[HN Gopher] Intel Core i9-13900T CPU benchmarks show faster than...
___________________________________________________________________
Intel Core i9-13900T CPU benchmarks show faster than 12900K 125W
performance
Author : metadat
Score : 71 points
Date : 2023-01-16 17:17 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (wccftech.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (wccftech.com)
| 867-5309 wrote:
| the same can also be said for the 12900K at 125W; having a
| TDP(PL2) of 241W
| zython wrote:
| Newer CPU faster than older CPU; can someone explain if I am
| missing something or if thats the whole story here ?
| bhouston wrote:
| It seems that AMD is losing the performance crown for consumer
| PCs for both single threaded and multithreaded workloads at
| high efficiencies. I love AMD, but it does seem that Intel is
| back and at worse neck and neck. It isn't clear if it can
| clearly pull ahead.
|
| This isn't great for AMD's stock, the boom times may be over?
|
| What confuses me is that AMD still has a huge lead for server
| CPUs. I have not seen massive adoption of AMD in the cloud yet.
| smileybarry wrote:
| > What confuses me is that AMD still has a huge lead for
| server CPUs. I have not seen massive adoption of AMD in the
| cloud yet.
|
| This was years ago so the tide may've shifted but: part of it
| could still be vendor experience and "it works"-experience?
|
| When EPYC gen 1 & 2 came out, we were shopping for a bare
| metal megaserver spec at work. I got a budget and free rein
| (except it had to be Dell), and I really wanted to pick EPYC
| for the better core clocks (which were significant in our
| build architecture) _and_ more cores _and_ better cost.
|
| With one EPYC spec and one Xeon Gold spec built (EPYC was I
| think $13k vs $15k?), work was a bit uneasy about AMD
| processors just yet. Our workload was MSVC compilation but
| they were concerned about architecture differences, since all
| of our workstations & laptops were Intels. They preferred
| paying more because "we already have Xeon servers and they're
| proven".
|
| So, we ended up getting the Xeon Gold spec instead.
| vvillena wrote:
| Each brand has its strengths and weaknesses. AMD isn't
| dominating anymore, but they are still ahead in areas such as
| AVX512 (absent in Intel Core), the ability to mount more than
| 8 performant cores in a chip (Intel's intra-core
| communication architecture is difficult to scale, hence their
| new P+E approach, which fortunately seems to work well), and
| their ability to take advantage of the multi-chip process to
| mount absurd amounts of cache. The multi-chip approach is
| also a tech advantage that allows them to cut costs.
| wmf wrote:
| 12th gen and 13th gen are the same architecture on "the same"
| process so it's somewhat surprising that efficiency has
| increased.
| MR4D wrote:
| For AMD reference, it's almost 10% faster than a Ryzen 9 5950X.
| ZeroCool2u wrote:
| I'm not sure it's fair to say the 5950X is a good point of
| reference. The 7950X has been out for quite some time at this
| point and the 7950X3D is announced and expected to be available
| next month.
| bloodyplonker22 wrote:
| Living in a place where electricity costs are very high, such
| as California, the AMDs have much better price to performance
| when compared to the Intel CPUs over a period of 3-5 years
| (which is how long I normally wait before upgrading CPUs).
| Godel_unicode wrote:
| And a ton of people are cross-shopping more expensive newer
| parts with still-available 5000 series CPUs which are much
| cheaper. There's an interesting question about whether
| absolute performance is more important or if you should
| weight that against cost and/or power.
|
| The GN benchmarks recently have done a good with explaining
| both the cost perspective and the performance-per-watt.
|
| Edit: for reference, Newegg currently has the 5950x and 7950x
| at $500 and $600 respectively. And that's before the higher
| platform cost for AM5/DDR5.
| vondur wrote:
| The 5950x uses DDR4. The 7000 Ryzen series uses DDR5.
| fbdab103 wrote:
| If reading a review of the newest vendor's product, it is
| only fair to give the performance of the competitor's
| similar generation release. If there are strong
| availability/price concerns (eg generation N+1 is triple
| the cost of generation N) those should be noted as to why
| not performing the most appropriate apples-to-apples
| comparison.
|
| Calculating performance / dollar is an entirely different
| exercise (though valuable, and rare is it the newest
| generation that hits the sweet spot).
| formerly_proven wrote:
| The 7950X3D is not going to be faster in non-game benchmarks.
| Most likely it will be a bit slower in most synthetic tests
| and non-game workloads (rendering, encoding, FEA etc.)
| Espressosaurus wrote:
| It's a fair point of reference for those of us with a 5950X,
| which was a top performer a couple years ago and is still a
| damn lot of CPU no matter how you slice it.
| chx wrote:
| Someone did a power analysis of the 13900K
| https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/10bna5r/13900k_po...
| and the CPU scales very well with power limit up to around 100W
| where the returns are rapidly diminishing.
| metadat wrote:
| The linked graphs paint a really clear picture, thank you for
| sharing.
| jeffbee wrote:
| 100W is also my observed sweet spot on C++ project build times.
| At 100W I got the minimum build time. At higher limits the cpu
| draws more power indeed but the build takes just as long.
| htk wrote:
| With the processor being rated "up to 106 watts" I would expect
| to see M1 Ultra in the list.
| kristianp wrote:
| The 13th gen i9 in question has 8 performance cores and 16
| efficiency cores, and 36MB of cache, whereas the 12th gen has 8
| and 8, with 30M of cache, so it's not that surprising it performs
| better.
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| Why can't we get efficiency leaps like this in GPUs? Tired of my
| 3080 heating my entire office up...
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Performance/watt increases more every GPU generation than it
| does every CPU generation.
| zokier wrote:
| Arguably Intel is now just catching up with the times after
| their long manufacturing quagmire, I suspect large part of the
| "leaps" are due that. As GPUs have been managing more steady
| progress, such leaps do not happen. Also there is lot of doubt
| around these sort of benchmarks, especially for P+E setups
| tarnith wrote:
| Undervolt/downclock it? Afterburner or GPU Tweak, etc, will do
| this relatively easily. (I've undervolted AMD cards that come
| with ridiculous core voltages without having to drop clocks at
| all in past)
|
| Almost everything is stock clocked past the point of
| diminishing returns right now. This Intel part looks to mostly
| be a downclocked version of existing 13900.
|
| Look at the recent AMD 7900 vs 7900X. You can get 90-95% of the
| performance for far less power by just backing off the voltage
| and clocks a bit. (In their TDP terms going from 115w to 65w
| TDP, loses less than 5-10%)
|
| Everyone's fighting for chart king/significant generational
| improvement number they can point to and missing the sweet spot
| on the efficiency curve, but you can bring it back yourself. I
| bet the 3080 still runs great at 50-100w less power limit/TDP
| depending on your use case and I doubt that will result in
| anywhere near a 1:1 perf/power reduction.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Yeah, exactly. I was able to get a decent ~50W drop and
| stayed at a higher than base clock rate (1920 MHz @ 900 mV).
| It's still a space heater, but it's better.
|
| I also frame rate limit myself in a lot of games - I don't
| need my MMOs running at 160 fps, so many games I'm at 150-200
| W. I still wish it was less, but that's much more reasonable
| than 400 W.
| wtallis wrote:
| > (I've undervolted AMD cards that come with ridiculous core
| voltages without having to drop clocks at all in past)
|
| It's often even worse than that. There are plenty of cases
| where you can undervolt so far that you now have enough
| headroom in the power delivery and cooling to allow you to
| run at substantially _higher_ clock speeds.
| jnwatson wrote:
| The 4090 is a lot better in terms of heat.
| Godel_unicode wrote:
| Depends what you mean. It generates more heat, it's just more
| effective at getting that heat off the die and into your
| room.
|
| Edit: since it's performance per watt is higher, if you're
| capping frame rates then you can get less heat out of the
| 4090. Like I said, depends what you mean.
| MikusR wrote:
| At half of power usage it only loses 10% performance.
|
| https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4090-power-
| li...
| rektide wrote:
| Stunning performance, especially for a (heavily iterated on) 10nm
| node. Alas I doubt we'll see many mini-pc/1L PCs configured with
| such a top tier node but what an epic mini-server that would
| make! So many cores (8p+16e)!
| layer8 wrote:
| I can't wait to see a Cirrus7 [0] fanless build with that CPU.
| It just needs a suitable Mini-ITX board.
|
| [0] https://www.cirrus7.com/en/
| whatever1 wrote:
| Any idea how these heterogeneous processors compare to regular
| processors with identical cores for server workloads ?
|
| Do workers get stuck in efficiency cores?
| varispeed wrote:
| Am I the only one who is no longer excited about Intel releases?
| Until they release something substantially better than M1/M2,
| I'll pass.
|
| It's a shame that Intel is wasting their energy and fabs on
| something that offers such mediocre improvements.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Substantially better how? Power/performance? For me, Intel and
| AMD are already better because I can buy them and use them
| however I please.
| spicymaki wrote:
| M1/M2 is fine if you want to develop on a closed platform.
| bhouston wrote:
| This has better single threaded performance that M1/M2 by a
| significant margin, but at a higher total power. When the M1
| was released I believe it has the fastest single threaded
| performance of any CPU. That is no longer the case by quite a
| bit now.
| varispeed wrote:
| So it's more like putting a lipstick on a long dead design.
| Sure may look fresh from afar, but it still stinks.
|
| What I am trying to say is that at this level of power
| consumption Intel should be many times faster than M1 - that
| is offering substantially better performance per watt.
|
| Sure there are niche applications where power consumption
| doesn't matter and only the single core performance counts,
| but could older tech be overclocked and achieved the same
| result?
|
| Not sure. Point being is that what Intel does is increasing
| pollution and causing people to bin perfectly working
| machines just because there is a "new" CPU on the block,
| where in real life they probably won't see a difference.
|
| It's really irresponsible thing to do for Intel. They should
| go back to the drawing board and stop releasing meaningless
| products until they actually get something worth upgrading
| to.
| merb wrote:
| In a Laptop its quiete stupid to stay at 100w just to have a
| slightly better Performance. I mean its only a significant
| margin as Long as you can get the heat away, which is often
| the biggest problem in most laptops...
|
| (M1 Max uses half the power for geekbench 5 and ~1650 and
| being a 2 years older chip. If the m2 max can hold the Power
| limit and still get to ~2k it would be fastly superior, i.e.
| the normal m2 is already at ~1850 With Less than half of the
| Power of the 13900t)
| vondur wrote:
| For the most part it seems like in Intel are throwing a ton
| of power into their CPUs to get these results.
| wongarsu wrote:
| There's the hope that this is just a stopgap measure from
| Intel to deal with AMD and Apple competition, and power
| demands go back to normal once Intel had time to push a
| couple of architecture improvements through the pipeline.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| If power efficiency is a concern, you wouldn't want to look
| at the absolute top of the line enthusiast-targeted chips.
|
| I care greatly about power consumption in my laptop, but I
| don't really care at all in my desktop. If they can make my
| compiles finish 10% faster by doubling the power usage,
| bring it on. My CPU is rarely ever running at these 100%
| usage levels, so it's not like it makes a difference in my
| power bill. Modern coolers are plenty quiet.
| MikusR wrote:
| For example fastest AMD consumer cpu 7950X is really
| efficient and fast in eco mode.
| ribit wrote:
| What's the actual power consumption? Without those figures the
| article is just a clickbait. Looking at those multicore results I
| don't believe for a second that the CPU was drawing less than 90
| watts, probably more.
| [deleted]
| wtallis wrote:
| The article's title says "at 35W", but the article text says "the
| T-series chip is rated at up to 106 Watts". That appears to refer
| to the chip's short-term turbo power limit (PL2 in Intel
| parlance), typically effective for a default of 28 seconds if
| thermal limits don't kick in--but the time parameter can be
| adjusted by the end user (and this benchmark run has unknown
| provenance, so who knows what power management settings were in
| effect).
|
| Since the benchmark in question (Geekbench 5) only runs for a
| minute or two, it does most of its work before the chip even
| attempts to throttle down to anywhere near 35W. An actual power
| _measurement_ averaged over the entire benchmark run would yield
| a significantly higher value than 35W.
| htk wrote:
| That's disappointing, I thought they were closer to Apple
| Silicon's performance/watt ratio.
|
| The deceptive nature of such benchmarks is also troubling.
| toast0 wrote:
| It's kind of hard to compare performance/watt meaningfully
| when the wattages aren't at all similar.
|
| If you limit power on current generation Intel/AMD
| processors, the perf/watt is pretty good; depending on the
| specific load, sometimes better, sometimes worse than M2.
| When you allow more watts, perf goes up, but perf/watt goes
| down as you see diminishing returns. (With some loads, you
| may also have a point where more watts reduces performance,
| whoops)
|
| Geekbench isn't great as it doesn't even attempt to capture
| power usage, but that may not be available or accurate on all
| systems anyway.
| runnerup wrote:
| The benchmarks themselves aren't really deceptive, but
| wccftech's reporting on them is misleading. These aren't
| claims being made by Intel, but just random user benchmarks
| that appeared online.
|
| For all benchmarks, context matters. These days, most in-
| depth reviewers understand how to work with transient power
| and thermal limits with respect to time. For example,
| measuring the MacBook Air M1's peak speed/time vs. its lower
| sustained speed after it hits thermal throttling around the
| 5-7 minute mark.
| bee_rider wrote:
| It is a shame these kind of knobs are rarely exposed on a
| laptop. Sometimes I throttle my laptop cpu down to like
| 800MHz-1.2GHz to save power/prevent the fan from going. But
| this makes Vim less responsive for certain events. What I'd
| actually like is normal behavior but with the turbo clock
| limited to like... I dunno, a second.
| jeffbee wrote:
| In Linux you want powercap tools. You can tune all three
| parameters in terms of power and time constant, so you can do
| exactly what you suggest. You can change it on the fly
| without rebooting so you could have a ridiculous setup like
| mine where I have the power limits wired up to two unused
| buttons on my mouse.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Cunningham'd. Awesome, I'll look into it, thanks.
| MikusR wrote:
| https://www.techpowerup.com/download/techpowerup-
| throttlesto...
| [deleted]
| ajross wrote:
| > Since the benchmark in question (Geekbench 5) only runs for a
| minute or two, it does most of its work before the chip even
| attempts to throttle down to anywhere near 35W.
|
| That doesn't sound right at all. Nothing in a PC system (absent
| water systems with huge reservoirs I guess) is going to buffer
| excess heat on minute-long timescales, not even close. There's
| literally nowhere for that energy to go; 125W for a minute
| would be melting the solder joints.
|
| CPU throttling works on at most small-integer-second scales.
| wtallis wrote:
| CPU throttling happens on many different timescales. That's
| why Intel processors have multiple power limits (PL1, PL2,
| PL3, PL4), in addition to current and temperature-based
| throttling mechanisms. The time constant for PL2 is usually
| either 28 seconds or 56 seconds. At those timescales, the
| concern is usually not with power delivery or CPU die
| temperature but rather with exterior case temperatures that
| the user may be directly touching.
|
| Based on the reported benchmark performance, it seems very
| unlikely that temperature-based throttling kicked in, and
| it's clear that the chip was operating well above 35W for at
| least a large portion of the benchmark run. So the PL1 and
| PL2 turbo power limits are the relevant controls at play
| here.
| ajross wrote:
| Yeah yeah, I know. I'm just saying that there's zero chance
| that throttling is affecting this measurement. The idea
| that an Intel machine is significantly faster for 2-3
| minutes after the start of a benchmark is just silly,
| that's not the way these things work. Go start a benchmark
| of your own to see.
|
| Again, the thermodynamic argument is fundamental here.
| You're saying that a "35W" CPU is "actually" drawing power
| equivalent to a 125W CPU for exactly the time of a
| benchmark, which is several minutes. That excess would have
| nowhere to go! There's no reservoir to store it. (Obviously
| the cooling system could take it away, but part of your
| argument is that the cooling system is only good for 35W!).
| wtallis wrote:
| > The idea that an Intel machine is significantly faster
| for 2-3 minutes after the start of a benchmark is just
| silly, that's not the way these things work. Go start a
| benchmark of your own to see.
|
| I've done so, on many occasions, with actual power meters
| rather than trusting software power estimates. You really
| _do_ commonly see a laptop 's power consumption drop
| significantly ~28 seconds into a multithreaded CPU
| benchmark.
|
| > (Obviously the cooling system could take it away, but
| part of your argument is that the cooling system is only
| good for 35W!).
|
| I make no such claim that the cooling system is limited
| to 35W. I only claim that the default platform power
| management settings from Intel impose a 35W long-term
| power limit, unless the system builder has adjusted the
| defaults to account for whatever form factor and cooling
| choices they've made.
|
| Perhaps you haven't realized that the turbo power limits
| will still kick in even if the CPU die temperature is not
| too hot--because they're not actually a temperature-based
| control mechanism?
| ajross wrote:
| Uh... this is a socketed CPU: https://www.intel.com/conte
| nt/www/us/en/products/sku/230498/...
|
| Now I see where the disconnect was. You're right, if this
| was a laptop that could happen. It isn't, and it didn't.
| ribit wrote:
| Even in a laptop CPUs regularly draw more power than the
| TDP for non-trivial amounts of time.
| wtallis wrote:
| It's a socketed CPU intended for low-power small form
| factor systems and thus will usually be running with
| Intel-recommended power limits or lower, for all the same
| reasons that laptop CPUs are usually running with low
| power limits. The control mechanisms don't actually
| function any differently between their laptop and desktop
| CPUs, they just have different default parameters (the
| various turbo limits).
|
| The only relevance of the socketed nature of this part is
| that it is easy to put it in a normal desktop form factor
| where a big heatsink and possibly tweaked turbo limit
| settings can be used to generate misleading benchmark
| results. But it's not actually certain that this is
| what's happening; the Intel-recommended default behavior
| for this chip _can_ plausibly produce the reported
| results--just not in any way that could be reasonably
| described as "35W".
| adrian_b wrote:
| Even if the configuration may be different from
| motherboard to motherboard and from laptop to laptop,
| exactly as wtallis said, most Intel CPUs are configured
| by default to consume during the first 28 seconds a power
| 2 to 3 times greater than the nominal TDP, e.g. 105 W for
| a 35 W CPU.
|
| Most, if not all, subtests of GeekBench need less than 28
| seconds, so it is quite possible for the entire benchmark
| to be run at an 105 W power consumption. Whenever a
| subtest finishes, the power consumption momentarily
| drops, which resets the 28 second timer.
|
| If the computer has poor cooling, it may happen that when
| the CPU spends too much time and too frequently at an 105
| W power consumption the junction temperature limit is
| reached, which triggers thermal throttling and the power
| consumption is reduced. This is a different mechanism,
| independent of the one that reduces the power consumption
| down to the nominal TDP after 28 seconds, or after
| another configured time.
|
| Thermal throttling reduces the power consumption only
| enough to keep the temperature under the limit, so the
| power consumption may remain greater than the TDP until
| the 28 seconds pass.
| Aissen wrote:
| IMHO, any benchmark should run with Turbo disabled. _And_ come
| with additional tests about how much turbo brings, and how long
| it can stay on within a given thermal setup. Otherwise all you
| have is garbage, not data.
| brokencode wrote:
| Why? It's not like turbo is not a real performance enhancement.
| With enough thermal headroom, there's no reason why turbo can't
| be sustained, as heat is the limiting factor.
|
| Good CPU reviews include long render and compile benchmarks
| that would suffer if the turbo performance couldn't be
| sustained. If a CPU can sustain high performance, then it
| doesn't matter if it's using a turbo mode.
| sz4kerto wrote:
| Turbo is such an inherent feature of new CPUs that turning them
| off would make the benchmark completely unrepresentative for
| real world usage. For example - a 16 core CPU might run a
| single core at extremely high clock rates during single
| threaded workloads. What would be the point of turning it off?
|
| Complex devices need complex benchmarking, unfortunately. You
| won't get a simple, single number that shows how powerful a cpu
| is.
| xen2xen1 wrote:
| Like hitting the button on my 486sx/16.
| viraptor wrote:
| You can have both at the same time by publishing a graph of
| performance over time where you see the ramp up and the time
| where the turbo can't be sustained. Quite a few reviewers
| started doing that maybe 2 years ago?
| PaulWaldman wrote:
| What is the difference between an i9-13900T and an i9-13900 when
| limiting P1 and P2?
|
| Curiously, the i9-13900T scored better than the i9-13900 in
| single threaded performance.
| smileybarry wrote:
| My guess is (slightly?) better binning in addition to "forced"
| PL1 and PL2 limits. Better silicon can run stable at lower
| voltage, ergo lower power, ergo lower temps, so I bet there's
| some binning for T SKUs so Dell & co. can ship not-overheating
| micro PCs.
| PaulWaldman wrote:
| Makes sense. T series chips generally aren't as widely
| available as individual components as their mainstream higher
| power counterparts. To your point, they are available from
| OEMs as complete systems, who seem to get priority.
|
| There is advice to just buy the non-T series and limit power.
| Interesting to see that, at least in this example, they
| aren't quite equal.
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| I see this frequently, but what is "better silicon"?
| Physically something is off about the manufacturing which
| impacts performance, but does not kill the chip. What are
| those defects?
|
| There are 0.1% bad transistors instead of 0.2%? Heat output
| is more uniform? The bad transistors are clustered in such a
| way that signal routing is more efficient and leads to a
| measurable throughout difference?
| dihydro wrote:
| Very slight changes in the transistor junctions will make
| them slightly more resistive, more inductive, physical
| variance will make them narrower, wider, etc. All of these
| factors, although extremely slight, will add up to
| different response curves of switching time vs current vs
| voltage.
| simonebrunozzi wrote:
| I might want to buy a new powerful 2023 laptop, but there's ton
| of confusion about CPUs, graphic cards, etc. As usual, there's no
| simple way for a buyer to understand what's best.
| xen2xen1 wrote:
| Passmark. Always passmark.
| metadat wrote:
| The performance ratio relative to power consumption places this
| in new territory for Intel. While the T-series isn't new, I don't
| recall seeing it competing with the likes of K processors and
| Ryzens.
|
| Also the 1.x GHz base clock which turbo boosts to 5GHz, wow. Do
| other professors scale across such a wide band?
| suprjami wrote:
| I have a 12400F which idles at 600 MHz and boosts to 4.4 GHz,
| so I guess this is the new normal now.
|
| Mine also has a massive heatsink and never gets above 25C.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Wow... I only have to ask, what was wrong with the 10nm node
| before? This seems like an impossible leap.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-16 23:00 UTC)