Intel quietly confirms Raptor Lake Next CPUs through internal driver publication

Hardware & Components

Intel Confirms Raptor Lake Next Chips Through Leaked Internal Driver

Intel's own database lists an internal "RPL-NEXT" driver, and Vietnam manifests show four Raptor Lake Next CPUs shipped since August with full specs attached.

By
Sophie Lindqvist
Filed
Channel
Hardware & Components
Read
3 min read

Intel has listed an internal test driver labeled "RPL-NEXT" in its own software database, effectively confirming that Raptor Lake Next CPUs exist and are far along in validation. The same day the driver surfaced, Club386 published shipping manifests from Vietnam showing exports of processors labeled "Raptor Lake Next" dating back to August, complete with cache and clock speed data.

The confirmation was accidental. Enthusiast @momomo_us first spotted the driver entry on X, and Tom's Hardware verified it by searching the name in Intel's software database. The file carries a padlock icon and a "testbuild" label, and clicking it redirects to an Intel login page. This looks like an internal driver test that was never meant to be published.

What does the driver actually cover?

Based on Intel's naming conventions, the package targets Smart Sound Technology (SST), an audio digital signal processor integrated into Intel silicon since the Alder Lake generation. Audio codecs from vendors such as Realtek offload tasks to SST: noise reduction, echo cancellation, low-power audio playback, and wake-on-voice. The point is to keep that work off the CPU cores and save watts in the process.

An SST test build is mundane on its own. Combined with shipping manifests, it becomes evidence of a product line in motion. Tom's Hardware first reported on Raptor Lake Next in June, and the driver label aligns with that reporting.

Which chips are coming?

Raptor Lake Next is a refresh of the Raptor family, designed to plug into existing LGA-1700 motherboards. According to Club386's manifests, four models are en route from Intel's Vietnam facilities. Their specifications suggest they replace current Core i5 and Core i7 parts, because a previous leak indicates Intel has no plans to replace the Core i9-14900K.

  • 99DLMV: 8P + 8E cores (24 threads), 125 W TDP, 3.5 GHz base clock, 30 MB of cache. The approximate match is the i7-14700 or i7-13700.
  • 99DLMT: 8P + 12E cores (28 threads), 65 W TDP, 2.1 GHz base, 33 MB of cache. The match is the i5-14600K or i5-13700K.
  • 99DLMW: 6P + 4E cores (16 threads), 65 W TDP, 2.6 GHz base, 24 MB of cache. The match is the i5-14400 or i5-13500.
  • 99DLMX: core configuration not listed, 65 W TDP, 2.6 GHz base, 24 MB of cache, likely a variant of the model above.

The 99DLMV deserves scrutiny. Its 3.5 GHz base clock exceeds that of the Core i9-14900K, despite a lower core count, so it should perform well even without halo-model resources. It will likely be a strong gaming CPU with high turbo clocks, but only independent reviews can confirm that.

The 99DLMT points in the opposite direction. Its 20 cores and 65 W TDP at a 2.1 GHz base suggest an efficiency-oriented productivity chip rather than a gaming part.

Why does DDR4 support matter?

The refresh arrives amid unusually high DDR5 memory prices. LGA-1700 owners gain on two fronts: newer chips for existing boards, and the option to use cheaper DDR4. Gigabyte's recent BIOS updates all but confirm DDR4 compatibility, though Intel itself has said nothing official.

What about pricing?

There is no word on pricing. The reasonable expectation, based on how refreshes behave, is that the new chips land near the prices of the models they replace. The Core i7-14700 currently sells for $366, or $330 for the "F" variant without integrated graphics. At the lower end, the Core i5-14400 sits at $208, or $161 without an IGP.

None of this is confirmed by Intel. The manifests describe exported parts, not announced products, and shipping data can lag or mislead. Until Intel publishes specifications and prices, the four part numbers remain leaks with unusually good paperwork, and their fate depends on whether Intel chooses to announce them before reviewers get silicon in hand.

Source: Tom's Hardware

Share this article:

More from Sophie Lindqvist

Sophie Lindqvist

Show full bio

News editor covering money, funding and market shifts around Semiconductors, chip manufacturing, hardware, AI compute at Chip Dispatch.

733 articles

Related articles

« Previous articleNext article »