Question Raptor Lake - Official Thread

[Hulk]

Since we already have the first Raptor Lake leak I'm thinking it should have it's own thread.
What do we know so far?
From Anandtech's Intel Process Roadmap articles from July:

Built on Intel 7 with upgraded FinFET
10-15% PPW (performance-per-watt)
Last non-tiled consumer CPU as Meteor Lake will be tiled

I'm guessing this will be a minor update to ADL with just a few microarchitecture changes to the cores. The larger change will be the new process refinement allowing 8+16 at the top of the stack.

Will it work with current z690 motherboards? If yes then that could be a major selling point for people to move to ADL rather than wait.

 

[Carfax83]

There is a thread over at ocuk were we are testing rpl with zen 3 and zen 4 at those heavy cyberpunk areas. Results are.. eyeopening. The 7600x and the 3d struggle to hit 40 - 50 fps, while a 13600k casually hits 120+.

Link?

 

[ondma]

Link?

Yea, that seems too much difference. Some kind of glitch with AMD maybe, or set up issues.

 

[Ranulf]

I think this is what he's talking about at ocuk:

Ryzen 7950X3D, 7900X3D, 7800X3D

I've played Spiderman and had no issue with RT on at the highest settings? What happens exactly? A notable FPS gap between RPL and Zen4 shows up.

forums.overclockers.co.uk

 

[Just Benching]

Link?

This is it

Ryzen 7950X3D, 7900X3D, 7800X3D

I've played Spiderman and had no issue with RT on at the highest settings? What happens exactly? A notable FPS gap between RPL and Zen4 shows up.

forums.overclockers.co.uk

There are results for 13600k / 13900k / 5800x3d / 7600x / 7950x. It's a massacre

I've been saying, but people ain't listening, 12900k > all zen 4 / zen 3 3d. RPL is in a different league

This is a 7600x

Spoiler

 

[A///]

Bencher and humbug are my sole annoyances on that board. Annoying twits but occasionally stop fooling around for serious conversation. I'm quick to blame projektcd here for a terrible engine but genuinely there is a clear advantage in certain games on Intel over AMD.

 

[Just Benching]

Bencher and humbug are my sole annoyances on that board. Annoying twits but occasionally stop fooling around for serious conversation. I'm quick to blame projektcd here for a terrible engine but genuinely there is a clear advantage in certain games on Intel over AMD.

Actually cyberpunks engine is insanely well optimized when it comes to cpus. Its insanely multithreaded, its using all 16 of my ecores

 

[igor_kavinski]

I've been saying, but people ain't listening, 12900k > all zen 4 / zen 3 3d. RPL is in a different league

What would you say would be the percentage of games actively played around the world where this claim holds true?

CP2077's REDengine is just bad. That's why they switched to using UE5 for the next Witcher game.

 

[A///]

CP2077's REDengine is just bad. That's why they switched to using UE5 for the next Witcher game.

Herald the Great says you're wrong, Igor!

 

[Just Benching]

What would you say would be the percentage of games actively played around the world where this claim holds true?

CP2077's REDengine is just bad. That's why they switched to using UE5 for the next Witcher game.

Thats not a valid question. If you go by most played games, all of these cpus are useless and overkill. A 2c /4t G7600 or whatever its name is (i had it) gets over 100 fps in all those most played games (dota, lol, fortnite, csgo etc.). Nobody buys these cpus (i hope so) to go from 700 to 900 fps in valorant. Its a worthless metric, at least for me. Take sotr for example, the 12900k already hits 320-340 fps, the 7950x is faster than that, but does it actually matter?

I care more about performance in those heavy games in those heavy scenes that cpus struggle to hit 60 fps and stuff. In those, intel has a huge and clear advantage. Its not even close honestly, and its not just one game.

With that said, the 3d is an exception, cause it actually does well in some of these heavy games (msfs for example) but struggles a lot in others. But zen 4 aint even close to ald / rpl

 

[coercitiv]

That OCUK thread is quickly becoming a nothing burger. Somebody already proved the 7950X can fully saturate a 7900XTX in Cyberpunk 2077 Ultra RT even at 720p. Now they're comparing SpiderMan results, turns out performance is fine as well.

 

[Hitman928]

That OCUK thread is quickly becoming a nothing burger. Somebody already proved the 7950X can fully saturate a 7900XTX in Cyberpunk 2077 Ultra RT even at 720p. Now they're comparing SpiderMan results, turns out performance is fine as well.

Yep, pretty much the same story that happened here. Big claims made about Intel’s massive superiority over Zen4 based on very little/shaky data. When more data is added showing evidence that it’s not true, that data is just ignored and the big claims are repeated ad nauseum.

 

[Abwx]

Test of the 13900KS at Computerbase, and since there was some debate about efficency one can only notice that a 13900KS@253W is 1% ahead of a 7950X@142W in MT.

Click on the + 142 entries (eintrage) in the perfs graph to have a lot more CPUs displayed.

Intel Core i9-13900KS mit 6,0 GHz im Test

Der Core i9-13900KS ist der erste Intel-Prozessor mit bis zu 6,0 GHz ab Werk. Die dritte Special Edition in Anwendungen und Spielen im Test.

www.computerbase.de

 

[Hitman928]

Test of the 13900KS at Computerbase, and since there was some debate about efficency one can only notice that a 13900KS@253W is 1% ahead of a 7950X@142W in MT.

Click on the + 142 entries (eintrage) in the perfs graph to have a lot more CPUs displayed.

Intel Core i9-13900KS mit 6,0 GHz im Test

Der Core i9-13900KS ist der erste Intel-Prozessor mit bis zu 6,0 GHz ab Werk. Die dritte Special Edition in Anwendungen und Spielen im Test.

www.computerbase.de

7950x is 13% faster in their MT test suite when both are at 142W. Zen 4 does scale down in power better, but RPL also improves in efficiency dramatically at backed off power.

 

[Abwx]

7950x is 13% faster in their MT test suite when both are at 142W. Zen 4 does scale down in power better, but RPL also improves in efficiency dramatically at backed off power.

That s not a fair comparison because closing these 13% gap require the 13900KS to get to 253W, efficency comparison must be done at isoperf because the point is to compare energy/task within a same time for both CPUs.

From the graph and since there s a 7950X@88W we can extrapolate that the 13900KS@142W is perfs matched by a 7950X@95W.

Edit : This take account of the fact that in POV Ray the 7950X should perform 18% better than in thoses graphs if AVX2 was also enabled for this CPU, wich is not the case at Computerbase, this has few influence in the MT charts but considerable one in the ST tests where s there s only CB R15/R20 and POV Ray as benchmark, without this bias the ST scores would be comparable.

 

[Just Benching]

That OCUK thread is quickly becoming a nothing burger. Somebody already proved the 7950X can fully saturate a 7900XTX in Cyberpunk 2077 Ultra RT even at 720p. Now they're comparing SpiderMan results, turns out performance is fine as well.

Never tested in the actual hard area of the game though. And what about the 7600x or the 5800x 3d? Those were dropping to the 50s. But lets ignore that 😂

 

[Just Benching]

That s not a fair comparison because closing these 13% gap require the 13900KS to get to 253W, efficency comparison must be done at isoperf because the point is to compare energy/task within a same time for both CPUs.

From the graph and since there s a 7950X@88W we can extrapolate that the 13900KS@142W is perfs matched by a 7950X@95W.

Edit : This take account of the fact that in POV Ray the 7950X should perform 18% better than in thoses graphs if AVX2 was also enabled for this CPU, wich is not the case at Computerbase, this has few influence in the MT charts but considerable one in the ST tests where s there s only CB R15/R20 and POV Ray as benchmark, without this bias the ST scores would be comparable.

Is that some kind of revelation? The cpu with the lower power limit is more efficient? Who would have thought. I bet a paycheck a 13900k at 125w is more efficient than a stoxk 7950x 😉

The most efficient cpu is the 13900k at 35 watts. The 7950x is placed 4th or roundabout. But lets ignore that as well cause why not 😁

 

[Hitman928]

That s not a fair comparison because closing these 13% gap require the 13900KS to get to 253W, efficency comparison must be done at isoperf because the point is to compare energy/task within a same time for both CPUs.

From the graph and since there s a 7950X@88W we can extrapolate that the 13900KS@142W is perfs matched by a 7950X@95W.

Edit : This take account of the fact that in POV Ray the 7950X should perform 18% better than in thoses graphs if AVX2 was also enabled for this CPU, wich is not the case at Computerbase, this has few influence in the MT charts but considerable one in the ST tests where s there s only CB R15/R20 and POV Ray as benchmark, without this bias the ST scores would be comparable.

This is a very server centric point of view. You’re not wrong, but consumer desktop mindset is very different, which is why both Intel and AMD have pushed their chips to such absurd power levels.

 

[Markfw]

Is that some kind of revelation? The cpu with the lower power limit is more efficient? Who would have thought. I bet a paycheck a 13900k at 125w is more efficient than a stoxk 7950x 😉

The most efficient cpu is the 13900k at 35 watts. The 7950x is placed 4th or roundabout. But lets ignore that as well cause why not 😁

when you get that low, the IO watts start to matter. Besides, why would someone pick a top end CPU and then limit it to laptop wattages ? As for your first statement, thats rediculous. Either what wattage do do each have to have for the same performance, or at what performance level do each do at the same wattage. You are just making no sense. See the posts above yours.

 

[Just Benching]

when you get that low, the IO watts start to matter. Besides, why would someone pick a top end CPU and then limit it to laptop wattages ? As for your first statement, thats rediculous. Either what wattage do do each have to have for the same performance, or at what performance level do each do at the same wattage. You are just making no sense. See the posts above yours.

I care about efficiency cause im running 24/7 heavy workloads all day every day, thats why i have a 12900k and a 13900k at 35 watts, way more efficient than zen 4

Im saving tons of electricity

 

[Hitman928]

I care about efficiency cause im running 24/7 heavy workloads all day every day, thats why i have a 12900k and a 13900k at 35 watts, way more efficient than zen 4

Im saving tons of electricity

I realize you are just trying to troll Mark, but that would actually be worse efficiency as your performance would tank and the rest of the system’s power consumption would become the dominate power consumption factor. So from a 24/7 heavy load efficiency perspective, you’d be far worse at 35W than you would be at around 100W, let alone against a Zen4 at around the same power.

 

[Just Benching]

I realize you are just trying to troll Mark, but that would actually be worse efficiency as your performance would tank and the rest of the system’s power consumption would become the dominate power consumption factor. So from a 24/7 heavy load efficiency perspective, you’d be far worse at 35W than you would be at around 100W, let alone against a Zen4 at around the same power.

Of course, since when it comes to efficiency you have to take the system into account. It's probably more efficient to run a CPU at 100w then have 2 systems with each cpu at 35w.

But still, the point stands, Intel does indeed have the most efficient cpus, amd's best comes in probably 6th place. All this time efficiency comparisons were done with the only metric being cpu power consumption, now that intel nails it at low wattage the arguments are going to flip faster than burgers in mcdonalds

 

[Markfw]

Of course, since when it comes to efficiency you have to take the system into account. It's probably more efficient to run a CPU at 100w then have 2 systems with each cpu at 35w.

But still, the point stands, Intel does indeed have the most efficient cpus, amd's best comes in probably 6th place. All this time efficiency comparisons were done with the only metric being cpu power consumption, now that intel nails it at low wattage the arguments are going to flip faster than burgers in mcdonalds

I need my hipwadders to read through this. indeed I agree with hitman928, you are trolling me.

 

[A///]

A fly fishing reference.

 

[Markfw]

A fly fishing reference.

In my case, a reference to wading through the BS.

 

[Just Benching]

I need my hipwadders to read through this. indeed I agree with hitman928, you are trolling me.

Ofc im trolling but you started with your hundreds of wattages saved per month.

But regardless, its a fact that intel has the most efficient cpus, at 35w nothing on the desktop can touch their efficiency.