will no longer apply
@@johnm91326 I actually meant stock, MCE disabled & Intel boost specifications applied. So no overclock & no motherboard BIOS stuff removing any & all limits for boosting behaviour.
...Yes
As Paul of NAAF put it yesterday, the problem with all this is what Intel has done is simply slot their products right inbetween the Zen3 parts based on performance and pricing, but taking cooling into account means their top SKU carries a nasty price sting. Where is the real competition here? We have in the past criticised both AND and NVIDIA for producing GPUs which are x% faster but also x% more expensive (or the opposite), never competing directly against the rival product, so surely Intel deserves the same scrutiny. Yes they have vastly improved on their previous products, but at least at the high end they are not really competitive at all, not once all factors are taken into consideration. It's too easy to focus on just the fps numbers and forget about the total platform cost. I doubt high end gamers care much about power consumption, but the cost of a more potent cooler is relevant in the final analysis.
It's as if these companies don't want to step on each other's toes, it's all very cosy. People like JayZ have described this launch as a, "KO to Ryzen", which is ridiculous, it's nothing of the kind. Where is the big picture thinking here? I also wish there was heavier critique of the notion that very high frame rates in games like R6S have any relevance at all, because they don't.
As other comments here have said, the far more interesting matchup will be the 12600K/F vs. 5600X, but if it just ends up being an x% performance difference for an x% price difference then who cares. Let us not forget that AMD could have released a far more sensible 5600 long ago, but they didn't because there was no need to, exactly the same thing Intel did for years after SB launched. I think the more interesting lesson, for AMD, is that resting on their perceived laurels in a market they for the moment dominate, like Intel did for so long, was incredibly stupid. They had a chance to really gain some ground but needlessly threw it away, with perhaps Threadripper being the biggest disappointment in that regard.
can you please tell me about a time you bought a top-tier CPU and didn't immediately throw the stock cpu cooler in the trash.
you label the requirement to cool the CPU as if it should be considered to be part of the cost of the card, but the same is true for any of these CPU's.
it is simply a realistic outlook on the market for these CPU's to expect the user is going to go with custom AIO or better. as we ALL will.
sorry you're butthurt, salty, whatever, but lets focus on shit that matters yah?
Unbelievable how much data in this review, thank you!
Platform prices are absolutely absurd
Expensive motherboard, expensive ddr 5, expensive cooling and you could find yourself hundreth of dollars over the 5950x
@@tilmanrotationalinvariant2257 You do not need ddr5.
@@Supcharged 300 dollar for the mobo min and like 150 for a 360 aio
@@tanishqbhaiji103 no. You do not need a ddr5 board and you do not need water cooling with 125w TDP in place.
@@Supcharged you do need expensive watercooling if you want semi-competitive performance because intel’a power efficiency is crap and it just won’t perform well with any sort of power limits in place.
Motherboard prices are a worry. Alder Lake seems more expensive than Zen 3 overall due to high prices of boards and ddr5 so it doesn’t seem as good a value when taken together.
Agreed, but the lower end won't need DDR5
dont forget that u probably need to upgrade your cooler and psu
Can just be the early adopter tax, hopefully going down in next generations.
midrange z690 are like 300-500$ which is kinda insane, you can get a 150$ B550 board which will run 5950x perfectly fine
@@ThunderingRoar $150 board would be fine if you are not willing to overclock but why would you not overclock if you have such a good cpu in first place? Never match low end motherboards with high end procesors.
Amazing vid as usual, don't ever stress about getting a video out by a certain time!
We will all watch it regardless so save ur lively hood and get rest when u need man
I5-12600K with DDR4 in budget Mobo and Windows 11 should be awesome for Gaming.
I'm so glad to see the value considerations with the memory and the motherboard, I feel so many others gloss over these important factors
Yeh, I feel like board manufacturers are just taking best advantage of new platform launch pre-christmas so they're jacking prices as much as possible. That's why even the worst z690 go for 250$.
I hope people aren't gonna buy that and prices will drop. I'm very very sure that board manufacturers DON'T NEED 100% margin and even higher for some boards.
The CPUs themselves are okay and have a nice price though, especially the i5 seems like a total steal.
The board prices make alder lake kinda a bad choice right now. It's very stupid.
what a joke i wonder giving the fact u need a good motherboard witch is cost you double the price vs amd, crazy price here est europe, now i wonder who will be so stupid to pay for Asus Rog Strix Z690F - 623 $ /536 Euro or for Gigabyte Aorus Z690 - 581 $ / 500 euro, while u can take X570 Tomahawk for - 270 $/ 232 Euro, oh yeah i forgot adding the low cooling requirement 5900x Noctua/ 240mm aio vs 320 mm/420mm aio for 12900k, and all just for gain 2% average impruvement in games
Well after watching this I'm more than happy with my 5950x, nice to see intel competitive but going by those gaming benchmarks I can't see how amd will fail to get back on top of the charts when they release the v-cache zen 3 cpu's.
The 5950x is still the best cpu because it is very well balanced. It has great performance while consuming 130w less than the 12900k. This gap is huge.
Do people realize what it takes to cool a 250w cpu. I can't wait the next summer 😅.
However the 5950x is too expensive.
@@kardeon4503 5600/5800 are the ones
@@kardeon4503 Maybe I'm biased because I have a 5900X, but even this strikes a good balance. I'd like to see the performance difference between this and the 12700K. Hopefully this just prompts AMD to reduce pricing of their CPU's until the 3D V-Cache CPU's come out next year.
@@upon1772 You are not biased and you are right. The 5900x has always offered a better ratio performance/price than the 5950x. I wish i could have buy one. But i am very happy with my 5600x.
@@kardeon4503 But folks, you have to realize. This CPU isn't guzzling 130W more than AMD while gaming.
If you're not a content producer, the power draw is basically 100% the same.
Dethroned my arse... Intel had the 11th gen against Ryzen 5000. AMD will come back with the 5000 v-cache, which will easily match, or even beat 12th gen. Intel 12th gen also consumes like 250 watts against AMD's 100 on average. Based on 10th and 11th gen availability, we'll probably won't see much 12900/K, Intel might come out with a 12850/K too. So overall, come on guys.
Thanks for all the hard work! This is an amazingly detailed benchmark video and it should be the new standard.
Please keep the pinkish purple background lighting. It's incredibly pleasing to the eyes.
THANK YOU for including Factorio. Simulator games are my jam
100c heat with top AIO liquid cooling, 250w, 360 dollar ddr5.....good job Intel. So proud of you.
Super excited when saw this video and watched from 00:00 till the end immediately and including a single ad interruption. First channel i searched was hardware unboxed despite the availability of the other many tech channels. Love you all at Hardware Unboxed
I don't think this is enough tbh. Yeah, they can claim the crown for a few percentage points while using almost double the power and requiring to plug an air conditioner right besides the case. This is an arms race, AMD can also push the clocks to the limits and give you a new heater for the winter and beat Intel like this.
I would also factor in the cost of a new liquid cooler to cool the new Intel CPUs so it stays at reasonable temperatures, while also factoring in heat like other power-hungry CPUs and GPUs of old (and some new!). At that point, I wonder if the overall cost or running the new CPUs would eventually cost more than a similarly performing AMD processor; making them less value both in terms of cost and value.
Regardless, in terms of cost to performance (which it always should be in terms of), things are close - even closer factoring in cooling and wattage (which, again, should be the terms).
I m pretty sure it s not enough with the 5000 series V-cache comming first quarter next year they will be quite a lot faster but yeah we will see soon enough ;-)
Man this just makes me want to see what amd has to battle this, and also the refreshes to see how refined they can make each one. Next few yrs is going to be interesting. Not upgrading myself for a while but this is all good news for us.
Given AMD's average performance uplift with 3D V cache is 15%, it's safe to say Alder Lake's lead in gaming is going to be short lived.
But they will have the value choice with the 12600K as long as AMD does not make some big price drops for the 5800X.
Alder has good performance but it maxing out amd using a 100 watts less and still fighting
360 aio. Sorry but my ain't big enough
the Zen3 refresh with VCache in january/february next year will most likely make Alderlake obsolete. Cache is important for gaming and even some productivity stuff. I hate to say it, but it seems to me that Intel is failing even when doing great. I wanted more from this so that AMD is forced to drop prices. But unfortunately I don't see that happening. Also from the power standpoint this new architecture is in a dead end, requiring 250W coolers for productivity workloads. They need a new node to be able to make something, and they rebranded their 10nm into Intel 7 to make it seem competitive. Increasing maximum power draw by 100% is not competitive :(
Thank, Steve. You can literally see it.
recommend you make a video to determine best value combination of memory+12600K+mobo, seeing how the CPU is roughly the same price at retail as the 5600X but may be more costly in terms of mobo+RAM.
Best Benchmark Channel as always, thank you!
Nah im good with my 5950x. Gotta run this Bad boy for another 3-4 Years and be good :D
3-4 years meanwhile I am on i7-4770 and still waiting to upgrade
LOL. I'll be with my 2700X for many years more. And maybe you can sell your 5950X and get a 3D-cache version of it for not too much money.
3 to 4? Try 8 or more years.
lol imagine spent $800 for a cpu and thinking need to upgrade after a year
Me too. Im fine here with my 5900x
Thank you for including some more CPU-intensive gaming benchmarks like Factorio. Even if it isn't FPS.
They should add teardown too
9900ks still doing everything I need it to do for now 😁
Honestly it should for at least another 2-3 years.
Love the dramatic lighting in this one
I would suspect the sometimes lower DDR5 results are due to the rather insane CL36 timings?
Also, good addition to test both power usage in high corecount workloads and gaming. As this could unnecessarily throw off potential buyers if all they did was game on their system.
Intel was never tight up to memory speed and timings like Amd.
That's not really now it works, as explained in a recent Q&A timings are given in clock ticks, so if the frequency isn’t the same, you’re comparing apples to oranges. Basically as the frequency goes up, the time for a tick interval goes down and this is why faster RAM always seems to have higher timing values.
Using DDR3 vs DDR4 as an example, latency of CL9 DDR3-1600 memory is comparable to DDR4-4300 CL19 memory. But the bandwidth of DDR4 is much higher.
DDR5-6000 CL36 has the exact same timing as DDR4-3000 CL18. Not screamingly fast, but not insanely slow.
There are some architectural differences to ddr5 which allows much better latency at the exact scene CL values, so if both ddr4 and DDR5 are running at 4000 megahertz with the same cas latency, ddr5 would be Faster
@@Hardwareunboxed Not exactly comparable, but if you take the CL timing divided by the frequency, the DDR4 kit still wins by a fair margin in terms of latency (which a rather crude measure of latency, but still)
After seeing those peak temps, I'm proud of my 70degrees Celsius 5800X baby! 🥰
Excellent review, especially the conclusion: Measured and nuanced. Thanks for your work, Steve!
Intel is looking great, Hopefully, both can keep the competition going.
Great work!
Insane increase in app perf, but 1 year just to match Ryzen 5000 in games for Ryzen 5000 prices and new LGA1700 mb's.
It seems like Zen3D will be the new CPU king just in a 3 months, still using AM4.
The issue is really that everything is still limited by GPU performance. You can't really say that Intel is only 2.5% better when everything above the 11700 is GPU throttled.
Doesn't match in games usually wins...
CPU king that you won't be able to buy due to limited 5nm allocation and extreme price, yeah sure thing man
@@detoi4371 Zen 3D is still on N7, and current gen is so plentiful that prices started dropping like a month ago. And tell me all about how you know everything about AMDs N5 allocation again? TSMC is bringing no less than 5 fabs online throughout '22. Two of which are N7/N7P/N6 class, and three which are N5/N5P/N4/N3 class.
Thank you so much for including both ddr4 and 5, one more proof that you are the best!
Thank you so much for sacrificing your time, sleep and health to provide probably the most simple and comprehensive review on RUclips (again).
Me: Man, why did i wake up at 2am and can't sleep again?
Hardware Unboxed: NEW CONTENT!!
Cheers Steve & Tim for the content! Keep it up lads.
Thank you for including DDR4! Oh and those "efficiency" cores don't seem very efficient 🤣. That power consumption is crazy
They are, the performance core just really suck back the power
@@ryanwallace983 yeah, without any idle/office task power consumption comparison, it's foolish to get conclusion about the efficiency of the small cores.
Also Intel lithography doesn't seem on par with AMD/TSMC one, so the thermal envelope might be one of the reason why those small cores don't have at least SMT x2 to further improve efficiency.
@@PainterVierax dont even bother talking about comparing lithography-it’s a fools errand to do so
The architecture used for the efficiency cores is intels atom line, supposedly they draw 40% less power than skylake at the same performance level or 40% more perf at the same power level
So yes, they are that efficient
@@ryanwallace983 The problem here is that you're comparing mobile/embedded dies with desktop dies. Since Intel still use monolithic dies the two chips aren't on the same process node (Alder Lake's E-cores are still on a die made with a performance-oriented process) so it's impossible to make reliable assumptions.
@@PainterVierax what are you on about? It’s all the same lithography
I’m not comparing anything beyond desktop to desktop-I said nothing about mobile
That's what I was hoping for! Intel needs to come punching back up so that AMD doesn't get used to being on top. That would be bad for consumers.
Let the corporations fight for market share with the best they have. We are the ones who end up winning anyways.
New CPU, New RAM; New MB, New PS = A ton of money...
Only took them (intel) 4 years and ddr5 RAM.
Good to see some competition again.
Great work as always Steve.
A little PBO tuning and that 5950x will hit 30k cinebench all day....actually excited to see what amd's answer will be because this isnt the huge slap everyone was saying it was supposed to be
AMD's 3D V-cache technology says hi on AM4 by end of this year... Zen 4 will murder it end of 2022
Very thorough and impression review. Thank you for your perspective. The value analysis section of the video is incredible.
I would have liked to see a power consumption chart for a game where the 12900K performed significantly better than the AMD counterparts. In Cyberpunk the average frame rate performance was very even and so was the power consumption. Looking at the power consumption in Age of Empires would be interesting, for example.
Oh. My old Intels always ran really hot and used tons of power! [9:10] It's the Spring flowers causing your 'hay-fever?'
7:30 Lol, never expected factorio to be part of the test parcour.
I'm honestly spending too much time in this game, so seeing it here makes me very happy. 😊
7:50 Wait, how were you saying that DDR5 was faster when it was slower on the graph?
because they are paid to by intel. Check out der8aur if you want legitimate testing. ruclips.net/video/6Y9S1wEtR3g/видео.html
This is only happening due to AMD's advances and their pressure on Intel. The clock speeds Intel is pulling for these scores makes these less than impressive to me. Curious as to the performance per watts specs.
I remember the days when AMD was power hungry... dont miss those FX series Days...im glad to be on Ryzen 9 and still very much content.
@@adamtajhassam9188 AMD used to be more power efficient actually, before FX series. Phenom II series was more energy efficient than the first Core series it went up against. It was 2nd Core series with Sandy Bridge that brought Intel greatly ahead and at same made them lot more power efficient, while FX series were actually more power hungry than Phenom II's...
@@teemuvesala9575 true. I am still disappointed that AMD didn't improve K10 and jumped on the broken Bulldozer arch.
Agreed. That amount of heat would be a legitimate concern. 12600K is the only reasonable one.
Wow, sites like PCGamer are really hyping up the performance gains over Ryzen 9 and have given it much higher ratings than they ever did for Ryzen 2 and 3. They're saying the price of the Alder Lake processor is going for $590 which is odd.
$589 is the official 1K unit tray price. Intel doesn't have a suggest retail price, instead retailers set the price themselves. Best Buy lists theirs at $620 and Newegg at $650. Both out of stock, as is expected for day 1.
Sadly PC and Gaming media are and have been for a long time nothing more than paid shills. I remember when Gamespot actually reviewed games fairly. Then they stripped all the user reviews and everything out of their site, got rid of most of the usefull functions of the site. These days you need to find trustworthy ppl like HardwareUnboxed, Gamers Nexus and a few others and let them actually "show you" the truth
The amd 5950x benchmarks where with PBO turned off, right?
It would be nice to make a comparison with PBO turned ON, considering the giant headroom they have. PBO turned off limits way to much 5950x CPU's.
Steve I love you guys but you’re nuts if you think people need to spend over $200 USD on a motherboard for a 5900X or a 5950X. I’ve been using the Asus X570-P Prime with a 5950X and it cost $129.99. Half the price of your recommended X570. By the way, I bought that motherboard based on your recommendation of the VRM performance.
In fairness, he didn’t say you have spend $200+ on a mobo for a Ryzen 59XX cpu, just that most would or probably should. But to your point, it’s also fair to point out that there exist good quality, budget-friendly 400 and 500-series mobos that will work for the high end AMD CPU’s, while the same can’t be said for the 12900k, at least for now.
Hey, great review! One thing I would love for you guys to cover is the efficiency of the E cores because not everyone is always running their system at full-tilt all the time, and overall power usage while using light tasks is arguably more important.
That's my only hope in this regard. But aren't normal CPUs already idling at around 20W, if I recall correctly (think that was what my 2012 CPU was idling at), so what's it really gonna do?
I didnt get to see that actual Intel press briefing but IIRC Jayz2cents said the scheduler mostly pushes what ever task is being done to the P cores. THen if something comes along that needs more power and the Pcores are full it will push the lowest IPC needed tasks to the Ecores "If that is true or not I have no idea, it is probably way too simple of an understanding"
@@dralord1307 Considering there are J and N "Celerons" in mini computers for 230 bucks including RAM and 128GB SSD, one has to wonder, can these CPUs achieve 5W idle power? I'm not sure the advantages are so huge as Intel likes to position it by just tagging them as the "efficient cores"...
@@Quast Intel has been sued and lost before for faking their benchmarks. They are legally required to post all information bout their benchmarks. So I would never take anything intel says without it being proven by a 3rd party trusted reviewer. That said I trust AMD a bit more. But still want the proof not just the claims
@@Quast It would be nice if like desktop systems idle at 1-2W like laptops can right now.
I'm glad competition has returned, though the architecture is clearly still at an efficiency deficit to Ryzen even if raw performance is now a bit higher. I'll be interested to see the new AMD chips earlier next year.
TY for giving us usable results.
I would like to see a couple of follow up tests where you max out DDR4 in Gear 1 (Rocketlake usually wasn't stable in gear 1, past about 3733mhz) and compare it to DDR5 6000. And also toss in some faster DDR4 in Gear 2 and compare it to DDR5 at the same speed. Like some DDR4 4400 or something like that, compared with DDR5 4400.
Nothing exceptional like intel wanted us to believe but those are some nice gains. Happy they are finally competitive again.
Awesome. Now maybe AMD will lower their prices👍 This definitely isn't worth an upgrade which needs an expensive Z690 board and DDR5 kit but If I was building a new PC today Intel is definitely the compelling buy right now.
you don't need ddr5 though
For me it wouldn't be compelling especially when a company says that this product is limited to this platform only(Windows 11 in this case)
@@justandrew9_9 It works on Windows 10 just fine.
@@NeXMaX did you even watch the video?
>lower their prices
funi joke
Big thanks for including not only DDR4 vs 5 but also updating the PugetBench for AE 2022 with HFR 👍
Great review Steve, I'm currently waiting on a RAM kit and my CPUs from newegg and one of our contributors is waiting on a RAM kit as well. quite impressed with the performance of the i9 but am more interested to get my hands on the i5 in the next few days - Alex
Doubt there are many or any games out there that can optimally use all available cores on these high end CPU's, they might be perfect for those who uses their PC for work.
When games start being built from scratch to leverage the CPUs of the new consoles where an approx 3700X begins to CPU-limit games to around 60 or even 30fps, that's where these faster CPUs will come in handy.
Particularly if you want to crank up things like particles, physics objects, or stream while playing. Or play at high refresh rates on a high refresh display. I know that my personal minimum is around 90fps now for any fast-paced game that uses the mouse so a Zen 2 CPU won't cut it for high-end games more than another year or two.
work ? what work
oh misread - was speaking more for IPC
hopefully games will be built to leverage multithreading more, but that said, they'll still benefit from this architecture as the little cores should be able to handle all background & OS-level tasks to keep your game being interrupted by windows update or whatever.
According to linus' video, an NH d15 was struggling to keep the temps under 90 on the performance cores on the 12900K when under productivity load. The 12600K is amazing, 12900k not so much.
@@InnuendoXP yeah I had a 4790k that lasted me 6 years , went with 10700k and OC'd it to 5.1 GHz , 6 months ago and had same gpu ( 2080 ) , noticed considerable increase in minimum fps, had CPU at 100% in some titles with 4790k , now it's around 40-50% at best. I bet this processor will last me another 3-5 years without seeing any bottleneck.
That's a good release as winter is coming, you can save from heating costs as using can be used as a heater.
Waiting for Zen4 myself.
A comeback in 9 months is truely impressive gotta give intel that
Thanks for the Factorio benchmark!