12 ms·
Intel Core I9-13900K and I5-13600K Review: Raptor Lake Brings More Bite
- KuiN 4y agoTL;DR Intel's top SKU beats AMD's top SKU by a small margin in some tests, the opposite in others. But it uses a huge amount of extra power to be competitive. 'In our testing, power consumption topped out at a absurd 335 Watts, over 100W more than the Ryzen 9 7950X'
- machinekob 4y agoOn other benchmarks Intel limited to 255W still beats Ryzen 9 7950X in most cases. And Intel is on at least 1/1.5 node behind right now so still impressive for me especially 12600k that totally destroys 7000 series right now.
- KingOfCoders 4y agoYes wish Raptor Lake with eCores would be on TSMC 5nm.
- machinekob 4y agoIn next year Intel should be on parity with TSMC 5nm (Intel 4 node) so meteor lake will be on close to TSMC 5nm/4nm probably.
- retskrad 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- sailplease 4y agoBased on a couple of the reviews it sounds like Intel is doing really well on a very old node and more or less beating AMDs part for part comparison by adding more little cores and better cache for ipc and MT gains. Power draw is better on this refresh but worse than AMDs 5nm chips, but one review showed idle power draw on the amd 7000 series at ~100w vs ~60W on the intel system at the plug which is concerning and a couple reviewers are yet to test intels claim that they can match last gen perf at ~1/4 the power draw which might actually give intel the perf/watt crown. REnder tests I saw measuring KJ drawed per task did show AMD about 15% more efficient BUT at single core the draws are the same so depends on how hard you're hammering and the workloads. I think Intel has the huge cost advantage due to cheaper MBs, memory and sounds like AMD 7000 series sales are hurting due to the large platform cost. I think Intels meteor lake parts will be the most interesting, if Intel can actually execute on time we'll see a shop who clearly can execute on an old node hopefully surprise on a modern node.
- galangalalgol 4y agoThe gp was probably trolling given that it is obvious apple only makes processors for phones and laptops that have much less than half the world's market share. Not even counting servers or workstations. But with the advent of graviton and oracle's arm server nodes, I do think the gp made an unintentional point about arm defeating amd and Intel. If we see some higher end Chromebooks start making intoads for things besides browsing and mail that will probably be the writing on the wall for both amd and intel to pivot and fast.
- KingOfCoders 4y agoYes I have an AM4 12c and will probably switch b/c the iGPU is betyer and Raptor Lake seems to idle better.
- bufferoverflow 4y agoOnly if you like walled gardens and paying 10 times more for RAM and SSDs.
- sliken 4y agoI've been supporting the linux port to M1 on Patreon, and significant progress has been made. However if you look at system price I think you'll find the Apple products pretty price competitive. The m1 mini is pretty nice for the price, the 14" and 16" MBPs are also competitive, and even the apple studio. Sure it's easy to ignore things like a quality display, keyboard, and touchpad. Especially on things like memory bandwidth and energy efficiency apple are hard to match. Sad that the vast majority of the PC market is limited to 128 bit wide memory (60-80GB/sec), which Apple matches on the lowest end M1 (66GB/sec) or M2 (100GB/sec), but also doesn't charge particularly much to increase to 200GB/sec or 400GB/sec. Sure the Apple Studio with the M1 Ultra is pricey with 800GB/sec, but is unmatched by even the pricey Thread ripper Pro with 200GB/sec. Sure some off brand laptops with 1 or more worse quality features like battery life, weight, screen, keyboard, or touchpad can win on price/perf. Often they don't last nearly as long and you get much less if you try to resell them later.
- didgetmaster 4y agoBoth AMD and Intel are competing for bragging rights, but they are both pushing the power envelope to accomplish it. The Raptor Lake processors take it to the next level. The law of diminishing returns kicks in whenever a new version is something like 20% faster but requires 25% more power in order to do it. There are times when I will certainly sacrifice cost for speed, but most of the time I want my CPU to churn out pretty good performance while being frugal on the power budget.
- machinekob 4y agoYea this generation power limiting in bios will be a must for high end. Both 7950X and 13900k don't lose much performance from limiting power to "reasonable" wattage.
- neogodless 4y agoSeeing what the 7950X does even when limited to 65W is pretty exciting, and it will be very interesting to see what AMD does with their mobile line of processors come January!
- brokenmachine 4y agoWhat does limiting the power usage do to the single core performance?
- neogodless 4y agoI do think TechSpot[0] (aka Hardware Unboxed) has a good chart[1] that highlights some differences in power consumption utilized to achieve performance. Notice at 185W, the Ryzen 9 7950X is churning out about 36% higher performance than the Core i9 13900K. The Intel CPU, however, is then able to continue drawing up to 335W! At their respective peak scores, the i9 is using over 70% more power. [0] https://www.techspot.com/review/2552-intel-core-i9-13900k/ https://www.techspot.com/review/2552-intel-core-i9-13900k/ [1] https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/2552/bench/Power_Scaling_AMD-p.webp https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/2552/bench/Power_S...
- PaulWaldman 4y agoDisappointing that with all of this power available, ECC is only supported on W680 motherboards which are impossible to find from 1st party sellers.
- boplicity 4y agoFor someone who just doesn't know -- what are the useful use cases for ECC? Who benefits from it?
- kahrl 4y agoNuclear engineers and anyone else who want bragging rights.
- Espressosaurus 4y agoYou benefit from cosmic rays not randomly corrupting your data in memory.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 7speter 4y agoTheres an actual phenomenon known as bitrot, where over time, copies and storage, files degrade by having their bits flip. This can apparently accelerate during the process of a file being transferred (whether from the internet to a drive or ram or to a drive or vice versa), bits can be misread because of the speed and breadth they come in at. Ecc prevents this.
- trynumber9 4y agoUnfortunately, it doesn't prevent it but reduces the chance. Even with ECC memory regular data integrity checks (or scrubs) are vital for detecting bit rot.
- sliken 4y agoTrue, but those data integrity checks are built into the motherboard/BIOS and happen without any user (or OS) intervention.
- machinekob 4y agoAMD will have a lot of problems on the low end looking at 7600X vs 12600k performance and most likely will be destroyed in the upper-middle after 12700k reviews goes live looking at 12600k vs 7700x. Pretty weird that roles changes and now Intel is dominating low end and AMD is trying hard to dominate high end.
- LegitShady 4y agoIntel is winning in low end and high end, just not in power efficiency.
- dotnet00 4y agoBesides power vs performance, there's also the cost of buying into the platform, AMD's latest chips aren't selling too well because cost of entry is pretty high with expensive motherboards and expensive RAM (plus enthusiast gamers waiting for the 3d stacked cache chips coming next year). Intel is seeming likely to have the pricing advantage this time due to their compatibility with DDR4, IIRC slightly lower prices and support for existing motherboards.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago> plus enthusiast gamers waiting for the 3d stacked cache chips coming next year) They're already here - the 5800X3D or whatever it's called - and there's a significant performance jump in a bunch of games. It is being released for the same cost as the non-stacked version of the chip, which has since come down in price. There are some downsides, like not being overclockable, so for workloads that don't benefit from the extra cache (which are many), it's not advantageous. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBFNoKUHjcg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBFNoKUHjcg Edit: I apologize for not being more specific in a casual internet forum discussion, so as to make clear that I was simply pointing out that there are also some 3d cache chips already in the market. I mistakenly thought this was intuitively obvious to casual observers. Praise be that neogodless was available to prevent HN readers from being led astray. In the future, I will be more careful and exacting in my wording. I have been appropriately chided, and will not transgress again. Thank you for correcting me, good sir.
- neogodless 4y agoParent comment is talking about Zen 4 / Ryzen 7000 generation part(s) with the 3D cache, which has not been released yet, but is on the roadmap.
- dotnet00 4y agoFWIW I didn't downvote you
- neogodless 4y agoFor an idea of price differences, cheapest available parts to build a 6-core, 16GB (2x8) barebones system (motherboard, RAM, CPU) from Microcenter: AMD: Total $615 B650 motherboard $230 Ryzen 5 7600X (6C) $300 DDR5-4800 $85 Intel: Total $439 B660M motherboard (DDR4 only) $90 Core i5 13600k (6P + 8E) $300 DDR4-3200 $49 The motherboards are really killing it. DDR5 isn't such a problem. Yes it's more expensive, but higher performing. But their entry level motherboards need to come way down in price!
- least 4y agoIt seems like both CPUs and GPUs this generation are going to push the power requirements to absolutely ridiculous heights for very minimal gains in performance. Sure, it doesn't take much work for a tinkerer to modify the settings, reduce voltages, and get something still quite powerful with considerable power savings, but that's the tinkerers. The CPUs and GPUs coming to people out of the box are going to be chugging power. These chips coming in prebuilts from system integrators for the people that just want to get work done are going to be as well. I think Apple is probably too conservative with their power limits on their Mac Studio (maybe that's something they're saving for the Mac Pro) but I'd prefer that to this nonsense being the default.
- tester756 4y agoAre those concerns even reasonable? My CPU runs most of the day at around 5-20% usage And it reaches top usage when I run some relatively new game for like a hour a week at best Thus, the point is: why power usage at highest usage is that important? I'd say power usage for the most common CPU usage is most important for majority of the people (for data center it'd be different)
- KennyBlanken 4y agoThese sorts of CPUs are probably more likely to be bought by people who use them heavily, rather than sit idle for hours and hours. Obviously there will always be the Whale who surfs the web but has to buy a 13900k, but most people aren't dropping this sort of dough if they don't need the horsepower. I can spend several hours on a weekend night gaming, and my GPU and CPU, depending on the game, are going half to full tilt. Typically ~350W, and that doesn't include my two monitors. When it's not in active use, it's asleep - I rarely leave it idling for more than ~30min before I put it in sleep mode. I'd say it probably spends 25% of its life under load. This and the prior generation I9s use 2-3x the wattage of current generation AMD CPUs...couple that with NVIDIA 4000 series cards hitting 600W and you could have an intel 13900k w/4090 gaming rig using around 1000W, not including PSU efficiency losses or monitor(s). We're talking "you might need a dedicated circuit if you're on 100-120VAC and want anything else on that circuit" territory; it wouldn't surprise me if people start hiring electricians to switch circuits over to 208v.
- jondoe 4y ago
- DeathArrow 4y agoTLDR: Intel manages to top AMD even if it's on a different (larger) process node.
- neogodless 4y agoIf you're going to try to be concise, perhaps include the bare necessary details. Intel's 24-core chip matches AMD's 16-core chip in performance for $100 less, but uses up to 150W more.
- sliken 4y agoIndeed, at the cost of heterogeneous cores and killing off AVX512.
- sailplease 4y agoit doesn't use 150w more, if you want to be concise be concise about a facet, talk about the workload and the power consumption per workload, most computers sit idle and as commenters are pointing out AMD has 2x the power draw at idle, amd doesn't seem to respect the pl1 power limits per Ars and is less power efficient for those who care about power efficiency, run the pl1 at 125W and intel burns less and performs the same for less power draw while working, on a 2 node disadvantage. And being concise about the cores requires you to talk about the core types, 2/3 of the 24 cores are little cores, one could say intel is performing the same with 1/2 the equivalent big cores, 8 vs 16 on the top part. It's more nuanced.
- deng 4y agoCould please someone clear up the following for me: So his processor draws up to 335W. The core voltage is to my knowledge around 1.3V, so this processor draws over 255A. How is this possible? Shouldn't these tiny structures inside the processor immediately evaporate with currents like these? I mean, they are not superconductors, they must have some resistance? Why do I have to spend so much money on AWG4 cables for my battery storage, and somehow these rules do not apply to microprocessors?
- spijdar 4y agoNot my expertise, but I assume this is (one of) the reasons why CPU packages have so many dedicated power delivery pins, like in https://www.techpowerup.com/img/RJC7aj7xUhLmvxVD.jpg https://www.techpowerup.com/img/RJC7aj7xUhLmvxVD.jpg
- formerly_proven 4y agoLike half the pins in a CPU socket are ground and power. The copper planes carrying power from the VRM to the socket are massive. Wide and thick. The CPU die itself has large networks of metal interconnect that get finer and finer to supply smaller and smaller areas, much like our circulatory system. You can see these on die shots of older parts as well, e.g. http://www.righto.com/2016/12/die-photos-and-analysis-of_24.html http://www.righto.com/2016/12/die-photos-and-analysis-of_24.... notice the thick traces which start to fan out quickly. Also consider that there's 10+ billion transistors for those 200 A to go around.
- nigerianbrince 4y agoI read somewhere that the energy density in modern cpus is 10% of the surface of the sun. Don't quote me on that.
- adgjlsfhk1 4y agoI'm pretty sure it's much higher. The sun isn't very energy dense.
- katmannthree 4y ago
- borissk 4y agoIn games both 7000 Ryzens and 13 gen Intel are overpriced. A tuned 12th gen Intel or Ryzen 7 5800X3D will almost match them. Also value overclocking is back - cheap boards like MSI MAG B660M Mortar Max Wifi DDR4 and AsRock B660M PG Riptide can overclock non-K Intel CPUs. Combined with say an i5 12400f overclocked to 5.1GHz they are providing amazing performance per dollar.
- mauricesvp 4y ago> In code compilation Intel beats AMD. How do you come to that conclusion? Here's a Chromium Compile Benchmark in which the 7950x beats the 13900k. https://youtu.be/P40gp_DJk5E?t=593 https://youtu.be/P40gp_DJk5E?t=593
- gw99 4y agoI suspect the biggest TCO item for this, at least in Europe would be the energy costs over 5y. Even worse if you chuck an RTX in there.
- sliken 4y agoDoubly so with the increased temps that increasingly require you to power the box, then pay to cool the resulting PC exhaust.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- sheepybloke 4y agoWith the i5 being so much cheaper for decent performance and the i9 being new performance king, where does that leave the i7? At that price point and with the performance it has, it's hard to recommend to anyone.
- Dalewyn 4y agoi7 exists for those who want top performance but also realize that paying a couple more Franklins to get <1% more performance is ridiculous unless you really and truly need that. To put it another way, i9 exists for those who either need the bestest performance or want bragging rights. i7 exists for those who need/want the best performance.
- faeriechangling 4y agoThat's just it though, we're hitting those diminishing returns after the i5 not the i7.
- ThatMedicIsASpy 4y agoHere are some decent slides with power limits from der8auer Power limit 90W: https://youtu.be/H4Bm0Wr6OEQ?t=280 https://youtu.be/H4Bm0Wr6OEQ?t=280 A power limit scaling graph in 20W steps with Cinebench R20: https://youtu.be/H4Bm0Wr6OEQ?t=910 https://youtu.be/H4Bm0Wr6OEQ?t=910 The default settings on both AMD and intel are such a shame when you can offer 5-10% less performance for a major decrease in power consumption.
- neogodless 4y agoDoes anyone have a good source of idle power consumption comparisons? I've seen a lot of comments, but no solid links/reviews. I did find this YouTube video which compares Ryzen 9 7950X and Ryzen 9 5950X at idle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvv1hlUny7c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvv1hlUny7c The overall "CPU Package Power" is around 38-42W for these two. Does anyone have the same number for a Raptor Lake system?
- brokenmachine 4y agohttps://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i9_13900k_review,6.html https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i9_13900k_r...