Caporegime
Goated Lake, let's go!
-
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
- Thread starter g67575
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 2,267
You don't have to look that far back at all. CFL and CFL-R are an easy comparison. Added some cores (real ones!), frequency bumps, some cache and an improved IMC. I know. I had both.
Intel Core i9-9900K vs Intel Core i7-8700K Benchmark, comparison and differences
Intel Core i9-9900K vs Intel Core i7-8700K. Benchmark, test, review, comparison and differences between these CPUs in Cinebench 23 and Geekbench 5
At least they didn't take away a CPU instruction set back then. Now that's a real lol
Soldato
16c/24t up to 24c/32t and they've added less % MT performance than cores, 50% more cores, for 37% more MT performance, hardly what I'd call stellar, yes cores don't scale linearly but 37% isn't anything to clap and get all excited about.
Should be enough to keep Intel ahead of zen 4 though with their gains of up to 35% MT and 15%+ SC also remember that RPL can be dropped into to an older discounted 600 series board and use existing DDR4 ram which will make it a cheap upgrade option for anyone on an older platform already using DDR4.
Soldato
If that's the case, I expect some will just switch to the all-important SPS (Sales Per Second) metric. At least that's what happened when Alder Lake took the gaming crown.
Soldato
Wow
Soldato
Wow
Yes, Wow. If they added 8 extra cores (50% more) and got 50% then I'd be impressed, don't forget you are taking extra cache plus core count into that 37%. Tell me why 37% for all that is good? Oh wait don't bother it's like talking to a brick wall.
Soldato
Why are you not looking at the number of threads instead? It seems to me like you were trying to find something to complain, which is a thing people do when a product they dislike turns out to be pretty decent. 33% thread increase for 37% mt increase is pretty decent. If you expect e cores without ht to perform similarly to p cores with ht well then... Dont know what to tell youYes, Wow. If they added 8 extra cores (50% more) and got 50% then I'd be impressed, don't forget you are taking extra cache plus core count into that 37%. Tell me why 37% for all that is good? Oh wait don't bother it's like talking to a brick wall.
Also, were you complaining about amd the same way? Say the 5950x has double the cores and threads of the 5800x but it doesnt peform anywhere near that.
Alas, the number of cores and threads and the nm and the cache and all that is honestly irrelevant. Who cares. What matters is the performance and the price, whether it can achieve that performance with 10 cores on 5nm or 25 cores at 500nm is honestly a non sequitur. I don't care and nobody should.
With 16 e-cores, that's more than enough to run Windows for everyday tasks.
They should have in built BIOS profiles that have the P cores turned off as default and only turn on, from within Windows, when needed for the most demanding stuff like rendering & gaming.
They should have in built BIOS profiles that have the P cores turned off as default and only turn on, from within Windows, when needed for the most demanding stuff like rendering & gaming.
Soldato
It's stated as a 7% up lift in single core, yet only 37% in multi with 50% more cores. Do the maths. How can you say that even sounds remotely correct?
I was replying to some data that was posted, do you think it sounds correct/good? I don't care what name is on the packaging, you need to let go of this you just literally try and ruin every thread.
Soldato
Saying its a 50% core count increase is missing the point. You do realize p cores are much faster and have hyperthreading right?? So essentially it's a doubling of ecores (33% more threads) for a 37% increase. The only way to be disappointed is if you expected the ecores to outperform the p cores. Did you?
For me it's irrelevant. The mt peformance is up by almost 40%. I dont really care how, they could have done it with 50000 ecores for all i care. Performance and price is what matters, everything else is irrelevant
Soldato
Gamers will turn them off anyways like ADL and free up the extra L3
what frees up l3 cache? turning off ecores? can't work out who your replying to
A 37% increase in MT for the same or similar price is decent especially considering a 12600k is already around 40% faster in MT than a 5600X. I wonder if AMD will try again with the £300 price tag for a 7600X or if they revert back to something closer to £200
Soldato
Yeah for best gaming performance you turn off e cores and the L3 can be utilised better by the P cores and can result in slightly higher ring clocks.
RPL has more e cores so more benefit to be gained when turned off.
modern CPUs already have good multithreaded performance. Most people want more single core speed and efficiency. That ~7% increase in singlethreaded will probably require even more power usage than the 12th gen.
It's not great, because it requires consumers to buy ever more powerful air or water coolers.
Intel has chosen to increase E-core count because they have hit a wall on what's possible with 10nm performance cores.
It's another reason why IPC gains matter, usually they involve a performance increase without needing to increase power consumption much/at all.
Last edited:
Soldato
Hit a wall? They are already up to 25% faster than their competition in single threaded performance... They werent lacking in that front, were they?
I expect they will keep the same price as AM4 wil be for budget and teh AMD platform will be cheaper alrogether compared to the Intel higher end products
AMD looks set to catch with Intel, when Zen 4 is released. I think Intel's 13th gen could end up with higher singlethreaded performance, but only when clocked over 5.0ghz, so these parts won't be cheap or easy to cool.
It depends really. I think the 13th gen and Zen4 at the same clock speeds will give similar performance, so AMD's ability to compete at the enthusiast level end may depend on overclocking >5ghz, or maybe a premium super clocked edition at some point. It looks like 5.5ghz is going to roughly be the limit for both companies, excluding liquid nitrogen cooling
Intel won't be easily beaten by Zen4, but they will likely fall behind on gaming performance, with the release of Zen 4 CPUs + v-cache. It's quite easy to predict that, because the 5800X3D was already getting higher minimum framerates in some titles, than the much more power hungry, hotter running 12900KS. Power consumption comparison here:
Last edited: