• 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

Journey said:
Caught out talking utter bull, cementing yourself as a trolliar, well done. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Thought it was obvious i wasn't literal.... Im not even using autocad, it was an example. Sorry, I should have known that some people dont have high enough iq to understand what an example is. Mea culpa
Would it make any difference if i said 5 months? Would it make any difference if we had this discussion 4 months from now? Would the efficiency of the 12900k in autocad change based on the number of months someone is using it? Nope, you just know you are wrong so you are trying to hold on to something to save face... Good luck with that
 
Last edited:
The 3D stacking thing is an interesting technology, i don't think the 5800X3D needs to exist, ADL and Zen 3 are already close enough in gaming to compete, they are both very fast CPU's and so far as i can tell no one really cares specifically which one to get for gaming so the 5800X3D is a curiosity rather than a "Gaming CPU"

And that's fine, from AMD's perspective its a test bed, stacking some more cache on top of it is not the long term goal for this technology, they have alluded to what they have in mind by pointing out that this technology has given them the ability to stack anything you can think of in multiple vertical layers. I like where that is going.
 
Bencher said:
The point is, if you want to run all core workloads for HOURS, then you shouldnt have a 240 p limit on any cpu.Instead of looking at the facts objectively, you are just trying to prove that your choice is better. Well it's not anymore.
Click to expand...
Those are the stock limits so you are basically saying Intel shouldn't have set those limits? I admit personally I would lower the limit as I know it's only set that high to appear faster than the 5950x in some benchmarks, but I don't think the majority of people would do so.
 
LePhuronn said:
Intel owe me a new Macbook because I've just showered this one with coffee as it spurted out of my nose laughing so hard.
Click to expand...

It's not out of the realms of possibility? Not much faster than the 12900KS. It would be different if it was rumoured at 6.5ghz

To be fair to Intel they've been increasing boost clocks with each cpu release.
 
Raptor lake looking good

An Engineering sample i5 13600 Raptor lake-p laptop CPU (6 P cores, 8 E cores) has shown up in benchmark database, boosted to 4.2ghz (lower than alder lake laptops, cause engineering sample) and paired with 16GB LPDDR5 5200mhz memory

Despite running slower clocks than alder lake chips because it's an ES chip it beats the desktop 12900k in single core. It also beat the current highest Intel laptop CPU, the 12900HK in multicore by a few percent despite being clocked lower and having fewer cores

https://wccftech.com/intel-raptor-l...otted-faster-than-alder-lake-core-i9-12900hk/
 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
Raptor lake looking good

An Engineering sample i5 13600 Raptor lake-p laptop CPU (6 P cores, 8 E cores) has shown up in benchmark database, boosted to 4.2ghz (lower than alder lake laptops, cause engineering sample) and paired with 16GB LPDDR5 5200mhz memory

Despite running slower clocks than alder lake chips because it's an ES chip it beats the desktop 12900k in single core. It also beat the current highest Intel laptop CPU, the 12900HK in multicore by a few percent despite being clocked lower and having fewer cores

https://wccftech.com/intel-raptor-l...otted-faster-than-alder-lake-core-i9-12900hk/
Click to expand...

I would like to know where WCCF got thier information, perhaps from User Benchmark themselves?

The 12600H has a boost of 4.5Ghz, which is higher than the 4.2Ghz they claim for RTL here, but isn't RTL supposed to be clocked higher?

They also say the 12900KH boosts to 4.3Ghz, that's wrong, it boosts to 5Ghz, so again, i want to know where they are getting thier data from, WCCF are not know for checking the data in their leaks, they will publish anything anyone says which is probably why they are so often wrong.
 
humbug said:
I would like to know where WCCF got thier information, perhaps from User Benchmark themselves?

The 12600H has a boost of 4.5Ghz, which is higher than the 4.2Ghz they claim for RTL here, but isn't RTL supposed to be clocked higher?

They also say the 12900KH boosts to 4.3Ghz, that's wrong, it boosts to 5Ghz, so again, i want to know where they are getting thier data from, WCCF are not know for checking the data in their leaks, they will publish anything anyone says which is probably why they are so often wrong.
Click to expand...

It's normal for engineering samples to have much lower clocks (which they seem to get their info from), but since Intel are following a trend of going backwards in Mhz since comet lake... :D
 
From the article:

The expected SKUs are detailed below:
  • Intel Core i9 K-Series (8 Golden + 16 Grace) = 24 Cores / 32 Threads / 68 MB?
  • Intel Core i7 K-Series (8 Golden + 8 Grace) = 16 Cores / 24 Threads / 54 MB?
  • Intel Core i5 K-Series (6 Golden + 8 Grace) = 14 Cores / 20 Threads / 44 MB?
  • Intel Core i5 S-Series (6 Golden + 4 Grace) = 14 Cores / 16 Threads / 37 MB?
  • Intel Core i3 S-Series (4 Golden + 0 Grace) = 4 Cores / 8 Threads / 20 MB?
  • Intel Pentium S-Series (2 Golden + 0 Grace) = 4 Cores / 4 Threads / 10 MB?
This is the upgrade for me, nice i5 non-K 6p/4c! I'm ok with a lower clock if we can bump up the amount of work done with cache etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom