Question Raptor Lake - Official Thread

Page 40 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

igor_kavinski

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2020
4,765
2,994
106
I will hand it to Intel for being able to squeeze that much more out of their node though. Once the do get one up and running they do a good job of refining it.
That's a really good point. I guess when the newer node isn't working right, they don't let their engineers sit still and tell them to refine the existing node. Makes me wonder if they would put those engineers to work fixing the newer node issues, maybe things would turn out better for them. I don't get it. Either they lost some of their brightest engineers to TSMC or did a hell of a job keeping their best people from doing what they do best.
 

pakotlar

Senior member
Aug 22, 2003
722
177
116
The top end Bulldozer parts could do 6 GHz on water, and that was over a decade ago. The IPC was horrible though and they chewed through power just as bad as these newest Raptor Lake CPUs are rumored to, so no one really remembers them as it was basically NetBurst 2: Electric Boogaloo.

I will hand it to Intel for being able to squeeze that much more out of their node though. Once the do get one up and running they do a good job of refining it.
I didnt know that! Cool. Thanks.
 

Asterox

Senior member
May 15, 2012
927
1,541
136
The top end Bulldozer parts could do 6 GHz on water, and that was over a decade ago. The IPC was horrible though and they chewed through power just as bad as these newest Raptor Lake CPUs are rumored to, so no one really remembers them as it was basically NetBurst 2: Electric Boogaloo.

I will hand it to Intel for being able to squeeze that much more out of their node though. Once the do get one up and running they do a good job of refining it.
They push Desktop CPU frequency way too high. In the end you get powerhog CPU, because you have to push high CPU frequencies to be competitive vs AMD.It is not a success, and especially not something to be praised.Intel has to push high CPU frequencies on P cores, they have no other options.

This is article from 2016, so before the launch of AMD Zen processors.In those days, Intel probably looked at AMD as soon to be dead.


But hey the dead AMD came back to life.What happened to this green stuff, i hope someone doesn't blame it on the Klingons. :grinning:

“Particularly as we look at the Internet of things, the focus will move from speed improvements to dramatic reductions in power,” Holt said. “Power is a problem across the computing spectrum.

These technologies aren’t coming next year or the year after — all of the tech in question would be introduced after 2021.

We’re going to see major transitions,” said Holt. “The new technology will be fundamentally different. The best pure technology improvements we can make will bring improvements in power consumption but will reduce speed.”
 
Last edited:

nicalandia

Platinum Member
Jan 10, 2019
2,171
3,236
106
Bottom line, who in the right mind would now shell 2500 for TR 5965x 24core, only to end up with similarly performing chip.
Dont be absurd. A stock 24C Threadripper can do 40,000+ points. Mild OC on water can break 50,000. You get 8 channel memory and 100+ PCI lanes. That's High End Computing

Intel Has Nothing to compete with these beasts..

 
Last edited:

Timmah!

Golden Member
Jul 24, 2010
1,050
275
136
Dont be absurd. A stock 24C Threadripper can do 40,000+ points. Mild OC on water can break 50,000. You get 8 channel memory and 100+ PCI lanes. That's High End Computing

Intel Has Nothing to compete with these beasts..

So 1,25x better performance when OCed for like 3x higher price just for CPU, sounds like a deal of century, right? And who is absurd here.

I am not advocating for Intel here. 7950x will probably score the same, thus be even better choice due to lower power-draw. Its Threadripper thats overpriced as hell. Its high-end ripping off.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
23,390
12,339
136
So 1,25x better performance when OCed for like 3x higher price just for CPU, sounds like a deal of century, right? And who is absurd here.

I am not advocating for Intel here. 7950x will probably score the same, thus be even better choice due to lower power-draw. Its Threadripper thats overpriced as hell. Its high-end ripping off.
Why are you ignoring the memory and PCI lanes ? Thats why the extra cost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

nicalandia

Platinum Member
Jan 10, 2019
2,171
3,236
106
So 1,25x better performance when OCed for like 3x higher price just for CPU, sounds like a deal of century, right? And who is absurd here.

I am not advocating for Intel here. 7950x will probably score the same, thus be even better choice due to lower power-draw. Its Threadripper thats overpriced as hell. Its high-end ripping off.
We get it. It's not on your budget or even your use case scenario. On such High end segment the price of the CPU is actually not that much compared to the rest of the build.(RAM, SSD, Video Cards).

Let stop derailing this thread with silly comparison of a Ultra High End CPU segment(ThreadRipper) with a High end Main Stream CPU like the Raptor Lake..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kaluan and Markfw

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,750
2,075
136
So 1,25x better performance when OCed for like 3x higher price just for CPU, sounds like a deal of century, right? And who is absurd here.

I am not advocating for Intel here. 7950x will probably score the same, thus be even better choice due to lower power-draw. Its Threadripper thats overpriced as hell. Its high-end ripping off.
1.25x the perf and 100x the reliability...

How much power do you think are needed by RPL to get this score, concentrated on a 250mm2 or so chip..?.
 

cortexa99

Senior member
Jul 2, 2018
228
353
136
Very likely to be pushing 300W+ too.

More interested to see how Perf/W scales with more sane clockspeeds and power.
I'm afraid 300w is underestimate, there's some reports like below frightened by Raptor's power,


The whole machine is in standby (a U default + z690apex + 6600C34 XMP + 3080Ti tuf), standby 110w
R23, the second generation of Thor shows infinitely close to 500w...
I just want to know... What 360 can hold
the water temperature is 8 degrees, all default, and then the FPU will reduce the frequency, 5.3-5.4
Idle 110w, R23 close to 500w, 5.3-5.4 not even chilling water can hold it. I only interested in how it would do with restricted PL like 240w.

the power supply he used is ROG THOR which can display power usage of WHOLE SYSTEM


lol seems like they are all Intel branded? (Bottom right corner)
View attachment 65233View attachment 65234
Its Intel PR themself that are "leaking" these scores ?
Also what point is there to only showing idle temps/power usage 2 hours after they have turned off the chiller ? :p
(joke)
Not PR, that logo represent a place like Reddit but just for Chinese, could be called Intel subreddit. But that place is not a good leak source of anything.
 
Last edited:

Timmah!

Golden Member
Jul 24, 2010
1,050
275
136
Why are you ignoring the memory and PCI lanes ? Thats why the extra cost.
and you believe those are worth 3x higher price? who cares about paying for more performance, when you can just pay for ability to plug more RAM or disks in, right?
 

Timmah!

Golden Member
Jul 24, 2010
1,050
275
136
We get it. It's not on your budget or even your use case scenario. On such High end segment the price of the CPU is actually not that much compared to the rest of the build.(RAM, SSD, Video Cards).

Let stop derailing this thread with silly comparison of a Ultra High End CPU segment(ThreadRipper) with a High end Main Stream CPU like the Raptor Lake..
since it literally performs equally, it invites to be compared.
any particular reason why this seems to offend you?
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
5,160
8,269
136
I'm afraid 300w is underestimate, there's some reports like below frightened by Raptor's power,
Based on the previous info with 5.7Ghz 8c/16 @ 300W we can be pretty sure that adding 16 E cores to the mix will put the system well past 300W even after accounting for the lower 5.4Ghz OC. Something like 360W+ makes more sense.
 

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,750
2,075
136
350W with 42W idle power...
From the numbers that s at minimal voltage for this frequency, there s no voltage margin left, for robust stability 70W are to be added to those 350, unless one is content with a system that cant make more than a short CB run before crashing despite using chilled water...
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,251
1,070
126
Based on the previous info with 5.7Ghz 8c/16 @ 300W we can be pretty sure that adding 16 E cores to the mix will put the system well past 300W even after accounting for the lower 5.4Ghz OC. Something like 360W+ makes more sense.
So what about DLVR? I haven't heard anything about it from the various leaks. It's supposed to lower the power consumption significantly without affecting performance.

Perhaps we will need to have Z790 motherboards to utilize that feature.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Kaluan

mikk

Diamond Member
May 15, 2012
3,641
1,509
136
So what about DLVR? I haven't heard anything about it from the various leaks. It's supposed to lower the power consumption significantly without affecting performance.

Perhaps we will need to have Z790 motherboards to utilize that feature.

DVLR is mobile only, this is known from the beginning. If there are separate voltage rails for P and E cores it can bring big gains for the mobile variants, if not I guess Meteor Lake will change it.
 

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,810
1,159
136
350W with 42W idle power...
From the numbers that s at minimal voltage for this frequency, there s no voltage margin left, for robust stability 70W are to be added to those 350, unless one is content with a system that cant make more than a short CB run before crashing despite using chilled water...
You forgot the power losses at the psu level. From what you usually post under other circumstances such raw numbers must be recalculated taking these losses into consideration. Or?
 

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,750
2,075
136
You forgot the power losses at the psu level. From what you usually post under other circumstances such raw numbers must be recalculated taking these losses into consideration. Or?
That s already accounted, i m talking of the CPU in isolation, the figure is 500W or so for the full system.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY