News Intel 13th-Gen Core i9-13900 Raptor Lake Allegedly Boosts to 5.58 GHz

[Admin]

Intel's 65W Raptor Lake has extreme turbo clocks, 32 threads.

Intel 13th-Gen Core i9-13900 Raptor Lake Allegedly Boosts to 5.58 GHz : Read more

 

[-Fran-]

What is that "boost"? Because with Alder Lake the clock reporting has gotten really confusing.

Is that 5.58Ghz all-P-core? Single P-core? What about the E-core clocks? If they moved the balance for more P-core speed (which would make sense) to keep a similar power draw and thermal envelope (kinda?), then the E-cores are probably slower in heavily constrainded TDP/Power environments? What is that 65W? I'd imagine TDP since I'd doubt a 13900 would pull just 65W with an all-core workload and 5.58Ghz.

This doesn't really tell me much?

Regards.

 

[TerryLaze]

What is that "boost"? Because with Alder Lake the clock reporting has gotten really confusing.

Is that 5.58Ghz all-P-core? Single P-core? What about the E-core clocks? If they moved the balance for more P-core speed (which would make sense) to keep a similar power draw and thermal envelope (kinda?), then the E-cores are probably slower in heavily constrainded TDP/Power environments? What is that 65W? I'd imagine TDP since I'd doubt a 13900 would pull just 65W with an all-core workload and 5.58Ghz.

This doesn't really tell me much?

Regards.

What is so complicated?! ....
If not otherwise stated you can be pretty sure that it's the Intel® Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 Frequency. (So single thread max clock on the best available p-core)
And the 65w is only for base TDP, while this was, again almost certainly, made with max power,
if not outright unlimited PL2 and unlocked clocks because intel would not use an uneven number for their turbo clocks.

 

[shady28]

13900K retail advertisement leaks already confirmed that it has max boost clock of 5.8Ghz, as that was in the specs.

I doubt this is the 13900, probably the 13900K.

 

[shady28]

What is that "boost"? Because with Alder Lake the clock reporting has gotten really confusing.

Is that 5.58Ghz all-P-core? Single P-core? What about the E-core clocks? If they moved the balance for more P-core speed (which would make sense) to keep a similar power draw and thermal envelope (kinda?), then the E-cores are probably slower in heavily constrainded TDP/Power environments? What is that 65W? I'd imagine TDP since I'd doubt a 13900 would pull just 65W with an all-core workload and 5.58Ghz.

This doesn't really tell me much?

Regards.

It tells enthusiasts something.

True at default power limits the chip will only boost a core or two to 5.8Ghz. However, if you have sufficient cooling and enough VRM power it should be trivial to boost all cores to 5.8Ghz by power unlocking it and have a 100% success rate.

The reason being, it is rated for 5.8, it is just a matter of power and cooling to get there on all cores - it's not even really overclocking, just power unlock.

I doubt this is a 13900 though, as the retail leaks I noted above say the 13900K is rated for a 5.8Ghz boost clock. 13900 I would expect to be at least 200Mhz less.

 

[TerryLaze]

The reason being, it is rated for 5.8, it is just a matter of power and cooling to get there on all cores - it's not even really overclocking, just power unlock.

Unlocking the power beyond what intel allows is still overclocking.
The reason being that the cores are rated and only the two best ones are rated to reach the highest clock.

How to Know Which Core is the Fastest in Intel Processors | ITIGIC

In the latest generations of Intel Core processors we find Intel Turbo Boost Max 3.0 technology , in which the processor has a "preferred" core that is faster than the others. This core is automatically selected, and runs at a higher frequency than the rest when the system needs it. But how do...

itigic.com

 

[shady28]

Unlocking the power beyond what intel allows is still overclocking.
The reason being that the cores are rated and only the two best ones are rated to reach the highest clock.

How to Know Which Core is the Fastest in Intel Processors | ITIGIC

In the latest generations of Intel Core processors we find Intel Turbo Boost Max 3.0 technology , in which the processor has a "preferred" core that is faster than the others. This core is automatically selected, and runs at a higher frequency than the rest when the system needs it. But how do...

itigic.com

I figured someone would argue the semantics.

I'm sure someone, somewhere, has failed on a power unlock getting max boost. I haven't seen it.

I've done it many times and as I said, it is trivial and the success rate is near 100%. It's no different than AMDs PBO.

 

[TerryLaze]

I figured someone would argue the semantics.

I'm sure someone, somewhere, has failed on a power unlock getting max boost. I haven't seen it.

I've done it many times and as I said, it is trivial and the success rate is near 100%. It's no different than AMDs PBO.

I'm not arguing the 100% success rate, I'm just saying that intel still considers it overclocking.

 

[JamesJones44]

What is that "boost"? Because with Alder Lake the clock reporting has gotten really confusing.

Is that 5.58Ghz all-P-core? Single P-core? What about the E-core clocks? If they moved the balance for more P-core speed (which would make sense) to keep a similar power draw and thermal envelope (kinda?), then the E-cores are probably slower in heavily constrainded TDP/Power environments? What is that 65W? I'd imagine TDP since I'd doubt a 13900 would pull just 65W with an all-core workload and 5.58Ghz.

This doesn't really tell me much?

Regards.

It does. TDP isn't power draw, it's size of the CPUs required thermal dissipation in watts. TDP has never been power draw (though they are related of course). If you have a cooler that can dissipate 65 watts then you can use it with this processor. That is all TDP means and all it ever meant. This is true for AMD as well.

 

[apone]

"Intel's Core i9-13900 is fully-fledged Raptor Lake silicon with eight high-performance Raptor Cove cores with Hyper-Threading (optimized Golden Cove cores) and 16 energy-efficient Gracemont cores without simultaneous multithreading that together can process up to 32 threads concurrently. "

Us - Clever girl...

 

[TerryLaze]

It does. TDP isn't power draw, it's size of the CPUs required thermal dissipation in watts. TDP has never been power draw (though they are related of course). If you have a cooler that can dissipate 65 watts then you can use it with this processor. That is all TDP means and all it ever meant. This is true for AMD as well.

Not quite, for intel they state it on their website site what they mean:
It's a minimum guaranteed all core clock (base frequency) under heavy load.
And they also state the maximum turbo power which is the max power draw of the CPU that they allow, not the cooling but the actual power. (At steady state they are basically the same anyway)
Any ark page of any CPU when you click on it:

Processor Base Power
The time-averaged power dissipation that the processor is validated to not exceed during manufacturing while executing an Intel-specified high complexity workload at Base Frequency and at the junction temperature as specified in the Datasheet for the SKU segment and configuration.

For AMD it doesn't mean anything, it's the temp at the cpu case subtracting the temp at the heat sink intake divided by the quality rating of the heat sink material...
The only reason the 3700x is 65w and the 3800x is 105W ,according to AMD, is because the 3700x is considered to run a bit hotter and have a crappier cooler (HSF θca) ...

CPU	tCase°C	tAmbient°C	HSF θca (°C/W)	TDP (W)	Rated P0 Power (W)
Ryzen 9 3950X	?	?	?	~105	?
Ryzen 9 3900X	61.8	42	0.189	104.76	[127W listed, may have been lowered before release]
Ryzen 7 3800X	61.8	42	0.189	104.76	[listed number outdated]
Ryzen 7 3700X	69.3	42	0.420	65	87.8

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/...lained-deep-dive-cooler-manufacturer-opinions

 

[JamesJones44]

Not quite, for intel they state it on their website site what they mean:
It's a minimum guaranteed all core clock (base frequency) under heavy load.
And they also state the maximum turbo power which is the max power draw of the CPU that they allow, not the cooling but the actual power. (At steady state they are basically the same anyway)
Any ark page of any CPU when you click on it:


For AMD it doesn't mean anything, it's the temp at the cpu case subtracting the temp at the heat sink intake divided by the quality rating of the heat sink material...
The only reason the 3700x is 65w and the 3800x is 105W ,according to AMD, is because the 3700x is considered to run a bit hotter and have a crappier cooler (HSF θca) ...

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/...lained-deep-dive-cooler-manufacturer-opinions

Dissipation is still exactly what it means, what it minimally takes to cool the processor. A 65 watt cooler under heavy load will work for a 65 watt TDP Intel processor. A 105 watt TDP cooler will work for a 3950X, 3900X and 3800X. While they use different definitions the goal is the same. People for years have conflated power draw and TDP, but they have never been the same. In the early days before turbo boosts TDP and power draw were pretty close, but still not the same. Since turbo boosts it's been completely different, but people still cling to it incorrectly. TDP is about cooling, not about power draw.

We can argue whether TDP itself is a useful number, in my opinion it's not. However, this doesn't change what it is or what companies market it as, which is minimum required cooling for their validated testing against whatever bench/validated test they decided made the most sense for "typical" load on their CPU. Thus requiring that much thermal dissipation by a cooler to make it work at those "validated" numbers.

 

[gamr]

Intel:

"Intel's Core i9-13900 is fully-fledged Raptor Lake silicon with eight high-performance Raptor Cove cores with Hyper-Threading (optimized Golden Cove cores) and 16 energy-efficient Gracemont cores without simultaneous multithreading that together can process up to 32 threads concurrently.

Amd: 16 cores x smt = 32 threads. simple.

 

[-Fran-]

What is so complicated?! ....

All the above replies make my point very evident.

Regards.

 

[TerryLaze]

All the above replies make my point very evident.

Regards.

Oh I see, the smiley shows seriousness, sorry! I'm only now slowly getting the whole concept of sarcasm.

 

[MASOUTH]

3rd paragraph

As it turns out, Intel's forthcoming Core i9-13900 CPU seemingly has more energy-efficient cores than its processor, the Core i9-12900

predecessor?

 

[Colif]

Now we getting excited over 500mhz speed advantages. Its all very petty.

Where is my 10ghz processor so I can play Crysis?

 

[krumholzmax]

Speculative 7NM better when the same 7Nm not believe in Intel

 

[TerryLaze]

Now we getting excited over 500mhz speed advantages. Its all very petty.

Where is my 10ghz processor so I can play Crysis?

But it's soooo much easier to just add cores and make people believe that cinebench ( *enter MT workload of your choice here) is important to them.

Also what you really want is high IPC no matter if that comes from high clocks or from something else.

 

[-Fran-]

But it's soooo much easier to just add cores and make people believe that cinebench ( *enter MT workload of your choice here) is important to them.

Also what you really want is high IPC no matter if that comes from high clocks or from something else.

I don't think IPC means what you think it means...

Regards...