Question Raptor Lake - Official Thread

[Hulk]

Since we already have the first Raptor Lake leak I'm thinking it should have it's own thread.
What do we know so far?
From Anandtech's Intel Process Roadmap articles from July:

Built on Intel 7 with upgraded FinFET
10-15% PPW (performance-per-watt)
Last non-tiled consumer CPU as Meteor Lake will be tiled

I'm guessing this will be a minor update to ADL with just a few microarchitecture changes to the cores. The larger change will be the new process refinement allowing 8+16 at the top of the stack.

Will it work with current z690 motherboards? If yes then that could be a major selling point for people to move to ADL rather than wait.

 

[Geddagod]

It's sad but doesn't change the outcome of what is happening in that price class. The 4-core i3 is in a very awkward place where purchase recommendations would steer towards either 12400F for gaming or 4600G for a general purpose build. (this applies to OEM build options too)

I assume this tier will receive a bump in computing power next year. From what I understand, Arrow Lake will lack SMT, so I hope they'll bump the i3 tier to 6c/6t or give it some freE-cores.

I would be surprised if ARL has "i3s", or they have "i3s" in any meaningful volume (in desktop). Why not just use RPL for that entire tier? ARL looks to be magnitudes more expensive than RPL. And sure, to some extent, this is applicable for every generation, but I suspect ARL truly is a much bigger bump in cost vs it's desktop predecessor than many other generations were in Intel's past.
edit: though I should add, if they do launch Intel 20A variants of ARL later for desktop too... I see i3's as much more reasonable

 

[jpiniero]

I would be surprised if ARL has "i3s", or they have "i3s" in any meaningful volume (in desktop). Why not just use RPL for that entire tier?

They'd have to port it to the new socket. Which they could very well do.

 

[SteinFG]

Why not just use RPL for that entire tier?

Because almost nobody would buy it? lol. why get 15100 when the same 12100 exists. I guess If intel changes core count from 4+0 to 2+8, then it'll kinda be worth it

 

[igor_kavinski]

I guess If intel changes core count from 4+0 to 2+8, then it'll kinda be worth it

Serious downgrade for budget gamers though. It needs to be 4+4 for it to stay relevant otherwise it's a pathetic cash grab.

 

[Geddagod]

They'd have to port it to the new socket. Which they could very well do.

Eh, thinking about it maybe not. Maybe they just use MTL for the entire tier, like original rumors claimed might happen.
I think it would make little economic sense to use something as expensive as ARL for something as cheap as i3s

Because almost nobody would buy it? lol. why get 15100 when the same 12100 exists. I guess If intel changes core count from 4+0 to 2+8, then it'll kinda be worth it

... what? It could up core counts, or not, who cares. It would be drastically cheaper to produce than ARL would be. If they want a increase base performance level, just up clocks or core counts. It's not too complex of a topic lol

Serious downgrade for budget gamers though. It needs to be 4+4 for it to stay relevant otherwise it's a pathetic cash grab.

Aren't Intel's current i3 offerings pretty bad for budget gamers anyway? As in "ultra budget", not like i5 tier stuff. At least that's what I've heard recently.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Aren't Intel's current i3 offerings pretty bad for budget gamers anyway?

Compared to cheaper Zen 3, yeah. But then you have majority of knucklehead budget gamers who will only buy Intel coz their peers turn their nose up at AMD. For those, at least the 12100 is passable.

 

[Geddagod]

Compared to cheaper Zen 3, yeah. But then you have majority of knucklehead budget gamers who will only buy Intel coz their peers turn their nose up at AMD. For those, at least the 12100 is passable.

I think it's mostly OEMs tbh

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Aussie Steve sums it up well IMO. Intel needs to extend platform life. AM4 still dominating retail so many years later is proof that it is a successful strategy. It also looks like initial 12th gen buyers were the real winners here. They have enjoyed years of gaming already. Not much in the way of FOMO with the newer gens either.

 

[jpiniero]

Aussie Steve sums it up well IMO. Intel needs to extend platform life.

Intel's not going to do that as long as OEMs don't care or even like the 2 year cycle.

 

[DrMrLordX]

@DAPUNISHER

Wow that's . . . exactly what I wanted to see. I'm surprised anyone actually had the stones to run that comparison. And it's pretty much as I expected.

edit: also to be fair, it's hard to get a 12900k on Z690 running DDR5-7200. Additionally, I think based on the power numbers shown there, a 13900ks can be made to run @ 5.3-5.4 GHz more-reliably than a 12900k which might struggle to get past ~5 Ghz due to the listed power differential. So no I don't think a launch 12900k system with e-cores disabled is always going to put up such a great showing. It took HWUB slapping that on a modern Z790 board and fixing clocks to a speed friendly to the 12900k to carry out that comparison. Still it's food for thought.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Intel's not going to do that as long as OEMs don't care or even like the 2 year cycle.

I considered that. Perhaps they are willing to concede leadership in the retail market given its current state, and uncertain future. Certainly not the worst time to cut bait.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

@DAPUNISHER

Wow that's . . . exactly what I wanted to see. I'm surprised anyone actually had the stones to run that comparison. And it's pretty much as I expected.

edit: also to be fair, it's hard to get a 12900k on Z690 running DDR5-7200. Additionally, I think based on the power numbers shown there, a 13900ks can be made to run @ 5.3-5.4 GHz more-reliably than a 12900k which might struggle to get past ~5 Ghz due to the listed power differential. So no I don't think a launch 12900k system with e-cores disabled is always going to put up such a great showing. It took HWUB slapping that on a modern Z790 board and fixing clocks to a speed friendly to the 12900k to carry out that comparison. Still it's food for thought.

It is. His scenario of had 10th gen been upgradable to 13/14th gen is the meat and potatoes. 12th gen was great for gamers, and there is little to inspire any upgrade from there.

He calls out enthusiasts simping for vendors too. They really are shooting themselves in the foot by doing it. Instead, hold these companies feet to the fire until they give you what you want. He provides the example of AMD trying to prematurely end support on AM4 and the uproar over it making them capitulate. Intel could make a platform last for 3 or 4 real generations. Steve is suggesting that either they do it, or they should get used to being firmly in second place in the retail market. I don't disagree with that analysis. AM4 has set the bar you need to clear now.

AM5 is picking up sales because it isn't a dead platform. All Intel has left for now is to cut pricing. How much room is left there? Will sales justify the lower margins? It's a unhappy situation to be in.

 

[jpiniero]

Board makers probally don't like the long lifecycle either... given that there's an expectation that they update support for new processors long after the board is no longer produced.

 

[Ranulf]

It is. His scenario of had 10th gen been upgradable to 13/14th gen is the meat and potatoes. 12th gen was great for gamers, and there is little to inspire any upgrade from there.

He calls out enthusiasts simping for vendors too. They really are shooting themselves in the foot by doing it. Instead, hold these companies feet to the fire until they give you what you want. He provides the example of AMD trying to prematurely end support on AM4 and the uproar over it making them capitulate. Intel could make a platform last for 3 or 4 real generations. Steve is suggesting that either they do it, or they should get used to being firmly in second place in the retail market. I don't disagree with that analysis. AM4 has set the bar you need to clear now.

AM5 is picking up sales because it isn't a dead platform. All Intel has left for now is to cut pricing. How much room is left there? Will sales justify the lower margins? It's a unhappy situation to be in.

Shhh! I like getting a i7 12700k for $260.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Intel could make a platform last for 3 or 4 real generations.

If they have a supply volume issue with Arrow Lake, they might do just that. A regular backported monolithic CPU design with Arrow Lake cores and UHD 770 iGPU for LGA1700 socket supporting only DDR5 mobos and their premium Core Ultra desktop series on the nextgen socket with upgraded Alchemist iGPU. I have a strong feeling that Intel 7 is gonna have a long life just like their 14nm node coz the yields are just too good to put it down.

 

[carrotmania]

That is why platform CPU upgradability is so laughable of a concept--especially for gaming.

Maybe for gaming, and maybe "now", but I bought a 1700X on pretty much day 1, with the expectation of being able to upgrade in future. I got a 5700X for £170 just before xmas last year, and applications love it. 75-100% more perf in stuff like Photoshop and Premiere, etc. Took 10 mins to swap over CPUs. Fantastic.

Built the OH a "cheap" brand new machine a few months ago. Got a 7600X for £180. Is as fast as my 5700X in MT, and way faster in ST. And I know next year, or in 3 years, I'll be able to throw in a CPU for about the same price which has 40-50% more ST and maybe a higher core chip, so up to 200% more MT.

REAL platform upgradability is a MASSIVE plus IMO. Intel's scramble for relevance... is not.

 

[Hulk]

@DAPUNISHER

Wow that's . . . exactly what I wanted to see. I'm surprised anyone actually had the stones to run that comparison. And it's pretty much as I expected.

edit: also to be fair, it's hard to get a 12900k on Z690 running DDR5-7200. Additionally, I think based on the power numbers shown there, a 13900ks can be made to run @ 5.3-5.4 GHz more-reliably than a 12900k which might struggle to get past ~5 Ghz due to the listed power differential. So no I don't think a launch 12900k system with e-cores disabled is always going to put up such a great showing. It took HWUB slapping that on a modern Z790 board and fixing clocks to a speed friendly to the 12900k to carry out that comparison. Still it's food for thought.

Strangely a lot of people over at Overclockers.net are claiming the 12900K on average may have a stronger IMC than the 14900K.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Strangely a lot of people over at Overclockers.net are claiming the 12900K on average may have a stronger IMC than the 14900K.

For DDR4, yes. DDR5, I don't think so. But I would be interested to see 12900K running at 8000 MT/s.

 

[Hulk]

Somewhere in the first 50 pages of this thread I did see people running them at that speed!

Overclocking "Raptor Lake refresh" -...

Just in case :p

www.overclock.net

 

[CU]

Shhh! I like getting a i7 12700k for $260.

The 12700K for $300 at Microcenter, which after a few dozen chats with BestBuy I was able to price match, was truly an awesome deal looking back. This was back in Dec. 2021. Was really hoping the 13th or 14th gen would bring something I could upgrade to, but it doesn't really look like it. Still, sometimes wish I would have waited on AM5 to get an X3D down the road. But, by 2021 my 2500K was getting tired.

 

[H433x0n]

The 12700K for $300 at Microcenter, which after a few dozen chats with BestBuy I was able to price match, was truly an awesome deal looking back. This was back in Dec. 2021. Was really hoping the 13th or 14th gen would bring something I could upgrade to, but it doesn't really look like it. Still, sometimes wish I would have waited on AM5 to get an X3D down the road. But, by 2021 my 2500K was getting tired.

That’s nonsense, a 13700K is 15% faster in gaming than a 12700K, a 14700K would be close to 20% faster in gaming.

The last page of this thread is retconning that there’s no difference between ADL & RPL/RPL-R but that’s just flat out wrong.

Edit: TIL a 10%+ ST & 30% MT perf increase is nothing. There’s a bigger MT performance uplift going from 12700K -> 13700K than there is going from 5800X -> 7700X.

Honestly feel like I’m being gaslit.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

That’s nonsense, a 13700K is 15% faster in gaming than a 12700K, a 14700K would be close to 20% faster in gaming.

The last page of this thread is retconning that there’s no difference between ADL & RPL/RPL-R but that’s just flat out wrong.

That's not my position. My position is similar to Steve's. That the difference isn't enough to warrant an upgrade for most 12th gen K owners. Especially given they will have dialed in their system's performance many months back. Few will spend over $300 to get such a small increase after 2 gens. Sales seem to reflect that.

Like Steve said, enthusiasts should not simp for any of these companies. Intel abandoning the platform, and offering such pedestrian gains over its lifespan, while failing to address power usage, should be unacceptable to all of us. They can and should do better. At least where lifespan and hence, performance increases are concerned. The power problem is understandably more difficult to solve.

 

[H433x0n]

That's not my position. My position is similar to Steve's. That the difference isn't enough to warrant an upgrade for most 12th gen K owners. Especially given they will have dialed in their system's performance many months back. Few will spend over $300 to get such a small increase after 2 gens. Sales seem to reflect that.

Like Steve said, enthusiasts should not simp for any of these companies. Intel abandoning the platform, and offering such pedestrian gains over its lifespan, while failing to address power usage, should be unacceptable to all of us. They can and should do better. At least where lifespan and hence, performance increases are concerned. The power problem is understandably more difficult to solve.

The jump from 12900K -> 13900K was bigger than going from 3950X -> 5950X in MT tasks. Objectively speaking - I could make a really good case that the upgrade from 12600K -> 13600K is a much better improvement than AM4’s equivalent of going from a 3600X -> 5600X.

Feels weird we’re all pretending that’s not the case.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

The jump from 12900K -> 13900K was bigger than going from 3950X -> 5950X in MT tasks. To spend $300 to get 10% ST & 30% MT isn’t a bad deal.

Feels weird we’re all pretending that’s not the case.

We are discussing the platforms, not merely one particular CPU to another.

Context is key. Bringing up AM4 was the absolute worst argument you could make. Now you have to compare the first flagship, the 1800X, to the 5950X for productivity and MT. Have a look at the MT performance increases between them and get back to us. The best part is you can run them both on the same OG X370 board. It is like you tied the noose, put it around your neck, and kicked the chair out. Don't even look at the best OG Zen gaming CPU against the 5800X3D, it's ugly. THAT is what this last page was about. The performance increases on LGA 1700 are pedestrian by comparison.

I don't know why you brought the 7700X into it. That's AM5, and we don't have another generation on the platform to compare it to yet. If we are fortunate enough to live to see the end of AM5, we can judge it then. AM4 is dead, LGA 1700 is dead, we can judge those.

 

[H433x0n]

We are discussing the platforms, not merely one particular CPU to another.

Context is key. Bringing up AM4 was the absolute worst argument you could make. Now you have to compare the first flagship, the 1800X, to the 5950X for productivity and MT. Have a look at the MT performance increases between them and get back to us. The best part is you can run them both on the same OG X370 board. It is like you tied the noose, put it around your neck, and kicked the chair out. Don't even look at the best OG Zen gaming CPU against the 5800X3D, it's ugly. THAT is what this last page was about. The performance increases on LGA 1700 are pedestrian by comparison.

I don't know why you brought the 7700X into it. That's AM5, and we don't have another generation on the platform to compare it to yet. If we are fortunate enough to live to see the end of AM5, we can judge it then. AM4 is dead, LGA 1700 is dead, we can judge those.

There is no trap in this argument. You’re projecting a viewpoint onto me that I don’t have.

I was comparing gen on gen in same class, but sure, it’d feel like hitting the lotto if you bought original Zen and got to drop in a 5800X3D - no arguments there. I’m not against keeping the same socket alive - I view it as objectively good. My original reason for commenting wasn’t because I’m a motherboard buying enthusiast. Why would I argue against keeping a socket around longer? My personal view is that it should only need to be updated when there’s a new generation of memory introduced.

You can have both thoughts at the same time:

1) Intel retires sockets prematurely.
2) ADL->RPL is an solid upgrade.