Question Raptor Lake - Official Thread

Page 79 - 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
2,518
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

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,557
4,349
136
Yeah, cause the performance numbers are way off. He has the 12900k @ 125 getting 18k points in CBR23, which is just....not right ;)

Computerbase use Cinebench for their power test, whole plateform use 199W for the 5950X and 342W for the 12900K wich manage 4% better perf in those conditions, this should close the debate about efficency.

FTR the 12700K is at 255W, those are abyssimal efficencies and RPL could had made quite a difference without beating the 5000 series, but his opponents will use a smaller node, so there s no hope in this front.
 

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
18,701
5,432
136
Ask someone with a 12900k to power limit it to 125w and run CBR23. 10$ says he will score 24 to 24.5k in high priority.

TPUs numbers are more flawed the lower you go in power consumption. His testing at 50 and 75w is wayyy off, I score almost double of what he does :O
I don't know anyone with a 12900k :p
 

exquisitechar

Senior member
Apr 18, 2017
684
942
136
Why? Are those extra 200Mhz made out of gold or something? Do you really believe that 200Mhz will change the playing field? Really?

Mind you a 4.5 Ghz 5800X3D overcame a 18% speed deficit, A RAM defiit(DDR4 vs DDR5) and matched a 12900K on average.

The 7800X3D Will have MUCH less to worry about this time.
It’s not the KS’s 200MHz that matters, I just think that tuned Raptor Lake in general will be very fast. Anyway, we don’t even know how Raphael without V-Cache fares against Raptor Lake in terms of gaming performance yet, so I wouldn’t make definitive statements about the X3D parts. All we have are AMD’s benchmarks for Raphael and shoddy leaks for Raptor Lake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zucker2k and uzzi38

uzzi38

Platinum Member
Oct 16, 2019
2,705
6,427
146
Those are numbers are with stock power limits. Who cares, if you care about efficiency you can change them ;)

Efficiency should be measure at same wattage. Everything else is just flawed. If you don't think that everything is flawed, then prepare to eat your words, the 13900T will be the most efficient CPU on planet Earth. And since it's obvious how objective you are, you will obviously start calling zen 4 abysmally inefficient compared to the 13900t ;)
As someone that actually knows how efficient Zen 4 is and has seen actual numbers comparing it to Zen 3, you're selling it pretty short.

But you'll see the actual numbers soon enough.
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,557
4,349
136
Those are numbers are with stock power limits. Who cares, if you care about efficiency you can change them ;)

Efficiency should be measure at same wattage. Everything else is just flawed. If you don't think that everything is flawed, then prepare to eat your words, the 13900T will be the most efficient CPU on planet Earth. And since it's obvious how objective you are, you will obviously start calling zen 4 abysmally inefficient compared to the 13900t ;)


As said if you limit the 12900K to 125W it will be short of 1% vs a 5900X.

As for efficency it increase as you reduce frequency, those 13900T will be highly innefficient compared to a similarly power reduced 7950X, to give you an idea at 55-60W it will roughly match a stock 5950X and at 35W it will be around a stock 5900X.

Of course we re talking of actual TDP, not of Intel s benching the 13900T at 100W PL2 and then branding it as a 35W TDP SKU as if it were to perform the same at this power...
 

Det0x

Golden Member
Sep 11, 2014
1,299
4,234
136
Why are we discussing this again ?

If you handicap Zen3 to compete core for core with CG at a given power level, the Alder lake part can and will win in Cinebench performance to power ratio, with the expense of much larger cores/die.
(But there is a reason why Intel is only producing consumer dies with maximum 8 CG cores)

If you let go of the false narrative that you only should compare core for core, the Ryzen parts smokes Alder Lake cpus in performance/power as ive shown again and again..
The 12900k cant touch the 5950x when both are turned for maximum performance to power:

Snipped from other thread here:
Few words before we dive into data:
  • There have been no telemetry trickery with these numbers
  • SOC powerusage is ~2w together with 13w usage for rest of CPU. Anything over this constant ~15w draw is going to the cores/caches on the CCD.
  • For all the new runs a very wimpy LLC together with set 0.75vcore was used to reach close to 0.7v under load on the lowest power runs
Below we have results for a simulated 8core Zen3 5800x:

8 Zen3 cores @ 33 watt = 11149 points in Cinebench r23 (~lowest powerlevel i could run with my current setup)
3200mhz @ 0.719 vcore under load -> ~2.25watt per core under load
11149points/33watt = 337 points per watt
1660477230707.png

8 Zen3 cores @ 41 watt = 12603 points in Cinebench r23
3625mhz @ 0.8 vcore under load -> ~3.25watt per core under load
12603points/41watt = 307 points per watt
1660477268562.png

8 Zen3 cores @ 50 watt = 13698 points in Cinebench r23
3950mhz @ 0.88 vcore under load -> ~4.375watt per core under load
13698points/50watt = ~274 points per watt
1660477295763.png

8 Zen3 cores @ 64 watt = 15099 points in Cinebench r23
4350mhz @ 0.98 vcore under load -> ~6.125watt per core under load
15099points/64watt = ~235 points per watt
1660477317096.png

Results for a real 16core Zen3 5950x:

16 Zen3 cores @ 49 watt = 20441 points in Cinebench r23 (~lowest powerlevel i could run with my current setup)
3100mhz / 2950mhz @ 0.7 vcore under load -> ~2.125watt per core under load
20441points/49watt = 417 points per watt
1660477337344.png

16 Zen3 cores @ 64 watt = 23701 points in Cinebench r23
3575mhz / 3425mhz @ 0.781 vcore under load -> ~3.063watt per core under load
23701points/64watt = 370 points per watt
1660477367497.png

16 Zen3 cores @ 88 watt = 27037 points in Cinebench r23
4075mhz / 3925mhz @ 0.887 vcore under load -> ~4.5625watt per core under load
27037points/88watt = 307 points per watt
1660477402241.png

So what have we learned by this comparison ?
A underclocked 12900k can be more efficient then a underclocked 5800x when you handicap Zen3 with its size advantage and only compare core for core with GC, but at the same time it cant touch a underclocked 5950x in energy efficiency as the numbers show.

Like i said earlier, in the end it all boils down to GC physical size, they are so big that intel could only put 8(10) of those on a consumer cpu(die) and keep the price in check at the same time. (10P cores would score lower than 8p+8E in full multithreaded benchmarks)
But that is no reason to handicap desktop Zen3 with a artificial limit for 8 cores maximum in this efficiency comparison when we both have to 5900x and 5950x as normal desktop consumer cpus for sale today

If you dont think this is correct, please provide your own data (with benchmate screenshot) showing comparable "points per watt" for any Alder Lake CPU you wish..
And please dont start speaking of a hypothetical 16 core CG this time, as a 32core TR would eat it for breakfast the same way :)

CG cores are simply too big too compete in performance/power with the nimble Zen3 cores, in any actual reallife products/cpus you can buy.
 
Last edited:

Just Benching

Banned
Sep 3, 2022
307
156
76
You said Zen 4 will look abysmally inefficient compared to the 13900T. I'm just saying that at similarly restricted power limits Zen 4 will look a lot better than you think. Most I'll say for now is mid-4GHz is the new mid-3GHz.
Oh, you are talking about same wattage? Sure, don't disagree with that, was talking out of the box though
 

Just Benching

Banned
Sep 3, 2022
307
156
76
As said if you limit the 12900K to 125W it will be short of 1% vs a 5900X.

As for efficency it increase as you reduce frequency, those 13900T will be highly innefficient compared to a similarly power reduced 7950X, to give you an idea at 55-60W it will roughly match a stock 5950X and at 35W it will be around a stock 5900X.

Of course we re talking of actual TDP, not of Intel s benching the 13900T at 100W PL2 and then branding it as a 35W TDP SKU as if it were to perform the same at this power...
Ah, so now that zen 4 will lose in efficiency out of the box, you want to run both at same wattage? I see you are being very consistent :p
 

Just Benching

Banned
Sep 3, 2022
307
156
76
Why are we discussing this again ?

If you handicap Zen3 to compete core for core with CG at a given power level, the Alder lake part can and will win in Cinebench performance to power ratio, with the expense of much larger cores/die.
(But there is a reason why Intel is only producing consumer dies with maximum 8 CG cores)

If you let go of the false narrative that you only should compare core for core, the Ryzen parts smokes Alder Lake cpus in performance/power as ive shown again and again..
The 12900k cant tough the 5950x when both are turned for maximum performance to power:

Snipped from other thread here:
Few words before we dive into data:
  • There have been no telemetry trickery with these numbers
  • SOC powerusage is ~2w together with 13w usage for rest of CPU. Anything over this constant ~15w draw is going to the cores/caches on the CCD.
  • For all the new runs a very wimpy LLC together with set 0.75vcore was used to reach close to 0.7v under load on the lowest power runs
Below we have results for a simulated 8core Zen3 5800x:

8 Zen3 cores @ 33 watt = 11149 points in Cinebench r23 (~lowest powerlevel i could run with my current setup)
3200mhz @ 0.719 vcore under load -> ~2.25watt per core under load
11149points/33watt = 337 points per watt
1660477230707.png

8 Zen3 cores @ 41 watt = 12603 points in Cinebench r23
3625mhz @ 0.8 vcore under load -> ~3.25watt per core under load
12603points/41watt = 307 points per watt
1660477268562.png

8 Zen3 cores @ 50 watt = 13698 points in Cinebench r23
3950mhz @ 0.88 vcore under load -> ~4.375watt per core under load
13698points/50watt = ~274 points per watt
1660477295763.png

8 Zen3 cores @ 64 watt = 15099 points in Cinebench r23
4350mhz @ 0.98 vcore under load -> ~6.125watt per core under load
15099points/64watt = ~235 points per watt
1660477317096.png

Results for a real 16core Zen3 5950x:

16 Zen3 cores @ 49 watt = 20441 points in Cinebench r23 (~lowest powerlevel i could run with my current setup)
3100mhz / 2950mhz @ 0.7 vcore under load -> ~2.125watt per core under load
20441points/49watt = 417 points per watt
1660477337344.png

16 Zen3 cores @ 64 watt = 23701 points in Cinebench r23
3575mhz / 3425mhz @ 0.781 vcore under load -> ~3.063watt per core under load
23701points/64watt = 370 points per watt
1660477367497.png

16 Zen3 cores @ 88 watt = 27037 points in Cinebench r23
4075mhz / 3925mhz @ 0.887 vcore under load -> ~4.5625watt per core under load
27037points/88watt = 307 points per watt
1660477402241.png

If you dont think this is correct, please provide your own data (with benchmate screenshot) showing comparable "points per watt" for any Alder Lake CPU you wish..
And please dont start speaking of a hypothetical 16 core CG this time, as a 32core TR would eat it for breakfast the same way :)

CG cores are simply too big too compete in performance/power with the nimble Zen3 cores, in any actual reallife products/cpus you can buy.
I did post my numbers with the full 12900k on and it wiped the 5950x with 434 points per watt. And that's with default motherboard settings, no tuning o_Oo_Oo_O
 

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,810
1,159
136
It's been leaked that the X3D Version of the 7000 Series will bring a 30% Gaming performance boost. Now I believe that a 15% will be enough to keep the gaming lead until Meteor Lake.

View attachment 67427
(2) All samples were limited to the same tdp? Is this a power consumption test or performance test? I'm beginning to smell some desperation from AMD with this "leak." 😅
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,557
4,349
136
Ah, so now that zen 4 will lose in efficiency out of the box, you want to run both at same wattage? I see you are being very consistent :p

There will be non X SKUs as well, i expect the 7700X/7900X, and why not the 7950X, to be down powered to 45-55W for use in gaming laptops, they dont need to go as low as 35W for top level efficency.

A full node advantage in perf/watt is what it is and cant be circumvented other than by 2 x the core advantage, 8 + 16 would make sense on a throughput and perf/Watt basis if the contender was a 7 nm based Zen 4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ftt

nicalandia

Diamond Member
Jan 10, 2019
3,331
5,282
136
Just been posted by Intel..


And just in case they take it down.

1663004084629.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
6,677
14,273
136

Real-world benchmarks

Use real-world benchmarks when you have specific plans in mind for your PC and need an accurate indication of performance for particular applications. These tests are performed by giving real programs heavy workloads and then measuring the time it takes to complete. As a result, they provide a reliable preview of system performance when using the same settings.

Some commonly used applications for real-world benchmarking include:
  • 7-Zip to measure a CPU’s data compression and decompression speeds.
  • Blender to measure a CPU’s 3D rendering speeds.
  • Handbrake to measure a CPU’s video encoding speeds.
In-game benchmark tools are another type of real-world test. These are non-interactive scenes that are available in some games. Use in-game benchmarks to check the CPU’s effect on FPS (frames per second) during regular gameplay and also while streaming.

These tests provide a repeatable test environment. As long as your system configuration remains the same, the benchmarks give an accurate reading of the in-game performance you’ll get.
 

Thunder 57

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2007
2,992
4,569
136
Just been posted by Intel..


And just in case they take it down.

View attachment 67436

Well that suddenly looks less impressive.