News: 1664295609

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

Intel's 13th-gen CPUs are hot, hungry, loaded with cores

(2022/09/27)


Intel doubled down on "more power is better" with the launch of its 13th-gen Core processors at its Innovation event this week. With a 253W thermal design power (TDP) for its latest i9 and i7 desktop processors, water cooling might as well be a requirement.

Even Intel's consumer-focused i5 now has a 180W TDP. That's 10W more than rival AMD's flagship Ryzen 9 7950X, announced [1]late last month .

However, for all that power and heat, Intel has seemingly managed to maintain its frequency lead and claim a core-count victory over the house of Zen. With this generation, Intel has given its enthusiast-class desktop chips a healthy frequency boost while substantially upping core counts across the board.

[2]

The company's flagship i9 13900K features 24 cores and 32 threads with at least one of them capable of hitting 5.8GHz. With the extra wattage, additional cores, and architectural improvements introduced in this generation, Intel says the i9 delivers a 15 percent single-core and 41 percent multicore performance improvement compared to last year's 12900K.

[3]

[4]

To this end, Intel released flurry of cherry-picked internal benchmarks that show its new chips besting the two-year-old 5950X and going toe-to-toe with AMD's SRAM-stacked 5800X-3D in a selection of games and productivity apps. However, thanks to proximity to the [5]Ryzen 7000 refresh, Intel conveniently avoided a direct comparison to AMD's next-gen chips.

Intel says performance and efficiency gains are driven by architectural improvements made to its Raptor Cove cores and refinements to its 10nm SuperFIN manufacturing process. This mostly boils down to large L2 and L3 caches and a lowered voltage-frequency curve that Intel says allowed it to achieve higher clocks.

[6]

These architectural enhancements also extend to Intel's 16-core i7 13700K and 14-core i5 13600K parts, which, in addition to a 200-400MHz max-frequency boost, have seen the number of efficiency cores doubled to eight. In many respects, Intel has shifted its lineup down, with the 13700K bearing more similarities to last year's i9 than the prior i7.

Here's a full breakdown of the SKUs:

Core i9 13900K : 8P/16E cores, 32 threads, with a max boost clock of 5.8GHz, a TDP of 253W, 68MB of total cache, and UHD 770 graphics. $589

Core i7 13700K : 8P/8E cores, 24 threads, with a max boost clock of 5.4GHz, a TDP of 253W, 54MB of total cache, and UHD 770 graphics. $409

Core i5 13600K : 6P/8E cores, 20 threads, with a max boost clock of 5.1GHz, a TDP of 181W, 44MB of total cache, and UHD 770 graphics. $319

Intel also offers all three SKUs as KF variants without onboard graphics for $564 for the i9, $384 for the i7, and $294 for the i5.

An AMD, Intel role reversal

The launch represents something of a role reversal for Intel and AMD. For many generations, AMD offered more cores, albeit often at lower frequencies, while Intel claimed the clock speed crown. This time around, Intel not only offers more cores across the board but does so at slightly higher frequencies. Intel's 24-core flagship beats out AMD's 16-core Ryzen 9 7950X in single-core boost clocks by 100MHz.

However, that's not the full story. AMD's chips still feature more performance cores capable of high 5GHz clocks than Intel's.

As a quick refresher, Intel's 12th-gen parts saw the chipmaker adopt a [7]big-little core architecture, with efficiency cores tasked with running the operating system and background tasks, while hyperthreaded performance cores are dedicated to running user workloads or games. The architecture has long been popularized in smartphones and Arm-based computers that need to balance high performance and long battery life, but it's only recently made its way to the x86 arena.

[8]

Intel's 13900K may have 24 cores, but only eight of those are performances cores. By comparison, AMD's 7950X features 16 cores, all capable of hitting 5.7GHz, though likely not at the same time.

Frequency and core count are only two metrics, and it remains to be seen how Intel's architectural and process refinements will stack up against AMD's 7000-series parts, which also benefit from both a process shrink to TSMC's 5nm and a bevy of architectural and cache improvements.

[9]Intel's planned Italian facility now tied up in election politics

[10]Don't say Pentium or Celeron anymore, it's just Processor now, says Intel

[11]Asus packs 12-core Intel i7 into a Raspberry Pi-sized board

[12]Intel's stock Raptor Lake chip will do 6GHz and overclock another 25%, if it keeps cool

Where's my 6GHz chip?

While Intel didn't say whether the company would release a follow-up to its enthusiast 12900KS SKU, the lack of a previously [13]teased 6GHz Raptor Lake part seems to indicate one may be in the works.

With that said, during a press briefing, Intel claimed its Raptor Lake parts could top 8GHz — when drowned in a ready supply of liquid nitrogen.

And unlike AMD, which was uncharacteristically quiet on the topic of overclocking during its Ryzen 7000 desktop launch last month, Intel appears to be leaning into its enthusiast customer base. This includes new overclocking functionality built into the chipmaker's Extreme Tuning Utility designed to enable "one-click" overclocks for those new to the hobby.

This is by no means a new phenomenon. Many motherboard manufacturers have for years bundled similar functionality into their UEFI BIOSes as a value add. But it's interesting that Intel is being quite so enthusiastic.

New today: Check out The Next Platform on Intel's efforts to [14]broaden its FPGA line-up .

AMD has also offered similar functionality in its Ryzen Master software for some time. However, the feature doesn't actually overclock the chip in a traditional sense, and instead tweaks the parameters of AMD's boost algorithm to achieve up to 200MHz higher clock speeds, in exchange for higher temps and power consumption.

While it's difficult to tell what switches and knobs Intel's auto-overclocking features actually tweak, in demos it appears to be tuning the voltage-frequency curve, enabling customers to push voltages up to achieve higher frequencies.

However, given the already high TDPs commanded by these chips, we recommend investing in a 280mm or 360mm closed-loop liquid cooler or custom water loop if you plan on pushing Intel's 13th-gen chips beyond stock settings.

If there's one area where Intel already has AMD beat, it's on price. The company's 13900K comes in at $589 or $564 if you forgo the onboard graphics. That makes Intel's flagship 15-20 percent less expensive on the high end compared to AMD's $699 7950X hardware.

The cost delta is even larger when you consider Intel is maintaining backwards compatibility with its 600-series motherboard chipsets and DDR4 memory support for this generation.

The chips will be available in mid-October and launch alongside a bevy of Z790 chipset motherboards. ®

Get our [15]Tech Resources



[1] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/30/amd_ryzen_7000_cpu/

[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YzNygdrbbcthwga9fvnShgAAAI0&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0

[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YzNygdrbbcthwga9fvnShgAAAI0&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YzNygdrbbcthwga9fvnShgAAAI0&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[5] https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/20/ryzen_amd_zen2/

[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YzNygdrbbcthwga9fvnShgAAAI0&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[7] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/16/amds_5nm_ryzen_7000_cpus/

[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YzNygdrbbcthwga9fvnShgAAAI0&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[9] https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/26/intel_italy_packaging/

[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/16/intel_pentium_celeron_processor/

[11] https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/08/asus_i7_sbc/

[12] https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/12/intels_raptor_lake/

[13] https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/12/intels_raptor_lake/

[14] https://www.nextplatform.com/2022/09/27/intel-to-broaden-fpga-lineup-and-make-them-at-home/

[15] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/



i7... 253W TDP... nuts.

badflorist

In an office environment? At a certain point you have to think of your HVAC system.

Re: i7... 253W TDP... nuts.

Snake

Yet RTX4090 makes that i7 look like its being battery operated. ;-)

For a lot of people, their office computers sit mostly idle interrupted by times of number crunching. It's the gamers that are going to feel all the power demands that these new generation parts cause the most.

Re: i7... 253W TDP... nuts.

doublelayer

I don't think you'll be putting 24-core CPUs in most office desktops. A lot of office work can be comfortably run on a low-range laptop CPU, so even if you prefer desktops, you can find a more sane option. If you do need that performance, it might be worth considering whether you can do it on a server in a room with better temperature control with a weaker machine controlling it. By the point that you've restricted these parts to users who need that performance right next to them, your thermal requirements will be easier to manage.

Re: i7... 253W TDP... nuts.

Duncan Macdonald

Unfortunately many will end up on (or under) the desks of senior management who insist on having the fastest possible system (and then use it to view porn and run games that would work on a 486!!).

Re: i7... 253W TDP... nuts.

NewModelArmy

Unless you need the computing power, i agree it is nuts.

I have been looking at processors with a low TDP, yet the Intel processors with 35w TDP are either all in one solutions or a NUC. I need a system that is flexible with regards to storage options - must intel due to programs running.

Re: i7... 253W TDP... nuts.

MachDiamond

"In an office environment? At a certain point you have to think of your HVAC system."

During the winter nobody will be plugging in an electric heater they've brought in.

On demand options

MachDiamond

Most of the time what I'm doing is not compute intensive, but from time to time I need some iron to get things done. This has led me to use a laptop for doing things like commenting on El Reg or maintaining a database and only firing up my loaded cheese grater (small holes) when I need it. If I could have one machine where I can tell it to idle a certain number of processors or cores, I'd be happy. I mean really idle them so until I expressly ask for them to be on, they aren't. Keeping things sync'd is a pain. Sure, there's options to sync things online, but very few if you want to keep the data in-house. I view anything cloudy with trepidation and avoid it wherever possible. I don't want to receive visitors in dark suits that want to quiz me about a phone number in my contacts or something on my calendar that I abbreviated in a way that raises flags. I have had calendar entries for things like rallies and protests not because I'd go, but because I want to remind myself to stay the hell away from that area that day. Since I do field service work, I want to avoid getting stuck in traffic jams or unruly mobs protesting shortages of toilet paper or something stupid.

Re: On demand options

doublelayer

You can disable some CPU cores, but in most cases, it's not saving much if any power. Modern processors already put cores into an idle mode when they're not in use. Many don't have a facility for turning off the power to a core directly, so if you disable one from a cluster but continue using the others, it will just be permanently in that sleep mode. Many of the ways to keep a CPU's power usage down involve limiting how it responds when coming out of idle, for example not allowing it to clock up as fast as it can to limit peak power consumption. Having tried and mostly failed to find good statistics on CPUs' idle power draw, I understand that this answer isn't necessarily useful.

Depending on the idle draw of a more powerful machine, it could be acceptable to leave it operational with little or no load. If that's not good enough, you might consider having a remote wake function (depending on your hardware, there are a few ways to do that). That way, you can start your powerful machine whenever you need its power and shut it down when you're able to use your laptop alone, with the cost that you'd have to wait for it to boot. You can speed up that process by using a sleep or hibernate mode.

Substantial risk of electric shock.