Tuesday, September 27th 2022

Intel 13th Gen Core "Raptor Lake" Desktop Processors Launched: +15% ST, +41% MT Uplift

Intel today launched its 13th Gen Core "Raptor Lake" desktop processors, and companion 700-series motherboard chipset. These processors are built in the same LGA1700 package as the previous generation "Alder Lake," and are backwards-compatible with 600-series chipset motherboards through a BIOS update. Likewise, 700-series chipset motherboards support older "Alder Lake" processors. With the new 13th Gen Core, Intel is broadly promising an up to 15% uplift in single-threaded performance, which has a bigger bearing on gaming performance; and an up to 41% multi-threaded performance uplift; over the previous-generation, when comparing the top Core i9-13900K with its predecessor, the i9-12900K. Intel also claims to have outclassed the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X in multi-threaded performance, and the Ryzen 7 5800X3D in gaming performance.

Intel's performance claims are backed by some impressive hardware changes despite the company sticking with the same Intel 7 (10 nm Enhanced SuperFin) foundry node as "Alder Lake." To begin with, the single-thread performance uplift comes from the new "Raptor Cove" performance-core, which promises an IPC uplift over the previous-generation "Golden Cove," comes with more dedicated L2 cache of 2 MB per core (compared to 1.25 MB per core in the previous-generation); and significantly higher clock-speeds, going all the way up to 5.80 GHz. "Raptor Lake" has up to 8 P-cores, but the company has put in a lot of work in improving the contribution of E-cores to the processor's overall multi-threaded performance uplift. This is achieved by doubling the E-core count to 16. These are the same "Gracemont" E-cores as previous-generation, but Intel has doubled the L2 cache that's shared in a 4-core Gracemont cluster, from 2 MB per cluster to 4 MB. There are upgrades to even the hardware prefetchers of these cores.
Intel didn't go into the nuts and bolts of what makes up the "Raptor Cove" P-core, but broadly explained that it comes with improved speed paths that enable an up to 600 MHz P-core boost frequency uplift at comparable power to the previous-gen "Golden Cove" while staying on the same process. The Intel 7 node also seems to have got some technological improvements, with the company referring to it as the "3rd generation" of this node (optical 10 nm). This mainly concerns better electrical characteristics from improved channel mobility. Cushioning the P-core with a larger 2 MB dedicated L2 cache also appears to be contributing to the iso-power uplift, as the core spends fewer cycles fetching data from the L3 cache. We will learn more about "Raptor Cove" in the coming days, and will hopefully have a more detailed look at the new core in our reviews of these processors.
The E-core microarchitecture is the very same "Gracemont," but benefits from the node improvements to dial up E-core boost frequencies all the way up to 4.30 GHz. The cores also benefit from the larger 4 MB L2 cache that's shared among four E-cores in a "Gracemont" cluster. "Raptor Lake" has four such clusters, amounting to 16 on the silicon. The E-core clusters have access to the chip's L3 cache, just like the P-cores. As we mentioned earlier, the improved cache, and updated prefetcher algorithm should have an cumulative impact on E-core performance; and when you account for 16 of these, besides the improved 8 P-cores, you begin to see where Intel's 41% generational multi-threaded performance uplift claim is coming from.
Intel also made updates to the processor's uncore components. The L3 cache that's shared among the processor's P-cores and E-core clusters, is now enlarged to 36 MB, from 30 MB in the previous generation. This cache is a continuously addressable block due to the Ringbus interconnect making ring-stops at various physical segments of the cache. Intel has improved the clock-speed of this fabric, which now boosts up to 5.00 GHz, or 900 MHz higher than the previous-gen.

The DDR5+DDR4 memory controllers also receive an update. The processor now natively supports up to DDR5-5600 JEDEC-standard memory speeds, when using 1 DIMM per 80-bit channel (which has two 40-bit sub-channels); or up to DDR5-4400 when using 2 DIMMs per channel (i.e. populating all four memory slots on your motherboard).

Intel also updated the Thread Director middleware that gives the software some degree of awareness of the Hybrid architecture, and attempts to ensure that the right kind of workload is allocated to the right kind of CPU core. Intel has given TD greater thread class awareness through machine-learning techniques (the processor learns over time what the nature of the workload could be). The processor also takes advantage of new scheduling features of Windows 11 22H2 Update, which introduce PID QoS for system background tasks and user-initiated background tasks.
Intel claims that "Raptor Lake" processors will be memory overclocking monsters, capable of speeds as high as DDR5-10000, when pushed to the limit with enthusiast-grade memory. For the P-cores, the company says that 8.00 GHz overclocks are now within reach for enthusiasts. The updated Intel Extreme Tuner Utility (XTU), allows you to set multipliers on a per-core basis, and tune your memory frequency on-the-fly (no reboots involved).
Intel is launching the 13th Gen Core "Raptor Lake" desktop processor family with essentially three processor models—Core i9-13900K, Core i7-13700K, and Core i5-13600K; and their "KF" sub-variants that have disabled iGPUs, and are about $10-20 cheaper, depending on the model.

The Core i9-13900K is the flagship part, with 8 P-cores, and 16 E-cores (8P+16E), with the full 36 MB L3 cache available on the silicon. The P-cores have a base-frequency of 3.00 GHz, and boost up to 5.80 GHz; whereas the E-cores run at 2.20 GHz base, boosting up to 4.30 GHz. The processor base power is rated at 125 W, and the maximum turbo power at 253 W (up from 241 W for the i9-12900K). The i9-13900K comes with an MSRP of USD $589, while the i9-13900KF (which lacks the iGPU), is priced at $564.

The Core i7-13700K is an interesting SKU, as it has the same 8P+8E core-configuration as the previous-gen i9-12900K, but with all the new updates detailed above. Intel carved this SKU out by disabling two of the four E-core clusters on the "Raptor Lake" silicon, and reducing the L3 cache to 30 MB. The P-cores have a base frequency of 3.40 GHz, with a maximum boost frequency of 5.40 GHz; while the E-cores run at 2.50 GHz base, and 4.20 GHz maximum boost. These chips have the same 125 W PBP and 253 W MTP as the i9-13900K. The i7-13700K is priced at $409, and the i7-13700KF at $389.

The Core i5-13600K is an equally interesting processor with which the company hopes to hold on to the mid-range. It now comes with a 6P+8E core-configuration, compared to 6P+4E of the i5-12600K. And of course, you get all the generational improvements detailed above. This SKU is carved out by disabling two P-cores, and two E-core clusters; while also cutting down the L3 cache to 24 MB (which is still higher than the 20 MB of the i5-12600K). The P-cores run at 3.50 GHz base with 5.10 GHz boost; while the E-cores do 2.60 GHz base, with 3.90 GHz boost. While the PBP value is the same 125 W as the higher SKUs, the MTP is reduced to 181 W. Intel is pricing the Core i5-13600K at $319, and the i5-13600KF at $294.
Intel is claiming gaming performance uplifts of up to 18% when comparing the i9-13900K with the previous-gen i9-12900K, across a wide selection of games; while the comparison with the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X "Zen 3" sees gaming performance gains range between 6% to 58%. The gap only widens when you consider the 99th percentile low-water-mark analysis. Although mainly compared with the 5950X, Intel also threw in gaming performance values it tested on the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, which is shown matching the i9-13900K in games where it's beating the i9-12900K, or within 10% of it in games where the i9-13900K gets ahead. This is interesting, as Intel thinks the performance of "Zen 4" Ryzen 7000-series processors should roughly match that of the 5800X3D. In our performance reviews published on September 26, the 5800X3D is 4.5-5% behind the Ryzen 7 7700X, which means "Zen 4" should end up within 5% of the i9-13900K in gaming performance, should these numbers for the 5800X3D from Intel hold up.
The platform I/O of these processors is identical to that of "Alder Lake." You get a 2-channel (4 sub-channel) DDR5 + 2-channel DDR4 memory interface. The processor puts out 28 PCI-Express lanes; 16 of these are Gen 5, and intended for the main x16 PEG slot; while the remaining are Gen 4. The main x4 NVMe interface of the processor is Gen 4, while the DMI chipset bus takes up the remaining 8 lanes (DMI 4.0 x8). You should still find motherboards with Gen 5 M.2 NVMe slots, but these would be eating into the x16 PEG bandwidth. Given that NVIDIA's latest GeForce Ada continues to be PCIe Gen 4, cutting into the bandwidth of the PEG slot to run Gen 5 M.2 SSDs could affect graphics performance (but we'll test this theory in upcoming PCIe-scaling articles with the RTX 4090).

The complete slide-deck for the processor launch event follows.
Add your own comment

224 Comments on Intel 13th Gen Core "Raptor Lake" Desktop Processors Launched: +15% ST, +41% MT Uplift

#201
fevgatos
RandallFlaggThat is kind of my thought too, but then the DDR5 Z690s keep selling out and what's left is low stock levels at both Best Buy and Microcenter.

I don't want to buy one more than two weeks out from when Raptor launches, because local return policy is like 14-15 days. So, maybe next week.

I wonder how many people are thinking the same thing though. Boatloads of DDR4 versions are there, but I don't want that.
If you are going for el cheapo, z690 pro A is the way to go imo.

Considering you have a 10900k though, id skip this gen as well and go for meteorlake. Reason being, you need an expensive motherboard to run current high end DDR5 kits, and even these high end ddr5 kits arent anywhere near close to being end game. Next year 8k mhz ddr5 will be commonplace and I assume cheap mobos will be able to run them.
Posted on Reply
#202
RandallFlagg
fevgatosIf you are going for el cheapo, z690 pro A is the way to go imo.

Considering you have a 10900k though, id skip this gen as well and go for meteorlake. Reason being, you need an expensive motherboard to run current high end DDR5 kits, and even these high end ddr5 kits arent anywhere near close to being end game. Next year 8k mhz ddr5 will be commonplace and I assume cheap mobos will be able to run them.
Naaah not going to skip. I'm a bit iffy on meteor lake.

That chip disaggregation thing with tiled GPU and tiled IO separated from the tiled Compute core I suspect will have some penalties, first gen and all. It may also be a lot more expensive, seems TSMC wants quite the pretty penny for chips made on its N4 nodes (N4 A16 2.4x more expensive than N5 A15).

All this tile stuff is really a way to counter the increasing cost of new nodes by improving yield. They're also going to be enabled to put a decent GPU on the chip via that tGPU, combined with rapidly increasing DDR5 speeds. In a single chip you're now paying for a CPU, fairly competent GPU, and most of your chipset. That's likely to come at quite a price tag.

Raptor Lake I think will be the last and best in a long line of 45 years of monolithic consumer CPUs. I bet this is going to be a 7 year keeper, especially after everyone figures out the new crap will cost twice as much.
Posted on Reply
#203
mahirzukic2
ratirtOh boy. I wish I were in your shoes :D It is still a good time to purchase some new PC stuff. I know, expensive but in the processor department it is not so bad and now you have some good stuff to choose from both camps.
I am in the same situation. I am thinking of probably waiting for the 7950x3D to come out and buy it. Until then the prices of DDR5 will have come down even more and cheaper B650 boards will be here with ironed out AGESA issues or some other issues. This would be my work horse for a long time.
Posted on Reply
#204
RandallFlagg
fevgatosIf you are going for el cheapo, z690 pro A is the way to go imo.

Considering you have a 10900k though, id skip this gen as well and go for meteorlake. Reason being, you need an expensive motherboard to run current high end DDR5 kits, and even these high end ddr5 kits arent anywhere near close to being end game. Next year 8k mhz ddr5 will be commonplace and I assume cheap mobos will be able to run them.
I went ahead and ordered an open box at MC, Asus Z690 TUF D5 for $183. Added the 2 year MC replacement plan for $19 so no hassle if there is an issue, with that it was right at $200 + sales tax, still $60 less than unopened. The TUF is basically the same as a Prime Z690-A, less 2 power stages (14 vs 16), and plus wifi. Even uses the same BIOS patches.

Now, I only need a CPU. 11 more days to launch, and I have that Thu/Fri off from work :)
mahirzukic2I am in the same situation. I am thinking of probably waiting for the 7950x3D to come out and buy it. Until then the prices of DDR5 will have come down even more and cheaper B650 boards will be here with ironed out AGESA issues or some other issues. This would be my work horse for a long time.
Might be careful about waiting too long in this environment. Inflation isn't licked by a long shot.

Posted on Reply
#205
mahirzukic2
RandallFlaggI went ahead and ordered an open box at MC, Asus Z690 TUF D5 for $183. Added the 2 year MC replacement plan for $19 so no hassle if there is an issue, with that it was right at $200 + sales tax, still $60 less than unopened. The TUF is basically the same as a Prime Z690-A, less 2 power stages (14 vs 16), and plus wifi. Even uses the same BIOS patches.

Now, I only need a CPU. 11 more days to launch, and I have that Thu/Fri off from work :)



Might be careful about waiting too long in this environment. Inflation isn't licked by a long shot.

Yeah, we have about the same kind of inflation here in Germany. Everyday stuff and groceries are about 50 - 60% more expensive compared to a two years ago.
But the way Zen 4 has been selling, it will only go down in price, as well as motherboards and RAM. 7950x3D might be about 50 - 100$ or € more. That would put it at around 800 - 900€.
I can live with that.

Since I have a brother in the US, I was contemplating having him buy the CPU + MOBO + RAM (might go without this) for example on newegg or microcenter or where ever they have it the cheapest and have him do the shipping to me overseas. Leave it somewhere to collect dust, afterwards put it in nondescript packaging and declare it for broken for parts so as to avoid the customs. I'd reimburse him of course.
I would save 30 - 40% this way. EUR is very weak nowadays compared to USD, on top of customs and taxes, all of which could be avoided.
Posted on Reply
#207
Super Firm Tofu
RandallFlaggWell...



But then there's this :

appuals.com/i5-13600k-beats-7700x-by-17/
I can't see it going much lower than that.

That benchmark leak seems about where I thought it would fall. I don't think Zen 4 will be really interesting until the 3D cache versions drop (I say that as a Zen 4 owner).
Posted on Reply
#208
RandallFlagg
Super Firm TofuI can't see it going much lower than that.

That benchmark leak seems about where I thought it would fall. I don't think Zen 4 will be really interesting until the 3D cache versions drop (I say that as a Zen 4 owner).
Well after doing some looking, that score is not entirely as impressive as it seems on the surface. 12700K was already faster in blender than 7700X. If you do the math based on the 12700K score here at TPU, 13600K winds up being a little faster than the 12700K. Most of that gain for the 13600K can be attributed to having 4 more e-cores and the 4% clock speed increases. Not that anyone actually using Blender for pro work is doing it on a CPU.

So what do you think of the 7700X?

Edit :

Well I pulled the trigger on that 12700KF.

With prime card discount + the 3% cashback, after tax I just got out the door with that 12700KF for $303.

A lot better than the $500+ I think the 13700K would have cost me. I can use the $200 on a GPU.
Posted on Reply
#209
Super Firm Tofu
RandallFlaggWell after doing some looking, that score is not entirely as impressive as it seems on the surface. 12700K was already faster in blender than 7700X. If you do the math based on the 12700K score here at TPU, 13600K winds up being a little faster than the 12700K. Most of that gain for the 13600K can be attributed to having 4 more e-cores and the 4% clock speed increases. Not that anyone actually using Blender for pro work is doing it on a CPU.

So what do you think of the 7700X?
After a little more than a week I've been trying to sum up my opinion on the 7700x. At this point I guess I can say it's fine. Nothing (positive or negative) about it has stood out. It's a solid improvement in performance over the 5000 series, essentially bringing it in line with Alder Lake.

It's been a mostly pain free experience on a new platform. I didn't run into any of the issues that some on here have alluded to (memory stability and AGESA problems). I'm not saying those aren't valid concerns, I just didn't run into anything. I bought an EXPO memory kit (6000 CL30) and while it wasn't a one-click setup exactly, it's been 100% stable after a couple of small tweaks.

Temperatures out of the box are what everyone says. I ended up bringing temps down a bit and boosting a few benchmarks scores with a -25 all core CO and left the CPU at the default 105W TDP/142W PPT - Essentially the same thing I did with Alder Lake (Adaptive vcore, with a negative offset).

The only reason I'd recommend going AM4 over Alder Lake/Raptor Lake is what the X3D versions could bring, but gaming performance was the deciding factor for me.
RandallFlaggEdit :

Well I pulled the trigger on that 12700KF.

With prime card discount + the 3% cashback, after tax I just got out the door with that 12700KF for $303.

A lot better than the $500+ I think the 13700K would have cost me. I can use the $200 on a GPU.
Excellent choice and reasoning!
Posted on Reply
#210
mahirzukic2
RandallFlaggWell after doing some looking, that score is not entirely as impressive as it seems on the surface. 12700K was already faster in blender than 7700X. If you do the math based on the 12700K score here at TPU, 13600K winds up being a little faster than the 12700K. Most of that gain for the 13600K can be attributed to having 4 more e-cores and the 4% clock speed increases. Not that anyone actually using Blender for pro work is doing it on a CPU.

So what do you think of the 7700X?

Edit :

Well I pulled the trigger on that 12700KF.

With prime card discount + the 3% cashback, after tax I just got out the door with that 12700KF for $303.

A lot better than the $500+ I think the 13700K would have cost me. I can use the $200 on a GPU.
Wow 300$. That price can't be beaten. You got a very good deal. Enjoy it. ;)
Posted on Reply
#211
fevgatos
RandallFlaggWell after doing some looking, that score is not entirely as impressive as it seems on the surface. 12700K was already faster in blender than 7700X. If you do the math based on the 12700K score here at TPU, 13600K winds up being a little faster than the 12700K. Most of that gain for the 13600K can be attributed to having 4 more e-cores and the 4% clock speed increases. Not that anyone actually using Blender for pro work is doing it on a CPU.

So what do you think of the 7700X?

Edit :

Well I pulled the trigger on that 12700KF.

With prime card discount + the 3% cashback, after tax I just got out the door with that 12700KF for $303.

A lot better than the $500+ I think the 13700K would have cost me. I can use the $200 on a GPU.
Τhe choice between 12700 and the 13600 is basically dependant on whether you believe game devs are going to support e cores on feature games or not. The 12700 generally speaking is the safer choice with it's 8 big cores, and if you got it for that price, my hat's off. Good choice
Posted on Reply
#212
RandallFlagg
mahirzukic2Wow 300$. That price can't be beaten. You got a very good deal. Enjoy it. ;)
New vs old, and I just got started tweaking.

If the temps are any indicator, I scored a golden die. Having a hard time getting over 70F with a 240mm AIO.

+45% vs my OC'd 10850K so far. Single core score is better than what AMD said the 12900K would get on their Zen 4 release slides, and I'm using a $183 motherboard :laugh: :

Posted on Reply
#213
mahirzukic2
RandallFlaggNew vs old, and I just got started tweaking.

If the temps are any indicator, I scored a golden die. Having a hard time getting over 70F with a 240mm AIO.

+45% vs my OC'd 10850K so far. Single core score is better than what AMD said the 12900K would get on their Zen 4 release slides, and I'm using a $183 motherboard :laugh: :

Awesome. I think those difference percentages are fudged.
Other than that, it looks very good.
Did you play with the voltage, rather under voltage in XTU? And the voltage curve and (negative) offset?
Posted on Reply
#214
RandallFlagg
mahirzukic2Awesome. I think those difference percentages are fudged.
Other than that, it looks very good.
Did you play with the voltage, rather under voltage in XTU? And the voltage curve and (negative) offset?
lol, not fudged. 1426/100% * 145% = 2067.7

When I posted that nothing was changed on voltages. In fact the only thing I did was adjust the per core clocks until it got unstable then back off 1 notch, and turn on XMP, that's it.

Since then I let the Asus AI automatic OC do it's thing and basically got the same result - 5.3Ghz / 5.2 / 5.1 / 5.0 for 2/ 4 / 6 / 8 p-cores It also raised BCLK to 100.25


Posted on Reply
#215
mahirzukic2
RandallFlagglol, not fudged. 1426/100% * 145% = 2067.7

When I posted that nothing was changed on voltages. In fact the only thing I did was adjust the per core clocks until it got unstable then back off 1 notch, and turn on XMP, that's it.

Since then I let the Asus AI automatic OC do it's thing and basically got the same result - 5.3Ghz / 5.2 / 5.1 / 5.0 for 2/ 4 / 6 / 8 p-cores It also raised BCLK to 100.25


But that's the thing, 2067.7 / 1426 = 145%.
But the difference is (2067.7 - 1426) / 1426 = 45%. :D
I am being a bit pedantic here, but I had to when I saw the difference to be over 100%. I thought, that can't be.
And it wasn't. :D

On a side note, try to play with those voltage curves and offsets, you might dial in even better settings.
Another thing, by the time you sell your old processor and board, it will turn out that for a difference in 150 - 200$ you got 50% CPU score improvements, and certainly removed any CPU bottlenecks you might have had in some of the games (if you had them to begin with).
Posted on Reply
#216
RandallFlagg
mahirzukic2But that's the thing, 2067.7 / 1426 = 145%.
But the difference is (2067.7 - 1426) / 1426 = 45%. :D
I am being a bit pedantic here, but I had to when I saw the difference to be over 100%. I thought, that can't be.
And it wasn't. :D

On a side note, try to play with those voltage curves and offsets, you might dial in even better settings.
Another thing, by the time you sell your old processor and board, it will turn out that for a difference in 150 - 200$ you got 50% CPU score improvements, and certainly removed any CPU bottlenecks you might have had in some of the games (if you had them to begin with).
I will be tinkering with it extensively the next 4 days, especially memory OC.

I think you're right, I imagine I can get another 100Mhz out of it, but this is better than what I had hoped already given I'm +300Mhz above normal 1-2 core turbo. From what I've read and what I can see on Geekbench this is probably in the top 5% of 12700K/KF dies. They are usually crap compared to 12900K, like 50% of people can't go past 5.1Ghz.

So now I'm waiting for RDNA 3, or a big price drop on last gen GPUs in general, or both.
Posted on Reply
#217
mahirzukic2
I have decided to forgo the AMD's 7950x and have ordered the 13700KF with MSI 690Z Pro-A DDR4 with 64GB (2x 32GB) Patriot Viper 4 Blackout DDR4-3600 DIMM CL18 ram with Arctic Liquid Freezer 360 with the 1700 socket bracket.
Should be around 850 euro instead of around 1500 eur for AMD's.
DAMN you AMD.
Posted on Reply
#218
RandallFlagg
mahirzukic2I have decided to forgo the AMD's 7950x and have ordered the 13700KF with MSI 690Z Pro-A DDR4 with 64GB (2x 32GB) Patriot Viper 4 Blackout DDR4-3600 DIMM CL18 ram with Arctic Liquid Freezer 360 with the 1700 socket bracket.
Should be around 850 euro instead of around 1500 eur for AMD's.
DAMN you AMD.
If it makes you feel better, I just ordered an AMD 6700 XT. Got tired of waiting/looking for the A770.

It does have blue lights to go with my Intel rig though.
Posted on Reply
#219
ARF
mahirzukic2I have decided to forgo the AMD's 7950x and have ordered the 13700KF with MSI 690Z Pro-A DDR4 with 64GB (2x 32GB) Patriot Viper 4 Blackout DDR4-3600 DIMM CL18 ram with Arctic Liquid Freezer 360 with the 1700 socket bracket.
Should be around 850 euro instead of around 1500 eur for AMD's.
DAMN you AMD.
Yes, AMD's wrong decisions will strike back at them.
Why didn't decide to make wider CPUs in lower TDPs?
24-core at 125-watt, 16-core at 105-watt, 12-core at 95-watt, 8-core at 65-watt? 8-core to be the new entry?
It is needed much more than the irrelevant "standards" that they chose to pursue (for whatever strange reason) such as PCIe 5.0 and DDR ,5 and that are totally worthless.
RandallFlaggIf it makes you feel better, I just ordered an AMD 6700 XT.
No, the wait continues. Navi 31, Navi 32 and Navi 33 are just around the corner now.
8 days to go and we will know more.
Posted on Reply
#220
THU31
ARFWhy didn't decide to make wider CPUs in lower TDPs?
24-core at 125-watt, 16-core at 105-watt, 12-core at 95-watt, 8-core at 65-watt? 8-core to be the new entry?
Because they would lose in benchmark scores against Intel even more.

How many people would choose the X models if they could get cheaper ones with slightly less performance. And they could overclock them.
They did that with Zen 1 and 2, because they were behind Intel. Zen 3 put them at the top, so suddenly there was no need for non-X SKUs, until Alder Lake came out.
This is also why Intel has such good non-K SKUs - you cannot overclock them (for the most part). If you could push the 12400 past 5 Ghz, why would you buy anything higher for just gaming? Back in the day, the lowest tier SKU could always achieve the performance of the highest one after overclocking. No wonder they locked the multipliers over a decade ago.

AMD wanted to cash in quickly before Raptor Lake and they managed to do that. But now sales have drastically dropped, so they will have to respond.

We have to be grateful to AMD, because they are the reason we have such amazing CPUs right now. But none of those companies are good guys. They will only sacrifice profit when they have to catch up. And I guess you cannot really blame them for that.
AMD's main focus is on servers anyway.
Posted on Reply
#221
mahirzukic2
RandallFlaggIf it makes you feel better, I just ordered an AMD 6700 XT. Got tired of waiting/looking for the A770.

It does have blue lights to go with my Intel rig though.
It doesn't make me feel any better, but it does make me laugh though, so it kinda does make me feel a little better. :laugh::laugh:
Why in the God's name would you buy Intel A770? Are you crazy?
Posted on Reply
#222
RandallFlagg
mahirzukic2It doesn't make me feel any better, but it does make me laugh though, so it kinda does make me feel a little better. :laugh::laugh:
Why in the God's name would you buy Intel A770? Are you crazy?
75% of that choice would be for the free software, actually.
Posted on Reply
#223
ARF
THU31Because they would lose in benchmark scores against Intel even more.
How do you know? A 24-core will be much faster than a heavily overclocked 16-core..
Posted on Reply
#224
THU31
ARFHow do you know? A 24-core will be much faster than a heavily overclocked 16-core..
But a 24-core would have to be super expensive. Three chiplets on the newest process, it costs money. Yes, it would beat the 13900K, but it would cost twice as much.

They specifically optimized Zen 4 to reach those super high clocks so they could squeeze out the most performance at the lowest cost. That is also why the thermal target is so high.
Selling Zen 4 with low clocks on desktop would not be viable at all. Intel is on a very mature (an cheap) 10 nm process, which means they can be very aggressive with pricing. Just look at the 13600K, which beats the $400 7700X. How much would a 65 W 7700 have to cost to compete with Intel? $300? $250? Would they even make any profit doing that?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Jun 3rd, 2024 08:26 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts