Geekbench score for the Intel i9-13900K is out and it’s not looking pretty for Apple …

[leman]

Here is a 6ghz overclock of raptor lake almost hitting 40,000 cinebench and 6ghz is target top speed of the extreme edition 13900ks

How many customers will be doing this? And how many actually sold SKUs are capable of this overlock? Or, to put it more broadly: are we talking about extreme possibilities or are we talking about the average mass-produced device?

For extreme cases, sure, x86 will win in raw performance hands down. Simply because you always have the possibility to tweak your system and choose individual components capable of higher performance. Ultimately, you will be able to reach your 6Ghz overlock even if it means that you have to buy 20 CPUs in order to win the silicon lottery.

But I just don't see how these extreme cases affect the discussion around Macs even in the slightest. The number of users who would go all that way to overclock the hell out of their PCs are negligible even on the PC market, and none of them would ever be interested in a Mac. So in the end the discussion is about ready-made PC boxes. For laptops, there is no competition whatsoever as these record-breaking Raptor Lake scores recorded at 350 watts simply don't matter. For the desktop, it will probably remain like it is now — Apple being slightly slower but 5x less power. Of course, if the M2 Pro is indeed 3nm based (20% more performance than M2 cores) and can run at full turbo in a desktop configuration it should score around 2.2K GB single-core and 20k multi-core, which would put it within the 5% of the Raptor Lake at 5x lower power consumption.

In the end, my current M1 Max is competitive with the desktop Alder Lake for many of the workloads I care about (software development and data wrangling). I expect this pattern to continue unless either Apple or Intel come up with something new. So far, it doesn't seem like Raptor Lake will be anything new.

 

[grkm3]

How many customers will be doing this? And how many actually sold SKUs are capable of this overlock? Or, to put it more broadly: are we talking about extreme possibilities or are we talking about the average mass-produced device?

For extreme cases, sure, x86 will win in raw performance hands down. Simply because you always have the possibility to tweak your system and choose individual components capable of higher performance. Ultimately, you will be able to reach your 6Ghz overlock even if it means that you have to buy 20 CPUs in order to win the silicon lottery.

But I just don't see how these extreme cases affect the discussion around Macs even in the slightest. The number of users who would go all that way to overclock the hell out of their PCs are negligible even on the PC market, and none of them would ever be interested in a Mac. So in the end the discussion is about ready-made PC boxes. For laptops, there is no competition whatsoever as these record-breaking Raptor Lake scores recorded at 350 watts simply don't matter. For the desktop, it will probably remain like it is now — Apple being slightly slower but 5x less power. Of course, if the M2 Pro is indeed 3nm based (20% more performance than M2 cores) and can run at full turbo in a desktop configuration it should score around 2.2K GB single-core and 20k multi-core, which would put it within the 5% of the Raptor Lake at 5x lower power consumption.

In the end, my current M1 Max is competitive with the desktop Alder Lake for many of the workloads I care about (software development and data wrangling). I expect this pattern to continue unless either Apple or Intel come up with something new. So far, it doesn't seem like Raptor Lake will be anything new.

From what I've seen unlimited power cap the stock 13900k will hit 5.8ghz. This is only a 200mhz overclock from that and we are guessing the extreme top end will do that 6ghz with proper cooling. And yes I know this will never happen in a laptop lol

They added 8 cores and more cache with a better memory controller and on intel 7 node.

 

[pshufd]

In the end, my current M1 Max is competitive with the desktop Alder Lake for many of the workloads I care about (software development and data wrangling). I expect this pattern to continue unless either Apple or Intel come up with something new. So far, it doesn't seem like Raptor Lake will be anything new.

The vast majority of people do not need more than an M1 CPU. I have an M1 Pro but it is far more than I need.

Businesses do look at power consumption and they will be taking a harder look at it with rising temperatures and cooling bills. I just got my electricity bill where the rates went up 100%. The average daily temperature in my area, a colder part of the US, has been around 90 degrees. So big cooling bills this summer. It's a no-brainer to put a lot of efficient systems in your offices to use less power and which will, in turn, use less power for cooling.

The global demand for natural gas for heating and electricity may mean trending higher power costs. Given this, I don't see why Intel and AMD are heading in the wrong directions. Same thing with AMD and nVidia with their GPUs.

 

[pshufd]

From what I've seen unlimited power cap the stock 13900k will hit 5.8ghz. This is only a 200mhz overclock from that and we are guessing the extreme top end will do that 6ghz with proper cooling. And yes I know this will never happen in a laptop lol

They added 8 cores and more cache with a better memory controller and on intel 7 node.

So they're still on 10 nm? It's kind of crazy that my M1 mini uses a max of about 15 watts while that Raptor Lake desktop will use 250 watts. I've looked at how little additional load it takes on my i7-10700 Windows system to get it up to 65 watts and the i7-10700 is a relative cool and efficient Intel chip.

I grew up in an age when you were careful about how much energy you used. Electricity, oil, gasoline, even water. We've had cheap energy for a long time but it's not so cheap anymore.

 

[grkm3]

So they're still on 10 nm? It's kind of crazy that my M1 mini uses a max of about 15 watts while that Raptor Lake desktop will use 250 watts. I've looked at how little additional load it takes on my i7-10700 Windows system to get it up to 65 watts and the i7-10700 is a relative cool and efficient Intel chip.

I grew up in an age when you were careful about how much energy you used. Electricity, oil, gasoline, even water. We've had cheap energy for a long time but it's not so cheap anymore.

Yea intel is on like 10nm+++++×4+2 meteror Lake will drop power by about 30% but intel has trippled downed on 10nm and just pushing it for max performance. It's wild we are seeing 24cores hit almost 6ghz.

You need to keep in mind that in real world use you won't be pulling that much power.it will spike cores to get the job done then down clock very fast. For instance let's say you are doing something that needs full power on all cores. Intel will get the job done almost twice as fast as amd and down clock those cores while amd is still going full load.

 

[pshufd]

Yea intel is on like 10nm+++++×4+2 meteror Lake will drop power by about 30% but intel has trippled downed on 10nm and just pushing it for max performance. It's wild we are seeing 24cores hit almost 6ghz.

You need to keep in mind that in real world use you won't be pulling that much power.it will spike cores to get the job done then down clock very fast. For instance let's say you are doing something that needs full power on all cores. Intel will get the job done almost twice as fast as amd and down clock those cores while amd is still going full load.

I'm in an uncooled basement and outside temperatures are getting to 90-100 degrees with moderate to high humidity. My Intel iMac already warms the room noticeably. I had been running two Intel iMacs and replaced one with a DisplayLink third monitor off my M1 mini. Imagine all of the people this summer that don't have air conditioning.

Or that do. You have to pay to cool the higher temperatures that Intel CPUs generate.

Then again we are starting to see energy rationing in places where it was unthinkable last year.

 

[grkm3]

I'm in an uncooled basement and outside temperatures are getting to 90-100 degrees with moderate to high humidity. My Intel iMac already warms the room noticeably. I had been running two Intel iMacs and replaced one with a DisplayLink third monitor off my M1 mini. Imagine all of the people this summer that don't have air conditioning.

Or that do. You have to pay to cool the higher temperatures that Intel CPUs generate.

Then again we are starting to see energy rationing in places where it was unthinkable last year.

On the flip side it will heat the room and hopefully electricity is cheaper than gas heat.

 

[pshufd]

On the flip side it will heat the room and hopefully electricity is cheaper than gas heat.

That's the only reason I'm keeping the iMacs. Electricity just doubled and half our generation is nuclear and half is natural gas. In theory, electricity should be more expensive now as there are overall more costs associated with electricity compared to natural gas as you have to generate it and you have to send it over a grid that's above-ground and requires constant maintenance.

What I'm seeing locally is that the cost of used iMac 27s is plummeting.

A 2013 iMac 27 came on the market three weeks ago at $250. It just dropped to $200 yesterday. The value of the display alone is more than $200 and you're getting a whole computer. I've seen a 2020 iMac 27 listed for $900 just sit for three months. I may pick something up at the right price but I just keep thinking of the amount of heat that these things put out, particularly since we're having the hottest summer that I can recall since moving here in the 1980s. And this is a trend. Our winters are getting warmer too. I normally turn on the heat around 35 degrees and generally prefer things to be cooler which is why we live near the Canadian border.

I generally put CPU-intensive stuff on the M1 mini so that my 2014 iMac 27 generates less heat. I'm annoyed that Apple didn't make a 27 inch M1 iMac. It would have been a big seller. A lot of people are waiting for an Apple Silicon iMac 27.

 

[throAU]

How many customers will be doing this? And how many actually sold SKUs are capable of this overlock? Or, to put it more broadly: are we talking about extreme possibilities or are we talking about the average mass-produced device?

How many laptops ship with an LN2 pot?

🤣

 

[Abazigal]

I'm in an uncooled basement and outside temperatures are getting to 90-100 degrees with moderate to high humidity. My Intel iMac already warms the room noticeably. I had been running two Intel iMacs and replaced one with a DisplayLink third monitor off my M1 mini. Imagine all of the people this summer that don't have air conditioning.

Or that do. You have to pay to cool the higher temperatures that Intel CPUs generate.

Then again we are starting to see energy rationing in places where it was unthinkable last year.

I always thought that talk of intel PCs doubling as heaters was mere hyperbole. Crazy to imagine that they can actually generate heat to such an extent. 😵‍💫

 

[Yebubbleman]

Source

The i9-13900K chip will be out later this year and we now have Geekbench results. Single core: 2133 and Multi core: 23701

In comparison, the M2 in the new MacBook Pro scored: 1919 in single core
8929 in multi core.

Sure, Apple is much better at performance per watt than Intel but it’s not a good look to fall behind in single core performance. Most day to day tasks are single core.

Apple upended the chip industry with the M1 but AMD and Intel came back swinging and it seems like Apple now needs to pull another rabbit out of the hat with the M3.

The M2 is also rated for substantially lower wattage than the i9-13900K. Though, you're not wrong in that Apple does need to do a bit of a better job keeping up.

 

[throAU]

The M2 is also rated for substantially lower wattage than the i9-13900K. Though, you're not wrong in that Apple does need to do a bit of a better job keeping up.

Apple aren't playing the "throw 250 watts at a CPU" game and haven't yet released an actual high end desktop part.


The 13900k isn't shipping yet, either.

 

[exoticSpice]

Though, you're not wrong in that Apple does need to do a bit of a better job keeping up.

and Intel is on track with its products?

Intel's server CPUs were meant to be launched last year in late 2021 and they own't be releasing till next year Q1 2023.

Also Intel is getting this pref by using more power. Apple needs to move to 3nm with M3 as well to get better efficiency.

Intel's next-gen Sapphire Rapids CPUs is delayed again | Digital Trends

It's official: Intel's upcoming Sapphire Rapids server processors are being delayed again. This platform was initially planned for the start of 2022.

www.digitaltrends.com

 

[Yebubbleman]

and Intel is on track with its products?

Intel's server CPUs were meant to be launched last year in late 2021 and they own't be releasing till next year Q1 2023.

Also Intel is getting this pref by using more power. Apple needs to move to 3nm with M3 as well to get better efficiency.

Intel's next-gen Sapphire Rapids CPUs is delayed again | Digital Trends

It's official: Intel's upcoming Sapphire Rapids server processors are being delayed again. This platform was initially planned for the start of 2022.

www.digitaltrends.com

I never said that Intel was on track with its products. When the M1 came out, it boasted the highest single-core scores of any processor out there. Now, with M2, that goal post hasn't moved up that much and Intel has made up for lost time with the only caveat in Apple's defense being the wattage disparity between the K-series i9 meant for high-end gaming towers and the M2 meant for ultrabook chasses.

 

[grkm3]

I never said that Intel was on track with its products. When the M1 came out, it boasted the highest single-core scores of any processor out there. Now, with M2, that goal post hasn't moved up that much and Intel has made up for lost time with the only caveat in Apple's defense being the wattage disparity between the K-series i9 meant for high-end gaming towers and the M2 meant for ultrabook chasses.

No it didn't to this day apple or arm has never beaten intel in single core performance.

 

[thenewperson]

No it didn't to this day apple or arm has never beaten intel in single core performance.

Oh we're just straight up lying now.

 

[grkm3]

Oh we're just straight up lying now.

Intel 11th gen is in 1800s geekbench 1 year before m1

 

[exoticSpice]

Intel 11th gen is in 1800s geekbench 1 year before m1

yeah in desktop and laptop using lots of power. Intel loves to bruteforce cause they don't have efficiency

Intel CEO admitted that Apple has better pref per watt. In ultrabooks M1 beat 11th gen.

 

[grkm3]

yeah in desktop and laptop using lots of power. Intel loves to bruteforce cause they don't have efficiency

Intel CEO admitted that Apple has better pref per watt. In ultrabooks M1 beat 11th gen.

Go read my quote and think about it for a little.

 

[jdb8167]

Intel 11th gen is in 1800s geekbench 1 year before m1

Bzzzt. The launch date for the Intel Core i9-11900KF is Q1 2021. The launch date for the M1 was November 2020. The 11900KF was the first Intel desktop CPU to beat the M1 in single core.

 

[grkm3]

Bzzzt. The launch date for the Intel Core i9-11900KF is Q1 2021. The launch date for the M1 was November 2020. The 11900KF was the first Intel desktop CPU to beat the M1 in single core.

Bzzzt 11th gen tiger lake architecture came out September 2 2020

 

[leman]

No it didn't to this day apple or arm has never beaten intel in single core performance.

Im pretty sure M2 is at least a match for desktop alder Lake in single core performance, unless of course you take into account overcklocking.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

Bzzzt 11th gen tiger lake architecture came out September 2 2020

Why don't we ever run apples-to-apples comparisons on these things. Where is the i3 to run against the lowest most pathetic CPU (M2) that Apple has?

Moreover, if you believe this strongly in intel then you have nothing to worry about the next few years as Apple kicks the ever-loving crap out of the market.

.
.
.

And, now let's talk battery life, shall we?

 

[jdb8167]

Bzzzt 11th gen tiger lake architecture came out September 2 2020

Not any 11th gen that could beat a M1 in single core. Just keep digging that hole.

 

[pdoherty]

yeah in desktop and laptop using lots of power. Intel loves to bruteforce cause they don't have efficiency

Intel CEO admitted that Apple has better pref per watt. In ultrabooks M1 beat 11th gen.

It’s getting a little silly watching you guys claim “apple had the best single core performance” and then, when someone says ”nope - Intel has been higher single core performance the whole time” your position suddenly is “most-efficient energy use”.