nicalandia
Platinum Member
- Jan 10, 2019
- 2,954
- 4,553
- 136
13600 non-K is a "Raptor Lake" CPU with Alder Lake L2$ for both P and e Cores.There is also a 13400 Raptor with only 1.25MB. It's not so easy.
13600 non-K is a "Raptor Lake" CPU with Alder Lake L2$ for both P and e Cores.There is also a 13400 Raptor with only 1.25MB. It's not so easy.
Reports say that there will be two dies. So far we have only seen the Alder Lake type(same L2$ for P and e cores)13400 looks like it can be either. Presumably they will cut the L2 cache on the Raptor Cove models.
You sure that's Raptor Cove? Sounds like Golden Cove.There is also a 13400 Raptor with only 1.25MB. It's not so easy.
Two dies yes but the L2 will be the same.Reports say that there will be two dies. So far we have only seen the Alder Lake type(same L2$ for P and e cores)
Citation needed on that one.As is reasonably well known in the business, each "last 5%" of performance costs an additional 50% of the total size of the processing core.
Again this is a misunderstanding of the patent. DLVR itself doesn't mean anything - it stands for Digital Linear Voltage Regulator. The patent says you could use FiVR for the same purpose.I was doubting the potential performance gain of a Raptor Lake Refresh for desktop, however the addition of DLVR can provide a 20% gain in efficiency or 7% gain in performance.
Will they backport the DLVR technology to those SKUs that are using Golden Cove/OG Gracemont Cores?DLVR and other power management features are not a critical feature for desktop.
The "20% power saving or 7% clock increase" and thinking it would apply to a 200W+ 5GHz+ CPU is misunderstanding of the patent. I doubt it'll get anywhere near the claim in the datasheet at those figures.
Hence, it's likely not worth it implementing it for desktop chips.
The patent says the reason for using the otherwise inefficient DLVR instead of FiVR is because latter noticeably increases die size, while the former does nothing. There's probably some firmware that needs to be adjusted in the CPU, but changes are likely very little if anything.Will they backport the DLVR technology to those SKUs that are using Golden Cove/OG Gracemont Cores?
DLVR certainly does impact die area. You can even see it in the MTL die shots. And my understanding is that it supersedes FIVR. Might be more to it than that one patent.The patent says the reason for using the otherwise inefficient DLVR instead of FiVR is because latter noticeably increases die size, while the former does nothing. There's probably some firmware that needs to be adjusted in the CPU, but changes are likely very little if anything.
That's possible cause I don't know what they are actuallly doing. And just like the patent says, it could be used with FiVR. So you'd have second FiVR. Just saying don't take reference numbers from the patent and apply it to everything, like your dear K CPU. You are just regurgitating the idiot press.DLVR certainly does impact die area. You can even see it in the MTL die shots. And my understanding is that it supersedes FIVR. Might be more to it than that one patent.
Well I'm certainly not parroting those numbers. If it replaces FIVR, I expect it to be in the same general ballpark.That's possible cause I don't know what they are actuallly doing. And just like the patent says, it could be used with FiVR. So you'd have second FiVR. Just saying don't take reference numbers from the patent and apply it to everything, like your dear K CPU. You are just regurgitating the idiot press.
I don't see why this would complicate things for mobo manufacturers. FIVR with Haswell made things significantly easier for them. And the advantage of on-die power regulation is to more quickly respond to changes in demand, and on a more granular basis (i.e. no shared voltage for every core). Don't see how that directly correlates to overclocking headroom.I think what might have happened is that they found out the gains are far far less in desktop, probably in the ~5% range or even less and there was pushback among motherboard manufacturers. And this is only if it's being used with stock settings.
This is essentially manufacturer certified undervolting. It's better, but just like 5GHz CPUs meant you pretty much had no OC headroom, after this you'll have no undervolting headroom.
Conversely if you overclock, you are essentially eliminating the voltage headroom set at the factory so you can clock higher. So how would this new feature benefit you? Even if they made it work with overclocking? It wouldn't.
Yes, when the second regulator is active, it will be less efficient. But, you are leaving out that in all other cases it will be more efficient. This is because the power supply can be run at a level that better matches those use cases. So, the efficiency depends on the use. Heavy 24/7 turbo uses will be less efficient. Light uses would be more efficient. In between would be anyone's guess.The advantage of the second regulator is in the potential, instead of when the second linear regulator is active. The most efficient mode of the "DLVR" is when the second regulator is inactive! Oh the irony! That's why I said "potential" is the advantage. It allows the main regulator to be more precise in predicting voltage ranges, which means you can lower the voltage.
The patent explicitly tells us if the second DLVR is more active, the less gain you'll have since linear regulators are inefficient - and this is simple knowledge, almost Electronics 101.
Holding back? lolDr. Ian Cutress saw DVLR and CBR23 Demo back on September being demoed on Raptor Lake. For reasons only known to Intel they have decided to hold back. Likely for the 13900HX to provide a good performance/Efficiency against what's a seriOus threat from AMD Zen4 Dragon Range.
View attachment 71937
Alder/Raptor in light/mid load is not bad at all for efficiency. It's under high load that's efficient, which DLVR the gains might be vanishingly small. Of course for laptops it's a different story.Heavy 24/7 turbo uses will be less efficient. Light uses would be more efficient. In between would be anyone's guess.
I'm saying that DLVR replaces FIVR/brings the concept back for compute in MTL.@Exist50 They already have FiVR. Tell me how adding a second one will help simply things? Also FiVR helps with faster transitions, which apply for all things, including undervolting/overclocking.
I'm sorry but this is a dumb differentiation to make. This applies to basically everything, performance claims don't scale well at the top. For example, the 20% performance gain of frequency from Intel 4 doesn't mean anyone thinks that MTL-S is clocking at 7.2 Ghz. Which is why I also listed a bunch of also rumored/potential performance uplifting updates that RPL-update might contain to boost performance.The "20% power saving or 7% clock increase" and thinking it would apply to a 200W+ 5GHz+ CPU is misunderstanding of the patent.
I don't think anyone here is suggesting other wise... obviously it is a mobile centric feature as power efficiency is more important in mobile. However there is no reason to believe it won't be implemented in desktop in the future. It's already in the die of RPL-S regardless, so it's essentially an added benefit that's just sitting there.The early roadmap leaks had DLVR for mobile, not desktop.
This is just wrong. An Asus Z790 mobo had the option of DLVR bypass, which is weird since RPL-S doesn't have DLVR. However, ASUS in-house overclocker Shamino confirmed that this feature doesn’t work because Intel fused (disabled) DLVR on Raptor Lake processors. He mentioned that they left it there in case future processors use it. And the only potential processor that could use it in the future is a rpl-refresh, since MTL uses a different mobo (though I'm not putting it past Intel that a potential RPL refresh would use a one time new mobo). And considering how DLVR is already integrated into the die of RPL itself, it would be kinda dumb to not enable it in a future refresh.So the only reliable source(regardless how early it was) says it's a mobile feature, while everyone else arguing for desktop DLVR is likely piggybacking it on misleading and widespread information from press.
Are you asking how DLVR is better than FIVR?They already have FiVR. Tell me how adding a second one will help simply things? Also FiVR helps with faster transitions, which apply for all things, including undervolting/overclocking.
Crude back of the napkin math: if Intel shaves just a single Watt off of the desktop light to medium load desktop power usage for Raptor Lake desktop CPUs, that would be enough to power ~25,000 homes. Or, it removes the waste and pollution of a small coal power plant. That might not be anything to you, but in the big picture that is a pretty significant benefit.Alder/Raptor in light/mid load is not bad at all for efficiency. It's under high load that's efficient, which DLVR the gains might be vanishingly small.