New Intel 15th Gen Arrow Lake going to be any good?

[THE LORD]

In terms of power consumption, heat output and performance?

Or is it going to be trumped by AMD's 9800X3D coming next month?

Intel doesn't have a good track record the last few years.

[Çapgun]

Yap its same as avx-512 but introduces new register scheme. Avx10 expands general purpose register to 32 and non destructive syntax such as rax =rax1 + rax2. This way minimise stack usage so stack pointer attack (hopefully) less problem

[A&A]

Escrito originalmente por Çapgun:

Yap its same as avx-512 but introduces new register scheme. Avx10 expands general purpose register to 32 and non destructive syntax such as rax =rax1 + rax2. This way minimise stack usage so stack pointer attack (hopefully) less problem

There will be AVX10.1 and 10.2
But even so, we haven't heard of AVX512 with Intel consumer chips.

[Guydodge]

have to wait and see. AMD and intel hit there wall with their current cpu's
lets see who steps up there game.

[r.linder]

Escrito originalmente por Illusion of Progress:

Escrito originalmente por Edu:

source about 7800x3D announced by intel to be better than 15th genl?

No 15th generation will ever exist to compare it to.

If you mean the generation after the 14th, that already exists, and the fastest one in it, the Core Ultra 185H, is already slower than the Core i9 14900H, let alone the 7800X3D.

If you're talking about the fastest upcoming desktop part, the 285K, then the statement comes from an Intel slide and statement by Robert Hallock.

https://hardwaretimes.com/intel-core-ultra-9-285k-5-slower-than-amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d-in-gaming-ryzen-7-9800x3d-launch-later-in-oct/

According to Robert Hallock, the VP and GM for Intel’s Client AI and Technical Marketing, we should see “about a 5% deficit” compared to the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, the current fastest gaming CPU. The 5% figure is a first-party estimate, so don’t be surprised if third-party reviews come up with a larger delta of up to 10% or more.

Here's the direct quote. The way he says "that part" makes it sound like he was questioned about the 7800X3D, hence the above may be an interpretation.

"We showed some data on the 7950X3D. Based on my understanding of the performance, that part is within a couple of percents so I think we will be about 5 percent back versus X3D which we feel really really good about considering that we have just the cache that’s built within the CPU and the great IPC of the product so you’ll see about a 5% deficit, I want to be clear about that."

But as I said myself, wait for formal reviews and benchmarks.

Escrito originalmente por Çapgun:

Intel developing new isa called avx10 so real new cpus will come for 2026

This already exists as AVX512 to my understanding? Intel already supported it for like part of a generation, but then had to drop it for some technical reason related to e-cores I think?

This is also one of the major changes with Zen 5.

Stuff that uses it (modern emulation is one of the few that does) apparently gets a nice speedup from it.

Escrito originalmente por r.linder:

Intel has supported at least two generations for a long time, not just one. LGA1700 also supported 3, which is fine.

I would rather have ~3 generations and good BIOS than 4+ generations and crap BIOS.

I'm not sure I can say anything bad about AM4 when it saw CPUs at the start that an overclocked Intel 4th generation/stock 6th generation would match, and ended up with CPUs outperforming the Intel 12th generation on average (albeit only in gaming), and sometimes the very fastest 14th generation in edge cases. That's one heck of an increase on one platform, and it displaced the legendary LGA 775 in that regard. Of course, that was lightning in a bottle and likely won't be repeated until a real breakthrough with CPU performance is found.

Intel can formally name things what they want, but a lot of its generations stretch the definition (not that there is a formal one), and the 14th generation was the worst example of that. It's Raptor Lake just like the 13th generation was.

In any case, it'll be interesting to see what happens with LGA 1851.

There's issues with both brands, Intel just dwarves AMD in that regard right now though, few have anything really good to say about their CPUs anymore.

I had so many issues keeping my old Ryzen configuration stable that I just gave up on it. So many issues with Gigabyte's BIOS and every RAM kit I tried that was on the damn list.

[Illusion of Progress]

Escrito originalmente por r.linder:

There's issues with both brands, Intel just dwarves AMD in that regard right now though, few have anything really good to say about their CPUs anymore.

I had so many issues keeping my old Ryzen configuration stable that I just gave up on it. So many issues with Gigabyte's BIOS and every RAM kit I tried that was on the damn list.

Yeah, there's the possibility for issues regardless because the devil is in the details, so it's not strictly down to brand. I agree there.

I wasn't speaking broadly though. I was speaking specifically to what you said about AM4's longevity, and the amount of "generations" that LGA 1700 offered.

The earlier multi-CCD Ryzen generations (Zen 2 and older, namely) when it comes to gaming, and getting certain RAM configurations stable with earlier DDR4 platforms (especially on AM4) are definitely scenarios where I can see the chance for issues.

[r.linder]

Escrito originalmente por Illusion of Progress:

Escrito originalmente por r.linder:

There's issues with both brands, Intel just dwarves AMD in that regard right now though, few have anything really good to say about their CPUs anymore.

I had so many issues keeping my old Ryzen configuration stable that I just gave up on it. So many issues with Gigabyte's BIOS and every RAM kit I tried that was on the damn list.

Yeah, there's the possibility for issues regardless because the devil is in the details, so it's not strictly down to brand. I agree there.

I wasn't speaking broadly though. I was speaking specifically to what you said about AM4's longevity, and the amount of "generations" that LGA 1700 offered.

The earlier multi-CCD Ryzen generations (Zen 2 and older, namely) when it comes to gaming, and getting certain RAM configurations stable with earlier DDR4 platforms (especially on AM4) are definitely scenarios where I can see the chance for issues.

Intel gave one more generation than what they normally do, and even though it was pretty marginal, still has to count for something. AMD set their own standards and it's slowly changed the way Intel does things.

[Illusion of Progress]

The 14th generation exists because the intended successor to Raptor Lake (Meteor Lake) was cancelled on the desktop side and as a result, Intel wanted something to bridge that time gap until Arrow Lake could release.

I don't have any qualms with the platform's offerings, by the way. The 13th generation (well, the issues aside) was actually a pretty good refresh. And it's more impressive because the 12th generation it followed, teething issues/socket issues aside, was also Intel's largest gen-to-gen performance uplift since... well, the entire Core i series.

So I don't have any major qualms with the offerings of LGA 1700 in general. I just don't look at the 14th generation as a real additional generation for it. Calling them the 13x50s would have been more accurate in my mind. Intel did that with Haswell's refresh, but not here. The only other time they had a "new generation" that was as questionable as this was the 6th to 7th.

[r.linder]

Escrito originalmente por Illusion of Progress:

The 14th generation exists because the intended successor to Raptor Lake (Meteor Lake) was cancelled on the desktop side and as a result, Intel wanted something to bridge that time gap until Arrow Lake could release.

I don't have any qualms with the platform's offerings, by the way. The 13th generation (well, the issues aside) was actually a pretty good refresh. And it's more impressive because the 12th generation it followed, teething issues/socket issues aside, was also Intel's largest gen-to-gen performance uplift since... well, the entire Core i series.

So I don't have any major qualms with the offerings of LGA 1700 in general. I just don't look at the 14th generation as a real additional generation for it. Calling them the 13x50s would have been more accurate in my mind. Intel did that with Haswell's refresh, but not here. The only other time they had a "new generation" that was as questionable as this was the 6th to 7th.

11th gen was one of the worst, had failure rates even worse than Raptor Lake and it wasn't for any specific reason, there were just characteristically very high rates of issues with Rocket Lake, at least based on Puget Systems reports in-house and from their customers.

Rocket Lake was really disappointing from the get-go either way because it was a new architecture but there weren't really any actual improvements, the power consumption got worse despite a die shrink IIRC, and they knocked off 2 cores from the i9 just for higher clocks.

[Illusion of Progress]

I never heard of the 11th generation issues. I knew it was pretty disappointing but that was all i remember.

[r.linder]

To be fair, most people didn't notice because Rocket Lake was mostly ignored. Everyone already had a good enough CPU or bought Zen3 instead. Most of the 11th gen CPUs that went out were 11400s as well which were perfectly fine and easily the best CPU of the generation as it wasn't super power hungry, just an improvement on the 10400 and a tad bit more hungry.

Overall, it was not a super popular generation, betting that most of the people with 11th gen got it through an OEM or got fooled into thinking that it was the best there was to buy.

[76561199648916059]

Intel and amd are both giving us cpus that will burn out and melt down, we need to return to low wattage cpus that still have decent specs, focus more on maintained CPU life and quality performance vs short life span power consumption, same for gpus, we don't need burn out technology.

[Edu]

Escrito originalmente por r.linder:

To be fair, most people didn't notice because Rocket Lake was mostly ignored. Everyone already had a good enough CPU or bought Zen3 instead. Most of the 11th gen CPUs that went out were 11400s as well which were perfectly fine and easily the best CPU of the generation as it wasn't super power hungry, just an improvement on the 10400 and a tad bit more hungry.

Overall, it was not a super popular generation, betting that most of the people with 11th gen got it through an OEM or got fooled into thinking that it was the best there was to buy.

Really? Well then im lucky cuz I use mynpc for emulating and gaming and my i7 11700k got avx512 support and Xenia or Rpcs3 run full speed, and it has 8 cores and 16 tgreads 5ghz, it cost me cheaper because now prices went bit insane and I bought it 5 years ago, still I preffer mine than a maybe degrading and losing performance 14th... So it was just perfect for me, next gen intel didn't support avx512 that many emulators I use and there is not a game even most requiring ones that doesnt work with highest settings, I gotta admit i didnt fall into 4k marketing, But I was interested in a real gsync monitor. To each their own

[🍇🍉🍋‍🟩🍒🍟🍔]

Escrito originalmente por THE LORD:

In terms of power consumption, heat output and performance?

Or is it going to be trumped by AMD's 9800X3D coming next month?

Intel doesn't have a good track record the last few years.

its actually worse than 13900k lower tdp but you can undervolt the hell out of a 13900k and still get better results