Skip to main content

Intel Core i7 13700T Raptor Lake Allegedly Beats Ryzen 7 5800X at 35W

Core i9-13900K QS tested
(Image credit: Intel)

According to a Tweet by @BenchLeaks, Intel's first Raptor Lake T model has appeared on the radar, featuring some potential stellar results. The chip is known as the i7-13700T. The T variants of Intel's chips feature extremely low power consumption - akin to that of mobile chips with a 35W TDP. The i7-13700T was able to pull off scores faster than the Ryzen 7 5800X and match the i5-12600K while consuming far less power.

I7-13700T Geekbench 5 Results:
CPU Models:Single-Core ResultsMulti-Core ResultsSingle-Core DifferenceMulti-Core Difference
Core i7-13700T 35W193911564100%100%
Ryzen 7 5800X16691031614% Slower11% Slower
Core i5-12600K1858116344% Slower 0.6% Faster
Core i7-13700K1909141572% Slower22% Faster

We don't have official specs on the new part just yet, so take the data with a pinch of salt, but according to Geekbench, the 13700T features a incredibly low base clock of 1.4 GHz due to the 35W TDP. But to compensate, the chip features a substantially higher boost clock of 4.8 GHz - which is exceptionally high for a T chip. This can be attributed to Raptor Lake's new performance cores which are already boosting beyond 5.5 GHz on the higher end SKUs.

Besides this difference, the i7-13700T features the exact same core specifications as its more power-hungry counterparts, featuring 8 P cores and 8 E cores.

Raptor Lake List - Including i7-13700T
ModelCores:BoostBase PowerMax Turbo Power
i9-13900K24 - 8P + 16E5.8GHz Max Boost125W253W
i7-13700K16 - 8P +8E5.4GHz Max Boost125W253W
i7-13700T16 - 8P +8E4.8GHz Max Boost35WN/A

Compared to other Raptor Lake parts, the power reduction of the T model is substantial with a power reduction of 72% at its base. For peak turbo boost power we don't know what Intel's limits are. But presumably, the chip can spike beyond 70 or 80W for brief periods of time, to hit those very high clocks.

Still, if peak turbo power is below 100W, that is still significantly less power compared to the 253W peak boost power on the 13700K and 13900K - and still less compared to AMD Ryzen 5000 series chips.

But don't let its low TDP fool you, the 13700T seems to be a surprisingly fast chip that packs a punch for its weight class. The chip pulls in a very respectable single-core score of 1,939 points, and a multi-core score of 11,564 points. 

With scores like these, the 13700T should be able to beat some very potent competitors including AMD's Ryzen 7 5800X in both single and multi-threaded score by 12% to 16%, as well as Intel's own Core i5-12600K - beating it in the single core score by 5% and almost matching it in the multi-core score.

Surprisingly the 13700T also scores a win against the Core i7-12700K, and beats it in the single-core score by a hair. However, the chip couldn't match the 12700K's higher power envelope in the multi-threaded score.

All in all, if this bench is to be believed, the 13700T is showing us a very different side to Intel's Raptor Lake microarchitecture we have not seen before. With Intel constantly pushing the power envelope higher and higher with Alder Lake, and now with Raptor Lake - featuring the highest official turbo power specification's we've ever seen before, it seems that all Intel cares about is higher performance with no regards to power consumption.

But, the 13700T shows us that the Raptor Lake architecture can be tuned back for efficiency purposes as well, and do a surprisingly good job at crunching numbers while sipping power like.

Unfortunately all we have now are Geekbench 5 results, which won't tell us the whole story about the 13700T's true performance. But hopefully we'll get to see this chip again in other benchmarks soon, to see what it can really do at 35W.

Aaron Klotz
Freelance News Writer

Aaron Klotz is a freelance writer for Tom’s Hardware US, covering news topics related to computer hardware such as CPUs, and graphics cards.

  • duzytv
    Is 13700T a 35W or 100W limited Cpu or what?
    Reply
  • salgado18
    It beats the 105W 5800X, but not at 35W. Come on, it's obvious it uses up more than that. Maybe not 100W but way more than 35W. It's still a nice score, really, but remember the 5800X uses ~140W to match the 12700X at ~250W. How will it compare to the Ryzen 7800X?
    Reply
  • Eximo
    It is rated at 35W at base clock, all cores blazing away which is a very unlikely scenario. It will be able to boost well past that for short durations but also keep the clocks up at single core loads. You can achieve nearly the same by putting a harsh power limit on any CPU really.

    Efficiency wise there isn't a huge gap between Intel and AMD now. When reasonable wattages are forced they perform similarly core for core. When you toss the efficiency cores into the mix Intel starts to pull ahead and that is clearly their goal at the moment. 7000 chips should take the crown from Intel, but doubling the efficiency cores for Raptor Lake will have an interesting impact on multi-core loads.
    Reply
  • thisisaname
    Intel's new yet to be released chip is AMD's current chip, hardly a surprise.
    Reply
  • anoldnewb
    Who would buy this now. Wait two weeks and buy a Zen4 that matches or beats the equivalent Intel part and crushes it in power efficiency.
    As an example, the 7950 is "Up To 74% Faster Performance at 65W" than the 5950. Expect similar gains for other Zen 4 part at correspondingly lower powers.
    Reply
  • JamesJones44
    It's clear that people really don't understand what TDP is and it's sad because it literally says thermal in the name (Thermal Design Point). It's not power consumption... SMH.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    anoldnewb said:
    Who would buy this now. Wait two weeks and buy a Zen4 that matches or beats the equivalent Intel part and crushes it in power efficiency.
    As an example, the 7950 is "Up To 74% Faster Performance at 65W" than the 5950. Expect similar gains for other Zen 4 part at correspondingly lower powers.
    The problem with that math is that nobody has ever benchmarked a 5950x at a locked down 65W.
    All the benches are with the 5950x using 120-140W, so we have no real idea how high the real difference is going to be.
    https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-dive-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested/8
    Reply
  • Eximo
    Der8auer did a quick look between the 5800X3D and i9-12900 locked down to about 45W, it was quite revealing how close the architectures really are.

    Skip to 12:23

    1rgbJwxSYssView: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rgbJwxSYss
    Reply
  • cp0x
    thisisaname said:
    Intel's new yet to be released chip is AMD's current chip, hardly a surprise.

    It's Tom's Hardware. It wouldn't be Tom's Hardware if they weren't busy stacking the deck for Intel. It's been this way, pretty much non-stop, for the 25 years I've been reading this site. And probably 15 out of those 25 years, it made sense. But the other 10? Yeah, no.
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    Well, was about time to beat AMD at lower power, no? XD

    The 5800X has been in the market for close to 2 years now, so Intel catching up is good news. All I can say is: it was about time.

    Now, let's see how they fare with the Zen4 siblings, specially in mobile, since (if you click on my notebook sig, top one), my 5900HX is basically faster than the stock 5800X at a lower wattage as well. Well, realistically speaking, the max power draw of the 5900HX is 65W (IIRC) and the 5800X is 142W, but I do get really close in performance.

    Regards.
    Reply