It's an incremental revision. There's no real reason the chip would clock low. In any case, the figure wasn't from the actual demo, and refers to the actual product expectations.
It's from an 0000 ES, it's way too early for a QS.
It's an incremental revision. There's no real reason the chip would clock low. In any case, the figure wasn't from the actual demo, and refers to the actual product expectations.
The "double digit" claim was from a slide about the product. They never talk about ES performance. And again, both the process and uarch are mature. There'd be no reason for an underperforming ES in the first place.It's from an 0000 ES, it's way too early for a QS.
That's the thing. I don't believe the chip vendors are going to reduce TDPs, because if you can make a chip with radically improved perf/watt, then it means you can make it dramatically faster at the same power.Intel is caught in a vicious circle and it's going to take an outstanding CPU generation to bring power usage under control (from the power limit PoV). Or new executive leadership, whichever comes first.
Agree. Let the user decide. If I have a workload on which I'm willing to spend more power to save time, give me that choice.The dynamic range has always been increasing. While they can get a chip that's 20% faster at 125W, if you can get to 40% faster at 250W, why not?
But you still can get the chips with lower TDPs. Like we argue you can just set the TDP lower on Alderlake or get something like 12600 and 12700 right?
Welcome to the Intel Pop Quiz! It's a quicky, so let's get started. You have an i7 12700 CPU and a Z690 board. Assuming you use stock board settings and start CB23, the sustained CPU package power for the next hour will be:Agree. Let the user decide. If I have a workload on which I'm willing to spend more power to save time, give me that choice.
Oh heck. Anyone who's aware of PL settings can buy a board that has custom settings lol. Half of the reviews out there have benchmarks using custom PL settings to see whether Alderlake was running beyond sane settings.Welcome to the Intel Pop Quiz! It's a quicky, so let's get started. You have an i7 12700 CPU and a Z690 board. Assuming you use stock board settings and start CB23, the sustained CPU package power for the next hour will be:
I find it encouraging how you think so highly of the average consumers as to assume they will know what PL1 and PL2 is. But the fact still remains, you loled but were unable to expect a predictable (stock) behavior for the 12700: 65W sustained or 180W+ sustained.Oh heck. Anyone who's aware of PL settings can buy a board that has custom settings lol.
I'd have chosen 240W for the poll.I find it encouraging how you think so highly of the average consumers as to assume they will know what PL1 and PL2 is.
Except ADL-S doesn’t scale like that. They could have limited it to 125W and it would have probably narrowly beaten the 5900X.That's the thing. I don't believe the chip vendors are going to reduce TDPs, because if you can make a chip with radically improved perf/watt, then it means you can make it dramatically faster at the same power.
But you still can get the chips with lower TDPs. Like we argue you can just set the TDP lower on Alderlake or get something like 12600 and 12700 right?
The dynamic range has always been increasing. While they can get a chip that's 20% faster at 125W, if you can get to 40% faster at 250W, why not?
MLID is wrong as usual.This is what MLID claims about Raptor Lake performance gains:
![]()
AMD's memory controller will be in their I/O die unlike Intel's which is on the same die as the CPU so I doubt it will be better; at least not in terms of latency. Also Raptor Lake should be capable of supporting higher memory speeds than Zen 4 out the gate.8% is low. 15% would be much better. Even with 15% ST perf increase, Zen 4 might walk all over it with a better memory controller or V-cache.
MLID is wrong as usual.
Given his recent accuracy with respect to Intel products, you have to wonder if Intel is intentionally feeding him info given that Intel is the underdog and they could use a mouthpiece to stave off AMD. Given that MLID usually mentions WCCFtech, Videocardz, and Tweaktown on Twitter whenever he posts a leak video, and those people are generally quick with writing an article based on his video, it's a rather effective way to spread news of whatever Intel need spreading.Actually MLID is usually right, he has good sources. It's one of the best leakers when it comes to Intel (not so much for AMD).
Given his recent accuracy with respect to Intel products, you have to wonder if Intel is intentionally feeding him info given that Intel is the underdog and they could use a mouthpiece to stave off AMD. If you're the underdog you have to play an attacking game; if you're the leader you have to play a defending game. AMD not having as many leaks falls under that theory.
He calls this leak? LOL. Every human with a functiton brain can come up with these numbers. If they add 8 more e-cores, yes, that could be good for 30-35% more MT performance (40% is a little optimistic). And ST - well... ~5% more IPC and ~5% more clocks... there you have your +10% (again... 15% is a little on the high side IMO)This is what MLID claims about Raptor Lake performance gains:
![]()
I disagree. Lot of us here disagree that it'll be that fast in MT. And Intel presentation says otherwise. It's on the same process anyway. Personally I think 30% is possible because the P cores take up all the power and slight reduction can free up quite a bit for the E cores.He calls this leak? LOL. Every human with a functiton brain can come up with these numbers. If they add 8 more e-cores, yes, that could be good for 30-35% more MT performance (40% is a little optimistic). And ST - well... ~5% more IPC and ~5% more clocks... there you have your +10% (again... 15% is a little on the high side IMO)
Leak Update, yeah .. what amazing sources he has![]()
March 8th?A Q4 launch of Raptor Lake mobile is rather unlikely; given that Alder Lake mobile isn't even available yet and won't be until March. Dell has a couple laptops available to preorder but the earliest won't ship until like the 8th.
At twitter, Davidbepo has a chart with simulations of cache hierarchies and their impact on performance.8-15% is very good for a refresh architecture if you ask me and ensures that Zen 4 won't just walk right over Raptor Lake. It's probably a combination of clock speed, IPC enhancements and cache increase to boost single thread performance by that much, but I'd be interested in knowing what you guys think the actual breakdown is.
Eh. Depending on whom you ask, Alder Lake has a rather shoddy memory controller. Raptor Lake is an opportunity for Intel to improve the situation, but . . . Rocket Lake-S also had a crappy memory controller. Do not hold your breath.AMD's memory controller will be in their I/O die unlike Intel's which is on the same die as the CPU so I doubt it will be better; at least not in terms of latency.
Not necessarily related to Raptorlake but Davidbepo says the tile approach in Sapphire has integrated-like latencies for L3, so at least performance-wise their mesh-over-EMIB approach is working.Eh. Depending on whom you ask, Alder Lake has a rather shoddy memory controller. Raptor Lake is an opportunity for Intel to improve the situation, but . . . Rocket Lake-S also had a crappy memory controller. Do not hold your breath.