[HN Gopher] Intel's Core i9-12950HX has 16 cores and 55 watts of...
___________________________________________________________________
Intel's Core i9-12950HX has 16 cores and 55 watts of power
Author : carlycue
Score : 43 points
Date : 2022-05-10 15:49 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| bitL wrote:
| Misleading marketing. It has 8 cores and 8 "cores". Hybrid
| workloads can really kill performance on big.LITTLE
| architectures.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Intel's efficient cores are not like the little cores of a
| big.LITTLE. They are still very potent CPU cores in their own
| right. We're still talking out-of-order cores & all that jazz (
| https://www.anandtech.com/show/16881/a-deep-dive-into-intels...
| ).
|
| If you have a multithreaded workload that can actually hammer
| that many cores, you will get decent scaling out of them (
| https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Intel-12th-Gen---...
| )
| bitL wrote:
| Still, it's a "Core" core and "Atom" core together, leading
| to all kinds of unexpected consanguinities. As with M1
| benchmarks, what really suffers is the 20%-80% load area,
| together with the lack of AVX-512 which 11th gen had that
| might be a deal breaker to some. Also, having 8 efficiency
| cores is just silly, if you just want to run background tasks
| with minimal power consumption, how do 8 cores lead to that?
| kllrnohj wrote:
| There's still 8P cores, so no the 20-80% load area is not
| suffering.
|
| > Also, having 8 efficiency cores is just silly, if you
| just want to run background tasks with minimal power
| consumption, how do 8 cores lead to that?
|
| Who said efficient cores must only be for low power
| background tasks? These efficiency cores are small, very
| small, so Intel can pack a lot of them into the die. And
| they provide far far bigger returns on multithreaded
| workloads than SMT does. As in, given a choice between 2
| more P cores (so 10P cores total) or these 8 E cores (so
| 8p+8e), it's a no brainer to go with the 8 E cores. You get
| larger multithreading returns with a similar die size cost.
| And the background power efficiency is just a freebie
| bonus.
| bitL wrote:
| Ok, so given you can place 10 P-cores vs 40 E-cores on
| the same die area by your math, why don't they ship a 40
| E-core CPU then? If those little cores are so capable in
| multi-threading (better than 2P anyway), that would be a
| big win, no?
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Yes exactly https://www.anandtech.com/show/17259/intel-
| discloses-multige...
| jeffbee wrote:
| The only thing I can figure out to do on these hybrids is
| to constrain system junk to the e-cores using a systemd
| directive, and put all my user session processes on the
| p-cores in the same fashion. Also necessary to boot with
| interrupts on the p-cores only, unless you want your nvme
| and ethernet device performance to be terrible. I'm not
| sure the complexity is worth it.
| johnklos wrote:
| It's a little sad to see Intel trying so hard to be relevant. AMD
| has really upped the game, and Apple has surprisingly made Intel
| #3, all in just the last few years.
|
| Intel is only relevant when they throw power at their CPUs, which
| isn't something you want with mobile chips.
|
| I genuinely hope they become more competitive soon, since it'll
| mean better performance and prices for everyone. However, the
| high power chips really need to go.
| nindalf wrote:
| Interesting choice to double down on a power hungry chip when
| targeting _mobile_. Personally I would prioritise battery life
| and a quiet laptop above other considerations. But perhaps the
| gaming laptop segment they're targeting is big enough that it
| makes sense?
| wmf wrote:
| This is kind of a rebrand of the 12900K so it didn't cost much
| to develop. They have P class and H class processors for
| laptops that you could actually use on your lap.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> This is kind of a rebrand of the 12900K so it didn't cost
| much to develop_
|
| More correct would be binning instead of rebranding, and no,
| better binned chips do cost more to weed out from the rest of
| the silicon, regardless of being identical in design to the
| rest of the (cheaper) chips, since they can clock higher
| within the same power envelope due to winning the silicon fab
| lottery.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| The low-power CPUs already launched first. That's what the
| prioritized, and are already showing up in thin & lights like
| the XPS 13 Plus ( https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/laptops/new-
| xps-13-plus/spd/... ).
|
| These power-hungry variants are the last of the lineup to be
| released.
| jeffbee wrote:
| The fact that it _can_ draw a ton of power doesn 't make it
| "power hungry".
| adrian_b wrote:
| The mobile workstations which use such CPUs have usually also
| a much higher idle power consumption, not only a much higher
| peak power consumption, in comparison with low-power laptops.
|
| For example, my laptop is an older Dell Precision mobile
| workstation, with a Skylake mobile Xeon, 32 GB ECC RAM and an
| NVIDIA Quadro GPU.
|
| It has an idle power consumption of 25 W (with the screen
| light being on), which means that even when staying idle the
| battery would last only 4 hours (with the screen light off
| the battery would obviously last longer, but the 4 hour limit
| would be valid e.g. when I would just use the laptop to read
| documents).
|
| In this Dell mobile workstation, the CPU power limit for
| infinite time is set to 60 W, even if that laptop CPU has a
| nominal TDP of 45 W. Unlike in thinner laptops, in such a
| mobile workstation the CPU can indeed dissipate continuously
| for an indefinite time 60 W without throttling. Taking into
| account the power consumption of the remainder of the laptop,
| when running at 100% CPU utilization, the battery will be
| drained in less than an hour.
|
| The new Alder Lake i9-12950HX will be used in the new mobile
| workstations Dell Precision 7670 and Dell Precision 7770.
|
| These might have a lower idle power consumption than my older
| model, but I doubt that it will be less than 20 W, when also
| having a discrete NVIDIA GPU and 64 GB RAM.
|
| I expect that the steady-state CPU maximum power consumption
| will also be higher than the nominal 55 W TDP, maybe at 65 W,
| while the turbo power consumption of i9-12950HX is 157 W,
| according to the rumors.
|
| The other mobile workstation vendors, e.g. Lenovo, HP, MSI,
| will have similar models.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Well yes, there's not going to be a free lunch. 64GB of ECC
| DDR4 is likely to consume 24W all by itself. This has
| basically nothing to do with the choice of CPU.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Gaming and desktop replacement. Plenty of people basically move
| their laptop between a desk at home and a desk at work.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Don't forget workstation laptops that are basically always
| plugged in.
| flatiron wrote:
| my work laptop's CPU sucks 45W: https://ark.intel.com/content
| /www/us/en/ark/products/201837/...
|
| lasts about 90 minutes when not plugged in (it also has a
| nvidia card to drive a bunch of monitors). is basically only
| not-plugged in while checking a quick e-mail or something. i
| have USB-C bricks and cables scattered throughout the house.
| doesn't particularly bother me.
| thefz wrote:
| In SFF PCs like the NUC this makes a lot of sense.
| macilacilove wrote:
| With severe throttling it might become an energy efficient but
| slow chip when needed.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| They rate these things like planes are rated: "1900 mile range,
| 400mph speed" really means "1900 mile range" OR "400 mph speed"
| because the range is only at best economy speed, and the top
| speed will never produce range.
|
| Same thing here: stated perf OR stated low power. Power use at
| max perf: 157W
| hulitu wrote:
| Are all the cores working at full speed at those 55 watts ?
| vondur wrote:
| These CPU's appear to be for a niche market, the semi-portable
| mobile workstation.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Which shouldn't be niche these days. What developer (for
| example) doesn't sit 8h per day 98 days of 100 plugged into a
| wall socket and using external keyboard/screen?
|
| Seems it would be a more common laptop use case than actual
| mobile use.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| I take a train to a far away city sometimes (and I am due to
| take it more often from October on) and there isn't always a
| socket available, or I have to share it with someone else in
| turns (one socket for two or three people).
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Why? This exact class of powerful Intel chips were placed in
| MacBook Pros before the M1 and those were not exactly niche nor
| workstation class.
| wmf wrote:
| No, HX class didn't even exist in the Intel Mac days. This is
| a 300W chip being heavily throttled down to <100W for 2-inch-
| thick "laptops".
| denimnerd42 wrote:
| I need a chip like this for remote work. I work from my at-home
| office and company policy doesn't allow desktops at home so we
| work with H/HX series Intel processors instead. Battery life or
| weight don't matter at all.
| throwaway81523 wrote:
| I have not felt the need for a very fast laptop given
| reasonable internet. I just do any heavy computation (builds
| etc.) on a remote server.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Laptop OEMs like Eluktronics or XMG have been putting desktop
| chips in laptops since forever. Have you checked them out?
| Sounds exactly what you need.
| l-albertovich wrote:
| OMG, I just went to Eluktronics' site out of curiosity and
| saw LPP which sounds AMAZING. I've been thinking of something
| like that for a long time and seeing it readily available
| just blew my socks off.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| What a coincidence, Linus did a review yesterday :)
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH-x2Wgd-0c
| antisthenes wrote:
| You don't. You need better software.
|
| Unless you're encoding video or compiling kernels 24/7 on your
| local machine.
|
| This is the equivalent of asking for a faster horse instead of
| a car.
| theamk wrote:
| Let me guess, you are a web dev?
|
| We have large C++ code base, and our build times are super
| slow. With beefy machines, it is tolerable. With laptops, it
| takes hours.
|
| And yes, writing this in C would decrease our compilation
| times.. But would make the development and debugging times
| much longer due to the lack of safe abstractions.
| hu3 wrote:
| Nice. I might get one to replace my current mobile workstation.
| Then replace thermal paste with liquid metal and it's good to go.
| Should stay silent unless running some benchmarks.
| mperham wrote:
| The 14" MBP has a 70 watt-hour battery so a 55W draw will drain
| the battery in just over an hour. And that's just the CPU.
| gabagool wrote:
| In fact, the de facto upper limit for laptop batteries is 100
| watt hours since this is the largest battery size permitted on
| a flight by the FAA (the US air travel regulatory body) without
| special approval [1]. The CPU would drain such a battery in 1
| hour and 50 minutes.
|
| [1]: https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-
| screening/whatcanibring/...
| thefz wrote:
| Who cares? MBPs will never see this CPU anyway. Assuming that a
| CPU is at 100% TDP all the time is a bit naif, too.
| nottorp wrote:
| Yeah, with Intel's recent definition of TDP the CPU can stay
| at 300% TDP.
| windowsrookie wrote:
| It's even worse. The Max turbo power on these CPUs is 157W. So
| if the cooling can keep up these will draw much more than 55W.
| jeffbee wrote:
| These will sit there drawing < 1W 99.5% of the time like all
| other laptop CPUs.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Especially with the big.LITTLE configuration. These
| machines simply have the _option_ to push that power
| envelope if they choose.
| alkonaut wrote:
| I'd pay good money for a 5kg laptop without any battery at all.
|
| I just need a computer I can move between the office and home.
|
| I don't need a screen, keyboard or touchpad either. They are a
| bonus (for meetings, for example) but I'd trade them away for a
| more powerful cpu any day.
| xanaxagoras wrote:
| Why not just get a mini PC and 2 wall warts? I wouldn't mind
| hauling this thing around [1], or a mac mini for matter. I'd
| love to see something similar with a battery so I can
| hibernate in between locations.
|
| [1] https://system76.com/desktops/meerkat
| alkonaut wrote:
| Have to get either Dell or Lenovo (don't ask). And while
| they do make mini PCs, they tend to be POS clients or
| similar, some times with even worse thermals and power than
| their best laptops.
| sdflhasjd wrote:
| I've carrying a Mac Studio to the office for a few weeks now
| and it's a pretty reasonably arrangement actually.
|
| It's liberating not having an atrocious keyboard and a tiny
| screen in front of you all the time.
|
| Intel do some pretty powerful NUC models now, and you (could)
| get something similar with an AMD model.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> It's liberating not having an atrocious keyboard and a
| tiny screen in front of you all the time._
|
| That's why we usually work with our laptops docked to
| external displays and peripherals. You don't?
| Gravityloss wrote:
| You could build a Mini ITX PC. Some cases have even handles.
| alkonaut wrote:
| I have considered it. Problem is, my employer only allows
| certain manufacturers due to purchasing and service
| agreements. Building isn't an option.
| Gravityloss wrote:
| Dell owns Alienware so there are some gaming PC:s. Don't
| know if it's still within corporation possibilities.
| Beltiras wrote:
| Sounds like you really just need sshfs and mount the machine
| from 2 locations.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Not sure what that is but it sounds linux-y. I work on
| windows and with desktop/graphics intensive development.
| Even a remote desktop on a low latency network connection
| in between is painful.
| Beltiras wrote:
| sshfs is a linux filesystem driver that uses ssh (secure
| socket host) as a transport mechanism. With proper setup
| you shouldn't feel latency except with very large files
| (can be mitigated with caching). I think there's a
| windows client available but an alternative Windows
| solution is using WSL2 to facilitate ssh.
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| I like that. I work on algorithmic performance, making the big-
| oh notation better often accompanied by a better hidden
| constant (both at the same time), and I would say...
|
| Waiting for a machine is considered harmful. You are never to
| wait for your machine, it ought to wait for you. You yes want
| it running at 1% or so. Then it's at your beck and call, ready
| to fire up at a moment's notice. Instead of the other way
| around, you planning your schedule around the machine's work.
| I've done that, there's problems with this, for instance
| experiments failing half-way while I was out on a walk. I think
| one time I left it running overnight, that's a classic.
|
| But if the computer can go all-out for 110 minutes, that's
| good, means it's a good sprinter, that's actually better than a
| good marathoner for the type of mathematical experiments
| typically carried out on a laptop. And for the laptop? Nobody
| cares about the energy efficiency when it's working hard. Then
| you plug it in. Or you think the problem over harder.
|
| Like I've never had to do a long mathematical experiment
| without connecting to the wall. In 13 years as an algorithmist,
| doing all kinds of shit, not one time. Because then you can't
| use it for listening to music, or writing essays on Hacker
| News, or applying to anything, or using emacs. I guess the
| reason for that is lack of will, so that 110 minutes according
| to a child node of this poster is much less on an older
| battery, like 60% of that, so 66 minutes. Then, don't assume I
| start out on a full charge, I have to code up the algo first,
| that takes a lot of time at low intensity, a lot of battery,
| plus you have to finish up the experiment properly, save some
| files before shutting down. So I guess if you were allotted a
| limited amount of charge overnight and that's all you could
| use, then sure. Plus the TDP is lower than if you do really
| fucked up things with the cores, one time the jumping I think
| would use up more than TDP. I think I've broken the conceivable
| limit on one chip, one chip for sure. They assumed my
| algorithms were sane, reasonable, that's where they fucked up.
| And all these considerations, I could brainstorm more, but all
| the considerations reduce the effective battery. Nothing makes
| it bigger again, it's all a drain. Even writing about the drain
| like I am now causes drain, accounting for accounting should be
| accounted for in the total. In other words the Silva Paradox
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
| . In practice I behave totally differently on eg an airplane
| trip with limited battery than plugged into the wall. Might as
| well get another user account on everything, full on Dr. Jeckyl
| and Mr. Hyde with power versus battery.
|
| .
|
| .
|
| And I had fucking old old batteries most of the time, my laptop
| was only a supercomputer due to algorithms, not software or
| hardware. Only a few of the algorithms were that good yet, when
| I had it, so in practice I couldn't say it was truly a
| supercomputer like this machine. Single thread, dual core, like
| a crappy plastic Macbook. It got looks at Stanford because your
| laptop is always visible in class (pre-covid) and a status
| symbol. Well mine was becoming the best, under the hood. And I
| did all sorts of stunts on it. It's not meaningfully different
| than now, that was 2.0 GHz, this is less than 3.0 GHz, clock
| speed for me is still king. Well I guess it depends. Yeah so in
| fact because of the clock speed factor, your experiments will
| run on one core usually, I wonder how that compares with the
| assumptions that lead to a 55W TDP.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-10 23:02 UTC)