Caporegime
Care to elaborate on that? I'll be moving to DDR5 soon myself so generally interested and I know you've been using it for a while.
-
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
Soldato
I believe it is said with respect to the fact the video is targeting only a novice system builder, with only an OOBE in mind, no tweaking or messing with setting in the BIOS etc. I do feel that their viewer audience has a mix of both, but way more of them will be novice/semi-interested as opposed to enthusiasts and professionals, and thus this video targets the low hanging fruit so to speak, a simple way to show that DDR5 is now providing competition at a similar price to DDR4 when building a new system.
Caporegime
That makes sense.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 0
@LtMatt non K SA is hard locked at .95v which is a major limitation for ddr4 thus this he ran G2 for 4000. That’s why you see it getting beaten by 3200. At no point does he communicate the voltage limitation or the G2 fact to the audience. Video makes it seem as if ADL has a limitation and worse, performance regression with ddr4. It doesn’t.
His idea of dropping in a much higher bin ddr5 down the road also has issues. One being the board quality and it’s traces esp as density goes up and the other being, the same SA limit will stop you as SA comes back into play at higher frequencies as the mem controller ‘catches up’ and needs more voltage to scale.
His idea of dropping in a much higher bin ddr5 down the road also has issues. One being the board quality and it’s traces esp as density goes up and the other being, the same SA limit will stop you as SA comes back into play at higher frequencies as the mem controller ‘catches up’ and needs more voltage to scale.
any youtube video that has YOU or YOUR in the title deserves 0 clicks and infinite hits to the face
You've been doing this wrong.
Why you shouldn't
if I was a billionaire, I'd buy youtube from google then ban all the people who make click bait titles
The results look pretty clear to me, gear 1 or gear 2, DDR4 @3600 MT/s is slower than DDR5 @6000MT/s in games. This seems consistent with other memory scaling reviews I've seen.
Another way to look at this, is that this is definitely the point where DDR5 becomes worth it for tasks like gaming.
Using DDR5 may not be worth it with new Intel builds on LGA1700, if the user already has DDR4 RAM (even if DDR5 does provide better performance at higher frequencies).
But there's no reason why someone building a new PC shouldn't choose DDR5 for a new build (assuming your goal is the best performance) considering that the cost for 2x8 modules is ~£120 and 2x16 modules is ~£200.
I think some of you are overestimating how many people have a desktop CPU, with over 10 CPU cores in total or greater. Here's some data from Steam's August hardware survey:
In total, that's just 4.51% (approx.). Out of this figure, some of these will be AMD CPUs and some systems will be LGA1700 boards already using DDR5. There will also be a percentage of systems with locked 12th gen CPUs (with 4 or 6 cores), but it's harder to measure that. So, all the discussion of marketshare, somewhat misses the point (it's Intel willy waving, not relevant to consumers).
TL;DR
The vast majority (over 90%) of PC systems have 8 cores or less, and few of these are going to be locked 12th gen CPUs, using DDR4 RAM.
Another way to look at this, is that this is definitely the point where DDR5 becomes worth it for tasks like gaming.
Using DDR5 may not be worth it with new Intel builds on LGA1700, if the user already has DDR4 RAM (even if DDR5 does provide better performance at higher frequencies).
But there's no reason why someone building a new PC shouldn't choose DDR5 for a new build (assuming your goal is the best performance) considering that the cost for 2x8 modules is ~£120 and 2x16 modules is ~£200.
I think some of you are overestimating how many people have a desktop CPU, with over 10 CPU cores in total or greater. Here's some data from Steam's August hardware survey:
- only ~1.22% of systems had a CPU with 10 cores (such as a 12600K)
- ~2.6% with 12 cores (e.g. 12700K)
- ~0.69% with 16 cores (e.g. 12900K)
In total, that's just 4.51% (approx.). Out of this figure, some of these will be AMD CPUs and some systems will be LGA1700 boards already using DDR5. There will also be a percentage of systems with locked 12th gen CPUs (with 4 or 6 cores), but it's harder to measure that. So, all the discussion of marketshare, somewhat misses the point (it's Intel willy waving, not relevant to consumers).
TL;DR
The vast majority (over 90%) of PC systems have 8 cores or less, and few of these are going to be locked 12th gen CPUs, using DDR4 RAM.
Soldato
Is there an official intel announcement date with all the leaks and everything else coming soon I'm losing track? seems like all the specs are out there already so i guess we will only really be getting prices and launch dates. Just want to see real benchmarks so i can make my mind up.
The official reveal for the enthusiast level stuff (Ie prices, availability, specs for K processors, Z motherboards) is supposedly 27th of September. How true the leaks are, and when everything is will be announced is anyone's guess.
Man of Honour
I didn't know this and I have a non k 12600. You can set it higher in the bios but I just checked after I read your post and it is stuck at 0.945v despite 1.20v being set in the bios. That would explain why I can't quite get gear 1 stable although the latest bios does allow me to run CR1 now when all I could manage previously was CR2.
What kind of price increases are expected for the 13th gen, vs the 12th?
I looked back at the i9 prices from the 10th, 11th and 12th generations, and it looks like there was a ~10% price increase per gen.
So, I'd guess this would be a likely increase for the 13th gen i9s? Maybe less for the i7s?
There was a bit of info about this back in July:
"some of the price increases, inflationary increases, have turned out to be more permanent, where there’s a certain amount that we do need to pass on to the customers.”
www.pcworld.com
I looked back at the i9 prices from the 10th, 11th and 12th generations, and it looks like there was a ~10% price increase per gen.
So, I'd guess this would be a likely increase for the 13th gen i9s? Maybe less for the i7s?
There was a bit of info about this back in July:
"some of the price increases, inflationary increases, have turned out to be more permanent, where there’s a certain amount that we do need to pass on to the customers.”
Intel confirms it will raise CPU prices after losing $500 million this quarter
Intel said that it will raise prices on processors and other products and confirmed it is exiting the Optane and drone businesses as it reported an unexpected loss for the second quarter of 2022.
www.pcworld.com
Last edited:
Intel in general are uping their prices on all of their components (chipsets, WiFi modules, CPU's) by up to 20%. The company i work for has been told by Dell to buy by 1st of October to avaoid teh price increases. SO it could be a fair bit to be hoenstWhat kind of price increases are expected for the 13th gen, vs the 12th?
I looked back at the i9 prices from the 10th, 11th and 12th generations, and it looks like there was a ~10% price increase per gen.
So, I'd guess this would be a likely increase for the 13th gen i9s? Maybe less for the i7s?
There was a bit of info about this back in July:
"some of the price increases, inflationary increases, have turned out to be more permanent, where there’s a certain amount that we do need to pass on to the customers.”
Intel confirms it will raise CPU prices after losing $500 million this quarter
Intel said that it will raise prices on processors and other products and confirmed it is exiting the Optane and drone businesses as it reported an unexpected loss for the second quarter of 2022.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 0
First review of retail Intel Core i9-13900K "Raptor Lake" CPU emerges - VideoCardz.com
Unlimited Core i9-13900K tested Over at Bilibili, one can find a comprehensive review of a retail version of the Core i9-13900K processor, the flagship Raptor Lake desktop CPU that is supposedly coming out next month. The review is a collaboration between ECSM_Official and OneRaichu, and it is...
videocardz.com
Not tuned obviously.
Soldato
It's comparing it with an untuned 12900K so it makes no odds,it shows the difference a great deal of people will see in the real world. Assuming it is at all real or accurate.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 0
Last edited:
Some good testing methodology for the games, in this review:
"In order to ensure a fair and unified test, the demo and frame number statistics that come with the game are used, and each game runs the demo five times, and the average is taken".
A decent performance improvement in CPU intensive games:
"In high-frame games that focus more on CPU, such as Ashes of Singularity, CSGO, etc., the improvement of 13900K compared to 12900K can be 10%+".
This is perhaps the most interesting bit:
"the Ring frequency of RPL is decoupled from Ecore, so there will no longer be the problem that the Ring slows down significantly when the ADL is loaded with small cores".
And this too:
"However, the RPL will still slow down. The 13900K will be downclocked from Auto 5000MHz to 4600MHz, but the improvement is much larger than that of the 12900K, but it means that you can still improve the game performance by turning off Ecore".
Sounds like it's fine to leave the E-cores on now, without impacting performance (when E-cores are under greater load) much.
"In order to ensure a fair and unified test, the demo and frame number statistics that come with the game are used, and each game runs the demo five times, and the average is taken".
A decent performance improvement in CPU intensive games:
"In high-frame games that focus more on CPU, such as Ashes of Singularity, CSGO, etc., the improvement of 13900K compared to 12900K can be 10%+".
This is perhaps the most interesting bit:
"the Ring frequency of RPL is decoupled from Ecore, so there will no longer be the problem that the Ring slows down significantly when the ADL is loaded with small cores".
And this too:
"However, the RPL will still slow down. The 13900K will be downclocked from Auto 5000MHz to 4600MHz, but the improvement is much larger than that of the 12900K, but it means that you can still improve the game performance by turning off Ecore".
Sounds like it's fine to leave the E-cores on now, without impacting performance (when E-cores are under greater load) much.
Last edited:
Soldato
Testing *guaranteed* performance seems like the best way to compare parts for consumers. IMOWhen i say untuned, I mean there's a lot more left in it
"Tuning" is basically just scratching off whatever silicon-lottery ticket a reviewer happened to draw and showing what he or she won.
The only real performance gain they've shown in games was for Ashes of the Singularity, which is basically irrelevant. Though they didn't test 720p, and no RT either, so hard to say what's really possible, but in Far Cry 6 you would definitely expect bigger gains (if any are there to begin with) even if at 1080p, same for WD:L. On the other hand it's clear that Zen 4 3D will absolutely mop the floor with it, for those with a little patience until Spring.
All in all, not much of a gaming CPU given the price + power consumption. Pretty pathetic effort from Intel tbh, but I guess it was expected since it always looked like a tweaked ADL.
All in all, not much of a gaming CPU given the price + power consumption. Pretty pathetic effort from Intel tbh, but I guess it was expected since it always looked like a tweaked ADL.
First 13900k review from China
It's worth noting that this review was done with the bios power settings in the unlocked mode, this doesn't change the boost clock behaviour but allows the CPU to use up to 350w if it wishes.
They did a bunch of tests and one gaming test, most tests were workstation type benchmarks and some cinebench rendering thrown in.
The average result was that the 13900k is 10% faster in single thread than the 12900k and in multithread it's 45% faster.
videocardz.com
It's worth noting that this review was done with the bios power settings in the unlocked mode, this doesn't change the boost clock behaviour but allows the CPU to use up to 350w if it wishes.
They did a bunch of tests and one gaming test, most tests were workstation type benchmarks and some cinebench rendering thrown in.
The average result was that the 13900k is 10% faster in single thread than the 12900k and in multithread it's 45% faster.
First review of retail Intel Core i9-13900K "Raptor Lake" CPU emerges - VideoCardz.com
Unlimited Core i9-13900K tested Over at Bilibili, one can find a comprehensive review of a retail version of the Core i9-13900K processor, the flagship Raptor Lake desktop CPU that is supposedly coming out next month. The review is a collaboration between ECSM_Official and OneRaichu, and it is...
videocardz.com