Monday, July 17th 2023

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

Intel's future-generation "Arrow Lake-S" desktop processor is already being sampled internally, and to some of the company's closest industry partners, and some of the first performance projections of the processor, comparing it with the current "Raptor Lake-S" (Core i9-13900K), have surfaced, and upcoming "Raptor Lake Refresh" desktop processor (probably the i9-14900K), have surfaced. First, while the "Raptor Lake Refresh" family sees core-count increases across the board for Core i3, Core i5, and Core i7 brand extensions, the 14th Gen Core i9 series is widely expected to be a damp squib compared to the current i9-13900 series, and it shows in the performance projection graphs, where the supposed-i9-14900K is barely 0% to 3% faster, probably on account of slightly higher clock speeds (100-300 MHz).

The "Arrow Lake-S" processor in these graphs has a core-configuration of 8P+16E. Since this is a projection, it does not reflect the final core-configuration of "Arrow Lake-S," but is a guideline on what performance increase to expect versus "Raptor Lake," assuming the same core-configuration and power limits. All said and done, "Arrow Lake-S" is projected to offer a performance increase ranging between 6% in the worst case, to 21% in the best-case benchmark, compared to the current i9-13900K, assuming an identical core-config and power-limits. The CPU benchmarks in the projection span the SPECrate2017 suite, CrossMark, SYSmark 25, WebXPRT 4, Chrome Speedometer 2.1, and Geekbench 5.4.5 ST and MT.
One area where "Arrow Lake-S" is expected to offer a performance leap is with its integrated graphics. Based on the Xe-LPG graphics architecture (DirectX 12 Ultimate capable), and armed with 8 Xe cores (128 EU), the iGPU is projected to offer a massive 240% graphics performance uplift over the current Xe-LP based iGPU of the "Raptor Lake-S" that has 32 EU.

With Intel expected to call 2023 a wrap with the "Raptor Lake Refresh" series planned for Q4-2023 on the existing LGA1700 platform, all eyes are on what Intel does in 2024. The company's subsequent desktop platform will introduce the new Socket LGA1851, and require a new motherboard. It's unclear if the platform will debut with a "Meteor Lake-S" as the microarchitecture's compute tile tops out at a 6P+16E core-count. "Arrow Lake-S" surfaced on leaked roadmap slides with a mid-2024 mass-production commencement timeline, which should put product launches some time in the second half of 2024.
Source: Igor's Lab
Add your own comment

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

#26
fevgatos
AnotherReaderIs 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
Posted on Reply
#27
Carnitron
The big question for me is whether Arrow Lake has support for Thunderbolt 5.
Posted on Reply
#28
AnotherReader
fevgatosBecause 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.
Posted on Reply
#29
TumbleGeorge
AnotherReaderIs 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?
fevgatosThe 3700x also dropped price after launch
What?
Posted on Reply
#30
fevgatos
AnotherReaderThe 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.
Posted on Reply
#32
AnotherReader
fevgatosHow 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.
Posted on Reply
#33
Leavenfish
DavenDoesn’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.
Posted on Reply
#34
MrMeth
DristunThis 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.

www.techspot.com/review/2333-amd-cpu-performance-progress/
Posted on Reply
#35
Dristun
MrMethI'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.

www.techspot.com/review/2333-amd-cpu-performance-progress/
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.
Posted on Reply
#36
Lew Zealand
DristunI 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.
Posted on Reply
#37
ir_cow
CarnitronThe big question for me is whether Arrow Lake has support for Thunderbolt 5.
It wouldn't be on the CPU, that's for sure.
Posted on Reply
#38
tussinman
DavenNo 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
Posted on Reply
#40
sethmatrix7
fevgatosIntel 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.
Posted on Reply
#41
fevgatos
sethmatrix7Idk 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
Posted on Reply
#42
Nucleoprotein
fevgatosIm 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.
Posted on Reply
#43
fevgatos
Nucleoprotein7800X3D is not for productivity
Yes, because its bad in productivity. If it was good, then you could buy it for that :P
Posted on Reply
#44
Nucleoprotein
fevgatosYes, because its bad in productivity. If it was good, then you could buy it for that :p
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.
Posted on Reply
#45
fevgatos
NucleoproteinMaybe 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
Posted on Reply
#46
Nucleoprotein
fevgatosYou 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.
Posted on Reply
#47
fevgatos
NucleoproteinLets 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?
Posted on Reply
#48
TumbleGeorge
fevgatosBut that's,, a soon to be 3 generations old i7?
14-12=3?
Posted on Reply
#49
fevgatos
TumbleGeorge14-12=3?
Yes

14 - 13 - 12

How many numbers do you see?
Posted on Reply
#50
Unregistered
fevgatosYou 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
you are comparing 13th gen tuned, limited to 65 watt (where it matches 1ccd ryzen 7600,7700 in efficiency watt-to-watt, it's not better. it's still way less efficient that 2ccd 7900,7950) to a 1 ccd ryzen series stock (7700x stock where it's less efficient and gains only 5% to 7700).

When you compare those both stock it's very different.

you are using only cinebench benchmark which is best case scenario.

i already told you once you can't cope with information and it's nonsense talking to you





Add your own comment
Oct 31st, 2024 19:35 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts