Sunday, January 16th 2022

Intel "Raptor Lake" Rumored to Feature Massive Cache Size Increases

by
btarunr
 Discuss (66 Comments)
Large on-die caches are expected to be a major contributor to IPC and gaming performance. The upcoming AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D processor triples its on-die last-level cache using the 3D Vertical Cache technology, to level up to Intel's "Alder Lake-S" processors in gaming, while using the existing "Zen 3" IP. Intel realizes this, and is planning a massive increase in on-die cache sizes, although spread across the cache hierarchy. The next-generation "Raptor Lake-S" desktop processor the company plans to launch in the second half of 2022 is rumored to feature 68 MB of "total cache" (that's AMD lingo for L2 + L3 caches), according to a highly plausible theory by PC enthusiast OneRaichu on Twitter, and illustrated by Olrak29_.

The "Raptor Lake-S" silicon is expected to feature eight "Raptor Cove" P-cores, and four "Gracemont" E-core clusters (each cluster amounts to four cores). The "Raptor Cove" core is expected to feature 2 MB of dedicated L2 cache, an increase over the 1.25 MB L2 cache per "Golden Cove" P-core of "Alder Lake-S." In a "Gracemont" E-core cluster, four CPU cores share an L2 cache. Intel is looking to double this E-core cluster L2 cache size from 2 MB per cluster on "Alder Lake," to 4 MB per cluster. The shared L3 cache increases from 30 MB on "Alder Lake-S" (C0 silicon), to 36 MB on "Raptor Lake-S." The L2 + L3 caches hence add up to 68 MB. All eyes are now on "Zen 4," and whether AMD gives the L2 caches an increase from the 512 KB per-core size that it's consistently maintained since the first "Zen."
Sources: OneRaichu (Twitter), Olrack (Twitter), HotHardware

Related News

Add your own comment

66 Comments on Intel "Raptor Lake" Rumored to Feature Massive Cache Size Increases

#1
lexluthermiester
This could be a good thing if done right and utilized properly.
Posted on Reply
#2
ncrs
lexluthermiesterThis could be a good thing if done right and utilized properly.
More cache usually means worse latency, but we'll have to see.

Anyway, Intel PR department should've pressed for 69MB total...

Edit: since the sum only counts L2 and L3, and Alder Lake has 1408KB of total L1 cache in 8P+8E config, it might be "rounded" to 69MB ;)
Posted on Reply
#3
Daven
If Zen 4 doubles the L2 and provides 3d cache on two chiplets, wouldn’t that be 208 MB “ total cache” (16 MB L2 + 32 MB L3 + 32 MB L3 + 64 MB 3D + 64 MB 3D)?
Posted on Reply
#4
zlobby
ncrsMore cache usually means worse latency, but we'll have to see.

Anyway, Intel PR department should've pressed for 69MB total...

Edit: since the sum only counts L2 and L3, and Alder Lake has 1408KB of total L1 cache in 8P+8E config, it might be "rounded" to 69MB ;)
And it should be announced on 4/20, right?
Posted on Reply
#5
ncrs
zlobbyAnd it should be announced on 4/20, right?
Great idea! The top model could be called Core i9-13337K.
Posted on Reply
#6
lexluthermiester
ncrsMore cache usually means worse latency
Not always and where CPU cache is concerned, not by much. At least not enough to be a serious problem for overall performance of the subject CPU.
ncrsAnyway, Intel PR department should've pressed for 69MB total...
ncrsit might be "rounded" to 69MB ;)
zlobbyAnd it should be announced on 4/20, right?
ncrsGreat idea! The top model could be called Core i9-13337K.
Can we be done with the childish off-topic nonsense?
Posted on Reply
#7
kapone32
Let's see what the 5800X3D is like and then we can make extrapolations on those numbers. It is also depends on where on the Die the extra cache is placed.
Posted on Reply
#8
ncrs
lexluthermiesterNot always and where CPU cache is concerned, not by much. At least not enough to be a serious problem for overall performance of the subject CPU.
Alder Lake has already increased cache latency in comparison to Rocket Lake. If they go even further we might arrive in a situation where Zen 3 will have almost half the cache latency of Raptor Lake. But in the end we'll have to wait for benchmarks, and even then it is going to be workload-dependent.
lexluthermiesterCan we be done with the childish off-topic nonsense?
There's nothing wrong with having some fun.
kapone32Let's see what the 5800X3D is like and then we can make extrapolations on those numbers. It is also depends on where on the Die the extra cache is placed.
It's supposed to go over the existing cache to prevent thermal issues of the cores.
Posted on Reply
#9
kapone32
ncrsAlder Lake has already increased cache latency in comparison to Rocket Lake. If they go even further we might arrive in a situation where Zen 3 will have almost half the cache latency of Raptor Lake. But in the end we'll have to wait for benchmarks, and even then it is going to be workload-dependent.



There's nothing wrong with having some fun.


It's supposed to go over the existing cache to prevent thermal issues of the cores.
Well if Intel can achieve that and keep the Power draw inline I will be impressed.
Posted on Reply
#10
efikkan
This article title is more than a little disingenuous, when the L3 cache increases from 30 MB to 36 MB, a whopping 6 MB more for the whole CPU, coming from adding more cores to the CPU.
Adding up the total L2 cache is just PR nonsense.
Posted on Reply
#11
Wirko
That's one loooong ring bus in the middle. 12 stations + IGP + I/O?
Posted on Reply
#12
bug
I think I've said this before, but caches today are bigger than my first HDD (42MB).
Posted on Reply
#13
Wirko
efikkanAdding up the total L2 cache is just PR nonsense.
If you need to give just one number, 68 MB makes more sense than 36 MB.
Posted on Reply
#14
Steevo
lexluthermiesterNot always and where CPU cache is concerned, not by much. At least not enough to be a serious problem for overall performance of the subject CPU.





Can we be done with the childish off-topic nonsense?
Nah brah

Not while both companies have shills harping about how cache isn’t the new IPC increase they have dreamed about.

Cache is the new IPC tool, the benefit to consumers overall is cache power management rolling off to system ram, Vmem, and allowing for better utilization of power for a given performance product.

Intel should release the 1337K double 69 cache CPU with 6.9Ghz single core with no AVX or Blu-ray decoding or GPU for maximum power to the cores.
Posted on Reply
#15
Minus Infinity
ncrsMore cache usually means worse latency, but we'll have to see.

Anyway, Intel PR department should've pressed for 69MB total...

Edit: since the sum only counts L2 and L3, and Alder Lake has 1408KB of total L1 cache in 8P+8E config, it might be "rounded" to 69MB ;)
Already testing on Epyc Milan X has shown cache increase is really small with 3D cache, only 3-4 cycles.

And Zen 4 is doubling L2 cache as well as whatever they might do with L3 cache.
Posted on Reply
#16
DeathtoGnomes
efikkanThis article title is more than a little disingenuous, when the L3 cache increases from 30 MB to 36 MB, a whopping 6 MB more for the whole CPU, coming from adding more cores to the CPU.
Adding up the total L2 cache is just PR nonsense.
I agree here, however, massive is a unit of measure in E-peen battles.

The time table for Raptor pond is a good deal away, so this PR 'leak' matters much yet.
Posted on Reply
#17
zlobby
lexluthermiesterCan we be done with the childish off-topic nonsense?
Carpe diem! Or have a Snickers.
bugI think I've said this before, but caches today are bigger than my first HDD (42MB).
You had a HDD? Lucky!
Posted on Reply
#18
bug
zlobbyYou had a HDD? Lucky!
I said "my first HDD", not "my first computer" ;)
Fwiw, that would be a ZX Spectrum clone, didn't even a FDD drive.
Posted on Reply
#19
zlobby
ncrsGreat idea! The top model could be called Core i9-13337K.
And it shall has Coors. And THC instead of TDP. Flower power!
bugI said "my first HDD", not "my first computer" ;)
Fwiw, that would be ZX Spectrum clone, didn't even a FDD drive.
And I though I had it bad with tape and floppies.
Posted on Reply
#20
bug
zlobbyAmd I though I had it bad with tape and floppies.
That it did (the infamous "R - Tape loading error"). Still, I loved that thing. To this day i think it's a way better machine to start with than modern PCs/laptops. Power it on, seconds later you are greeted with an interpreter. You want to do something with it, you're pretty much forced to write your first computer command. Modern machines? You can spend months on them without learning how to tell them to add 1 and 1. You have a better chance of asking Google for the result first.
Posted on Reply
#21
zlobby
bugThat it did (the infamous "R - Tape loading error"). Still, I loved that thing. To this day i think it's a way better machine to start with than modern PCs/laptops. Power it on, seconds later you are greeted with an interpreter. You want to do something with it, you're pretty much forced to write your first computer command. Modern machines? You can spend months on them without learning how to tell them to add 1 and 1. You have a better chance of asking Google for the result first.
Those machines built real coders and programmers.

Coders nowadays - Helmp! Javascript throws NaN whem I add 1 and 1...
Posted on Reply
#22
Wirko
Windows XP requires 64 MB of memory, I guess this includes cache.
Posted on Reply
#23
zlobby
WirkoWindows XP requires 64 MB of memory, I guess this includes cache.
If we don't go extinct as a species, HDD and RAM will be the same, i.e. NVRAM. Lots of the processing will be done there and not in the CPU as it is now. Exciting times, eh?
Posted on Reply
#24
Unregistered
There's a lot of shit posting in this news thread. I guess it's because it's an Intel one.

Back on topic time maybe.
Posted on Edit | Reply
#25
lexluthermiester
TiggerThere's a lot of shit posting in this news thread.
Right?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
May 5th, 2024 08:41 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts