Intel Core i9-13900K Raptor Lake CPU Offers Same Performance As Core i9-12900K With “Unlimited Power” at Just 80W

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
12,292
I meant in terms of pushing power to the maximum in order to keep the performance crown, but you are correct, it is surprisingly more efficient than the 3090.
Well, they did jump two nodes from the 3090. It's kind of expected.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,890


The 13600k destroys the 7600x in productivity and ties it in gaming. Just as R5s were 6 core and i5s were 4 cores, AMD should have priced and named the 8 core 7700x what the 6 core 7600x is now.

Seeing AMD so outmatched in productivity in the midrange is a bit wild.

It better since it's rocking 14 cores...lol.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,890
Well yes more core being better than less core at similar price point or I am not sure of the point made ?

What matter is obviously not performance per core, but per dollar
That per dollar difference doesn't factor in the thermal or power difference which would skew the savings. Just because someone takes a hot part and discounts it doesn't mean there's a savings when you factor in the total system cost.

In this case they aren't even close there's a 100w difference at load. That's substantial.

Intel is pulling a fast one here. Loading up E-cores discounting the chips to win productivity benches even though power wise they are in another class.

Screenshot_20221022-212911.png
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,867
That per dollar difference doesn't factor in the thermal or power difference which would skew the savings. Just because someone takes a hot part and discounts it doesn't mean there's a savings when you factor in the total system cost.

In this case they aren't even close there's a 100w difference at load. That's substantial.

Intel is pulling a fast one here. Loading up E-cores discounting the chips to win productivity benches even though power wise they are in another class.

View attachment 520742
At least Intel is still in the game here, there is no denying that TSMC's 5nm process is way way more efficient than the "Intel 7" process, the fact Intel still manages to stay ahead in any metric here is somewhat a miracle of engineering.
I would not at all be supprised to walk into the Intel engineering department to find a poster of this man:
1666489922035.png

With some sort of shrine, because they are calling upon some elder god BS to stay in the running here.
 

Randall Stephens

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
1,577
At least Intel is still in the game here, there is no denying that TSMC's 5nm process is way way more efficient than the "Intel 7" process, the fact Intel still manages to stay ahead in any metric here is somewhat a miracle of engineering.
I would not at all be supprised to walk into the Intel engineering department to find a poster of this man:
View attachment 520746
With some sort of shrine, because they are calling upon some elder god BS to stay in the running here.
I think it’s finally letting the engineers do engineering stuff. That’s why AMD is making huge strides.
 

Randall Stephens

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
1,577
That per dollar difference doesn't factor in the thermal or power difference which would skew the savings. Just because someone takes a hot part and discounts it doesn't mean there's a savings when you factor in the total system cost.

In this case they aren't even close there's a 100w difference at load. That's substantial.

Intel is pulling a fast one here. Loading up E-cores discounting the chips to win productivity benches even though power wise they are in another class.

View attachment 520742
QFT. Back in the day the AMD parts were so power hungry even with the discount price you paid more in the end with power. Power is not getting cheaper. Some parts of the world are running out of it. Expensive cooling solutions are just that, expensive l. More fans to cool the cpu is just added power and expense. We need to push companies to do more to reduce electricity consumption. A next gen chip with the same power required and better performance is good. A next gen chip with more performance with a lot more power draw, that’s bad.
 

TaintedSquirrel

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 5, 2013
Messages
11,747
Intel is pulling a fast one here. Loading up E-cores discounting the chips to win productivity benches even though power wise they are in another class.
The 13600K is about 30% faster than the 7600X in their Blender test, while consuming 40% more power. You could power limit the 13600K until it matched the 7600X's performance and it would probably consume less power.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,867
QFT. Back in the day the AMD parts were so power hungry even with the discount price you paid more in the end with power. Power is not getting cheaper. Some parts of the world are running out of it. Expensive cooling solutions are just that, expensive l. More fans to cool the cpu is just added power and expense. We need to push companies to do more to reduce electricity consumption. A next gen chip with the same power required and better performance is good. A next gen chip with more performance with a lot more power draw, that’s bad.
But I wanna see that graph measured as a function of time, if something uses 50% more power to complete a job but completes it in half the time then I have actually saved power over the process of that job.
Additionally, I am very interested in idle and low usage states, show me what these pull when asleep, locked, or during normal web browsing and light email/excel work.
I get dinged hard for power usage, I have an entire week or two dedicated to generating reports on electrical usage related to our computer infrastructure, and any improvements I can show there are received very favorably.
So far I am eagerly awaiting Dell and Lenovo to start hitting me up in the coming months with their new offerings and how replacing large portions of my existing fleet will actually save me money.
Jensen may be somewhat famous for "The more you buy, the more you save"; but my OEM suppliers have been hitting me up with variations of that phrase for a decade.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
3,343
That per dollar difference doesn't factor in the thermal or power difference which would skew the savings. Just because someone takes a hot part and discounts it doesn't mean there's a savings when you factor in the total system cost.
Yes, performance per watt could matter to some.
Intel is pulling a fast one here. Loading up E-cores discounting the chips to win productivity benches even though power wise they are in another class.
That one way to see it, I have an hard time finding 13600K numbers, but limited at 45w a 13900K seem to still beat a 7600x, I could imagine that even when limited at a similar wattage the 13600k will be significantly above, has individual core will be running nearer their ideal performance per watt (a bit how and why the 5950x is so efficient, has it has extremely low wattage by threads I think it even often beat an M1 type of chips in some task in efficiency).

a 13600k let you go to crazy 270watt type of numbers if you want (which seem a pure plus to have the option to), but should offer good performance at reasonable level if for cooling or other reason it is needed.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,867
Yes, performance per watt could matter to some.

That one way to see it, I have an hard time finding 13600K numbers, but limited at 45w a 13900K seem to still beat a 7600x, I could imagine that even when limited at a similar wattage the 13600k will be significantly above, has individual core will be running near their ideal performance per watt that they can (a bit how and why the 5950x is so efficient, has it has extremelly low wattage by threads I think it even often beat an M1 type of chips in some task in efficiancy).

a 13600k let you go to crazy 270watt type of numbers if you want (which seem a pure plus to have the option to), but should offer good performance at reasonable level if for cooling or other reason it is needed.
It's numbers like these that make me somewhat excited to see what Intel throws together for their Mobile lineup this time around. The AMD 6000 series when dealing with 45w and below is awesome, would be nice to see if Intel can compete there this gen.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,890
Yes, performance per watt could matter to some.

That one way to see it, I have an hard time finding 13600K numbers, but limited at 45w a 13900K seem to still beat a 7600x, I could imagine that even when limited at a similar wattage the 13600k will be significantly above, has individual core will be running nearer their ideal performance per watt (a bit how and why the 5950x is so efficient, has it has extremely low wattage by threads I think it even often beat an M1 type of chips in some task in efficiency).

a 13600k let you go to crazy 270watt type of numbers if you want (which seem a pure plus to have the option to), but should offer good performance at reasonable level if for cooling or other reason it is needed.
Based on that previous graph its sucking down way more power than the other chips there. Someone spoke of a previous AMD chip and that's what came to mind for me as well. I had dual Opterons (after that I went to an Intel rig) and a GTX 780 (it was a KVM concept) a long time ago and while sure I could beat most things the power use was through the roof to get there and the heat was crazy too. It could literally keep my room warm in winter with just that box alone in the room. People think "oh it's no big deal", yeah until you have one of those halo rigs and realize just how much power and heat they generate.
 
Last edited:

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,890
So they are basically in a dead heat with Intel edging out the 7600x, which actually really surprises me... I figured it would be a close but noticeable loss for Intel here
Now I really want to know what Intel has been feeding its "Intel 7" fabs, this isn't making sense to me
Only if you ignore the 5950x, the 7900x, and the 7950x all are more efficient. The 5950 x in particular is crazy in its efficiency.
1666541968671.png
 

Attachments

  • 1666541647459.png
    1666541647459.png
    30 KB · Views: 0

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
3,343
Based on that previous graph its sucking down way more power than the other chips there
Only if someone want it to do so, if heat and/or power are an issue and you have long multithread workload you can limit it and still have most of the performance and it idle really low.

Modern Intel cpu are really nice in the regard and let you set an higher limit for short burst workload and sustained one.

The question for an HardForum type of users is much more performance at the wanted power than Intel pre-setting, the idle-auto boost for what you need, limit settings, etc.. evolved quite a bit since back in the days.

If someone feel sustains workload should be limited to 65 watt and peak to 130 watt, they can usually to do so in the bios directly, 13600k with a 65w PL1 will still be well ahead of a 7600x in multitythreaded task, it is more than just a given more power to the chips tricks:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...-13600k-review-beating-amd-at-its-own-game/4/
R23 cinebench, 18,063 for the 65 watt 13600K. vs 14,784 for the 7600x, 14.5k vs 10.4k on 3kmark spy CPU score, 371 fps vs 288 at Tomb raider CPU render scores (gaming will not move much if you keep an high burst power usage high enough)
 
Last edited:

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
3,343
I have an hard time finding 13600K numbers, but limited at 45w a 13900K seem to still beat a 7600x,


Here we can see 13600K locked at 115watt (very similar to what a 7600x will use) versus 157 or 168w

10 minutes of Cinebench R23 score / power used

7600x.: 15,237 / 109w
7700x.: 20,167 / 138w
5900x.: 22,026 / 142w
13600K: 22,247 / 115w
13600K: 23,663 / 157w
13600K: 25,119 / 168w
 

Chimpee

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 6, 2015
Messages
1,696


Here we can see 13600K locked at 115watt (very similar to what a 7600x will use) versus 157 or 168w

10 minutes of Cinebench R23 score / power used

7600x.: 15,237 / 109w
7700x.: 20,167 / 138w
5900x.: 22,026 / 142w
13600K: 22,247 / 115w
13600K: 23,663 / 157w
13600K: 25,119 / 168w

That is pretty impressive results for 13600K, might have to build a 13600K system just for funsies.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,890
Only if someone want it to do so, if heat and/or power are an issue and you have long multithread workload you can limit it and still have most of the performance and it idle really low.

Modern Intel cpu are really nice in the regard and let you set an higher limit for short burst workload and sustained one.

The question for an HardForum type of users is much more performance at the wanted power than Intel pre-setting, the idle-auto boost for what you need, limit settings, etc.. evolved quite a bit since back in the days.

If someone feel sustains workload should be limited to 65 watt and peak to 130 watt, they can usually to do so in the bios directly, 13600k with a 65w PL1 will still be well ahead of a 7600x in multitythreaded task, it is more than just a given more power to the chips tricks:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...-13600k-review-beating-amd-at-its-own-game/4/
R23 cinebench, 18,063 for the 65 watt 13600K. vs 14,784 for the 7600x, 14.5k vs 10.4k on 3kmark spy CPU score, 371 fps vs 288 at Tomb raider CPU render scores (gaming will not move much if you keep an high burst power usage high enough)
True, but not other Ryzens in the stack. What AMD might need to do is drop the price on the bottom 2 SKUs which would pit the 13600 against more comparable competition.
 

Riev90

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 21, 2022
Messages
143
True, but not other Ryzens in the stack. What AMD might need to do is drop the price on the bottom 2 SKUs which would pit the 13600 against more comparable competition.
And that should have been done earlier when they announced the pricing.
The rumored price for 7600x $199 and 7700x $299 seemed too good to be true, yet I think those were fairer price compared to ADL chip back then.

Now with B650 (non-E) official price starting from $183 in my country, that's a lot compared to ADL / Raptor overall platform cost.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
215
Exactly, AMD decided to go very high in terms of pricing, and well... while it still makes sense at high end, due to the platform, it certainly does not make sense to go AMD around $300 mark. Intel is sufficiently ahead there that you can go Intel, price in the cost of a new motherboard in the future, while still having a faster processor today.

My guess is that AMD will have to correct its pricing soon enough, as it needs lower MB, and lower CPU prices.

Intel finally transformed into a value champion, it was a long time coming.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
30,217
QFT. Back in the day the AMD parts were so power hungry even with the discount price you paid more in the end with power. Power is not getting cheaper. Some parts of the world are running out of it. Expensive cooling solutions are just that, expensive l. More fans to cool the cpu is just added power and expense. We need to push companies to do more to reduce electricity consumption. A next gen chip with the same power required and better performance is good. A next gen chip with more performance with a lot more power draw, that’s bad.

People say that, but the difference between the 7600x and 13600k is ~90W under load. If you make the assumption that you are running 24/7/365 (which rarely happens if ever), 90W*24 = 2160W/Hr = 2.16KWh * $0.15 which is the average cost of electricity in the US = $0.32 a day difference = $118.26 over a year in power costs if you're running full load 24/7/365.

Now the reality is if you're buying a 13600k or 7600x CPU you're not in the business of running your CPU full load 24/7/365. The average user isn't going to do that even 5% of the time. So being generous 5% of $118.26 is $5.91.

So the power difference/savings for a pseudo average user is negligible. Less so back when "power hungry AMD" CPUs roamed the land since power was cheaper.
 

realworld

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
476
All the reviews were done with slow DDR5 ram (and it still leads the pack) and not truly taking advantage of RPL's fast memory support. Nothing is gonna touch 13900k + one of these beasts.

damn.png
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,867
People say that, but the difference between the 7600x and 13600k is ~90W under load. If you make the assumption that you are running 24/7/365 (which rarely happens if ever), 90W*24 = 2160W/Hr = 2.16KWh * $0.15 which is the average cost of electricity in the US = $0.32 a day difference = $118.26 over a year in power costs if you're running full load 24/7/365.

Now the reality is if you're buying a 13600k or 7600x CPU you're not in the business of running your CPU full load 24/7/365. The average user isn't going to do that even 5% of the time. So being generous 5% of $118.26 is $5.91.

So the power difference/savings for a pseudo average user is negligible. Less so back when "power hungry AMD" CPUs roamed the land since power was cheaper.
And given most PCs are idle for 12-16h a day...
 

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,585
All the reviews were done with slow DDR5 ram (and it still leads the pack) and not truly taking advantage of RPL's fast memory support. Nothing is gonna touch 13900k + one of these beasts.

View attachment 521017
Yep, but getting extreme speeds out of DDR5 modules is still a deep rabbit hole and time commitment right now to get 7200-8000+, having looked into it briefly (overclocknet forums).

TeamGroup has a $400 2x16GB DDR5-7200 CL34 kit but it's anything but "pop it in and set XMP and you're done" due to lots of variance in motherboards, silicon lottery on IMC, etc.
 
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
3,767
Yep, but getting extreme speeds out of DDR5 modules is still a deep rabbit hole and time commitment right now to get 7200-8000+, having looked into it briefly (overclocknet forums).

TeamGroup has a $400 2x16GB DDR5-7200 CL34 kit but it's anything but "pop it in and set XMP and you're done" due to lots of variance in motherboards, silicon lottery on IMC, etc.
Probably take a few bios revisions before they work properly with a simple XMP enable. And even then (just like really highly clocked DDR4) no guarantees.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
3,343
And given most PCs are idle for 12-16h a day...
And in that regard intel idle tend to be a tiny bit lower under idle or single thread work, a 13900K seem to idle under a 5600 for example and at light load under a 5900x, not by much but it can be 1,200 hours of 10 less watt versus 200 hours of 70 more watt, ending up not that different at the end of the year.

One element that can be easily go over a lot of hours is GPU power, because they tend to max out easily over something has common than playing a regular game and to use 7950x or even 13900K type of power (or 450 watt for a 3090ti-4090).
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2021
Messages
461
QFT. Back in the day the AMD parts were so power hungry even with the discount price you paid more in the end with power. Power is not getting cheaper. Some parts of the world are running out of it. Expensive cooling solutions are just that, expensive l. More fans to cool the cpu is just added power and expense. We need to push companies to do more to reduce electricity consumption. A next gen chip with the same power required and better performance is good. A next gen chip with more performance with a lot more power draw, that’s bad.
This generation will have that. This first wave of cpus is just for bragging rights in each class, power usage be damned. The 13700 will likely match the 12900k using far less power. The 13400 will so the same against the 12600k. If you are really concerned about power, you would have no problem waiting a few months for the power efficient models.
 

D-EJ915

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
1,707
Yep, but getting extreme speeds out of DDR5 modules is still a deep rabbit hole and time commitment right now to get 7200-8000+, having looked into it briefly (overclocknet forums).

TeamGroup has a $400 2x16GB DDR5-7200 CL34 kit but it's anything but "pop it in and set XMP and you're done" due to lots of variance in motherboards, silicon lottery on IMC, etc.
And as always tight subtimings >>>>>>>>>>>>> xmp and high speed. Bandwidth from high MT/s is neat but doesn't help games much.
 
Top