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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Keats
    replied
    I'd like to point out that, at least for the time being, any performance/$ figures for Alder Lake (and especially 12600k) are highly misleading since Alder Lake compatible motherboards start at $200+, while for Rocket Lake and Zen3 you can get a perfectly serviceable motherboard for $100. Also, DDR5 pricing is a bad joke.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteveW
    replied
    I'd be curious to see gaming benchmarks (and perhaps anything else that scored lower than expected) with the E-cores disabled, as a point of comparison.

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by birdie View Post

    Correct but since the Linux kernel scheduler is not aware which cores/threads are which it moves tasks around indiscriminately which obviously negatively affects game scores. If Michael pinned games to P-cores, I guess the results would be completely different but he didn't mention anything like that. I wonder why he didn't but since he ignores me completely we'll never get the answer and the only website on the net where Ryzen 5000 continues to be faster than ADL in games will be Phoronix. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Linux fans who ignore other reviewers will get a completely skewed picture of ADL performance.
    I doubt anyone really looks at linux gaming performance that hard when deciding what CPU to buy.

    Anyway, Michael gets asked that question all the time, and he always answers the same way. He tests default linux out of the box, because most people aren't willing to go editing random config files, recompiling kernels with different out-of-tree changes, and adding misc. hacks to workaround issues in the defaults. Plus it's not easy to compare results then, because everyone has their own pet set of options they believe are essential to use, and no one is doing apples-to-apples comparisons anymore, it's all just based on what settings you've modified.

    That said, I do agree it could be an interesting future article to do another set of tests with the e-cores disabled in BIOS. And one with without ddr5 memory. And one testing the integrated graphics. There are a lot of followups that can be done.

    If Intel cares about their linux gaming performance (which is something i'd be a bit doubtful about, personally) then they'll fix linux to work better on their hardware.

    And that doesn't necessarily require Thread Director. I'd assume that is probably the direction Intel will go since they have the option in hardware, but if they wanted to they could solve it another way. It's not like big.little architecture is new to linux the way it is in Windows. I believe you just have to mark how powerful each core is in the device tree for ARM hardware and the linux kernel takes care of the rest. Bringing that functionality over to x86 probably isn't very difficult, just a matter of hooking things up properly and detecting the ADL cpus.
    Last edited by smitty3268; 05 November 2021, 12:55 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • yump
    replied
    Originally posted by Archestratus View Post
    Greetings!

    I am a relatively non-technical forum member with a request for guidance. If I am in the wrong place, please direct me toward the right direction. Thank you.

    My situation: I am looking at the purchase of a new computer upon which I plan to run a Linux home Desktop. My habit has been to run the latest Ubuntu LTS for close to five years at a time, then upgrade as the older version loses support. My computer usage is relatively non-demanding: web browsing (Firefox with ~20-30 tabs open, max), email and the occasional printed page. Quiet is the major priority. I like to go with an upgradeable desktop computer with a GPU integrated into the processor - I tend to keep a computer for a while, with upgrades of used parts as the sands of time pass by. Unfortunately, I do not feel very comfortable in the command line.

    A generous relative has offered to provide me with a moderate new Dell computer of my choosing.

    People are basically good.

    I have been looking at 10th and 11th (hotter/noisier?) generation Intel offerings, when, today - November 4 - with the announcement of the 12th generation chips - imagine my surprise - the world has changed.

    Hence this post.

    I regret that Mr. Larabel's meticulous Alder Lake review is a bit beyond my ken, but from what I can gather, Linux does not seem to be quite ready for Intel Generation 12 at this time. And I am not sure that the integrated CPU/GPU chips have hit the market at this point. My questions:

    (1) Should I go now with a generation 10 or 11 chip, or will I be well-served to wait just a little bit? No hurry, here - no time pressure. If I do choose to wait - any guesses as to a likely timeline?

    (2) I think that a 12th generation i5 with integrated graphics may suit my purposes well. Yea or nay?

    (3) My kind benefactor seems to think that my current computer is a tad slow. I have tried to explain to him that it proceeds at a perfectly normal computer pace, but you know how these young 70 year-old whippersnappers are. Always in such a hurry!

    The current computer is largely of 2008 vintage - cobbled together post capacitor plague (another story). E8600 Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB of DDR 800 RAM, a blazingly silent (fanless) nVidia GeForce GT 520 video card, a conventional spinning hard drive, Ubuntu 16.04 or so.

    My question: do you really think that upgrading by 10 or 12 Intel CPU generations will make much of a difference?

    Thank you for your kind patience -

    Archestratus
    If you are using the integrated graphics, 11th generation is preferred over 10th, because the 11th generation iGPU is both faster and has hardware acceleration for decoding AV1 format videos, which are starting to become common on Youtube.

    The 12th generation products released today are all DIY-focused "unlocked" models, which honestly is mostly pointless these days, since Intel has pushed the peak turbo clocks so high out of the box. The launch of the lower cost models, and the "locked" models, which is what Dell will use, is delayed, probably until next year. The non-luxury motherboards are similarly delayed.

    Your current computer is so abysmally slow that anything on the market today will be many times faster. As would a used machine you could get on eBay for less than $200.

    I looked at Dell's website, and it looks like some of their offerings have 2 sticks of memory, and some only have 1. Youwant to avoid the ones with only 1 stick of memory. It is a cost-saving measure that sacrifices half of the memory throughput of the processor. You should only consider the ones that say "16GB, 2x8GB". Unless you need a DVD drive, this one looks like a good choice to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • ddriver
    replied
    I don't see the source of excitement. Yes, it is ultimately a good thing that intel finally has something competitive, as amd offerings are diminishing in purchase value due to the increase of their margins... due to lack of competition.

    But it is actually a tad sad that intel needs DOUBLE the power and DOUBLE the ram bandwidth to catch up to zen, and in light workloads only, while still falling behind in the heavy and time consuming ones, which I dare say are far more important than some intangible fps improvement.

    Intel had to push this sucka well beyond its energy sweetspot, butchering its efficiency in the process, all to come out a bit on top, making the whole thing seem but a pyrrhic victory. But it still counts to all those demented fanbois, they don't care about reason after all.

    All in all, amd will most likely handle that with the vcache refresh of ryzen 3, and will still have the ddr5 card to play next year with zen 4. So intel better have a lot more improvements in store, because it will need them. Especially in the far more lucrative enterprise market, where power efficiency matters.
    Last edited by ddriver; 04 November 2021, 10:17 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rclark
    replied
    Are you able to run Windows 10 in Linux with graphics acceleration enabled? If you are able: how?
    I don't run Windows 10 at all - VM or bare metal. I don't see a use case for Windows 10, so never 'bought' it. I have Win Xp and Win 7. The 3D acceleration box is checked.

    Leave a comment:


  • mirmirmir
    replied
    I wonder if AMD will make big.LITTLE architecture in the future

    Leave a comment:


  • sdack
    replied
    Originally posted by numacross View Post
    Nowhere did I ever reference Monsanto.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slartifartblast
    replied
    I'll sweat my asset for another year and see what 5nm brings from AMD, those power consumption numbers are quite disconcerting.

    Leave a comment:


  • rclark
    replied
    Neat to see that innovation is alive and well. That said,

    It is kind of funny talking and arguing about performance.... I am writing on a system with a 5600x in it, and everything is 'very' snappy and fast as all get out using a 2K monitor. Same with my development box with a 3900x in it and a 4K monitor. Multiple VMs just fly. FreeCad, LibreOffice, Browser, videos, compiling, etc... I really don't see where the normal user is going to find the 'new' Intel processor any 'faster' for almost 100% of the tasks they/we do. The OS I run is KUnbuntu 20.04 LTS on all my machines (server/laptops/desktops). Point is whether you go with Intel or AMD, you'll be more than satisfied. Pick a price point for what you want to spend, look at your use case and go from there. For the above user Archestratus, the 3600 or 5600x, 5600G would be more than adequate and future proof too if looking at AMD. Agree with minimum of 16GB of ram. An SSD is a must for the OS drive. At the time I upgraded with a Ryzen 1600, Intel did NOT have a good affordable solution, so I went AMD and I've stuck with them ever since. I've used the same Gigabyte motherboard in my development box for 1600, 2600, 3600, and then a 3900x . I have not had to change out the motherboard or memory and the system has been really solid. A 5900x will probably be in the cards next year for the same motherboard as the last hurrah. Why? 'Just because' I can. Absolutely no need for it, I fully admit.
    Last edited by rclark; 04 November 2021, 09:07 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X