mobile Intel Core i9-13980HX laptop CPU smashes 30K barrier in Cinebench R23, outperforming the Ryzen 9 7900X, Threadripper 2990WX and Core i7-13700K

[BiG StroOnZ]

Summary

Jarrod’sTech provides a first look at MSI’s 2023 gaming laptops featuring the Intel Core i9-13980HX ‘laptop’ processor. The mobile chip broke the 30,000 point barrier in Cinebench R23, making it one of the fastest CPUs to date regardless of whether desktop or mobile SKUs. With this result the 13980HX was able to outperform several high performance desktop CPUs from both AMD and Intel, including the 12-core Ryzen 9 7900X, the 32-core Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX and the 16-core Core i7-13700K.

 

 

 

Quotes

Quote

The laptop is fully kitted out with a 175W Nvidia RTX 4090 laptop GPU, 64GB of DDR5-5600MT/s memory, 240Hz 1600P screen and 99.9WH battery. Cooling is aided by six heat pipes connected to two fans cooling both the CPU and GPU. 

 

The 13980HX is Intel's latest-generation mobile flagship, featuring the Raptor Lake CPU architecture. This CPU has 24 cores (8 Performance and 16 Efficient) and 32 threads, which is the same configuration as desktop Core i9-13900K. It has a 5.6GHz maximum boost clock, 30MB of L3 cache, 24MB of L2 cache and a maximum turbo power limit of 253 watts.

 

These laptops support MSI technology called 250W Overdrive. This allows the power budget to be shared between graphics and the CPU. Both systems are equipped with the unlocked (Max-P) variant of RTX 4090 GPU, with default TGP of 150W boostable by up to 25W through Dynamic Boost.

 

The CPU scores 30,498 points in Cinebench R23 multi-core test and 2,135 points in single-core. The 13980HX's 30,498 multi-core benchmark run represents a massive 30% performance lead over Intel's previous generation Core i9-12950HX. The 13980HX also beats AMD's Ryzen 9 6900HX by a landslide, with a score that's twice as fast. So whichever way you look, the 13980HX is the fastest mobile chip right now. We will have to wait for Ryzen 7000 mobile to launch before we know if Intel can hold onto that title for the duration of 2023. The 13980HX is so fast it is able to contend with some of the best desktop CPUs as well, beating out our own review samples of the Core i9-12900K, i7-13700K, and Ryzen 9 7900X in the same benchmark --11.6% faster than the 12900K, 5% faster than the i7-13700K, and 3.8% faster than the Ryzen 9 7900X.

 

Jarrod did not share any GPU benchmarks because those are still under an embargo.

 

My thoughts

I made a news post back in late December showing the 13900HX beating out the 12900k, 13700k, and 3960X in Geekbench 5. About a week a later a Geekbench 5 entry showed the 13980HX being only 4% slower than a desktop Ryzen 9 7950X. Now we finally have Cinebench R23 numbers and this 13980HX is an absolute monster. These next-gen laptops are really taking things to the next level. It should be noted though that the 13980HX is essentially a desktop 13900k retrofitted to fit inside a laptop's maximum power envelope. Either way, having flagship desktop CPU performance in a laptop is pretty awesome. I'm looking forward to seeing those 4090 Laptop GPU performance figures next, to really see what these next-gen laptops are capable of. According to a Chinese media report, RTX 40 Laptop GPU launch will be split between two dates. RTX 4090 and 4080 laptops will start shipping on February 8th, while RTX 4070,4060,4050 will be available on February 22nd. RTX 4090 and 4080 sales will begin on February 1st and since preorders are usually attached to review embargo, there's a good chance we see reviews in just about two weeks.

 

Sources

https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-core-i9-13980hx-laptop-cpu-is-faster-than-amd-threadripper-2990wx-in-cinebench-test

https://www.techspot.com/news/97281-laptop-core-i9-13980hx-smashes-30k-barrier-cinebench.html

[mariushm]

Can you still call it a laptop / portable computer if you have to carry 3 kg of power adapters to feed it with 250-300 watts?

 

 

[DededeKirby]

15 minutes ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

a maximum turbo power limit of 253 watts.

...in a LAPTOP???

[manikyath]

i'm calling massive BS that this is done "in" a laptop.

 

sure.. the cpu was attached to a laptop motherboard, but if there's a chiller strapped to the other side to keep a 160 watt "laptop" part cool.... it's not a laptop.

 

and yes.. it's beating a lot of desktop parts.. because they crammed 24c/32t into a laptop, and then ran that thing at 5.6GHz. that's sort of like saying this sedan has more power than a truck:

[williamcll]

I bet XMG's version would run even faster with their thermal design.

[porina]

7 hours ago, mariushm said:

Can you still call it a laptop / portable computer if you have to carry 3 kg of power adapters to feed it with 250-300 watts?

My 5800H laptop comes with a 300W brick weighing in at 1kg. For a high end laptop two of these should suffice, so not really a barrier. I think we've seen previous high end laptops come with two bricks before so not unknown territory. It's likely when both CPU and GPU are active at the same time the peak power to CPU may be limited a little. My 5800H can do around 65W solo, but I've not seen it above 55W in gaming.

[Sauron]

cool if... highly impractical in a laptop

[Brooksie359]

@BiG StroOnZwhen the cpu uses as much if not more power than your average desktop cpu it is disingenuous to call it a laptop cpu. I mean its just a desktop cpu put into a laptop and they put a special name for it. Laptop cpus are supposed to run at lower power than their desktop variants otherwise they can't really be considered laptop cpus as they clearly aren't designed with laptop use in mind. I am not impressed with the performance given the power draw requirement. Would rather have less performance with much better efficiency in a laptop. 

[AlTech]

That's a laptop CPU in name only lol. That's basically an underclocked 13900K in a laptop.

[leadeater]

32 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Laptop cpus are supposed to run at lower power than their desktop variants otherwise they can't really be considered laptop cpus as they clearly aren't designed with laptop use in mind.

Well it is lower power than the desktop K SKUs 

 

Anyway I think this is results from misguided expectations from consumers. There has been a long "trend" that desktops are on the way out and laptops are the thing to have, problem is people want the performance of the desktop so companies like Intel try and give that. The problem is that no consideration is given to the fact that you can only get the maximum performance while plugged in to AC power squarely making the laptop a "desktop".

 

Laptops shouldn't really be convenient desktops that can be easily moved from desk to desk.

 

I like that super powerful laptops exist but maybe those should use a special line of BGA desktop CPUs like is used in the embedded market.

[WereCat]

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well it is lower power than the desktop K SKUs 

 

Anyway I think this is results from misguided expectations from consumers. There has been a long "trend" that desktops are on the way out and laptops are the thing to have, problem is people want the performance of the desktop so companies like Intel try and give that. The problem is that no consideration is given to the fact that you can only get the maximum performance while plugged in to AC power squarely making the laptops a "desktop".

 

Laptops shouldn't really be convenient desktops that can be easily moved from desk to desk.

 

I like that super powerful laptops exist but maybe those should use a special line of BGA desktop CPUs like is used in the embedded market.

Replace laptop with mobile desktop. 

 

Battery servers just like a mobile UPS, its not meant to be used on battery. 

[CarlBar]

Yeah this is basically a very highly binned desktop part crammed into a laptop. Gets amazing performance, but it's exploiting multiple factors to do it that are really not typical of laptop parts.

[Fasterthannothing]

I love it! Everyone wringing their hands saying O MY GOODNESS ITS GONNA HAVE 2 POWER BRICKS! I remember when that was normal for really high end laptops. I'm just excited to see how far we can push mobile chips. Everything can sip power I want to see how much if a monster we can cram into a laptop even if the battery only last 30 min

 

There is already a 750w laptop brick

 

Here is MSI and their dual power bricks 

[porina]

2 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

when the cpu uses as much if not more power than your average desktop cpu it is disingenuous to call it a laptop cpu.

It is a laptop CPU if it was marketed for use in a laptop. This is a product level decision, not a silicon level one, where there usually isn't much difference.

 

Wonder if the reverse is still a thing. I recall MODT or Mobile on DeskTop boards were a thing at one point. If you really want low power consumption on a desktop, that was an option. Nowadays I think you can just power limit a desktop part unless you're going really low which might be embedded system territory.

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

The problem is that no consideration is given to the fact that you can only get the maximum performance while plugged in to AC power squarely making the laptop a "desktop".

 

Laptops shouldn't really be convenient desktops that can be easily moved from desk to desk.

I don't see this as a problem AT ALL. The last few gaming laptops I've bought falls into that category, and it is expected. There's no way for a powerful laptop to have a meaningful battery life without making them substantially larger, leaving the main performance use case as plugged in. I'd even advocate for this category to get slightly bigger in physical size. Why be constrained trying to make it smaller if it provides little to no benefit to the use case. Even half an inch thicker would help the cooling system a lot.

 

Of course, this doesn't have to be the only laptop category. We have all sorts of models for different use cases, and it is no bad thing. A laptop that lasts 8+ hours unplugged but has no gaming performance to speak of would be absolutely useless to me, but for someone else it might be the ideal tool for working on the road/rail/plane.

[leadeater]

50 minutes ago, porina said:

I don't see this as a problem AT ALL. The last few gaming laptops I've bought falls into that category, and it is expected. There's no way for a powerful laptop to have a meaningful battery life without making them substantially larger, leaving the main performance use case as plugged in.

The problem is the data presented by Intel and the reviews being on AC performance. If you actually want to use it as a portable device then all of that is really meaningless.

 

I don't really find it all that acceptable to be quoting on AC power figures and then in the next breath say the laptop can do XYZ hours on battery.

 

52 minutes ago, porina said:

I'd even advocate for this category to get slightly bigger in physical size. Why be constrained trying to make it smaller if it provides little to no benefit to the use case. Even half an inch thicker would help the cooling system a lot.

I would prefer thicker also but that doesn't really fully solve the cooling problem or the battery problem. The boost power usage of this CPU is 253W, this along with a high end GPU it's not going to matter how thick you make the laptop it's never going to cool that. Then additionally you're not going to get that amount of power out of the battery either, hence why it's not even allowed at all.

 

Having two components alone that can draw 400W+ in a laptop creates 3 unsolvable problems if you want to maintain the device being a laptop.

 

This is why I said a separate line of BGA CPUs would be more acceptable, as long as they aren't marketed as part of the rest of the mobile CPU product line.

[porina]

20 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I don't really find it all that acceptable to be quoting on AC power figures and then in the next breath say the laptop can do XYZ hours on battery.

They are different aspects but it doesn't follow you get both at the same time. As a parallel would you expect to get the rated mpg out of a car while driving at its top speed?

 

20 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I would prefer thicker also but that doesn't really fully solve the cooling problem or the battery problem. The boost power usage of this CPU is 253W, this along with a high end GPU it's not going to matter how thick you make the laptop it's never going to cool that. Then additionally you're not going to get that amount of power out of the battery either, hence why it's not even allowed at all.

I have a typical size 15" gaming laptop. I don't know what the cooling is rated for, but according to my notes, in gaming situations I've seen 60W on CPU and 120W on GPU. So ball park 180W cooling system. Battery is 78Wh so if it allowed that usage it'll be way over 2C. Not great for the battery, not really much usable life at under half an hour. But that doesn't matter. That is not the design use case. It is expected to be plugged in.

 

Also it'll be interesting to see how CPU vs GPU power balances out. Sure the CPU might take 250W on certain compute loads, but is gaming one of those loads? 

 

I think in past such monster power laptops have been limited to 17" form factors, where the extra size helps with the cooling.

 

20 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Having two components alone that can draw 400W+ in a laptop creates 3 unsolvable problems if you want to maintain the device being a laptop.

We might again be arguing over words, but just what is a laptop? To me, it is a form factor of computing device essentially containing a usable computer system with fixed physical keyboard, and screen on a hinge, thus differentiating it from tablets even with keyboard covers. It has an internal power source allowing operation without being plugged in, with no specific minimum duration required. Gaming laptops I've owned have typically given around 2+ hours of light usage (browsing etc.), never tested it gaming since I know it will suck. All of these conditions are met, thus it is still a laptop in my view.

 

Maybe it is just me, but ever since the nvidia 4080 thing it feels like there's a lot of hate on everything tech on what I'd consider a nothingburger.

[nOm nom NOM3]

I cant believe its not a desktop!

where do they put all the heat? I bet they had to help it out with cooling to get those numbers. 

Im not a super big fan of these desktop replacement laptops, but its kind of neat to have the option. 

I wonder if there will be a model with a 4090 that would be neat if it performs properly.

[Brooksie359]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

Well it is lower power than the desktop K SKUs 

 

Anyway I think this is results from misguided expectations from consumers. There has been a long "trend" that desktops are on the way out and laptops are the thing to have, problem is people want the performance of the desktop so companies like Intel try and give that. The problem is that no consideration is given to the fact that you can only get the maximum performance while plugged in to AC power squarely making the laptop a "desktop".

 

Laptops shouldn't really be convenient desktops that can be easily moved from desk to desk.

 

I like that super powerful laptops exist but maybe those should use a special line of BGA desktop CPUs like is used in the embedded market.

Honestly I have remembered a few times where people have gone on this forum asking why they couldn't get their gpu to work without having the thing plugged in. I know it seems like common sense to us that you wouldn't get ideal performance without having it plugged in but to a random consumer they might not know that. Granted these products still are very useful for alot of people so it's not like they don't have their audience. I know I even have a work laptop with a docking station that works basically the same way and it's super useful for working from home and work depending on the day. 

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, porina said:

They are different aspects but it doesn't follow you get both at the same time. As a parallel would you expect to get the rated mpg out of a car while driving at its top speed?

Except it pretty much does. Sure not getting the full performance on battery is not a new thing sadly but it's not that old either. Also the difference between the two is only growing in these situations.

 

Thing is when a company is presenting information about a mobile product and giving performance information and not making it clear you'll never get it while on battery that is a problem. These are battery devices the product will go in to.

 

If you want to use MPG example then it's similarly problematic if they say city driving MPG is XYZ but never changed out of first gear. People expect battery devices to be used on battery and take performance data for what it is, unless told otherwise or have this extra understanding then the impression given is not the same as reality. People also do not expect a car to be driven around in first gear either, unless you are told this how would you know etc.

 

5 hours ago, porina said:

I have a typical size 15" gaming laptop. I don't know what the cooling is rated for, but according to my notes, in gaming situations I've seen 60W on CPU and 120W on GPU. So ball park 180W cooling system. Battery is 78Wh so if it allowed that usage it'll be way over 2C. Not great for the battery, not really much usable life at under half an hour. But that doesn't matter. That is not the design use case. It is expected to be plugged in.

While you expect it to be plugged in and the manufacturer expects it to be plugged in do you want to have a guess at how many actually know how performance limited gaming laptops like these are while on battery? It's actually not that widely known even in the circles of people you'd expect to know.

 

5 hours ago, porina said:

Maybe it is just me, but ever since the nvidia 4080 thing it feels like there's a lot of hate on everything tech on what I'd consider a nothingburger.

A 253W boost mobile CPU was always going to get criticized. Intel was getting criticized even in the desktop space about power and heat before the RTX 4080, even more so for laptops. It's been a topic of complaint since the last 2 Intel MacBook generations struggling not to melt and die. 

 

None of this really changes the issue that laptops are the "in thing" yet people want and now expect performance on the level of a desktop and get presented performance information of that without the stipulation that you cannot use the performance while operating on battery which is a core part of what makes a laptop a laptop. Being tethered to AC is not conducive to the purpose or design of the laptop formfactor and why it was created. Times may change and things never stay the same but changing the purpose of laptops to be AC to AC sprinting is really dumb.

[Dabombinable]

Ah to be able to go back to proper mobile CPU. Which were desktop CPU (socket and pin compatible) with the same performance and clock speeds...just at a lower voltage (also with power management) and therefore power consumption.

Mobile Athlon/Duron 4 and K6-2/3+ remember.

[BiG StroOnZ]

9 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

@BiG StroOnZwhen the cpu uses as much if not more power than your average desktop cpu it is disingenuous to call it a laptop cpu. I mean its just a desktop cpu put into a laptop and they put a special name for it. Laptop cpus are supposed to run at lower power than their desktop variants otherwise they can't really be considered laptop cpus as they clearly aren't designed with laptop use in mind. I am not impressed with the performance given the power draw requirement. Would rather have less performance with much better efficiency in a laptop. 

 

You said it yourself, that "Laptop CPUs are supposed to run at lower power than their desktop variants". In this case, this CPU does run much lower than it's desktop variant. The base power of the 13980HX is 55W, while the base of the 13900K is 125W. Therefore, I don't see it as disingenuous. It might be disingenuous though to think you are going to get this amount of power on battery though, I can agree with that.   

 

As far as you rather have less performance with better efficiency. There will definitely be 13th Gen Laptop CPUs that are efficient that perform admirably. The 13th Gen i5 and i7 mobile SKUs will probably fit the bill.

[Brooksie359]

Just now, BiG StroOnZ said:

 

You said it yourself, that "Laptop CPUs are supposed to run at lower power than their desktop variants". In this case, this CPU does run much lower than it's desktop variant. The base power of the 13980HX is 55W, while the base of the 13900K is 125W. Therefore, I don't see it as disingenuous. It might be disingenuous though to think you are going to get this amount of power on battery though, I can agree with that.   

 

As far as you rather have less performance with better efficiency. There will definitely be 13th Gen Laptop CPUs that are efficient that perform admirably. The 13th Gen i5 and i7 mobile SKUs will probably fit the bill.

Those numbers mean basically nothing when they hardly ever run at those power figures. It's nor really fair to say that it's a 55W cpu but then go and do a benchmark with the cpu running at a way higher power level than that. I mean at that point I might as well call the 13900k a 55w part as well as you can undervolt and underclock the cpu to run at lower tdps. Also 55w is very high for a laptop regardless and is basically closing in on desktop cpu territory. 

[BiG StroOnZ]

6 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Those numbers mean basically nothing when they hardly ever run at those power figures. It's nor really fair to say that it's a 55W cpu but then go and do a benchmark with the cpu running at a way higher power level than that. I mean at that point I might as well call the 13900k a 55w part as well as you can undervolt and underclock the cpu to run at lower tdps. Also 55w is very high for a laptop regardless and is basically closing in on desktop cpu territory. 

 

Well, it will run at that power level when it's not boosting. Therefore, when not under a heavy load, power should be very similar to those specifications.

 

If you underclock and undervolt your 13900k to get to 55w, you can call it a 55w part. I don't see a problem with that concept. However, what are the performance numbers? This is ever important. Also, that doesn't change the fact that for most people you can't call a 13900K a 55w part though; as they would have to underclock and undervolt too to reach those figures.

 

Well, many news outlets aren't denying that this is essentially a desktop CPU retrofitted for a laptop. It is indeed 13900K silicon, but it does have many tweaks and alterations to work in a laptop. Denying the engineering that went into developing this CPU is sort of presumptuous. I respect your opinion that it's not your cup of tea though. 

[porina]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

A 253W boost mobile CPU was always going to get criticized.

27 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Those numbers mean basically nothing when they hardly ever run at those power figures. It's nor really fair to say that it's a 55W cpu but then go and do a benchmark with the cpu running at a way higher power level than that. I mean at that point I might as well call the 13900k a 55w part as well as you can undervolt and underclock the cpu to run at lower tdps.

 

I wonder if we're missing something here. Looking at Intel's page for the 13980HX, we see they define base power as 55W, and max turbo power of 157W. Where did 253W come from? MSI built their laptop to allow that, and it looks like Intel allows that higher limit to be set.

 

Back to basics. It's a long standing gripe of mine that most around here don't understand what TDP is and want it to represent something it doesn't. Might be why Intel have moved to base power and max turbo power. Base power seems like what was TDP, and the value is the cooling capacity you need to have for the CPU to run at base clocks. That's the definition of it. It is not at all related to turbo power, hence the new value.

 

But we still have a gap between 157W on the page and the reported 253W. 157W might be a suggested limit. Intel, unlike AMD, do not force manufacturers to set a particular power limit. At least on desktop, they are free to set any power limit they want to design their cooling for, including practically unlimited. MSI's cooling solution allows the CPU and GPU to share the same cooling. If the GPU is not in use at the time, the CPU gets the benefit of the whole cooling system. It looks like they took advantage of it here. Implicitly, the CPU will be running at a lower power level when gaming as the GPU will take up a bunch of that thermal capacity.

 

So I'd ask, if the CPU is capable of doing it, and the cooling is up to the job, do you really want to throw away performance and limit lower? Maybe a user settable lower cap could be an option, or more likely such a buyer is better off looking at another product offering.

 

27 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Also 55w is very high for a laptop regardless and is basically closing in on desktop cpu territory. 

My laptop with 5800H hits 65W in CPU workloads. AMD call it a 45W default TDP part, but allows manufacturers to turn it up to 54W.

 

On AMD side, their desktop 65W TDP CPUs actually run on an 88W PPT limit.

[CarlBar]

34 minutes ago, BiG StroOnZ said:

 

Well, it will run at that power level when it's not boosting. Therefore, when not under a heavy load, power should be very similar to those specifications.

 

If you underclock and undervolt your 13900k to get to 55w, you can call it a 55w part. I don't see a problem with that concept. However, what are the performance numbers? This is ever important. Also, that doesn't change the fact that for most people you can't call a 13900K a 55w part though; as they would have to underclock and undervolt too to reach those figures.

 

Well, many news outlets aren't denying that this is essentially a desktop CPU retrofitted for a laptop. It is indeed 13900K silicon, but it does have many tweaks and alterations to work in a laptop. Denying the engineering that went into developing this CPU is sort of presumptuous. I respect your opinion that it's not your cup of tea though. 

 

As porina has alluded to the performance numbers being touted are for the chip running on a 254w power limit, not a 55w one. Thats basically what @leadeater is complaining about, they're showing performance numbers at one power limit, but quoting battery life at a different power limit with a significant performance gap between the two.