Question Raptor Lake - Official Thread

Page 53 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

szrpx

Member
Jan 12, 2022
34
66
51
13900K seems pretty good then. 60% bump on 12900K will probably make it competitive with 7950x (35% bump prior expectation over 5950X), though slower, especially if decompression can make use of AVX512.
....Am I missing something? How is the 13900K going to be competitive with the 7950x if Det0x just posted his 5950x beating it?

If anything, 7950x with DDR5 should be undisputed #1 in decompression (and likely compression as well)
 

Hulk

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,396
902
136
....Am I missing something? How is the 13900K going to be competitive with the 7950x if Det0x just posted his 5950x beating it?

If anything, 7950x with DDR5 should be undisputed #1 in decompression (and likely compression as well)
I think the point is that RL has likely corrected a quite large performance deficit that existed in ADL. RL won't be faster in comp/decomp than Zen 4, but it won't be so slow as to be a reason to avoid it so long as it is more competitive in other performance metrics and pricing.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,246
1,056
126
....Am I missing something? How is the 13900K going to be competitive with the 7950x if Det0x just posted his 5950x beating it?

If anything, 7950x with DDR5 should be undisputed #1 in decompression (and likely compression as well)
It's just one benchmark. Zen 3 always had very strong performance in compression and decompression due to 16 big cores and very large and fast L3 cache. Raptor Lake's increased core count and larger L2, faster L3 just makes up a lot of ground in decompression which is less intensive.

Compression performance is much more compute intensive and also more important I wager and there Raptor Lake should be more competitive with Zen 4 than in decompression.



 

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,810
1,159
136
I think the point is that RL has likely corrected a quite large performance deficit that existed in ADL. RL won't be faster in comp/decomp than Zen 4, but it won't be so slow as to be a reason to avoid it so long as it is more competitive in other performance metrics and pricing.
The comparison isn't a valid one, in the first place. That particular person keeps comparing his overclocked chip against ES RPL numbers. I don't know why, or what for.
Maybe the Zen 4 thread would be a better place to make those comparisons? Let's see how far that lasts.
 

ZGR

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2012
1,978
522
136
Ashes supports up to 24 threads. The thread count limit makes it kinda hard to compare certain CPU’s.

Like the article saying the 5950x is 30% slower, but the engine can’t use all 32 threads. Same problem will be for the 13900k.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

eek2121

Platinum Member
Aug 2, 2005
2,017
2,448
136
Ashes supports up to 24 threads. The thread count limit makes it kinda hard to compare certain CPU’s.

Like the article saying the 5950x is 30% slower, but the engine can’t use all 32 threads. Same problem will be for the 13900k.
The user is also forgetting that the competition isn’t the 5950X, it is Zen 4, which will launch before the 13900k.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Det0x

Senior member
Sep 11, 2014
789
1,829
136
Intel Core i9-13900K reportedly supports “extreme 350W performance mode” on some Intel 700 series motherboards
It is said that Intel Raptor Lake-S CPUs from the Core i9 line are to support a power limit of 350W, which is on top of the default (PL1/PL2) power limits going up to 241W. This feature is to become available on some Intel 700 motherboards, and it is reportedly showing better gains compared to Alder Lake power limit uncap.

As noted by ProHardver, with Alder Lake CPUs power uncapping beyond PL2 limit did not provide noticeable performance improvement, mainly because the CPU was not designed for such power. For Raptor Lake-S this concept will be expanded on supported platforms.

The 125W PL1 and 253W PL2 limits will remain as they are for Core i9-13900K series to ensure compatibility with Intel 600 series motherboards. However, for supported Intel 700 series motherboards and systems equipped with adequate cooling solutions, there will be an option to enable 350W mode. The site underlines the importance of the cooling, 350W mode will require ‘serious cooling solutions’.

This feature is said to add up to 15% better performance. For those who seek the highest performance though that shouldn’t really matter. We have already seen Core i9-13900K Qualification Samples reaching 345W power in leaked tests. However, this was not described as a special feature, but demonstrated as a manual power limit unlock instead.
1660824572784.png
Knowing Intel PR and how shady they tend to behave, all the "leaks" we have seen up until now have been done @ 350w..

The comparison isn't a valid one, in the first place. That particular person keeps comparing his overclocked chip against ES RPL numbers. I don't know why, or what for.
You do know 13900K running memory at 6400MT/s is already overclocked without even mentioning powerlimits ?
I understand certain members would rather compare 13900k's with 350 powerlimits and overclocked memory against stock 5800x's as it gives the numbers wanted. but i think they are in for a rude awakening end of next month..

And i can almost guarantee intel PR have forgotten all about their previous "real world" benchmarking excuses come Raptor Lake release date, suddenly Cinebench will be the most important benchmark ever :D
1660825432590.png1660825461147.png

 
Last edited:

shady28

Platinum Member
Apr 11, 2004
2,520
396
126
Intel Core i9-13900K reportedly supports “extreme 350W performance mode” on some Intel 700 series motherboards

View attachment 66083
Knowing Intel PR and how shady they tend to behave, all the "leaks" we have seen up until now have been done @ 350w..


You do know 13900K running memory at 6400MT/s is already overclocked without even mentioning powerlimits ?
I understand certain members would rather compare 13900k's with 350 powerlimits and overclocked memory against stock 5800x's as it gives the numbers wanted. but i think they are in for a rude awakening end of next month..

And i can almost guarantee intel PR have forgotten all about their previous "real world" benchmarking excuses come Raptor Lake release date, suddenly Cinebench will be the most important benchmark ever :D
View attachment 66084View attachment 66085

Frankly, Alder Lake is so far ahead of Zen 3 that Zen 4 is unlikely to do anything more than catch up to that 2021 chip.

This is *especially* true for anyone doing content creation \ media on their computer using the most common professional grade applications, coders, photographers, and so on.

Everyone here talks about games it seems, but Alder Lake just annihilates Zen 3 on these kind of apps. IT's not even close. So a little 15% bump on Zen 4 won't even catch Alder Lake and we already know that Raptor is going to be able to throw more cores at these kinds of apps. That's to say nothing of cache, turbo, and microcode performance improvements.

So while I expect to see plenty of rah rah cheerleading and overtly bias configs on AMD rigs at these review sites, objective reviews (or an objective look at the data in the reviews) will show Raptor maintaining a comfortable performance lead in single and light threaded tasks (including games) while significantly extending its lead in productivity apps.

Unless you plan to run out and spend $800+ on a 13900K / 7950X, this is what matters, and Zen 4 would have to be significantly different to provide any value whatsoever at the 7600X/7700X level vs even Alder Lake. And it isn't going to be much different.


1660827404604.png

1660827992891.png



1660827568186.png

1660828041461.png

1660828102674.png
 

Thunder 57

Golden Member
Aug 19, 2007
1,908
2,258
136
Frankly, Alder Lake is so far ahead of Zen 3 that Zen 4 is unlikely to do anything more than catch up to that 2021 chip.

This is *especially* true for anyone doing content creation \ media on their computer using the most common professional grade applications, coders, photographers, and so on.

Everyone here talks about games it seems, but Alder Lake just annihilates Zen 3 on these kind of apps. IT's not even close. So a little 15% bump on Zen 4 won't even catch Alder Lake and we already know that Raptor is going to be able to throw more cores at these kinds of apps. That's to say nothing of cache, turbo, and microcode performance improvements.

So while I expect to see plenty of rah rah cheerleading and overtly bias configs on AMD rigs at these review sites, objective reviews (or an objective look at the data in the reviews) will show Raptor maintaining a comfortable performance lead in single and light threaded tasks (including games) while significantly extending its lead in productivity apps.

Unless you plan to run out and spend $800+ on a 13900K / 7950X, this is what matters, and Zen 4 would have to be significantly different to provide any value whatsoever at the 7600X/7700X level vs even Alder Lake. And it isn't going to be much different.


View attachment 66086

View attachment 66089



View attachment 66088

View attachment 66090

View attachment 66091
Ha, do you run Userbenchmark? Serious question.

Let's list a review of a 5600X and compare it to a 12700KF while also leaving out the 5900X/5950X. There's a word for this, but I won't use it.

Seems pretty petty to watch a review and screenshot benchmarks to suit your narrative.
 

poke01

Member
Mar 8, 2022
159
178
76
Ha, do you run Userbenchmark? Serious question.

Let's list a review of a 5600X and compare it to a 12700KF while also leaving out the 5900X/5950X. There's a word for this, but I won't use it.

Seems pretty petty to watch a review and screenshot benchmarks to suit your narrative.
pretty sure the 12600K is the 5600X equal in the video showing.

of course the 5950X is better but so is the 12900K in Adobe apps in fact its better than all AMDs Ryzen CPUs so far.
 

Karnak

Senior member
Jan 5, 2017
349
656
136
pretty sure the 12600K is the 5600X equal in the video showing.
Doesn't make any sense though comparing a 6C/12T CPU vs. a 6C/12T+4C/4T CPU and call the latter the winner. ofc it performs better due to having... more cores. Who would have thought.

Regardless it still depends on the application. Cherry picking like one or two and call it a day is pretty stupid.
 

Thunder 57

Golden Member
Aug 19, 2007
1,908
2,258
136
Doesn't make any sense though comparing a 6C/12T CPU vs. a 6C/12T+4C/4T CPU and call the latter the winner. ofc it performs better due to having... more cores. Who would have thought.

Regardless it still depends on the application. Cherry picking like one or two and call it a day is pretty stupid.
It is stupid, and intentional. Not to mention comparing a 125/150W 12600K to a 65/88W 5600X. In benchmarks that show your preferred company as the winner. Guess that makes me a "rah rah AMD cheerleader".

Not to mention disingenuous. " So a little 15% bump on Zen 4 won't even catch Alder Lake...".



Compare that with this:



In what is clearly a threaded benchmark you quote single thread gains. You aren't fooling anyone.
 
Last edited:

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,810
1,159
136
Not long ago it was 16cores vs 8cores; 5950x vs 11900k, or a bit farther than that, 4cores vs 8cores; the 7700k vs 1800x but that was cool and okay.
Much more enlightening to me, at least, is the fact that your post suggests the e-cores aren't "useless" after all. Must mean Intel made the right choice by implementing the efficiency cores.
 

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
4,153
5,034
136
Doesn't make any sense though comparing a 6C/12T CPU vs. a 6C/12T+4C/4T CPU and call the latter the winner. ofc it performs better due to having... more cores. Who would have thought.

Regardless it still depends on the application. Cherry picking like one or two and call it a day is pretty stupid.
I would say when ADL first dropped it was OK because AMD's pricing allowed for it. However, AMD adjusted pricing quite a while ago and now a 5600x is not in the same core, power, or price category as a 12600k, so making the comparison today is disingenuous at best.
 

Thunder 57

Golden Member
Aug 19, 2007
1,908
2,258
136
Not long ago it was 16cores vs 8cores; 5950x vs 11900k, or a bit farther than that, 4cores vs 8cores; the 7700k vs 1800x but that was cool and okay.
Much more enlightening to me, at least, is the fact that your post suggests the e-cores aren't "useless" after all. Must mean Intel made the right choice by implementing the efficiency cores.
Remind me how well the 1800X did against the 6900k?



I don't think anyone has called the e-cores useless. But Intel needs to being them to non-K SKU's. No business is buying a work machine with a K CPU. They buy from the likes of HP and Dell.

Edit for clarity.
 
Last edited:

shady28

Platinum Member
Apr 11, 2004
2,520
396
126
There are some obvious tier comparisons, and if one vendor falls behind in a tier they have to lower prices. It doesn't mean the tier doesn't exist, it means they have an inferior solution.

They are really obvious.

X600X vs XX600K
X700X/X800X vs XX700K
X900X/X950X vs XX900K

If you don't know this or are making excuses for jumping around, maybe you should check your bias.

Bottom line is the 12600K is competitive to the point of landing between the 5800X and 5900X, an entire tier and a half up on AMD.

I don't expect Zen 4 to do anything more than realign with the norm. I personally don't care about 13900K vs 5950X or 7950X because I won't be buying an $800+ CPU from either AMD or Intel.

And I bet, neither will you.

AMD had to lower prices on Zen 3 because Intel was better.
 

Thunder 57

Golden Member
Aug 19, 2007
1,908
2,258
136
The comparison stops at the flagships? Okay. That makes a lot of sense.

Note that the point of the post was to compare the performance deficit in that category. The 7600x would have to face off against 13600k. So let's wait and see, shall we?
Sounds advice. Except shady28 doesn't want to do that.

...So a little 15% bump on Zen 4 won't even catch Alder Lake and we already know that Raptor is going to be able to throw more cores at these kinds of apps. That's to say nothing of cache, turbo, and microcode performance improvements...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ftt

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,810
1,159
136
Remind me how well the 1800X did against the 6900k?



I don't think anyone has called the e-cores useless. But Intel needs to being them to non-K SKU's. No business is buying a work machine with a K CPU. They buy from the likes of HP and Dell.

Edit for clarity.
As has been argued countless times, the main value of HEDT is not just cores but connectivity, memory bandwidth, and robustness of the platform. So, comparing a desktop cpu against an HEDT cpu is not exactly reasonable because they belong to different tiers and while the 1800x has the value advantage, the 6900k had other advantages.
The 1800x was pitted against the 7700x with half the number of cores, just as AMD had no problem pitting the 5950x against the 10900k and 11900k.
 
  • Like
Reactions: controlflow

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,748
2,065
136
Not long ago it was 16cores vs 8cores; 5950x vs 11900k, or a bit farther than that, 4cores vs 8cores; the 7700k vs 1800x but that was cool and okay.
Much more enlightening to me, at least, is the fact that your post suggests the e-cores aren't "useless" after all. Must mean Intel made the right choice by implementing the efficiency cores.
At the time the most potent mainstream CPU from Intel was the 7700K IIRC, 6C/12T Coffee Lake was released way later and became the new Intel reference...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY