Intel Core i9-13900k Raptor Lake Could Be 15% Faster than Core i9-12900k & 35% Faster than AMD Ryzen 9 5950X in Single-Threaded Performance

[BiG StroOnZ]

Summary

Intel's Raptor Lake Core i9-13900k could feature 15% faster performance than Core i9-12900k and 35% faster than AMD Ryzen 9 5950X in Geekbench 5. This rumor comes from @OneRaichu who was correct with his Alder Lake performance postulations.

 

 

 

Quotes

Quote

This latest performance rumor comes from none other than @OneRaichu who was accurate with his Alder Lake performance claims. Now the leaker has said that Intel's upcoming Core i9-13900K, the flagship of the 13th Gen Raptor Lake lineup, could offer a score of over 2300 points within the Geekbench 5 benchmark.

 

For comparisons sake, the Intel Core i9-12900k Alder Lake CPU scores 1936 points, while the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X Zen 3 CPU scores 1689 points. If we take those scores, you get up to a 15% performance uplift over the Alder Lake CPU and a 35% improvement over the Zen 3 CPU when compared to the Raptor Lake's 2300 points.

 

My thoughts

So the next question you're asking is probably: how will this fare against Zen 4? Zen 4 CPUs are expected to offer over 15% single-threaded performance gain over Zen 3, possibly higher, but we'll say up to 19%. That gives you a single-threaded score of around 1800-1900 points in Geekbench 5. Meaning, Raptor Lake would be around 21-28% faster in single-threaded performance compared to Zen 4; if these Raptor Lake numbers are even remotely accurate. AMD has said they are being conservative with their performance uplift figures, but that still gives the edge to Raptor Lake even if Zen 4 is slightly faster than expected. 

 

Sources

https://wccftech.com/intel-raptor-lake-core-i9-13900k-15-percent-faster-i9-12900k-35-percent-faster-amd-ryzen-9-5950x-single-thread-benchmark-performance-rumor/

 

Sidenote: There was also a leak today that confirms an Intel 13th Gen Raptor Lake part with 24c/32t (showing 20-32% performance gains for Raptor Lake next to Zen 3 and Alder Lake):

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

[Shimejii]

This should be taken down just for using UserBenchmark. Stop using that shitty site its not accurate nor does it have integrity. 

 

I wouldnt be surprised if they optimized it a bit more, although 15-20% sounds a bit odd, i wonder if they adjusted something or they just added more power.

[BiG StroOnZ]

1 hour ago, Shimejii said:

This should be taken down just for using UserBenchmark. Stop using that shitty site its not accurate nor does it have integrity. 

 

I wouldnt be surprised if they optimized it a bit more, although 15-20% sounds a bit odd, i wonder if they adjusted something or they just added more power.

 

Sorry, but that's just the "Sidenote" to confirm the 24c/32t Raptor Lake part exists. The main leak/story is from Geekbench 5. 

 

Edit: I put that part under 'Spoiler tags' to prevent further confusion. 

[NF-F12]

My friend, I do not mean to be especially rude here but do you have any desire to post news that is not speculative? You frequent sources such as WCCF and Videocardz which are known for jumping the gun for clicks and are not really trusted in the industry.

 

Being an agent who then passes that on without charging them a fee seems a bit strange, are you employed by either of these companies?

[IkeaGnome]

6 minutes ago, NF-F12 said:

My friend, I do not mean to be especially rude here but do you have any desire to post news that is not speculative? You frequent sources such as WCCF and Videocardz which are known for jumping the gun for clicks and are not really trusted in the industry.

 

Being an agent who then passes that on without charging them a fee seems a bit strange, are you employed by either of these companies?

What? 

You realize WCCF's source for their article is the person that was almost dead on with Alder Lake's single core performance right?

[TrigrH]

11 minutes ago, NF-F12 said:

You frequent sources such as WCCF and Videocardz.....

...... are you employed by either of these companies?

Quote

i9-13900k could feature 15% faster performance

Pretty nice for the final DDR4 supported platform.

Lets hope no one here purchased the i9-12900KS because its a KYS at this point /jk  

[BiG StroOnZ]

58 minutes ago, NF-F12 said:

My friend, I do not mean to be especially rude here but do you have any desire to post news that is not speculative? You frequent sources such as WCCF and Videocardz which are known for jumping the gun for clicks and are not really trusted in the industry.

 

Being an agent who then passes that on without charging them a fee seems a bit strange, are you employed by either of these companies?

 

Sorry if you feel that way, but I post plenty of news articles that are not speculative, for instance:

 

 

 

That's just two that are still on the front page. There are more.

 

Anyway, I post generally anything I think might spark interesting discussion. I do say I enjoy leaks/rumors more often than not, but it is definitely not the only stuff I post. I also tend to provide more than one source, when and if I can. Just so happens in this instance that WCCFTech broke this story first. 

 

But no I don't work for either of them. I simply enjoy Tech News, and besides gaming, on my computer I generally read a lot of Tech News articles. If you know me, I generally post news articles a lot on any of the Tech forums I'm a part of. It's kind of my thing. 

[dizmo]

New thing is faster than two older things. Shocking. 

[WolframaticAlpha]

41 minutes ago, dizmo said:

New thing is faster than two older things. Shocking. 

We might still be reeling from the years of "quad core is enough", "5% performance gains are sufficient" and 14nm++++ from Intel /s

[tim0901]

7 hours ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

AMD has said they are being conservative with their performance uplift figures

I really don't understand this one.

 

You don't say "we have a greater than 15% performance uplift" when you actually have a 20-30% uplift as the new rumors are claiming - that's just terrible marketing. You say "we have a 20-30% uplift". When marketing a product you generally want to run that fine line of flaunting what you have without running into deceptive territory - modesty of this level will get you nowhere.

 

Which begs the question of what the fuck AMD is doing here. Are they trying to bait Intel out into showing their hand? Is this some kind of bait-and-switch marketing strategy? Get some negative press now so that the reviewers are positively surprised at launch? Or is it that this claim of their figures being "conservative" is just an attempt to save face given the public reaction? I have no idea. None of it makes any sense.

Please AMD, for the god-knows-how-many-th time of asking, hire a competent fucking marketing department and tell us things straight - even if it is pride month. I really thought we were done with the whole "getting information from AMD reps outside of official announcements" thing.

 

Oh wait, the guy who made the bullshit availability claims on Twitter 2 years ago is AMD's head of gaming marketing! That explains everything...

[Rauten]

AMD better be lowballing their performance numbers or it's going to be very very rough for them...

[BetteBalterZen]

But at how many watts? More performance means nothing IMO if the wattage just follows right up with the increased performance. 

[ZetZet]

37 minutes ago, BetteBalterZen said:

But at how many watts? More performance means nothing IMO if the wattage just follows right up with the increased performance. 

I don't think they would push the wattage up any more. It will keep bouncing on that 250W limit. 

[KaitouX]

34 minutes ago, BetteBalterZen said:

But at how many watts? More performance means nothing IMO if the wattage just follows right up with the increased performance. 

Single Thread power consumption is pretty stable across generations, from both Intel and AMD.

At full load all Intel flagship CPUs for a few years had the PL2 around 250W, Alder lake just changed the default behavior to match what many motherboards already did by themselves and let the CPU stay at the higher power limit. So I don't think they will change it with Raptor Lake.

 

13 hours ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

Sidenote: There was also a leak today that confirms an Intel 13th Gen Raptor Lake part with 24c/32t:

Intel already confirmed themselves though. They even showed it running on stage.

[BiG StroOnZ]

16 hours ago, tim0901 said:

Which begs the question of what the fuck AMD is doing here. Are they trying to bait Intel out into showing their hand? Is this some kind of bait-and-switch marketing strategy? Get some negative press now so that the reviewers are positively surprised at launch? Or is it that this claim of their figures being "conservative" is just an attempt to save face given the public reaction? I have no idea. None of it makes any sense.

 

I'm going to go with the surprising reviewers at launch possibility. A few days ago there was a mention on a website of a Zen 4 part existing that could do 5.85GHz. While at Computex the maximum frequency we saw was 5.5GHz. Also, there was again the miscommunication with the TDP/PPT; leaving headroom for more performance. Meaning, they could be finalizing some aspects of their Zen 4 parts that could affect performance that could possibly offer higher than 15% performance uplift. They are definitely getting into the territory where the Silicon is nearly finalized, meaning much more tuning is not going to be possible beyond a certain point. I forget who I was watching/listening to the other day, but they mentioned that companies like AMD/NVIDIA/Intel generally have a good idea of what their competitors' new products are going to perform like; in that, the leaks/info they get are much better than what we get typically. So I'm guessing the baiting Intel to show their hand is not likely, as they probably already have a good idea of what Raptor Lake is going to perform like (probably why there is so much conflicting information on the actual performance of Zen 4; AMD is still doing some final tweaks to it).  

 

11 hours ago, KaitouX said:

Intel already confirmed themselves though. They even showed it running on stage.

 

Spoiler

 

 

Thanks for that, wasn't aware of it.

 

At the very least, despite UserBenchmark being highly inaccurate; we did still get another comparison of performance of Raptor Lake next to Zen 3 and Alder Lake (showing 20-32% performance gains):

 

 

 

 

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-raptor-lake-cpu-benchmarked-20-percent-faster-than-core-i9-12900k

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Raptor-Lake-S-24C-32T-CPU-with-Arc-A770-spotted-on-UserBenchmark-with-4-6-GHz-average-boost-and-up-to-32-higher-multi-core-performance-compared-to-Core-i9-12900K.624892.0.html

[Unedited_Mind]

18 hours ago, dizmo said:

New thing is faster than two older things. Shocking. 

 

[tikker]

15 hours ago, tim0901 said:

You don't say "we have a greater than 15% performance uplift" when you actually have a 20-30% uplift as the new rumors are claiming - that's just terrible marketing. You say "we have a 20-30% uplift". When marketing a product you generally want to run that fine line of flaunting what you have without running into deceptive territory - modesty of this level will get you nowhere.

There is something to be said for marketing "at least X%" that you are sure you'll hit or the majority will most likely experience vs an "(up to) Y%" that is maybe more specific.

 

15 hours ago, tim0901 said:

Which begs the question of what the fuck AMD is doing here. Are they trying to bait Intel out into showing their hand? Is this some kind of bait-and-switch marketing strategy? Get some negative press now so that the reviewers are positively surprised at launch? Or is it that this claim of their figures being "conservative" is just an attempt to save face given the public reaction? I have no idea. None of it makes any sense.

What bad press? For staying conservative? That would be bad press indeed, but not bad press. Bait and switch usually has a negative connotation. I don't see a negative aspect in marketing 15% and possibly getting more? Was there backlash for "only" 15% improvement? I haven't followed it that closely, but don't see the need for saving face here? I'd much rather have a conservative estimate this way than a higher estimate or an Intel-style we're better in this specific benchmark scenario.

[tim0901]

3 hours ago, tikker said:

Was there backlash for "only" 15% improvement?

Yes. Go to places like /r/AMD or /r/hardware (or even just the comments section on any articles covering the announcement) and the overall impression of the event was "that's disappointing".

 

AMD showed a 16-core CPU running at 5.5GHz - a 12% frequency bump over the 5950X's 4.9GHz boost clock. If the 15% uplift claim is correct then that increased core frequency would account for most of it. Add to this the increased power consumption figures and yeah, I can see why people are disappointed.

 

Its also very disappointing when you consider that the 5800X3D saw a ~28% uplift over the 5800X in gaming scenarios. According to the numbers AMD has shown us so far, a previous-gen part will be better at gaming than the flagship 7000 series CPU - that's kinda embarassing.

[starsmine]

5 hours ago, tim0901 said:

Yes. Go to places like /r/AMD or /r/hardware (or even just the comments section on any articles covering the announcement) and the overall impression of the event was "that's disappointing".

 

AMD showed a 16-core CPU running at 5.5GHz - a 12% frequency bump over the 5950X's 4.9GHz boost clock. If the 15% uplift claim is correct then that increased core frequency would account for most of it. Add to this the increased power consumption figures and yeah, I can see why people are disappointed.

 

Its also very disappointing when you consider that the 5800X3D saw a ~28% uplift over the 5800X in gaming scenarios. According to the numbers AMD has shown us so far, a previous-gen part will be better at gaming than the flagship 7000 series CPU - that's kinda embarassing.

the >15% is also based off of 5ghz+ boost, not 5.5ghz as far as I can tell. 

So I feel like we should all know >15% is a minimum increase expected in most applications, not the expected increase in most applications, I mean they even SHOWED a benchmark with multithreading that went well beyond 15% with the Blender benchmark, and it isnt like they increased core count. I dont know, it is weird to see a claim that isnt "up to" so none of us are able to parse what exactly it means. 

I think the comparison between the raptor lake and zen 4 ST are way to obfuscated by these weird numbers to make any sort of call that one is going to be significantly faster then the other just yet. 

[KaitouX]

3 hours ago, starsmine said:

the >15% is also based off of 5ghz+ boost, not 5.5ghz as far as I can tell. 

So I feel like we should all know >15% is a minimum increase expected in most applications, not the expected increase in most applications, I mean they even SHOWED a benchmark with multithreading that went well beyond 15% with the Blender benchmark, and it isnt like they increased core count. I dont know, it is weird to see a claim that isnt "up to" so none of us are able to parse what exactly it means. 

I think the comparison between the raptor lake and zen 4 ST are way to obfuscated by these weird numbers to make any sort of call that one is going to be significantly faster then the other just yet. 

The MT benchmark performance probably increases way more mostly because of the higher power limit, which would allow the all-core clocks to be pushed way higher. As example, if you consider that the single-core clock is going from 4.9Ghz to 5.5Ghz, that would put the clock improvement at 12%, but if the all-core clock is going from 3.9Ghz to 5.2Ghz(same as the 12900KS), that would make for a 32% improvement.

Considering that we don't know the performance difference between the 5950X and the shown 16-core part in that Blender test, because they've shown the 12900K instead, and Blender is all over the place when it comes to performance difference between the 5950X and 12900K, varying from the 12900K being 5% or so faster to the 5950X being over 20% faster, there's a good chance that the difference could be explained by those things + some small IPC gains.

[tim0901]

10 hours ago, starsmine said:

So I feel like we should all know >15% is a minimum increase expected in most applications, not the expected increase in most applications, I mean they even SHOWED a benchmark with multithreading that went well beyond 15% with the Blender benchmark, and it isnt like they increased core count. I dont know, it is weird to see a claim that isnt "up to" so none of us are able to parse what exactly it means. 

6 hours ago, KaitouX said:

The MT benchmark performance probably increases way more mostly because of the higher power limit, which would allow the all-core clocks to be pushed way higher. As example, if you consider that the single-core clock is going from 4.9Ghz to 5.5Ghz, that would put the clock improvement at 12%, but if the all-core clock is going from 3.9Ghz to 5.2Ghz(same as the 12900KS), that would make for a 32% improvement.

Considering that we don't know the performance difference between the 5950X and the shown 16-core part in that Blender test, because they've shown the 12900K instead, and Blender is all over the place when it comes to performance difference between the 5950X and 12900K, varying from the 12900K being 5% or so faster to the 5950X being over 20% faster, there's a good chance that the difference could be explained by those things + some small IPC gains.

We also have to consider that Blender could be a poor indication of overall performance given that it is capable of utilising AVX 512 instructions, some of which are now supported by Zen 4. Blender performs its CPU AI denoising by using the Intel Open Image Denoise library - an open-source, vendor-agnostic library which itself can utilise AVX 512 instructions when available.

 

I have no idea if Blender will allow you to enable AVX 512 mode on a Zen 4 CPU considering that Zen 4 only supports a subset of the full AVX 512 instruction set (in particular implementing functions aimed at AI applications such as the aforementioned denoising library) but if it can be enabled for the AI components then this could give a far more favorable result vs Alder Lake or Zen 3 that doesn't line up with the results seen in other, non-AVX 512 workloads. It would therefore make sense that AMD wouldn't want to make claims of a 30+% multicore improvement based on that one result, instead sticking to more conservative numbers that will apply to a wider selection of workloads.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, tim0901 said:

I have no idea if Blender will allow you to enable AVX 512 mode on a Zen 4 CPU considering that Zen 4 only supports a subset of the full AVX 512 instruction set (in particular implementing functions aimed at AI applications such as the aforementioned denoising library) but if it can be enabled for the AI components then this could give a far more favorable result vs Alder Lake or Zen 3 that doesn't line up with the results seen in other, non-AVX 512 workloads. It would therefore make sense that AMD wouldn't want to make claims of a 30+% multicore improvement based on that one result, instead sticking to more conservative numbers that will apply to a wider selection of workloads.

Alder Lake Supports VNNI (AVX-512 AI subset) so they have functionally equivalent support in this regard.

[LAwLz]

13 hours ago, starsmine said:

the >15% is also based off of 5ghz+ boost, not 5.5ghz as far as I can tell. 

Source? Everything I have heard points towards the 15% number being at 5.5GHz, not at 5GHz.

 

13 hours ago, starsmine said:

So I feel like we should all know >15% is a minimum increase expected in most applications, not the expected increase in most applications, I mean they even SHOWED a benchmark with multithreading that went well beyond 15% with the Blender benchmark, and it isnt like they increased core count. I dont know, it is weird to see a claim that isnt "up to" so none of us are able to parse what exactly it means. 

Did the Blender test really show a bigger than 15% increase?

We don't know what test they ran in Blender to get the number, and all they said was that it was "31% faster than the i9-12900K".

In Guru3D's Blender test, the 5950X is already ~25% faster than the 12900K.

 

i9 - 310 seconds

5950X - 234 seconds

7950X (estimate) - 213 seconds

 

At 212 seconds it would be ~31% faster than the 12900K, but it would only be ~9% faster than the 5950X.

So I would argue that the Blender benchmark AMD showed indicates that it will have LESS than a 15% performance uplift from Zen3 processors.

 

 

13 hours ago, starsmine said:

I think the comparison between the raptor lake and zen 4 ST are way to obfuscated by these weird numbers to make any sort of call that one is going to be significantly faster then the other just yet. 

I think it is best to wait as well, but everything we have been shown and told as of today indicates that Raptor Lake will be way faster than Zen 4. 

Anyone saying the opposite is just high on copium. 

 

But since I am a strong believer that first party numbers are generally awful and misleading (that includes the ones from AMD), I don't think we should declare a "winner" before the products have been thoroughly tested by third parties. But if I had to speculate then I would say Zen 4 does not look that good. It seems like it is mostly the same cores as Zen3, but overclocked out of the box at the cost of higher power and heat.

Most of the changes on the 7000 series seems to be in the IO die, not the cores.

[Dabombinable]

On 6/3/2022 at 1:10 PM, dizmo said:

New thing is faster than two older things. Shocking. 

Until we get another Netburst or Bulldozer.

[dizmo]

6 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

Until we get another Netburst or Bulldozer.

I like to think AMD learned that lying is bad