Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

Page 632 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Exist50

Senior member
Aug 18, 2016
925
901
136
His point is that they said, "Up to 20% ST performance" improvement for Alderlake and the average ended up around 19%. So the up to statement was really the upper range for the average single thread improvement. If the same holds true for RPL, then the average single thread improvement will be 10+%. We'll have to wait and see how it goes.
The RPL number was never specified as being single thread, and multithreaded will surely demonstrate better gains. Would be very surprised if single thread ends up even 10% better.
 

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
4,104
4,903
136
The RPL number was never specified as being single thread, and multithreaded will surely demonstrate better gains. Would be very surprised if single thread ends up even 10% better.
Yes, you are right, I got it confused with all the ST discussion recently. I will say, if they can only manage low double digit MT improvement (like 10 - 15%), that would be pretty disappointing. Unless they're taking the opportunity to bring the power consumption back down a bit at the same time.
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
8,276
3,188
136
@eek2121 Others have pointed Rocketlake does indeed achieve the 18% stated.

Alderlake way exceeds the "up to 20%". You'd think it's 10%, with rest being made up by clocks. Alderlake is 20% pretty much on uarch. Clock is just a bonus.

Raptor Lake will advance in many areas, but until MTL-S, I'm not expecting anything decent out of Intel.
You are the first that's expecting lot out of Meteorlake desktop.

I expect something decent out of MTL-M and U, but nothing much more than Tigerlake did for desktops. They'll have NUC parts and BGA desktop, that's about it. It's Arrowlake that they might do something significant for desktops.

Unless they're taking the opportunity to bring the power consumption back down a bit at the same time.
That's obviously not happening. If you go down from 250W to 200W, you are bound to lose potential performance. If people are accepting of 250W, why go down?

If they make a radically better chip, I wouldn't be surprised if it still ends up being 250W.

The same with GPUs. The TDP ceiling is going up. 600W is in the cards for consumer because HPC GPUs are going to exceed a kilowatt.'

Increased efficiency NEVER translated into lower power. Yes you can choose to get lower power devices, but every segment that gets more efficient it just increases the dynamic range. LEDs are 10x+ more efficient than incandescent but flashlights nowadays are about 10x brighter.

Same thing with computer chips. Yes you can get ultra low power chips, and that's why Smartphones exist. Actually Smartphones represent dramatically increased power use from flip phones.
 
Last edited:

Exist50

Senior member
Aug 18, 2016
925
901
136
I expect something decent out of MTL-M and U, but nothing much more than Tigerlake did for desktops. They'll have NUC parts and BGA desktop, that's about it. It's Arrowlake that they might do something significant for desktops.
I do think there will be socketed Meteor Lake parts, but I doubt they'll be of much interest to this forum.

That's obviously not happening. If you go down from 250W to 200W, you are bound to lose potential performance. If people are accepting of 250W, why go down?

If they make a radically better chip, I wouldn't be surprised if it still ends up being 250W.

The same with GPUs. The TDP ceiling is going up. 600W is in the cards for consumer because HPC GPUs are going to exceed a kilowatt.'

Increased efficiency NEVER translated into lower power. Yes you can choose to get lower power devices, but every segment that gets more efficient it just increases the dynamic range. LEDs are 10x+ more efficient than incandescent but flashlights nowadays are about 10x brighter.
There is one possibility. Namely, a design or process that limits the Vmax of the processor to such a degree that power is effectively capped lower. Like, Apple's cores max around 1.0V, right? Even in devices with an effectively unlimited power budget, peak clocks are no higher than laptop, tablet, or even phone parts. I have no idea if Intel is pursuing such a design, but it's at least possible.

Also, for your lightbulb example, a modern LED replacement for an incandescent bulb has substantially lower absolute power draw. Even if you could cool an LED bulb with incandescent wattage, it would be obnoxiously bright.
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
8,276
3,188
136
Also, for your lightbulb example, a modern LED replacement for an incandescent bulb has substantially lower absolute power draw. Even if you could cool an LED bulb with incandescent wattage, it would be obnoxiously bright.
The lighted ball for Times Square used incandescents and was only on for New Year's Eve. They changed to LED and is now on for all year long. That's what happens and is a natural progression. I bet you that mentality is across the board. You need to put effort to go against that trend, since everybody does it and doesn't come naturally.

When you look at the LED flashlights out there, it's mostly used for higher brightness. Yes some are lower power sure, but now you have many more then you did back in those days. I know people with more than half a dozen of them. And you stick them in every room, back and front of the house, and you have them on for much longer.

Not an exception for me either. I loved flashlights and lights in general. Used to have incandescents and they were probably 50 lumens at the best. Now my top lights are 800 lumens. 11V and 700mA, is about two to four times the incandescents I used to use!

It's all used for higher dynamic range. High end CPUs used to be 2-3W and didn't even have passive cooling. It didn't need lot of power saving features since the max power was already pretty low.

How many more computers and electronics do we have compared to a decade ago?
 
Last edited:

Exist50

Senior member
Aug 18, 2016
925
901
136
The lighted ball for Times Square used incandescents and was only on for New Year's Eve. They changed to LED and is now on for all year long. That's what happens and is a natural progression. I bet you that mentality is across the board. You need to put effort to go against that trend, since everybody does it and doesn't come naturally.

When you look at the LED lights out there, it's mostly used for higher brightness. Yes some are lower power sure, but now you have many more then you did back in those days. I know people with more than half a dozen of them. And you stick them in every room, back and front of the house, and you have them on for much longer.

Not an exception for me either. I loved flashlights and lights in general. Used to have incandescents and they were probably 50 lumens at the best. Now my top lights are 800 lumens.

It's all used for higher dynamic range. High end CPUs used to be 2-3W and didn't even have passive cooling. It didn't need lot of power saving features since the max power was already pretty low.
At the risk of getting too off topic, the examples you cited are outliers. For the vast majority of household and commercial lighting, on a per household basis, switching to more efficient technologies has more than offset any increases in total amount of lighting.


You can make a similar observation with consumer PCs. Yes, the dynamic range has increased, and high performance desktops consume more power than they used to, but that's not what the majority of computing hours are spent on. Improvements to power consumption for typical use cases like browsing and office software have significantly reduced the average user's power expenditure.

I think there's a more interesting discussion to be had for datacenters, and particularly AI, where growth in compute demand is vastly outstripping increases to efficiency.
 
Last edited:

lobz

Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2017
2,023
2,731
136
I got a notification for new messages in the thread, started with the last one, and I'm not gonna lie, I was completely flabbergasted as to how I ended up in a totally different section of the forum :tearsofjoy:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Exist50

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
8,276
3,188
136
I think there's a more interesting discussion to be had for datacenters, and particularly AI, where growth in compute demand is vastly outstripping increases to efficiency.
That's it. Direct replacements may be lower power but it always brings up new use cases and overall it's not lower. Yea housing lights may be a bit lower, but what about overall? We used to go outside and many of us nowadays spend 3-4 hours a day on our computers that's pretty much plastered every corner now.

The "horizontal" increases due to longer use, and "vertical" increases due to absolute power increase. Either way the "trend" is an increase.

We already know that Raptorlake won't be lower power, as the PL1/PL2 figures are just as high, and we all know PL2 figures on desktop pretty much equals PL1.

Intel knows there will be stiff competition with Zen 4, and all the perf/watt gain will translate into better top end performance. Actually when Intel had no competition the power didn't increase. So yes, that's when power will go down! When either company is so far ahead that they don't need that extra power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

SmokSmog

Member
Oct 2, 2020
29
20
41



CB R23 MT

6P 5ghz = 15555
4E 4ghz = 4 179

So you can do math

8P 5ghz = 20 688
8E 4ghz = 8 358

If Raptor Lake has no IPC gains in productivity then

13900K = 20688+8358+8358 = 37404

13900K will score 37404 with P cores at 5ghz and E cores at 4ghz.
 
Last edited:

lobz

Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2017
2,023
2,731
136



CB R23 MT

6P 5ghz = 15555
4E 4ghz = 4 179

So you can do match

8P 5ghz = 20 688
8E 4ghz = 8 358

If Raptor Lake has no IPC gains in productivity then

13900K = 20688+8358+8358 = 37404

13900K will score 37404 with P cores at 5ghz and E cores at 4ghz.
That will be a cool 37404 points at some 300+ Watts or more. What an achievement.
 

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,603
1,712
136
That will be a cool 37404 points at some 300+ Watts or more. What an achievement.
Depends on clocks and whether E-Cores are decoupled in voltage from P-Cores and Ring. I doubt they will have trouble scoring 35k @ 230ish watts or whatever that PL2 is nowadays. AMD could probably score 32K @ 100W, but Intel will force them to burn power to beat them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IntelUser2000

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
8,276
3,188
136
That will be a cool 37404 points at some 300+ Watts or more. What an achievement.
You won't need it to burn 300W if they want just 30% improvement like @SmokSmog calculates.

Raptor Cove is going to end up being few % faster per clock. Simply lowering the clock(and voltage a bit too) to make it equal to Golden Cove will free up quite a bit of TDP for the extra E cores.

Also assumes there will be zero which makes little sense as refreshes get 100-200MHz at same TDP. 1185G7 to 1195G7 is 3.4% increase in base clocks and 4.2% increase in max Turbo. If you get few % of efficiency on the Gracemont portion, again they can keep the clocks same to reduce the power per core a bit too.

You can see here the 8+0 with no power limit is just 10% faster in average MT applications compared to 125W limited 8+0.

However, Intel doesn't need to cut P core power by half to 125W.

In fact it shows that 8+0 can use nearly 250W by itself! That's why with extra E cores it's worth it to back down the P cores slightly and get massive boost in MT performance at the same TDP. Alderlake has to max the P cores to squeeze the last few % of performance. Raptorlake will be comparably much more efficient even if nothing gets better because of this.

There were some rumors that Alderlake was to be mobile only. Clearly you can see how much they have to push 8+8. 8+16 will be far better.
 

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
4,104
4,903
136
You won't need it to burn 300W if they want just 30% improvement like @SmokSmog calculates.

Raptor Cove is going to end up being few % faster per clock. Simply lowering the clock(and voltage a bit too) to make it equal to Golden Cove will free up quite a bit of TDP for the extra E cores.

Also assumes there will be zero which makes little sense as refreshes get 100-200MHz at same TDP. 1185G7 to 1195G7 is 3.4% increase in base clocks and 4.2% increase in max Turbo. If you get few % of efficiency on the Gracemont portion, again they can keep the clocks same to reduce the power per core a bit too.

You can see here the 8+0 with no power limit is just 10% faster in average MT applications compared to 125W limited 8+0.

However, Intel doesn't need to cut P core power by half to 125W.

In fact it shows that 8+0 can use nearly 250W by itself! That's why with extra E cores it's worth it to back down the P cores slightly and get massive boost in MT performance at the same TDP. Alderlake has to max the P cores to squeeze the last few % of performance. Raptorlake will be comparably much more efficient even if nothing gets better because of this.

There were some rumors that Alderlake was to be mobile only. Clearly you can see how much they have to push 8+8. 8+16 will be far better.
If Intel can improve efficiency by 10+% overall with RPL, I could see it hitting over 37000 points in R23. Otherwise, I think it's going to come in more like 34000ish range.

The problem is that @SmokSmog's calculated performance for an 8p/8e core config at 5G/4GHz frequencies would already be hitting over 250W to achieve the estimated performance. A stock 12900k does not score that high. Additionally, the computerbase link shows the P core only scores drop by a little more than 10% when a 125W limit is enforced with very well threaded loads. So without efficiency improvements, you're looking at more like 33000 points with an additional 8 E cores and staying within the same power consumption as a 12900k.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ftt

nicalandia

Golden Member
Jan 10, 2019
1,679
2,007
106



CB R23 MT

6P 5ghz = 15555
4E 4ghz = 4 179

So you can do match

8P 5ghz = 20 688
8E 4ghz = 8 358

If Raptor Lake has no IPC gains in productivity then

13900K = 20688+8358+8358 = 37404

13900K will score 37404 with P cores at 5ghz and E cores at 4ghz.
Due to Power Budget/TDP the 12900K is closer to 27,000. The 13900K/KS Might also be Power Budget Constrained and a more realistic number would be 36,000 MT Points in CBR23
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tarkin77

RTX

Member
Nov 5, 2020
62
18
41
Only 15% increased ST vs Zen3 means RPH will be slower than RPL for most consumer applications?
 

Henry swagger

Member
Feb 9, 2022
104
50
61



CB R23 MT

6P 5ghz = 15555
4E 4ghz = 4 179

So you can do match

8P 5ghz = 20 688
8E 4ghz = 8 358

If Raptor Lake has no IPC gains in productivity then

13900K = 20688+8358+8358 = 37404

13900K will score 37404 with P cores at 5ghz and E cores at 4ghz.
P core will be at 5.8ghz and e cores 4.5ghz plus ipc.. so 40k to 42k range when the 13900ks high quality silicon 😏😀
 
  • Haha
Reactions: lightmanek

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,603
1,712
136
7950X will supposedly hit ~41k in CBR23 @ 170W PPT.
I think a lot depends on what clocks they can achieve in 10W per core region with CB23 load. It takes Intel ~15W per core to achieve 5Ghz on P cores, so i would not be surprised that AMD can hit 5Ghz on new process @ 10W.
Bodes well for me anyway, as i run 3950/5950 at fixed clocks and undervolts.

Only 15% increased ST vs Zen3 means RPH will be slower than RPL for most consumer applications?
It means they will be closer to each other than Zen3 and ADL are today. So it will be tradeoffs as usual: homogenous core vs heterogenous core and dealing with scheduler woes. Or having monolith chip versus chiplet based one.
Such competition is great for customers, as it brings good prices and features.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elfear and Tlh97

Accord99

Platinum Member
Jul 2, 2001
2,251
154
106
7950X will supposedly hit ~41k in CBR23 @ 170W PPT.
A nearly 29K score in R23 for the 5950X requires an overclock to 4.5 GHz all core. I'd be surprised if AMD is claiming the 40+% over that, more likely it's against a stock 5950X that scores in the 25.5K range.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
19,696
8,559
136
A nearly 29K score in R23 for the 5950X requires an overclock to 4.5 GHz all core. I'd be surprised if AMD is claiming the 40+% over that, more likely it's against a stock 5950X that scores in the 25.5K range.
A 3950X can hit 26k stock. Are you sure you're talking about the right CPU?
 

Accord99

Platinum Member
Jul 2, 2001
2,251
154
106
A 3950X can hit 26k stock. Are you sure you're talking about the right CPU?
Not at stock:

 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
19,696
8,559
136
Not at stock:


I see a lot of variation here in CBR23 scores. Might be down to memory, but I think 26k is on the slow side for 5950X.

In any case, until we see more numbers it'll be hard to know exactly what 42% faster is . . . but then we haven't seen any numbers at all for 8+16 Raptor Lake.
 

Justinus

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 2005
2,877
981
136


I see a lot of variation here in CBR23 scores. Might be down to memory, but I think 26k is on the slow side for 5950X.

In any case, until we see more numbers it'll be hard to know exactly what 42% faster is . . . but then we haven't seen any numbers at all for 8+16 Raptor Lake.
Actually not really. The only bearing memory has on a 5950x for CB R23 is higher FCLK/memory eats into the limited power budget and forces lower clocks. At stock jedec 2133/1066 FCLK I will see slightly higher all core boost and around 26.5k scores. At my preferred 3800/1900 FCLK I get lower boost with stock power limit and see ~25,500.

It's entirely limited by power, and no other reason on a CPU stock config.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY