Intel Alder Lake (12000 Series)

Regarding the issues with Alder Lake and DRM:

Here are the games that don't work on Intel Alder Lake, but there is a workaround

Windows 11:

• Anthem
• Bravely Default 2
• Fishing Sim World
• Football Manager 2019
• Football Manager Touch 2019
• Football Manager 2020
• Football Manager Touch 2020
• Legend of Mana
• Mortal Kombat 11
• Tony Hawks Pro Skater 1 and 2
• Warhammer I
• Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla
• Far Cry Primal
• Fernbus Simulator
• For Honor
• Lost in Random
• Madden 22
• Maneater
• Need for Speed – Hot Pursuit Remastered
• Sea of Solitude
• Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order
• Tourist Bus Simulator
• Maneater

Windows 10

• All of the above, plus:
• Ace Combat 7
• Assassins Creed Odyssey
• Assassins Creed Origins
• Code Vein
• eFootball 2021
• F1 2019
• Far Cry New Dawn
• FIFA 19
• FIFA 20
• Football Manager 2021
• Football Manager Touch 2021
• Ghost Recon Breakpoint
• Ghost Recon Wildlands
• Immortals Fenyx Rising
• Just Cause 4
• Life is Strange 2
• Madden 21
• Monopoly Plus
• Need For Speed Heat
• Scott Pilgrim vs The World
• Shadow of the Tomb Raider
• Shinobi Striker
• Soulcalibur VI
• Starlink
• Team Sonic Racing
• Total War Saga - Three Kingdoms
• Train Sim World
• Train Sim World 2
• Wolfenstein Youngblood

 

Yeah I had a feeling you would say that. I haven't really paid attention to the watercooling obsession so I didn't realize that all these sites might be using water.

The i5 is 125W/150W from what I gather? That shouldn't be a problem for most 120mm fan air coolers. But the 125W/240W output of the i9 is another matter.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-12900k-alder-lake-12th-gen/21.html

 

Wow didnt expect this from intel. Imagine if they were on 5nm.

 

The review kit from Intel included a Corsair 360mm AIO.

 

Any sign of gaming benchmarks with power limits set? I really think you have to be prepared for the worst case unless power limits can be set with good gaming performance.

 

Techpowerup tested both ways in their reviews of the 3 chips. For example,
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i7-12700k-alder-lake-12th-gen/23.html

 

What is the "power limit" in these tests, as in target TDP? What was the resulting power draw? It makes no sense. If the CPU tests were multicore max load tests, where power usage on other sites where details are actually known is drawing twice the wattage of Ryzen equivalent, does that mean you're gaining very little performance for massive amounts of extra power? Doubtful.

TPU graphs seem to exist solely for forum people to post graphs trying to prove some point where no actual context or details on the tests are available. There is nothing informative from their review.

 

I sent an email over there asking about that. I also wonder how the "Thread Director" might affect performance efficiency with TDP changes like that.

What are your preferred reviews? The only sites I look at these days are Anandtech and TPU. I miss Tech Report.

I am looking forward to experimenting with the i5 firsthand on my minimalist mostly-recycled build heh. Fascinating architecture.

 

What's concerning about that, for me, is that depending on the workload, the best air cooled CPU cooler they could get their hands on couldn't control the heat output from the higher end SKUs. Yeesh.

Here's to hoping that Zen 4 CPUs won't also have a massive increase in power usage like the new Intel CPUs. While the Intel CPU's power draw isn't terrible when limited to games, I don't buy a CPU just for games.

Also, the cost for MBs and DDR5 memory are currently obscenely (to me) expensive. Not sure how much DDR5 prices will come down considering that PCB layout is more complex than DDR4 as well as DDR5 requiring additional logic chips.

Regards,
SB

 

Gamers Nexus Youtube reviews the last few years have been IMO the best source of detail for PC hardware review. Especially the last couple of years they've expanded their testing hardware and capabilities. I'm really looking forward to their follow-up videos as they delve into a lot of different testing on new releases but their initial "quick" review at least has some clock speed, power draw and temps over time.

 

It’s a shame Intel is not on 7nm. Power draw is about the only thing you could complain about besides market prices.

 

Yes its obvious if these reduced their power drain / over heating they would compete and prolly even beat Zen, as intel chip seems better designed. But as I know from my current intel (where I have to downclock the CPU otherwise it sounds like a vacuum cleaner from the fan spinning and trying to prevent the CPU hitting 100c ) I wouldn't touch these until they fix their power draw issues, to me adding a water cooling etc is hiding the problem not fixing it, eg whats next you need liquid nitrogen?.

Btw I looked at various sites with game benchmarks, and comparing same game same res. The benchmarks vary widely eg some sites its close between amd/intel and some sites they differ a lot.
What are the more trusted sites?

 

Nooooooooooooooooooooo!

 

https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/2228085/

Seriously impressive new architecure from intel. They madea nice comeback.

 

Is it fair to say this is kind of a role reversal for Intel since the Athlon vs Pentium 4 days? Now Intel have the better architecture (at least temporarily), but the inferior 10nm process to TSMC's 7nm (not going into transistor density)?

 

And 5nm, ofcourse.

 

I honestly do not like the way the vast majority of sites benchmark. Ultra settings at 1080p and up will flatten the results of a lot of games. I think that’s part of the story. It's an average experience that might be what you see most of the time, and you don't want people to think a cpu is going to give them this huge performance boost at all times when it won't. But as a gamer, especially one that plays a lot of twitchy games, or games at competitive settings, I want to know how well my cpu will handle the worst cases. You can adjust options in most games to lower your graphics to get through gpu bound dips, but there's rarely anything you can do about the cpu.

For example, in apex legends I can cruise around at a pretty constant 230fps with competitive settings, but there are particular spots on the maps where I drop to 140fps like a hard cap. It's my 3600x at it's limit. If I had a 10600K, I'd probably wouldn't see as much as of a dip. Warzone is another game like this. Nakatomi plaza is a cpu test. There's a youtube guy, FrameChasers, who pretty much does overclocking benchmarks for warzone at Nakatomi and those are pretty useful because they'll really show you show well a cpu will really handle the worst cases. Warzone is latency sensitive, it scales across many cores and it'll take advantage of clock and IPC increases. It just scales to everything, so if your cpu has a weak spot you'll see it at that area of the map. His personality is off-putting, but in terms of seeing what a cpu can actually I think his results are actually pretty beneficial.

Capframex is also nice, because they do 720p tests and really make sure they're getting the gpu out of the picture. The results aren't flattened by gpu limits, so I think they give you a better idea of how much improvement you'll see from a higher end cpu in the worst cases, or with future titles that have heavier demands on the cpu.

Edit: I think the way I'd personally select for a cpu is to try to select one that will match my display. How well can it maintain the fps limit I want, so that I can always just adjust graphics settings to have a consistent experience. If you're a 60fps gamer (poor souls) then the choices are a lot easier than if you're gaming at 240fps+. The fact that I have a 240Hz display, but I can rarely maintain it with a ryzen 3600x is kind of a drag. But if I had a 144Hz display, I think with the exception of ray tracing it would be a much better match.

Edit: This guy's personality can be ... off putting, but he's got a 12900k review up. He doesn't do comprehensive reviews and he doesn't try to use typical gamer settings (3200 ram) etc. He overclocks each platform to it's max with the lowest latency memory it'll support. Then he compares. His details can be a nice data point to look at alongside other review sites.

 

Interesting. Would be cool to see a site really dig into that. Equalize power and benchmark across multiple applications.

 

I agree, and it's pretty similar to the view from DF when they reviewed 3700X, ( 24:15 )



Except for some very high fps requirements like in e-sports, you're not as concerned with the CPU performance except for some very rare drops( < 0.01% ) here and there. He calls them hotspots in the video.

These can be highly irritating, especially when you're playing a single player game and have to pass through the same areas again and again. A very good example is Swan's Pond in Fallout 4 where the fps dropped precipitously and you really needed a good CPU to keep it up.

In a typical review, even if you were doing it at 360p, you wouldn't see this issue since most of the time your benchmark run wouldn't stop there and explore the area but most likely tangentially touch it, if at all. But when actually playing the game, you'd tear your hair out.

I remember that guy FrameChasers during 30xx series announcement, he was quick to point out that 2080Ti overclocked rather well and trying out Doom comparison. Glad to see he's putting out this kind of content