RaceDepartment Store

Do you ever race in VR?

  • Yes

    Votes: 140 36.9%
  • No

    Votes: 239 63.1%

Upcoming Events

AC events on Simracing.GP ACC events on Simracing.GP R3E events on Simracing.GP Weekly rFactor 2 events Join TCR Virtual today!

It's been a long wait, but "maybe" this Winter Intel will have a winner.

RCHeliguy

Premium
"IF" this leak is real, than the new 10nm i9-12900K which should be released at the end of the year would have a single core performance that is 62% better than my i9-9900K. My i9-9900K has a 500 vs 810 for single core in the R20 3D rendering benchmark. With PCI Express 5.0 and DDR5 RAM, it looks like enough of an upgrade to be worth it.

alderlake.png



Fortunately it looks like DDR5 memory is in production despite the lack of motherboards that can make use of them, but as this article says, people appear to be buying them up in anticipation. They appear to initially be DDR5 32Gb x 4800 MHz.


These rumors say we could start seeing these chips in October and Intel will focus on the higher end K and KF CPU's until 2022. So we should have CPU's and DDR5 memory, and then we have to wait for motherboard availability from China.


It looks like there will be an interim release in 2023 and it could be another 15-20% performance increase, but the next BIG upgrade looks to be 2024 once again "IF" Intel gets their ribbonFET's into production by then. If they do then even with 7nm lithography they would get closer to a 2nm transistor density. That should be a pretty big jump.
 

Neilski

Staff
Premium
"IF" this leak is real, than the new 10nm i9-12900K which should be released at the end of the year would have a single core performance that is 62% better than my i9-9900K. My i9-9900K has a 500 vs 810 for single core in the R20 3D rendering benchmark.
That's an insanely large increase and I was initially very sceptical.
However, googling around a bit, I found data which suggests that Cinebench (or at least R20 single core, haven't looked much further yet) speeds do vary hugely even between say the 10900K and the 10700K, by massively more than the boost clock variance. Maybe it's very sensitive to cache size. Even the 11900K is already more than 40% quicker than your 9900K, for that particular benchmark. IMHO this is highly unlikely to be matched by the performance in a sim, but only testing will answer that.

Conclusion might be that maybe you really should expect a 62% leap in single-core performance over your "old" CPU IFF you spend a lot of time running Cinebench R20 in single core mode ;):p
For more normal workloads I'd be expecting maybe a ~25% improvement, which is certainly not to be sniffed at of course.

Cinebench R20 single core data from www.cpu-monkey.com:
11900K = 732
11700K = 612
=> the i9 is 20% faster
10900K = 645
10700K = 524
=> the i9 is 23% faster
and 11th gen i9 is faster than 10th by 13%

Passmark single thread ratings from www.cpubenchmark.net:
11900K = 3493
11700K = 3473
=> the i9 is 0.6% faster
10900K = 3164
10700K = 3082
=> the i9 is 2.7% faster
and 11th gen i9 is faster than 10th by 10%

Hmm.
 

RCHeliguy

Premium
I'll be waiting for the actual gaming benchmarks.

I'm currently running 3200MHz DDR4 memory and I'm hoping 4800MHz DDR5 memory will help too, but I understand that the memory timing boost will be much smaller than the CPU itself.
 
Last edited:

RCHeliguy

Premium
I'm not going to bother upgrading my existing MB at this point. I'll just move it to my development box whenever the next big enough difference arrives.
 

RasmusP

Premium
That's an insanely large increase and I was initially very sceptical.
However, googling around a bit, I found data which suggests that Cinebench (or at least R20 single core, haven't looked much further yet) speeds do vary hugely even between say the 10900K and the 10700K, by massively more than the boost clock variance. Maybe it's very sensitive to cache size. Even the 11900K is already more than 40% quicker than your 9900K, for that particular benchmark. IMHO this is highly unlikely to be matched by the performance in a sim, but only testing will answer that.

Conclusion might be that maybe you really should expect a 62% leap in single-core performance over your "old" CPU IFF you spend a lot of time running Cinebench R20 in single core mode ;):p
For more normal workloads I'd be expecting maybe a ~25% improvement, which is certainly not to be sniffed at of course.

Cinebench R20 single core data from www.cpu-monkey.com:
11900K = 732
11700K = 612
=> the i9 is 20% faster
10900K = 645
10700K = 524
=> the i9 is 23% faster
and 11th gen i9 is faster than 10th by 13%

Passmark single thread ratings from www.cpubenchmark.net:
11900K = 3493
11700K = 3473
=> the i9 is 0.6% faster
10900K = 3164
10700K = 3082
=> the i9 is 2.7% faster
and 11th gen i9 is faster than 10th by 10%

Hmm.
Are you sure that cpu monkey is a reliable source for this?
From the cinebench results I'm remembering, the i9s were only faster due to higher boost clocks but not much apart from what made sense.


I can recommend guru3d for a good overview and mostly stock clocks. They also do some oc runs but don't put them into the overview charts (sadly).

All CPUs locked to 3.5 GHz barely show any difference going from i9 to I7 to i5 within one generation!

R20 results:

Sadly no IPC chart but you can see that it's mostly clock speed and generation related. The 10th and 9th Gen are very very close in single thread performance as expected.

However the internal latencies of the 11th Gen really hits at high fps in games...
It seems to be better at lower fps like this one polish acc benchmark shows:
 
Last edited:

RasmusP

Premium
Nope! I'm very much a novice at finding Cinebench data :D

Ahh, interesting. Seems like the other data is... questionable then. :thumbsup:
Rule Nr 1: all pages that don't to the actual reviews can't be trusted :p

CPU mark is a great way to do quick comparisons but sometimes questionable too.
It's my go to page for stuff like comparing a laptop cpu from 2013 with a modern Ryzen 3300€ whole throwing in my old 2600k in the mix.

But for modern only charts, guru3d is a great page!
The other go to site is gamersnexus. But mostly you have to skip through the videos (which are nicely structured!) to get the info.
 

RCHeliguy

Premium
Why would you need to upgrade it, you are on Z390 chipset?
What MB do you use currently, try G-Skill configurator to see which stick works for you specific MB.

You misunderstand me. I don't want to upgrade anything on my MB, because it seems like a waste.

I'm just going to pass the MB with CPU, and memory to my development machine whenever I upgrade my gaming computer. My dev boxes i7-2600K is still plenty fast enough and the i9 will be overkill, but will allow a Win 11 update that I'll need for development purposes and the i9 will be nice when rendering video once in while.

I may even wait to do any upgrades until I'm planning a new VR headset, MB, CPU, GPU, and memory.
 

HoiHman

Premium
That's an insanely large increase and I was initially very sceptical.
However, googling around a bit, I found data which suggests that Cinebench (or at least R20 single core, haven't looked much further yet) speeds do vary hugely even between say the 10900K and the 10700K, by massively more than the boost clock variance. Maybe it's very sensitive to cache size. Even the 11900K is already more than 40% quicker than your 9900K, for that particular benchmark. IMHO this is highly unlikely to be matched by the performance in a sim, but only testing will answer that.

Conclusion might be that maybe you really should expect a 62% leap in single-core performance over your "old" CPU IFF you spend a lot of time running Cinebench R20 in single core mode ;):p
For more normal workloads I'd be expecting maybe a ~25% improvement, which is certainly not to be sniffed at of course.

Cinebench R20 single core data from www.cpu-monkey.com:
11900K = 732
11700K = 612
=> the i9 is 20% faster
10900K = 645
10700K = 524
=> the i9 is 23% faster
and 11th gen i9 is faster than 10th by 13%

Passmark single thread ratings from www.cpubenchmark.net:
11900K = 3493
11700K = 3473
=> the i9 is 0.6% faster
10900K = 3164
10700K = 3082
=> the i9 is 2.7% faster
and 11th gen i9 is faster than 10th by 10%

Hmm.
That does indeed look very good and might the right upgrade for my 9700k.

The issue with all these comparisons is that they usually compare stock to stock performance. But who has his 9700k/9900k running on stock speeds nowadays?

Mine runs at 5Ghz, but still the improvement should be significant.
 

RasmusP

Premium
The issue with all these comparisons is that they usually compare stock to stock performance. But who has his 9700k/9900k running on stock speeds nowadays?
More people than you'd think...
My favorite though are the comparisons with the i5 k's, which clock quite a lot lower than the i7 and i9...
They look quite bad in all benchmarks, until they looks very good when all cpu's are overclocked.
Sure, the i9 10900k boosts to 5.3 on single cores and my i5 10600k can only run stable at 4.9 GHz all core.
But the difference when you put both on the highest stable oc is very close, while the price difference is insane for "just gaming".

For other tasks, you need the cores though. My work applications are single thread only or run on the graphics card...
 

RCHeliguy

Premium
Samsung is releasing 7200MHz DDR5 memory with up to 512Gb per board for servers and is probably very expensive.

Pretty impressive stuff! But there is no word if Samsung will release consumer memory in smaller sizes for gamers. It would be great if they released 32 and 64Gb sizes. Whether gaming MB's will support this speed is the next question.

 

RCHeliguy

Premium
The next Intel CPU's and motherboards should launch November 19th.

I imagine the best well optimized motherboards will come a bit later.

 
Top