FWIW: Logos Benchmark - Before and After AlderLake Upgrade

The systems:

Previous New

Core i9 9900k (oc'd to 4.5 GHz)           Core i9 12900k (P cores oc'd to 4.5 GHz)
32 GB DDR4 @ 2.67 GHz                    32 GB DDR5 @ 5.2 GHz
1TB Samsung 960 Pro SSD (PCIe 3)   2TB Corsair MP600 XT Pro (PCIe 4)
ASRock Taichi z390 MB                       Gigabyte Aorus Master z690 MB
Windows 11 Pro                                   Windows 11 Pro

Novabench comparison:

Logos comparison:

Logos 9 with 7,262 resources
"rebuild index"

44min 45sec 24min 15sec

Conclusions:

1) The upgrade to an Alderlake system cut ~20 minutes off a full index rebuild in Logos for 7262 resources.

2) Novabench suggests the cpu upgrade and the switch to a PCIe 4 ssd are the main reason(s) for this significant performance boost.

3) Novabench suggests DDR5 memory (even with a significant speed increase) has a minimal impact compared to DDR4. Note that current Alderlake motherboards can be obtained with either a DDR5 or a DDR4 configuration. IOW, one doesn't have to upgrade to DDR5.

4) An upgrade to Intel's Alderlake cpu and an upgrade to a PCIe4 ssd is definitely worth the investment if you want/need to speed up Logos. Whispers/rumors are that Alderlake laptops and tablets (coming Spring, 2022?) are going to be as impressive, if not more so, than the desktop.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Bruce Dunning

An upgrade to Intel's Alderlake cpu and an upgrade to a PCIe4 ssd is definitely worth the investment if you want/need to speed up Logos. Whispers/rumors are that Alderlake laptops and tablets (coming Spring, 2022?) are going to be as impressive, if not more so, than the desktop.

Thanks for the review. This is interesting. It makes me wonder how much those new Alderlake laptops will cost. I'm guessing it will not be cheap.

(‾◡◝)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1185943#Comment_1185943

It makes me wonder how much those new Alderlake laptops will cost. I'm guessing it will not be cheap.

"Cheap", of course is a totally relative/subjective term. But the takeaway is that Intel is now spanking AMD's behind in terms of performance and cost. Free market competition - ya gotta love it! Personally, I would be more concerned about the encroaching and increasing inflation that is now overtaking us (anybody remember the good old days of the Nixon/Carter unstoppable wage-price spirals?).

Dave Hooton

3) Novabench suggests DDR5 memory (even with a significant speed increase) has a minimal impact compared to DDR4. Note that current Alderlake motherboards can be obtained with either a DDR5 or a DDR4 configuration. IOW, one doesn't have to upgrade to DDR5.

Dual-channel memory architecture threatens to double the bandwidth but rarely achieves better than 20%. The DDR5 at 2x DDR4 has only achieved a 15% increase. Disappointing, but faster memory usually comes with an increased 'brake' (latency) which drastically limits the actual speed increase. PCIe definitely goes closer to achieving its 2x potential compared to the previous generation.

(‾◡◝)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1185971#Comment_1185971

Dual-channel memory architecture threatens to double the bandwidth but rarely achieves better than 20%. The DDR5 at 2x DDR4 has only achieved a 15% increase. Disappointing, but faster memory usually comes with an increased 'brake' (latency) which drastically limits the actual speed increase. PCIe definitely goes closer to achieving its 2x potential compared to the previous generation.

Yes, you are correct. The DDR3 to DDR4 transition was similar, however, with time the DDR4 latencies did come down. I would expect the same for DDR5. I've heard it said that current DDR5 has little to no advantage over DDR4 on single-threaded apps but is useful for multi-threaded.

Of more interest was Intel's push to get the power supply manufacturers and the motherboard manufacturers to adopt a "12vo" strategy. IOW, the new Alderlake environment was to have required new power supplies that only have a 12 volt rail (reason: there are some electrical efficiencies to be had by so doing). 12 volt-only power supplies require new connectors which the motherboard mfgs would have to adopt. Furthermore, they would then have to provide the onboard circuitry to step the 12 v down to whatever voltages were required. I was pleased to find that this strategy has not been incorporated into this initial/first round of the new architecture. IOW, existing power supplies still work just fine and that will help ease any financial burden of switching over to the Alderlake world.

Ben

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1185943#Comment_1185943

Not only will it not be cheap, you’ll get an hour on battery. Also Lake is power HUNGRY. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/11/intels-alder-lake-big-little-cpu-design-tested-its-a-barn-burner/

(‾◡◝)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1185983#Comment_1185983

Not only will it not be cheap, you’ll get an hour on battery. Also Lake is power HUNGRY. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/11/intels-alder-lake-big-little-cpu-design-tested-its-a-barn-burner/

At the risk of sounding like a red-faced, hyperventilating Intel fanboy, and also for the sake of anyone who might be interested in one of the new Alder Lake systems (whether desktop, laptop, or tablet), let me point out a few things:

1) "... not be cheap ..." >> Since not one scrap of *verifiable* information on the AL mobile chips has leaked, i.e., price or performance, it is a little early to make that claim. But I know you say it with a twinkle in your eye. [;)] Current AL pricing for the desktop chips comes in at or below AMD. As I mentioned above, I would be more concerned about inflationary pressures.

2) "... you'll get an hour on battery." >> Since not one scrap of *verifiable* information on the AL mobile chips has leaked, i.e., price or performance, it is a little early to make that claim. But I know you say it with a twinkle in your eye. [;)]

3) "Also Lake is power HUNGRY." >> This is the common, oft-repeated rip against AL. Oh wait, I did read one review where the only other "con" that the author could come up with was that Intel is not handing out free kittens with each purchase.

The comment section of many review articles are absolutely filled with heated, self-righteous diatribes against Intel/AL for this perceived atrocity. One almost expects someone to stand up, rend their clothing, and shout, "What further need have we of proof!?" followed by scenes of the peasants with farm tools and torches in hand, streaming up the mountain to kill the evil monster that lurks within the castle walls.

Nevertheless, from everything I have read, I believe AL does use more power than AMD (I can't speak to Apple). BUT, let me point out a few things ...

a) Power-wise, the difference is roughly the same as the difference between a 250 watt incandescent light bulb and a 300 watt bulb. Again, this difference is for the desktop version of AL - mobile versions have not yet been announced. And if one's desktop system runs with a bit more power for a few brief moments, who cares? Are penguins dropping dead somewhere? Is an extra 3¢ on the power bill at the end of the month going to be a "stopper"?

b) Furthermore, the power difference is nil at normal levels of computer activity but ramps up to that ~50 watt difference only when all 16 cores of the chip are operating at full speed. Generally speaking, the only people who operate at these red hot levels are gamers who do extreme over-clocking lest they drop a frame or two of their game or for bragging rights. All modern day cpus have baked-in circuitry which constantly and automatically monitor and adjust cpu speeds based on computing needs. Rarely does that cpu speed/power requirement hit those elevated levels.

Note that I oc'd both systems (above) in order to try to reduce or eliminate the effect of the built-in automatic speed adjustments of the two different cpus - iow, so that the comparison between the two systems would be as close to apples-to-apples as possible. I don't normally run computers over-clocked (there's just no need to do so).

BTW, I just checked and my AL cpu is purring along at a very comfortable 90°F - thank you very much.

Bottom line: All of the hoopla and saber-rattling about AL's power usage sounds a bit like AMD or Apple fanboys who just have to find something to complain about re: Intel/AL.

Pater Noster

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186174#Comment_1186174

The things I have noted about AL:

1) So far benchmarks have squeezed out performance advantages over the M1 chip, but this is comparing (so far) AL desktop class and the M series laptop class, and with significantly higher power consumption. The M series desktop SoC will be out in 2022.

2) While it supports on-board graphics, most sites I have read say, as they have in the past ,it's not anywhere near the performance of discrete add-on boards like NVidia or AMD - and Intel seems content to continue to move that way. As a result, Mac Mx laptops likely will run rings around any AL desktop in the graphics area unless they also have a discrete GPU board (and note Logos does run better with a good GPU capability)

3) AL IS power hungry - the reputable tech sites are all focused on how they are getting the performance they are getting, not just against M1 but Ryzen and others - through power consumption with no ceiling other than temp issues arising. These are not fanboy sites, they are very reputable tech sites like AnandTech and ArsTechnica. A few quotes:

Anandtech: "Finally, stressing out both CPU and GPU at the same time, the [Intel] SoC goes up to 92W package power and 120W wall active power. That’s quite high, and we haven’t tested how long the machine is able to sustain such loads (it’s highly environment dependent), but it very much appears that the chip and platform don’t have any practical power limit, and just uses whatever it needs as long as temperatures are in check."

ArsTechnica: "We saw more than a 300W system power draw at the wall for the i9-12900K—that’s over 100 watts higher than our Ryzen 9 5950X at full tilt. About 230W of that draw is accounted for by the i9-12900K’s CPU package itself, as reported by its own sensors to hwinfo64. Power efficiency is a somewhat different story: although the i9-12900K guzzles more power than the i9-11900K did, it offers stunningly higher performance—about a 50 percent net gain."

ArsTechnica: "Put simply, Intel’s Alder Lake CPUs are consuming up to five times more power than Apple’s M1 Max to achieve a mere 1.5X increase in performance."

Other reputable tech sites report on this as well. For example, wccftech test results: "Intel's Core i9-12900K Beats The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X With A Massive 5.2 GHz Overclock & 330W Power Consumption Figure". Performance is being realized through massive power consumption.

So at this point I think your summary is half right - someone could (and probably will) build a massive desktop computer with excellent cooling and let AL CPU run rampant, using the power draw it needs - and that computer will be a beast. People not interested in that have great designs coming today on the laptop from Apple for one, and it's just the end of year one in this business.

(‾◡◝)

Logos comparison:

Logos 9 with 7,262 resources
"rebuild index"

44min 45sec [Intel gen 9 system] 24min 15sec [Intel gen 12 system]

FOLLOWUP:

An upgrade from Windows 11 Pro 21H2 to 22H2 plus a Logos 9 to Logos 10 upgrade (with an increase of ~100 more resources) drops the Rebuild Index time to 16min 06sec. Remarkable.

mab

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1231128#Comment_1231128

Logos 10 upgrade is easily a cheaper than hardware upgrade.[8-|]