Intel Core i9-13900K and i5-13600K Review: Raptor Lake Brings More Bite
by Gavin Bonshor on October 20, 2022 9:00 AM ESTZ790 Chipset: More I/O Than Z690, But Same Performance
One of the main talking points surrounding all processor launches at present is platform affordability. When Intel launched its 12th Gen Alder Lake core series processors towards the tail end of 2021, it enabled users to utilize the higher bandwidth DDR5 memory in a desktop platform. As DDR5 memory supply was low and consumer demand was high during Alder Lake’s initial launch, this sky rocketed prices and it made it near impossible for users to buy a DDR5 kit to use with 12th Gen. Intel did offer support for both DDR5-4800 and DDR4-3200, but motherboards (600-series) could only support one or the other.
Although this hasn’t changed with Intel’s latest Z790 chipset, Intel does offer support for both DDR5 and DDR4 with its 13th Gen Raptor Lake Core processors; something AMD doesn’t do with Ryzen 7000 series, much to consumer’s angst. Even though Intel has opted for a higher DDR5 memory speed (5600 MT/s versus 4800 MT/s) compared to Alder Lake, DDR4 memory support remains at DDR4-3200.
| Intel Z690, Z590, and Z490 Chipset Comparison | ||||
| Feature | Z790 | Z690 | Z590 | Z490 |
| Socket | LGA1700 | LGA1700 | LGA1200 | LGA1200 |
| PCIe Lanes (CPU) | 16 x 5.0 4 x 4.0 |
16 x 5.0 4 x 4.0 |
20 x 4.0 | 16 x 3.0 |
| PCIe Lanes (Chipset) | 20 x 4.0 8 x 3.0 |
12 x 4.0 16 x 3.0 |
24 x 3.0 | 24 x 3.0 |
| PCIe Specification (CPU) | 5.0/4.0 | 5.0/4.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 |
| Memory Support | DDR5-5600B DDR4-3200 |
DDR5-4800B DDR4-3200 |
DDR4-3200 | DDR4-2933 |
| PCIe Config | x16 x8/x8 x8/x8/x4 |
x16 x8/x8 x8/x8/x4 |
x16 x8/x8 x8/x8/x4 |
x16 x8/x8 x8/x8+x4 |
| DMI Lanes | x8 4.0 | x8 4.0 | x8 3.0 | x4 3.0 |
| Max USB 3.2 (Gen2/Gen1) | 10/10 | 10/10 | 6/10 | 6/10 |
| USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 (20 Gbps) | Y (5) | Y (4) | Y (4) | ASMedia |
| Total USB | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 |
| Max SATA Ports | 8 | 8 | 6 | 6 |
| Memory Channels (Dual) | 2/2 | 2/2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| Intel Optane Memory Support | N | Y | Y | Y |
| Intel Rapid Storage Tech (RST) | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Integrated Wi-Fi MAC | Wi-Fi 6E | Wi-Fi 6E | Wi-Fi 6 | Wi-Fi 6 |
| Intel Smart Sound | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Overclocking Support | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Intel vPro | N | N | N | N |
| ME Firmware | 16 | 16 | 15 | 14 |
| TDP (W) | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
Looking at the Intel chipset comparison table above, one could really question what’s actually different about Z790 when compared directly to Z690, especially given that Z690 does allow full support for 13th Gen processors; yes, there is no hidden secret sauce or performance unlocking features, Z690 and Z790 will perform the same in compute and gaming.
The key differences are that Z790 offers an additional 8 x PCIe 4.0 lanes from the chipset, but at the cost of 8 x PCIe 3.0 lanes. This means Z790 still offers a total of 28 x PCI lanes when compared to Z690, but it gives vendors further flexibility to utilize the extra PCIe 4.0 lanes for high bandwidth M.2 slots and additional Thunderbolt 4 controllers, while still offering a few PCIe 3.0 lanes for devices such as additional NICs, streaming cards, and other non-bandwidth critical devices.
Intel says Goodbye to Optane Memory (Cache), No Support on Z790
One thing to note with Z790 is that along with Intel’s decision to kill its Optane business; this chipset will NOT support Intel's Optane Memory, Intel's Optane-based drive caching solution. Using Z690 combined with 12th Gen should still yield the same level of support as before, but using Z790 will not allow Optane Memory to be used, which is understandable as Intel winds down its Optane and 3DXpoint storage division.
The main benefit for opting for Z790 over Z690 is essentially down to PCIe 4.0 I/O capabilities, with support for one more additional USB 3.2 G2x2 Type-C port compared to Z690. Having spoken to Intel directly about processor performance with either chipset, they made it clear that they do not expect compute or gaming performance to be any different regardless of whether you’re using the new Z790 or the existing Z690 chipset.
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