Question Raptor Lake - Official Thread

Page 155 - 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
4,209
1,994
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

Timur Born

Senior member
Feb 14, 2016
277
139
116
It's worth mentioning that I only undervolted so much that prolonged Prime 95 Small FFTs AVX stable at the 253 power limit, which is mandatory for me. I might play a bit with the Guard Band Scale AVX thingy to reduce SSE voltages even more while keeping AVX voltages higher. It didn't seem to do anything yet, but now I got another idea for it.
 

Timur Born

Senior member
Feb 14, 2016
277
139
116
I also noticed that Benchmate can misreport things, like reporting 59x (58.x effective) clocks for my Y-cruncher runs when in reality they run at 55x (50x effective!) at the power limit. I don't think that happened here, but at least seeing it report only 78% maximum load on the 7950X run seems a bit strange.
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
10,922
3,413
136
I also noticed that Benchmate can misreport things, like reporting 59x (58.x effective) clocks for my Y-cruncher runs when in reality they run at 55x (50x effective!) at the power limit. I don't think that happened here, but at least seeing it report only 78% maximum load on the 7950X run seems a bit strange.

78% of 230W but the CPU is still at 100% usage when running CB, notice that Computerbase said that it was about impossible to exhaust the 230W limit, their stock CB runs were using 205W and were as low as 189W for handbrake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Timur Born

Senior member
Feb 14, 2016
277
139
116
Is the 7950X stable with unrealistic Prime 95 Small FFTs AVX load under these settings? Or do you use a power limit to keep it stable then (like I do for my 13900K)?

I mostly decided to go Intel this round for its supposed higher single/low-core performance and lower idle/low power usage. How is that working out under your overclocked settings in comparison?
 

Timur Born

Senior member
Feb 14, 2016
277
139
116
78% of 230W but the CPU is still at 100% usage when running CB, notice that Computerbase said that it was about impossible to exhaust the 230W limit, their stock CB runs were using 205W and were as low as 189W for handbrake.
Ah, I thought this was core utilization, not a percentage of the power limit. Thanks for the clarification.
 
Jul 27, 2020
16,069
10,107
106
What do you want me to do ? Record a video while running the benchmark ? :rolleyes:
I think he would prefer to connect to your PC remotely and do the benchmarking himself, all the while monitoring the surroundings of the PC with a different cam, to ensure that you are not blowing snow or liquid helium over the CPU to keep it boosting higher :D
 

Thunder 57

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2007
2,669
3,785
136
Interesting comparison between Raptor Lake and Zen 4 power consumption in creator workloads. The Intel advantage in idle power draw is a huge benefit, and unless all the cores are fully active, Raptor Lake significantly outperforms the 7950x in the Adobe programs in performance per watt.


He's not just testing power efficiency, but performance per watt as well. The Ryzen 5600G and 5700G would have been decimated in performance per watt.

As for Cinebench, rendering is probably the only creator type workload where Ryzen has an advantage in terms of power efficiency and performance per watt.

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion, because even on desktops, the vast majority of the time your PC is in idle mode. As I write this post, my CPU downclocked to 1100mhz and 0.648V.



How often is your CPU ever at 100% utilization? It's rare, unless you are rendering or doing heavy encoding both of which most people don't do.

That said, the testing that YouTuber did wasn't just about power efficiency, but performance per watt as well and Intel beat AMD by significant margins.

Raptor Lake is power efficient and has high performance per watt provided the cores aren't maxed out.

Well apparently you didn't watch the review (can't say I'm surprised) because even during the load tests, Intel still pulled less power than AMD while outperforming the latter.

The idle power draw is just icing on the cake. And it's silly to imply that creators are using their PCs at full capacity all the time.

None of this aged well... at all.


The 7950X retains performance far better at lower power settings than the 13900k.

Final Words: Zen 4 is Very Efficient, But Everyone Improves With Lower TDPs

...The biggest winner in our testing is AMD with the Ryzen 9 7950X. The biggest takeaway from our analysis is that despite curtailing the max power consumption on the Ryzen 9 7950X by over 50%, plenty of performance remains on the table to be tapped into. Seeing the chip retain 80%+ of its stock performance even when the peak power consumption is just 42% is a very encouraging outcome. This makes SFF computing more appealing, even at the higher end.

Intel's i9-13900K, in comparison, doesn't fare quite as well, though as it's clear both platforms are running well outside their "sweet spots" on the v/f curve for these flagship SKUs, it still benefits as well. a 65 W setting still gives us around 60% of the performance for 21%(!) the measured power consumption. The end result is that the i9-13900K sheds more power consumption on both an absolute and relative basis than AMD's chip, giving up more performance in the process.

The real story here is that AMD was stupid to push the 7950X to the limit. At 105W or 120W the performance is pretty much still all there. Cannot say the same with the 13900k. Seems even AMD realizes this as the 3D chips have a 120W TDP.

I heard someone suggest that higher core counts on AM5 will need that 170W TDP. Makes sense. The theory was that motherboard manufactures would be unhappy having to provide power for a 170W TDP CPU only to have AMD top out at 105W with the 7950X. I don't quite buy it, but who knows.
 

Thunder 57

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2007
2,669
3,785
136
To be fair to him, he was talking about workloads which don't push the CPU to 100% utilization. The effect you're observing is lowering power limits and then pushing the CPU to 100%.

That is worth considering. I didn't want to include it because it's nitpicky but in one of the games tested there was also a noticeable performance hit.

130794.png


This is the CPU demanding game. How demanding, I am not sure, but I doubt it is hitting 100%. The averages were good but the 95 percentile suffers. The FPS are a bit weird for both of them though. Would be nice to see more cases like this.

I also don't think x264 would be running 100% but I suppose that depends.

130512.png



After seeing multiple posts about Intel being better in efficiency and performance per watt then seeing results like the one above it just seems that the video was biased or it's easy to cherry pick.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
25,534
14,482
136
That is worth considering. I didn't want to include it because it's nitpicky but in one of the games tested there was also a noticeable performance hit.

130794.png


This is the CPU demanding game. How demanding, I am not sure, but I doubt it is hitting 100%. The averages were good but the 95 percentile suffers. The FPS are a bit weird for both of them though. Would be nice to see more cases like this.

I also don't think x264 would be running 100% but I suppose that depends.

130512.png



After seeing multiple posts about Intel being better in efficiency and performance per watt then seeing results like the one above it just seems that the video was biased or it's easy to cherry pick.
One particular user twists the facts to make Intel Raptor lake look good. But he is wrong. This review may not be perfect, but its RIGHT in general, 7950x is more efficient than 13900k. In any usage. at any performance level. (like @same wattage, 7950x is faster). The few benchmarks Raptor lake wins is only at the 253 watt or unlimited.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
21,599
10,792
136
After seeing multiple posts about Intel being better in efficiency and performance per watt then seeing results like the one above it just seems that the video was biased or it's easy to cherry pick.

The video in question made the mistake of taking idle power draw - which is a penalty against AMD in many cases - and using it to confuse meaningful perf/watt measurements. AMD's desktop CPUs with I/O dice are going to have some extra baseline power draw which a Raptor or Alder-based platform won't necessarily have. If on top of that all you do is some light Photoshop then you're never going to get into CPU utilization scenarios where perf/watt is even a meaningful metric.

But hey if all you're worried about is how efficient your desktop CPU can be while not doing anything much . . .
 

Thunder 57

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2007
2,669
3,785
136
The video in question made the mistake of taking idle power draw - which is a penalty against AMD in many cases - and using it to confuse meaningful perf/watt measurements. AMD's desktop CPUs with I/O dice are going to have some extra baseline power draw which a Raptor or Alder-based platform won't necessarily have. If on top of that all you do is some light Photoshop then you're never going to get into CPU utilization scenarios where perf/watt is even a meaningful metric.

But hey if all you're worried about is how efficient your desktop CPU can be while not doing anything much . . .

I don't think I watched more than a few minutes of the video. Unless there is a darn good reason or someone gives a relevant timestamp I am not going to watch 20+ minutes videos of whatever.

Zen does generally have higher idle power because of the chiplet design. It's arguing for arguing's sake though, as Intel will pay an idle penalty with tiles I'm sure. So point it out now just as Intel prepares for a future without monolithic CPU's? Got it.

With statements like this though, maybe Carfax83 doesn't understand that. Being monolithic themselves they would decimate in performance per watt, not the other way around.

He's not just testing power efficiency, but performance per watt as well. The Ryzen 5600G and 5700G would have been decimated in performance per watt.

It feels like this guy just needs to find any reason to justify his purchases. Not just here, but with the 4090 he got over in the Graphics forums. He's got good hardware, he should be enjoying it rather than trying to say AMD is crap every chance he gets for any reason he can find.
 

Timur Born

Senior member
Feb 14, 2016
277
139
116
How much power does a properly undervolted/OCed 7950X use for a 2360 pt. CB23 "Single" run? My undervolted 13900K uses 35W package power running the single thread at 60x, with the whole system drawing about 45-50W over idle at the wall (idle is about 50-55W at the wall, 20W of which is the GPU).
 

Rigg

Senior member
May 6, 2020
467
952
106
It feels like this guy just needs to find any reason to justify his purchases. Not just here, but with the 4090 he got over in the Graphics forums. He's got good hardware, he should be enjoying it rather than trying to say AMD is crap every chance he gets for any reason he can find.

This. If I plopped down a crap ton of money on a top shelf system like that, I'd be spending my free time enjoying it rather than writing long and repetitive forum posts about how superior my component choices were. He's had a clear agenda leading up to this last cycle of product releases. While clearly a pretty smart dude, his schtick is getting a bit tiresome around here. Even for those of us that mostly lurk.
 
Last edited:

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
21,599
10,792
136
I don't think I watched more than a few minutes of the video. Unless there is a darn good reason or someone gives a relevant timestamp I am not going to watch 20+ minutes videos of whatever.

Just an FYI, but it should be possible to get YouTube to spit out a transcript if there's any closed captioning whatsoever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thunder 57

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
To be fair to him, he was talking about workloads which don't push the CPU to 100% utilization. The effect you're observing is lowering power limits and then pushing the CPU to 100%.

Exactly. He's not even comparing the same thing. Raptor Lake is more efficient under light to moderate load. You see this in gaming workloads. The 13900K delivers higher performance per watt in gaming workloads compared to the 7950x.

Heavy workloads favor Zen 4. Also, Anandtech used a 6950XT graphics card which makes all of the gaming tests worthless. Other publications have done much better testing on performance per watt and efficiency.

der8auer did performance per watt tests when Raptor Lake launched, how quickly do they forget:

 
  • Like
Reactions: Henry swagger

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
It feels like this guy just needs to find any reason to justify his purchases. Not just here, but with the 4090 he got over in the Graphics forums. He's got good hardware, he should be enjoying it rather than trying to say AMD is crap every chance he gets for any reason he can find.

I'm not justifying anything. You guys are the most oversensitive drama queens. Anything I say that is remotely negative about AMD is construed as an "attack," even if it's true. The RT performance being the best example. You diminished the RT performance gap between Zen 4 and Raptor Lake and saw it as me attacking AMD or whatever, when it's a real phenomenon that has a reason.

Also, I like to debate and argue about hardware.......and so does everyone else on this fricking forum, which is why you keep coming back. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Dissent and disagreement are the bread and butter of any forum on the internet.

The moment we all agree, the moment this forum is dead and stale and becomes an echo chamber.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
This. If I plopped down a crap ton of money on a top shelf system like that, I'd be spending my free time enjoying it rather than writing long and repetitive forum posts about how superior my component choices were. He's had a clear agenda leading up to this last cycle of product releases. While clearly a pretty smart dude, his schtick is getting a bit tiresome around here. Even for those of us that mostly lurk.

You guys crash the RTX 4070 Ti thread and whine and complain about the price and yada yada yada, just like the RTX 4080 thread and you call me repetitive? LOL!

I'm just as tired of you guys as you are of me. Everything has to be about how great AMD is and how horrible Nvidia and Intel are. Can't be bothered with that crap. Even when the criticisms are legit, it's still seen as an attack or me posturing or my favorite, "justifying my purchase."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Henry swagger

Thunder 57

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2007
2,669
3,785
136
Exactly. He's not even comparing the same thing. Raptor Lake is more efficient under light to moderate load. You see this in gaming workloads. The 13900K delivers higher performance per watt in gaming workloads compared to the 7950x.

Heavy workloads favor Zen 4. Also, Anandtech used a 6950XT graphics card which makes all of the gaming tests worthless. Other publications have done much better testing on performance per watt and efficiency.

der8auer did performance per watt tests when Raptor Lake launched, how quickly do they forget:


So Raptor Lake gets beat under high/full load but magically does better everywhere else? :rolleyes:

I'm not justifying anything. You guys are the most oversensitive drama queens. Anything I say that is remotely negative about AMD is construed as an "attack," even if it's true. The RT performance being the best example. You diminished the RT performance gap between Zen 4 and Raptor Lake and saw it as me attacking AMD or whatever, when it's a real phenomenon that has a reason.

Also, I like to debate and argue about hardware.......and so does everyone else on this fricking forum, which is why you keep coming back. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Dissent and disagreement are the bread and butter of any forum on the internet.

The moment we all agree, the moment this forum is dead and stale and becomes an echo chamber.

Just about everything you say is being negative towards AMD or pro Intel/Nvidia. I get the feeling you just like being a contrarian at this point. I wouldn't say you've "attacked" anyone, either. I'm curious as to why no one has seemingly picked up on the AMD RT arguments.

As far as echo chambers go, you can find at least one on these forums and it's probably not what you'd guess. So yes, I know what an echo chamber is. It is sad to see.

You guys crash the RTX 4070 Ti thread and whine and complain about the price and yada yada yada, just like the RTX 4080 thread and you call me repetitive? LOL!

I'm just as tired of you guys as you are of me. Everything has to be about how great AMD is and how horrible Nvidia and Intel are. Can't be bothered with that crap. Even when the criticisms are legit, it's still seen as an attack or me posturing or my favorite, "justifying my purchase."

I'm not praising AMD, they shot themselves in the foot with the 7900 XT/XTX and speculated the 7800X3D might be "DoA". Nice straw man. I'm just not wearing blue & green glasses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Henry swagger

Senior member
Feb 9, 2022
359
235
86
You guys crash the RTX 4070 Ti thread and whine and complain about the price and yada yada yada, just like the RTX 4080 thread and you call me repetitive? LOL!

I'm just as tired of you guys as you are of me. Everything has to be about how great AMD is and how horrible Nvidia and Intel are. Can't be bothered with that crap. Even when the criticisms are legit, it's still seen as an attack or me posturing or my favorite, "justifying my purchase."
Well said nothing but truth ✅
 

Rigg

Senior member
May 6, 2020
467
952
106
You guys crash the RTX 4070 Ti thread and whine and complain about the price and yada yada yada, just like the RTX 4080 thread and you call me repetitive? LOL!

I'm just as tired of you guys as you are of me. Everything has to be about how great AMD is and how horrible Nvidia and Intel are. Can't be bothered with that crap. Even when the criticisms are legit, it's still seen as an attack or me posturing or my favorite, "justifying my purchase."
I didn't even post in that thread. I generally have a preference for AMD but I don't let it cloud my judgement. I literally returned a 7900x/ x670e combo that I've been sitting on for a month today in favor of a 13700k/z690. Personally I'd have been happy going with either for my personal gaming needs but because of some very specific circumstances i was able to get the Intel combo for way less money. I've owned dozens of AMD and NVIDIA cards in the last 4 years and no they weren't for mining. I've gone from a 2700x >9900k >3900x >5800x >13700k in my personal rigs. I don't give a crap about brand loyalty or BS marketing. I care about performance and value and not always in that order.

People question if you are trying to justify your purchase because literally all you do is talk up Raptor and Lovelace and crap all over AMD. I've been plenty critical of AMD. Particularity their sales and marketing. Many people with AMD leanings around here have been critical of their pricing and recent launches.

My post sure seems to have struck a nerve there.
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,209
594
126
How much power does a properly undervolted/OCed 7950X use for a 2360 pt. CB23 "Single" run? My undervolted 13900K uses 35W package power running the single thread at 60x, with the whole system drawing about 45-50W over idle at the wall (idle is about 50-55W at the wall, 20W of which is the GPU).

Will someone take this bait? I would not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek