News Intel's Raptor Lake Reportedly Has 350W Turbo Mode, But Only on New Motherboards

[TerryLaze]

If only CPUs worked that way. These chips won't produce twice as much work for twice as much power. The actual comparison is more like 2 minutes at 150W or 1:50 minutes at 300W.

I'm going to re post this for you as well...
If 350W doesn't make sense for the kind of software you run you can happily and fully ignore it and limit it to a lower level where it makes sense.

 

[jp7189]

I'm going to re post this for you as well...
If 350W doesn't make sense for the kind of software you run you can happily and fully ignore it and limit it to a lower level where it makes sense.

I'm with you there. I've been overclocking since the days of clock crystal swapping. I love chasing that last 1%. I was just pointing out that in practical terms a cpu at the far end of the efficiency curve will use more power to complete a task.

 

[DRagor]

question: 13900k+rtx 4090=how many watts?

Who would have thought an old meme will become reality 😛

 

[bit_user]

These chips won't produce twice as much work for twice as much power. The actual comparison is more like 2 minutes at 150W or 1:50 minutes at 300W.

Exactly. Efficiency falls into the toilet, at etreme power & frequencies.

That's why it smells of desperation, if Intel would do such a thing. It's like they're doing anything possible to eke out a win on more benchmarks than Ryzen. All while much of the world is in an energy crisis.

 

[bit_user]

I'm going to re post this for you as well...
If 350W doesn't make sense for the kind of software you run you can happily and fully ignore it and limit it to a lower level where it makes sense.

Well, I'm sure you've heard of "reading between the lines".

What you see: Intel loves on consumers by giving them the choice to burn 2x the power for 1% more performance.

What I see: Intel is terrified that AMD will again take the top spot with Zen 4.


IMO, the freedom to do something so wasteful and virtually fruitless isn't much of a freedom.

In the end, we have to consider that consumer desktops are increasingly irrelevant. The money is in servers and laptops, both of which really depend on efficiency. Cloud providers are going to do their own analysis and reach their own conclusions. And I'd be stunned if AMD's Genoa weren't the clear efficiency winner vs. Emerald Rapids. In terms of laptops, AMD has a tougher hill to climb vs. Intel's E-cores.

 

[jeremyj_83]

I'd be stunned if AMD's Genoa weren't the clear efficiency winner vs. Emerald Rapids. In terms of laptops, AMD has a tougher hill to climb vs. Intel's E-cores.

At this point Emerald Rapids won't be going up against Genoa it will be going against Turin.

 

[bit_user]

At this point Emerald Rapids won't be going up against Genoa it will be going against Turin.

Do we know that EMR has been delayed, as well? It seems weird to launch two server CPUs in the same year, but Intel would absolutely do it to stay competitive. They might cancel some SPR SKUs, but no way are they going to delay EMR if they can help it.

 

[TerryLaze]

The years AMD had top performance where the years intel made the most money...intel isn't terrified of making money.

In the end, we have to consider that consumer desktops are increasingly irrelevant. The money is in servers and laptops, both of which really depend on efficiency.

Laptops yes, but server and datacenter are about half the money, or at least a lot less than, that consumer is and that's for both companies.
And for laptops a big part of those are just for conserving space and are used as desktops that are always plugged in.

 

[bit_user]

The years AMD had top performance where the years intel made the most money...intel isn't terrified of making money.

Heh, it takes only a quick look at the price structure of Ice Lake SP to see why Intel is afraid of AMD winning yet another round. It's not because Intel won't sell any CPUs, but rather that it will impact their margins.

As for Intel raking in the dough, that's a simple matter that AMD didn't have the wafer allocation from TSMC and hadn't fully ramped up the EPYC ecosystem to mount a proper challenge to Intel's datacenter dominance. Intel's success wasn't due to anything AMD did wrong or anything Intel did right, but rather that demand was going nuts and the market basically had no choice but to buy Intel CPUs, made on a very mature process, at whatever Intel felt like charging.

Those set of circumstances aren't going to repeat, and Intel knows it ...even if you don't.

for laptops a big part of those are just for conserving space and are used as desktops that are always plugged in.

Less efficient CPUs require bigger batteries & cooling solutions -> more bulk, weight, and cost. Or else they just run hot and have a short battery life. Either of which hurts reviewers' ratings, and a lot of people do pay attention to reviews.

So, I don't think you can be so dismissive of power-efficiency in laptops.

 

[Actixelet]

Does anyone know if this information ended dup being accurate? I can't find anything on this limitation anywhere else? It makes no sense that something like a z690 EVGA kingpin motherboard would have this limit applied?

 

[TerryLaze]

Does anyone know if this information ended dup being accurate? I can't find anything on this limitation anywhere else? It makes no sense that something like a z690 EVGA kingpin motherboard would have this limit applied?

It's not an applied limit as much as an un implemented feature...
Mobo makers had no idea about this when they made 12th gen mobos.
If it doesn't need any special hardware (better vrms or whatever) they could make a bios update to support this turbo but I wouldn't hold my breath either.