This is how badly Intel screwed itself over

The CPU a lot of gamers are dreaming about but Intel won't sell it to them:

1772119869994.png

Someone on overclock.net got one but the ASUS APEX mobo is giving RAM error code 55.
 
So it's bartlett lake, still not sure why everyone thinks this is going to be a much better performing cpu. It's not, it wasn't designed for gaming. For those who actually may get it working I'm sure they will be disappointed in the performance.
 
Tyler-98-W68 said:
So it's bartlett lake, still not sure why everyone thinks this is going to be a much better performing cpu. It's not, it wasn't designed for gaming. For those who actually may get it working I'm sure they will be disappointed in the performance.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they didn't fix the basic problem - cache. Well, aside from the self-immolating 'feature', which is the only reason I'd be interested in these, but in my case it'd be for homelabbing.
 
Tyler-98-W68 said:
it wasn't designed for gaming.
Click to expand...
It's a general purpose CPU. They didn't take anything out of it other than locking it down and disallowing memory overclocking. It should perform better than stock Arrow Lake in most cases. Even with HT disabled, it could perform better than 245K and 9950X (SMT off). The X3Ds obviously it can't challenge.
 
So no memory overclocking, worse sgl thread performance, but it's going to perform better than AL? Doubtful.

WXYjW8UzgxbJi7XJ.jpg
My 225

Core Ultra 5 225 RTX 5070Ti No PL DDR5 7200 Memory Extension Enabled CPU .png

Notice the massive difference in single thread performance? That's hard to ignore......
 
Tyler-98-W68 said:
Notice the massive difference in single thread performance? That's hard to ignore......
Click to expand...
Looks good on paper but you are not taking into account Arrow Lake's botched memory subsystem. Games demand the lowest possible RAM and L3 cache latency and Bartlett Lake is able to provide that reliably. Arrow Lake needs DDR5-9000C40 to achieve 60ns RAM latency and that too after extensive tuning effort. You don't get that out of the box. I've not seen an ASROCK mobo so far that didn't have overclocking options in it. My ASROCK RACK Epyc Rome mobo has them so pretty hopeful that Bartlett Lake will be able to run overclocked DDR5-7000.
 
What paper? I didn't post paper i posted actual benchmarks......less opinions more facts please.

Explain to me how having a massive deficit in single thread performance should be ignored?

You don't need to run ddr9000 anything with arrow lake to get good performance. Why does my 225 perform so well with only 7200 ram?

I get it, you won't change you mind but its absolutely comical to think bartlet lake is some savior cpu when the only known benchmark so far shows it not impressive at all. A 10 core 10 thread CPU beating it's pants off in single thread performance and matching or slightly exceeding in multithreaded performance.


1000030061.png
 
Games aren't just single thread workloads. They are single thread plus continuous memory subsystem thrashing monsters. This is why Arrow Lake failed so badly in the market. So many people went to Arrow Lake on overclock.net and then returned to their 14900K because of this issue. Productivity or synthetic benchmarks can't say anything about how a CPU will perform in a particular game. Maybe things have improved now but who has done a recent proper Arrow Lake review to debunk the persisting possible "myth" that Arrow Lake sucks in gaming? I was extremely annoyed that TH chose to exclude Arrow Lake in this article: https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-com...uiem-and-why-we-werent-able-to-finish-the-job

It's bad. Very bad when reviewers are ignoring Arrow Lake. And the blame for that solely rests on the worst CEO Intel has ever had. Pat Gelsinger.
 
The problem is self evident in this bar:

1772179820500.png

Why on earth is 9466 RAM showing the highest latency while 7600 shows the lowest? Intel should never have let Arrow Lake out of the gate with such a serious issue. High speed RAM should result in lower latency. That's how things worked on Raptor Lake. When gamers saw horrible latency even with expensive kits on Arrow Lake, word got around and people started dismissing Arrow Lake for gaming.
 
igor_kavinski said:
The problem is self evident in this bar:

View attachment 4452

Why on earth is 9466 RAM showing the highest latency while 7600 shows the lowest? Intel should never have let Arrow Lake out of the gate with such a serious issue. High speed RAM should result in lower latency. That's how things worked on Raptor Lake. When gamers saw horrible latency even with expensive kits on Arrow Lake, word got around and people started dismissing Arrow Lake for gaming.
Click to expand...
Note that these are all XMP - which means that they take the 'safe' highest speeds, and then dial timings back even further.

The settings you see here are mostly not at all responsible for AIDA results. It's the dozen or so additional timings that matter, among the several dozen additional timings available for DDR5. Things like TREFI have a huge impact, but are also extremely sensitive to heat.

On balance, we shouldn't honestly expect a reviews site to take memory tuning any further than XMP. It's a crapshoot of variables at that point and they'd need a literal lab full of dozens of copies to start to narrow down their results to draw any reasonable conclusions.
 
Tyler-98-W68 said:
What paper? I didn't post paper i posted actual benchmarks......less opinions more facts please.
Click to expand...
Do we know the clockspeeds and memory settings of the results posted?

I'm wondering if this isn't some 'early sample' that is running at a limited TDP or stock settings or whatever. At least we'd be able to make a rough estimate of IPC, right?
 
LazyGamer said:
Note that these are all XMP - which means that they take the 'safe' highest speeds, and then dial timings back even further.
Click to expand...
They don't even make it clear what the gear ratio is. That 9466 is most likely Gear 4. They should give up and stop spreading misinformation about RAM speed comparisons for platforms.
 
igor_kavinski said:
The problem is self evident in this bar:

View attachment 4452

Why on earth is 9466 RAM showing the highest latency while 7600 shows the lowest? Intel should never have let Arrow Lake out of the gate with such a serious issue. High speed RAM should result in lower latency. That's how things worked on Raptor Lake. When gamers saw horrible latency even with expensive kits on Arrow Lake, word got around and people started dismissing Arrow Lake for gaming.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should read TPUs memory reviews before you just start throwing out how terrible something is before fully understanding something. TPU testing isn't flawed or biased either. You just don't understand how ram works. Higher speed = looser timings. Again without paying an arm and a leg before ram was expensive, I found 7200C34 to be the best deal from a price performance perspective.

1000030064.png
There is some AMD results......
 
Tyler-98-W68 said:
You just don't understand how ram works. Higher speed = looser timings.
Click to expand...
This isn't how DRAM gets to higher latencies though - timings are per clockcycle, meaning that if speed goes up timings go up, but latency can be kept the same if speed and timings are kept in sync. If timings don't have to be loosened as much while speed goes up, then latency gets better!

Further, because latency is also a function of bandwidth, latency goes down with speed increases as a rule. You have to really bork up timings with high speeds to get negative latency scaling, including dropping increasing gears (meaning lowering memory controller speed).
 
Maybe things have improved now but who has done a recent proper Arrow Lake review to debunk the persisting possible "myth" that Arrow Lake sucks in gaming
Click to expand...
You really do under a rock and just have to trash after trash after trash intel don't you? If you took the time to look at newer results instead of automatically resorting to trashing you might learn something.

Still wondering how AL "sucks" for gaming, where is it performing so "sucky" that it's not playable and a terrible experience?
 
igor_kavinski said:
They don't even make it clear what the gear ratio is. That 9466 is most likely Gear 4. They should give up and stop spreading misinformation about RAM speed comparisons for platforms.
Click to expand...
www.techpowerup.com

Patriot Viper Elite 5 RGB DDR5-7000 32 GB CL38 Review

Patriot has expanded the Viper lineup with a new series under the Elite brand. Aimed at budget-conscious builders, this 32 GB DDR5-7000 kit is designed for Intel users and includes three XMP profiles to maximize compatibility. Join us as we test this memory and see how it compares to the...
www.techpowerup.com www.techpowerup.com

They aren't hiding anything.
 
Tyler-98-W68 said:
Still wondering how AL "sucks" for gaming, where is it performing so "sucky" that it's not playable and a terrible experience?
Click to expand...
It cannot compete with anything AMD at 6000C30. It needs something like 8200C38 to barely be competitive which is almost unobtanium at current RAM price points and lack of supply. I wouldn't say this is a result of AMD's genius strategy. It isn't. I personally think AMD messed up with Zen 5. The only reason it seems to have taken over the market is because Intel let them with how they dropped the ball with Arrow Lake.

Arrow Lake isn't unplayable but people spending a good deal of money naturally want to get the best bang out of their buck. And currently they are choosing AMD even if in some cases, Arrow Lake is only 5% slower on average, depending on the games they like. But X3D? Intel has no answer to that. People look at the 1080p/1440p results and their thinking goes, what if tomorrow a super-AAA game got released that was so graphically uber realistic that even with a 5090 they can't game at 4K. So the X3D seems more future proof to them.
 
igor_kavinski said:
It cannot compete with anything AMD at 6000C30. It needs something like 8200C38 to barely be competitive which is almost unobtanium at current RAM price points and lack of supply. I wouldn't say this is a result of AMD's genius strategy. It isn't. I personally think AMD messed up with Zen 5. The only reason it seems to have taken over the market is because Intel let them with how they dropped the ball with Arrow Lake.

Arrow Lake isn't unplayable but people spending a good deal of money naturally want to get the best bang out of their buck. And currently they are choosing AMD even if in some cases, Arrow Lake is only 5% slower on average, depending on the games they like. But X3D? Intel has no answer to that. People look at the 1080p/1440p results and their thinking goes, what if tomorrow a super-AAA game got released that was so graphically uber realistic that even with a 5090 they can't game at 4K. So the X3D seems more future proof to them.
Click to expand...
or 7600CC36 or 6800C34 as shown in above graphs........

"a good deal of money" actually AL is one of the cheapest platforms to get great performance on..........

I can walk in to my local store and pick up a 265K and B860m for $620.........

Or I can get a 9800X3D and B650 for $860

I'll take that extra money and put it towards ram or something else.

You make an awful lot of assumptions, and again yes intel doesn't have X3D........but again show me where buying the above 265K system would "suck" for gaming as you keep on emphasizing the "suck" for gaming.

I suppose you also ignored this as well right?


Total and complete suckage
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top