Tuesday, September 27th 2022

Intel 13th Gen Core "Raptor Lake" Desktop Processors Launched: +15% ST, +41% MT Uplift

Intel today launched its 13th Gen Core "Raptor Lake" desktop processors, and companion 700-series motherboard chipset. These processors are built in the same LGA1700 package as the previous generation "Alder Lake," and are backwards-compatible with 600-series chipset motherboards through a BIOS update. Likewise, 700-series chipset motherboards support older "Alder Lake" processors. With the new 13th Gen Core, Intel is broadly promising an up to 15% uplift in single-threaded performance, which has a bigger bearing on gaming performance; and an up to 41% multi-threaded performance uplift; over the previous-generation, when comparing the top Core i9-13900K with its predecessor, the i9-12900K. Intel also claims to have outclassed the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X in multi-threaded performance, and the Ryzen 7 5800X3D in gaming performance.

Intel's performance claims are backed by some impressive hardware changes despite the company sticking with the same Intel 7 (10 nm Enhanced SuperFin) foundry node as "Alder Lake." To begin with, the single-thread performance uplift comes from the new "Raptor Cove" performance-core, which promises an IPC uplift over the previous-generation "Golden Cove," comes with more dedicated L2 cache of 2 MB per core (compared to 1.25 MB per core in the previous-generation); and significantly higher clock-speeds, going all the way up to 5.80 GHz. "Raptor Lake" has up to 8 P-cores, but the company has put in a lot of work in improving the contribution of E-cores to the processor's overall multi-threaded performance uplift. This is achieved by doubling the E-core count to 16. These are the same "Gracemont" E-cores as previous-generation, but Intel has doubled the L2 cache that's shared in a 4-core Gracemont cluster, from 2 MB per cluster to 4 MB. There are upgrades to even the hardware prefetchers of these cores.
Intel didn't go into the nuts and bolts of what makes up the "Raptor Cove" P-core, but broadly explained that it comes with improved speed paths that enable an up to 600 MHz P-core boost frequency uplift at comparable power to the previous-gen "Golden Cove" while staying on the same process. The Intel 7 node also seems to have got some technological improvements, with the company referring to it as the "3rd generation" of this node (optical 10 nm). This mainly concerns better electrical characteristics from improved channel mobility. Cushioning the P-core with a larger 2 MB dedicated L2 cache also appears to be contributing to the iso-power uplift, as the core spends fewer cycles fetching data from the L3 cache. We will learn more about "Raptor Cove" in the coming days, and will hopefully have a more detailed look at the new core in our reviews of these processors.
The E-core microarchitecture is the very same "Gracemont," but benefits from the node improvements to dial up E-core boost frequencies all the way up to 4.30 GHz. The cores also benefit from the larger 4 MB L2 cache that's shared among four E-cores in a "Gracemont" cluster. "Raptor Lake" has four such clusters, amounting to 16 on the silicon. The E-core clusters have access to the chip's L3 cache, just like the P-cores. As we mentioned earlier, the improved cache, and updated prefetcher algorithm should have an cumulative impact on E-core performance; and when you account for 16 of these, besides the improved 8 P-cores, you begin to see where Intel's 41% generational multi-threaded performance uplift claim is coming from.
Intel also made updates to the processor's uncore components. The L3 cache that's shared among the processor's P-cores and E-core clusters, is now enlarged to 36 MB, from 30 MB in the previous generation. This cache is a continuously addressable block due to the Ringbus interconnect making ring-stops at various physical segments of the cache. Intel has improved the clock-speed of this fabric, which now boosts up to 5.00 GHz, or 900 MHz higher than the previous-gen.

The DDR5+DDR4 memory controllers also receive an update. The processor now natively supports up to DDR5-5600 JEDEC-standard memory speeds, when using 1 DIMM per 80-bit channel (which has two 40-bit sub-channels); or up to DDR5-4400 when using 2 DIMMs per channel (i.e. populating all four memory slots on your motherboard).

Intel also updated the Thread Director middleware that gives the software some degree of awareness of the Hybrid architecture, and attempts to ensure that the right kind of workload is allocated to the right kind of CPU core. Intel has given TD greater thread class awareness through machine-learning techniques (the processor learns over time what the nature of the workload could be). The processor also takes advantage of new scheduling features of Windows 11 22H2 Update, which introduce PID QoS for system background tasks and user-initiated background tasks.
Intel claims that "Raptor Lake" processors will be memory overclocking monsters, capable of speeds as high as DDR5-10000, when pushed to the limit with enthusiast-grade memory. For the P-cores, the company says that 8.00 GHz overclocks are now within reach for enthusiasts. The updated Intel Extreme Tuner Utility (XTU), allows you to set multipliers on a per-core basis, and tune your memory frequency on-the-fly (no reboots involved).
Intel is launching the 13th Gen Core "Raptor Lake" desktop processor family with essentially three processor models—Core i9-13900K, Core i7-13700K, and Core i5-13600K; and their "KF" sub-variants that have disabled iGPUs, and are about $10-20 cheaper, depending on the model.

The Core i9-13900K is the flagship part, with 8 P-cores, and 16 E-cores (8P+16E), with the full 36 MB L3 cache available on the silicon. The P-cores have a base-frequency of 3.00 GHz, and boost up to 5.80 GHz; whereas the E-cores run at 2.20 GHz base, boosting up to 4.30 GHz. The processor base power is rated at 125 W, and the maximum turbo power at 253 W (up from 241 W for the i9-12900K). The i9-13900K comes with an MSRP of USD $589, while the i9-13900KF (which lacks the iGPU), is priced at $564.

The Core i7-13700K is an interesting SKU, as it has the same 8P+8E core-configuration as the previous-gen i9-12900K, but with all the new updates detailed above. Intel carved this SKU out by disabling two of the four E-core clusters on the "Raptor Lake" silicon, and reducing the L3 cache to 30 MB. The P-cores have a base frequency of 3.40 GHz, with a maximum boost frequency of 5.40 GHz; while the E-cores run at 2.50 GHz base, and 4.20 GHz maximum boost. These chips have the same 125 W PBP and 253 W MTP as the i9-13900K. The i7-13700K is priced at $409, and the i7-13700KF at $389.

The Core i5-13600K is an equally interesting processor with which the company hopes to hold on to the mid-range. It now comes with a 6P+8E core-configuration, compared to 6P+4E of the i5-12600K. And of course, you get all the generational improvements detailed above. This SKU is carved out by disabling two P-cores, and two E-core clusters; while also cutting down the L3 cache to 24 MB (which is still higher than the 20 MB of the i5-12600K). The P-cores run at 3.50 GHz base with 5.10 GHz boost; while the E-cores do 2.60 GHz base, with 3.90 GHz boost. While the PBP value is the same 125 W as the higher SKUs, the MTP is reduced to 181 W. Intel is pricing the Core i5-13600K at $319, and the i5-13600KF at $294.
Intel is claiming gaming performance uplifts of up to 18% when comparing the i9-13900K with the previous-gen i9-12900K, across a wide selection of games; while the comparison with the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X "Zen 3" sees gaming performance gains range between 6% to 58%. The gap only widens when you consider the 99th percentile low-water-mark analysis. Although mainly compared with the 5950X, Intel also threw in gaming performance values it tested on the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, which is shown matching the i9-13900K in games where it's beating the i9-12900K, or within 10% of it in games where the i9-13900K gets ahead. This is interesting, as Intel thinks the performance of "Zen 4" Ryzen 7000-series processors should roughly match that of the 5800X3D. In our performance reviews published on September 26, the 5800X3D is 4.5-5% behind the Ryzen 7 7700X, which means "Zen 4" should end up within 5% of the i9-13900K in gaming performance, should these numbers for the 5800X3D from Intel hold up.
The platform I/O of these processors is identical to that of "Alder Lake." You get a 2-channel (4 sub-channel) DDR5 + 2-channel DDR4 memory interface. The processor puts out 28 PCI-Express lanes; 16 of these are Gen 5, and intended for the main x16 PEG slot; while the remaining are Gen 4. The main x4 NVMe interface of the processor is Gen 4, while the DMI chipset bus takes up the remaining 8 lanes (DMI 4.0 x8). You should still find motherboards with Gen 5 M.2 NVMe slots, but these would be eating into the x16 PEG bandwidth. Given that NVIDIA's latest GeForce Ada continues to be PCIe Gen 4, cutting into the bandwidth of the PEG slot to run Gen 5 M.2 SSDs could affect graphics performance (but we'll test this theory in upcoming PCIe-scaling articles with the RTX 4090).

The complete slide-deck for the processor launch event follows.
Add your own comment

224 Comments on Intel 13th Gen Core "Raptor Lake" Desktop Processors Launched: +15% ST, +41% MT Uplift

#76
RandallFlagg
AnotherReaderYou're right. Most reviews show the 12900k as leading the 7950X in gaming; at best, it may be a match for the 12900k, but I haven't seen one beating it.
In gaming, with a real-world build using DDR5-6000+, Alder Lake still has a slight edge.

Zen 4 however does not lose as much as Alder Lake when you pair it with slower DDR5. But then, if one is going to go lower than DDR5-6000 on Alder Lake, DDR4 comes into the picture.

Honestly if I had a decent kit of DDR4-3600 C16 or better, I'd stay on DDR4. I don't though, my kit was 32GB DDR4-3200 C16, I just don't want to cripple a $700 cpu/mobo combo with that.
Posted on Reply
#77
wheresmycar
[GAMER] I'm definitely liking RPLs i5 and i7 pricing... i was under the impression Intel would push something like a 13600K to $350-$380 being ZEN-4 platform costs are excessive. At $320, intels keeping it real. Look forward to independent reviews/benchmarks!
Posted on Reply
#78
mechtech
Was too many raptor memes...............so I gave up :)
Posted on Reply
#79
Crackong
All tests have PL1 = 253W but did not disclose the PL2
Posted on Reply
#80
TheoneandonlyMrK
P4-630Here running GTA V

?.

Task manager shows all core's as equal, no differentiation between P or E.
So how can you know that what it's showing is the core you think?.
Posted on Reply
#81
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
Looks like there's gonna be a proper head-to-head performance battle with AMD's Zen 4. This is perfect for the customer. Let's hope prices are kept reasonable and maybe, just maybe, even a price war.

EDIT: I might just go AMD this time. I hate E cores, feel I'm getting cheated out of performance and the Ryzen 7 7700X looks like the one for me as I'm only interested in gaming performance. Plus, it has the benefit of only one CCD, so no weird latency issues.
Posted on Reply
#82
Steevo
Great unbiased reviews, did they use a chiller again? Maybe phase change? Ice and alcohol? LN to keep boosts up?


All I see is a LOT of Intel provided best case scenario slides and people defending their specific scenario claims as defacto truth for all. I would wait for independent reviews in real world scenarios. AMD hyped the 7000 series and their thick IHS is the limiting factor, people are ignoring basic physics and the fact that the 12900 runs hotter and crying around about their theoretical system.


Wait for a review.
Posted on Reply
#83
MxPhenom 216
ASIC Engineer
john_The price of i9 13900K shows how cheap it is for Intel to add 8 more E cores. Tremendous price advantage over Ryzen 9 7950X, while at the same time advertising more cores to the naives.

That being said, we get very powerful platforms this year from both companies, but also very expensive platforms from both companies.
With the exception of those who will pay anything to get the best and sell it when the next gen is released, people should consider buying the platform that will give them best value not just today, but for the next 2-4 years.
I think Intel is still relatively cheaper since they still support DDR4 for people that have some decent DDR4 memory already. Then they just need board and CPU and they are set. Should be significantly cheaper than AMD.
Posted on Reply
#84
mastrdrver
Super Firm TofuWiz answered you. The answer was yes, and that you'd lose performance by doing so.

As for your list of requested games, and if they were negatively affected by e-cores, here's a screenshot of task manager running Dragon Age: Origins. 1440p, Max quality, 120fps lock. E-cores are doing what they're supposed to do.

I know of one person that streams and he gets better frames at least on BF2042 with e-cores disabled because he can push the overclock higher. If they are not disabled and he tries to do the same overclock on the p-cores, he gets crashes. So he actually gains performance in this instant with the e-cores disabled.
Posted on Reply
#85
john_
MxPhenom 216I think Intel is still relatively cheaper since they still support DDR4 for people that have some decent DDR4 memory already. Then they just need board and CPU and they are set. Should be significantly cheaper than AMD.
It is cheaper, but still expensive, meaning also the cost for a good motherboard. I could be wrong here, but can someone pair a top Raptor with a $150 or less motherboard and expect at least 95% of the performance?
People replacing their platforms every year or two, will go with Intel. people replacing their platform every 4-6 years, should consider investing on AM5 (I am not saying Zen4, but AM5).
Posted on Reply
#86
Lionheart
Those prices are better than I thought, that 13700k looking good. That and the 13600k are gonna be really competitive against AMD's lineup, hopefully AMD will respond either with lower prices or non X parts depending on the benchmark results.
Posted on Reply
#87
THU31
TheoneandonlyMrKTask manager shows all core's as equal, no differentiation between P or E.
So how can you know that what it's showing is the core you think?.
I expect they show up in order, just like P-cores and HT.

And you can easily verify it by assigning affinity and running a benchmark.
Posted on Reply
#88
fevgatos
CallandorWoTCan someone tell me what are the downsides to e-cores? In the recent Zen 4 cpu reviews, one of the negatives is "no problems with e-core compatibility" or something like that. Well what are the problems with e-cores at the moment and will it affect me in gaming?
Ive tested it excessively. Some games dont like ecores on, in which case - for example in riftbreakers, youll go from 188 average fps ecores on to 194 ecores off.

Some other games make extensive use or them (hitman 3 / spiderman remastered), in which case having them on will give you around a 20% fps boost. Thats the actual number on spiderman for example

Some other games dont like ht (again spiderman) in which case turning it off boosts fps by a lot.

Tldr, nothing wrong with ecores.
john_The probable reason why Intel decided to NOT put a standard bar for 5800X3D in it's slides, but "hide" the X3D's results in a small red line.


Amd didnt put it at ALL....
Posted on Reply
#89
Bwaze
I'll have a lunch today at noon. But I'll only eat on October 20., and I'll get the menu right before then.

Why are we calling it "launch" if we don't get either availability or the reviews, and we won't for another 3 weeks? This is not even a "paper launch", since there was never a plan to deliver the product on this day? I'm confused, what does the word "launch" mean in this context?
Posted on Reply
#90
fevgatos
SteevoGreat unbiased reviews, did they use a chiller again? Maybe phase change? Ice and alcohol? LN to keep boosts up?


All I see is a LOT of Intel provided best case scenario slides and people defending their specific scenario claims as defacto truth for all. I would wait for independent reviews in real world scenarios. AMD hyped the 7000 series and their thick IHS is the limiting factor, people are ignoring basic physics and the fact that the 12900 runs hotter and crying around about their theoretical system.


Wait for a review.
They used both a chiller and ln2 for their 65w results. We all know there is no normal way to cool down a 65w cpu. None.
Posted on Reply
#91
TheoneandonlyMrK
THU31I expect they show up in order, just like P-cores and HT.

And you can easily verify it by assigning affinity and running a benchmark.
I think some assumptions are being made it doesn't label a full core different to a HT core either.
Without using affinity to verify you wouldn't be sure.

And if he'd answered I had question two, you expect the p core's to run the game, but both showed perhaps E core's doing not much, I would of expected some background utilisation, they do work in that way or am I mistaken ?!.
Posted on Reply
#92
THU31
TheoneandonlyMrKI think some assumptions are being made it doesn't label a full core different to a HT core either.
Without using affinity to verify you wouldn't be sure.
Well we know for a fact that logical cores are shown in pairs, so for example Core 0 and Core 1 means one core with HT.

Yes, it is an assumption just looking at task manager, but it is the easiest thing to verify.
Posted on Reply
#93
Valantar
These look like good updates overall, real-world reviews will be interesting. Also kind of fun to see Intel fight AMD so hard on value, with the 13900K suddenly being quite "affordable" (for its class, that is). AMD price cuts incoming? I certainly wouldn't mind that. The 13600K-7600X matchup will also be quite interesting to see tested.
Posted on Reply
#94
Shocktruppen
ARF6 GHz KS SKU coming Q1 2023:
What the caveat to this is it is for 2 cores only.
Posted on Reply
#95
Space Lynx
Astronaut
fevgatosIve tested it excessively. Some games dont like ecores on, in which case - for example in riftbreakers, youll go from 188 average fps ecores on to 194 ecores off.

Some other games make extensive use or them (hitman 3 / spiderman remastered), in which case having them on will give you around a 20% fps boost. Thats the actual number on spiderman for example

Some other games dont like ht (again spiderman) in which case turning it off boosts fps by a lot.

Tldr, nothing wrong with ecores.


Amd didnt put it at ALL....
Thank you. :toast:
Posted on Reply
#96
phanbuey
My prediction is that this is going to take the gaming crown from AMD, which AMD will take back with a 7800X3D at ~$550 and a 7950X3D at ~$999.

Welcome back to the days of the Athlon FX vs Pentium.
Posted on Reply
#97
Space Lynx
Astronaut
phanbueyMy prediction is that this is going to take the gaming crown from AMD, which AMD will take back with a 7800X3D at ~$550 and a 7950X3D at ~$999.

Welcome back to the days of the Athlon FX vs Pentium.
I want that 7800X 3D. gimmme gimme gimme
Posted on Reply
#98
Bwaze
phanbueyMy prediction is that this is going to take the gaming crown from AMD, which AMD will take back with a 7800X3D at ~$550 and a 7950X3D at ~$999.

Welcome back to the days of the Athlon FX vs Pentium.
What about heat? Right now it's impossible to normally cool the Zen 4 CPUz even without the 3D cache - temperatures at 95 degrees aren't normal, no matter what AMD says.

5800X3D saw lowered boost frequency because of the heat buildup due to 3D cache. What will the consequences be in Zen 4?
Posted on Reply
#99
phanbuey
BwazeWhat about heat? Right now it's impossible to normally cool the Zen 4 CPUz even without the 3D cache - temperatures at 95 degrees aren't normal, no matter what AMD says.

5800X3D saw lowered boost frequency because of the heat buildup due to 3D cache. What will the consequences be in Zen 4?
Same - the difference between 7950X at full stock vs 125W is not much vs 140W it's even less -- and the heat is manageable at both of those settings. So they will cut boost clocks, but the X3D cache will more than make up the 5% performance loss that those extra 60W bring.
Posted on Reply
#100
TheoneandonlyMrK
BwazeWhat about heat? Right now it's impossible to normally cool the Zen 4 CPUz even without the 3D cache - temperatures at 95 degrees aren't normal, no matter what AMD says.

5800X3D saw lowered boost frequency because of the heat buildup due to 3D cache. What will the consequences be in Zen 4?
I bet on the engineering skills of AMD over you personally.
And via experience running at those temperature levels is fine long term.
Besides 98% of computers sit idle more than active so in reality a non issue.
Also game's don't push it hard enough anyway to hit 95, so all good.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 4th, 2024 13:58 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts