• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Raptor Lake Leaks + Intel 4 developments

1fd2d3ca066f6ddb.jpg


@Nickolp1974 Guess I'm waiting.
 
Grim5 said:
but hang on guys, several Intel users in this thread were adamant that 13th gen was super efficient, achieved better MT performance for free and would not exceed its 240w PL

What gives guys, why is the 13900k pulling 350w out of the box!?? And why does it run 15c hotter than the 12900k and thermal throttle at 100c on a 360mm AIO??
Click to expand...
Got to love the nothing will ever be better fanboys
 
Armageus said:
Efficiency cores aren't for efficiency though, or at least that's what some keep saying
Click to expand...
Well, no they are for Intel's margins!

Well, and 16 or more P cores would not only end up with 300mm² or similar sized chips, they'd also have to dial the clocks way back.

Although at the cost of even more of Intel's margins, they could space the P cores and add extra layers etc. to be able to keep clocks high. Then we might really be seeing 1000W CPUS, and while we might expect there to be almost no buyers they would "dominate" the CPUs benchmarks.

Let's hope that Intel have another trick up their sleeve rather than brute-forced monster cores like the P cores.

uscool said:
Lol think they should be renamed then
Click to expand...
How about "Intel-need-keep-their-margins" cores then?

EDIT: or aside from the spelling in the above, "Intel-needs-their-margins" is probably a better name.
 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
but hang on guys, several Intel users in this thread were adamant that 13th gen was super efficient, achieved better MT performance for free and would not exceed its 240w PL

What gives guys, why is the 13900k pulling 350w out of the box!?? And why does it run 15c hotter than the 12900k and thermal throttle at 100c on a 360mm AIO??
Click to expand...
It doesnt

image.png

,
 
Techen said:
unknown.png


People only ever look at the 1% high power draw and never what it will acutally consume during games.
Click to expand...
Maybe because nobody likes a design which relies on far too much brute-forcing?

Besides, the max power draw is what you have to spec during building in terms of cooling, PSU, etc., and even for gaming if a new game comes out which suddenly needs to load all the cores, then a build which was designed for a ~120W CPU draw suddenly has to cope with a 300W one it won't be pretty.
 
humbug said:
You posted that image as if it proves something.

It doesn't.
Click to expand...
Ιt proves that what I said yesterday was true, we got more than 40% performance increase at similar wattage (240 vs 250) in 1 year at the same node. That's freaking insane. Think about it. Amd needed 2 years, double the power consumption and a node shrink for the same performance increase.
 
Bencher said:
Ιt proves that what I said yesterday was true, we got more than 40% performance increase at similar wattage (240 vs 250) in 1 year at the same node. That's freaking insane. Think about it. Amd needed 2 years, double the power consumption and a node shrink for the same performance increase.
Click to expand...

I see yeah if you in intels room and not looking outside you have bias so just looking at what intel are doing with its own progress
all I see what both have avaliable currently right now is that AMD looks more efficient
 
uscool said:
I see yeah if you in intels room and not looking outside you have bias so just looking at what intel are doing with its own progress
all I see what both have avaliable currently right now is that AMD looks more efficient
Click to expand...
Depending on what review you wanna read honestly. I don't know what's going on, but some reviewers either failed or are lying. Compare techpowerups number for example to igorslab / guru3d / club386 / computerbase. Youll get waaay different results. Just looking at the stock CBR23 numbers there is a huge discrepency, one gets 32k @ 253w and the others get 39k at 253w , lol
 
Bencher said:
Depending on what review you wanna read honestly. I don't know what's going on, but some reviewers either failed or are lying. Compare techpowerups number for example to igorslab / guru3d / club386 / computerbase. Youll get waaay different results. Just looking at the stock CBR23 numbers there is a huge discrepency, one gets 32k @ 253w and the others get 39k at 253w , lol
Click to expand...

Discrepancy down to thermal throttling perhaps? In HUB/Techspot's review it throttled within 17 seconds with a 360 mm AIO. If other reviewers are using anything less than that, it's not hard to imagine that performance could be hit over time. Also, as has been seen numerous times, those power limits aren't met with some motherboard vendors, adding further variables into the mix.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom