Friday, June 24th 2022

Intel "Raptor Lake" Core i9 Sample Powers Up, 8P+16E Configuration Confirmed

An engineering sample of a 13th Intel Core "Raptor Lake" Core i9 processor hit the web, courtesy of wxnod on Twitter, which confirms its 8P+16E core-configuration in a CPU-Z screenshot. Based on the same LGA1700 package as "Alder Lake," and backwards compatible with Intel 600-series chipset motherboards, besides new 700-series ones, "Raptor Lake" combines eight "Raptor Cove" performance cores (P-cores), with sixteen "Gracemont" efficiency cores (E-cores).

"Raptor Cove" features a generational IPC increase over the "Golden Cove" P-cores powering "Alder Lake," while the "Gracemont" E-cores, although identical to those on "Alder Lake," are expected to benefit from the doubling in L2 cache per cluster, from 2 MB to 4 MB. The ISA as detected by CPU-Z appears to be identical to that of "Alder Lake." The processor is a monolithic silicon chip built on the Intel 7 (10 nm Enhanced SuperFin) silicon fabrication process.
Sources: wxnod (Twitter), VideoCardz
Add your own comment

104 Comments on Intel "Raptor Lake" Core i9 Sample Powers Up, 8P+16E Configuration Confirmed

#26
BArms
P4-630Sure these cores will help with gaming as well when needed.

I was joking earlier..
Doubtful, there's not a single game out there that will use those 16 E cores, and the vast overwhelming majority won't even use the 8 P cores.

E Cores are BS for desktop PCs imo.
Posted on Reply
#27
CrAsHnBuRnXp
Im at a loss here. I was actually debating getting Raptor Lake but im disappointed with the amount of P cores. Was hoping for at least 10-12. I dont need more cores for background tasks.
Posted on Reply
#28
bug
CrAsHnBuRnXpIm at a loss here. I was actually debating getting Raptor Lake but im disappointed with the amount of P cores. Was hoping for at least 10-12. I dont need more cores for background tasks.
If you need that many P-cores, maybe look at Threadripper instead?
Posted on Reply
#29
CrAsHnBuRnXp
bugIf you need that many P-cores, maybe look at Threadripper instead?
Way too expensive.
Posted on Reply
#30
P4-630
BArmsDoubtful, there's not a single game out there that will use those 16 E cores, and the vast overwhelming majority won't even use the 8 P cores.
This is what it looks like when I play GTA V.

Posted on Reply
#31
bug
CrAsHnBuRnXpWay too expensive.
Yeah, well, I need a Lamborghini for $20,000, too.
Posted on Reply
#32
Prima.Vera
So core Core7 13700K will be the same as Core9 12900K ??
Posted on Reply
#33
ppn
CrAsHnBuRnXpIm at a loss here. I was actually debating getting Raptor Lake but im disappointed with the amount of P cores. Was hoping for at least 10-12. I dont need more cores for background tasks.
Well get used to it i guess. Meteor lake is even worse 8P _32E
Posted on Reply
#34
Leshy
PapaTaipeiI genuinely wonder what's the point of E cores for enthusiasts PC. Do they add anything at all for gaming? Wouldn't it be better to have just 10 to 12 P cores and no E cores?
What for ? 8 p cores is more than enought for a ST applications an E cores are more effective.

Let's use math. 12900k uses 303w for just 8 p cores. Let's assume, that it ll scale perfectly so 12p cores ll use 450w :D that's insane.

With E cores enabled it uses 297w and performance is 37% faster in cinabench and 2.5% slower in gaming :D

So with + 8 E cores u get other 40% for 50w maybe ? For 4p cores u ll get 50% for 150w

Note: only if it scales perfectly. With +150w heat there is no way, that it ll boost as fast as 8p :)

So that's why Intel goes for more E cores. They have no room for more p cores in power budget
Posted on Reply
#35
phanbuey
LeshyWhat for ? 8 p cores is more than enought for a ST applications an E cores are more effective.

Let's use math. 12900k uses 303w for just 8 p cores. Let's assume, that it ll scale perfectly so 12p cores ll use 450w :D that's insane.

With E cores enabled it uses 297w and performance is 37% faster in cinabench and 2.5% slower in gaming :D

So with + 8 E cores u get other 40% for 50w maybe ? For 4p cores u ll get 50% for 150w

Note: only if it scales perfectly. With +150w heat there is no way, that it ll boost as fast as 8p :)

So that's why Intel goes for more E cores. They have no room for more p cores in power budget
The thing is, 12900K undervolted/underclocked by is way more efficient for negligible performance loss. They could have easily done 10P cores with less volts on the refined process if they didn't yeet the P cores way past the point of diminishing returns.



Intel Core i9-12900K Alder Lake Tested at Power Limits between 50 W and 241 W - Application Performance | TechPowerUp

so for 51W extra watts you gain 2.1% performance :/...

Drop the power curve, add 2 P cores and more cache, and you would be in the same power envelope with much better performance.
Posted on Reply
#36
Leshy
CrAsHnBuRnXpIm at a loss here. I was actually debating getting Raptor Lake but im disappointed with the amount of P cores. Was hoping for at least 10-12. I dont need more cores for background tasks.
I don't get it ? Why do u need more p cores? In gaming it wont make a difference. And in MT task e cores are better.
Posted on Reply
#37
P4-630
phanbueyDrop the power curve, add 2 P cores and more cache, and you would be in the same power envelope with much better performance.
But would it be that easy.
Posted on Reply
#38
Bomby569
bugHave you noticed the "65W" in the screenshot?
like TDP means anything anymore
Posted on Reply
#39
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
The E cores are going to be great for anything that isn't latency sensitive and/or can benefit significantly from concurrent operation of a task.
Posted on Reply
#40
bug
phanbueyThe thing is, 12900K undervolted/underclocked by is way more efficient for negligible performance loss. They could have easily done 10P cores with less volts on the refined process if they didn't yeet the P cores way past the point of diminishing returns.



Intel Core i9-12900K Alder Lake Tested at Power Limits between 50 W and 241 W - Application Performance | TechPowerUp

so for 51W extra watts you gain 2.1% performance :/...

Drop the power curve, add 2 P cores and more cache, and you would be in the same power envelope with much better performance.
That's not undervolting. And only indirectly underclocking. It's just manually constrained TDP. I have my 12600k constrained to 75/125W and couldn't tell a difference. I lost a second or two in SuperPi 8M, won't miss them. I appreciate the silence, tho.

And I also believe the 12900k was pushed too far just to claim victory against 5950x. But it's otherwise a pretty efficient beast.
Posted on Reply
#41
Leshy
phanbueyThe thing is, 12900K undervolted/underclocked by is way more efficient for negligible performance loss. They could have easily done 10P cores with less volts on the refined process if they didn't yeet the P cores way past the point of diminishing returns.



Intel Core i9-12900K Alder Lake Tested at Power Limits between 50 W and 241 W - Application Performance | TechPowerUp

so for 51W extra watts you gain 2.1% performance :/...

Drop the power curve, add 2 P cores and more cache, and you would be in the same power envelope with much better performance.
And if u restrain power further, u ll loose 20% for saving 48% power :) and ofc by lowering clock Intel would lose performance crown.

So basicly Intel could have 250w 20p CPU with 187% performance for productivity
Posted on Reply
#42
phanbuey
LeshyAnd if u restrain power further, u ll loose 20% for saving 48% power :) and ofc by lowering clock Intel would lose performance crown.

So basicly Intel could have 250w 20p CPU with 187% performance for productivity
Right my point just was that if you wanted to, you can create a 350W 4 P core model as well, there's a balance / sweet spot around the 8-12 core range. But ST performance benefits from cache as well so IMO 8 cores yeeted to the max for an additional 2.1% would overall lose to a 10/12 core lower on the curve with more cache even in light threading - it's purely academic argument.

Im still very interested in rocket lake even with 8 cores since that's more than enough, and the e cores actually work amazingly well for me and my workloads with a 12600k. I will probably be capping power though with a low volt OC.
Posted on Reply
#43
Unregistered
I'm perplexed by those e-cores, what do they do exactly? Alder Lake parts are very fast but pathetic when it comes to efficiency, in laptops they are way worse in battery life. Seems to me thru lost the core count battle so they just throw those useless e-core and give lots of power to the p-cores.
Posted on Edit | Reply
#44
CrAsHnBuRnXp
LeshyI don't get it ? Why do u need more p cores? In gaming it wont make a difference. And in MT task e cores are better.
I video edit too. I also stream on occasion.
Posted on Reply
#45
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
PapaTaipeiI genuinely wonder what's the point of E cores for enthusiasts PC. Do they add anything at all for gaming? Wouldn't it be better to have just 10 to 12 P cores and no E cores?
Exactly. I can't stand it.
Posted on Reply
#46
P4-630
Windows 11 was designed for P and E core CPU's wasn't it?
Posted on Reply
#47
CrAsHnBuRnXp
P4-630Windows 11 was designed for P and E core CPU's wasn't it?
Yes.
Posted on Reply
#48
P4-630
CrAsHnBuRnXpYes.
Guess it's only a waiting game till AMD does the same?
Posted on Reply
#49
Calmmo
Can i take the alternative timeline intel 13th gen where that 16e core space is taken by an aditional 8 pcores instead?
Posted on Reply
#50
b1k3rdude
ratirtecores are energy efficient cores and these do boost MT performance.
They are just slower fixed clocked cores, nothing special about them. The fact intel wont (or cant) give us 16 P-Core chips, just shows how good/effeiencent the Ryzen chiplet design is.

With the rising costs of electricity, AMD are the clear winner here. I wont be looking at buying a CPU or GPU that favour power over efficiency to get the job done.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 23rd, 2024 12:04 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts