Anyone else have their eye on Intel Arrow Lake for 2024?

[XBlackstoneX]

I am still on 8700K from years ago and just started DCS. I am thinking a Core Ultra 9 Arrow Lake, 64GB DDR5 and next year an RTX 5090 would be a killer combination for a new DCS rig. Anyone else planning a similar upgrade? 

Edited September 3 by XBlackstoneX

[Aapje]

Not sure why you'd commit to Intel right now, before you know their performance and price/performance compared to the competition.

[LucShep]

20 hours ago, XBlackstoneX said:

I am still on 8700K from years ago and just started DCS. I am thinking a Core Ultra 9 Arrow Lake, 64GB DDR5 and next year an RTX 5090 would be a killer combination for a new DCS rig. Anyone else planning a similar upgrade? 

Not for now, as I'm still happy with my i7 12700K + Z690 TUF D4 + 64GB DDR4 + RTX3090 but....

If Arrow Lakes shows to be good, I'm seriously entertaining the idea of upgrading in 2025 to Core Ultra 7 or 9, Z890 mid-range (Asus or MSI) motherboard, and 96GB (2x48GB) DDR5 7200 CL32 or better (rumoured upcoming kits at 9000MT/s), and possibly an RTX5080 as well.

As good as the upcoming 9800X3D may be (or not), I currently get no interest in AM5 platfom.

Edited September 4 by LucShep

[diego999]

You still don't know price, performance, and whether Arrrow Lake CPUs are going to kill themselves one year after you buy them like 13th and 14th gen chips.

Get off the hype train mate.

Wait for independent reviews, compare, and then make your decision.

[Mr_sukebe]

We do know that arrow lake won’t have hyperthreading or more than 8 P cores.  I’d be amazed if Intel can introduce something with a massive increase in IPS per core

Edited September 4 by Mr_sukebe

[Nightdare]

The way Intel is handling the current 13/14-issue towards the customer does not sit well with me

Unless AMD drops the ball (they do have a tendency not to pick up and bank on Intel's failures, letting Intel get back in the game again), my next system will be AMD

[LucShep]

On 9/4/2024 at 3:14 PM, Mr_sukebe said:

We do know that arrow lake won’t have hyperthreading or more than 8 P cores.  I’d be amazed if Intel can introduce something with a massive increase in IPS per core

 

That's true.  But there's at least three major points of interest with Arrow Lake (Intel 15th gen):
 

1. Strongest CPU Cores in production.
   There's little doubt that 15th gen Intel's P-Cores will be the fastest at their release date - first benchmark leaks suggest that, even without Hyper-Threading, the Core Ultra 9 P-Cores are as fast as, if not faster than, the Raptor Lake i9 14900K P-Cores with Hyper-Threading (8c/16t). 
   Cache has also been significantly increased (~76 MB Smart Cache, that's over double of that in the 14th gen equivalent). 
   No Hyper-Threading is also advantageous, not just for temperatures and power consumption but for even less latency than before.
    
2. Much faster DDR5 RAM support. 
   DDR5 7200 MT/s (f.ex, DDR5 7200 CL32 kits) should be baseline for RAM. And current fastest DDR5, the 8400 CL40 kits, will be supported (DDR5 9000+ MT/s releases are only rumours for now).  So, finally able to get the speeds/latency that everybody wished for, back when DDR5 was launched. 
    
3. Reliability.....(?)
   After the 13th/14th gen huge fiasco (which is still ongoing), Intel wants to clean face and avoid more problems.
   While everyone must despise how poorly the 13th/14th gen degradation debacle has been handled, and with AMD gaining market as of late (also thanks to that fiasco), there's little doubt that 15th gen will be a good launch, mostly because of what it represents for Intel. 
   If it goes bad, performance or reliability wise, then they're in major trouble - and they know it.

 

So, at first glance, Intel 15th gen may be not really worth it for those using the latest top products, like the AMD 7800X3D or 9950X, or Intel 13th/14th gen i7 or i9 "K" CPUs.
But.... in theory, it seems to show strong enough improvements, at least to make it top of the list of anyone who has waited to upgrade from an older platform. 

First in-depth reviews will show how good it may or may not be.   Regardless, it will be interesting to follow, that's for sure.   

Edited September 5 by LucShep

[Mr_sukebe]

Performance per core when comparing Intel to AMD really does need to wait for the benchmarks.

Right now, AMD has the best edge, and with the upcoming 870 chipsets, will support the faster DDR5.

After that, it’s a question of cost, and in that area, AMD is cheaper.

 

[LucShep]

38 minutes ago, Mr_sukebe said:

After that, it’s a question of cost, and in that area, AMD is cheaper.

 

AMD being "cheaper" is debatable, because it's not generalized. It really depends on individual case.

For example, you can get an i7 12700KF for 200€ (or less) and it'll run as good, if not better, than both the Ryzen 7700X and the newly released 9700X (this last one at nearly double the price!). Which also makes the 5800X3D (at 315€+) completely redundant unless you already have an old AM4 motherboard.

And we're not even counting yet that it overclocks quite well, even with a 40€ dual-tower air cooler.... or that the Z690 and Z790 motherboards exhist in both DDR4 and DDR5 format (meaning, you may use your older memory) at same or lower prices than AM5 equivalents. 

Edited September 4 by LucShep

[BitMaster]

Do not forget the TCO in your equation. For Gamers this is mostly electricity costs and AMD is the clear winner in that category.

Not 100% comparable but I bought my 7800XT GPU just because the 1080ti got way too expensive to run for what it delivered in games other than DCS. In DCS it always flies high in wattage but in FS22, Minecraft, Roblox and most other games my kids play I cut the card(s) ( NV4060 in the other kids rig ) at  60fps=~100watts with usually all set to max at QHD, with my 1080ti it was up to the cards PWR limit for a lesser quality of picture. So my purchase was mainly driven by cutting costs while also gaining some extra LOD same time. The 4060 card my son has in his rig is similar, 114w max Board Power, enough for 60fps at nice settings, reasonable energy usage when he's gaming, which he does way too often iykwim.

Same goes for the CPU, as long as Intel needs that much more power ( and cooling ) than AMD to achieve the same I am avoiding them. Already paying 170€/month for electricity.

Also,

They ( AMD Intel Nvida et al ) must at some point either come up with a nuclear fusion solution to harvest endless energy at minimal environmental impact or come to wisdom and limit power usage for their homeuser / enduser / gamer portofolio of devices. You cannot just add 50watts every new generation just for the giggles and eye candy, wake up.

In DC's it's different, more wattage is OK as long as it is more efficient and thus, by the end of the day saves energy. Just don't invent more and more useless things and persuade and suggest people they need it or the world stops turning. It wont stop turning but may make the next few turns w/o a species that couldn't keep pace with their own development.

The Ai hype has the potential to take a few already critical things close to the tipping point, we'll see.

 

 

edit.....

and to the OT:   No, I have an eye on the 9000series X3D but may wait another round till DDR5 hits the 10k mark, that was my goal when I bought what I have now, ddr5-10k+

 

Edited September 4 by BitMaster

[Mr_sukebe]

2 hours ago, LucShep said:

AMD being "cheaper" is debatable, because it's not generalized. It really depends on individual case.

For example, you can get an i7 12700KF for 200€ (or less) and it'll run as good, if not better, than both the Ryzen 7700X and the newly released 9700X (this last one at nearly double the price!). Which also makes the 5800X3D (at 315€+) completely redundant unless you already have an old AM4 motherboard.

And we're not even counting yet that it overclocks quite well, even with a 40€ dual-tower air cooler.... or that the Z690 and Z790 motherboards exhist in both DDR4 and DDR5 format (meaning, you may use your older memory) at same or lower prices than AM5 equivalents. 

 

??

Why pick the non-game focused 7700?
Go on, show me game benchmarks for an Intel chip that matches the 7800x3d

[LucShep]

6 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

??

Why pick the non-game focused 7700?
Go on, show me game benchmarks for an Intel chip that matches the 7800x3d

...the "non-game focused" 7700 ?  
You're aware that the Ryzen 7s have been thrown around as the competitor for the Intel i7s since its inception (hence the chosen naming scheme by AMD), right?
And that they all are, matter of fact, pitched as gaming processors by AMD themselves?   

https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/desktops/ryzen/7000-series/amd-ryzen-7-7700x.html

6 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

Go on, show me game benchmarks for an Intel chip that matches the 7800x3d

 ...shall I show the benchmarks (so, everything else) where it spanks the 7800X3D?

Edited September 5 by LucShep

[LucShep]

9 hours ago, BitMaster said:

Do not forget the TCO in your equation. For Gamers this is mostly electricity costs and AMD is the clear winner in that category.

GPUs will get more and more drunk on electricity, just wait for Nvidia 5000 Series...

In a world where all high-range GPUs already consume upwards of 300W (and will only increase), more or less 50W in gaming usage from the CPU probably means zilch...

 

9 hours ago, BitMaster said:

and to the OT:   No, I have an eye on the 9000series X3D but may wait another round till DDR5 hits the 10k mark, that was my goal when I bought what I have now, ddr5-10k+

 

That may be a very long waiting in antecipation, and a fruitless one.

Using 8000MT/s with Ryzen 7000 and 9000 is a PITA to get stable and, while X870/E motherboards will make it easier (to get it stable upto 8400MT/s), performance usually doesn’t improve beyond something like a tuned 6400MT/s, due to the latency penalty of running 1:2 mode on the mem controller. 
A limitation of Ryzen that will remain for a very, very long while still.

So, running the RAM in 1:1 mode as high as possible, both for the memory as well as the fabric, will remain the most recommended.
Something like 6200-6600MT/s with 2077-2133MHz fabric may be as good as it gets for Ryzen chips.

Edited September 5 by LucShep

[Mr_sukebe]

4 hours ago, LucShep said:

...the "non-game focused" 7700 ?  
You're aware that the Ryzen 7s have been thrown around as the competitor for the Intel i7s since its inception (hence the chosen naming scheme by AMD), right?
And that they all are, matter of fact, pitched as gaming processors by AMD themselves?   

https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/desktops/ryzen/7000-series/amd-ryzen-7-7700x.html

 ...shall I show the benchmarks (so, everything else) where it spanks the 7800X3D?

 

OK, I’m confused.

You’ve added a link with average gaming performance where the 7800x3d is clearly stated as being faster.

Are you trying to confirm my earlier statement?

[LucShep]

1 hour ago, Mr_sukebe said:

OK, I’m confused.

You’ve added a link with average gaming performance where the 7800x3d is clearly stated as being faster.

Are you trying to confirm my earlier statement?

What, you mean the "one trick pony" and only AMD CPU really worth buying for gaming, which has competitors in Intel for similar (and lower) price, practically in the single digits percent difference in gaming performance at 1080P (which you can't distinguish), none difference at 4K, and run much better for everything else ?

Now I'm confused... what statement needs to be confirmed? 

Edited September 5 by LucShep

[Mr_sukebe]

Luc>

You've confirmed that the 7800x3d is faster.

We also know that when comparing the 7800x3d to the 14700 that the 7800x3d:

• costs less to buy
• Draws substantially less power, and is therefore cheaper to run
• Doesn't have the issues that have been identified with 13/14 series Intel chips
• Doesn't have a combination of both P and E cores, which has caused inconvenience to a number of DCS users due to core parking

Does it matter that the 7800x3d might be the odd one out from AMDs line up.  Right now, it's just a bit of an obvious choice.

 

Back to your earlier statement of:  "There's little doubt that 15th gen Intel's P-Cores will be the fastest at their release date..."

Maybe the Intel 15th gen will be faster than say the 9800x3d, but to state it with such a degree of certainty is shall we say, a little odd.

After all, who's actually going to have first hand experience of 15th gen Intel AND 9800x3d chips and have benchmarked them side by side in gaming?  Chances are hardly anyone.

All we appear to be able to say is:

• The 7800x3d is currently the fastest gaming CPU available for regular consumers
• The incoming Intel "might" be faster
• Luc loves his Intel chips

Don't get me wrong.  If the 14700 was as fast as a 7800x3d, I would have bought the Intel, but it's not.  I have nothing against Intel and have only ever used their CPUs in my previous PCs.

Edited September 5 by Mr_sukebe

[LucShep]

6 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

Back to your earlier statement of:  "There's little doubt that 15th gen Intel's P-Cores will be the fastest at their release date..."

Maybe the Intel 15th gen will be faster than say the 9800x3d, but to state it with such a degree of certainty is shall we say, a little odd.

After all, who's actually going to have first hand experience of 15th gen Intel AND 9800x3d chips and have benchmarked them side by side in gaming?  Chances are hardly anyone.
 

The degree of certainty is based on common sense, specs data and preliminary benchmark leaks, aided by data from latest AMD 9000 series indepth reviews (its competitor).
Everything suggests that Intel will have a very good release later this year (October? November?), but only then we'll be able to confirm it.
Something that AMD hasn't had with 9000 series (now utterly dependant on Windows updates to "boost" the performance it doesn't deliver), and won't have again untill their next generation in two years...

So far, the AMD Ryzen 9000 series are only 5% faster than the 2+ year old 7000 series (even got a new meme name, "Zen5%"!), so then it's fairly easy to conclude that the upcoming 9800X3D may end up along same lines - about 5% faster than the 7800X3D which is, in fact, not always the fastest (depends on cherry picked game and resolution to emphasize or nullify its small advantage).

I'd concur that, for now, the AMD 7800X3D chip is perhaps the best choice for a system that will see nothing else than gaming, simply because it's more "plug and play" for the "PC layman" than Intel K CPUs.
In my experience, the Intel K CPUs are undoubtedly the best CPUs the market provides (or were, until this 13th/14th gen degradation fiasco) but do indeed require messing around with BIOS settings (grossly exaggerated voltages and power consumption, stupid single/dual core boost - majorly responsible for creating/accelerating the known degradation, etc), which most people never do, unwilling, afraid or unaware on how to. The i7s have a lot to mess with for positive results, and even make the i9s somewhat redundant, IMO.

As for the prices, well, the i7s were always at similar price to the concurrent Ryzen 7 X3Ds. The 13700KF is at 300,00€, the 14700KF is at 400,00€, the 7800X3D is at 380,00€.
Motherboards cost about the same, so does the memory.  If it's about the price of cooling for those i7s then, for gods sake, a TR Frozen Edge 360 costs just 60,00€ and an (optional but recommended) alu-improved ILM costs just 8,00€ or so - that's all you'll need, even if overclocking I'd wager.

Then the power consumption argument..... as mentioned, every motherboard comes with awful stock settings, the "K" CPUs can drop the VCore about 100mV (sometimes more).
After the annoyance of many changes in BIOS settings, then your i7 processor can game at 100W and change (or whereabouts) - that's pretty close to the 7800X3D but with considerably higher IPC and far more cores to work on when, and if, required for whatever work you throw at it. Major advantages, and perceptible if doing multi-threading work.

And yes, I've compared both Intel 14700K vs 7800X3D systems directly, side by side with same high-end RTX4080S GPU (I build systems as a hobby and had that privilege).
You can't really tell a difference in whatever gaming (2D or VR) in a "blind test" - it becomes a game of insignificant "give or take" difference (most times in the single digits) in the pretty numbers at the corner of the screen.

If we add the fact that games are phasing out from DX11 to DX12 (and also to Vulkan, although to a lesser extent), where the raw clocks and core count are more important, then the current 3D V-cache solution advantage -which comes at a cost of a significant clock deficit- looks to be less benefitial in future.
As to say, depends on what use and for how long, but the X3D may become an extreme niche CPU for specific cases, and AMD's golden eggs goose may run out of tricks...  

With the 9800X3D suspected of being just a tiny bit better (but more expensive) than its predecessor, and with Intel 15th gen looking to be quite stronger per-core than its predecessor - already the strongest chips in that aspect - then it's kind of easy (barring any surprises) to predict what's coming.

Edited September 5 by LucShep

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Mr_sukebe said:

You've confirmed that the 7800x3d is faster.

I don’t mean to veer off topic here… but yes I always see that the x3D CPUs are considered very good for these games. Why do people using them have bug reports where they’re getting 25fps vs the 120 I get with a 14900? I see things like that and it dissuades me from ever considering AMD. Degradation and all aside the 14900 is a powerhouse at running this game. 

[LucShep]

35 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I always see that the x3D CPUs are considered very good for these games. Why do people using them have bug reports where they’re getting 25fps vs the 120 I get with a 14900? I see things like that and it dissuades me from ever considering AMD. Degradation and all aside the 14900 is a powerhouse at running this game. 

I only have a theory, but.... I suspect it may have to do with something in the game exhausting the 3D V-Cache and, as the X3D processors have much lower clock (and IPC) their performance is then affected, because all of a sudden they depend solely on that, so it becomes a problem. Something that isn't a problem with, for example, Intel "K" CPUs.

Edited September 5 by LucShep

[SharpeXB]

28 minutes ago, LucShep said:

I only have a theory, but.... I suspect it may have to do with something in the game exhausting the 3D V-Cache and, as the X3D processors have much lower clock (and IPC) their performance is then affected, because all of a sudden they depend solely on that, so it becomes a problem. Something that isn't a problem with, for example, Intel "K" CPUs.

Makes sense. Although I’ve never seen any of these performance bug threads “solved” by ED saying “just use Intel”

But I ran the track provided in the thread and indeed got a smooth 117 FPS compared to the OPs 26. That’s a difference beyond what a simple benchmark comparison of the chips would indicate. It’s like you fall off a cliff at a certain point, not a linear difference.

[Pillowcat]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

But I ran the track provided in the thread and indeed got a smooth 117 FPS compared to the OPs 26.

My guess on that you talking about lay in software engineering domains of thread time quantization and task scheduling, and 3d cache is nothing to do with. In short: if raw power is enough to done the job on given time - everything is ok (for example to check state of if is anyone from 75000 handlers with 36000 references on eachone is waiting for mousemove event lol ), but otherwise ull get an overhead work on rolling back unfinished task (ed::this_thread::yield in dcs, guess its copy of standard ), unrolling of next in queue, scheduling on then it should came to work again and all of that sht which can accumulate like snowball of stopped threads waiting to continue job in next frame, but where is no time for them already so they dropped and user got spikes of performance and so on. Sorry for quality of my french

[SharpeXB]

59 minutes ago, Pillowcat said:

My guess on that you talking about lay in software engineering domains of thread time quantization and task scheduling, and 3d cache is nothing to do with. In short: if raw power is enough to done the job on given time - everything is ok (for example to check state of if is anyone from 75000 handlers with 36000 references on eachone is waiting for mousemove event lol ), but otherwise ull get an overhead work on rolling back unfinished task (ed::this_thread::yield in dcs, guess its copy of standard ), unrolling of next in queue, scheduling on then it should came to work again and all of that sht which can accumulate like snowball of stopped threads waiting to continue job in next frame, but where is no time for them already so they dropped and user got spikes of performance and so on. Sorry for quality of my french

No idea what any of that means
But one chip outperforms the other by about 5x in DCS. Assuming there isn’t some other trouble going on. 
PS I’m actually GPU limited in that scenario so the actual difference is higher. 

Edited September 5 by SharpeXB

[BitMaster]

Luc,

the EU already banned any Vacuum Cleaner above 800w YEARS ago and there are voices that demand similar regulations for consumer electronics and GPU are among those goods that caused this. 

It's not that Nvidia or any other big Company makes the laws, they have to obey to them and the EU fines are harsh, as many of those candidates have already found out.

I will bet, there will be no 1kW Nvidia Consumer GPU, before that happens legislation steps in and if the EU says NO, they will listen or loose one of their biggest markets.

See USB-C jack for phones and handhelds, EU did that...and Apple had to give in or stop selling iPhones in the EU..... Apple, not just a store around the corner...and how hard did they try to get around it and still lost the case.

 

 

[LucShep]

2 hours ago, BitMaster said:

Luc,

the EU already banned any Vacuum Cleaner above 800w YEARS ago and there are voices that demand similar regulations for consumer electronics and GPU are among those goods that caused this. 

It's not that Nvidia or any other big Company makes the laws, they have to obey to them and the EU fines are harsh, as many of those candidates have already found out.

I will bet, there will be no 1kW Nvidia Consumer GPU, before that happens legislation steps in and if the EU says NO, they will listen or loose one of their biggest markets.

See USB-C jack for phones and handhelds, EU did that...and Apple had to give in or stop selling iPhones in the EU..... Apple, not just a store around the corner...and how hard did they try to get around it and still lost the case.

Oh I agree, I hate the sort of stupid high energy consumption we have on PC hardware parts, makes them hot and harder to handle. And creates a considerable bigger expense to run them - if you have more than one PC in your house (your other half and/or kids gaming too) then you know very well what I mean.

But we all know how lobbies and some influences (i.e, corruption to a certain degree) happen. Governments also have interest in the big hardware and software companies (those are not that many).  I'd almost bet that EU action with Apple became a deal, where it concedes that now, but will demand something else in trade later....   that's just how it always works.

How I wish that we could have the current kind of top-end performance in 50W CPUs an 150W GPUs. And 250,00€ brand new GPUs that are actually competent.
But, alas...   it simply isn't possible for now.  The component limitations, and especially the market desires and money making exploits, won't allow it to change (I can't see it happen in less than a decade).

So, before we get the sort of "very low power, very high performance" CPUs and GPUs that we deserve, we'll still see bianual releases like these upcoming 400W+ RTX5080s and 550W+ RTX5090s, and at ridiculous high prices that could buy a nice second hand motorcycle or car (etc).... and crappy mid-range GPU models.  Just wait and see.

PS: have you guys/gals noticed how all GPUs got prices increased again? (at least in the EU) 
Is it so to emphasize black friday deals later?  ...All I know is this is just effing ridiculous.

Edited September 5 by LucShep

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, BitMaster said:

the EU already banned any Vacuum Cleaner above 800w YEARS ago

And yet they want everyone to buy electric cars
I can’t imagine a personal computer uses very much electricity. I run a powerful gaming laptop for work all day every day and I can’t say I have sky high bills. 

Edited September 5 by SharpeXB