News Intel Core i9-13900K Benchmarked in Chinese Video, Delivers 10-35% Perf Increase

cknobman

Distinguished
May 2, 2006
1,117
263
19,660
Hesitant to be impressed with these numbers until I see some power draw figures.

If it took 400 watts of power to achieve those numbers then IMO its a huge failure.
 

DavidC1

Distinguished
May 18, 2006
493
67
18,860
Hesitant to be impressed with these numbers until I see some power draw figures.

If it took 400 watts of power to achieve those numbers then IMO its a huge failure.

It won't. Raptorlake power specs were leaked a while ago and the PL2 is slightly higher at 250W vs 240W for Alderlake.
 
Uh? What are they calling "PL4"? Given the power numbers in parenthesis from their table, is it the "unlimited power" mode?

And 5.5Ghz with 1.34v... This may actually consume more power on average while increasing the ceiling just a bit for all-core (well, so the numbers on paper agree/show). The gains don't seem bad, but there's a lot more to find out for sure.

So far, cautiously optimistic.

Regards.
 
Uh? What are they calling "PL4"? Given the power numbers in parenthesis from their table, is it the "unlimited power" mode?
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/processors/core/core-technical-resources.html
PL4 is the maximum that is allowed and the CPU will not go above that
v9oYfgj.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: KyaraM
So it's the CPU power ceiling configured (configurable?) by the AIBs and OEMs for the platform.
It's unclear if it can be programmed, the fact that they say it's disabled by default might suggest that it is.
Otherwise OC records wouldn't exist XD
The extreme cooling in overclocking actually drops the power draw to really low levels, the less movement there is from the electrons the easier it is to move them around and make them stay where they have to.
12900k unlimited power 4.9Ghz all core running cinebench at 160W...all you need is a little liquid nitrogen ¯\(ツ)/¯ .
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnwhYEUHw7k&t=548s
 
  • Like
Reactions: KyaraM

KyaraM

Admirable
Mar 11, 2022
1,494
661
6,790
Hesitant to be impressed with these numbers until I see some power draw figures.

If it took 400 watts of power to achieve those numbers then IMO its a huge failure.
Considering the power specs are pretty muxh the same as Alder Lake with possibly more controls... very unlikely. Especially in everyday work and gaming workloads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rluker5
It's unclear if it can be programmed, the fact that they say it's disabled by default might suggest that it is.
At least, the document/image you posted makes me believe that is the case.
The extreme cooling in overclocking actually drops the power draw to really low levels, the less movement there is from the electrons the easier it is to move them around and make them stay where they have to.
12900k unlimited power 4.9Ghz all core running cinebench at 160W...all you need is a little liquid nitrogen ¯\(ツ)/¯ .
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnwhYEUHw7k&t=548s
Well, the answer is a tad more complicated, but not wrong on principle: the closer you're at "superconductor" level, the less resistance, less energy needed to move stuff around. So yeah. That being said, you still do need a lot of power to reach world records. I recall der8auer or Kingpin saying they do work towards 900W for GPUs, also using liquid nitrogen for cooling, so I'd imagine CPUs are not that different. More than likely not 900W, but 300W or even 400W doesn't seem too unrealistic for all-core OC records.

Also! This is relevant from another conversation in another thread/news. Quite interesting findings that agree with the common understanding of most of us here:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd9-OtzzFxs


It is always nice to see these things against hard data, but at least this time the common intuition/anecdotal evidence aligns perfectly. We're stll perfectly ok with 8-core CPUs for 99% of people and about 100% of gamers. The 6 core CPUs are just a tad less performant (~5% range when loaded), but the different is to minuscule that it's mostly irrelevant. For multiple apps and such, what matters more (at or above 6 cores) is available RAM to just have all that software open. So, 6 core CPUs are perfectly viable and 8 cores (and above) are just for when you know you need the extra CPUs or at least know you will put them to use at some point.

Regards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KyaraM
So it looks like performance in games and standard productivity workloads (burst work and wait) will only see a modest performance increase over last gen. Only when all cores get 'lit up' will the performance difference really show.
As more programs and games become natively aware of the E-cores, overall performance will increase but that is yet to be realized.

Interesting video on E-cores and gaming -
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqB96Bdsb4M
 

rluker5

Distinguished
Jun 23, 2014
598
366
19,260
The gain in gaming probably won't be quite as big as the 5800x to 5800x3d, but certainly larger than the clock speed bump. Combine the 2 and it might be close. Modest is a relative term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KyaraM

shady28

Distinguished
Jan 29, 2007
425
297
19,090
This is much better than what I was expecting from Raptor Lake. I was thinking 0-5% single core performance on the outside, but these benchmarks show 10%+ and mostly around 12-14%. Multi-core of course is much higher like +30%. I wouldn't call it revolutionary, but this is a pretty serious bump in performance for just one year after Alder Lake, assuming they can hit their release targets this year.