219W Turbo for a "65W TDP" CPU. Wow. I understand that Intel has redefined what it means by TDP, but the whole thing just rubs me the wrong way. It would behoove folks in the tech media to strongly highlight the turbo power requirements, when writing about these parts, to give a more balanced view of these processors. [And I don't mean criticize the writer here -- I appreciate the coverage of this important processor launch -- it's Intel's marketing language that leads to this situation].
PS: I appreciate that the turbo power requirements are explained later in the article, but to read the bold headings and the introduction of the parts leads to a very different impression than you get by the middle of the article. I'm basically saying that the turbo power requirements really need to be front-and-center, at the introduction to these chips.
TrackSmart, you are about a decade behind on how turbo works. If you want more performance than base performance, CPUs will use more power. If you don't want that extra performance with extra power, then you have many options: 1) buy a lower TDP chip 2) adjust the power settings in your BIOS And \ or 3) don't supply it with an aftermarket high wattage cooler
The issue isn't more power for more performance. It's how much more power and if the power consumption figures are even remotely close to reality. Intel has been using misleading TDP and other CPU power consumption metrics for years. They define TDP, etc. by their needs of the week. They are unscrupulous and have been caught many times misrepresenting the power consumption and issues with their CPUs.
TDP is simply defined based on what a CPU can _sustain_ under most circumstances. Turbo TDP is just peak power and won't be used if conditions aren't met (i.e. most people won't go anywhere near that). Spec sheets provide all the data you need. The retail box only has as little data as the average buyer can process.
There's nothing wrong with a CPU pulling extra watts for higher performance. Most desktop users demand more performance above everything else. If it bothers you, you can always limit your power settings in the BIOS.
There is nothing wrong with a desktop CPU pulling more power… as long as that’s the type of processor. If I buy a 65 watt processor I expect good efficiency. It’s literally like 40 extra bucks for the 125 watt version that can also overclock. At this price that’s nothing. Also, when most desktop users demand more performance it doesn’t mean they don’t care about efficiency. Unless time is literally money for you, going to the limit is not worth it. Using half the energy with only a 10% performance loss would be worth it to most people. I for one like good efficiency in my system because I don’t want my room to be fucking hot. Also, energy prices kinda crazy these days, especially if you are in Europe.
I will buy 13500. Same core ciunt, same previous gen die, only 200mhz slower but I will overclock with mortar max mainboard. And in one year there will be raptor lake refresh with new cpus, which I will buy in 3-4 years to replace the 13500.
So if I'm reading those charts right it looks like the only CPUs using Raptor Cove cores are the 13900/13700 derivatives. Everything else is Golden Cove which is somewhat disappointing given that they're selling 2 SKUs in the same 6/8 p/e configuration as the 13600K. I'd seen the rumors and leaks already, but was still holding out hope the 13600/13500 might still be Raptor Cove.
13600K and above is Raptor Lake. 13600 and below is Alder Lake. Also, Golden Cove and Raptor Cove are microarchitecturally identical. The only difference is Raptor Cove has more l2$ which boosts IPC by about 3%. It’s good for gaming, but unless you are buying a 4090, Golden Cove is more than good enough. I frankly don’t see why it matters so much. Like Intel has always cut down the cache on the i5s, and cutting down cache turns Raptor Cove into Golden Cove.
The main reason is the memory controller being much better and since there are certain voltage locks on the non-K SKUs this matters quite a bit, especially if using 4 DIMMs. The cache redesign allows them to clock higher, but that would only really matter if BCLK OC still works.
4P is way better than 8E. It delivers more performance in both 1T and nT. Makes the system way more usable for general usage and gaming, which is what people care about at this price point. If you want a pure E core system look to the really low end.
I find it interesting to compare the 12900 and 13700, since they're the same 8P8E and 65W configuration. I'm a bit surprised by how much lower the base frequencies are on the 13700. I understand, of course, that the 13700 technically is a lower tier in the total stack than the 12900 was, but still. Raptor Lake was supposed to have significantly better efficiency than Alder Lake, wasn't it? Makes me a bit worried about the laptop chips.
I personally love the idea of extremely low base clocks. Having a CPU that can run at 800MHz when it isn't needed, and ~5GHz when it is under full load is great for overall power efficiency.
What I mostly dislike about this generation seems to be the no good mid-range non-E core solutions.
If I go with an Intel upgrade for my living room gaming PC, it's probably going to be an i5-12600. That's the best solution for a good mix of performance/TDP that I can see in Intel's last 2 generations.
The i5-13600 including e-cores seems like a regression to me.
Trouble now is except for maybe >$450. ASUS models, so far there's no DDR5 ECC RAM supporting W680 boards. We can probably blame that on Intel for delaying launch of those 65 watt Raptor SKUs to thwart AMD's marketing moves.
I believe that there are some typos : "The only difference between both chips is through core frequency, with the Core i5-13500 having a P-core frequency of 2.7 GHz and a turbo frequency of 4.8 GHz; the i5-13600 has a 2.5 GHz base frequency and the same 4.8 GHz turbo frequency."
Shouldn't it be (for P-core): i5-13500 base = 2.5 GHz & Turbo = 4.8 GHz i5-13600 base = 2.7 GHz & Turbo =5.0 GHz
If I power limit the i5-13600K to 65W, how does the performance compare to the i5-13600 (also at 65W)? I have not been able to find any test of this [yet]?
I prefer the i5-13600K at 65W if the performance is as good (or better) because I can always increase the performance (and power consumption) later if needed.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
28 Comments
Back to Article
TrackSmart - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 - link
219W Turbo for a "65W TDP" CPU. Wow. I understand that Intel has redefined what it means by TDP, but the whole thing just rubs me the wrong way. It would behoove folks in the tech media to strongly highlight the turbo power requirements, when writing about these parts, to give a more balanced view of these processors. [And I don't mean criticize the writer here -- I appreciate the coverage of this important processor launch -- it's Intel's marketing language that leads to this situation].TrackSmart - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 - link
PS: I appreciate that the turbo power requirements are explained later in the article, but to read the bold headings and the introduction of the parts leads to a very different impression than you get by the middle of the article. I'm basically saying that the turbo power requirements really need to be front-and-center, at the introduction to these chips.dullard - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 - link
TrackSmart, you are about a decade behind on how turbo works. If you want more performance than base performance, CPUs will use more power. If you don't want that extra performance with extra power, then you have many options:1) buy a lower TDP chip
2) adjust the power settings in your BIOS
And \ or
3) don't supply it with an aftermarket high wattage cooler
Techie2 - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 - link
The issue isn't more power for more performance. It's how much more power and if the power consumption figures are even remotely close to reality. Intel has been using misleading TDP and other CPU power consumption metrics for years. They define TDP, etc. by their needs of the week. They are unscrupulous and have been caught many times misrepresenting the power consumption and issues with their CPUs.npoc - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 - link
Don't crucify the engineers for marketting's failures.Kangal - Friday, January 6, 2023 - link
Sometimes it's a case of the marketing covering up for the engineers failure :\bug77 - Wednesday, January 4, 2023 - link
TDP is simply defined based on what a CPU can _sustain_ under most circumstances. Turbo TDP is just peak power and won't be used if conditions aren't met (i.e. most people won't go anywhere near that).Spec sheets provide all the data you need. The retail box only has as little data as the average buyer can process.
DabuXian - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 - link
There's nothing wrong with a CPU pulling extra watts for higher performance. Most desktop users demand more performance above everything else. If it bothers you, you can always limit your power settings in the BIOS.meacupla - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 - link
EU zone energy prices have a lot of their PC users going for efficiency over raw power. Which means AMD is better there.Otritus - Wednesday, January 4, 2023 - link
There is nothing wrong with a desktop CPU pulling more power… as long as that’s the type of processor. If I buy a 65 watt processor I expect good efficiency. It’s literally like 40 extra bucks for the 125 watt version that can also overclock. At this price that’s nothing. Also, when most desktop users demand more performance it doesn’t mean they don’t care about efficiency. Unless time is literally money for you, going to the limit is not worth it. Using half the energy with only a 10% performance loss would be worth it to most people. I for one like good efficiency in my system because I don’t want my room to be fucking hot. Also, energy prices kinda crazy these days, especially if you are in Europe.Harry_Wild - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 - link
Looking to buy the Core i5-13600 ($255)! I buy top of the line, the best of the best as alway!😁👍 i5 that is!👊dizzynosed - Wednesday, January 4, 2023 - link
I will buy 13500. Same core ciunt, same previous gen die, only 200mhz slower but I will overclock with mortar max mainboard. And in one year there will be raptor lake refresh with new cpus, which I will buy in 3-4 years to replace the 13500.thestryker - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 - link
So if I'm reading those charts right it looks like the only CPUs using Raptor Cove cores are the 13900/13700 derivatives. Everything else is Golden Cove which is somewhat disappointing given that they're selling 2 SKUs in the same 6/8 p/e configuration as the 13600K. I'd seen the rumors and leaks already, but was still holding out hope the 13600/13500 might still be Raptor Cove.Otritus - Wednesday, January 4, 2023 - link
13600K and above is Raptor Lake. 13600 and below is Alder Lake. Also, Golden Cove and Raptor Cove are microarchitecturally identical. The only difference is Raptor Cove has more l2$ which boosts IPC by about 3%. It’s good for gaming, but unless you are buying a 4090, Golden Cove is more than good enough. I frankly don’t see why it matters so much. Like Intel has always cut down the cache on the i5s, and cutting down cache turns Raptor Cove into Golden Cove.thestryker - Wednesday, January 4, 2023 - link
The main reason is the memory controller being much better and since there are certain voltage locks on the non-K SKUs this matters quite a bit, especially if using 4 DIMMs. The cache redesign allows them to clock higher, but that would only really matter if BCLK OC still works.lopri - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 - link
There are quite a few typos regarding base clock frequencies.Ryan Smith - Wednesday, January 4, 2023 - link
We've checked things out and they seem okay. Where are you seeing typos?TomWomack - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 - link
I wonder why they went for 4P+0E rather than 0P+8E for the low-end configurationThe Von Matrices - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 - link
It's been reported elsewhere that the low end CPUs are reusing the Alder Lake 6P+0E die, so there are no E cores on that die to enable.Otritus - Wednesday, January 4, 2023 - link
4P is way better than 8E. It delivers more performance in both 1T and nT. Makes the system way more usable for general usage and gaming, which is what people care about at this price point. If you want a pure E core system look to the really low end.Dolda2000 - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 - link
I find it interesting to compare the 12900 and 13700, since they're the same 8P8E and 65W configuration. I'm a bit surprised by how much lower the base frequencies are on the 13700. I understand, of course, that the 13700 technically is a lower tier in the total stack than the 12900 was, but still. Raptor Lake was supposed to have significantly better efficiency than Alder Lake, wasn't it? Makes me a bit worried about the laptop chips.KaarlisK - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 - link
Some i3 have the wrong GPUs statedRyan Smith - Wednesday, January 4, 2023 - link
All of the i3 parts with an iGPU have a UHD 730 (24 EU) configuration. I'm not seeing an error here.ballsystemlord - Wednesday, January 4, 2023 - link
I'm guessing the i3 parts have no E-cores because Intel doesn't want people to think that their gaming performance in the i3 lineup is horrible.James5mith - Thursday, January 5, 2023 - link
I personally love the idea of extremely low base clocks. Having a CPU that can run at 800MHz when it isn't needed, and ~5GHz when it is under full load is great for overall power efficiency.What I mostly dislike about this generation seems to be the no good mid-range non-E core solutions.
If I go with an Intel upgrade for my living room gaming PC, it's probably going to be an i5-12600. That's the best solution for a good mix of performance/TDP that I can see in Intel's last 2 generations.
The i5-13600 including e-cores seems like a regression to me.
chane - Tuesday, January 10, 2023 - link
Trouble now is except for maybe >$450. ASUS models, so far there's no DDR5 ECC RAM supporting W680 boards. We can probably blame that on Intel for delaying launch of those 65 watt Raptor SKUs to thwart AMD's marketing moves.viking99 - Sunday, January 15, 2023 - link
I believe that there are some typos : "The only difference between both chips is through core frequency, with the Core i5-13500 having a P-core frequency of 2.7 GHz and a turbo frequency of 4.8 GHz; the i5-13600 has a 2.5 GHz base frequency and the same 4.8 GHz turbo frequency."Shouldn't it be (for P-core):
i5-13500 base = 2.5 GHz & Turbo = 4.8 GHz
i5-13600 base = 2.7 GHz & Turbo =5.0 GHz
viking99 - Sunday, January 15, 2023 - link
If I power limit the i5-13600K to 65W, how does the performance compare to the i5-13600 (also at 65W)? I have not been able to find any test of this [yet]?I prefer the i5-13600K at 65W if the performance is as good (or better) because I can always increase the performance (and power consumption) later if needed.