Intel "Raptor Lake" ES Posts 9.4% Higher Single-Core Performance Than "Alder Lake"

[btarunr]

In what could be evidence of Intel pulling off a major generational IPC increase, Chinese PC enthusiast Extreme Player, with access to a Core i9-13900K engineering sample (ES), tested the chip on a handful synthetic tests, with the processor yielding significant performance gains over its predecessor, the i9-12900K. The most striking performance number has to be the CPU-Z Bench single-core test, which shows an impressive 9.41 percent increase over that of the i9-12900K.

The i9-13900K packs "Raptor Cove" performance cores, which Intel claims come with a generational IPC increase over the "Golden Cove" P-cores. The 9.4% performance increase could be a result of not just increased IPC, but also higher clock speeds (set at 5.50 GHz, the assumed maximum boost frequency of the retail processor). The multi-threaded CPU-Z Bench sees an incredible 46.34% performance increase. This stems from not just increased performance on the eight P-cores, but also the doubling in E-cores from 8 to 16. The E-core clusters also see a doubling in L2 cache sizes. The story repeats with Cinebench R23, with an incredible 13.53% single-thread performance increase, and a 40.25% multi-threaded performance increase.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[AlwaysHope]

Good, I'm waiting for these to hit retail stores, increased cache & IPC gains will pay nice dividends in gaming scenarios. But on 10nm node, not so sure about power consumption efficiency, not that it bothers me a lot but be interesting to see in real world testing.

 

[The Quim Reaper]

Pfft..still not enough to offset the performance loss in RPCS3, by removing AVX512 support (Thanks, Intel..Wankers) Which can boost framerates by 30% (or more) on (early) Alder Lake CPUs with it

 

[Tomorrow]

Good, I'm waiting for these to hit retail stores, increased cache & IPC gains will pay nice dividends in gaming scenarios. But on 10nm node, not so sure about power consumption efficiency, not that it bothers me a lot but be interesting to see in real world testing.

Likely same or higher power compared to ADL. ST perf increase seems average. MT increase expectedly high with doubling of E-Cores.

 

[Deleted member 185088]

I don't like the direction AMD/Intel and nVidia are heading, it seems power efficiency isn't a priority at all. In the real world we have heat, electricity bills, noise... Etc
The whole thing is not helped by this obsession with FPS and rubbish technologies like Ray Tracing pushed by some philistines. Since when we have to play at ultra, or dropping below 60fps a sacrilege.

 

[Tomorrow]

I don't like the direction AMD/Intel and nVidia are heading, it seems power efficiency isn't a priority at all. In the real world we have heat, electricity bills, noise... Etc
The whole thing is not helped by this obsession with FPS and rubbish technologies like Ray Tracing pushed by some philistines. Since when we have to play at ultra, or dropping below 60fps a sacrilege.

Blame the ones who always said in arguments that power consumption does not matter. So now buying a 450W card depending on your climate and existing cooling you also may have to purchase air conditioner to be able to sit next to these heaters and the power bill to keep it going. I can tell you that even 375W gets uncomfortably hot during summer (2080Ti here). And that's up in North-East Europe. I cant imagine what people who live in south must do.

 

[Outback Bronze]

The most striking performance number has to be the CPU-Z Bench single-core test, which shows an impressive 9.41 percent increase over that of the i9-12900K.

Um, not sure about that. Maybe at Stocks level yes but pretty sure the 12900KS boosts to 5.5Ghz Single.

Lest see how good Raptor overclclocks

Single thread Raptor @ 5.5Ghz is 892.2

My 5.6Ghz 12900k is 914.9

 

[outlw6669]

IPC implies performance at ISO clock speeds, whereas this comparison is using a 5.2GHz 12900KV vs a 5.5(5.7)GHz 13900K (ES).
5.5GHz is a 5.6% increase in clock speed, ergo 5.6% higher performance from clock speed increase already.
The videocardz.com source lists a top boost of 5.7GHz, which works out to a 9.6% clock speed improvement.

Also to note, the 13900K (ES) hit a PL4 of 420W in the testing.
Allowing the processor to suck more power should allow it to boost higher, and more often, increasing absolute performance, but not IPC.

Indeed, look a the CPU-Z single thread testing.
At ISO clock speeds, they show a 0.25-0.3% improvement.

Now, to me, these tests are all worth a grain of salt as they are pre-release testing on ES chips.
I reserver all judgments for after the official release and multiple independent reviews.

 

[mama]

IPC implies performance at ISO clock speeds, whereas this comparison is using a 5.2GHz 12900KV vs a 5.5(5.7)GHz 13900K (ES).
5.5GHz is a 5.6% increase in clock speed, ergo 5.6% higher performance from clock speed increase already.
The videocardz.com source lists a top boost of 5.7GHz, which works out to a 9.6% clock speed improvement.

Also to note, the 13900K (ES) hit a PL4 of 420W in the testing.
Allowing the processor to suck more power should allow it to boost higher, and more often, increasing absolute performance, but not IPC.

Indeed, look a the CPU-Z single thread testing.
At ISO clock speeds, they show a 0.25-0.3% improvement.

Now, to me, these tests are all worth a grain of salt as they are pre-release testing on ES chips.
I reserver all judgments for after the official release and multiple independent reviews.

Agreed. I relish the competition in upcoming CPU releases. Not long to wait now.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Likely same or higher power compared to ADL. ST perf increase seems average. MT increase expectedly high with doubling of E-Cores.

Same? Not even close...

 

[ModEl4]

If indeed the performance uplift in CB23 proves true (+40.25%) 7950X will need +51% MT uplift from 5950X just to match it and the most I remember seeing is a up to +45% claim from AMD "affiliated" leakers/sites.
Also if someone asked me now who is going to have the gaming performance crown (even if it was only 1% difference) taking account the IPC & frequency differences for Zen4 and the +14% in ST Cinebench R20 that 13900KF enjoys, I would say that chances are 13900KS to be on top vs 7950X!

 

[WhateverAnotherFreakingID]

IPC implies performance at ISO clock speeds, whereas this comparison is using a 5.2GHz 12900KV vs a 5.5(5.7)GHz 13900K (ES).
5.5GHz is a 5.6% increase in clock speed, ergo 5.6% higher performance from clock speed increase already.
The videocardz.com source lists a top boost of 5.7GHz, which works out to a 9.6% clock speed improvement.

Indeed at ISO speed as from the 3rd image the gains are in between 0.1-0.3% only, while power efficiency doesn't sound enticing at all, but we'll have to wait for the proper reviews tests to know exactly where it is at.

Side question, where does your 5.6% and 9.6% clock speed percentages increase come from?
5.1GHz -> 5.5GHz = 7.84% more
5.1Ghz -> 5.7GHz = 11.76% more

 

[john_]

The article starts with excitement

In what could be evidence of Intel pulling off a major generational IPC increase

and latter comes down to earth

The 9.4% performance increase could be a result of not just increased IPC, but also higher clock speeds (set at 5.50 GHz

Then again more excitement

The multi-threaded CPU-Z Bench sees an incredible 46.34% performance increase

and back to Earth

but also the doubling in E-cores from 8 to 16. The E-core clusters also see a doubling in L2 cache sizes.

I don't think we have major changes here. Intel just pushed frequencies and added more cache to E cores. It's just a Zen+ over Zen, maybe even less, with the major difference coming from the number of E cores. More E cores are great for the marketing department(finally more cores than AMD) and for running Cinebench, but other than that?

I don't like the direction AMD/Intel and nVidia are heading, it seems power efficiency isn't a priority at all. In the real world we have heat, electricity bills, noise... Etc
The whole thing is not helped by this obsession with FPS and rubbish technologies like Ray Tracing pushed by some philistines. Since when we have to play at ultra, or dropping below 60fps a sacrilege.

AMD had efficiency as a priority these last years. Did they win anything? People watch Intel processors beating AMD by 5% while consuming 50% more wattage and they are drooling for that extra 5%, ignoring the power consumption numbers. On the other hand at Nvidia they are moving at 600W and beyond and people still worship them. Why should at AMD restrict themselves when people care about framerates ignoring power consumption?

 

[wauc4uluq]

Pfft..still not enough to offset the performance loss in RPCS3, by removing AVX512 support (Thanks, Intel..Wankers) Which can boost framerates by 30% (or more) on (early) Alder Lake CPUs with it

AVX512 shouldn't exist as it isn't useful in most cases. CPU and GPU cores are more useful.

 

[Crackong]

Same? Not even close...

420W

WoW

 

[outlw6669]

Indeed at ISO speed as from the 3rd image the gains are in between 0.1-0.3% only, while power efficiency doesn't sound enticing at all, but we'll have to wait for the proper reviews tests to know exactly where it is at.

Side question, where does your 5.6% and 9.6% clock speed percentages increase come from?
5.1GHz -> 5.5GHz = 7.84% more
5.1Ghz -> 5.7GHz = 11.76% more

Looking at the slides, the 12900KF is listed as being tested at 5.2GHz.

 

[ModEl4]

AMD had efficiency as a priority these last years. Did they win anything? People watch Intel processors beating AMD by 5% while consuming 50% more wattage and they are drooling for that extra 5%, ignoring the power consumption numbers. On the other hand at Nvidia they are moving at 600W and beyond and people still worship them. Why should at AMD restrict themselves when people care about framerates ignoring power consumption?

They did win a lot, it was a good strategy, a lot of people care for power consumption!
If there was a problem it was pricing on most models because AMD asked for example $300 for a 5600X and Intel was asking $180 for a 12400F...
Nvidia's reference full AD102 GPU it seems will be below 600W according to AMD's prediction (maybe after discussions with partners of what TDP limits AMD can possibly target based on upcoming predetermined competition's designs) Also AMD is forecasting 700W for next-next gen GPUs in 2024 (let's hope 700W is for Nvidia otherwise except Deja Vu it will be mea culpa!

 

[AlwaysHope]

Blame the ones who always said in arguments that power consumption does not matter. So now buying a 450W card depending on your climate and existing cooling you also may have to purchase air conditioner to be able to sit next to these heaters and the power bill to keep it going. I can tell you that even 375W gets uncomfortably hot during summer (2080Ti here). And that's up in North-East Europe. I cant imagine what people who live in south must do.

Look at the bright side, you'll be able to operate your rig in the nude, be warm & save on washing clothes!

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

Look at the bright side, you'll be able to operate your rig in the nude, be warm & save on washing clothes!

Real gamers dont wear pants while gaming.

If 5.5Ghz is max, that means overclockers can get 6 Ghz.

set at 5.50 GHz, the assumed maximum boost frequency of the retail processor

 

[rafik2019]

I wonder power consumption of this thing and thermals

 

[eidairaman1]

The article starts with excitement

and latter comes down to earth

Then again more excitement

and back to Earth


I don't think we have major changes here. Intel just pushed frequencies and added more cache to E cores. It's just a Zen+ over Zen, maybe even less, with the major difference coming from the number of E cores. More E cores are great for the marketing department(finally more cores than AMD) and for running Cinebench, but other than that?


AMD had efficiency as a priority these last years. Did they win anything? People watch Intel processors beating AMD by 5% while consuming 50% more wattage and they are drooling for that extra 5%, ignoring the power consumption numbers. On the other hand at Nvidia they are moving at 600W and beyond and people still worship them. Why should at AMD restrict themselves when people care about framerates ignoring power consumption?

Simple because the buyers are stupid

 

[Crackong]

AMD had efficiency as a priority these last years. Did they win anything? People watch Intel processors beating AMD by 5% while consuming 50% more wattage and they are drooling for that extra 5%, ignoring the power consumption numbers. On the other hand at Nvidia they are moving at 600W and beyond and people still worship them. Why should at AMD restrict themselves when people care about framerates ignoring power consumption?

AMD basically won the commerical server market where efficiency is king (and where most of the $$ margins are)
And if Intel SR delay again in 2023, Intel will be like 2 generations behind in server products.

 

[Deleted member 185088]

Blame the ones who always said in arguments that power consumption does not matter. So now buying a 450W card depending on your climate and existing cooling you also may have to purchase air conditioner to be able to sit next to these heaters and the power bill to keep it going. I can tell you that even 375W gets uncomfortably hot during summer (2080Ti here). And that's up in North-East Europe. I cant imagine what people who live in south must do.

I feel your pain, I simply can't play with no AC, it's just awful during summer.

AMD had efficiency as a priority these last years. Did they win anything? People watch Intel processors beating AMD by 5% while consuming 50% more wattage and they are drooling for that extra 5%, ignoring the power consumption numbers. On the other hand at Nvidia they are moving at 600W and beyond and people still worship them. Why should at AMD restrict themselves when people care about framerates ignoring power consumption?

I blame the influence of the so called reviewers, lots of them are just fanboys. Worse still despite being philistines they pretend to be authorities in the matter like DF, who are obsessed with RT and AI (I just think they fall for AI marketing). Then there is the way the games are tested, always in ultra, and the results GPU1 won with 85 against 80fps, those are indistinguishable.
The sad thing, you have some fans of those so called reviewers, who go to great lengths to defend their favourite youtuber.

 

[Minus Infinity]

50% more cores and 46% more performance. So nothing astounding at all. IPC increase is as was widely reported ~ 8-10%

It might be all talk but AMD is still confident they will have the MT crown with Zen 4 and with clocks apparently able to hit single core 5.85GHz along with ~10% IPC uplift, other major architectural changes, ST will also be a lot stronger than Zen 3. And then we have Zen 4 with v-cache in H1 2023.

It would be too much to buy RL on a socket that is EOL. AM5 will be around until Zen 6 most likely. Trouble for Intel Meteor Lake is delayed until late 2023. So better to put RL in AL MB's.

 

[Bloax]

I don't like the direction AMD/Intel and nVidia are heading, it seems power efficiency isn't a priority at all. In the real world we have heat, electricity bills, noise... Etc
The whole thing is not helped by this obsession with FPS and rubbish technologies like Ray Tracing pushed by some philistines. Since when we have to play at ultra, or dropping below 60fps a sacrilege.

Guys, you don't have to deal with desktop hardware running ridiculous voltage/frequencies.
I'm running my 12700k HT-less at 4.8 Ghz P, 4.1 Ring, 3.7 E, runs cool and quiet just fine at 1.16v, and performs more than "good enough" with a good RAM overclock.


Modern GPU or CPU too hot? As long as you're using a good PSU, then you should be able to underclock it a little (4-9%) and cut down on a lot of voltage - suddenly it draws 25-60% less power while delivering "more than good enough" performance.

Wanna go maximum fast? Sure, it does that too - but don't forget that it goes Cool & Quiet too