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.

 

[igor_kavinski]

2) ADL->RPL is an solid upgrade.

It's more like,

ADL ---> RPL: Weeeeee!!!! Nice 0.1% and 1% minimum fps increase!

RPL ---> RPL-R: It's a tiny few percent. Oh, F it! Why the heck not???

 

[DrMrLordX]

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

Doesn't chipset and firmware play a role as well?

But I would be interested to see 12900K running at 8000 MT/s.

Is that possible? On Z690 even?

 

[igor_kavinski]

Is that possible? On Z690 even?

In rare cases I think:

Intel Core i9-12900K Spotted Running on Z690 AORUS Tachyon Motherboard & DDR5-8000 Memory

Intel's flagship Core i9-12900K Alder Lake CPU has been spotted running on the Z690 AORUS Tachyon motherboard with DDR5-8000 memory.

wccftech.com

 

[Heartbreaker]

Interesting. New per game tuning tool from intel: APO (only for 14700K and 14900K). This isn't simply shutting of e-cores (that actually drops performance).

Intel APO game optimizing technology delivers up to 31% higher FPS with Core i9-14900K - VideoCardz.com

Rainbow Six Siege up to 31% faster with Intel APO Redditor shows massive gains in FPS with Intel APO enabled. Intel Application Optimization (APO) is a new feature exclusively compatible with the 14th Gen Core CPU series. It draws upon insights gained from Thread Director, an Intel technology...

videocardz.com

Video of someone testing:

 

[igor_kavinski]

This isn't simply shutting of e-cores (that actually drops performance).

My guess is that Intel engineers determine which threads of an application/game are frequency/IPC sensitive and then prevent them from getting moved to the E-cores, yielding higher performance. But this can be easily checked by turning off the E-cores. If the P-cores only performance doesn't match that with APO on, then there's some special voodoo going on under the hood.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Ghostrunner 2 is now free with Intel's 14th Gen Core CPU Bundle on Newegg - VideoCardz.com

Intel Raptor Lake Refresh & Ghostrunner 2 bundle Intel is giving away a free copy of Ghost runner 2 with Intel 14th Gen Core series, for now only through Newegg. Since the introduction of the 14th Gen Core series, Intel has rolled out a new promotion. However, this promotion is exclusively...

videocardz.com

Wow. Sales must be really bad for Intel to run a game bundle promotion for their newly launched CPUs(!!!) mere days after launch!

 

[igor_kavinski]

Intel Core i9-14900K delidding lowers CPU temperature by 12°C - VideoCardz.com

Der8auer delids Core i9-14900K CPU Delidded Intel LGA1700 CPUs, Source: Der8auer Der8auer’s coverage of the Intel 14th Gen Core paints a clear picture that the series is a rather unnecessary refresh of the existing Raptor Lake chips, with only minor changes such as higher clocks for 4 out of 6...

videocardz.com

So much for the theory that 14900K has better TIM.

Absolute infuriating madness that Intel/AMD want people to risk destroying their CPUs to get them to work the way they should.

 

[leoneazzurro]

My guess is that Intel engineers determine which threads of an application/game are frequency/IPC sensitive and then prevent them from getting moved to the E-cores, yielding higher performance. But this can be easily checked by turning off the E-cores. If the P-cores only performance doesn't match that with APO on, then there's some special voodoo going on under the hood.

As an owner of a 13900HX processor, what should I think about this? Intel is currently preventing to use this technology on the very same chip. If that's not <insert very bad words here> on their own customers I don't know what it is. Let's hope they will change idea.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Let's hope they will change idea.

Yeah, in six months or so, if their sales targets for 14th gen are met, I think they will open it up for their previous customers.

 

[CU]

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.

I think you may be the first person I have seen saying it is worth upgrading to a 14700K. Sure MT gets a big boost due to more e-cores. I should have said when used for lower threaded jobs. Games for instance get 86% of the performance at 720p with a RTX 4090 and that changes to 96% at 4K. Those numbers are from techpowerup going from 12700K to 14700K. So it really depends on what you do. But, for the average person even the average person on a tech forum, I don't see how it is worth it. Certainly not for me. The money could be used for better GPU or monitor.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Intel Core CPU Clock-for-Clock Benchmark Test

A clock-for-clock (IPC) test of Intel LGA 1700 processors: we're comparing the 12th-gen, 13th-gen, and "new" 14th-gen CPU models to offer insight into their architectural improvements, if any.

www.techspot.com

Therefore, it's our opinion that Intel needs to support their next platform for at least 4 generations, and by generations we mean real generations, no straight refreshes. Ideally, they also need to make a good step forward from Raptor Lake to justify the socket change and any associated compatibility issues.

Hope the bad 14th gen sales motivate Intel to release something better on LGA1700. If they don't, they will bleed a lot of marketshare till the availability of Arrow Lake. And that's assuming that ARL brings significant performance benefits to let them claw back the lost mindshare.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Hope the bad 14th gen sales motivate Intel to release something better on LGA1700. If they don't, they will bleed a lot of marketshare till the availability of Arrow Lake. And that's assuming that ARL brings significant performance benefits to let them claw back the lost mindshare.

The 14900k seems to be selling pretty well, for a halo product. Wasn't it #5 on the Amazon Top10 list shortly after launch? The margins on that chip are probably not that good - it's just a 13900ks with ~$200 knocked off the MSRP. But, if we're just talking volume, hey not bad.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Nah. #16 and #13 on the egg and mazon right now.

 

[Hulk]

Intel Core CPU Clock-for-Clock Benchmark Test

A clock-for-clock (IPC) test of Intel LGA 1700 processors: we're comparing the 12th-gen, 13th-gen, and "new" 14th-gen CPU models to offer insight into their architectural improvements, if any.

www.techspot.com

Hope the bad 14th gen sales motivate Intel to release something better on LGA1700. If they don't, they will bleed a lot of marketshare till the availability of Arrow Lake. And that's assuming that ARL brings significant performance benefits to let them claw back the lost mindshare.

Hate to break it to Techspot but Intel has never supported TWO generations on the same socket that wasn't a refresh let alone FOUR.

Won't happen. When Intel makes significant architectural changes they change the socket every time. Sandy to Ivy same socket, Haswell to Broadwell same socket, Skylake to Kaby to Kaby Refresh to Coffee to Coffee Refresh to Comet same socket. Okay I guess Rocket was a new architecture so they did it once.

AMD is great how they hold the same socket so long. I have the feeling that Intel "feeds" the motherboard vendors by changing sockets so often. That coupled with lazy engineering that doesn't much care about their patrons (buyers) as if they are still the only game in town.

 

[H433x0n]

View attachment 87857
View attachment 87858
Nah. #16 and #13 on the egg and mazon right now.

Mind blowing that 13900K is outselling 14900K on both Newegg and Amazon. It’s only $35 extra for what is essentially a 13900KS.

The day 1 reviews really killed that SKU.

 

[Hulk]

Mind blowing that 13900K is outselling 14900K on both Newegg and Amazon. It’s only $35 extra for what is essentially a 13900KS.

The day 1 reviews really killed that SKU.

Based on the reviews I've read as well as many forum threads I can't decide if the 14900K or 13900KS is the better CPU? Only $10 difference at MC so price is essentially a wash.

I think the silicon lottery makes them pretty much the same as you can get a "good" or "bad" sample of either. Crappy samples have VID's at 6GHz as high as 1.5V while golden rare as hen's teeth samples can be in the low 1.3V range. Most samples I've seen in forums seem to be about 1.42 to about 1.48 VID at 6GHz. But as we know the VID doesn't tell the whole story as some with high VID at 6GHz will run at low volts at 5.6 to 5.8 range.

My opinion is that the power gets so high on these parts once you get over 5.5GHz it's just not worth it so at the end of the day I might save a few bucks and move from my 13600K to a 14700K. I'm going to sit back a bit and let prices settle.

 

[H433x0n]

Based on the reviews I've read as well as many forum threads I can't decide if the 14900K or 13900KS is the better CPU? Only $10 difference at MC so price is essentially a wash.

I think the silicon lottery makes them pretty much the same as you can get a "good" or "bad" sample of either. Crappy samples have VID's at 6GHz as high as 1.5V while golden rare as hen's teeth samples can be in the low 1.3V range. Most samples I've seen in forums seem to be about 1.42 to about 1.48 VID at 6GHz. But as we know the VID doesn't tell the whole story as some with high VID at 6GHz will run at low volts at 5.6 to 5.8 range.

My opinion is that the power gets so high on these parts once you get over 5.5GHz it's just not worth it so at the end of the day I might save a few bucks and move from my 13600K to a 14700K. I'm going to sit back a bit and let prices settle.

It's pretty clearly a better CPU (albeit not by much) than a 13900K and yet people won't even bother spending $35 for the much better silicon. The reviews were absolutely toxic and blown out of proportion if people won't even spend an additional $35 for the better CPU.

As far as 13900KS vs 14900K - From Asus' SP rating they have an average 14900K with a lower VID than the average 13900KS. Anecdotally it matches what I've seen on overclock.net as well. There's an instance where a 13900KS and a 14900K have same exact VID but the 13900KS has a SP 110, whereas the 14900K has an SP 100 value. They also run 8-10*C cooler than a 13900KS at same power consumption. Probably going to get flamed and mocked for this on this forum but to me it's a no brainer to go with 14900K over the 13900KS since it's clearly marginally better.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Nah. #16 and #13 on the egg and mazon right now.

That didn't take long. Oof.

 

[blckgrffn]

It's pretty clearly a better CPU (albeit not by much) than a 13900K and yet people won't even bother spending $35 for the much better silicon. The reviews were absolutely toxic and blown out of proportion if people won't even spend an additional $35 for the better CPU.

As far as 13900KS vs 14900K - From Asus' SP rating they have an average 14900K with a lower VID than the average 13900KS. Anecdotally it matches what I've seen on overclock.net as well. There's an instance where a 13900KS and a 14900K have same exact VID but the 13900KS has a SP 110, whereas the 14900K has an SP 100 value. They also run 8-10*C cooler than a 13900KS at same power consumption. Probably going to get flamed and mocked for this on this forum but to me it's a no brainer to go with 14900K over the 13900KS since it's clearly marginally better.

I would say that just as a buyer of the "highest end" Intel chip, most buyers are just going to buy the "latest" generation and the highest number, almost regardless of price.

So beyond your points about marginal improvements, I think you are correct. Does Intel really intend to keep making new 13900KS chips?

 

[igor_kavinski]

What's with the requirement of KS always needing iGPU? Is there something else seriously wrong with high quality KF chips which is why Intel won't sell them as KS?

 

[gdansk]

If the 13900KS fails on the iGPU then it becomes a 13900KF. Not common enough to need another wastebasket SKU.

 

[Hulk]

It's pretty clearly a better CPU (albeit not by much) than a 13900K and yet people won't even bother spending $35 for the much better silicon. The reviews were absolutely toxic and blown out of proportion if people won't even spend an additional $35 for the better CPU.

As far as 13900KS vs 14900K - From Asus' SP rating they have an average 14900K with a lower VID than the average 13900KS. Anecdotally it matches what I've seen on overclock.net as well. There's an instance where a 13900KS and a 14900K have same exact VID but the 13900KS has a SP 110, whereas the 14900K has an SP 100 value. They also run 8-10*C cooler than a 13900KS at same power consumption. Probably going to get flamed and mocked for this on this forum but to me it's a no brainer to go with 14900K over the 13900KS since it's clearly marginally better.

You are absolutely correct regarding the SP numbers. They aren't comparable between the 14900K and 13900KS.
Has the running cooler thing been verified or it is really just a rumor. I know Der8aur delidded and noticed the same TIM on the 14th gen chips? He didn't see a temp drop until he replaced the Intel TIM if I remember correctly.

I realize it's kind of a luxury and not necessary but I'm probably going to get a 14900K just to play around with it.

One last hurrah for my DDR4 mobo that has housed a 12700K, 13900K, and 13600K before I move on to DDR5 eventually.

 

[igor_kavinski]

I realize it's kind of a luxury and not necessary but I'm probably going to get a 14900K just to play around with it.

The KF is better silicon: https://www.techradar.com/computing...reaking-overclock-and-the-best-is-yet-to-come

 

[Spicedaddy]

If I was buying today, I'd go 14900K over 13th gen.

I have a decent VID 13900K that underclocks well so going to skip 14th gen and wait for Arrow Lake. I just don't want to risk getting a crappy bin for a few % gains.

 

[H433x0n]

You are absolutely correct regarding the SP numbers. They aren't comparable between the 14900K and 13900KS.
Has the running cooler thing been verified or it is really just a rumor. I know Der8aur delidded and noticed the same TIM on the 14th gen chips? He didn't see a temp drop until he replaced the Intel TIM if I remember correctly.

I realize it's kind of a luxury and not necessary but I'm probably going to get a 14900K just to play around with it.

One last hurrah for my DDR4 mobo that has housed a 12700K, 13900K, and 13600K before I move on to DDR5 eventually.

Just to give you some first hand experience - I've got a 14900K and this ended up being my VID. I've got more money than sense and this is my hobby so I don't really care about the $600 for a minimal upgrade.



When comparing against my old 13900K (SP 96) this is what I've noticed.

Memory Stability at default IMC Voltage (64Gb Hynix A-Die dual rank):

13900K - Barely stable at DDR5-6600. The default IMC voltage was 1.389V. I mostly ran it at DDR5-6400 just for peace of mind and 100% stability.
14900K - Stable at DDR5-6800. The default IMC voltage is 1.368V. The same tests that would error within minutes at this speed now can run for hours at a time. It's been a week of multiple reboots / retrainings, stress tests and gaming with zero errors.

Clocks:

13900K - 1.449V VID for 5.8ghz (stable undervolt was -0.040/-0.020 for P & E cores respectively)
14900K - 1.433V VID for 6.0ghz (stable undervolt is -0.050/-0.0330 for P & E cores respectively... I could push it further but it's just not worth it since I've never seen a temperature exceed 83* C at 253W)

With both CPUs capped at 253W, I get ~140-180mhz more frequency at same power consumption and 10-12*C lower temps. I would advise most people with 14900K to just cap E-cores at 4.3ghz (it's what I did) since it lowers power consumption and enables higher boost on P-cores with the same PL2.