Intel "Arrow Lake-S" Desktop Processor Projected 6%-21% Faster than "Raptor Lake-S"

[ir_cow]

6.2 Ghz on a single core would do that of course this is all leaked information. We will see. I just want a better IMC, don't care for this "performance" increase.

 

[JustBenching]

Is there a reason that you didn't pick the 7700 instead of the 7600X? The 7700's MSRP is $330 which is the same as that of the 3700X.

Because the 7700 wasn't released on launch.. The 3700x also dropped price after launch, im comparing launch prices

 

[Carnitron]

The big question for me is whether Arrow Lake has support for Thunderbolt 5.

 

[AnotherReader]

Because the 7700 wasn't released on launch.. The 3700x also dropped price after launch, im comparing launch prices

The 7700 was released three months after the 7700X. I'm comparing launch prices too: 3700X was 330 at launch which is the same price that the 7700 launched at 3 years and 6 months later.

Returning to the actual topic of this thread, it's still premature to write off Arrow Lake.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

Is there a reason that you didn't pick the 7700 instead of the 7600X? The 7700's MSRP is $330 which is the same as that of the 3700X.

So now
perf/usd is better than the colleague wants to suggest?

The 3700x also dropped price after launch

What?

 

[JustBenching]

The 7700 was released three months after the 7700X. I'm comparing launch prices too: 3700X was 330 at launch which is the same price that the 7700 launched at 3 years and 6 months later.

How much faster is the 7700? 40%? Thats still barely above 10% per year.

In the meanwhile Intel turned the i9 12900k into the i5 14600k, assuming the rumors are real, within 2 years. That's like the 7600x being faster than the 5950x.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

You play the "if" like argue. Awesome!

 

[AnotherReader]

How much faster is the 7700? 40%? Thats still barely above 10% per year.

In the meanwhile Intel turned the i9 12900k into the i5 14600k, assuming the rumors are real, within 2 years. That's like the 7600x being faster than the 5950x.

You're definitely right about the rumoured increase in multi-threaded performance in the 14600k compared to the 12600k. That's greater than the 3700x to the 7700 transition over a shorter period of time. Let's see if Intel actually keeps up this cadence.

 

[Leavenfish]

Doesn’t look like anything compelling coming from Intel in the foreseeable future. Good news is that you can build that new PC now and be set for years to come. No need to wait for that massive leap in performance because its not coming.

This IS compelling to the masses (not gamers...but who cares). These high end CPUS could have been going into mainstream or...even just what you might pick up at Walmart, had they existed with better video capabilities. Not everyone needs or wants to spend $$$$$$ on a dedicated GPU.

 

[MrMeth]

This is a point a lot of people keep making that I don't understand at all. People on budget are precisely the kind of people who don't upgrade every two years.
I'd argue this goes exactly the other way around: AMD is good at attracting DIY enthusiast class who want to stick every new gen in the same motherboard for 5 years for measly +10% upticks, average joe on a budget IMHO couldn't care less.

I'm sorry but the iterations that AMD did on am4 were not "measly +10% upticks" 2nd gen was 15% over previous 1st gen. Gen 3 & 5 were both even bigger increases. I'm not a fanboy or anything but if it wasn't for AMD doing what they did we would probably still all be using 4 core Skylake+ to the power of 15 infinity +. I'm happy Intel is back and are competitive and I look forward to see them continue to push the performance envelope. (With that said I do think both companies need to rethink there power draw. ) But let's not downplay AM4 and what it did for the industry overall. Hopefully AMD or Intel can do the same thing in the GPU market and knock Nvidia off there pedestal. And just
To show some numbers of AMDs generational improvements.

9 Years of AMD CPUs: From AMD FX to Ryzen 5000 Series, Tested

Today's CPU review is all about AMD's performance progress, comparing a flagship part from the AMD FX era and all Ryzen series with just 4 cores enabled...

www.techspot.com

 

[Dristun]

I'm sorry but the iterations that AMD did on am4 were not "measly +10% upticks" 2nd gen was 15% over previous 1st gen. Gen 3 & 5 were both even bigger increases. I'm not a fanboy or anything but if it wasn't for AMD doing what they did we would probably still all be using 4 core Skylake+ to the power of 15 infinity +. I'm happy Intel is back and are competitive and I look forward to see them continue to push the performance envelope. (With that said I do think both companies need to rethink there power draw. ) But let's not downplay AM4 and what it did for the industry overall. Hopefully AMD or Intel can do the same thing in the GPU market and knock Nvidia off there pedestal. And just
To show some numbers of AMDs generational improvements.

9 Years of AMD CPUs: From AMD FX to Ryzen 5000 Series, Tested

Today's CPU review is all about AMD's performance progress, comparing a flagship part from the AMD FX era and all Ryzen series with just 4 cores enabled...

www.techspot.com

I did not try to downplay AMD's output, I even commended them for attracting the enthusiasts. Internet is not the best place for conveying the tone, sorry! (or maybe I'm not that great at it)
But just looking at reviews here at TPU (I double checked for games@720p, but not for work - for work it's probably more than that, iirc):

2700X was ~8% faster than 1700X
3700X was ~10% faster than 2700X
5700X is 20% faster than 3700X
5800X3D is another 11% faster than 5700X

I think it's a fair comparison here! 12.25% on average, thanks to Zen3 being such an improvement, not that far from the 10% I've talked about. Sure, with Intel you'd have to spend at least another 150$ on a new motherboard in the same timespan but you'd also get new features along the way, which may or may not be worth it.

 

[Lew Zealand]

I did not try to downplay AMD's output, I even commended them for attracting the enthusiasts. Internet is not the best place for conveying the tone, sorry! (or maybe I'm not that great at it)
But just looking at reviews here at TPU (I double checked for games@720p, but not for work - for work it's probably more than that, iirc):

2700X was ~8% faster than 1700X
3700X was ~10% faster than 2700X
5700X is 20% faster than 3700X
5800X3D is another 11% faster than 5700X

I think it's a fair comparison here! 12.25% on average, thanks to Zen3 being such an improvement, not that far from the 10% I've talked about. Sure, with Intel you'd have to spend at least another 150$ on a new motherboard in the same timespan but you'd also get new features along the way, which may or may not be worth it.

Based on the 3700X review (covering the 17, 27, 3700X), the 5700X and 5800X3D reviews at 720p (yeah 720p and necessarily on a different suite of games in the 3 reviews), the %uplift is:

1700X-2700X - 10%
2700X-3700X - 11%
3700X-5700X - ~20%
5700X-5800X3D - 15%

So that's more like 14% average per generation, pretty decent.

 

[ir_cow]

The big question for me is whether Arrow Lake has support for Thunderbolt 5.

It wouldn't be on the CPU, that's for sure.

 

[tussinman]

No refreshes are ever exciting. Their very existence is defined by manufacturing delays of what a company is really trying to build.

The 14th series as well as any 12th and 13th series are good upgrades for customers who buy Intel only and still use Skylake architecture. For anyone already on socket 1700 or AM5 there is no reason to upgrade to 14th gen. Probably the same goes for upcoming Zen 5 as well.

Edit: For example, a gamer on a budget buys a Core i5 12400F six P-core for $167 MSRP two years ago. Upgrade choices are Core i5 13400F six P-core plus four E-core for $196 MSRP or Core i3 14300F six P-core for $150ish. No IPC increases, a few hundred MHz clock and loss of E-cores over 13th gen if the gamer goes 14th gen. Wow exciting. /sarcasm

I actually have the 12400 and like the extra options

My local brick n mortar will most likely have the 14600k fringe $200 when 15th gen comes out so that's a solid upgrade over what I have for a good price. Should be able to ride that out till PS6

 

[PapaTaipei]

6% faster, color me impressed.

 

[sethmatrix7]

Intel is already very efficient. Just don't run them at 4096 watts.

It's amd that in fact needs to do something about efficiency, in the lower mid range segment. The new and almighty r7 7700x and 7800x 3d is less efficient than the 12700f which is like 2 years old already, as tested by hwunboxed.

Idk what you’re smoking but my 7800X3D pulls 50 watts gaming and TPU review says the same. Much more efficient than the intel equivalent 13900KS which pulls 123W gaming.

 

[JustBenching]

Idk what you’re smoking but my 7800X3D pulls 50 watts gaming and TPU review says the same. Much more efficient than the intel equivalent 13900KS which pulls 123W gaming.

Im talking about productivity, not gaming. My 12900k pulls 70w in gaming, so who cares

 

[Nucleoprotein]

Im talking about productivity, not gaming. My 12900k pulls 70w in gaming, so who cares

7800X3D is not for productivity, is for gaming, nobody cares about productivity for 7800X3XD. 7800X3XD is advatised as gaming CPU, for productivity you have 7950X/7950X3D.
Reading your comments I see you are Intel fanboy because calculating efficacy not from real workloads but from Cinebench scores that loves EEEEE Cores is ridiculous.

 

[JustBenching]

7800X3D is not for productivity

Yes, because its bad in productivity. If it was good, then you could buy it for that

 

[Nucleoprotein]

Yes, because its bad in productivity. If it was good, then you could buy it for that

Maybe rephrase: it was designed to be bad at productivity and good in games. This is gaming CPU. Period. For productivity use 7950 or 7950X3D which are designed for it.

 

[JustBenching]

Maybe rephrase: it was designed to be bad at productivity and good in games. This is gaming CPU. Period. For productivity use 7950 or 7950X3D which are designed for it.

You can argue the same about any product. X product is not bad, it was just designed to be bad on that area. That's nonsense. The 7700x is equally bad - even worse in productivity (cause it consumes a lot more power for a very small performance boost). Was that also designed for games? And what was the 13700k designed for? Cause it seems to be doing great at both

 

[Nucleoprotein]

You can argue the same about any product. X product is not bad, it was just designed to be bad on that area. That's nonsense. The 7700x is equally bad - even worse in productivity (cause it consumes a lot more power for a very small performance boost). Was that also designed for games? And what was the 13700k designed for? Cause it seems to be doing great at both

Lets use TPU Blender time/wattage:
7700X 123,4s at 135W
12700K 106,1s at 174W
so
7700X took 4,6275Wh
12700K took 5,1282Wh
Its clear that Intel is faster at cost of energy usage, dont change facts to your world view.

 

[JustBenching]

Lets use TPU Blender time/wattage:
7700X 123,4s at 135W
12700K 106,1s at 174W
so
7700X took 4,6275Wh
12700K took 5,1282Wh
Its clear that Intel is faster at cost of energy usage, dont change facts to your world view.

But that's,, a soon to be 3 generations old i7?

 

[TumbleGeorge]

But that's,, a soon to be 3 generations old i7?

14-12=3?

 

[JustBenching]

14-12=3?

Yes

14 - 13 - 12

How many numbers do you see?