raptor lake Intel claims Core i9-13900K will be 11% faster on average than AMD Ryzen 9 7950X in gaming

[LAwLz]

8 minutes ago, porina said:

Is there a review that covers power consumption at different workloads? So far I've only seen Anandtech stick Prime95 on to hit >300W. Does it get anywhere near that power with softer loads like Cinebench?

TechPowerUp does.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-13600k/22.html

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-13900k/22.html

 

 

The i5-13600K seems to sit at around 120 watts for most tests. Some way lower, and some like Blender going as high as 180 watts.

 

Going through all the reviews right now but it seems like the i5-13600K is a fantastic chip. Like, a serious beast.

[GoodBytes]

GN review:

A very hot CPU. Not efficient. Probably pushes the CPU to its max to get whatever it can get as performance to match/beat AMD offering.

 

[Shzzit]

benchmarks are out, Intel looks sooo good at gaming.  Dbou8er showed around 39% fast then 7950x in some games lol

 

looks soooooo good 

 

8 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

GN review:

A very hot CPU. Not efficient. Probably pushes the CPU to its max to get whatever it can get as performance to match/beat AMD offering.

 

Dbou8er already showed at 80 watts it still beats 7950x in gaming. 

Edited October 20, 2022 by SansVarnic
Merged comments

[Mister Woof]

The problem I'm facing is that while this is all good on paper, I've yet to find a compelling reason to upgrade even though all the fibers of my being scream at me to spend money.

[GoodBytes]

20 minutes ago, Shimmy Gummi said:

The problem I'm facing is that while this is all good on paper, I've yet to find a compelling reason to upgrade even though all the fibers of my being scream at me to spend money.

It all comes down to your actual needs. I don't know you, your priorities in your workload, your lifestyle, your budget, and what you do with your system. No one can really answer that question beside you.

 

I would also wait for the reviews of the lower-end chips. The highest end chips like the GeForce 4090, are all about brute force performance to try and be at the top everywhere they can get, to get media attention, and build up hype. Might as well make a CPU or GPU the size of a wafer and call it a day. "Look at all this performance!!!! Sure, it costs a million dollars... and consumes 20,000 Watts of power, but look!!! The performance!!!! Fastest processor we have ever made!!! Buy now!". Anyways, the lower end chip tend to make more sense money, performance and power consumption. So, like the 4080 or the 13600K, for example.

 

Based on those, I would evaluate your needs.

 

If it just for building a new system, then do like LTT, take your current hardware apart, put it back in its box, and pretend to build the system for the first time.

[Mister Woof]

3 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

It all comes down to your actual needs. I don't know you, your priorities in your workload, your lifestyle, your budget, and what you do with your system. No one can really answer that question beside you.

 

I would also wait for the reviews of the lower-end chips. The highest end chips like the GeForce 4090, are all about brute force performance to try and be at the top everywhere they can get, to get media attention, and build up hype. Might as well make a CPU or GPU the size of a wafer and call it a day. "Look at all this performance!!!! Sure, it costs a million dollars... and consumes 20,000 Watts of power, but look!!! The performance!!!! Fastest processor we have ever made!!! Buy now!". Anyways, the lower end chip tend to make more sense money, performance and power consumption. So, like the 4080 or the 13600K, for example.

 

Based on those, I would evaluate your needs.

 

If it just for building a new system, then do like LTT, take your current hardware apart, put it back in its box, and pretend to build the system for the first time.

My needs were met long ago. Most of my upgrades over the past 5 years have been just "because"

[KaitouX]

ComputerBase review show some pretty surprising numbers for the i7-13700K, I fully expected it to be just a 12900KS with some minor improvements, but in their tests it actually manages to almost match the 12900KS and slightly beat the 12900K in CB R23/R20 MT while limited to 142W, for better context the 12900K is a bit over 15% slower than stock when limited to 140W.

The 13600K looks good too, managing to beat the 12700K by a decent 7% margin in MT, unfortunately I have yet to see any tests showing it with lower power limits.

 

It still feels weird that Intel is the one significantly improving performance/$ in MT for the ~$400 and below price mark while AMD regressed when comparing to Alder Lake and Zen 3 prices in the last year.

[porina]

47 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

GN review:

A very hot CPU. Not efficient. Probably pushes the CPU to its max to get whatever it can get as performance to match/beat AMD offering.

I'm not watching it. Did they just run Prime95 and go "OMGWTFBBQ 300W!" or did they find it consistent across many workloads? Earlier linked techpowerup testing suggested that wasn't the experience, and I'd still like to see wider perf/W testing for better context. In previous gens, Prime95 power draw might have been high, but the CPUs were also doing a lot of work. 

[Shzzit]

Are these intel CPUs like the amd where they run hot on purpose?  Or are these new intel CPUs just toasty like usual?  
 

Just wondering if cooling effects test results.

 

7 hours ago, porina said:

I'm not watching it. Did they just run Prime95 and go "OMGWTFBBQ 300W!" or did they find it consistent across many workloads? Earlier linked techpowerup testing suggested that wasn't the experience, and I'd still like to see wider perf/W testing for better context. In previous gens, Prime95 power draw might have been high, but the CPUs were also doing a lot of work. 

That’s exactly what they did, pure click bait bs lol.   

Edited October 20, 2022 by SansVarnic
Merged comments

[GoodBytes]

18 minutes ago, porina said:

I'm not watching it. Did they just run Prime95 and go "OMGWTFBBQ 300W!" or did they find it consistent across many workloads? Earlier linked techpowerup testing suggested that wasn't the experience, and I'd still like to see wider perf/W testing for better context. In previous gens, Prime95 power draw might have been high, but the CPUs were also doing a lot of work. 

No, they did not. They ran their 5min Blender test. And they also ensured that the motherboard is configured to Intel specifications, and not on what typically the boards are set to, which are settings that boost performance higher than Intel specs (like longer turbo, or all core clock boost).

[GoodBytes]

11 minutes ago, Shzzit said:

That’s exactly what they did, pure click bait bs lol.   

GN isn't click bait. They are a reputable, trusted source with years of experience.

You are mad because your favorite company made their highest end CPU that consumes a huge amount of power.

Put your emotion aside for a moment, and you'll know, as I mentioned, all highest end chip in the recent time, it doesn't matter the manufacturer, design their chip to get every drop of performance possible even though there is a diminishing return. They are also released first, all to get media attention and build hype. It's not to make a model that makes actual sense. Typically, the 1 tier lower is the more realistic model to consider. Power draw tends to be more reasonable; performance isn't the top (obviously) but typically close to the same, and the price is also more reasonable. And in fact, this is the one that most people (among those who need such high performance and have the budget for) buy.

 

[porina]

4 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

No, they did not. They ran their 5min Blender test. And they also ensured that the motherboard is configured to Intel specifications, and not on what typically the boards are set to, which are settings that boost performance higher than Intel specs (like longer turbo, or all core clock boost).

Ok, so that might be two known workloads that may be capable of pushing the CPU to over 300W. If I'm not mistaken they also have a website somewhere, which if I can find the same on there would be a lot less tedious to get through and see what they did. Techpowerup's Blender test was sub-300, but presumably different scene content could vary that.

 

I'm not sure on the exact guidance Intel gives these days, especially since they started using Turbo Power. Before that (11th gen and earlier) it was their policy that only altering power was perfectly fine for a system builder to do and it was not considered overclocking. No surprises, higher end enthusiast boards let them run practically unlimited. If you start directly fiddling with clock ratios or voltages, that is overclocking so should be disregarded for stock comparisons.

[Noble3212]

Just now, porina said:

Ok, so that might be two known workloads that may be capable of pushing the CPU to over 300W. If I'm not mistaken they also have a website somewhere, which if I can find the same on there would be a lot less tedious to get through and see what they did. Techpowerup's Blender test was sub-300, but presumably different scene content could vary that.

 

I'm not sure on the exact guidance Intel gives these days, especially since they started using Turbo Power. Before that (11th gen and earlier) it was their policy that only altering power was perfectly fine for a system builder to do and it was not considered overclocking. No surprises, higher end enthusiast boards let them run practically unlimited. If you start directly fiddling with clock ratios or voltages, that is overclocking so should be disregarded for stock comparisons.

Didn't intel during their launch give their computers better parts and gave the Ryzen cpus the cheaper hardware

[Shzzit]

2 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

GN isn't click bait. They are a reputable, trusted source with years of experience.

You are mad because your favorite company made their highest end CPU that consumes a huge amount of power.

Put your emotion aside for a moment, and you'll know, as I mentioned, all highest end chip in the recent time, it doesn't matter the manufacturer, design their chip to get every drop of performance possible even though there is a diminishing return. They are also released first, all to get media attention and build hype. It's not to make a model that makes actual sense. Typically, the 1 tier lower is the more realistic model to consider. Power draw tends to be more reasonable; performance isn't the top (obviously) but typically close to the same, and the price is also more reasonable. And in fact, this is the one that most people (among those who need such high performance and have the budget for) buy.

 

My favorite company lol?   I get what ever is fastest period.

 

And gamers nexus is click bait  king .

 

 

You don’t have to rage over my opinion and attempt to insult  me. 

Edited October 20, 2022 by LogicalDrm

[porina]

Just now, Noble3212 said:

Didn't intel during their launch give their computers better parts and gave the Ryzen cpus the cheaper hardware

Did they? If you got good evidence please share it. I would point out again that "stock" testing will be performed with officially supported hardware, which may be seen as lacking compared to enthusiast choices which go beyond standards.

 

8 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

You are mad because your favorite company made their highest end CPU that consumes a huge amount of power.

I would give more caution to that until we have a better picture. The questionable narrative some sites give is to suggest it is a >300W CPU generally, but I'd like more direct comparisons across wider workloads. The ideal comparison would be someone taking 7950X vs 13900k and do a perf/W curve for both on varied workloads. That would give a true picture of their competitiveness. Again, power limit on Intel is a system builder's choice. Let's see what it does at lower power limits also. Like you don't have to drive your car on the red line all the time.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Although, most day to day tasks do not push the CPU to 300w. It still chugs considerably more power than the new AMD cpus on the same workloads. That's a no from me. 

[starsmine]

2 hours ago, Shzzit said:

 

you don't have to make shit up to feel better about yourself either so.

Edited October 20, 2022 by LogicalDrm

[pas008]

7 minutes ago, Kinda Bottlenecked said:

Although, most day to day tasks do not push the CPU to 300w. It still chugs considerably more power than the new AMD cpus on the same workloads. That's a no from me. 

you should look at tpu frames per watt and 12 game average on efficiency

and also look at amds they are that far off from each other

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

4 minutes ago, pas008 said:

you should look at tpu frames per watt and 12 game average on efficiency

and also look at amds they are that far off from each other

This?

[pas008]

5 minutes ago, Kinda Bottlenecked said:

This?

not that far off are they

[Shzzit]

13 minutes ago, starsmine said:

you don't have to make shit up to feel better about yourself either so.

What exactly did I make up here ?  
 

And lol at ur passive aggressive crying.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

not that far off are they

Not that far off till the rooms heats up. 

 

What I am disappointed with here is that intel's CPU required even more power than AMD's already power hunger CPUs just to edge them out. 

[KaitouX]

31 minutes ago, porina said:

The ideal comparison would be someone taking 7950X vs 13900k and do a perf/W curve for both on varied workloads. That would give a true picture of their competitiveness. Again, power limit on Intel is a system builder's choice. Let's see what it does at lower power limits also. Like you don't have to drive your car on the red line all the time.

ComputerBase has a decent amount of tests on the 13900K and 13700K at lower power limits, derBauer has a video on it where he shows CB, 3DMark CPU test and games at lower power limits and some with undervolting on the 13900K. HUB did a Cinebench power curve comparison between the 7950X and 13900K in their review.

[Shzzit]

18 minutes ago, KaitouX said:

ComputerBase has a decent amount of tests on the 13900K and 13700K at lower power limits, derBauer has a video on it where he shows CB, 3DMark CPU test and games at lower power limits and some with undervolting on the 13900K. HUB did a Cinebench power curve comparison between the 7950X and 13900K in their review.

Looks pretty good.

 

[Tan3l6]

Nobody plays at 1080p anymore. Except the poor people.

And nobody plays at ultra except the stupid people.