![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The body of the article correctly points the Intel 7 link to 10 nm process, but the infobox link points to 7 nm process, which is incorrect per the references associated with the link in the body of the article. 2601:1C0:6F00:D035:F013:8211:C195:111C ( talk) 16:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
On average 15% faster in ST, 41% in MT workloads. [1] Artem S. Tashkinov ( talk) 22:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
References
I raised this issue at User_talk:Artem_S._Tashkinov who contributed this claim, but further discussion, if any, should better be here.
Hi, I have tagged an unsourced statement which I traced to your edit and want to ask you about the source as well why you contribute unsourced material, which obviously requires a citation, in clear violation of WP:V – something an editor with 16 years of experience should be well aware of? 188.66.33.68 ( talk) 14:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- "Violation", really? You really could use a stronger wording to crap on me as if I made up that bloody statement. I've provided the source which is already on the page in too many places, hope you're happy. Artem S. Tashkinov ( talk) 14:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the source, I examined it and I'm going to remove this statement from the article as it's misleading: from the slide it's clear this "equal perf @ 25% tdp" is not proper comparison of technology, but total and utter marketing, which doesn't belong in Wikipedia – feel free to check the article's talk page for a more detailed explanation which I will post there shortly.
And, by the way, why such tone? You're surely well aware of what needs to be supported with a citation and should have done so in the first place, so it's only fair to ask for the source. 188.66.35.247 ( talk) 19:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Despite rather uncivil comments, I'll make some remarks regarding this statement by Intel for anyone interested. I personally don't put in question Intel's claim per se, it may well be true, the point is a bit more subtle than that. It's not a very good idea in general to use vendor's marketing materials in WP as they tend to show products in the best – rather than neutral – light, and
WP:NPOV remains one of the core policies, and cases like this one is exactly why secondary sources are preferred. I see two problems with this slide by Intel when it comes to citability in WP:
a) they use not apps (prebuilt binaries) but SPEC scores (compiled source), and they don't disclose any details – do they use identical compilers and switches or are they different? Their claims can't even be reproduced and verified independently and
b) for some reason they don't show 12900K's power-performance numbers alongside 13900K's. Guess why? Guess because 12900K's power-perf curve is in fact similar to 13900K's and power efficiency gains of the former at reduced voltage and clock are as impressive. Or perhaps more impressive – or why would Intel shy away from transparent power-perf vs power-perf comparison otherwise?
In fact, given the clear uplift in clock rate with essentially unchanged uarch, it's entirely possible that for Raptor Lake, or at least RPL desktop SKUs, Intel tuned the process and/or physical design towards higher performance, *not* higher power efficiency, and/or employs tighter binning at highest performance for RPL, so it's a big question, in fact, how well 13900K fares at scaling down compared to 12900K in a proper apples-to-apples comparison as well as at power efficiency vs 12900K. I wouldn't be too surprized to see it perform worse, at least on a number of workloads – opposite of the impression this slide creates.
Some info on how 13900K's power efficiency relates to that of 12900K is just fine for this article, but we clearly need a better source than this marketing presentation slide. Time permitting, I'll try to find something worth mentioning here. 188.66.35.247 ( talk) 19:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Let's discuss everything first and invite other editors.
I'm all for minor fixes when the information is wrong. Please abstain from including everything just because you feel like it. Artem S. Tashkinov ( talk) 23:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
For Thunderbolt 3/4. What does it mean? Does it mean Titan/Maple Ridge is not needed? Does it mean there are pins to support Thunderbolt directly like on new Asus Apex Encore? Also some articles say 80 gbit/s will not work in the future with 14th gen. Also, there is now this. https://www.techpowerup.com/318041/asus-reveals-its-usb4-add-in-card-with-60-watt-usb-power-delivery-support Valery Zapolodov ( talk) 22:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I really like the suffixes tidbit right before the table in /info/en/?search=Raptor_Lake#Raptor_Lake-S
Here's what I don't like: it's only for the first table, and it is impossible to spot/find for all other tables. It also takes quite a lot of vertical space and results in more scrolling. Maybe we could turn it into a template and include it via {{ }}? And then not just that, maybe list the items on a single line and put it under each relevant table, so it'll look something like that:
[ TABLE ]
What do people think? This could be handy for other articles on Wikipedia. @ AP 499D25 Artem S. Tashkinov ( talk) 08:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The body of the article correctly points the Intel 7 link to 10 nm process, but the infobox link points to 7 nm process, which is incorrect per the references associated with the link in the body of the article. 2601:1C0:6F00:D035:F013:8211:C195:111C ( talk) 16:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
On average 15% faster in ST, 41% in MT workloads. [1] Artem S. Tashkinov ( talk) 22:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
References
I raised this issue at User_talk:Artem_S._Tashkinov who contributed this claim, but further discussion, if any, should better be here.
Hi, I have tagged an unsourced statement which I traced to your edit and want to ask you about the source as well why you contribute unsourced material, which obviously requires a citation, in clear violation of WP:V – something an editor with 16 years of experience should be well aware of? 188.66.33.68 ( talk) 14:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- "Violation", really? You really could use a stronger wording to crap on me as if I made up that bloody statement. I've provided the source which is already on the page in too many places, hope you're happy. Artem S. Tashkinov ( talk) 14:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the source, I examined it and I'm going to remove this statement from the article as it's misleading: from the slide it's clear this "equal perf @ 25% tdp" is not proper comparison of technology, but total and utter marketing, which doesn't belong in Wikipedia – feel free to check the article's talk page for a more detailed explanation which I will post there shortly.
And, by the way, why such tone? You're surely well aware of what needs to be supported with a citation and should have done so in the first place, so it's only fair to ask for the source. 188.66.35.247 ( talk) 19:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Despite rather uncivil comments, I'll make some remarks regarding this statement by Intel for anyone interested. I personally don't put in question Intel's claim per se, it may well be true, the point is a bit more subtle than that. It's not a very good idea in general to use vendor's marketing materials in WP as they tend to show products in the best – rather than neutral – light, and
WP:NPOV remains one of the core policies, and cases like this one is exactly why secondary sources are preferred. I see two problems with this slide by Intel when it comes to citability in WP:
a) they use not apps (prebuilt binaries) but SPEC scores (compiled source), and they don't disclose any details – do they use identical compilers and switches or are they different? Their claims can't even be reproduced and verified independently and
b) for some reason they don't show 12900K's power-performance numbers alongside 13900K's. Guess why? Guess because 12900K's power-perf curve is in fact similar to 13900K's and power efficiency gains of the former at reduced voltage and clock are as impressive. Or perhaps more impressive – or why would Intel shy away from transparent power-perf vs power-perf comparison otherwise?
In fact, given the clear uplift in clock rate with essentially unchanged uarch, it's entirely possible that for Raptor Lake, or at least RPL desktop SKUs, Intel tuned the process and/or physical design towards higher performance, *not* higher power efficiency, and/or employs tighter binning at highest performance for RPL, so it's a big question, in fact, how well 13900K fares at scaling down compared to 12900K in a proper apples-to-apples comparison as well as at power efficiency vs 12900K. I wouldn't be too surprized to see it perform worse, at least on a number of workloads – opposite of the impression this slide creates.
Some info on how 13900K's power efficiency relates to that of 12900K is just fine for this article, but we clearly need a better source than this marketing presentation slide. Time permitting, I'll try to find something worth mentioning here. 188.66.35.247 ( talk) 19:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Let's discuss everything first and invite other editors.
I'm all for minor fixes when the information is wrong. Please abstain from including everything just because you feel like it. Artem S. Tashkinov ( talk) 23:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
For Thunderbolt 3/4. What does it mean? Does it mean Titan/Maple Ridge is not needed? Does it mean there are pins to support Thunderbolt directly like on new Asus Apex Encore? Also some articles say 80 gbit/s will not work in the future with 14th gen. Also, there is now this. https://www.techpowerup.com/318041/asus-reveals-its-usb4-add-in-card-with-60-watt-usb-power-delivery-support Valery Zapolodov ( talk) 22:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I really like the suffixes tidbit right before the table in /info/en/?search=Raptor_Lake#Raptor_Lake-S
Here's what I don't like: it's only for the first table, and it is impossible to spot/find for all other tables. It also takes quite a lot of vertical space and results in more scrolling. Maybe we could turn it into a template and include it via {{ }}? And then not just that, maybe list the items on a single line and put it under each relevant table, so it'll look something like that:
[ TABLE ]
What do people think? This could be handy for other articles on Wikipedia. @ AP 499D25 Artem S. Tashkinov ( talk) 08:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)