Intel Core i9-13900K and i5-13600K Review: Raptor Lake Brings More Bite
by Gavin Bonshor on October 20, 2022 9:00 AM ESTSPEC2017 Single-Threaded Results
SPEC2017 is a series of standardized tests used to probe the overall performance between different systems, different architectures, different microarchitectures, and setups. The code has to be compiled, and then the results can be submitted to an online database for comparison. It covers a range of integer and floating point workloads, and can be very optimized for each CPU, so it is important to check how the benchmarks are being compiled and run.
We run the tests in a harness built through Windows Subsystem for Linux, developed by Andrei Frumusanu. WSL has some odd quirks, with one test not running due to a WSL fixed stack size, but for like-for-like testing it is good enough. Because our scores aren’t official submissions, as per SPEC guidelines we have to declare them as internal estimates on our part.
For compilers, we use LLVM both for C/C++ and Fortan tests, and for Fortran we’re using the Flang compiler. The rationale of using LLVM over GCC is better cross-platform comparisons to platforms that have only have LLVM support and future articles where we’ll investigate this aspect more. We’re not considering closed-source compilers such as MSVC or ICC.
clang version 10.0.0
clang version 7.0.1 (ssh://git@github.com/flang-compiler/flang-driver.git
24bd54da5c41af04838bbe7b68f830840d47fc03)
-Ofast -fomit-frame-pointer
-march=x86-64
-mtune=core-avx2
-mfma -mavx -mavx2
Our compiler flags are straightforward, with basic –Ofast and relevant ISA switches to allow for AVX2 instructions.
To note, the requirements for the SPEC licence state that any benchmark results from SPEC have to be labeled ‘estimated’ until they are verified on the SPEC website as a meaningful representation of the expected performance. This is most often done by the big companies and OEMs to showcase performance to customers, however is quite over the top for what we do as reviewers.
Opening things up with SPECint2017 single-threaded performance, it's clear that Intel has improved ST performance for Raptor Lake on generation-upon-generation basis. Because the Raptor Cove P-cores used here don't deliver significant IPC gains, these performance gains are primarily being driven by the chip's higher frequency. In particular, Intel has made notable progress in improving their v/f curve, which allows Intel to squeeze out more raw frequency.
And this is something Intel's own data backs up, with one of Intel's performance breakdown slides showing that the bulk of the gains are due to frequency, while improved memory speeds and the larger caches only making small contributions.
The ST performance itself in SPECint2017 is marginally better going from Alder Lake to Raptor Lake, but these differences can certainly be explained by the improvements as highlighted above. What's interesting is the performance gap between the Core i9-13900K and the Ryzen 9 7950X isn't as far apart as it was with Alder Lake vs. Ryzen 9 5950X. In 500.perlbench_r, the Raptor Lake chip actually outperforms the Zen 4 variant by just under 4%, while Ryzen 9 7950X is a smidgen over 10% better in the 505.mcf_r test.
Looking at the second set of SPEC2017 results (fp), the Ryzen 9 7950X is ahead of the Core i9-13900K by 16% in the 503.bwaves_r test, while the Raptor Lake chip is just under 10% better off in the 508.namd_r test. The key points to digest here is that Intel has done well to bridge the gap in single-threaded performance to Ryzen 7000 in most of the tests, and overall, it's a consistent trade-off between which test favors which mixture of architecture, frequency, and most importantly of all, IPC performance.
While we highlighted in our AMD Ryzen 9 7950X processor review, which at the time of publishing was the clear leader in single-core performance, it seems as though Intel's Raptor Lake is biting at the heels of the new Zen 4-core. In some instances, it's actually ahead, but stiff competition from elsewhere is always good as competition creates innovation.
With Raptor Lake being more of a transitional and enhanced core design that Intel's worked with before (Alder Lake), it remains to be seen what the future of 2023 holds for Intel's advancement in IPC and single-threaded performance. Right now, however SPEC paints a picture where it's pretty much neck and neck between Raptor Cove and Zen 4.
169 Comments
View All Comments
flyingpants265 - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link
That doesn't matter. All that proves is TDP is a phony measurement. If the CPU draws up to 300 watts, then it's a 300 watt CPU.yh125d - Friday, October 21, 2022 - link
ExactlyIketh - Friday, October 21, 2022 - link
proving TDP is a phony measurement is the entire point of that postYojimbo - Friday, October 21, 2022 - link
Firstly this discussion is not confined to Intel. All the modern CPUs use turbo clocks. They all have various performance characteristics dependent on the thermal design of the product they are in.Please cite where Intel writes that. Intel only uses TDP in its technical literature these days for the very reason that consumers are confused about it. Intel uses PL1 and PL2. TDP is the MINIMUM power that one should be designing for, not the maximum. The amount of turbo clock exposed by the cooling solution is optional, but the thermal solution associated with the processor must be capable of handling the TDP. The processor will not be damaged with a cooling solution that only handles the TDP. The processor will not use its turbo clocks much and will stay at or below the TDP power except for short periods of time. On the other hand if a cooling solution cannot handle the TDP there could he bad consequences.
Again. This isn't an Intel-specific thing. TDP and turbo clocks are ubiquitous in the industry. What is also very widespread is massive misunderstanding and misinformation about the term. Perhaps Anandtech should stop using the term with respect to CPUs because it seems to me that it's a minority of readers who understand it.
Meteor2 - Saturday, October 22, 2022 - link
Reviews should stop quoting TDP. Intel no longer uses it; their latest product spec pages e.g. for the i9-13900K quote Maximum Turbo Power: "The maximum sustained (>1s) power dissipation of the processor as limited by current and/or temperature controls. Instantaneous power may exceed Maximum Turbo Power for short durations (<=10ms). Note: Maximum Turbo Power is configurable by system vendor and can be system specific."Which for the i9-13100K is 253W.
Meteor2 - Saturday, October 22, 2022 - link
AMD still quotes TDP (e.g. 170W for the 7950X) with no definition of TDP provided, which I would suggest IS misleading.at_clucks - Monday, October 24, 2022 - link
Ah, not confined to Intel, solid argument that it's not a problem to do it but that "people are uneducated". Scale matters. When your real power consumption is 120% over the advertised one (see link below) this isn't an "everybody's doing it" but it is indeed a matter of "people are uneducated". At this time Jimbo, anyone trying to find excuses for Intel, and downplaying the shenanigans is _really_ uneducated, was born yesterday, or benefits from the lie.This doesn't mean you should stop using Intel if it does the job for you,. But only a fool or the fraudster would defend or downplay what they're doing.
https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph17585/130...
catavalon21 - Sunday, November 20, 2022 - link
"Please cite where Intel writes that."Step right up, folks...
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/ar...
Truebilly - Friday, October 21, 2022 - link
🫳🎤HarryVoyager - Friday, October 21, 2022 - link
Doesn't especially matter whether they are conforming to the technical definition or not as it is tells me nothing useful about the CPU in the context in which it is presented.