Question Raptor Lake - Official Thread

Page 131 - 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

Kaluan

Senior member
Jan 4, 2022
504
1,074
106
You can go all the way down to 88W with the 13900k, lower the resolution to 720p, and you still only lose like 10% maximum in games and it still stays ahead of amd.
According to ComputerBase's test suite and parameters of course.

You're also implying you can't limit the TDP/PPT of Ryzen 7000 CPUs, or that it somehow tanks gaming performance, which AFAIK from what I've see, isn't true.

To anyone else who seriously thinks 13900K/KF is seriously 18% faster than 7950X is gaming overall... please, just stop.

So at most, you'd keep CB's misleading conclusions the same, but at lower power envelopes for both systems. The idea being that undervolted vs stock ain't the valid big win you think it is.
 

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
6,187
10,693
136
According to ComputerBase's test suite and parameters of course.

You're also implying you can't limit the TDP/PPT of Ryzen 7000 CPUs, or that it somehow tanks gaming performance, which AFAIK from what I've see, isn't true.

To anyone else who seriously thinks 13900K/KF is seriously 18% faster than 7950X is gaming overall... please, just stop.

So at most, you'd keep CB's misleading conclusions the same, but at lower power envelopes for both systems. The idea being that undervolted vs stock ain't the valid big win you think it is.

Computerbase uses only officially supported memory for both Intel and AMD which puts Zen4 at a significant disadvantage in some workloads, especially gaming. I have no problem with them doing this, but everyone should keep this in mind when looking at their results as they will not represent what pretty much any DIY, boutique, or OEM gaming machine will get.
 

Accord99

Platinum Member
Jul 2, 2001
2,259
172
106
At least in games, the main benefit comes from the increased clocks, but at a very high energy cost.
Raptor Lake uses less power than Alder Lake in games for better performance. The 13700K vs the 12900KS performance/watt improvement is so high you might think it was actually using a new 7 nm process instead of 10 nm.

1666817906127.png

 

nicalandia

Diamond Member
Jan 10, 2019
3,331
5,282
136
Computerbase uses only officially supported memory for both Intel and AMD which puts Zen4 at a significant disadvantage in some workloads, especially gaming. I have no problem with them doing this, but everyone should keep this in mind when looking at their results as they will not represent what pretty much any DIY, boutique, or OEM gaming machine will get.
Also if you are considering a 13600K for a Budget CPU and save the rest on GPU(Smart move), don't skimp on RAM. As Raptor Lake on DDR4 is slower than the 5800X3D
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
22,065
11,693
136
The 13900K just don't play nice on Linux

It's still faster than Alder Lake, which isn't a total loss. But my interpretation is that you aren't seeing much utilization of the extra e-cores in the PTS.

Wow, Intel cant win. They were criticized for years for not offering enough cores, but now that they finally do, it is just dismissed as "the extra cores and frequency are doing most of the work."

That's not the only criticism of their designs. I think, by this point, most desktop users were interested in a newer core and process rather than a refresh. At least the pricing seems to be pretty aggressive.
 

tamz_msc

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2017
3,865
3,729
136
Before Raptor Lake launched some users were berated for suggesting Raptor Lake would use more than 250W during reviews.

Do you consider these users should also feel vindicated?
No, they were berated for suggesting that there would be special "350 W" "Extreme" power modes on select motherboards aimed at winning benchmarks. What actually happened is that there is no such mode, only Intel's lax attitude on making motherboard vendors follow recommendations ultimately ended up causing the CPUs to run in unlimited power mode.

The end result might have been the same, but running around with the claim that Raptor Lake would need >250 W to even have a reasonable chance of coming close to the 7950X, let alone beat it, was pure hyperbole.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
6,677
14,275
136
What actually happened is that there is no such mode, only Intel's lax attitude on making motherboard vendors follow recommendations ultimately ended up causing the CPUs to run in unlimited power mode.
LOL, so there was no "extreme" mode because there was no power limit. Ok.

Anyway, I've seen enough instances where people needlessly confronted you for common sense claims (the i3 12100 utility for budget gaming comes to mind), so I guess it shouldn't surprise you that any claim which doesn't fit "expectations" will be met with rebuke. However, it would only be fair to remember that the main reason people were skeptic about Raptor Lake MT performance uplift was power usage. The increase in core count and max clocks showed high potential, but scaling within 250W was a subject for... hot debate.
 
Last edited:

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
26,168
15,315
136
No, they were berated for suggesting that there would be special "350 W" "Extreme" power modes on select motherboards aimed at winning benchmarks. What actually happened is that there is no such mode, only Intel's lax attitude on making motherboard vendors follow recommendations ultimately ended up causing the CPUs to run in unlimited power mode.

The end result might have been the same, but running around with the claim that Raptor Lake would need >250 W to even have a reasonable chance of coming close to the 7950X, let alone beat it, was pure hyperbole.
Thats BS. The only way Raptor lake wins against the 7950x is at more than 250 watts. 337 is common on these wins. On some its over 400 watts ! Regardless, most I have seen, it that Raptor lake takes over 100 watts more for any given power usage. (games aside) Gaming it takes more, but the win is not 10%, usually 2-5%. I power was taken into consideration, your chart would look much different.

You seem to be the king of cherry picking anything that meets your agenda.
 

poke01

Platinum Member
Mar 8, 2022
2,205
2,803
106
Thats BS. The only way Raptor lake wins against the 7950x is at more than 250 watts. 337 is common on these wins. On some its over 400 watts ! Regardless, most I have seen, it that Raptor lake takes over 100 watts more for any given power usage. (games aside) Gaming it takes more, but the win is not 10%, usually 2-5%. I power was taken into consideration, your chart would look much different.

You seem to be the king of cherry picking anything that meets your agenda.
AMD and Intel have to find ways of delivering pref without increasing power.

This is getting silly. This turbo boost and unlimited power from Intel needs to be stopped. It's not good, this is not innovation but stupidity from Intel. IMO, no CPU should use more than 150 watts.

True efficiency is a lost art in the x86 world these days. Intels E cores are only for area efficiency. Raptor lake is not efficient. The only reason it seems more efficient is because of the extra e-cores vs Alderlake.

MTL won't change anything either ie won't beat ARM(Qualcomm and Apple) in efficiency. Arrow lake is great but it's up to Intel to make it a reality.

AMD is doing good and Zen 4 with TSMC 4nm will be great for laptops but let's be honest Intel owns the majority of the laptop market. So Intel having a proper efficient core is important to the industry.

If Royal Lake is Intel going wide and slow but having excellent IPC like M1 or could it be something unique but no I don't believe that Alder Lake is Intel's Zen moment.
That will be Royal core is it's real and it bears fruit.

Over all I remain optimistic about Intel and AMD's future. They both have great CEOs and excellent engineers.
Sorry if I got off topic.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gdansk

poke01

Platinum Member
Mar 8, 2022
2,205
2,803
106
That's an arbitrary limit that might suit some users but not others. If the market demands greater efficiency, then let their buying habits reflect that.
It does very much. So much so that Qualcomm switched to TSMC. The OEMs demanded that. I truly believe efficiency and performance needs to be balanced.

Hey, this is an enthusiast forum but we to draw a line. Intel using 350 w is not not good. Next year might be 450 watts. Then where is the limit?
 

poke01

Platinum Member
Mar 8, 2022
2,205
2,803
106
In 2018 I never expected Intel CPUs to use 330 watts. Never. If anything I thought we would stay at 150 watts. No Intel did not manage that nor did AMD. I guess I was foolish.

Think datacentre and mobile that is what Intel needs to focus on and efficiency matters there. As I said pumping up power is easy to eek out a % more the competition but all it really shows is that your product is not great. I don't believe Alder Lake was a innovation or a breakthrough. It was not focused on efficiency that mattered in a laptop or a datacentre.
 

Kocicak

Golden Member
Jan 17, 2019
1,090
1,141
136
.... Raptor lake is not efficient. ...
It can be very efficient, when its power consumption is capped. See the multithread ranking here:


At 160W, nearly the same power limit you spoke about, it is extremelly efficient.
 

lobz

Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2017
2,057
2,856
136
It can be very efficient, when its power consumption is capped. See the multithread ranking here:


At 160W, nearly the same power limit you spoke about, it is extremelly efficient.
Compared to what exactly? Because Zen4 gains even more efficiency, when you're going down the curve.

Of course, you could call practically everything extremely efficient, compared to its stock behavior.
 

poke01

Platinum Member
Mar 8, 2022
2,205
2,803
106
It can be very efficient, when its power consumption is capped. See the multithread ranking here:


At 160W, nearly the same power limit you spoke about, it is extremelly efficient.
Yes but you won't get the majority of the performance unless you to use 250 watts. That is not efficient.

Capping power effects single core too. We will see the true test in laptops early to mid next year with Raptor and Zen4 laptops.
Intel is truly beind in efficiency don't let Intel fool you, it won't be until 2025 reaches best pref/w well according to Intel anyway

Please I don't mean to discourage you. I love your testing of the 13900K. But as you know your computer nearly got damaged due to the "unlimited power" setting. Well I 100% assure you that Intel would never have created that option if it could achieve 330 watts performance at 150 watts.

The limit is whatever people will buy.
People buy many things but just because they do does not mean it's the right choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
Hey, this is an enthusiast forum but we to draw a line. Intel using 350 w is not not good. Next year might be 450 watts. Then where is the limit?

You're acting as though the power limit is immutable. It can easily be configured to whatever you want it to be.

If we couldn't change it, I would agree with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and ZGR

Heartbreaker

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2006
4,340
5,464
136
Actually they started back with the 9900k. Imagine that.

Still has nothing to do with a specific Intel CPU vs specific AMD CPU.

MB makers are the ones that decided to remove the limits, as they compete with each other for bragging rights, Intel specifies limits but does not enforce them.