Core i9-12900HK Beats Threadripper 1950X In Cinebench R20 Benchmark

Neilbob said:

180W on an arguably inferior GloFo 14nm process and really rather poor clock speeds.
Not intending to be confrontational or anything, but I just felt that was worth pointing out. (y)

I do agree that, regardless of the pointlessness of the comparison, it is still fairly impressive nonetheless (although with that said, it seems crazy to me that a 10nm /'Intel 7' mobile chip is using 115W under any circumstances).

Agreed, its 4 years later and with the 12900HK consuming 115W of power for the majority of the Cinebench run, its only beating 180W CPU from 4 years ago and is 36% more efficient. Good job Intel, you did it!

jgraham11 said:

Agreed, its 4 years later and with the 12900HK consuming 115W of power for the majority of the Cinebench run, its only beating 180W CPU from 4 years ago and is 36% more efficient. Good job Intel, you did it!

Seems the irony is lost on the people trashing this achievement that AMD themselves hasn't come close to achieving it yet. Let us know when an AMD mobile CPU at any TDP beats a 1950X.

Intel is desperate for positive AL press (like it does not have enough already), since it's still not selling like a hot cake at all!

For over a month now since December I've been watching a local store in EU and it has (I kid you not) the 12600K at $273 and 12600KF at $266 and they were always "in stock" non-stop (while Ryzen 5600x is at $304, mid you). And this is a pretty small shop, so if it were the case of selling good they should have run out of stock fast, yet it did not happen once...

I find it very, very funny. No wonder the press is pushing the click bait like crazy to generate more (fake) AL interest. Pffff.

I was about to post how it's 25% faster than the 5900HX in Blender and that's an achievement, but it takes the 12900HK much more power to accomplish that feat, but I don't think it's a valid comparison here.

In a mobile workstation where power and battery life isn't as relevant as it's being connected to AC power, the 12900HK provides a massive performance benefit over the 5900HK, assuming the performance scales as well in that software as it does in Cinebench and Blender. In a gaming notebook it's a different story as we saw with the ASUS G14.

I'm no fan of Intel, but the fact they're putting this kind of performance in a mobile processor is GOOD for the market and puts AMD at a disadvantage. This also goes back to my post on another topic that I am disappointed that AMD doesn't seem to be raising core counts with Zen 4. I remember seeing articles saying that AMD has patents on the same kind of mixed core strategy Intel is using, but they haven't implemented them in a retail product yet, and AMD may be forced to do that, even if it's just in the mobile market.

VforV said:

For over a month now since December I've been watching a local store in EU and it has (I kid you not) the 12600K at $273 and 12600KF at $266 and they were always "in stock" non-stop (while Ryzen 5600x is at $304, mid you). And this is a pretty small shop, so if it were the case of selling good they should have run out of stock fast, yet it did not happen once...

Not sure how you come to these conclusions. Those are great prices for AL vs Zen 3. More real-world evidence that Intel is absolutely dominating price/perf. They are clearly mass producing the heck out of these chips - you do realize they have a LOT more manufacturing capacity than TSMC right? They have a superior platform, a zillion different SKUs hitting the market addressing every single consumer performance bracket and budget and they have availability(something we all used to take for granted)! Stating the obvious here but - we wouldn't see such availability if Intel relied on TSMC's fabs to produce these chips.

Ultimately I like Rembrandt in the mobile space (that iGPU looks fantastic) but until we see reviews, AL mobile appears to be top notch in CPU performance. Near 12600k performance in a mobile system? Caveats aside - YES PLEASE!

With nothing new announced by AMD for AM4 other than the expensive and gaming-centric 5800X3D and with it becoming increasingly apparent that AM5 will be DDR5-only in a time of massive DDR5 price inflation, it is more obvious than ever that AL is the go to for new systems now and for at least another half year. HUB mentions this in the 12700 vs 5800X video. I wish I could argue otherwise - I was hoping to see AMD drop some prices or come out with something new to compete. Oh well, I guess. When you are supply-constrained by TSMC, making such price cuts is difficult.

Alvar Miles Udell said:

I was about to post how it's 25% faster than the 5900HX in Blender and that's an achievement, but it takes the 12900HK much more power to accomplish that feat, but I don't think it's a valid comparison here.

In a mobile workstation where power and battery life isn't as relevant as it's being connected to AC power, the 12900HK provides a massive performance benefit over the 5900HK, assuming the performance scales as well in that software as it does in Cinebench and Blender. In a gaming notebook it's a different story as we saw with the ASUS G14.

I'm no fan of Intel, but the fact they're putting this kind of performance in a mobile processor is GOOD for the market and puts AMD at a disadvantage. This also goes back to my post on another topic that I am disappointed that AMD doesn't seem to be raising core counts with Zen 4. I remember seeing articles saying that AMD has patents on the same kind of mixed core strategy Intel is using, but they haven't implemented them in a retail product yet, and AMD may be forced to do that, even if it's just in the mobile market.

Where has it been posted AMD is not raising core counts on zen 4?