Question Raptor Lake - Official Thread

Page 129 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,525
2,519
136
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vstar

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
Noctua NH-U12A
I have a mATX case so I'm kind of limited. The 13900K is pushing my cooler no doubt.

Yeah that case is definitely holding you back. Large roomy cases help with temps a lot for air cooling. Have you considered getting one of those contact frames? May shave off a few degrees.
 

nicalandia

Diamond Member
Jan 10, 2019
3,331
5,282
136
Do we have a 13900K Builder's thread? I believe one could use a 13900K with an Air Cooler and not lose any performance compared to stock if the CPU IHS is lapped to a Copper Mirror Shine, Alphacool Apex Backplate
 

Asterox

Golden Member
May 15, 2012
1,039
1,823
136
I LOVE that second video, but would like to see the 13900k and the 7950x compared. In the bottom end one, AMD won gaming by ~6% but Intel won productivity by ~20% due to more cores. (12 threads compared to 20) But on the top end, the thread count is the same, so it would be interesting. But even at the bottom end the Intel took a lot more power.

Again, "not only four games tested as in the case of GamerNexus". :mask:

 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
26,171
15,317
136
Again, "not only four games tested as in the case of GamerNexus". :mask:

OK, I watched the whole thing. The performance in virtually all tests was on average almost a wash, but in power consumption it was like 100 watts (41% percent more he said, like 110 watts) or more for the Raptor Lake. Between that and the upgradeability, the author chose the 7950x. I think for even more multithreaded and longer times for the workloads, the 7950x could also come out farther ahead.

BUT as I said, in performance on short workloads they are almost the same, just takes Raptor lake a lot more power.

The next thing that would be nice to see, is a similar test with both stuck at the same power level, say 150 watts or so, and also very long multi-threaded benchmarks without power constraints.
 
Last edited:

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,525
2,519
136
So in other words you're arguing that Intel engineers don't know how to balance their clock/power curve :p

Joke aside, on Alder Lake they tend to aim for the frequency combo that takes maximum advantage of the shared voltage (P core, E core, ring bus). The only time I've seen the power management go haywire was when I limited power bellow 35W: at that point something snapped in the internal logic, and IIRC I had to manually limit P core fmax to "help" power managemtn make the correct choices again.

You are right I set it all to "Auto" and just set my power limits. Cinebench scores went up ~800 points vs. my settings.
One less thing to worry about. Thanks.
 

controlflow

Member
Feb 17, 2015
165
284
136
OK, I watched the whole thing. The performance in virtually all tests was on average almost a wash, but in power consumption it was like 100 watts (41% percent more he said, like 110 watts) or more for the Raptor Lake. Between that and the upgradeability, the author chose the 7950x. I think for even more multithreaded and longer times for the workloads, the 7950x could also come out farther ahead.

BUT as I said, in performance on short workloads they are almost the same, just takes Raptor lake a lot more power.

The next thing that would be nice to see, is a similar test with both stuck at the same power level, say 150 watts or so, and also very long multi-threaded benchmarks without power constraints.

He says at the 11 minute mark that whether we are talking games or applications, the 13900K was the better performer in most cases

He will be getting the 7950x due to him valuing platform longevity and he didn't like that socket 1700 was EOL.

Of course the performance difference is often small even though there are some use cases where the 13900k gains a bit more like in gaming. The power consumption difference is very rarely going to be anywhere near 100 watts unless you are talking about full load MT throughput workloads and even then the difference is only that big when the 13900k is running with those 300w+ power limits. Set to a low 200w power limit the 13900k will lose to a 7950x in MT benchmarks but it won't be by much.

This probably makes the 7950x the better workstation CPU but I think the 13900k is the better choice for more desktop/mixed workloads/gaming. If you want to run a bunch of these at 100% 24/7 I can see why the 7950x would be the clear choice but I don't think that applies to the typical user. IMO for the more typical use cases, the cheaper price of the 13900K,the cheaper platform and the top performance in gaming and applications is much more relevant.
 

Doug S

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2020
2,784
4,747
136
Has there been any concrete info on when midrange / lower TDP SKUs of Raptor Lake will launch? I've been looking at building a new PC to replace my i5 Skylake, and since Zen 4 is stupidly going DDR5 only it looks like it'll be Raptor Lake by default. Hoping we see something beyond the high end 'K' parts soon.
 

TheELF

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2012
4,027
753
126
Has there been any concrete info on when midrange / lower TDP SKUs of Raptor Lake will launch? I've been looking at building a new PC to replace my i5 Skylake, and since Zen 4 is stupidly going DDR5 only it looks like it'll be Raptor Lake by default. Hoping we see something beyond the high end 'K' parts soon.
It's usually first quarter/early second quarter, so still a while to go.
Although I have a feeling that ddr5 will make a difference even with the lower end CPUs.
 

Henry swagger

Senior member
Feb 9, 2022
504
306
106
Club386 finally did a review comparing 13900k vs 7950x in gaming using a proper RTX 4090. FYI Both systems used DDR5-6000 CL30 here.


The results at FHD resolution make things quite clear. When we are actually CPU bound in a game, the 13900k puts some pretty solid distance from the 7950x.
View attachment 69800
View attachment 69801

You an look through the review, things are a bit closer in some games and a bit further apart in others but the 13900K is a beast at gaming. AMD will certainly be needing the 3D cache models of Zen 4 to compete here. I suspect a Zen 4 3D vs 13900K (or future KS) with DDR5 7000+ will be pretty closely matched in gaming.
The 2mb l2 cahe is like 3dv cache for intel 😏.. zen 4 v cahe will be good too if it doesn't have clock regression like 5800x3d and hit 5.5ghz in gaming
 

aigomorla

CPU, Cases&Cooling Mod PC Gaming Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 28, 2005
20,894
3,247
126
Battle of Non-X/K 16 Threads parts....

13400 vs 7700

That is such a bad comparison.. i don't even know why its included.
Nothing has anything called a standard, in that test.

One is a OEM, the other is a high class overclocking board.
One is a upper mid class cpu, the other is a either a upper lower, or a lower mid.

Its really a horrible comparison, which feels like AMD PR trying a bit too hard.
 

controlflow

Member
Feb 17, 2015
165
284
136
I see no Issues whatsoever.

Both CPUs are Non-X and Non-K, Both 65 Watt CPUs, both 16 Threaded CPUs, just like the 13900K vs 7950X which are both 32T CPUs.

Oh, I see it's only fair when Intel Wins?

Maybe superficially an interesting comparison but I suspect the 13400 isn't really a Raptor Lake and it doesn't have the extra cache and other tweaks made to the 13600k and higher end CPUs. The clocks on the 13400 are probably just too low even though the thread counts are similar. Also isn't the 7700x 105 watts?

Most importantly, the 7700x is going to cost probably close to 2x a 13400 and that's not even considering the more expensive AMD platform. I doubt these two CPUs will ever be cross shopped.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Henry swagger

controlflow

Member
Feb 17, 2015
165
284
136
He doesn't, but neither we.

So Thread vs Thread, 65W vs 65W seems fair right? I mean the 13900K and 7950X have the same thread count and about the same power envelope(I know the 7950X its somewhat lower).

I didn't even realize there was a non x 7700. Given this is slower than a 7700x but faster than a 7600x, probably safe to say it will slot in between those two in price. Between $300-$400. The 13400 isn't out yet but it will be cheaper than a 13600k which is $320-$330. The 13400 will replace the 12400 which is currently under $200.

Safe to say that the price points of these CPUs are very different and they occupy pretty different market segments despite having the same thread count.

If you had $300-$400 to spend, I'm not sure why you'd even look at anything other than a 13600k.
If you have under $300, there is nothing to look at from AMD at least on AM5.
 

aigomorla

CPU, Cases&Cooling Mod PC Gaming Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 28, 2005
20,894
3,247
126
I see no Issues whatsoever.

your comparing a a tesla m3 performance to a Chevy Bolt. If you want to talk car sense.
It has no sense of conformity or standard besides they are both eV's and can draw the similar range.
Your completely ignoring the price tag or the fact the 7700 has a ASROCK Taichi X670E (which is no where near budget grade or lower end board sepctrum.), and the intel is on a OEM board with is very limited in every aspect especially if its an Acer. (at least give the intel a Z670 Taichi or a Z670 STRIX something on the same board family).

No its a horrible comparison, and even then the 7600x is being comapred to a 13600K.
How does comparing a higher ranked 7700 compare against the lower ranked 13400 make sense.
Its a poor excuse of clickbait as i see it.

Safe to say that the price points of these CPUs are very different

the price difference between the cpu's is only the start... the grade difference between the boards is like night and day.
Its a TAICHI... it ranks along with ASUS STRIX, MSI MEG, Gigabyte Aorus Tachyon, series in quality.
What idiot puts it in a OEM Acer board and runs tests as comparison?

Sorry that reviewer is what i definite as an IDIOT.
Did he also leave the bloatware Acer has on its system when he ran the tests too?

Why does equalizing for thread count instead of, say, price, make sense?

Supposidely i guess its the common university level IT...
Sigh....

Even then its clearly shown you can NOT cross compare core to core on Intel vs AMD.
You can't even cross compare P vs E cores on the same die that intel has.
Why on heavens would you cross compare core for core on a cpu not designed for that intended purpose to begin with?
 
Last edited:

nicalandia

Diamond Member
Jan 10, 2019
3,331
5,282
136
Sorry that reviewer is what i definite as an IDIOT.
It's not a Reviewer, it was just me using Geekbench5 to compare a 65W 16 Threaded CPU from Intel(13400) from Intel to a 65W 16 Threaded CPU from AMD(7700 non-x model). Yeah they likely have different price and different segment.

The 13600 non-k its a better match, because it has 20 Threads and decent clocks.


Now that the 13600 has 4 extra threads, is Fair Now?
 
Last edited: