Intel Core i9-13900K and i5-13600K Review: Raptor Lake Brings More Bite
by Gavin Bonshor on October 20, 2022 9:00 AM ESTGaming Performance: iGPU
Despite updating the main bulk of our CPU test suite for 2023 and beyond, we've not had a chance to test every integrated graphics chip in our stack of CPUs. As a result of this, we've included limited results for our iGPU-based gaming tests, although it is more than enough to get to grips with improvements in Raptor Lake performance.
As a reminder, We are using DDR5 memory on the Core i9-13900K, the Core i5-13600K as well as Intel's 12th Gen (Alder Lake) processors at the following settings:
- DDR5-5600B CL46 - Intel 13th Gen
- DDR5-4800 (B) CL40 - Intel 12th Gen
All other CPUs such as Ryzen 5000 and 3000 APUs were tested at the relevant JEDEC settings as per the processor's individual memory support with DDR4.
Final Fantasy 14
World of Tanks
Borderlands 3
Far Cry 5
Grand Theft Auto V
Strange Brigade (DirectX 12)
For both 13th and 12th Gen Core series processors, Intel is using the Xe-LP based 770 HD graphics processor. This means the overall integrated graphics performance between the two is almost identical.
In our integrated (iGPU) graphics testing, the power of Intel's Raptor Cove cores combined with more E-cores does show a distinct, but negligable advantage when using Intel's 770 HD graphics. This advantage is clear in Final Fantasy 14 where more cores and more CPU power are advantageous for performance.
Looking at the iGPU performance of both the Core i9-13900K and Core i5-13600K in our other tests, the Core i9 performs best out of Intel's chips, but in games where graphical power is required, the AMD 5000 series APUs do come out best. The Core i5-13600K also performs marginally worse than the Intel Core i9 12th Gen series, but this is to be expected.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
169 Comments
View All Comments
Pjotr - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link
Closing thoughts typos: Ryzen 580X3D and Ryzen 700. ReplyRyan Smith - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link
Thanks! Replymode_13h - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link
Thanks for the review!Could you please add the aggregates, in the SPEC 2017 scores? There's usually a summary chart that has an average of the individual benchmarks, and then it often has the equivalent scores from more CPUs/configurations than the individual test graphs contain. For example, see the Alder Lake review:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/17047/the-intel-12t... Reply
Arbie - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link
TechSpot / Hardware Unboxed show that to complete a Blender job the 13900K takes 50% more total system energy than does the 7950X. Intel completing a Cinebench job takes 70% more energy. Meaning heat in the room. And that's with the Intel chip thermal throttling instantly on even the best cooling.Looking at AT's "Power" charts here, which list the Intel chip as "125W" and AMD as "170W", many readers will get EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE impression.
Sure, you mention the difficulties in comparing TDPs etc, and compare this gen Intel to last gen etc but none of that "un-obscures" the totally erroneous Intel vs AMD picture you've conveyed.
ESPECIALLY when your conclusion says they're "very close in performance" !! BAD JOB, AT. The worst I've seen here in a very long time. Incomprehensibly bad. Reply
gezafisch - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link
Cope harder - watch Der8auer's video showing that the 13900k can beat any chip at efficiency with the right settings - https://youtu.be/H4Bm0Wr6OEQ ReplyRyan Smith - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link
We go into the subject of power consumption at multiple points and with multiple graphs, including outlining the 13900K's high peak power consumption in the conclusion.https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph17601/130...
Otherwise, the only place you see 125W and 170W are in the specification tables. And those values are the official specifications for those chips. Reply
boeush - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link
Not true. You have those insanely misleading "TDP" labels on every CPU in the legend of every performance comparison chart. This paints a very misleading picture of "competitive" performance, whereas performance at iso-power (e.g. normalized per watt, based on total system power consumption measured at the outlet) would be much more enlightening. Replyboeush - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link
*per watt-hour (not per watt)[summed over the duration of the benchmark run] Reply
dgingeri - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link
Is it just me, or does the L1 cache arrangement seem a bit odd? 48k data and 32k instruction for the P cores and 32k data and 64k instruction on the e-cores. Seems a bit odd to me. ReplyOtritus - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link
Golden/Raptor Cove has a micro-op cache for instructions. 4096 micro-ops is about equal to 16Kb of instruction cache, which is effectively 48Kb-D + 48Kb-I. I don’t remember whether Gracemont has a micro-op cache. However, it doesn’t have hyperthreading, so maybe it just needs less data cache per core. Reply