It seems like all the focus has been on how these chips are at maximum load. I wonder how they perform under more typical light/mixed loads.
AFAIK, the theoretical benefit of doing the big-little arrangement is improved power scaling with load. At partial load, powering a wimpy "e-core" at its ideal clock speed should be more efficient (instructions per kwh) & possibly have better latency characteristics than the usual approach of doing a drastic underclock & undervolt on big performance-oriented cores.
Naturally I'm interested in seeing whether that theoretical advantage of the architecture has paid off. The maximum speed performance stats and wattage numbers give an incomplete picture. I want to see wattage and performance metrics across the spectrum of load levels, from <1% all the way up.
If the 12900K delivers roughly 5950 level performance using 25% more power than the 5950, that looks pretty bad. But if the 12900K can deliver 25% of its max performance for only 10% of its max power envelope, and the 5950 needs 30% of its max power envelope to keep up with that load, that's a big deal, and the intel chip will actually be the cooler one more often than not. That dynamism is what reviewers need to focus on explaining & quantifying, IMO.
The LTT review [1] compares full-load-render benchmark tests against more real-world gaming performance, and the temps drop from a sustained 90 degrees to 60 degrees, so you seem to be right, there.
AFAIK, the theoretical benefit of doing the big-little arrangement is improved power scaling with load. At partial load, powering a wimpy "e-core" at its ideal clock speed should be more efficient (instructions per kwh) & possibly have better latency characteristics than the usual approach of doing a drastic underclock & undervolt on big performance-oriented cores.
Naturally I'm interested in seeing whether that theoretical advantage of the architecture has paid off. The maximum speed performance stats and wattage numbers give an incomplete picture. I want to see wattage and performance metrics across the spectrum of load levels, from <1% all the way up.
If the 12900K delivers roughly 5950 level performance using 25% more power than the 5950, that looks pretty bad. But if the 12900K can deliver 25% of its max performance for only 10% of its max power envelope, and the 5950 needs 30% of its max power envelope to keep up with that load, that's a big deal, and the intel chip will actually be the cooler one more often than not. That dynamism is what reviewers need to focus on explaining & quantifying, IMO.