14th Gen "Raptor Lake Refresh"

g67575 · 25 Oct 2022 at 22:48

The Intel 3 process is 'ahead of schedule', and is expected between late 2023 and early 2024.

Intel 3 is ‘ahead of schedule’, Raptor Lake will offer 6GHz clock speeds - KitGuru

The Intel Technology Tour kicked off this week and Leo has boots on the ground at Intel's Israel fac

www.kitguru.net

Strongly suspect now that 'Intel 4' is for mobile next gen in 2023, 'Intel 3' (optimized version of 'Intel 4') is for desktop CPU next gen

Dave2150 · 26 Oct 2022 at 09:00

Got a feeling it'll be 2024 before we see Meteor Lake on desktop. If so, Zen4 with 3D cache should reign supreme for a long time, CPU market will be boring again

g67575 · 26 Oct 2022 at 10:21

True.
I think whatever high end CPU is bought (13900K /KS or Zen 4 V-cache), you'd need a powerful GPU like a RTX 4080 16GB to make good use of it in games.

These cost at least £1,269. Plus at least £200 for RAM, at least £200 for a motherboard. So, around £1,659, assuming you already have a sufficient power supply and an SSD. Lets say £550 for a new 8 core V-cache CPU. So, total spend is likely to be at least £2,200.

Suppose the point I'm making, is that most will be better off saving money for a decent graphics card, especially since V-cache is really only beneficial to games (and really only needed to reach high framerates of 200 FPS or more at 1080p, based on Techspot minimums for the 7700X).

Dave2150 · 26 Oct 2022 at 11:33

g67575 said:
True.
I think whatever high end CPU is bought (13900K /KS or Zen 4 V-cache), you'd need a powerful GPU like a RTX 4080 16GB to make good use of it in games.

These cost at least £1,269. Plus at least £200 for RAM, at least £200 for a motherboard. So, around £1,659, assuming you already have a sufficient power supply and an SSD. Lets say £550 for a new 8 core V-cache CPU. So, total spend is likely to be at least £2,200.

Suppose the point I'm making, is that most will be better off saving money for a decent graphics card, especially since V-cache is really only beneficial to games (and really only needed to reach high framerates of 200 FPS or more at 1080p, based on Techspot minimums for the 7700X).

Z690 + 12thgen/13th gen with DDR4, or AM4 with 5800x3d/5900/5950x with DDR4 are the only options that make financial sense for now IMO.

Poneros · 26 Oct 2022 at 12:33

g67575 said:
Suppose the point I'm making, is that most will be better off saving money for a decent graphics card, especially since V-cache is really only beneficial to games (and really only needed to reach high framerates of 200 FPS or more at 1080p, based on Techspot minimums for the 7700X).

Nah, saving from CPU to give to GPU hasn't been true in years because GPUs have increased much more in price particularly across upper tiers. Secondly, it's not really for >200 FPS because if we look at stress scenarios for Zen 4 it sputters around 70-80 fps in CP2077 with npcs on screen (https://youtu.be/pLtDcdE4BRE?t=265), similarly <120 fps for other such titles. In general it's also easier to fine-tune GPU load than CPU, so it's more important that your CPU be capable. If you're a gamer and want an AMD CPU then it should 100% be a v-cache model.

g67575 · 26 Oct 2022 at 18:28

70-80 FPS is more than enough for >90% of gamers.

On consoles, 30 FPS at 4K is common.

The 7700X got lows of 175 FPS in the 12 games tested (average at 1080p) on techspot).

Combine an X3D with something like a GTX 1080, your FPS will still dip frequently below 60 FPS. I'm not saying everyone should go buy a GPU costing over £1,000, just that a GPU should be prioritised for gamers.

Then there's the 'problem' that the X3D will very likely be superseded by Zen 5 in 2024.

g67575 · 26 Oct 2022 at 22:26

Dave2150 said:
Z690 + 12thgen/13th gen with DDR4, or AM4 with 5800x3d/5900/5950x with DDR4 are the only options that make financial sense for now IMO.

It's only DDR5 16GB modules that are still relatively expensive.

A Kingston DDR5 6000 MT/s 2x8GB kit is only £120. £80 now for a used kit with approx. same spec. A 5600 MT/s 2x8GB kit is just £100, should be easy to overclock to 6000 MT/s. Soon, I think you will be able to pay the same for a 6000 MT/s kit.

New motherboards have better VRMs generally, 12/14 VCore phases for the CPU is common. So, you do actually get a better standard of board for the money, and support for >6000 MT/s RAM on many boards. Nearly all AM5 boards also have support for a PCIe5 NVME SSD also, these drives typically support 10GB/s sequential read/write speeds and above.

Joxeon · 27 Oct 2022 at 00:06

g67575 said:
It's only DDR5 16GB modules that are still relatively expensive.

A Kingston DDR5 6000 MT/s 2x8GB kit is only £120. £80 now for a used kit with approx. same spec. A 5600 MT/s 2x8GB kit is just £100, should be easy to overclock to 6000 MT/s. Soon, I think you will be able to pay the same for a 6000 MT/s kit.

New motherboards have better VRMs generally, 12/14 VCore phases for the CPU is common. So, you do actually get a better standard of board for the money, and support for >6000 MT/s RAM on many boards. Nearly all AM5 boards also have support for a PCIe5 NVME SSD also, these drives typically support 10GB/s sequential read/write speeds and above.

Who wants to build a new AM5 system with only 16gb ram though when it's supposed to be about longevity? A decent 32gb kit will set you back £250 the AM5 boards are almost £100 more than LGA1700 and the 7600X/7700X while being similar for gaming are a tier behind their RPL counterparts in overall performance.

g67575 · 27 Oct 2022 at 00:10

Because 8GB DDR5 modules are cheap? And easy to replace. Honestly, some people will fret about this kind of stuff for months on end...

Raptor Lake is the 12th gen again, with an improved 10nm process that allows about 400mhz higher clock frequencies, no need to dress it up as something special.

Joxeon · 27 Oct 2022 at 00:13

g67575 said:
Because 8GB DDR5 modules are cheap? And easy to replace. Honestly, some people will fret about this kind of stuff for months on end...

£100 isn't really cheap though not when you can get 32gb of DDR4 for less that don't need replacing.

g67575 · 27 Oct 2022 at 00:42

So, wait for DDR5 16GB module prices to fall to around £50 each, at a spec you want? You could be waiting a while, only to save £100. The modules are undoubtedly higher spec than DDR4, so the components cost more.

The cheapest AM5 DDR5 boards are £180, no different to LGA1700 DDR5 boards, but with the option to easily upgrade the CPU for a few more generations.

Joxeon · 27 Oct 2022 at 00:42

So when Zen 3 released AMD had an 18% advantage over Intel in ST and a 75% advantage in MT over Intels then 10th gen. AMD then had 2 years to prepare Zen 4 now and are now losing to Intel both ST and MT so it looks like the momentum is definetly with Intel right now and if meteor lake and whatever comes after continues with the gains we have saw over the last 2 years with Intel then AMD may well struggle to keep pace.

Emlyn_Dewar · 27 Oct 2022 at 01:15

It doesn't have to be an either/or. I'd say the momentum is with both of them, and that can only end well for us.

g67575 · 27 Oct 2022 at 01:21

Joxeon said:
So when Zen 3 released AMD had an 18% advantage over Intel in ST and a 75% advantage in MT over Intels then 10th gen. AMD then had 2 years to prepare Zen 4 now and are now losing to Intel both ST and MT so it looks like the momentum is definetly with Intel right now and if meteor lake and whatever comes after continues with the gains we have saw over the last 2 years with Intel then AMD may well struggle to keep pace.

I think you should pay more attention to the new process technologies used by AMD and Intel, as this has always been the best predictor of technological progress with computer chips.

In 2024, AMD will be using TSMC's 4nm EUV process. Intel's 'Intel 3' process is on track for 2024, which is an improvement of their 7nm EUV process. To some extent, the names used for these process technologies don't matter, more important is how much the transistor density of these technologies improves.

I expect that 'Intel 3' will be an impressive technology (due to it's relative maturity, and predicted number of EUV layers), but TSMC's process is also predicted to be a significant improvement.

Beyond this point, things will start to get tough for all chip makers, it could take years to see a fab. process that scales lower than 3nm, that is ready to be used in desktop processors.

Joxeon · 27 Oct 2022 at 01:44

Emlyn_Dewar said:
It doesn't have to be an either/or. I'd say the momentum is with both of them, and that can only end well for us.

The point I'm making is that if both continue at a similar pace with the gains they've had over the past 2 years then by 2025 Intel will have a sizeable lead.

g67575 · 27 Oct 2022 at 01:46

Joxeon said:
The point I'm making is that if both continue at a similar pace with the gains they've had over the past 2 years then by 2025 Intel will have a sizeable lead.

It never is that simple though.

Emlyn_Dewar · 27 Oct 2022 at 04:55

The leap from 10th gen to 12th was always going to be significant though. 10th gen was based on an extremely old design that had been rehashed to within an inch of it's life.
Inevitably one of them is going to release a clanger in the future, but I wouldn't like to put money on which one going by today's state.

Grim5 · 28 Oct 2022 at 11:48

g67575 said:
I think you should pay more attention to the new process technologies used by AMD and Intel, as this has always been the best predictor of technological progress with computer chips.

In 2024, AMD will be using TSMC's 4nm EUV process. Intel's 'Intel 3' process is on track for 2024, which is an improvement of their 7nm EUV process. To some extent, the names used for these process technologies don't matter, more important is how much the transistor density of these technologies improves.

I expect that 'Intel 3' will be an impressive technology (due to it's relative maturity, and predicted number of EUV layers), but TSMC's process is also predicted to be a significant improvement.

Beyond this point, things will start to get tough for all chip makers, it could take years to see a fab. process that scales lower than 3nm, that is ready to be used in desktop processors.

Tsmc says it's 2nm will be ready for 2026 mass production.

So next year amd and Intel move to 3nm and then they are stuck on 3nm for 3/4 year

Poneros · 28 Oct 2022 at 12:29

Considering how much Intel's been tripping over itself on node advancement, I'd not assume anything about it until you see it in a real product with actual volume.

Dave2150 · 28 Oct 2022 at 19:45

Poneros said:
Considering how much Intel's been tripping over itself on node advancement, I'd not assume anything about it until you see it in a real product with actual volume.

10nm (Intel "7") was a disaster. Years behind schedule, kept Intel on 14nm+++x2++ for years and allowed AMD to catchup.

10nm did get there in the end, with 6Ghz achieved, something many thought would never be possible, due to a "broken" process.

What remains to be seen is has Intel learnt from it's mistakes? Will Intel "4" (7nm) take another 5-10 years before it's ready for 6Ghz+ desktop CPU's? Or will it release on time in 2023?

AMD seen to require a node advantage to compete - if Intel ever reach parity with TSMC's node (or they just decide to make CPU's on TSMC for certain models as rumoured) then AMD's in for a tough time, 3d cache or not.