Over the past few months, Intel has been drip-feeding information about its next-generation processor family. Alder Lake, commercially known as Intel’s 12th Generation Core architecture, is officially being announced today for a November 4th launch. Alder Lake contains Intel’s latest generation high-performance cores combined with new high-efficiency cores for a new hybrid design, along with updates to Windows 11 to improve performance with the new heterogeneous layout. Only the six high-performance K and KF processor variants are coming this side of the New Year, with the rest due for Q1. We have specifications, details, and insights ahead of the product reviews on November 4th.

Today’s announcement also coincides with Intel’s InnovatiON virtual event happening today and tomorrow. This event is, as described in a number of press releases, a mini-Intel Developer Forum (IDF) event designed to emulate a small part of the highly prized annual conference that the company culled in 2017. As part of the event, there are 60+ sessions designed to cover new technology such as AI, networking, custom silicon, programming technologies/challenges, and introduce developers to more of Intel’s ecosystem. It includes a day one keynote from CEO Pat Gelsinger and other executives to share the new hardware announcements, and a day two keynote from CTO Greg Lavender on the software side. The goal was for this event to be in-person, which is usually where the most value came from the old IDF event, however this is the first attempt to revive the format.

Six Alder Lake CPUs, $589 For Core i9

The first things we’ll go into are the new CPUs that Intel is announcing today: the overclockable models of Intel 12th Gen Core. As with previous launches, we have Core i9, Core i7, and Core i5, with the key highlights including new support for DDR5, PCIe Gen 5, new overclocking features, and a change in how Intel is promoting its Thermal Design Power (TDP).

This is the table:

Intel 12th Gen Core, Alder Lake
AnandTech Cores
P+E/T
E-Core
Base
E-Core
Turbo
P-Core
Base
P-Core
Turbo
IGP Base
W
Turbo
W
Price
$1ku
i9-12900K 8+8/24 2400 3900 3200 5200 770 125 241 $589
i9-12900KF 8+8/24 2400 3900 3200 5200 - 125 241 $564
i7-12700K 8+4/20 2700 3800 3600 5000 770 125 190 $409
i7-12700KF 8+4/20 2700 3800 3600 5000 - 125 190 $384
i5-12600K 6+4/16 2800 3600 3700 4900 770 125 150 $289
i5-12600KF 6+4/16 2800 3600 3700 4900 - 125 150 $264

Each processor has a number of performance cores (P-cores) and efficiency cores (E-cores). The P-cores have SMT, whereas the E-cores do not, so we’re dealing with non-standard numbers of total threads. Inside the system, the P-core threads, E-core threads, and SMT threads are categorized for performance and efficiency, which we’ll get to later in the article. But with a new hybrid design also comes with new ways to showcase frequencies, and each set of cores will have its own base frequency and turbo frequency. The way power is marketed and used has also changed, designed to be clearer.

All processors will come with 16 lanes of PCIe 5.0 from the processor, and an additional 4 lanes of PCIe 4.0 for storage. Memory support is listed as both DDR5-4800 and DDR4-3200, although systems will only support one or the other, for a maximum of 128 GB. The K processors also feature 32 EUs of Intel’s Xe-LP graphics, designated as UHD Graphics 770. Prices will start at $264 for the base Core i5 model, up to $589 for the top Core i9 model.

Core i9-12900K/KF

For the Core i9-12900K, if we work from the ground up, the E-cores have a base frequency of 2.4 GHz but will turbo up to 3.9 GHz; the P-cores have a base frequency of 3.2 GHz, and an all-core turbo of 5.1 GHz. The P-cores that are considered the best (aka favored cores) will turbo up to 5.2 GHz.

With all the cores active, the system has all 30 MiB of L3 cache available. Intel lists the base power as 125 W, with a turbo power of 241 W. The 1000-unit price for the K model is $589, and the KF model without integrated graphics as $564. As these are 1000-unit prices, retail is expected to be $10-$50 higher, depending on how Intel bundles the chip.

Compare at $550-$600
AnandTech Cores
P+E/T
P-Core
Base
P-Core
Turbo
IGP Base
W
Turbo
W
Price
$1ku
i9-12900K 8+8/24 3200 5200 770 125 241 $589
R9 5900X 12/24 3700 4800 - 105 142 $549

On price, the Core i9 parts are up against the Ryzen 9 5900X (12C/24T, 3.7-4.8 GHz) at $549. Intel has more actual cores, but AMD has more high-performance cores. At 105W/142W, AMD has the power advantage, but Intel has PCIe 5.0 and DDR5 support, with the K also having integrated graphics.

Core i7-12700K/KF

For the Core i7, Intel has removed one set of four E-cores, and also reduced the L3 cache to 25 MiB. This leads to an 8P+4E design, with 20 total threads. Over the Core i9, the E-cores in the Core i7 have a higher base frequency at 2.7 GHz, but a lower turbo frequency of 3.8 GHz. The P-cores are also higher at 3.6 GHz, but the turbo is 4.9 GHz, with the favored core at 5.0 GHz.

Intel lists the base power here as the same 125 W, but the turbo power is only 190 W. Pricing is at $409 for the K model in 1000-unit quantities, with the KF at $384. This puts it favorably against the Ryzen 7 5800X.

Compare at $400-$450
AnandTech Cores
P+E/T
P-Core
Base
P-Core
Turbo
IGP Base
W
Turbo
W
Price
$1ku
i7-12700K 8+4/20 3600 5000 770 125 190 $409
R7 5800X 8/16 3800 4700 - 105 142 $449

On price, the Core i7 $40 is cheaper. While both have eight performance cores, the addition of four efficiency cores on the i7 is an interesting twist that might come down to how threads are managed and how Intel’s single-core performance changes when threads are loaded. At 125 W, AMD still has the on-paper power advantage, but real-world testing will see if Intel is drawing level.

Core i5-12600K/KF

The Core i5-12600K loses two P-cores compared to the Core i7, for a 6P+4E design totaling 16 threads. What we have here is a design that effectively replaces 2P cores for a 4-core E complex, and so up against the traditional 8C/16T chips will be an interesting scenario – even against Intel’s previous flagship, the 8C/16T Core i9-11900K.

The frequencies here change a bit as before, with an increased E-core base but lower E-core turbo. The P-core base is up too, but the P-core turbo is the same 4.9 GHz – the difference to the i7 is that there is no preferred core turbo mode.

Compare at ~$300
AnandTech Cores
P+E/T
P-Core
Base
P-Core
Turbo
IGP Base
W
Turbo
W
Price
$1ku
i5-12600K 6+4/16 3700 4900 770 125 150 $289
R5 5600X 6/12 3700 4600 - 65 88 $299

The price competition for the Core i5-12600K is going to be one of AMD’s best sellers. The Ryzen 5 5600X is effectively the same price, and uses a 6C/12T design, rather than Intel’s 6P4E/16T. If that looks confusing, we’ve got a fun few years ahead. It should be noted though that AMD’s hardware has a TDP of 65W, almost half of the base 125 W power listed for the Core i5.  The comparison of performance against efficiency is going to be an important one.

Chipset and Motherboards

Inside each processor, alongside the 16x PCIe 5.0 lanes for add-in cards and 4x PCIe 4.0 lanes for storage, is an additional link to the chipset. Intel lists this as a DMI 4.0 x8 link, as they use a custom protocol over an effective PCIe physical connection – we asked Intel, and they said the link is rated for 15.76 GB/s, which means the chipset can take two PCIe 4.0 x4 drives at peak before getting near to that limit. This is doubled compared to Z590, which was only 7.88 GB/s.

Today Intel is only announcing its Z690 chipset, built on Intel’s 14nm, and the motherboard manufacturers have about 60+ models to launch in the upcoming week. The processors use a new LGA1700 socket, which means everyone buying the new CPUs also need a new motherboard. Most of the big motherboard companies are holding their own product announcement events, so keep a lookout for those. Each motherboard will support either DDR5 or DDR4, not both, along with enhanced overclocking - more detail on that below.

The Z690 chipset will have 12x PCIe 4.0 lanes and 16x PCIe 3.0 lanes, some of which will be earmarked for general IO use. This includes up to four 20 Gb/s USB ports, up to ten 10 Gb/s USB ports, up to ten 5 Gb/s USB ports, and up to fourteen USB 2.0 ports (although not all at the same time). There are eight SATA ports, along with support for Intel’s onboard RAID. The PCIe storage also now uses Intel’s Volume Management Device (VMD) to assist with PCIe management.

Intel lists an integrated Wi-Fi 6E MAC in the chipset as well, requiring the respective PHY and RF connected over CNVi, which is a proprietary Intel interface – any motherboard manufacturers wanting to use other Wi-Fi 6 solutions will have to directly connect via PCIe as they can’t use the closed standard.

Intel also lists 2.5G Base-T support for wired Ethernet, although that’s a bit of a misnomer here – it’s simply an attached PCIe device using the above-mentioned lanes, and the MAC/PHY still needs to be purchased. This is a similar tactic to previous announcements – users could also add a RAID card in a similar fashion or an FPGA accelerator, however Intel doesn’t highlight those.

Intel’s chipsets employ a great deal of port flexibility – it is essentially a big PCIe switch with a few added extras. It means almost everything that can be attached to a PCIe bus can be used. But with previous generations, there are going to be some limitations with the high-speed IO lanes (such only certain lanes can be used for SATA or Ethernet, limiting perhaps the number of PCIe x4 slots), but some combinations will be better supported than others. Users looking for Thunderbolt 4 support will have to find motherboards with an added controller, as the Alder Lake desktop processors do not have it built-in like the mobile versions.

Intel has not specified the TDP of the Z690 chipset, however we’re yet to see a motherboard with active cooling, so it’s likely to be in that 7-12W range as with previous generations. We expect to see Z690 motherboards range in price from $200 up to $700+, similar to Z590 pricing.

No More TDP: Base Power and Turbo Power

In the past, Intel promoted its processor power as a single number: TDP (Thermal Design Power*). The issue wasn’t so much that this number was wrong, it was because it lacked massive context that wasn’t communicated to anyone. Arguably it took us several years to find out what it really meant, especially in relation to its turbo.

*Technically TDP is defined differently to power consumption, however they are effectively interchangeable at this point, both in common parlance and Intel documentation.

What Intel was promoting wasn’t the power consumption in regular operation, but the guaranteed power consumption for the base processor specifications. That means if a user purchased a six-core processor, base frequency at 3.0 GHz, and a TDP of 65 W, then those are the only specifications that were covered under warranty. Even if the box showcased that the processor was capable of enabling a turbo up to 4.0 GHz, that wasn’t guaranteed. Beyond that, the power consumption of the turbo mode wasn’t specified either, so if the same processor went up to 30-50% higher than 65 W, there was no explicit number from Intel, aside from digging through specification sheets that sometimes weren’t even public, to get a number to help build cooling into the system.  It also meant that reviews of hardware that were labeled as 125 W, but consumed 250W+ in turbo mode, weren’t able to accurately demonstrate the scope of the product without additional power monitoring. It got to a point where Intel’s power consumption under turbo became a bit of a meme, and enthusiasts got annoyed that Intel buried this information away.

That changes with Alder Lake. Intel is now acknowledging that its turbo mode does indeed have a power increase, and is providing that number alongside the regular set of numbers. To that end, the base ‘TDP’ number of previous generations is gone, and we get two numbers to talk about:

  • Processor Base Power (Base): Guaranteed Peak Power at Base Frequency
  • Maximum Turbo Power (Turbo): The Maximum Power at full turbo mode that is in spec

So for example, the Processor Base Power (Base) for the Core i9-12900K is set at 125 W. The Maximum Turbo Power is 241 W. This means that systems using this processor will be able to boost up to 241 W if the system is set up to do so, and that is within specification.

For the six processors being announced today, there’s also an added bonus. Under the previous regime, how long a processor could spend in that higher power mode was limited. Intel had a specification for this, which to be honest most motherboard manufacturers ignored anyway, because that length of time was only a guideline, not a rigid specification, and it didn’t break the warranty. Intel is now so confident in its turbo performance, that the new K processors have a default guideline of an unlimited turbo. It should be noted that when Intel launches the rest of the Alder Lake processors, this won’t always be the case.

For users who understand the former PL1/PL2 methodology, it still technically exists under the hood here, where Base is PL1 and Turbo is PL2, but Tau is effectively infinite for K processors.

More in this overview:

  • Cache and Hybrid Designs
  • Thread Director
  • DDR5: Support, XMP, New Features
  • Packaging and Overclocking
  • Performance and Conclusions
Cache and Hybrid Designs
Comments Locked

395 Comments

View All Comments

  • lmcd - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link

    You don't remember correctly at all. Apple's little cores are stupidly fast for little cores. Andrei flails in every Apple SoC review how stupid it is that there's no ARM licensed core answer to Apple's little cores.

    Intel probably roadmapped Alder Lake the minute they saw how performant Apple little cores were in even the iPhone 6S.

    Atom has been surprisingly good for a while. No need to make up conspiracies when you can buy a Jasper Lake SKU that confirms Intel Atom is far from slow.
  • name99 - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link

    Apple's small cores are
    - about 1/3 the performance at
    - about 1/0th the power, net result being
    - same amount of computation takes about 1/3 the energy.

    The Intel cores appear (based on what's claimed) to be substantially faster -- BUT at the cost of substantially more power and thus net energy.
    If they are 70% of a P core but also use 70% of the power, that's net equal energy! No win!
    It won't be that bad, but if it's something like 70% of a P core at 35% of the power, that's still only half the net energy. Adequate, but not as good as Apple. My guess is we won't get as good as that, we'll land up at something like 50% of the power, so net 70% of the energy of a P core.

    (And of course you have to be honest in the accounting. Apple integrates the NoC speed, cache speeds, DRAM speed all ramped up or down in tandem with demand, so that if you're running only E cores it's your entire energy footprint that's reduced to a third. Will Intel drop the E-*core* energy quite a bit, but it makes no real difference because everything from the NoC to the L3 to the DRAM to the PCIe is burning just as much power as before?)

    Essentially Apple is optimizing for energy usage by the small cores, whereas Intel seems to be optimizing for something like "performance per area".
    That's not an utterly insane design point, but it's also not clear that it's a *great* design point. In essence, it keeps Intel on the same track as the past ten years or so -- prioritizing revenue issues over performance (broadly defined, to include things like energy and new functionality). And so it keeps Intel on track with the Intel faithful -- but does nothing to expand into new markets, or to persuade those who are close to giving up on Intel.

    Or to put it more bluntly, it allows Intel to ship a box that scores higher in Cinebench-MT at the same chip area -- but that's unlikely to provide an notably different, "wow", experience from its predecessor, either in energy use or "normal" (ie not highly-threaded) apps.

    Of course we'll see when the Anandtech review comes out. But this is what it looks like to me, as the salient difference between how Apple (and, just not as well, ARM) think of big vs little, compared to Intel.
  • nandnandnand - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link

    "It won't be that bad, but if it's something like 70% of a P core at 35% of the power, that's still only half the net energy."

    I don't know how it will compare to Apple, but if it has a performance-per-area *and* a performance-per-watt advantage, it is a major improvement for x86. Especially as Intel iterates and puts 16 or 32 E-cores alongside 8 P-cores.

    Basically, Intel can continue to tinker with the P-cores to get the best possible single-threaded performance, knowing that 8 P-cores is enough for anyone™, but spamming many E-cores is Intel's path to more multi-threaded performance.

    Alder Lake can be considered a beta test. The benefits will really be felt when we see 40 cores, 48 threads (8+32) at the die space equivalent of 16 P-cores. The next node shrink after "Intel 7" will help keep power under control.
  • vogonpoetry - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link

    User-rewritable SPDs are a total game-changer for RAM overclockers. Many times I have wished for such a feature. As is on-the-fly power/frequency adjustment (though I wish we could change timings too).

    As for "Dynamic Memory Boost", doesnt Power Down Mode already do something similar currently? My DDR4 laptop memory frequency can be seen changing depending on workload.
  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link

    All overclocking is dead.
  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link

    I should have said: 'All user overclocking is dead'.

    Vendor-approved overclocking (i.e. going beyond JEDEC) is another matter.
  • Silver5urfer - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link

    On paper it looks okay. Staring with the Z690 chipset is a really deserved upgrade, lot of I/O plus RAID mode optimizations. AMD RAID is so bad, Level1Techs also showed how awful it was.

    STIM is interesting, given how 10900K and 11900K improved vastly with Delidding and LM. So that's a plus. Then the whole Win11 BS is annoying garbage. The WIn11 OS is horrible anti user anti desktop anti computing it reeks desperation to imitate Apple as an Ape. It looks ugly, has Win32 downgrades with integration to UWP, Taskbar downgrades, Awful explorer UI. It's outright unacceptable.

    Now the big part CPU and Price - Looks like Intel is pricing it wayy lower than AMD. For unknown reasons as Intel never does it, I find it disrupting. Also the CPU OC features are somewhat okay I was expecting lower clocks but looks like 5.1GHz but looking that the new PL1 system I do not have a problem at all since I want full performance now no more BS by GN and etc citing omg the power limits 125W must be kept on a damn K unlocked processor. But there were rumors on power consumption going past 350W like RKL once OCed that's the reason why Intel is going 8C max unlike Sapphire Rapids Xeon at 14C. DDR5 is also on it's new life not worth investing money into the DDR5 new adopter tax if DDR4 works which is what I'm curious about RKL Gear 1 4000Mhz is impossible. I wonder how this will fare.

    The leaked performance preview shows mediocre improvements, the ST is definitely a lead on the P cores, real cores. But the SMT / HT is really what I'm interested vs 10900K and Ryzen 5900X. RKL is also fast in ST but SMT was okay not great because 14nm backport.

    I'll be waiting to see how Intel executes this, not going to invest tbh because new chipset, new CPU design, Win11 and I want to run Windows 7. I'd rather settle for a 10900K on Z590. PCIe SSDs are not much of a value for me, they have no use beyond load times and boot times for my use case, MLC 860 Pro SATA SSD is way better, runs cool, long lasting as well.
  • Gothmoth - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link

    people who do raid without a dedicated PCIe RAID controller have no clue anyway.

    while most focus on performance i am waiting on performance per WATT figures.
  • vegemeister - Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - link

    Hardware RAID is a recipe for weird bugs and data loss, and provides no benefit over software RAID on top of the same controller running as a dumb HBA.

    Motherboard fake RAID is similarly pointless.
  • Gigaplex - Thursday, October 28, 2021 - link

    I'd rather do mdadm software RAID or use ZFS vs a PCIe RAID controller.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now