7 ms·

I have an 8700K that has been running at a stable 5GHz for several years with just a basic watercooled setup and manual tweaking. Will the 12900K give a meanin

I have an 8700K that has been running at a stable 5GHz for several years with just a basic watercooled setup and manual tweaking. Will the 12900K give a meaningful performance bump at the same clock speed?

bytehowl 5y ago
About 52% single-threaded, 196% multi-threaded improvement. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i7-8700K-vs-Intel-i9-12900K/3098vs4597 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i7-8700K-vs-Intel...
- iforgotpassword 5y ago
  And probably also better performance per watt should you care about that.
  - bytehowl 5y ago
    Not sure about that one; TDP isn't exactly the same as actual power consumption, but for i9-12900K it is more than doubled.
    - formerly_proven 5y ago
      You're comparing the 8700K TDP to the 12900K maximum turbo power (which you can only "achieve" when using all cores fully). In "normal" usage 12th gen is very energy efficient and perform (unsurprisingly) much better than AMD Zen 2/3 SKUs.
      - bytehowl 5y ago
        You appear to be correct. I dug around a bit, and on Intel's ARK there are 2 numbers: Processor Base Power (125W) and Maximum Turbo Power (241W, same as the one used with the benchmarks). It appears the Processor Base Power might be a closer equivalent to TDP than the other one. If that's the case, the 12900K is much more efficient than the 8700K.
        bytehowl 5y ago
        Can't edit the comment anymore, but I made a mistake. The Maximum Turbo Power explanation is as follows: "The maximum sustained (>1s) power dissipation of the processor as limited by current and/or temperature controls." Somehow I have misread it to mean that it can peak up to said power limit for UNDER 1 second, which is incorrect - the CPU will run at that limit for as long as cooling allows. The CPU will gulp down ~240W when under full load, as evidenced here at ~24 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhI9tLOg-6I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhI9tLOg-6I
      - Marsymars 5y ago
        “Normal” usage isn’t going to be terribly more energy efficient - efficiency doesn’t change much depending on number of cores loaded. (Unless you’re only loading efficiency cores in the case of 12th-gen Intel.) (More cores might actually be more efficient if it thermally limits the CPU - in that case the frequency will be throttled, which will put you at a more efficient place on the voltage curve.) Tom’s Hardware 5800X3D review[1] has some efficiency numbers if you scroll down. High-end Zen 3 chips seem mostly a bit more efficient than high-end 12th-gen Intel. By far the most efficient CPU tested is the 5700X, which is AMD’s fastest 65W TDP part. They don’t have any low-power Intel chips (e.g. Core i7-12700T) in the test. (Though I’ve always found retail availability of low-power Intel chips to be terrible.) 1. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-7-5800x3d-review https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-7-5800x3d-review
        formerly_proven 5y ago
        If you are referring to the all-core Handbrake efficiency graph then I'm not sure what's to complain about. The 12th-gen top-end SKUs perform far better while being roughly as efficient as the slower AMD parts, which is a clear win in my book. The 5700X performing well here is not surprising, as it's heavily restricted by the low TDP so in this all-core workload it might even remain under 4 GHz, also resulting in the lowest performance by far. The situation is very different for lightly threaded loads (e.g. what PCs tend to do a lot of the time, this also includes most games).
        tadfisher 5y ago
        I watched GamersNexus' 5800X3D review a few days ago, and the thing that stood out to me was their direct measurement of power draw on the 12V rail; it included a 120W result for the 5950X, and 240W (!) for the 12900KS. These parts are pretty comparable for the workloads I care about (compilation, mostly) but Intel's best part does the same job in roughly the same amount of time, for more money and twice the power draw. Is there something I'm missing, before I just buy the AMD for an upgrade?
        Marsymars 5y ago
        For Handbrake the 12700K performs about 12% faster than the 5900X while being about 13% less efficient - I don’t think “perform far better while being roughly as efficient” is a fair characterization there - it performs better by about the same amount as it’s less efficient. And the 5700X having low performance is taken into account by efficiency metrics - efficiency is performance divided by power draw, so whatever it in performance it more than gains in reduced power draw. (Of course, you might value your time more than your electric bill.)
- alasdair_ 5y ago
  Thank you. That link assumes the 8700K is running at 3.7GHz - any idea if there is still that much improvement given that mine is running at 5GHz?
  - rowanG077 5y ago
    The stock 8700k boosts upto 4.7 Ghz. I don't think your extra 300Mhz will make that much of a difference.
  - bytehowl 5y ago
    TBH, there are people way more qualified in this area than I, but AFAIK Intel CPUs run at the turbo speed as long as they have sufficient cooling, and the benchmarks run at maximum performance available, which would be 4.7GHz in this case. Therefore, the benchmarks should be pretty close to your OC. You could verify this theory by running the benchmark yourself.
    - alasdair_ 5y ago
      Good to know - thank you! Edit: I did and you are right. I’m about 10% higher than the benchmark but still WAY below the i9-12900KS (by 25% single threaded) Time to upgrade :)
  - t0mas88 5y ago
    I had an i5 9600k that ran 5ghz all cores, and swapped to the i7 12700k. The i7 is still a lot faster out of the box and I undervolted it a bit while running at 5.1 ghz so it's also very quiet.
    - alasdair_ 5y ago
      I benchmarked it. I get a score of 3068 for single-threaded performance, which is around 10% faster than the stock 8700K stats but it’s still 25% below the i-9 12900KS. I guess it’s time to upgrade :)
O_H_E 5y ago
If you are asking a general question about single threaded performance, then YES. Modern CPU performance is about so much more than clock speeds, and the TLDR is that there are many non-orthogonal factors that sometimes the only trustworthy quantifier is workload benchmarking. If you're asking whether that 5Ghz is different than this 5Ghz, the main easy answer IPC (instructions per clock). Unfortunately there are no official IPC numbers, but every new release comes with vague unlabeled slides showing %increase, and then reviewres do their pinning the CPU at a specific clock and measure single-threaded performance to estimate relative IPC improvements (like this https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/core-i9-12900k-review,7.html https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/core-i9-12900k-review,...) If we go into multi-threaded workloads like compilation, then of course the new one completely throws the 8700k out of the water. But please don't feel pressured to get on the latest and greatest bandwagon, I'm right here running around with a Thinkpad T460s (with a little bit of a need to upgrade). _Usually_, if you are not waiting for your computer while CPU is on +90% utilization, there should be little gained from a CPU upgrade. (Workloads that depend heavily on cache size or memory latency are counter-examples)
- vardump 5y ago
  "Unfortunately there are no official IPC numbers" Nor can there really be. IPC varies pretty wildly, and depends a LOT on optimization for a particular CPU architecture. The instruction mix should match the CPU model's execution units in addition to not having any dependency stalls.
  - lynguist 5y ago
    I once compiled a list of architectures’ relative IPC on the SPECINT 2006 benchmark: Cortex-A73 (ARMv8-A) 64.4 Pentium M 69.0 Bulldozer (AMD FX) 76.2 K10 (Phenom II) 76.7 Goldmont Plus (Atom 2nd gen) 77.5 Core 80.0 Bobcat 81.3 Nehalem 90.0 Jaguar (PS4) 93.5 Sandy Bridge 100.0 Tremont (Atom 3rd gen) 100.7 Ivy Bridge 105.8 Cortex-A76 (ARMv8.2-A) 114.7 Zen 115.9 Haswell 117.6 Zen+ 119.3 Broadwell 121.5 Skylake 124.0 Zen 2 139.8 A10 (ARMv8.1-A) 139.8 Cortex-A77 (ARMv8.2-A) 141.0 Sunny Cove Ice Lake 146.3 Cypress Cove Rocket Lake 147.6 Zen 3 167.4 A11 (ARMv8.2-A) 186.0 A12 (ARMv8.3-A) 213.8 A13 (ARMv8.4-A) 235.0 A14/M1 (ARMv8.5-A) 236.7
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lynguist 5y ago
In essence you get a CPU that is 4 (!) architectures newer. Here are the architectures of Intel (according to Wikipedia): 1. i686 (Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Pentium III) 2. Core (Core 2) 3. Nehalem (Core i7-920, Core i5-750) 4. Sandy Bridge (Core i 2000 series) 5. Haswell (Core i 4000 series) 6. Skylake (Core i 6000 series) 7. canceled due to low yield 8. Sunny Cove (Ice Lake mobile 10xx and desktop 11xxx) 9. Willow Cove (Tiger Lake mobile 11xx) 10. Golden Cove (12xxx and 12xx)
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  Did you purposefully leave out Broadwell, or was it a mistake? (If it wasn’t a mistake, I’d be interested to hear you expand on why, I know it was a bit of a weird release.)
  - DuskStar 5y ago
    I think broadwell was a process shift, not a microarchitecture shift.
  - Tostino 5y ago
    They also left out the whole Netburst (and it's decedents) arch too.
    - peterhalburt33 5y ago
      I think Intel would rather we all forget about netburst.
    - lynguist 5y ago
      Netburst is not based on P6 (i686). Core is a development stemming directly from Enhanced Pentium M which stems from Pentium III. All others build on this. Broadwell is Haswell on a new node (14nm instead of 22nm).

bytehowl 5y ago

About 52% single-threaded, 196% multi-threaded improvement. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i7-8700K-vs-Intel-i9-12900K/3098vs4597 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i7-8700K-vs-Intel...

iforgotpassword 5y ago
And probably also better performance per watt should you care about that.
- bytehowl 5y ago
  Not sure about that one; TDP isn't exactly the same as actual power consumption, but for i9-12900K it is more than doubled.
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    You're comparing the 8700K TDP to the 12900K maximum turbo power (which you can only "achieve" when using all cores fully). In "normal" usage 12th gen is very energy efficient and perform (unsurprisingly) much better than AMD Zen 2/3 SKUs.
    - bytehowl 5y ago
      You appear to be correct. I dug around a bit, and on Intel's ARK there are 2 numbers: Processor Base Power (125W) and Maximum Turbo Power (241W, same as the one used with the benchmarks). It appears the Processor Base Power might be a closer equivalent to TDP than the other one. If that's the case, the 12900K is much more efficient than the 8700K.
      - bytehowl 5y ago
        Can't edit the comment anymore, but I made a mistake. The Maximum Turbo Power explanation is as follows: "The maximum sustained (>1s) power dissipation of the processor as limited by current and/or temperature controls." Somehow I have misread it to mean that it can peak up to said power limit for UNDER 1 second, which is incorrect - the CPU will run at that limit for as long as cooling allows. The CPU will gulp down ~240W when under full load, as evidenced here at ~24 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhI9tLOg-6I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhI9tLOg-6I
    - Marsymars 5y ago
      “Normal” usage isn’t going to be terribly more energy efficient - efficiency doesn’t change much depending on number of cores loaded. (Unless you’re only loading efficiency cores in the case of 12th-gen Intel.) (More cores might actually be more efficient if it thermally limits the CPU - in that case the frequency will be throttled, which will put you at a more efficient place on the voltage curve.) Tom’s Hardware 5800X3D review[1] has some efficiency numbers if you scroll down. High-end Zen 3 chips seem mostly a bit more efficient than high-end 12th-gen Intel. By far the most efficient CPU tested is the 5700X, which is AMD’s fastest 65W TDP part. They don’t have any low-power Intel chips (e.g. Core i7-12700T) in the test. (Though I’ve always found retail availability of low-power Intel chips to be terrible.) 1. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-7-5800x3d-review https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-7-5800x3d-review
      - formerly_proven 5y ago
        If you are referring to the all-core Handbrake efficiency graph then I'm not sure what's to complain about. The 12th-gen top-end SKUs perform far better while being roughly as efficient as the slower AMD parts, which is a clear win in my book. The 5700X performing well here is not surprising, as it's heavily restricted by the low TDP so in this all-core workload it might even remain under 4 GHz, also resulting in the lowest performance by far. The situation is very different for lightly threaded loads (e.g. what PCs tend to do a lot of the time, this also includes most games).
        tadfisher 5y ago
        I watched GamersNexus' 5800X3D review a few days ago, and the thing that stood out to me was their direct measurement of power draw on the 12V rail; it included a 120W result for the 5950X, and 240W (!) for the 12900KS. These parts are pretty comparable for the workloads I care about (compilation, mostly) but Intel's best part does the same job in roughly the same amount of time, for more money and twice the power draw. Is there something I'm missing, before I just buy the AMD for an upgrade?
        Marsymars 5y ago
        For Handbrake the 12700K performs about 12% faster than the 5900X while being about 13% less efficient - I don’t think “perform far better while being roughly as efficient” is a fair characterization there - it performs better by about the same amount as it’s less efficient. And the 5700X having low performance is taken into account by efficiency metrics - efficiency is performance divided by power draw, so whatever it in performance it more than gains in reduced power draw. (Of course, you might value your time more than your electric bill.)
alasdair_ 5y ago
Thank you. That link assumes the 8700K is running at 3.7GHz - any idea if there is still that much improvement given that mine is running at 5GHz?
- rowanG077 5y ago
  The stock 8700k boosts upto 4.7 Ghz. I don't think your extra 300Mhz will make that much of a difference.
- bytehowl 5y ago
  TBH, there are people way more qualified in this area than I, but AFAIK Intel CPUs run at the turbo speed as long as they have sufficient cooling, and the benchmarks run at maximum performance available, which would be 4.7GHz in this case. Therefore, the benchmarks should be pretty close to your OC. You could verify this theory by running the benchmark yourself.
  - alasdair_ 5y ago
    Good to know - thank you! Edit: I did and you are right. I’m about 10% higher than the benchmark but still WAY below the i9-12900KS (by 25% single threaded) Time to upgrade :)
- t0mas88 5y ago
  I had an i5 9600k that ran 5ghz all cores, and swapped to the i7 12700k. The i7 is still a lot faster out of the box and I undervolted it a bit while running at 5.1 ghz so it's also very quiet.
  - alasdair_ 5y ago
    I benchmarked it. I get a score of 3068 for single-threaded performance, which is around 10% faster than the stock 8700K stats but it’s still 25% below the i-9 12900KS. I guess it’s time to upgrade :)

O_H_E 5y ago

If you are asking a general question about single threaded performance, then YES. Modern CPU performance is about so much more than clock speeds, and the TLDR is that there are many non-orthogonal factors that sometimes the only trustworthy quantifier is workload benchmarking. If you're asking whether that 5Ghz is different than this 5Ghz, the main easy answer IPC (instructions per clock). Unfortunately there are no official IPC numbers, but every new release comes with vague unlabeled slides showing %increase, and then reviewres do their pinning the CPU at a specific clock and measure single-threaded performance to estimate relative IPC improvements (like this https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/core-i9-12900k-review,7.html https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/core-i9-12900k-review,...) If we go into multi-threaded workloads like compilation, then of course the new one completely throws the 8700k out of the water. But please don't feel pressured to get on the latest and greatest bandwagon, I'm right here running around with a Thinkpad T460s (with a little bit of a need to upgrade). _Usually_, if you are not waiting for your computer while CPU is on +90% utilization, there should be little gained from a CPU upgrade. (Workloads that depend heavily on cache size or memory latency are counter-examples)

vardump 5y ago
"Unfortunately there are no official IPC numbers" Nor can there really be. IPC varies pretty wildly, and depends a LOT on optimization for a particular CPU architecture. The instruction mix should match the CPU model's execution units in addition to not having any dependency stalls.
- lynguist 5y ago
  I once compiled a list of architectures’ relative IPC on the SPECINT 2006 benchmark: Cortex-A73 (ARMv8-A) 64.4 Pentium M 69.0 Bulldozer (AMD FX) 76.2 K10 (Phenom II) 76.7 Goldmont Plus (Atom 2nd gen) 77.5 Core 80.0 Bobcat 81.3 Nehalem 90.0 Jaguar (PS4) 93.5 Sandy Bridge 100.0 Tremont (Atom 3rd gen) 100.7 Ivy Bridge 105.8 Cortex-A76 (ARMv8.2-A) 114.7 Zen 115.9 Haswell 117.6 Zen+ 119.3 Broadwell 121.5 Skylake 124.0 Zen 2 139.8 A10 (ARMv8.1-A) 139.8 Cortex-A77 (ARMv8.2-A) 141.0 Sunny Cove Ice Lake 146.3 Cypress Cove Rocket Lake 147.6 Zen 3 167.4 A11 (ARMv8.2-A) 186.0 A12 (ARMv8.3-A) 213.8 A13 (ARMv8.4-A) 235.0 A14/M1 (ARMv8.5-A) 236.7

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

lynguist 5y ago

In essence you get a CPU that is 4 (!) architectures newer. Here are the architectures of Intel (according to Wikipedia): 1. i686 (Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Pentium III) 2. Core (Core 2) 3. Nehalem (Core i7-920, Core i5-750) 4. Sandy Bridge (Core i 2000 series) 5. Haswell (Core i 4000 series) 6. Skylake (Core i 6000 series) 7. canceled due to low yield 8. Sunny Cove (Ice Lake mobile 10xx and desktop 11xxx) 9. Willow Cove (Tiger Lake mobile 11xx) 10. Golden Cove (12xxx and 12xx)

Wowfunhappy 5y ago
Did you purposefully leave out Broadwell, or was it a mistake? (If it wasn’t a mistake, I’d be interested to hear you expand on why, I know it was a bit of a weird release.)
- DuskStar 5y ago
  I think broadwell was a process shift, not a microarchitecture shift.
- Tostino 5y ago
  They also left out the whole Netburst (and it's decedents) arch too.
  - peterhalburt33 5y ago
    I think Intel would rather we all forget about netburst.
  - lynguist 5y ago
    Netburst is not based on P6 (i686). Core is a development stemming directly from Enhanced Pentium M which stems from Pentium III. All others build on this. Broadwell is Haswell on a new node (14nm instead of 22nm).