Intel 12900k has just been released. Best in class performance, giving AMD and Apple a run for their money.

[fmr]

over 300w usage...its not only the heat. its just money blowin out compared to lets say 65w/105w ryzens or apples arm tec.
not to mention the blatant nerves you must have to release a tec that blows out energy like its 1999. very nice environment awareness by intel...

"While the Core i9 processor is considerably faster than the M1 Pro and M1 Max, it also uses a lot more power than Apple's chips, with Intel listing the chip as using up to 125W of power at base frequencies and up to 241W of power with Turbo Boost."

Not near 300W, for what I can read. But if you want power, there's a price...

[anttimaatteri]

over 300w usage...its not only the heat. its just money blowin out compared to lets say 65w/105w ryzens or apples arm tec.
not to mention the blatant nerves you must have to release a tec that blows out energy like its 1999. very nice environment awareness by intel...

"While the Core i9 processor is considerably faster than the M1 Pro and M1 Max, it also uses a lot more power than Apple's chips, with Intel listing the chip as using up to 125W of power at base frequencies and up to 241W of power with Turbo Boost."

Not near 300W, for what I can read. But if you want power, there's a price...

and you believe that?...
gamers nexus set that 244 on a stock cpu almost on level with an overclocked 5950x, which has 120 stock, on a blender cpu benchmark

[PAK]

"While the Core i9 processor is considerably faster than the M1 Pro and M1 Max, it also uses a lot more power than Apple's chips, with Intel listing the chip as using up to 125W of power at base frequencies and up to 241W of power with Turbo Boost."

Not near 300W, for what I can read. But if you want power, there's a price...

Intel's number is low. Anandtech got 272W from their AVX2 benchmark, for example. But there's also a difference between peak load (the most it'll draw), and sustained.. where it'll tend to turn the clock speeds down, after a few seconds, to stay within thermal limits, and that then reduces the power usage. Stuff like DDR5 will change things too. The ~330w figure is if you run it as fast as it'll go on regular cooling (the i9 is unlocked, remember).

Either way, the numbers for full core loads, even at stock speeds, are very high. These systems are not something you'd want around you unless it's in a large airy or air-conditioned room, and even then..

[Passing Bye]

I would be fine with an AMD 5600G ...

Great bang for the buck CPU for audio, right now I would probably go with it if I needed to build audio desktop tower, makes most sense.

[rezoneight]

Apple simply the best performance per watt. Not even close. For some that will be important, for some not. Apple doesn’t have a thing to worry themselves over.

[Gadget Fiend]

The best thing about something like this for me is it pushes down the cost of the other chips that are fast enough for me!

I know, right? I had to go Intel because my interface (UAD) doesn’t support AMD. I was all worried about being disappointed and now that I have it, I’m amazed at how fast it is. Not only can I run the plugins that were snap crackle popp’n on my old i7, but I can run multiple hungry plugins. I don’t even think I’ve expected a buffer overrun yet.

What desktop PC do you use and how many Thunderbolt 2 (or 3?) ports does it have? When I was thinking of buying a PC to hold me over until all the music plugins are ported to Native M1, I couldn't find a single mainstream PC vendor that offered a model with a minimum of 2 Thunderbolt ports on the motherboard (and not via an add-in card).

EDIT: I am assuming your UAD interface connects to your computer via Thunderbolt.

[VitaminD]

@buzz1 Hi , mainly do audio (guitar bass vocals ) and with drum samples or drum sample VST , I don't have a high track count either . My main reason for wanting to upgrade my computer is to use AMP sims and I'm also wanting to do some loFi and triphop stuff so I do want to fool with some synths soon . I'm not big on high track counts and softsynths that eat CPU up like a Snickers bar (Diva) lolz ... I would be fine with an AMD 5600G ... I'd really like to buy the regular AMD5600 or X and get a GPU and game a bit , but the GPU market is crap right now so I guess I wasn't go down that hole yet ... I feel sorry for gamers . They can't even get a newer Xbox or Playstation

I'm still using a 3600 (non-X) and it works great even in 20+ track projects with gobs of insert effects. That said when I layer on the u-he synths the CPU-load bar in Cubase does go up a noticeable amount. If I select the multi-core button on the u-he synth it does come down a bit though.

I bought a Geforce 3060 for someone over the summer and it was a major hassle finding one in stock (B&H Photo of all places) and then having to pay the markup ($$$). I will probably wait for 4000 series and hope the supply constraints are cleared by then for a personal upgrade. The nice thing about the 5600G CPU is the built in graphics support. A little slow for most gaming but nice to have imo. Maybe in a couple more generations of CPUs the onboard will be all one needs to do most games even (at least at 1080p)?

I'm likely going with a 5800X once the 6000 series are launched. Just waiting for a nicer discount. I'm glad it's just a cpu swap -- 3 year old motherboard supports 5000 series already. That's one thing I hated about Intel is they had extremely short longevity on CPU support.

AM5 is coming out next year so these 5000 series are the last CPUs for AM4.

[UltraJv]

Many reports of over 330W power draw at full load? Never mind Windows 10 or 11, your typical bedroom music producer better have ten or eleven actual Windows! I'm not even joking here - that thing will operate like a space heater and make the typical room seriously uncomfortable during summertime. It's stuff like this that many people won't think about. Not to mention where energy prices might be going, meaning it'd make a noticeable impact on some peoples energy bills.

If someones usage is "bursty" (Brief periods of heavy CPU usage, but mostly not) then I guess they'd get away with it. But, for someone using the performance cores for any extended period of time (more than an hour or two per day), especially non-gaming, I would avoid..

Since moving from I7-2600k to AMD Ryzen 9 5950x I'm noticing more heat output already. I'm not even using the processor by 25% when producing/working. But it still heats the room way more than the old i7.
Intel 12900k seems to have 20%-30% more heat output than the AMD. Would be unbearable in my flat at summer.

I disagree about the strawman heat issue :

"Put_It_All_On_Blck
14h
Its only when you give it full PL2 AND use 100% load for stuff like blender, when things get hot. As we can see here https://www.igorslab.de/wp-content/uplo ... x-Load.png

But so did the 5950x, just not as much. Albeit the 5950x also did slightly better in the Blender benchmark too. So its definitely a loss in blender.

Im not a fan of the narrative that 12th gen runs hot 24/7, because thats clearly not the case, most reviewers just seem to test a maximum power workload and call it a day, with no gaming or idle or other workload power consumption tested. Its like when people were quoting the 11900k AVX-512 400W number like that was a normal power consumption and a workload. Dont get me wrong 11th gen was hot but not 3090 hot."


https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comme ... _and_core/

[dermage]

Many reports of over 330W power draw at full load? Never mind Windows 10 or 11, your typical bedroom music producer better have ten or eleven actual Windows! I'm not even joking here - that thing will operate like a space heater and make the typical room seriously uncomfortable during summertime. It's stuff like this that many people won't think about. Not to mention where energy prices might be going, meaning it'd make a noticeable impact on some peoples energy bills.

If someones usage is "bursty" (Brief periods of heavy CPU usage, but mostly not) then I guess they'd get away with it. But, for someone using the performance cores for any extended period of time (more than an hour or two per day), especially non-gaming, I would avoid..

Since moving from I7-2600k to AMD Ryzen 9 5950x I'm noticing more heat output already. I'm not even using the processor by 25% when producing/working. But it still heats the room way more than the old i7.
Intel 12900k seems to have 20%-30% more heat output than the AMD. Would be unbearable in my flat at summer.

I disagree about the strawman heat issue :

"Put_It_All_On_Blck
14h
Its only when you give it full PL2 AND use 100% load for stuff like blender, when things get hot. As we can see here https://www.igorslab.de/wp-content/uplo ... x-Load.png

But so did the 5950x, just not as much. Albeit the 5950x also did slightly better in the Blender benchmark too. So its definitely a loss in blender.

Im not a fan of the narrative that 12th gen runs hot 24/7, because thats clearly not the case, most reviewers just seem to test a maximum power workload and call it a day, with no gaming or idle or other workload power consumption tested. Its like when people were quoting the 11900k AVX-512 400W number like that was a normal power consumption and a workload. Dont get me wrong 11th gen was hot but not 3090 hot."


https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comme ... _and_core/

Hm, but you'd also have to compare the performance resulting when run with pl1 /125w.
I think a lot more detailed tests or common usage scenarios are needed to compare them.
Anyway, all core is still a 10%+ slower and seems to need more power /produce more heat, that's a fact. Waiting for more tests.

[buzz1]

I need to take another look at the whole setup I think.

Sometimes audio interface drivers aren't most optimized either and that can contribute in some ways to overall performance, also size of buffer you are using.

Really informative video on that subject

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUsLLEkswzE

Just watched it.
Super helpful. Thanks.

[PAK]

I disagree about the strawman heat issue :
Im not a fan of the narrative that 12th gen runs hot 24/7, because thats clearly not the case

Whether it is or isn't the case depends on usage. You're posting in an audio forum, and audio users are not "typical" users.

If you're someone who records most tracks directly to audio, with plugins which use minimal CPU, then you've got a good case that the heat issues are overstated.

Whereas, if you're someone who loads those tracks up with lots of virtual instruments, then, depending on the instruments, heat IS going to be a factor. Not only is it common to be spending many hours at a time doing that, unlike the person who can walk away from a 3D render, you're probably sitting close to the machine whilst doing it.

These are stop-gap solutions by Intel, which remain competitive at the cost of power usage. Based on their use case, people need to think through the full consequences of that, especially if they're putting that machine in a small room or bedroom.

[anttimaatteri]

"While the Core i9 processor is considerably faster than the M1 Pro and M1 Max, it also uses a lot more power than Apple's chips, with Intel listing the chip as using up to 125W of power at base frequencies and up to 241W of power with Turbo Boost."

Not near 300W, for what I can read. But if you want power, there's a price...

Intel's number is low. Anandtech got 272W from their AVX2 benchmark, for example. But there's also a difference between peak load (the most it'll draw), and sustained.. where it'll tend to turn the clock speeds down, after a few seconds, to stay within thermal limits, and that then reduces the power usage. Stuff like DDR5 will change things too. The ~330w figure is if you run it as fast as it'll go on regular cooling (the i9 is unlocked, remember).

Either way, the numbers for full core loads, even at stock speeds, are very high. These systems are not something you'd want around you unless it's in a large airy or air-conditioned room, and even then..

the 12600 is already i a better position regarding wattage, but its pretty much deluded to compare it to the 6 core 5600x, especially with cinebench. 10 cores are 10 cores, no matter how much the 4 "e-core" contribute to the benchmarks, they contribute.

but allover the 12600 is pretty darn giving amd an arsekick for the better, if you put it inbetween an 6 core ryzen and an 12 core ryzen. for audio i even guess its the better single core performance for intel now - in terms of performance/price. tough comeback, and faster than i thought.

and yes "people need to think through the full consequences of that". a giant cpu heater with the most expensive boards actually plus the immense energy waste, while you dampen the cpu power by using wrong gfx cards or old ram due to the ...reality ^^. oh and the not so cheap and easy cooling system one needs:D

[Scotty]

Apple simply the best performance per watt. Not even close. For some that will be important, for some not. Apple doesn’t have a thing to worry themselves over.

They do if they do if they try to put a laptop chip in a desktop case. They need another trick up their sleeve to compete with the workstation class performance of their rivals. They are extremely competitive with laptops but they need more cores and better multithreaded performance to beat out Alder Lake and anything Ryzen 5000 and up.

[fedexnman]

My many issues with Apple 1. Like iOS15 messing up my wife's iPhone12 Bluetooth with her car stereo 2. Lack of ports on MacBooks and Mac minis 3. Soldered ram and SSDs inside there sheeet ..... 4. M1 is fine it's new , but how long till they scrap that ? Intel I'm glad they came out with a new toaster to compete with AMD .... Price drops on AMD are coming , and I'm sure AMD will drop something on Alder Lake soon . . I'll just sit here and wait for the 5600g and the b550 mobos to drop in price.

[rezoneight]

Apple simply the best performance per watt. Not even close. For some that will be important, for some not. Apple doesn’t have a thing to worry themselves over.

They do if they do if they try to put a laptop chip in a desktop case. They need another trick up their sleeve to compete with the workstation class performance of their rivals. They are extremely competitive with laptops but they need more cores and better multithreaded performance to beat out Alder Lake and anything Ryzen 5000 and up.

And you don’t think they’ve been working on that? The intent is to replace the whole line up and they don’t just make laptops. So no, they don’t have anything to worry about. And honestly if I want an Apple machine what Intel and AMD are doing really is irrelevant.