News Intel Publishes Specifications of Raptor Lake CPUs

[Admin]

Core count and clocks of Intel’s Core i5-13600K, Core i7-13700K, and Core i9-13900K were revealed then pulled from an official Intel page.

Intel Publishes Specifications of Raptor Lake CPUs : Read more

 

[atomicWAR]

"it plans to offer a 32-core processor"

Ahhh I think you mean 24 core 32 thread processor in your closing description of Raptor Lake's i9 13900k Vs AMD. 2nd to last paragraph.

 

[Sylwah]

"it plans to offer a 32-core processor"

Ahhh I think you mean 24 core 32 thread processor in your closing description of Raptor Lake's i9 13900k.

I've been observing for some time: accuracy or fairness aren't exactly Anton's strong points. If tomshardware publishes an article bashing AMD chances are it's Anton. Not cool dude.

 

[atomicWAR]

I've been observing for some time: accuracy or fairness aren't exactly Anton's strong points. If tomshardware publishes an article bashing AMD chances are it's Anton. Not cool dude.

I don't know that I'd call this article AMD bashing. The CPU core count mistake is an easy one to make and I have seen it made several times by other outlets...before (and after) Alder Lake launched we got a lot of 24 core misprints too on various sites. Just like I've seen AMD core count and thread count switched inadvertantly. Mistakes happen. All sites can get a fanboy or an over excited writer but as sites go Tom's is fair as fair gets IME.

 

[waltc3]

Without power usage/performance per watt numbers, it won't have any effect on AMD's upcoming launches. I'm sure those were omitted deliberately at this stage...😉 Should be an interesting October/November/December quarter! I'm interested in RDNA3, as well.

 

[TerryLaze]

Without power usage/performance per watt numbers, it won't have any effect on AMD's upcoming launches. I'm sure those were omitted deliberately at this stage...😉 Should be an interesting October/November/December quarter! I'm interested in RDNA3, as well.

Well of course and it's the same reason they were omitted from the zen 4 cpus as well....THEY AREN'T OUT YET and the NDA is still in effect, nobody can release ANY specific info about either 13th gen or zen4.

 

[closs.sebastien]

at tom's hardware... When does the 14-Gen come? I'm tired of seeing your low-quality "dinosaur-image-composition"

 

[waltc3]

Well of course and it's the same reason they were omitted from the zen 4 cpus as well....THEY AREN'T OUT YET and the NDA is still in effect, nobody can release ANY specific info about either 13th gen or zen4.

Zen4 ships with TDPs of 65W, 105W and 170W, depending on the CPU, with a max of 230W TDP SP at the high end. This was announced back at the Zen 4 reveal. The info should be easy to find--lots of official AMD slides on the subject.

 

[TerryLaze]

Zen4 ships with TDPs of 65W, 105W and 170W, depending on the CPU, with a max of 230W TDP SP at the high end. This was announced back at the Zen 4 reveal. The info should be easy to find--lots of official AMD slides on the subject.

Without power usage/performance per watt numbers,

So how are these numbers you post here telling us anything about power usage/performance per watt numbers?
Max power numbers don't tell you how much performance you will get.
And knowing the power it needed to get the Raptor up to 8Ghz doesn't tell you how much more performance they got out of it.

You need a performance number and the associated power number to figure out an efficiency.

 

[JamesJones44]

Zen4 ships with TDPs of 65W, 105W and 170W, depending on the CPU, with a max of 230W TDP SP at the high end. This was announced back at the Zen 4 reveal. The info should be easy to find--lots of official AMD slides on the subject.

TDP is not power consumption. It tells you nothing about performance per watt.

 

[waltc3]

So how are these numbers you post here telling us anything about power usage/performance per watt numbers?
Max power numbers don't tell you how much performance you will get.
And knowing the power it needed to get the Raptor up to 8Ghz doesn't tell you how much more performance they got out of it.

You need a performance number and the associated power number to figure out an efficiency.

You guys must've been asleep because improvements of up to 50% in performance per watt were all over the presentation--several slides showing different aspects of the same thing....😉

And talking about TDP numbers--where are Intel's?...😉 That was my original point. You need to revisit the original reveal--AMD directly spoke to PPW often and emphatically.

 

[JamesJones44]

You guys must've been asleep because improvements of up to 50% in performance per watt were all over the presentation--several slides showing different aspects of the same thing....😉

And talking about TDP numbers--where are Intel's?...😉 That was my original point. You need to revisit the original reveal--AMD directly spoke to PPW often and emphatically.

You're comparing a product that has been officially announced vs one that hasn't. I'm not sure what your point is on TDP, it's not power consumption, it's cooling requirements. 230 peak vs 253 (rumored) peak cooling requirements is a fairly minor difference from a cooling point of view. We don't know the power consumption for either of these new designs yet so there is nothing to compare on that front.

 

[waltc3]

You're comparing a product that has been officially announced vs one that hasn't. I'm not sure what your point is on TDP, it's not power consumption, it's cooling requirements. 230 peak vs 253 (rumored) peak cooling requirements is a fairly minor difference from a cooling point of view. We don't know the power consumption for either of these new designs yet so there is nothing to compare on that front.

OK, it's getting a bit ridiculous...😉 I simply pointed out the obvious...that the "specs" Intel has so far released--the subject of the thread, and the TH article on which the thread is based--aren't very detailed or informative. That's all. And they aren't. I am sure when Intel gets close to officially announcing the CPU as soon-to-ship that they'll do better.

 

[TerryLaze]

OK, it's getting a bit ridiculous...😉 I simply pointed out the obvious...that the "specs" Intel has so far released--the subject of the thread, and the TH article on which the thread is based--aren't very detailed or informative. That's all. And they aren't. I am sure when Intel gets close to officially announcing the CPU as soon-to-ship that they'll do better.

Intel hasn't officially released any data yet, that will possibly happen at 27th september although that is also a leak so not officially confirmed.
We do have all the basic corner data for the cpus though, since they were leaked.
This specific article is for an additional leak, maybe they should have linked to the other leak that had this pic as well.

we also have some leaked benches from a chinese guy on bilibili which shows some improvement in general with the most important, at least in my opinion, being an up to 30% increase in minimum frame rates.
It also has some huge improvements in multi since it has more e-cores but if you run a server you are looking at different cpus all together.

Intel Core i9-13900K Raptor Lake CPU Gaming & Synthetic Performance Benchmarks Leaked, 5% Faster Than Core i9-12900K On Average

The first gaming and synthetic performance benchmarks of Intel's Core i9-13900K Raptor Lake 5.5 GHz CPU have been leaked.

wccftech.com

STILL NONE OF ALL OF THIS CAN BE TAKEN FOR ANY POWER/PERFORMANCE ESTIMATION SINCE IT'S ALL JUST HEAR SAY.
(AMD numbers included, since amd as well as intel fudge their benches to make them look as good as possible)