Intel i9-13900K "Raptor Lake" ES Improves Gaming Minimum Framerates by 11-27% Over i9-12900KF

[mechtech]

If that's true, I feel bad for anyone who got a 12k chip for gaming lol.

 

[QuietBob]

that doesn't say much, it depends on if the 6600 is bottlenecking the 5800 and it's just sitting there. Utilisation is what you need for those kind of arguments.

A stock 5800X3D peaks at 120w in Cinebench R23. We're talking 100% all core AVX load here. Would you expect to see the same power consumption in games?

 

[Gica]

The biggest increase is power consumption

In games, 12900K looks good. Much better than a 5950X. At 13900K, the performance / consumption ratio will be improved.
I repeat: in games.

The test in the video is the Puget System Premiere Pro Benchmark. So what consumption are we talking about? At maximum consumption, AMD wins, but loses overall consumption and rendering time. And Puget has such tests and at least in the Adobe suite, Intel 12th is the right choice.

 

[Hofnaerrchen]

if a tablet is enough a APU is too, and those are cheap and cool and don't draw much power.

Sorry, but NO! Based on your requirements an APU might do the job - sure - but notebooks still draw much more power compared to tablets and the devices are more bulky and heavy. It's a question what you want to do with your device. Not to mention that NB prices also skyrocket if you want a better than average display or a slim design. In my case I can do everything - with the exception of gaming - that I normaly was using my PC for. I already moved away from using the PC in many cases, simply because using the tablet is much more convenient.

 

[BArms]

I have a hard time believing a >10% boost at 4K when 4K is generally GPU-bottlenecked in the extreme.

 

[Minus Infinity]

I said it once and ill say it again: increased performance at the cost of more power consumption isnt progress

Nvidia didn't get the memo either.

Still it'll be interesting to see the actual power usage comparisons of AL and RL. Intel did show changes to the design of RL that would lower power usage, so performance per watt is probably going to be better. But more cores will mean more power even if they are just pleb cores. The big test will be 13600K vs 12700K and 13700K vs 12900K for power usage, as they are the same core configs. If RL keeps power to the same or better with better performance (this part is guaranteed at least) then that's not too bad. Zen 4 will still probably beat it, but Zen 4 is getting large clock speed increases, so I'll bet it uses more power than Zen 3 for sure.

I'm of the opinion it will make little difference which cpu you get except 13900K will be power hungry. 13700/13600 will be much more desirable IMO. I'm still leaning toward Zen 4 since socket AM5 will be around probably until Zen 7 is released. Meteor Lake is all new MB again.

 

[Crackong]

In games, 12900K looks good. Much better than a 5950X. At 13900K, the performance / consumption ratio will be improved.
I repeat: in games.

The test in the video is the Puget System Premiere Pro Benchmark. So what consumption are we talking about? At maximum consumption, AMD wins, but loses overall consumption and rendering time. And Puget has such tests and at least in the Adobe suite, Intel 12th is the right choice.

I am referring to this pic from the original post.
Only comparing 13900K vs 12900K(F), seeing biggest power jump from 92W to 140W which is a 50% increase in red dead 4k
In that test the performance increase was like 5%

I don't see how you could come up with 'At 13900K, the performance / consumption ratio will be improved. I repeat: in games. '
From the original post
It is very obvious that they bumped the frequency in the price of power consumption
And the bumped frequency didn't end well in the game tests.
The increase in min FPS are mainly from the increased cache, as we have experienced from the 5800X3D behaviour.

The 13900k is just a frequency bump of 12900k plus 8 more e-cores and reached the insane PL4 of 420W.
It will be an uncoolable 12900k which by itself is already quite uncoolable.

 

[Melvis]

@Tigger
ALL core clock, not just 1 or 2 cores like the 12 900K, so maybe YOU should actually try reading it.....if you think ALL cores at 5.5GHz wont need special cooling then your high or something.

 

[Why_Me]

@Tigger
ALL core clock, not just 1 or 2 cores like the 12 900K, so maybe YOU should actually try reading it.....if you think ALL cores at 5.5GHz wont need special cooling then your high or something.

This cpu is going to be the Mad Max car of PC gaming.

 

[ratirt]

There is not a lot of performance increase in average mostly the mins are higher which is good. Refresh of a 12th gen it would seem is the best to describe it.
What tipped me off is the 1.5 KW PSU used . God I hope it's a coincidence not a must to run it full speed with a 3090 Ti.

 

[R0H1T]

At maximum consumption, AMD wins, but loses overall consumption and rendering time.

Like always ~ it depends on the task!

 

[SaLaDiN666]

The AMD troll brigade squad is probably running 2600x or something like that.

I myself own 9900ks and 5900x.

9900ks power consumption in games is about 50-70w most of the time, sometimes 100w when playing something heavy which utilizes also AVX.

5900x is consuming 90 -110w CONSTANTLY. If I play a pathetic old-ass game utilizing one core, it doesn't matter, 90w. If I play something newer like BFV, boom, 110 W in MP.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

The AMD troll brigade squad is probably running 2600x or something like that.

I myself own 9900ks and 5900x.

9900ks power consumption in games is about 50-70w most of the time, sometimes 100w when playing something heavy which utilizes also AVX.

5900x is consuming 90 -110w CONSTANTLY. If I play a pathetic old-ass game utilizing one core, it doesn't matter, 90w. If I play something newer like BFV, boom, 110 W in MP.

My ADL uses less that 70w gaming, even GTA V MP at 1440p ultra settings.

 

[Gica]

I am referring to this pic from the original post.
Only comparing 13900K vs 12900K(F), seeing biggest power jump from 92W to 140W which is a 50% increase in red dead 4k
In that test the performance increase was like 5%

I don't see how you could come up with 'At 13900K, the performance / consumption ratio will be improved. I repeat: in games. '
From the original post
It is very obvious that they bumped the frequency in the price of power consumption
And the bumped frequency didn't end well in the game tests.
The increase in min FPS are mainly from the increased cache, as we have experienced from the 5800X3D behaviour.

The 13900k is just a frequency bump of 12900k plus 8 more e-cores and reached the insane PL4 of 420W.
It will be an uncoolable 12900k which by itself is already quite uncoolable.

Peak is not the average consumption. As in the picture, the top of the intel processor is higher but the average consumption is below AMD and it performs the task much faster.

Like always ~ it depends on the task!

As I said before, the peak of consumption is irrelevant. The basis is the average consumption when performing a task. Even in rendering and video processing, most tasks (creation) do not use the processor to the maximum.
In my example, if I had a peak of 57.3W, the total consumption of the processor was below 8 W / h.

 

[Tomorrow]

The AMD troll brigade squad is probably running 2600x or something like that.

I myself own 9900ks and 5900x.

9900ks power consumption in games is about 50-70w most of the time, sometimes 100w when playing something heavy which utilizes also AVX.

5900x is consuming 90 -110w CONSTANTLY. If I play a pathetic old-ass game utilizing one core, it doesn't matter, 90w. If I play something newer like BFV, boom, 110 W in MP.

5900X can also be tuned to draw less with Curve Optimizer. To me it's also a pointless SKU. If a person needs multithreading perf they should get 5950X and if they want gaming they get 5600X or 5800X for mixed workloads or 5800X3D for best gaming.

My ADL uses less that 70w gaming, even GTA V MP at 1440p ultra settings.

And my 5800X3D also uses less than 70W when gaming.

 

[R0H1T]

Peak is not the average consumption. As in the picture, the top of the intel processor is higher but the average consumption is below AMD and it performs the task much faster.


As I said before, the peak of consumption is irrelevant. The basis is the average consumption when performing a task. Even in rendering and video processing, most tasks (creation) do not use the processor to the maximum.
In my example, if I had a peak of 57.3W, the total consumption of the processor was below 8 W / h.

That's not peak power consumption of zen3, it can easily chew through a lot more! Also you can easily run CB23 for longer period to average out your power/task ~ bottom line is that zen3 at stock is still more efficient than stock Intel 12th gen though it can get beaten in some tasks wrt perf/W & your results can vary wildly depending on the task & how long its run!

 

[Deleted member 24505]

People always quote peak, but how often is anyone's CPU at 100% during gaming or normal use. Peak use means nothing really, just numbers to throw at the opposite camp.

 

[Crackong]

Peak is not the average consumption. As in the picture, the top of the intel processor is higher but the average consumption is below AMD and it performs the task much faster.


As I said before, the peak of consumption is irrelevant. The basis is the average consumption when performing a task. Even in rendering and video processing, most tasks (creation) do not use the processor to the maximum.
In my example, if I had a peak of 57.3W, the total consumption of the processor was below 8 W / h.

The original post compares 13900k vs 12900k
Intel vs Intel
It is completely reasonable to assume the peak consumption increase ~ average consumption increase in the tested use cases.
Since the architecture and process node are hugely the same.
Let me say again
The original post is doing INTEL VS INTEL.

I don't know why you kept missing the picture here and comparing against 'Imaginary AMD'
There are no AMD products tested in the original post.

With the sample size of one the only thing we could do is using its data point and compare Intel vs Intel.

 

[Gica]

bottom line is that zen3 at stock is still more efficient than stock Intel 12th gen though it can get beaten in some tasks wrt perf/W & your results can vary wildly depending on the task & how long its run!

Not in gaming, not in the Photoshop suite, not in CaD and not in many.
Intel 12th consumes extremely much in very heavy tasks but is extremely efficient in others. To determine the total consumption, average this consumption throughout the session. If I drink three beers today and drink one tomorrow, you can't say I drink three beers every day.

 

[InquisitorLXXI]

Has there been any buzz about an “S” version of the 13900K coming out?

 

[spnidel]

1080p gaming kek

what do you mean? I bought a 12900k and 3090 ti to play games at 720p!

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Not in gaming, not in the Photoshop suite, not in CaD and not in many.
Intel 12th consumes extremely much in very heavy tasks but is extremely efficient in others. To determine the total consumption, average this consumption throughout the session. If I drink three beers today and drink one tomorrow, you can't say I drink three beers every day.

Like i said, my 12700k uses less than 70w gaming. Usually below 60w. The 12700k seems to use less usage % than both the others too for more FPS(close to the X3D) which is pretty good.

 

[r9]

So this will be 10nm CPU that should compete with 5nm Ryzen 4.
Intel CPU architecture is solid you just can't overcame the manufacturing node deficit with just solid architecture.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Pity that AMD had to become the focus of this thread.

Does anyone else find it peculiar that reviewers use 3090 (ti) GPU's for testing CPU's at 1080p?

I guess it doesn't make too much difference, especially if you are a random person on a Chinese tech forum instead of a W1zzard...

 

[Vayra86]

Like i said, my 12700k uses less than 70w gaming. Usually below 60w. The 12700k seems to use less usage % than both the others too for more FPS(close to the X3D) which is pretty good.

This has realistically been true since what, Sandy Bridge? I saw 60W on my 3570K. I'm seeing about 65~ish on my 8700K.

Is it relevant? Depends on your perspective, doesn't it? But I don't think it is relevant in the context of Intel pushing a 5.5 Ghz clock on the top-end model, which, as we know today, much like the 12900K(F) is a POS to keep cool unless you limit it somehow.

You keep talking about your super efficiently gaming 12700K as if its a bench-topping beast, but its not a 12900K. And its certainly not a 12900K being pushed in any possible form at 1440p ultra. So what do you really know?! Especially because you push an ancient 1080ti with it. You don't even have the hardware to push a 12700K to the limit in any game, lol. Mighty efficient indeed, at 20% load... so that puts your 'low' 70W in some real perspective right there. This topic is about a successor to the 12900K at peak clocks pushing the fattest GPU you can find. You're brutally off topic every time you post about how efficient your CPU is practically idling, and then you complain about other people making other silly comparisons