• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Question Raptor Lake - Official Thread

Page 81 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Hulk

Hulk

Diamond Member
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.
 
igor_kavinski said:
Curious to see screenshot showing 6 GHz on three cores. That's on air, correct?
Click to expand...
6 ghz? Can't really make it to 6ghz, havent tried but I was already hitting 1.61 volts for 5.8 so yeah...

Yes it's on air, single tower cooler, and the temps were actually toasty at those ST workloads. Don't remember exactly but I think the core that was boosting was at around 85c
 
Just Benching said:
6 ghz? Can't really make it to 6ghz, havent tried but I was already hitting 1.61 volts for 5.8 so yeah...

Yes it's on air, single tower cooler, and the temps were actually toasty at those ST workloads. Don't remember exactly but I think the core that was boosting was at around 85c
Click to expand...
Sorry. I'm tired 🙂 85 degrees for 5.8 GHz is not bad.
 
Just Benching said:
Well it's not terrible but after 80c you kiss stability goodbye on Intel Cpu's, that's why it needs 1.61v. If i could keep it under 80c it can probably do it with 1.55v or something
Click to expand...

That s not true, temp on short term reach 96°C in Prime 95 and 100°C after 2 minutes in Blender whose duration is about 4mn, so 80-85°C is still far from instability.

www.computerbase.de

Intel Core i9-12900K, i7-12700K & i5-12600K im Test: Leistungsaufnahme, Temperaturen und OC

Intel Alder Lake im Test: Leistungsaufnahme, Temperaturen und OC / Leistungsaufnahme in Spielen / Leistungsaufnahme in Anwendungen
www.computerbase.de www.computerbase.de
 
Abwx said:
That s not true, temp on short term reach 96°C in Prime 95 and 100°C after 2 minutes in Blender whose duration is about 4mn, so 80-85°C is still far from instability.

www.computerbase.de

Intel Core i9-12900K, i7-12700K & i5-12600K im Test: Leistungsaufnahme, Temperaturen und OC

Intel Alder Lake im Test: Leistungsaufnahme, Temperaturen und OC / Leistungsaufnahme in Spielen / Leistungsaufnahme in Anwendungen
www.computerbase.de www.computerbase.de
Click to expand...
I think you don't understand what im saying. OF COURSE at stock it's stable, Intel and AMD give the CPUS enough voltage at stock to have them work in extreme conditions, like 100C, without stability issues. That's how people can actually undervolt them.
 
Kocicak said:
I counted 230 whole CPUs on that wafer.

It that wafer costs 20 K USD to make, that makes 87 USD per one chip cost.

If all that CPUs were powered at once each at 350W, the would put out over 80 kW of heat.
Click to expand...
The actual wafer cost is probably closer to the $4k to $5k range. Counting previously sunk costs into the chip cost is going to lead you to incorrect conclusions.
 
It may actually be 30 thousands and not 20. These are VERY expensive. BTW those are pretty large CPUs. If 10% of them were defective, at the higher cost one would be 145 bucks.

It would be very interesting to see a breakdown of a cost of a CPU. How much of the total cost is the chip, substrate, packaging, sorting, testing, transportation, etc etc.
 
The cost is around 8k$/waffer for 7nm at TSMC, so at Intel it should be in the same ballpark given that their foundries needs for RD and production implementation are likely the same as the taiwanese firm.
 
Abwx said:
The cost is around 8k$/waffer for 7nm at TSMC, so at Intel it should be in the same ballpark given that their foundries needs for RD and production implementation are likely the same as the taiwanese firm.
Click to expand...
Intel's costs are likely slightly higher but not significantly. TSMC can use EUV in more steps and probably reduce cost. Also TSMC has cheaper labor in general, they pay their engineers far worse than Intel does.
 
The biggest cost by far is the upfront cost for simulation, mask, validation etc. The cost of wafers didn't rise as much. I don't even think packaging, even the more advanced ones, cost that much. What matter more there is the yield, the more complex the packaging the more costly a lower yield becomes.
desrever said:
Also TSMC has cheaper labor in general, they pay their engineers far worse than Intel does.
Click to expand...
This is actually changing since TSMC suffered of engineers jumping off to mainland China due to low pay before.
 
The pass mark single thread performance was updated today. The vanilla 65w tdp 13700 (Non-K) is about 40% faster than the 12700k in integer.

www.cpubenchmark.net

PassMark CPU Benchmarks - Single Thread Performance

Benchmarks of the single thread performance of CPUs. This chart comparing CPUs single thread performance is made using thousands of PerformanceTest benchmark results and is updated daily.
www.cpubenchmark.net
 
desrever said:
Intel's costs are likely slightly higher but not significantly. TSMC can use EUV in more steps and probably reduce cost. Also TSMC has cheaper labor in general, they pay their engineers far worse than Intel does.
Click to expand...

IIRC It's a little convoluted but my understanding is that Intel doesn't technically charge per wafer like a foundry. The Fab takes up all the costs of that quarter, including the nodes under development, and charges the departments proportionally based upon the wafers they received.
 
jpiniero said:
IIRC It's a little convoluted but my understanding is that Intel doesn't technically charge per wafer like a foundry. The Fab takes up all the costs of that quarter, including the nodes under development, and charges the departments proportionally based upon the wafers they received.
Click to expand...
They probably have to have an equivalent metric of some kind, if for no other reason than to compare to TSMC and Samsung.
 
I think I saw somewhere something close to 20K per newest wafer technology recently. It may have been 17.

BTW is there easy way how to set power consumption limit in BIOS? I felt no need to change anything with my 12600K, because even the $40 air cooler has no problem cooling it well.

Seeing that 12600K will be resold as 13400, it seems that buying this CPU (or even buying LGA 1700 platform) was dumbest move in my PC tech buying history.
 
Kocicak said:
Seeing that 12600K will be resold as 13400, it seems that buying this CPU (or even buying LGA 1700 platform) was dumbest move in my PC tech buying history.
Click to expand...
The 13400 isn't unlocked. So you didn't exactly make a horrible mistake. If you are not too demanding of it, it should last you 5 years easily and then you can put in a used 13900KS, giving you a couple more years of good excitement.
 
Buying the Z790 platform would be dumb this December. No upgradability. At least, Z690 owners can get a nice rush of endorphins from their investment when they upgrade to the 13th gen this year or in the next few years.
 
Exist50 said:
They probably have to have an equivalent metric of some kind, if for no other reason than to compare to TSMC and Samsung.
Click to expand...
Nah. They are too self-obsessed for that. If they had such an internal metric to compare themselves against, they wouldn't have fallen so far behind. They would have looked at those metrics in every major meeting about the company's direction, someone with a lot of authority would have gotten alarmed and orders would have been issued to set the ship straight. Otherwise, it wouldn't have taken the firing of BK and Pat's onboarding for them to take corrective measures. They stopped smelling how bad their crap was stinking for too long.

TLDR: Intel no have internal process comparison metric.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top