Intel "Raptor Lake" i9-13900K Sees 14% Performance Boost with Power-Limit Unlocks

[Mussels]

345W?


I'm speechless

"With the power limits unlocked in the motherboard's UEFI setup program (i.e. PL1/PL2 set at an impossible 4096 W)" - What??? from where on earth this is possible? are intel folks mad? some unrealistic PL values

That's just a binary value - they double every time like with RAM
They never expect that value to be reached, but doing so lets them have finer control (every extra number could be used for a decimal point, etc)

 

[Bwaze]

345W?


I'm speechless

It's about half of the speculated power draw of top Nvidia GPU, same as it ever was. ;-)

 

[AnarchoPrimitiv]

Ufff, over 40k!!! While that is admittedly at a high power draw, considering how well 12900k responds to power optimization, this makes me think you'll be able to tune this bad boy to 7950x's level of power use while retaining at least the same multi thread and still notably better single thread all on a (potentially, depending on ram choice, significantly) cheaper platform to boot! What's not to like, except of course, if your're team red fanboy, then there will always be something...

Says the person whose comments are literally always pro-Intel.... What's the point of cheering for a huge conglomerate whose hypothetical increase in market share would necessarily result in a worse environment for consumers? We should be cheering for a balance of power between Intel and AMD so that the best possible environment for consumers is created.

 

[HenrySomeone]

So, overclocked this 24-core chips is as fast as my overclocked 24-core Threadripper using about the same amount of power? Nice!

Breit`s Cinebench - R23 Multi Core with BenchMate score: 40477 cb with a Ryzen Threadripper 3960X

The Ryzen Threadripper 3960X @ 4575.7MHzscores getScoreFormatted in the Cinebench - R23 Multi Core with BenchMate benchmark. Breitranks #429 worldwide and #2 in the hardware class. Find out more at HWBOT.

hwbot.org

While I can't quite decide whether this post is meant to be sarcastic or not (probably yes though), considering the cpu in question still sells for at least $1500 (AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X 3.8 GHz Desktop Processor - Newegg.com), it is very nice indeed.

Says the person whose comments are literally always pro-Intel.... What's the point of cheering for a huge conglomerate whose hypothetical increase in market share would necessarily result in a worse environment for consumers? We should be cheering for a balance of power between Intel and AMD so that the best possible environment for consumers is created.

Last time round when there was "a balance of power" (late 2020 through mid 2021), AMD was selling their 6 core (5600x) for more than Intel's 10 core (10850k), therefore truly showing how much they care for consumers...

 

[Denver]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1556319963492671488

Not very impressive, honestly.

 

[The Quim Reaper]

All I know is my planned upgrade from my 9900K to a 13900K is now on permanent hold because this 13900K is going to be slower in RPCS3 than (early) 12900Ks with AVX 512.

..When is an upgrade, not an upgrade. When Intel decides you can't have nice things.

Hell, It maybe that the new AMD 7xxx chips are faster for my particular needs, seeing as they do have AVX 512 on them...at least they did the last time it was mentioned in the (leaked) spec sheets.

 

[Breit]

While I can't quite decide whether this post is meant to be sarcastic or not (probably yes though), considering the cpu in question still sells for at least $1500 (AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X 3.8 GHz Desktop Processor - Newegg.com), it is very nice indeed.

I'm not sure as well...
See, on one hand this is an extraordinary level of multicore performance for a "consumer" chip, but on the other hand this power draw is simply not acceptable for the majority of users. Also 354W is no easy feat to cool away anyways. This is pure custom loop territory! No AIO will handle that for a sustained period of time.
That probably adds more to the system cost than the CPU price alone.
Then there is platform costs. Those shiny new Z790 boards that can handle clean power at that wattage are probably only the higher end ones and as we've seen with Z690 on launch: these can cost well over $1K with up to $2K at times. Threadripper at the time got away with $500-$600 for a proper board!

And for comparisons sake, the TR prices are the prices AMD could take for the chips due to no competition from Intel in that market. If there were competition, these would be lowered by AMD in an instant. Just like Intel did with the 10980XE when Threadripper came out. So prices are not worth comparing between different times/segment.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

All I know is my planned upgrade from my 9900K to a 13900K is now on permanent hold because this 13900K is going to be slower in RPCS3 than (early) 12900Ks with AVX 512.

..When is an upgrade, not an upgrade. When Intel decides you can't have nice things.

Hell, It maybe that the new AMD 7xxx chips are faster for my particular needs, seeing as they do have AVX 512 on them...at least they did the last time it was mentioned in the (leaked) spec sheets.

Ryzen 3000 recieved multiple AVX optimizations and ryzen 5000 continued this, its very notieable in AVX accelerated software line sins of a solar empire and PCSX2.

 

[HenrySomeone]

Then there is platform costs. Those shiny new Z790 boards that can handle clean power at that wattage are probably only the higher end ones and as we've seen with Z690 on launch: these can cost well over $1K with up to $2K at times. Threadripper at the time got away with $500-$600 for a proper board!

This is nothing more than a blatant lie! Even the notoriously AMD biased HU channel found out that a $260 MSI Tomahawk (MSI MAG Z690 TOMAHAWK WIFI DDR4 LGA 1700 ATX Intel Motherboard - Newegg.com) is all you need for 12900k (and even cheaper ones will do if you don't overclock):

 

[Slizzo]

Notoriously AMD biased? Man, people are funny...

 

[Vader]

Some people need to take a chill pill. This is with an unlocked cpu running a stress test, you don't have to unlock the power or run these kinds of tasks 24/7. Having said that, this doesn't bode well even for lighter tasks with this cpu.

IMO, the biggest takeaway from this story is that the realistic use cases for a fully unlocked i9 shrink down with each generation. If these clocks mean that much power, might as well go for the locked i9 and tweak its power limits instead; you'll lose some mhz in the top end, but at this point these speeds are becoming unsustainable. Similar situation to unlocked laptops cpus.

 

[vMax65]

I'm not sure as well...
See, on one hand this is an extraordinary level of multicore performance for a "consumer" chip, but on the other hand this power draw is simply not acceptable for the majority of users. Also 354W is no easy feat to cool away anyways. This is pure custom loop territory! No AIO will handle that for a sustained period of time.
That probably adds more to the system cost than the CPU price alone.
Then there is platform costs. Those shiny new Z790 boards that can handle clean power at that wattage are probably only the higher end ones and as we've seen with Z690 on launch: these can cost well over $1K with up to $2K at times. Threadripper at the time got away with $500-$600 for a proper board!

And for comparisons sake, the TR prices are the prices AMD could take for the chips due to no competition from Intel in that market. If there were competition, these would be lowered by AMD in an instant. Just like Intel did with the 10980XE when Threadripper came out. So prices are not worth comparing between different times/segment.

Not sure where you are getting your numbers from but a Z690 even at the lower end like the MSI Tomahawk, Asus Tuf all at around GBP 250 can more than handle a 12900K overclocked and will no doubt handle the 13900K. The new AMD motherboards I am sure will not come in cheap as they are all DDR5 without a DDR4 option. Swings and roundabouts and each to his own as there is no bad decision be it AMD or Intel..

 

[HenrySomeone]

Some people need to take a chill pill. This is with an unlocked cpu running a stress test, you don't have to unlock the power or run these kinds of tasks 24/7. Having said that, this doesn't bode well even for lighter tasks with this cpu.

Exactly! And they are always moaning about Intel when it comes to these things while 5950x for example can also easily reach upwards of 300W when pushed really hard:

 

[Sabotaged_Enigma]

Gee, Intel, you don't need that 12VO shit. What you need is 220VO!!!

 

[ir_cow]

For reference I am getting 30800~ @ 5.4Ghz All-core in R23 with a 12900K and its pulling a lot more than 250 watts lol. 35693 for "stock" 13900K vs 28000K for stock 12900K is 27.5% increase. Add the OC vs OC and its 31.8%. 12900K (Stock) vs 13900K (OC) 47.6%!

FYI: The ONLY way you will be getting a 13900K to pull 340 watts without instantly reaching 100c is with LN2, Chiller or delid the CPU.

 

[HenrySomeone]

Gee, Intel, you don't need that 12VO shit. What you need is 220VO!!!

Gee, aren't you the comedian...

 

[pavle]

I wonder if one unlocks it to 1000 Watts, would it be 100% faster than previous generation CPU? :-/

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I wonder if one unlocks it to 1000 Watts, would it be 100% faster than previous generation CPU? :-/

yes at popping and destroying itself.

 

[msimax]

Says someone with a (supposedly) FX 9370... That thing uses north of 200W just opening more demanding web pages

 

[Dave65]

more like a space heater, industrial size

Yep, hard pass for me.

 

[Minus Infinity]

i don't think it will consume less power than the 12th.
if I remember the PL for 12900K was set to 241W but here its 254W!


i agree!

It uses more power. Intyel has done nothing to improve efficiency despite bogus claims to that effect. More cores and higher clocks = more power.

I can see it now 13900KS + 4090 Ti minimum PSU spec = 1.2kW ATX3.0 with 2.5kW power spike protection.

 

[Mussels]

This is nothing more than a blatant lie! Even the notoriously AMD biased HU channel found out that a $260 MSI Tomahawk (MSI MAG Z690 TOMAHAWK WIFI DDR4 LGA 1700 ATX Intel Motherboard - Newegg.com) is all you need for 12900k (and even cheaper ones will do if you don't overclock):

Thats stock

Stock is not how most reviews test these CPUs or advertise their performance

 

[Crackong]

While I can't quite decide whether this post is meant to be sarcastic or not (probably yes though), considering the cpu in question still sells for at least $1500 (AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X 3.8 GHz Desktop Processor - Newegg.com), it is very nice indeed.

I think half of the cost are justified by the amount of PCI-E lanes and RAM channel capacity provided by Threadripper
It is a different animal
People who need those features would never consider consumer class CPU in the first place.
Just like my home server running the 3955wx
Yes the 12900k is 'better' in terms of single and multicore performance, and far cheaper than the 3955wx
But nope it isn't what I needed.

 

[spnidel]

340w+ lol

 

[Breit]

This is nothing more than a blatant lie! Even the notoriously AMD biased HU channel found out that a $260 MSI Tomahawk (MSI MAG Z690 TOMAHAWK WIFI DDR4 LGA 1700 ATX Intel Motherboard - Newegg.com) is all you need for 12900k (and even cheaper ones will do if you don't overclock):

There is a HUGE difference between drawing 240W vs. 350W on the CPU alone. I was talkinig about the ~350W from the OP story!