[The Exiled]

Fino su to sročili u TechPowerUp testiranju. Igre ionako nemaju koristi od manjih jezgri, dok PL postavke pak nemaju pretjeran utjecaj na performanse većih jezgri, a razlike u sličicama u sekundi se svode na desetak FPS-a.

If we look at application performance, it becomes clear why Intel switched to this new power-limit configuration. Had they used the classic PL1=125, PL2=241 setting, the Core i9-12900K would end up significantly slower in reviews. Nearly all reviewers use various workloads that fully load the processor, like rendering. Here, the difference between both configurations is quite big. Also, most reviewers use Cinebench, which in its latest version has been changed to run a 10 minute warm-up phase so that PL2 benefits are eliminated completely. While this might be relevant for some heavy workstation tasks, I feel like it completely ignores the reality of today's consumer workloads. Some might even say Intel switched to PL1=PL2=241 W only to beat AMD's Zen 3 Ryzen processors in Cinebench.

For gaming, things are completely different. There's virtually no performance difference between the 241 W and 125 W power limit settings, no matter the render resolution. The reason is that games are fairly light in their CPU usage; most aren't even able to run as many concurrent threads as the CPU would be able to. What's really impressive here is that even when the Core i9-12900K is constrained to 100 W power consumption, it's still faster than the processors in AMD's Zen 3 lineup. If Intel wanted to give us "the world's best gaming CPU," they could have configured the i9-12900K to run at 125 W, not 241 W.