Wednesday, August 17th 2022
Intel Core i9-13900K Reportedly 60% Faster Than i9-12900K in 7-Zip Decompression Test
The upcoming flagship Intel Core i9-13900K processor has recently appeared in a 7-Zip benchmark screenshot where the chip beat its predecessor by 20% and 60% in compression and decompression tests respectively. The i9-13900K looks set to feature an additional 8 High-Efficiency cores for a total of 24 cores along with a higher boost clock of 5.8 GHz. This increased core count and clock speed account for the majority of the performance improvements with the i9-13900K reaching a max single thread clock of 5716 MHz and 4611 MHz on 16 threads compared to 5021 MHz and 4060 MHz with the i9-12900K. The processors were both paired with a 32 GB set of DDR5-6400CL32 memory on an unspecified motherboard. These results have not been confirmed with Intel expected to officially unveil the new lineup on September 27th.
Source:
@OneRaichu (via VideoCardz)
29 Comments on Intel Core i9-13900K Reportedly 60% Faster Than i9-12900K in 7-Zip Decompression Test
How high it will clock is going to impress me, hopefully.
Edit 1: AMD has been lying about its CPUs power consumption for years now. Nowhere on their website there's any mention that their CPUs consume roughly 35% more watts than their TDP specifies, e.g. 5800X - 105W TDP, real power consumption, i.e. PPT, 142W.
Edit 2: Intel is not lying. From the specs page: Maximum Turbo Power 241 W. This used to be the case until AMD decided to use their peculiar "logic" which its fans find impeccable.
We all know why.
How a 241w be a nice thing for a CPU huh?
Doubling the e-cores will add more wattage usage.
We should realize that AMD is no different from Intel, lately.
And Zen 4 prices will be another punch in the stomach of customers.
Anyway this benchmark is nothing special. 50% more cores and higher clocks, so 60% improvement is about what you would expect for decompression test. It actually does worse per core for compression than 12900K.
edit: it seems you do, I'm just clarifying. Comparing the 13700K to the 12900K will be interesting. I wonder when reviews will be out
You do know that TDP and wattage are not the same thing, and that neither AMD not intel list them plainly like that?
They're both an average, not a hard cap.
Intel: 65W TDP = 250W for 60 seconds, then 65W after that.
AMD: 105W TDP = 140W (similar time limit, not sure if also 60 seconds)
Depending on motherboard, that 60 second rule can be completely ignored. That happens on both sides.
Neither lists TDP as the maximum value, they're the average.
Why the one sided view there?
You do understand that you're looking at different numbers and values and mixing them up to create something that doesn't exist?
Let's use tomshardware today since they measure CPU power only and not total system like TPU.
AMD state the 5600x is 65W TDP
5600x uses 75W (115%), or 102W (156%) with PBO enabled
5900x 105W TDP
136W (129%), or 165W (157%) with PBO
11600k
125W TDP
95W TDP down
203W (162%)
Hmm. Maybe that's an oddity, lets go the 11700k
Nope, 125W with a 95W TDP down.
Oh... 239W. (191%)
Okay lets ignore the 11th gen and move to 12th gen.
Theres a whole new bag of kittens to go through with the boost values as those are supposed to be temporary and quite often they're not - so I'm comparing both values.
12700K:
125W, with 190W boost.
But it uses 224W. (179%/117%)
12900K then!
125W, with 241W boost:
and it hits the same 224W (179%/92%) limit as the 11900K, because the boards just have power limits there. In this case it doesn't even reach the advertised level.
And for bonus points, the still-for-sale 10700
Intel® Core™ i7-10700 Processor
65W TDP, no other wattages listed
Also, zero shits given for accuracy, with the 65W CPU using more power than the 125W CPU
Power Consumption - Intel Core i7-10700 vs Core i7-10700K Review: Is 65W Comet Lake an Option? (anandtech.com)
329% advertised TDP. Nice. Needs an award for that.
So @birdie tell me again why intel listing one single CPU advertised with a maximum TDP value so high that most boards wont even reach it, while all the others are outright false makes AMD the one who's lying here?
I have no problem with you pointing out TDP values are inaccurate but for gods sake don't just spew out fanboy drivel you've read online without the most basic of research
Nothing is free with Physics and nothing is free in our physical world, there is always a price to pay. If you are concerned about the environmental impact of increased energy demand, then don't buy this CPU, buy one which you are comfortable with.
If you are looking for the fastest CPU money can buy and expect it to be environmentally friendly, then you're going to have to wait until Aliens provide that technology, because we don't possess it in our physical world and I don't see that changing any time soon.
I'm not trying to be funny or inflammatory, but am trying to be realistic considering our physical constraints and likely hood of the technological leap required to break these chains.