Intel Core i5 12600K / Core i9 12900K "Alder Lake" Linux Performance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • numacross
    Senior Member
    • Jun 2017
    • 765

    #91
    Originally posted by sdack View Post
    Exactly. You allowed for the comparison to stand.

    In case it gets too complicated for you, how about I compare AMD to Monsanto, and we then argue about what Intel does better than AMD? There is a lot Intel has done for the industry, which makes AMD look like a bunch of suckers.
    Again, this Monsanto stuff is not an argument with me.

    There is also a lot Intel has done that negatively impacted the industry, for which they lost in court multiple times, and had to pay billions in damages. But be my guest, and glorify the company
    If you think this is an endorsement for AMD, then you need to stop projecting. Both have done "bad things", but Intel is an order of magnitude worse.

    Comment

    • blackshard
      Senior Member
      • Oct 2009
      • 603

      #92
      Originally posted by atomsymbol

      [Sarcasm] The situation is much worse than you think: The OS doesn't even know in advance whether any memory load/store instruction in the program causes a page fault or not.

      The difference between a memory instruction and an AVX-512 instruction is that it happens to be the case that page faults have hardware support, while AVX-512 faults on an E-core don't have a dedicating fault mechanism but generate a generic "invalid-opcode exception (#UD)". If Intel was serious about making heterogeneous computing work, they could have simply added a new class of exceptions to Alder Lake. (Or maybe they did add the new exceptions, but left them undocumented for now. Maybe it is a hidden part of Intel Thread Director.)
      Can't understand what sarcasm is there about pointing out what I already said; but hey, let's talk about MMU and page faults because it makes me feel cool to show off how learned I am! Yeah! (that's sarcasm)

      Read better next time.

      Comment

      • sdack
        Senior Member
        • Mar 2011
        • 1730

        #93
        Originally posted by L_A_G View Post
        I think the word you missed there was "semiconductor" as it's not exactly like you can do the same kind of damage as a semiconductor company as a chemicals company.

        Highly immoral business moves like the cartel they ran in the mid 2000s to keep AMD out ...
        First off, try to remain fair in your comparisons, or you will end up comparing God-knows-who to whoever you hate next. Learn about others before you hate them, because hate is dumb. And this as true for the IT industry as it is for racism, misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, and so on.

        I will then tell the same as I already told numacross. Back in those days did Intel certainly allow for competition. We had quite a few CPU architectures from various makers. To name a few were there Motorola, Sun, HP, SGI, Dec, IBM, Arm, and then some smaller businesses. They all were competing with each other and created a wealth of new CPU technologies. Only then came those companies, who were too big to fail, and so had to copy from Intel's success. There were no two ways about who was the winner. Any company would then have done the same as Intel and have tried to fight off the copies. AMD to this day fights legal battles over its own patents whenever there is a win for them. If it had not been the highly prestigious computer industry, but say a bunch of banana importers, then chances might have been for Intel to keep hold of their success. To split up a market in a country like the US, known for its strong liberalism and capitalism, has much to do with politics. Anyhow, Intel was forced to allow others to copy their design and that was that.

        To not see the controversy, but to want this to be some kind of act of justice is only childish. As I said do I prefer AMD. I have reasons for it. I do not hate Intel, but I know where both companies come from. I have always admired Intel for their boldness and drive to push the industry forward. They have been pioneers from the first today on. I prefer however AMD as a developer, because some of their CPUs have a more elegant design, making it a little bit easier to focus on the software. I did not like how Intel's NetBurst architecture created ever longer instruction pipelines and caused longer stalls. Nor did I like HyperThreading, which forced one to get out of one's way for a 30% gain, if there was a gain to be had at all. Intel's pioneering efforts also cost more than only copying somebody else's design and reiterating on it, and the higher prices did not appeal to me when the next generation of hardware was already being worked on (not to mention how Moore's Law kept predicting it). There is however no reason to hate Intel. It is only dumb.
        Last edited by sdack; 05 November 2021, 09:54 AM.

        Comment

        • sdack
          Senior Member
          • Mar 2011
          • 1730

          #94
          Originally posted by numacross View Post
          ... but Intel is an order of magnitude worse.
          Then you will be able to explain this quite reasonably and not just by pointing fingers. Looking forward to your explanation of why Intel is worse, and why they are worse by a magnitude.

          Comment

          • L_A_G
            Senior Member
            • Oct 2015
            • 1612

            #95
            Originally posted by sdack View Post
            First off, try to remain fair in your comparisons, or you will end up comparing God-knows-who to whoever you hate next. Learn about others before you hate them, because hate is dumb. And this as true for the IT industry as it is for racism, misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, and so on.
            Maybe you're too young to remember what Intel did back in the day, but they were literally paying billions (with a b) in under-the-table deals to all the major OEMs so they wouldn't sell any systems or as few as possible with AMD processors. The primary reason for this being that their then-current Netburst architecture parts simply weren't competitive with AMD's then-current K8 architecture. Eventually this was discovered, but by that point AMD had been financially hurt by this so badly that they just didn't have the R n' D budgets to compete with the new Core architecture Intel had developed in the mean time. After that AMD basically faded into obscurity and Intel were able to force OEMs and customers into servitude in the desktop, server and laptop x86 markets due to there not being any real competition anymore.

            We only saw AMD appear back on the CPU thanks to being able to get into video game consoles and finally having the money to develop the Zen architecture.

            This is the same level of immorality as Monsanto's argrochem division that introduced GMO seeds of crops like corn that are only just enough to out-compete non-GMO seeds even with the ban on using previous crops as seed grain, drove the non-GMO seed producers out of the market and then raised prices forcing farmers effectively into Monsanto servitude where they had to buy new seeds every year or get sued. Even with crops were they haven't driven out the non-GMO competition the division will sue farmers who've never bought any of their seeds if they find that there's been accidental cross-pollination with the fiends of farmers that do buy their seeds.
            "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."

            Comment

            • blackshard
              Senior Member
              • Oct 2009
              • 603

              #96
              Originally posted by atomsymbol
              A major caveat is that you are claiming that it will _not_ work - while I am claiming that it will work.
              Was I claiming it would not work?
              Did you read the post or just hitting keys at random?
              Actually I said a way how could it work: handle the fault (illegal operation, in this case) at runtime.

              Again: next time read better.


              Comment

              • birdie
                Banned
                • Jul 2008
                • 3368

                #97
                So, having read quite a lot of reviews here are some pertinent and important conclusions:
                • Intel has pushed their P-cores for MT scenarios to extremes to be the absolute performance king and at least be faster than 5900X and rival 5950X in many cases. This results in an insane power consumption out of the box but only for heavy MT tasks, e.g. video encoding, rendering, software compilation, math calculations - not something average people do daily.
                • This extreme power consumption does not translate into every day scenarios like modestly threaded applications or games - in fact many reviewers show that ADL CPUs are the most power efficient in games. Igor's Lab, AnandTech and computerbase.de have shown that limiting their TDP to 125W or even lower does not meaningfully affect frame rates.
                • It seems very likely that if P-cores maximum frequency is decreased by just 200-300MHz their efficiency will be incredible.
                • Factory OC'ing is not new and NVIDIA, AMD, Apple have been doing that for at least a couple of years. No one is crying foul because of that.
                TLDR: Overall ADL CPUs are great sans an extreme factory OC for heavy MT scenarios which can be easily mitigated by limiting their power consumption by setting the PL1 limit in BIOS. At the moment the only issue is the price of the platform because even though the CPUs are competitively priced, you need to purchase a quite expensive motherboard, DDR5 RAM (the faster the better) and a decent cooling solution (preferably AIO).

                Too many reviewers are fishing for views and ad revenue, so having loud and disparaging headlines which aren't necessarily representative of the real world is their way of achieving that which is quite sad.

                Comment

                • sdack
                  Senior Member
                  • Mar 2011
                  • 1730

                  #98
                  Originally posted by L_A_G View Post
                  Maybe you're too young to remember what Intel did back in the day, but they were literally paying billions (with a b) in under-the-table deals to all the major OEMs so they wouldn't sell any systems or as few as possible with AMD processors.
                  Say, how exactly is the 'b' important? Are you saying you would have looked the other way if it had been a single Dollar or just a lesser sum? Can you name a sum, which would have been ok? *lol*

                  It is rather common practice in business, and in political systems, to play favours. If this is done with bribes, exclusive contracts, special offers, shares, lawsuits (and settlements), licenses, or a gentlemen's agreement behind closed doors, does not change what it is - it is an attempt to become successful or to remain successful. However, the form in which it is done can matter for politics and how it gets used in the press. They too like to have success, make money and get votes. To make it about an amount and it being billions is pointless. One can equally question why AMD, after they had gained the right to produce x86 CPUs, then went on to buy ATI, which of course cost billions, only to create an even bigger market share for themselves.

                  AMD's problem was that they just could not produce a better x86 CPU, while Intel themselves did not create the best CPUs either, only AMD had the better political position (being the underdog in a dominantly left industry plays strong with voters). The moral is that AMD should have produced better CPUs, and only now they do.

                  Monsanto however sued countless farmers around the world over their GMO crops, driving them into bankruptcy and suicide. Their chemicals have poisoned countless people. Of course, Monsanto being a big company played favours in business and politics, too, like all other companies, but this is not the issue. The "issue", meaning deaths, Monsanto has caused is obviously a different one and needs no explaining. Then take today's pharma industry and how COVID has created winners and losers in the business. Obviously does hardly anyone care about morals when businesses make billions by saving lifes.
                  Last edited by sdack; 05 November 2021, 12:25 PM.

                  Comment

                  • leipero
                    Senior Member
                    • Jan 2017
                    • 837

                    #99
                    Not impressed, but price reflects that. Those CPUs will basically be useless in a few years for gaming if existing trend continues as it was in last decade or two, 12600k is already useless in some games. Power consumption, not even going to touch that.

                    Comment

                    • numacross
                      Senior Member
                      • Jun 2017
                      • 765

                      Originally posted by sdack View Post
                      Say, how exactly is the 'b' important? Are you saying you would have looked the other way if it had been a single Dollar or just a lesser sum? Can you name a sum, which would have been ok? *lol*

                      It is rather common practice in business, and in political systems, to play favours. If this is done with bribes, exclusive contracts, special offers, shares, lawsuits (and settlements), licenses, or a gentlemen's agreement behind closed doors, does not change what it is - it is an attempt to become successful or to remain successful. However, the form in which it is done can matter for politics and how it gets used in the press. They too like to have success, make money and get votes. To make it about an amount and it being billions is pointless. One can equally question why AMD, after they had gained the right to produce x86 CPUs, then went on to buy ATI, which of course cost billions, only to create an even bigger market share for themselves.
                      Maybe because Intel has been officially punished by multiple courts of law or other government institutions for their anti-competitive practices?

                      Originally posted by sdack View Post
                      AMD's problem was that they just could not produce a better x86 CPU, while Intel themselves did not create the best CPUs either, only AMD had the better political position (being the underdog in a dominantly left industry plays strong with voters). The moral is that AMD should have produced better CPUs, and only now they do.
                      You are either too young to remember, or too ignorant to acknowledge AMD's history with regards to x86. Take a look what happened when AMD started improving on the 286/386 designs they licensed from Intel, or what happened with Athlon or Athlon64/Opteron.

                      Anyway, I'm done "discussing" this with you.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X