ASUS GeForce RTX 4080 Noctua OC Edition review
MSI Clutch GM51 Wireless mouse review
ASUS ROG STRIX B760-F Gaming WIFI review
Asus ROG Harpe Ace Aim Lab Edition mouse review
SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Headset review
Ryzen 7800X3D preview - 7950X3D One CCD Disabled
MSI VIGOR GK71 SONIC Blue keyboard review
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D processor review
FSP Hydro G Pro 1000W (ATX 3.0, 1000W PSU) review
Addlink S90 Lite 2TB NVMe SSD review
Minimum framerates of games evaluated on an engineering sample of Intel's Core i9-13900K have improved.
by
on: 07/18/2022 08:15 AM | source: ExtremePlayer @ Bilibili, @harukaze5719 via videocardz |
40 comment(s)
Recently, an Intel 13th Generation Core CPU was evaluated. The future K-series CPU will be a 24-core, 32-thread processor with no power limits. This is not a retail processor, but rather a qualifying sample with near-identical performance.
The Core i9-13900K outperformed the Core i9-12900KF in recent simulated testing. In identical testing, Raptor Lake scored 10% higher in single-core and 35% higher in multi-core than Alder Lake. Despite the fact that they are developed on the same node and designed for the same platform, the higher core count enhances multi-threaded performance (now featuring 16 Efficient cores). Raptor Lake is said to have higher single-core frequencies (around 5.5 GHz). A second section of the evaluation focuses on game performance. The CPU has been tested in Horizon-Zero Dawn, Red Dead Redemption 2, FarCry 6, Forza Horizon 5, Monster Hunter: Rise, and PUBG. Benchmarks are available for Final Fantasy Endwalker, CSGO, 3DMark Timespy, and Firestrike. ASUS motherboard with 32GB DDR5-6400 memory is used in the test platform. The MSI GeForce RTX 3090 Ti SUPRIM X graphics card comes with a 1500W power supply.
In most tests, the Intel Raptor Lake CPU sample outperforms the Core i9-12900KF. CPU-bound benchmarks (such as 3DMark Physics) and minimum frame rates have risen by 11% to 28% depending on resolution. The same data was gathered by @harukaze by resolution, average, and minimum framerates. The alleged Core i9-13900K sample performs 4.46 percent faster at 1080p, the recommended resolution for CPU gaming tests.
These are the minimum and recommended requirements for Overwatch 2 Beta on PC - 04/27/2022 09:28 AM
The minimum and recommended system requirements for playing Overwatch 2 on PC have been released, with the beta opening yesterday, April 26, 2022....
These are the minimum and recommended requirements for F1 22 on PC - 04/25/2022 09:27 AM
Last week, Electronic Arts revealed the first trailer for F1 22, as well as the release date and features that would be included in the new game. On July 1, F1 22 will be published on PC via Steam and...
These are the minimum and recommended requirements to play Chernobylite on PC - 07/09/2021 09:16 AM
It will be published on July 28. Chernobylite, which is an open-world horror game. Igor Khymynyuk, a physicist that used to work at the nuclear power facility in Chernobyl, is named to be your charact...
TitanFall - Beta Minimum PC Specs - 02/05/2014 09:56 AM
Respawn's Vince Zampella has just revealed via Twitter the estimated minimum PC specs for the beta phase of TitanFall. TitanFall's beta phase is rumored for a February launch. -64-bit Windows 7, 8...
Call of Duty:Ghosts Official Minimum Specs - 10/24/2013 09:41 AM
Here are the minimum system requirements for Call of Duty: Ghosts on the PC! You will need at least 6GB of RAM, 40GB of free HDD and a 64bit OS to run it. Call of Duty: Ghosts Minimum Requirements: ...
fantaskarsef
Senior Member
Posts: 14278
Joined: 2014-07-21
Senior Member
Posts: 14278
Joined: 2014-07-21
#6034633 Posted on: 07/18/2022 09:42 AM
Something looks off here... looked at it this way:
1st graph shows gaming performance relative to 12900KF, second table power draw... first I see that the increases in power draw are way higher percentages than the increases of fps, which are just above margin of error more often than not...
Horizon: Zero Dawn, they spend +39/+39/+28% more power to achieve an average of +2,8% more fps (taken from all three resolutions and all three numbers)?
RDR2 -- +32/+41/+52% power draw increase for an average 21% gain? (When clearly +77% fps gains were botched to begin with)
FF9 -- +11/+0/+15% with fps gains of ~ +4,5%
Forza -- -2/+4.5/+10% to fps gains of +11,6% (well done here)
Monster Hunter -- +29/+21/+32% for +4.75% fps
PUBG -- +6.7/+12.9/+28% power for +18% fps
1080p -- power draw +19% for 12% fps gains (with a heavy weight on min frames)
1440p -- power +19.7% for fps +11%
2160p -- power +31% for fps +5.9%
I don't know, power draw just looks way to much increased for what they actually gained from it. Might be just me missing something. But like that, this looks like they have quite a way to go...
Something looks off here... looked at it this way:
1st graph shows gaming performance relative to 12900KF, second table power draw... first I see that the increases in power draw are way higher percentages than the increases of fps, which are just above margin of error more often than not...
Horizon: Zero Dawn, they spend +39/+39/+28% more power to achieve an average of +2,8% more fps (taken from all three resolutions and all three numbers)?
RDR2 -- +32/+41/+52% power draw increase for an average 21% gain? (When clearly +77% fps gains were botched to begin with)
FF9 -- +11/+0/+15% with fps gains of ~ +4,5%
Forza -- -2/+4.5/+10% to fps gains of +11,6% (well done here)
Monster Hunter -- +29/+21/+32% for +4.75% fps
PUBG -- +6.7/+12.9/+28% power for +18% fps
1080p -- power draw +19% for 12% fps gains (with a heavy weight on min frames)
1440p -- power +19.7% for fps +11%
2160p -- power +31% for fps +5.9%
I don't know, power draw just looks way to much increased for what they actually gained from it. Might be just me missing something. But like that, this looks like they have quite a way to go...
Undying
Senior Member
Posts: 21160
Joined: 2008-08-28
Senior Member
Posts: 21160
Joined: 2008-08-28
#6034639 Posted on: 07/18/2022 10:40 AM
Adding more e cores while still having 8 p cores is a bad idea. The only difference between 12900k and 13900k will be higher core clock. That wont increase fps in games as much we want to.
Wait for zen4 with v-cache boys.
Adding more e cores while still having 8 p cores is a bad idea. The only difference between 12900k and 13900k will be higher core clock. That wont increase fps in games as much we want to.
Wait for zen4 with v-cache boys.
Horus-Anhur
Senior Member
Posts: 6213
Joined: 2013-02-05
Senior Member
Posts: 6213
Joined: 2013-02-05
#6034643 Posted on: 07/18/2022 10:50 AM
Exactly. Adding just more e-cores is pointless, unless your are too concerned with cinebench scores.
Intel should have added more cache or performance cores, instead of those pathetic E-cores.
Something looks off here... looked at it this way:
1st graph shows gaming performance relative to 12900KF, second table power draw... first I see that the increases in power draw are way higher percentages than the increases of fps, which are just above margin of error more often than not...
Horizon: Zero Dawn, they spend +39/+39/+28% more power to achieve an average of +2,8% more fps (taken from all three resolutions and all three numbers)?
RDR2 -- +32/+41/+52% power draw increase for an average 21% gain? (When clearly +77% fps gains were botched to begin with)
FF9 -- +11/+0/+15% with fps gains of ~ +4,5%
Forza -- -2/+4.5/+10% to fps gains of +11,6% (well done here)
Monster Hunter -- +29/+21/+32% for +4.75% fps
PUBG -- +6.7/+12.9/+28% power for +18% fps
1080p -- power draw +19% for 12% fps gains (with a heavy weight on min frames)
1440p -- power +19.7% for fps +11%
2160p -- power +31% for fps +5.9%
I don't know, power draw just looks way to much increased for what they actually gained from it. Might be just me missing something. But like that, this looks like they have quite a way to go...
It's probably pushing a higher clock speed. And power consumption increases in geometric way, relative to clocks.
Also, this CPU is made in Intel's node 7, the same as the 12900K.
This node 7 is not a full new node. It's just a tweaked node 10.
Exactly. Adding just more e-cores is pointless, unless your are too concerned with cinebench scores.
Intel should have added more cache or performance cores, instead of those pathetic E-cores.
Something looks off here... looked at it this way:
1st graph shows gaming performance relative to 12900KF, second table power draw... first I see that the increases in power draw are way higher percentages than the increases of fps, which are just above margin of error more often than not...
Horizon: Zero Dawn, they spend +39/+39/+28% more power to achieve an average of +2,8% more fps (taken from all three resolutions and all three numbers)?
RDR2 -- +32/+41/+52% power draw increase for an average 21% gain? (When clearly +77% fps gains were botched to begin with)
FF9 -- +11/+0/+15% with fps gains of ~ +4,5%
Forza -- -2/+4.5/+10% to fps gains of +11,6% (well done here)
Monster Hunter -- +29/+21/+32% for +4.75% fps
PUBG -- +6.7/+12.9/+28% power for +18% fps
1080p -- power draw +19% for 12% fps gains (with a heavy weight on min frames)
1440p -- power +19.7% for fps +11%
2160p -- power +31% for fps +5.9%
I don't know, power draw just looks way to much increased for what they actually gained from it. Might be just me missing something. But like that, this looks like they have quite a way to go...
It's probably pushing a higher clock speed. And power consumption increases in geometric way, relative to clocks.
Also, this CPU is made in Intel's node 7, the same as the 12900K.
This node 7 is not a full new node. It's just a tweaked node 10.
Astyanax
Senior Member
Posts: 15304
Joined: 2018-03-21
Senior Member
Posts: 15304
Joined: 2018-03-21
#6034658 Posted on: 07/18/2022 11:41 AM
Adding more e cores while still having 8 p cores is a bad idea. The only difference between 12900k and 13900k will be higher core clock. That wont increase fps in games as much we want to.
Wait for zen4 with v-cache boys.
not correct,
the 13900k has more cache as well (not to mention a higher possible ring clock)
Adding more e cores while still having 8 p cores is a bad idea. The only difference between 12900k and 13900k will be higher core clock. That wont increase fps in games as much we want to.
Wait for zen4 with v-cache boys.
not correct,
the 13900k has more cache as well (not to mention a higher possible ring clock)
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 2320
Joined: 2005-08-05
This will be a nice upgrade from 4770k and 3800x
The jump in min fps is what we want to see in games. Looks like more cache is working for Intel too