Raptor Lake Refresh is coming!

[iameatingjam]

Eight core monolithic/single CCD chips are ideal for modern console emulation.

So you are suggesting I buy a new motherboard when I'm only a couple fps away from where I want to be? EDIT: Also there's lots of things I do with my computer not just emulators. Intel are all around good chips, and I already have the motherboard so I don't see what the problem is here.

If I am not being too nosy asking this, what emulator are you running which needs more than the 6 P-cores of your 13600K?

Rpcs3 too, but I can't say there's any game that I can't run how I want to now, but there might be at some point, and I know it likes p cores and doesn't use e-cores. Don't imagine a frequency increase would hurt either.

 

[dgianstefani]

So you are suggesting I buy a new motherboard when I'm only a couple fps away from where I want to be?

??

I'm confirming your point.

Why would you need a new motherboard to move to an 8 core?

 

[iameatingjam]

??

I'm confirming your point.

Why would you need a new motherboard to move to an 8 core?

I'm sorry I misunderstood. I was thinking you meant something without a distinction between e and p cores. But you probably meant like, not chiplet based, right?

 

[dgianstefani]

I'm sorry I misunderstood. I was thinking you meant something without a distinction between e and p cores. But you probably meant like, not chiplet based, right?

Chiplet based is fine, as long as there's only one chiplet (monolithic is still better), 7800X3D or the 5800X3D are good examples. RPL and it's refresh will be the last Intel monolithic generation, Arrow Lake will be tile based, like the cancelled Meteor Lake for desktop. We'll see if that hurts latency as much as multiple chiplets do, hopefully not.

 

[Super Firm Tofu]

So you are suggesting I buy a new motherboard when I'm only a couple fps away from where I want to be? EDIT: Also there's lots of things I do with my computer not just emulators. Intel are all around good chips, and I already have the motherboard so I don't see what the problem is here.


Rpcs3 too, but I can't say there's any game that I can't run how I want to now, but there might be at some point, and I know it likes p cores and doesn't use e-cores. Don't imagine a frequency increase would hurt either.

I'd probably wait to see what the refresh brings, but in your case, without changing your B760 board, to get the fastest '13700k', I'd buy a 13900k, give it a slight under-volt and disable 8 e-cores.

That'd give you a '13700k' 8P+8E that boosts to 5.8 on two cores, does 5.5 all P-Core, and 4.3 on the E-cores, keeping it to around ~200-230 watts maximum on your locked down B760. Think of it as paying for a pre-binned 13700KS It could be what the refresh will be.

 

[iameatingjam]

I'd probably wait to see what the refresh brings, but in your case, without changing your B760 board, to get the fastest '13700k', I'd buy a 13900k, give it a slight under-volt and disable 8 e-cores.

That'd give you a '13700k' 8P+8E that boosts to 5.8 on two cores, does 5.5 all P-Core, and 4.3 on the E-cores, keeping it to around ~200-230 watts maximum on your locked down B760. Think of it as paying for a pre-binned 13700KS It could be what the refresh will be.

Sounds more expensive but thats pretty much my backup plan, yeah. The 13900k can't boost all cores? Or it just requires a ridiculous level of cooling?

Wait you're not saying the refresh will require a new board are you?

 

[Dr. Dro]

Sounds more expensive but thats pretty much my backup plan, yeah. The 13900k can't boost all cores? Or it just requires a ridiculous level of cooling?

Wait you're not saying the refresh will require a new board are you?

It can. But it increases power consumption exponentially, and not all 8 P-cores seem to be able to hit the same frequency at the same voltage targets consistently. If I use ThrottleStop to force 60x multiplier on all P-cores without adjusting voltage upwards, my 13900KS will freeze. They are that carefully binned, for example, 6 P-cores come at 56x and two at 60x, for the 13900K that'd be 6 at 54x and 2 at 58x, etc.

Refresh does not require a new motherboard, it's LGA 1700 and will be compatible with Z690/Z790 and lower end variants

 

[Super Firm Tofu]

Sounds more expensive but thats pretty much my backup plan, yeah. The 13900k can't boost all cores? Or it just requires a ridiculous level of cooling?

Wait you're not saying the refresh will require a new board are you?

Yeah, it's about $150 more for the 13900k. The default all core full load boost on the 13900k is 5.5GHz, the 13700k is 5.3, and the 13600k is 5.1.

No new board for the refresh as far as I know.

It can. But it increases power consumption exponentially, and not all 8 P-cores seem to be able to hit the same frequency at the same voltage targets consistently. If I use ThrottleStop to force 60x multiplier on all P-cores without adjusting voltage upwards, my 13900KS will freeze. They are that carefully binned, for example, 6 P-cores come at 56x and two at 60x, for the 13900K that'd be 6 at 54x and 2 at 58x, etc.

Refresh does not require a new motherboard, it's LGA 1700 and will be compatible with Z690/Z790 and lower end variants

@iameatingjam is using a B760 so they have locked multipliers. So only what's default on the chip.

 

[iameatingjam]

Yeah, it's about $150 more for the 13900k. The default all core full load boost on the 13900k is 5.5GHz, the 13700k is 5.3, and the 13600k is 5.1.

No new board for the refresh as far as I know.

I see, well that disappointing but should still serve its intended purpose fine, if things come to that.

Yeah, it's about $150 more for the 13900k. The default all core full load boost on the 13900k is 5.5GHz, the 13700k is 5.3, and the 13600k is 5.1.

No new board for the refresh as far as I know.



@iameatingjam is using a B760 so they have locked multipliers. So only what's default on the chip.

Hey thats not true, I have a multiplier.... it just doesn't go beyond the max turbo frequency. But I can totally underclock like champ.

 

[Super Firm Tofu]

Hey thats not true, I have a multiplier.... it just doesn't go beyond the max turbo frequency. But I can totally underclock like champ.

 

[Macro Device]

So what are you saying?

I'm not saying anything. If this couple improvements is important for you who am I to judge you? Sorry if my previous statement looked toxic for you. Just too used to have convos with fools and you seem to have nothing in common with them, dude.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

How is an iGPU that you can turn off in the BIOS a "drain on your system" and a heat source?

I'm not sure if you cannot comprehend that today is different from yesterday...or if you just don't want to. This is my point...just like today people are arguing about P cores...

Either way, please take a second read. When they were originally released, they were not optional. I bold that because somehow you seem to not understand that a decade ago things were not like they are today. I've taken pains to state that the modern ability to functionally turn them off is not as much of a drag. Please note that "it just works" today is not a thing from yesterday, or Netburst would still be a thing.

 

[Macro Device]

Netburst would still be a thing

It has never been a thing. The worst arch Intel has ever made. I was so happy to get rid of my crappy P4 in 2009 when I bought a Celeron E3200 which is tenfold faster (I missed on the opportunity to buy C2D in 2006 mostly because I was a sick 11 y.o. kid).

 

[AnotherReader]

It has never been a thing. The worst arch Intel has ever made.

It's also a good reminder that innovation doesn't always translate to a superior product. Netburst was the most innovative x86 architecture, and quite possibly the most innovative CPU marketed to consumers.

 

[chrcoluk]

It's probably going to be named like the laptop counterparts. My personal predictions are something like:

i5-13600K (3.5-5.1, 3.9 E)
i5-13650K (3.6-5.4, 4.2 E)
i7-13700K (3.4-5.4, 4.2 E)
i7-13750K (3.5-5.8, 4.3 E)
i9-13900K (3.0-5.8, 4.3 E)
i9-13950K (3.1-5.9, 4.3 E)
i9-13900KS (3.2-6.0, 4.3 E)

With the i9-13950K and 13900KS overclocking somewhere to the same ballpark, KS being effectively retired but replaced by the more available and affordable 13950K.

Will be interesting to see how off was I exactly when they finally launch

That would annoy me if the 13700k gets that kind of boost, I think I would be tempted to return the cpu given how recent I purchased it. But realistically I cant see them bringing the clocks that close to the i9s so probably more likely 5.6.

 

[AusWolf]

I'm not sure if you cannot comprehend that today is different from yesterday...or if you just don't want to. This is my point...just like today people are arguing about P cores...

Either way, please take a second read. When they were originally released, they were not optional. I bold that because somehow you seem to not understand that a decade ago things were not like they are today. I've taken pains to state that the modern ability to functionally turn them off is not as much of a drag. Please note that "it just works" today is not a thing from yesterday, or Netburst would still be a thing.

I never had a problem turning them off. Even when they were running, they never consumed nearly any power. This is true even with first gen Core.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

It has never been a thing. The worst arch Intel has ever made. I was so happy to get rid of my crappy P4 in 2009 when I bought a Celeron E3200 which is tenfold faster (I missed on the opportunity to buy C2D in 2006 mostly because I was a sick 11 y.o. kid).

I never had a problem turning them off. Even when they were running, they never consumed nearly any power. This is true even with first gen Core.

I...really hope that both of you are trolling... If not, it's pretty sad to see that people are incapable of reading the words written, but not comprehending them at face value so you can assign your own.

To clarify, I was commenting on the slight boost to clock speeds that could be garnered. Basically, old chips traded production area that could have been used for more transistors, and instead used it for an iGPU core. Said core was not entirely dark even when disabled, but did decrease overclocking headroom by having less available transistors for CPU cores and had a big old dead space for anyone using a dGPU.

I was also commenting that Netburst was...not a bad thing. Hear me out, because that's a lot to say. What I mean is that modern CPUs are based off of the lessons of Netburst and Bulldozer. That means your modern 8 core 16 thread consumer grade CPUs exist because of lessons learned. I would be hard pressed to ask someone rocking a modern 6+core CPU why it just works, and not having to point out what failed in the past is directly responsible for today's success. Just like today AMD uses CCXs instead of a monolithic silicon chunk, the PCH is often a generation or two behind the lithographic tech of the main processor, and windows even required an update to the scheduler to address how programs were assigned by both AMD and Intel in the last five years, because their innovations often lead to short term issues.


I remember a wonderful time when I could get a CPU, then spend hours overclocking it. I now buy a CPU and it overclocks itself (ok enough to be passable). I remember people claiming that you'd never need more than a few cores, but consumer hardware now comes with 6+ cores and some form of threading as almost a standard. I remember asking for Intel to stop gimping my gaming CPU with an iGPU incapable of running 640x480 resolutions, so that I could eek out just a couple hundred more megahertz...which is the comment I actually was referring back to (and why I find it silly that you both really want me to be wrong without ever considering that I might be speaking to something other than what you're projecting onto my comments). Alas, apparently it's asking too much for people not to fight over something I didn't say, never meant, and something I even joked about as me being too old.
Whatever, complete the loop here. I...don't understand the reason for fighting about the value of an iGPU when I referred to it as a means of slightly increasing CPU frequency by its exclusion...but why does context matter?

 

[Gica]

I...don't understand the reason for fighting about the value of an iGPU when I referred to it as a means of slightly increasing CPU frequency by its exclusion...but why does context matter?

Intel does not have igp included in the CPU. It is in the same capsule, but completely separate. You can't get anything extra, as evidenced by the "F" processors, which disabled this igpu because it is defective. It is completely inactive (laser cut) and yet these processors are not more powerful at overclocking than their brothers with igp.

 

[chrcoluk]

My raptor lake has 4x the clock drift of my 9900k on each sync, and a reboot the clock drifted half a second.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Intel does not have igp included in the CPU. It is in the same capsule, but completely separate. You can't get anything extra, as evidenced by the "F" processors, which disabled this igpu because it is defective. It is completely inactive (laser cut) and yet these processors are not more powerful at overclocking than their brothers with igp.

READ.

For the love of everything that is holy please read.

Jesus bloody crisco. Let me short this for you all. Modern Intel CPUs don't have them together. A DECADE AGO, THEY WERE PART OF A SINGLE PIECE OF SILICON. I am referring back to history, when A DECADE AGO it was reasonable to ask Intel not to include an iGPU in their gaming targeted CPUs.

If you still can't understand the concept, let me do this easier
10 years ago -> iGPU new, asked to cut it out to get slightly more overclock (Sandybridge was great, but the vestigial iGPU was useless in most cases, and Ivybridge was worse without IHS sintering)
Now -> people ask for cutting out efficiency cores to get slightly better overclock
Funny -> after a decade we learned nothing...because even funnier Intel did give us processors with the iGPU fully deactivated and it didn't give us the overclocking headroom, and we in fact wind up paying more. It also skews the product stack so most normies have no idea what they are buying without a guide, and those who understand still shake their heads when you only lose $15 of cost for losing the iGPU and functionally buying Intel's product that failed QA... So...seeing people ask for E cores to be removed to boost P core overclock is inherently funny to someone who made the same ask a decade ago and in getting what they wanted discovered the misery of compromise that Intel is fine with.

Do you guys get it now, cause I can't explain any simpler? As an FYI, it would have been great for reading comprehension if instead of being dense enough to intentionally misrepresent you'd spend the fractions of a second required to read that this is all about a decade ago and not modern hardware...but that seems to be asking a bit much. Consider me tapped out. If this isn't trolling then the discussion here has degraded into something unusable.


Please, don't believe me though:
Wikipedia - Sandybridge
Note:
"

• Integration of the GMCH (integrated graphics and memory controller) and processor into a single die inside the processor package. In contrast, Sandy Bridge's predecessor, Clarkdale, has two separate dies (one for GMCH, one for processor) within the processor package. This tighter integration reduces memory latency even more.

"
If that means something other than monolithic die, then I don't understand what words mean anymore...

 

[ir_cow]

@lilhasselhoffer have you looked at a die photo recently? The igpu is part of the silicon. It's not like a separate chiplet.

 

[Vayra86]

@lilhasselhoffer have you looked at a die photo recently? The igpu is part of the silicon. It's not like a separate chiplet.

But it can be absent, and it won't help the CPU any further. I think that is the point here, and the analogy lilhasser is trying to show us. Desire to boost P cores while buying E core enabled CPUs only to disable half the silicon you paid for does seem pretty ass backwards to me too. Just buy a Ryzen then.

The real point is, Intel makes a gen of CPUs, and stuff is set in stone. You can get less, but then you really just get less.
The ask for specific combinations of P/E core counts has been there since the first gen of Intel's big little, I've seen it often; Intel is however just stoic and adds E.

AMD's X3D's are a whole other can of worms in that regard to any variation in the Intel lineups. There you pay to get less, core wise, but you get awesome cache in return.

 

[Macro Device]

both of you are trolling.

I'm not. I'm just sharing my experience. Your reading comprehension is to be repaired if you think I'm arguing with you.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Beginning with the 2nd gen Core i7 (Sandy Bridge), the iGPU is an integral part of the same monolithic die - it was the 1st gen mobile Arrandale and 1st gen mainstream desktop Clarkdale that had a separate GPU die on-package. The 5th gen Broadwell-C processors have a separate eDRAM die on-package which serves as an L4 cache. Intel's recent -F and -KF processors are meant to enable the company to harvest and ship processors that have a defective iGPU into the consumer class. Previously, they were relabeled Xeon and sold in the defunct E3 segment as processors that ended in 0 (such as the E3-1240 v3), those that had a working iGPU ended in 5 (such as E3-1245 v3), the latter of which was effectively identical to the i7-4770 processor, as an example.

On the red side, with Raphael (Ryzen 7000 series), AMD implemented an iGPU in the I/O die (IOD), making Clarkdale and Raphael the only desktop processors which have an integrated GPU on the same package, but off-die. All other processors which do not have on-die graphics from Intel or AMD either require discrete graphics or have the graphics solution located in the motherboard itself (usually embedded in the chipset).

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

I'm not. I'm just sharing my experience. Your reading comprehension is to be repaired if you think I'm arguing with you.

Let me be blunt. Your anecdotes are not valid when the discussion is about something entirely different, set to a different point, and entirely devoid of basic comprehension regarding the original comment. If I suddenly stated that iGPUs were useless then you'd have an excellent point.

This is kind of like walking into a McDonalds, pushing the guy ordering out of the way, and demanding that they serve you an impossible Whopper. It's...really difficult to comprehend how stupid that is...but it's really easy if you've ever worked a retail job.
Thing is, the McDonalds is ten year ago. The Whopper is modern hardware. The pushy person is the one hell bent on ordering that Whopper, despite cutting in line and ignoring the person before them, as well as the building they are in.


This wasn't supposed to be rocket science, but it's been made to be. The original comment was a response to someone asking for less E cores to boost overclocking potential, and me laughing because it was literally the same thing I did A DECADE AGO with the integration of iGPUs that were incapable of really anything great. Laugh, share the experience that getting what you want from Intel is making a monkey paw wish, and that should have been the end of it. No, I have three people hell bent on stating that iGPUs are useful and that I'm wrong about modern hardware...because apparently despite everything they decided I was talking about modern stuff...because...
Now, I don't know why, but in my experience either it's someone too dense to read, someone who wants you as a strawman, or trolling. My estimation is usually trolling...because I don't want to assume a bad actor. It's not like trolling isn't fun...and assuming you can't bother to read, but want to reply to a topic on a tangent, is bad form. If you'd prefer incapable of reading, fine. All of this is supposed to be about a refresh release, where the direct response was to be careful what you wish for regarding minor performance bumps. If you want to share your experience with iGPUs, with a rando on the internet, on the wrong discussion in a forum, then I really can't help you...I just hope you're screwing with me, because it requires the least amount of disrespect to see happening.


As an aside, Dr. Dro decided to elaborate. I'd also recommend a basic search of wikipedia for "iGPU" to find both generational numbers and some basic stuff. It's cool that this sort of tangent can happen...but I'm out. Please have fun with the discussion as a whole, but I'm too tired to give any more effort to something that shouldn't have required a small book to define...because instead of reading that my comments were all about a 2011 piece of hardware relating to the discussion about a 2023 refresh (and thus history repeating itself) we had to have fact checking done about stupid crap. So we are clear, the stupid crap being something as basic as anecdotal experience being directly pegged to a lesson in history...that obviously we are damned to repeat because we cannot learn from it.