• 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

For majority of the people buying a 13600k and 13700k will make the most sense.

I’d pair the 13600k with ddr4 and a cheaper z690 board.

13700k, step up to a z790 mainstream board and a ddr5 6000 bin

13900k only makes sense for those who will want the best silicon for heavy tuning and maxing out the platform.
 
Improved 'Next-gen' SK Hynix DDR5 16gb modules here:
www.igorslab.de

Next generation DDR5 ICs Review: SK hynix 16 Gbit A-Die - 2x 16 GB with overclocking and gaming | Page 3 | igor´sLAB

Today I have a glimpse into the near future of RAM technology for you, and as is so often the case in the computer hardware industry, it comes from China, where SK Hynix’s new DDR5 memory ICs are…
www.igorslab.de www.igorslab.de

According to the author, they can handle 'Stable overclocking to 7466c34' in dual channel, at a comfortable 1.4v.

That should result in approx. 9.1 nanoseconds of latency with these settings.
 
g67575 said:
Improved 'Next-gen' SK Hynix DDR5 16gb modules here:
www.igorslab.de

Next generation DDR5 ICs Review: SK hynix 16 Gbit A-Die - 2x 16 GB with overclocking and gaming | Page 3 | igor´sLAB

Today I have a glimpse into the near future of RAM technology for you, and as is so often the case in the computer hardware industry, it comes from China, where SK Hynix’s new DDR5 memory ICs are…
www.igorslab.de www.igorslab.de

According to Ignor, they can handle 'Stable overclocking to 7466c34' in dual channel, at a comfortable 1.4v.
Click to expand...
Its probably a motherboard or bios limitation, the kits can probably hit 8k. 1.4v is rather low
 
Bencher said:
Its probably a motherboard or bios limitation, the kits can probably hit 8k. 1.4v is rather low
Click to expand...
I wonder how long it will be, for these 16gb ICs to go out to third parties and be sold as retail modules?

The nice thing about 1.4v is you can be reasonably sure the modules will work / and not explode :D
 
Probably sensible. I think they've made some progress with the locked CPUs though. It's just nice to finally see standardization of 5ghz all core from AMD and Intel even at the mid end.

There seems to be some excitement / interest in the additional E-cores, it's just not something I consider to be worthwhile.
 
Intel-neue-Features-Technologien-13.-Core-Generation-1200x638.jpg


It's notable that Intel states 'Improved P-core performance'. This seems to be referring to clock speed improvements, leading to improved performance (presumably due to refinements to the silicon itself).

However, there's no claim of improved IPC for the P-cores. It seems the core improvements are limited to increased L2 and L3 cache. There seems to be some cost saving going on, by limiting the cache amounts on the models below the 13600K.
 
g67575 said:
Intel-neue-Features-Technologien-13.-Core-Generation-1200x638.jpg


It's notable that Intel states 'Improved P-core performance'. This seems to be referring to clock speed improvements, leading to improved performance (presumably due to refinements to the silicon itself).

However, there's no claim of improved IPC for the P-cores. It seems the core improvements are limited to increased L2 and L3 cache. There seems to be some cost saving going on, by limiting the cache amounts on the models below the 13600K.
Click to expand...
I mean, were getting frequency and cache so IPC is asking a lot.

Tetras said:
It'll be really ****** if the i5 non-Ks are just 12th gen i5s with some P-oop cores :mad: Enough with this rebranding already.
Click to expand...
This is the "tock", new stuff comes in at the top end and everything else moves down mostly.
 

I saw his data and decided to confirm it for ST.

unknown.png



From a pure core performance standpoint ADL core at 4.9 = Zen4 at 5.4. This goes back to what I’ve said in the past that both zen4 and rpl are “+” versions of their predecessor with an added node shrink for zen3.

7950x will have good use cases but rest of the line up is quite useless.
 
cfletch said:
This is the "tock", new stuff comes in at the top end and everything else moves down mostly.
Click to expand...

That would be fine with me if they (13th gen i5s) have the same cores, but apparently they're not going to, though is just speculation based on a slide, as far as I know.
 
Tetras said:
If this speculation is true, then it looks like the gap between the K and non-K is just going to get bigger (compared to 12th gen). Very weird decision to make the K such a different CPU.
Click to expand...
As far as I'm aware the main difference is non K has lower boost and 4 Ecores instead of 8.

The 13400/F could end up the bargain CPU of the year especially if if its price around £200 as you can combine it with one of the new DDR4 B660 that have the clockgen then you can crank the bclk and overclock it to maybe 5.4+ ghz all core.
 
cfletch said:
I mean, were getting frequency and cache so IPC is asking a lot.
Click to expand...
I made this point, because for ages quite a few people were saying there would be architectural - and therefore - IPC improvements (based on rumours). This was despite the fact that Intel's 'CPU Core Roadmap' didn't indicate any further developments beyond Golden Cove.

The way in which the performance improvement is worded, could be seen as misleading 'Improved P-Core performance'. The improved performance (from higher clock speeds) comes at the cost of higher power consumption, particularly for the 13700K (vs the 12700K). I suppose this is fine though, since the all core speeds are improved.
 
Joxeon said:
The 13400/F could end up the bargain CPU of the year especially if if its price around £200 as you can combine it with one of the new DDR4 B660 that have the clockgen then you can crank the bclk and overclock it to maybe 5.4+ ghz all core.
Click to expand...

It'll still be a decent CPU as a 12600K for 12400 money, but not giving it the raptor cores with increased cache is likely going to make the 13600K pull away a lot, even outside of productivity.
 
Robert896r1 said:
7950x will have good use cases but rest of the line up is quite useless.
Click to expand...
This is rubbish, the 7700X @5.5ghz has a higher singlethreaded integer and floating point score in Geekbench 5, than the 12900KS (which can boost upto 5.5ghz on one core). The temperature shown in a separate CPUz benchmark was 71 degrees C, at 5.4ghz.

The 7700X is priced at $400, which is not that bad. Intel has been setting the prices that consumers pay for CPUs largely, because of their advantage with 12th gen CPUs, since November 2021. I think E-Cores have contributed to price increases also, due to the increase in MT performance.

In most cases, people should get this level of performance, even on mid level B650 boards.

It could be that the CPUz benchmark is reflecting more specific aspects of CPU performance, compared to Geekbench 5.

It is true though, that if you have a 12700K or 12900K CPU, Zen 4/AM5 probably won't seem very exciting to you (if judging purely on CPU performance).

In the example AMD gave (just 4 games), the flagship CPU was on average, 9% faster than the 12900K:

So, the results were either about the same, or a bit better than the 12900K.

The 12900KS tends to be only around 1% faster in games than the 12900K (both at stock), on average (according to Techpowerup).
 
g67575 said:
This is rubbish, the 7700X @5.5ghz has a higher singlethreaded integer and floating point score in Geekbench 5, than the 12900KS (which can boost upto 5.5ghz on one core). The temperature shown in a separate CPUz benchmark was 71 degrees C, at 5.4ghz.

The 7700X is priced at $400, which is not that bad. Intel has been setting the prices that consumers pay for CPUs largely, because of their advantage with 12th gen CPUs, since November 2021. I think E-Cores have contributed to price increases also, due to the increase in MT performance.

In most cases, people should get this level of performance, even on mid level B650 boards.

It could be that the CPUz benchmark is reflecting more specific aspects of CPU performance, compared to Geekbench 5.

It is true though, that if you have a 12700K or 12900K CPU, Zen 4/AM5 probably won't seem very exciting to you (if judging purely on CPU performance).

In the example AMD gave (just 4 games), the flagship CPU was on average, 9% faster than the 12900K:

So, the results were either about the same, or a bit better than the 12900K.

The 12900KS tends to be only around 1% faster in games than the 12900K (both at stock), on average (according to Techpowerup).
Click to expand...
I think you are missing the point. CPUz is this years best AAA Game and productivity tool, it is all that matters. I do find it strange though why all in blue suddenly shout about Intel benchmark leaks from the roof tops when just 2 short years ago Intel themselves said benchmarks do not matter
 
cliffy said:
I think you are missing the point. CPUz is this years best AAA Game and productivity tool, it is all that matters. I do find it strange though why all in blue suddenly shout about Intel benchmark leaks from the roof tops when just 2 short years ago Intel themselves said benchmarks do not matter
Click to expand...
AMD have always used Cinebench up till this release where they decided to swap to geekbench as cinebench results are not favourable.

Even the gaming results show a tie and a loss in 2 of the 4 games tested with most of the gains coming for a single game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom