Question Raptor Lake - Official Thread

Page 90 - 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

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
6,187
10,694
136
Looks like the top Raptor Lake CPU will take the gaming title but not by much and will depend on exact test suite used. It won't catch the 7950X in heavy MT or efficiency, but what they were able to accomplish on the same node at roughly the same power is pretty impressive. Looking forward to 3rd party reviews.
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,557
4,349
136
@65 Watts the 7950X beats the 13900K

View attachment 68264

Those numbers are boggus, from 65W to 115W there s 76% higher power for only 21% better perf.

This would mean that Intel s process has a cubic curve at quite low power, wich is not the case at all, actually that s more like 90-100W to perform like a 12900K stock, indeed they use Spec_int_copy as "bench", not something like CB R23...
 
  • Like
Reactions: maddie

eek2121

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2005
3,100
4,398
136
Pricing is better than rumored:
- 13600K = $319
- 13700K = $409
- 13900K = $589

Intel didn't raise prices at all it seems. For comparison:
- 12600K = $290
- 12700K = $410
- 12900K = $590

Kudos to Intel for offering the consumer literally more silicon for the same price, but those margins...

Those prices are likely per tray. Here is the pricing at NewEgg:

1664299021650.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
6,187
10,694
136
Well you know me, I hate Spec so I don't pay any attention to it. Computerbase.de did an IPC analysis at 3.6ghz between Zen 1, Zen 2, Zen 3, Zen 4 and Alder Lake in Pov Ray and Cinebench.

Link

I'm not going to argue that Spec is the end all, be all, but I'll gladly take it over 2 tests, both of which are rendering benchmarks.
 

Exist50

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2016
2,452
3,102
136
Those numbers are boggus, from 65W to 115W there s 76% higher power for only 21% better perf.

This would mean that Intel s process has a cubic curve at quite low power, wich is not the case at all, actually that s more like 90-100W to perform like a 12900K stock, indeed they use Spec_int_copy as "bench", not something like CB R23...
You're seriously arguing that Cinebench is better than SPEC? Really?
 

tamz_msc

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2017
3,865
3,729
136
Those numbers are boggus, from 65W to 115W there s 76% higher power for only 21% better perf.

This would mean that Intel s process has a cubic curve at quite low power, wich is not the case at all, actually that s more like 90-100W to perform like a 12900K stock, indeed they use Spec_int_copy as "bench", not something like CB R23...
65 W obviously means PL1. They did a similar comparison with 11th gen back when Alder Lake released.
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,557
4,349
136
65 W obviously means PL1. They did a similar comparison with 11th gen back when Alder Lake released.

I thought that there was something like this, to boost at a given frequency and way higher POWER and then get back at 65W once most of the job is done.

That wouldnt be serious as methodology, we would expect comparisons at fixed power, actually if it take only 65W it s not even sure that the 12900K is maxed at 240W..

SPECint_rate_base2017_IC2022 means the entire set of integer benchmarks of SPEC2017 compiled with ICC 2022.


And what "n-copy" does mean...?..

Because that s more precisely :

SPECint_rate_base2017_IC2022(n-copy)
 

tamz_msc

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2017
3,865
3,729
136
I thought that there was something like this, to boost at a given frequency and way higher POWER and then get back at 65W once most of the job is done.

That wouldnt be serious as methodology, we would expect comparisons at fixed power, actually if it take only 65W it s not even sure that the 12900K is maxed at 240W..
Fixed power doesn't mean boost=disabled. It's perfectly fine methodology. It's how Intel's Turbo Boost is designed to function.
And what "n-copy" does mean...?..
n-copy means n-instances, n being the number of threads. It is the standard way of denoting SPEC results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Exist50

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,557
4,349
136
Fixed power doesn't mean boost=disabled. It's perfectly fine methodology. It's how Intel's Turbo Boost is designed to function.

n-copy means n-instances, n being the number of threads. It is the standard way of denoting SPEC results.


So they bench the thing at 105W and then the base TDP is used as reference for comparison with the 12900K, that s very intel, indeed.

That sound rather desperation since they are saying that the 13900K@65W has same perf/watt than a 7950X@65W, wich of course you are ready to believe...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ftt

tamz_msc

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2017
3,865
3,729
136
So they bench the thing at 105W and then the base TDP is used as reference for comparison with the 12900K, that s very intel, indeed...
You still have difficulty in understanding PL1 and PL2 it seems. Alder Lake default behaviour is PL2=PL1 on the K parts. The 12900K 241 W is obviously with default operation, so PL2=PL1=241 W.

The comparison fixes PL2 and lowers PL1 down to the values indicated in the graph.

The benchmark is according to the parameters that govern turbo boost.
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,557
4,349
136
You still have difficulty in understanding PL1 and PL2 it seems. Alder Lake default behaviour is PL2=PL1 on the K parts. The 12900K 241 W is obviously with default operation, so PL2=PL1=241 W.

The comparison fixes PL2 and lowers PL1 down to the values indicated in the graph.

The benchmark is according to the parameters that govern turbo boost.

You ll be for a rude awaking once the reviews land, to match the 12900K a 13900K will require at least 105W, and that s an optimistic estimation...
 

tamz_msc

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2017
3,865
3,729
136
You ll be for a rude awaking once the reviews land, to match the 12900K a 13900K will require at least 105W, and that s an optimistic estimation...
What the hell does 105 W mean, in the context of Intel's way of defining turbo and power consumption numbers? You're making meaningless claims, as usual.
 

Exist50

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2016
2,452
3,102
136
That s not the whole SPEC as used by AT, that s a specific test that measure data manipulation capability, there s no real computing done here.
As pointed out by tasm_msc, "n-copy" is the standard way to denote you're running n threads of that test. You can check the SPEC suite yourself. No test by that name exists.
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,557
4,349
136
What the hell does 105 W mean, in the context of Intel's way of defining turbo and power consumption numbers? You're making meaningless claims, as usual.

Im talking of perf/watt as defined by engineers, not by marketing sleight of hand, if you state a 65W reference then your chip has to not exceed this power under the stated test, otherwise that s just plain lies.

The 105W i m talking about is the minimalistic necessary power for a 13900K to match a stock 12900K in Cinebench R23, and as a prime i ll add that the stock 12900K will be 18% faster than a 13900K@65W in CB...