Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel i9-12900K Alder Lake Linux Performance In Different P/E Core Configurations

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

  • The only interesting thing in that architecture for me is 8 'still crap' but 64-bit data width E-cores being able to combine into one glorified AVX-512 module. Meaning AVX-512 is nothing more than a bunch of combined ALUs, if not firmware implemented at all.
    Last edited by Alex/AT; 22 December 2021, 06:59 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post

      You debunked that the 12900K is terribly inefficient, power hungry, and more expensive than it's worth compared to the much better 12700K? Where?
      Ahh, sorry. I totally missread your post.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Grinness View Post

        This is doable in Gnome System Monitor (Gnome 41.2 -- Arch) : user can set affinity, lower or increase priority per process; the bird-man as usual lives under a rock and/or has no clue.
        It seems it's not possible in his noname distribution. Maybe it's just Windows with KDE 3 look taken from torrent.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post

          Ehh. I honestly don't think birdie is a fanboy of anything he's just a troll who enjoys causing drama.

          He carefully targets whatever topics he thinks are popular on the forums and takes the opposing viewpoint, no matter what it is. People like AMD? Birdie will chime in on every topic about how great Intel and Nvidia are compared to them. People like linux? Birdie will tell you how great windows is. People like [insert topic here]? Birdie will type in 100 posts on the topic about how great whatever their competitor is. If the forums ever flip and the majority start talking about how great Intel and NVidia are, I fully expect birdie will start posting about how AMD is actually the best.
          This is such a horrible, completely false, wrong and ignorant description of me, it's simply cringe-worthy.

          For the 250th time:
          • I'm not an effing fanboy, I've never bought anything in my entire life based on my attitude towards any company, I buy products solely based on their merits.
          • I've criticized both AMD and NVIDIA for their insane pricing policy recently, Intel for stalling progress by rehashing Sky Lake for five years in a row with minimal performance gains.
          • I have never trolled for Christ's sake
          • Show me a single message where I say or imply "Intel or NVIDIA are great" - I dare you.
          If a crowd of fanatics/lunatics mindlessly chooses sides based on what's cool right now, it's their bloody problem, not mine. I loathe half of the people who reply to my messages here, because they act like brainless zealots who believe Open Source is so cool and it makes them unique and special while never contributing to Open Source in any shape or form or believing total nonsense like using Open Source means "more privacy" which is bloody false.

          Talking in the third person about me? That's so horribly despicable I've no idea how you're looking in the mirror and not feeling utmost disgust.

          And of course, there will be no quotes, because someone just likes crapping on other people. After all, "I'm anonymous and surrounded by like-minded people, so let's collectively insult a person who doesn't act like us".
          Last edited by birdie; 22 December 2021, 03:28 PM.

          Comment


          • @ AMD

            AMD Please don't follow intels route...

            I would even buy 2-3 generation old hardware to avoid this "big.little" bullshit in my computers.

            I really really don't get all this bullshit technology they sell "snake oil" i don't even see a reason for DDR5 its "snake oil" you pay high price and the result is very very small.

            many of these bullshit technologies are only around because of the lag of competition in the market,
            for example """Hyperthreading""" in Desktop and Gaming its hard to fill 16 real cores and hyperthreading result in bad latency in games and the threading overhead is so big that you get 5% higher game performance if you disable hyperthreading.

            AMD and Intel and even IBM does this because their server customers like it ,,,

            on Desktop/Gaming it is snake oil you did not want. it has some reason for single-core/dualcore/quatcore cpus because you could easily generate more threats to feet it to the cpu... but with 12/16 cores it is the situation that games and other desktop apps can not fill all the 16 threats... in this cases hyperthreading is a loss.

            its a lag of competition in the market if there would only be one single X86_64 competitor who does 16cores without hyperthreading i am sure they would sell a lot of chips.

            they claim there is no market demand for cpus without hyperthreading because you can disable it in bios... o well yes you can disable it but you already paid the transistors.

            i really don't know whats wrong with this world every company puts in stuff the people don't want...

            IBM puts in closed source firmware for ram and PCIE5.0

            intel puts in "big.little" bullshit design and build in more intel ME trojan horses than the people can imagine...

            even AMD will end up implement bullshit like DDR5 and the people wonder why the price is high but the result is low compared to what you expect in price.
            Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

            Comment


            • Originally posted by birdie View Post
              ...
              I stand by every word I said, and proudly. Act like a victim all you want, your behavior on these forums is well known and you have the bans to prove it.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post

                I stand by every word I said, and proudly. Act like a victim all you want, your behavior on these forums is well known and you have the bans to prove it.
                So, no quotes, nothing to prove your accusations. Go stand by your lies. I've BL'ed you.

                Comment


                • I know I probably shouldn't be doing this but I'm kind of curious about what you'd consider to be the right way forward.

                  Originally posted by qarium View Post
                  @ AMD

                  AMD Please don't follow intels route...

                  I would even buy 2-3 generation old hardware to avoid this "big.little" bullshit in my computers.
                  Why? big.LITTLE by itself is not a bad idea. The way ADL currently does it is rather lackluster but that's because it's the very first x86 chip with such a design.

                  Originally posted by qarium View Post
                  I really really don't get all this bullshit technology they sell "snake oil" i don't even see a reason for DDR5 its "snake oil" you pay high price and the result is very very small.
                  First DDR3 and DDR4 chips also didn't look terribly interesting. Unlike DDR4, DDR5 can be scaled further and provide real benefits whereas DDR4 has reached the
                  Originally posted by qarium View Post
                  many of these bullshit technologies are only around because of the lag of competition in the market,
                  You believe that if there was, say, a third competitive manufacturer of x86 chips we'd have *fewer* clever technologies that improve performance? We have seen what the real lack of competition looks like during the whole Skylake -> Coffee Lake era

                  Originally posted by qarium View Post
                  for example """Hyperthreading""" in Desktop and Gaming its hard to fill 16 real cores and hyperthreading result in bad latency in games and the threading overhead is so big that you get 5% higher game performance if you disable hyperthreading.

                  AMD and Intel and even IBM does this because their server customers like it ,,,

                  on Desktop/Gaming it is snake oil you did not want. it has some reason for single-core/dualcore/quatcore cpus because you could easily generate more threats to feet it to the cpu... but with 12/16 cores it is the situation that games and other desktop apps can not fill all the 16 threats... in this cases hyperthreading is a loss.
                  HT is a pretty clever way how to deal with the "dark silicon" problem. Even this very article clearly shows the 8P with HT sometimes being the fastest configuration and second fastest overall, loosing only to the 8P/8E config.

                  Originally posted by qarium View Post
                  its a lag of competition in the market if there would only be one single X86_64 competitor who does 16cores without hyperthreading i am sure they would sell a lot of chips.
                  5950X currently sells for about 15 % higher price than 12900K and even if the lack of HT somehow made it 15 % cheaper, I really don't see it becoming a best selling product. Not to mention that it'd probably got creamed by the 12900K in both ST and MT workloads.

                  Originally posted by qarium View Post
                  they claim there is no market demand for cpus without hyperthreading because you can disable it in bios... o well yes you can disable it but you already paid the transistors.
                  Which are part of the whole OOO-execution and register-renaming logic circuitry that you absolutely need anyway.

                  Originally posted by qarium View Post
                  i really don't know whats wrong with this world every company puts in stuff the people don't want...
                  Sure, but I wouldn't count more cores and HT among them.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by birdie View Post

                    So, no quotes, nothing to prove your accusations. Go stand by your lies. I've BL'ed you.
                    What about you just blacklist the entire forum already and go? We've been waiting for you to do this since the last 5 years.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MadCatX View Post
                      I know I probably shouldn't be doing this but I'm kind of curious about what you'd consider to be the right way forward.
                      Why? big.LITTLE by itself is not a bad idea. The way ADL currently does it is rather lackluster but that's because it's the very first x86 chip with such a design.
                      First DDR3 and DDR4 chips also didn't look terribly interesting. Unlike DDR4, DDR5 can be scaled further and provide real benefits whereas DDR4 has reached the
                      You believe that if there was, say, a third competitive manufacturer of x86 chips we'd have *fewer* clever technologies that improve performance? We have seen what the real lack of competition looks like during the whole Skylake -> Coffee Lake era
                      yes exactly this is the case... we need a "third competitive manufacturer of x86 chips"

                      booth intel/AMD put in:
                      Spectre / speculative execution
                      Intel ME/ AMD PSP https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021...us-master-key/
                      Hyperthreading
                      Closed source microcode and firmware

                      lets say there is a third competitive manufacturer of x86 chips ...

                      who fokus on non-bullshit chips means no speculative execution means no Spectre
                      no ME/PSP trojan horse inside of the cpu
                      no bullshit technologie like hyperthreading (what comes obsolete with many cores anyway more than 16 cores and the overhead is HT is so high that there is no benefit)
                      no closed source microcode or firmware.
                      massive multicore design for the desktop means 16cores and up.


                      Originally posted by MadCatX View Post
                      HT is a pretty clever way how to deal with the "dark silicon" problem.
                      dude i really tried to find out what dark silicon does mean in relation to hyperthreading...
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_silicon
                      in the Dark Silicon article on wikipedia there is not one single sentence about hyperthreading.
                      can you explain to me what do you mean by this ?

                      Originally posted by MadCatX View Post
                      Even this very article clearly shows the 8P with HT sometimes being the fastest configuration and second fastest overall, loosing only to the 8P/8E config.
                      well your sentense alone proof hyperthreading is a bullshit technology... "loosing only to the 8P/8E config."

                      on AMD and ARM side you have the same effect as soon as you have many or lets say enough cores the effect of HT goes into negative because the overhead goes bigger than the benefit.
                      Phoronix did test it multible times with 128 thread system testet with 128 then with 64 then with 32 threats and so one.
                      as soon as you have enough cores the overhead of having hyperthreading and the added complexity in design the software to have so much threads to utilize
                      in the end you do not have benefit from hyperthreading... on such a 128 threat system if you disable hyperthreading you even get higher performance.
                      another part of saving signifikant money on ram is if you disable hyperthreading it is a fact that your system does need much more ram if you use hyperthreading.
                      example if you have a threatripper 2990WX and 32cores and 64thread and you can choose between 256gb ram and 128gb ram and 64gb ram. if you have 64threads you really want the 256gb ram,... if you disable hyperthreading you can go with 128gb just fine. just use 7zip to check how much ram you need to generate 64threads or 32threads...

                      Originally posted by MadCatX View Post
                      5950X currently sells for about 15 % higher price than 12900K and even if the lack of HT somehow made it 15 % cheaper, I really don't see it becoming a best selling product. Not to mention that it'd probably got creamed by the 12900K in both ST and MT workloads.
                      Which are part of the whole OOO-execution and register-renaming logic circuitry that you absolutely need anyway.
                      Sure, but I wouldn't count more cores and HT among them.
                      If you want to compare the 5950X to the 12900K you can not compare cpu vs cpu...

                      you have to compare CPU+Mainboard+RAM vs CPU+mainbord+ram

                      if you put on DDR5 on intel and DDR4 on AMD the result is AMD wins big in performance per dollar.

                      if you say you put ddr4 ram on the intel then amd is still cheaper as soon as you compare CPU+Mainboard to CPU+Mainboard.

                      the 12900K is only cheaper if you do not calculate the mainboard in the bill.

                      intel cpu+DDR5(64GB ram)+mainboard(size: ATX)
                      https://geizhals.de/intel-core-i9-12...loc=at&hloc=de
                      € 598
                      https://geizhals.de/gigabyte-z690-ud...loc=at&hloc=de
                      € 190,90
                      https://geizhals.de/crucial-ddr5-dim...loc=at&hloc=de
                      € 605,00

                      =1393,90€

                      AMD CPU+DDR4 (64gb 4800mhz)+mainboard
                      https://geizhals.de/amd-ryzen-9-5950...loc=at&hloc=de
                      € 719,00
                      https://geizhals.de/asrock-b550-phan...loc=at&hloc=de
                      € 95,69
                      https://geizhals.de/g-skill-trident-...loc=at&hloc=de
                      2x € 260,90

                      =1336,49€

                      as you can see your claim "5950X currently sells for about 15 % higher price than 12900K" is plain and simple wrong.

                      AMD right now is 57,41€ cheaper in the real world.

                      if you go with DDR4 on intel
                      the mainboard is:
                      https://geizhals.de/msi-pro-z690-p-d...loc=at&hloc=de
                      € 181,37 (the DDR5 one is € 190,90)

                      with intel on DDR4 amd is still 47,88€ cheaper in the real world.

                      and i am a person who only count on multicore performance

                      https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compar...50X/4118vs4086

                      @64-core OC multi-core mixed speed the AMD 5950X is 10% faster.

                      this means in the end you do not only save 57,41€ or 47,88€ you also get a 10% faster system (massive multicore workload)


                      Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X