Report Claims that Intel Raptor Lake Refresh Debuting in October

[trparky]

That's a valid point if you're on current gen hardware. But what if you're not? Would you not upgrade to a 14900K instead of a 13900K or 12900K?

I'm not saying it's a perfect solution. I don't even know what the solution is.

 

[AusWolf]

I'm not saying it's a perfect solution. I don't even know what the solution is.

Imo, the solution is not upgrading every generation, just like you don't upgrade your car every year. Only upgrade when the need comes and only buy what you need.

Just like Kaby Lake was never meant to be an upgrade from Skylake, but from Sandy Bridge, for example.

 

[JustBenching]

Upgraded 4670k to ryzen 7700x last month. Interesting how refresh will look this time. Obv lga1700 was not an option because of power consumption and platform longevity.

So, you fell victim to the stupid reviewing methods as well, didn't you? Your 7700x is way less efficient than literally any RPL cpu. Power limit lets say an i7 13700k to 100w and it absolutely demolished the 7700x in both performance and efficiency. It's sad that reviewers test these cpus with 4096w power limits, it causes users like you to fall for that and think ryzen are efficient when in fact, they are not

That's a valid point if you're on current gen hardware. But what if you're not? Would you not upgrade to a 14900K instead of a 13900K or 12900K?

Yeah people don't get it, they think the 14900k is released for 13900k owners. LOL.

 

[Deleted member 232534]

So, you fell victim to the stupid reviewing methods as well, didn't you? Your 7700x is way less efficient than literally any RPL cpu. Power limit lets say an i7 13700k to 100w and it absolutely demolished the 7700x in both performance and efficiency. It's sad that reviewers test these cpus with 4096w power limits, it causes users like you to fall for that and think ryzen are efficient when in fact, they are not


Yeah people don't get it, they think the 14900k is released for 13900k owners. LOL.

7700 and 13700k is a different price point, 7700 should be compared to 13600k.

I've looked into the data of performance with limited wattage. and i still think ryzen 7000 series is more efficient.

7950@88watt is still better than 13900k@125watt. 7900x@65 same as 13700k@88watt. @88 watt 7700 same as 13600k and we are talking apps only and not games and x3d chips.

Core i9-13900K, i7-13700K & i5-13600K: Gaming-Könige im Test: Leistungsaufnahme und Effizienz

Intel Raptor Lake im Test: Leistungsaufnahme und Effizienz / Leistungsaufnahme in Anwendungen ab Werk / Der Verbrauch steigt

www-computerbase-de.translate.goog

 

[JustBenching]

7700 and 13700k is a different price point, 7700 should be compared to 13600k.

I've looked into the data of performance with limited wattage. and i still think ryzen 7000 series is more efficient.

7950@88watt is still better than 13900k@125watt. 7900x@65 same as 13700k@88watt. @88 watt 7700 same as 13600k and we are talking apps only and not games and x3d chips.

Core i9-13900K, i7-13700K & i5-13600K: Gaming-Könige im Test: Leistungsaufnahme und Effizienz

Intel Raptor Lake im Test: Leistungsaufnahme und Effizienz / Leistungsaufnahme in Anwendungen ab Werk / Der Verbrauch steigt

www-computerbase-de.translate.goog

They were meant to compete, hence the name (r7 vs i7). They even released at the same price.. And no, at the same wattage it's not even close, it's a bloodbath. Ill use cbr23 as an example, the 13700k at 65w stock scores 20k.

 

[AusWolf]

So, you fell victim to the stupid reviewing methods as well, didn't you? Your 7700x is way less efficient than literally any RPL cpu. Power limit lets say an i7 13700k to 100w and it absolutely demolished the 7700x in both performance and efficiency. It's sad that reviewers test these cpus with 4096w power limits, it causes users like you to fall for that and think ryzen are efficient when in fact, they are not

It's even more complicated than that. The 7800X3D needs around 85 W in max load, more like 50 W in games, and destroys everything else (only in gaming, of course). The 7700X on the other hand, is overclocked and overvolted to the moon by default, and doesn't lose a lot of performance when you apply a lower power limit, proven by the existence of the 7700 non-X which is within margin of error to the X in games while needing a lot less power.

My point: every modern CPU can run efficiently when you configure it right. The 7700X doesn't need to run at a constant 95 °C with a PPT of 142 W, just like a 13700 or 13900 doesn't need to consume 200+ W oh you're only gaming.

 

[JustBenching]

It's even more complicated than that. The 7800X3D needs around 85 W in max load, more like 50 W in games, and destroys everything else (only in gaming, of course). The 7700X on the other hand, is overclocked and overvolted to the moon by default, and doesn't lose a lot of performance when you apply a lower power limit, proven by the existence of the 7700 non-X which is within margin of error to the X in games while needing a lot less power.

My point: every modern CPU can run efficiently when you configure it right.

Sure, but it's kind of a rule that the cpu with more cores will perform much better in mt scenarios at same wattage to one with lower core counts. Hence why the 13700k scorches the 7700x even thought they are both at the same tier (i7 vs r7).

 

[AusWolf]

Sure, but it's kind of a rule that the cpu with more cores will perform much better in mt scenarios at same wattage to one with lower core counts. Hence why the 13700k scorches the 7700x even thought they are both at the same tier (i7 vs r7).

I don't disagree, but I'd like to see that tested.

 

[InVasMani]

It's pretty much latency or frequency scaling prioritization between AMD/Intel as well as multi-thread considerations. Intel will be better with a good kit for sustained bandwidth and that's a benefit for PCIE copy/write bus transfers to VRAM. Long terms that's a perk short term doesn't often matter and when it doesn't X3D with lower latency can usually curb stomp Intel offerings at the same frequencies and certainly lower power draw. Intel has the multi-thread advantage though generally.

For whatever reason decompression is very stout on AMD though in spite of a larger core count deficit which is pretty interesting. I haven't really seen a real baller DDR5 kit on a 13900K compared to the 7950x with a typical memory kit for AMD. It would be much closer with a top notch memory kit and board on 13900K than the results I've seen, but with a lot of asterisks involved if you're talking about a situation of like 8600MT/s with a $600 Tachyon for example at that point it should be more convincing than maybe it makes up the difference and possibly barely wins by 1-2% difference and all it took was about $700 price difference or so and some L2N achievement unlocked homie you played yourself.

 

[JustBenching]

I don't disagree, but I'd like to see that tested.

Well you have the 7800x 3d which should perform identically to the 7700x at same power, and I have a 12900k which is a little bit slower than the 13700k but we can compare. You can pick whatever benchable mt benchmark, pick a wattage, and we can run.

EG1. Hwunboxed tested the 12700f at different power limits, the 7700x is identical to the 12700f in both performance and efficiency. So it goes without saying that the 13700k is vastly superior.

 

[Deleted member 232534]

They were meant to compete, hence the name (r7 vs i7). They even released at the same price..

not true. Apart from price also corresponding core count.

And no, at the same wattage it's not even close, it's a bloodbath. Ill use cbr23 as an example, the 13700k at 65w stock scores 20k.

thats coping, inability to accept data

if you feel better looking at cbr23 score, you will feel worst looking at other hence the overall score is like that.

7700 is comparable to 13600

I've looked into the data of performance with limited wattage. and i still think ryzen 7000 series is more efficient.

7950@88watt is still better than 13900k@125watt. 7900x@65 same as 13700k@88watt. @88 watt 7700 same as 13600k and we are talking apps only and not games and x3d chips.

 

[JustBenching]

not true. Apart from price also corresponding core count.



thats coping, inability to accept data

if you feel better looking at cbr23 score, you will feel worst looking at other hence the overall score is like that.

7700 is comparable to 13600

Accorrding to the link you just posted the 13600k at 125w is faster than the 7700x at 142w. So how on Earth are you saying it's more efficient and that's why you bought it? It's not

 

[AusWolf]

Well you have the 7800x 3d which should perform identically to the 7700x at same power, and I have a 12900k which is a little bit slower than the 13700k but we can compare. You can pick whatever benchable mt benchmark, pick a wattage, and we can run.

EG1. Hwunboxed tested the 12700f at different power limits, the 7700x is identical to the 12700f in both performance and efficiency. So it goes without saying that the 13700k is vastly superior.

That depends on the benchmark you pick. If you look at strictly clock speed dependent workloads, e.g. Cinebench, then the 7700X of course will win. But then, you have games where the 7800X3D runs miles around it at much lower power. There is no better or worse CPU here, just one that better fits your intended purpose.

 

[JustBenching]

That depends on the benchmark you pick. If you look at strictly clock speed dependent workloads, e.g. Cinebench, then the 7700X of course will win. But then, you have games where the 7800X3D runs miles around it at much lower power. There is no better or worse CPU here, just one that better fits your intended purpose.

If you lock them both at same wattage (say 80w) they will score identically. Not in games of course, there the 3d is much better..

 

[AusWolf]

If you lock them both at same wattage (say 80w) they will score identically. Not in games of course, there the 3d is much better..

Potentially, yes. Although, the whole point of the 3D is gaming. There's no point comparing it in any other scenario. If your main focus is work, you're gonna buy an X or non-X anyway.

Edit: Another difference is that the 3D doesn't need more than 80-85 W even when it's fully unlocked, whereas the 7700X maxes out its default PPT of 142 W in MT (with adequate cooling, of course).

 

[ToxicTaZ]

I just waiting for my "14900KS 6.5GHz" with (Digital Linear Voltage Regulator) Technology.

Put it on MEG Z790 ACE MAX (WiFi 7) Technology.

Should be good for 4 years or so?... Very excited

Cheers

 

[Deleted member 232534]

Accorrding to the link you just posted the 13600k at 125w is faster than the 7700x at 142w. So how on Earth are you saying it's more efficient and that's why you bought it? It's not

so once one thing you said proven to be false (efficiency with limited wattage) you come up with other nonsense (tuned cpu vs stock one)

no point talking to such person,

the reviewers are right and you are wrong

 

[JustBenching]

so once one thing you said proven to be false (efficiency with limited wattage) you come up with other nonsense (tuned cpu vs stock one)

no point talking to such person,

the reviewers are right and you are wrong



View attachment 304460

View attachment 304461

View attachment 304462

What do you mean by tuned vs stock? Efficiency is compared at same wattage, both the i5 13600k and the i7 13700k absolutely annihilate the r7 7700x in mt efficiency. I do not understand why you are arguing differently.