Skip to main content

Intel Raptor Lake-P 14-Core CPU Outpaces The Core i9-12900HK

Intel Alder Lake Mobile CPU
Intel Alder Lake Mobile CPU (Image credit: Intel)

An Intel Raptor Lake-P (RPL-P) engineering sample (ES) processor appears to have passed through the UserBenchmark suite of tests. This 14-core, 20-thread processor looks like it is already achieving more than acceptable performance. Compared to the current best Alder Lake-P chip, the Core i9-12900HK, the new chip is comfortably ahead in single-and multi-threaded tests. Twitter's momomo_us spotted this entry, but as with all such benchmarks featuring pre-release parts with sketchy codenames, please add a pinch of salt to the results.

This latest 'P' chip, which marks it as a mobile variant, is completely missing any name but the limited sys-info reporting of UserBenchmark says it resided on an "Intel RaptorLake-Px LP5 ERB" motherboard. Moreover, the system identified itself as an "Intel Raptor Lake Client Platform."

It is interesting to see the UserBenchmark report that the RPL-ES chip is "throttled at 87% by Windows," which suggests there is untapped potential here.

As well as the "Intel 0000" processor, the tested system featured Intel Iris Xe Graphics, which UserBenchmark characterized as "very poor." A speedy 250GB NVMe PCIe SSD and 16GB of DDR5-6400 completed the Windows 11 powered system.

Image 1 of 2

Raptor Lake benchmarks

(Image credit: Future)
Image 2 of 2

Raptor Lake benchmarks

(Image credit: Future)

We have distilled the essential single- and multi-thread CPU tests of the RPL-P ES chip and thrown in the best of Intel's current-gen Alder Lake-P family, the Core i9-12900HK. In addition, we have thrown in a desktop Alder Lake CPU that can run 20 threads simultaneously, the Core i7-12700K.

If you cast your eyes on the results, you will see that the RPL-P ES is already happy being better than the previous-gen performer in single- and multi-thread CPU tests. However, we must remember that this is a test sample of one compared with the average performance of hundreds of Core i9-12900HK chips, some of which have performed just as well as the new RPL-P. Also, please note that some of the multitudes of ADL-P systems will be overclocked and have better-supporting components with exceptionally faster memory.

Intel Raptor Lake-P Benchmarks

1T test resultnT test resultCores / Threads
Raptor Lake-P (Intel 0000)2022,05214 / 20
Core i7-12700K1942,41912 / 20
Core i9-12900HK1851,88414 / 20

The desktop comparison raises the same questions concerning overall system configurations and sample sizes. However, the single-thread test of the new RPL-P ES is better than the average Core i7-12700K. Ultimately the power benefit of the desktop platform becomes evident in multi-thread tests.

We are still several months away from any likely release of Intel's 13th generation Core processors, but they have increasingly been on our radar. Last year we heard about the power-saving benefits of the new Digital Linear Voltage Regulator (D-LVR) in Raptor Lake. In February, we saw an Ashes of the Singularity benchmark of an RPL part with 32 threads, and earlier this week, we noted that CPU-Z had added Raptor Lake support, getting ready for the next-gen CPU release.

Mark Tyson
Mark Tyson

Mark Tyson is a Freelance News Writer at Tom's Hardware US. He enjoys covering the full breadth of PC tech; from business and semiconductor design to products approaching the edge of reason.

  • Alvar "Miles" Udell
    Could we finally be done with the era of "New generation of chips! 5% performance boost for 10% more money!"
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    Alvar Miles Udell said:
    Could we finally be done with the era of "New generation of chips! 5% performance boost for 10% more money!"
    When was that era?
    Reply
  • mdd1963
    More like 5% more performance for 30-50% more money... :)
    Reply
  • hotaru.hino
    Alvar Miles Udell said:
    Could we finally be done with the era of "New generation of chips! 5% performance boost for 10% more money!"
    Like it or not, this is going to be the norm from here on out.

    The 90s was basically when we discovered every basic trick in the book for a single core. The 2000s brought us process improvements to eke out more clock speed and have multi-core. 2010s was basically finding optimizations here and there and hoping process technology could hold out. And thanks to things like Amdahl's Law and Dennard Scaling hitting their limits, we're basically at a road block.

    We probably can still cut a lot of old cruft, but that also means starting fresh which in the "backwards compatibility is king" world, is a hard pill to swallow.
    Reply
  • spentshells
    spongiemaster said:
    When was that era?
    3000 series amd, but i fully see your point
    Reply
  • waltc3
    The UserBenchmark site has been banned at r/AMD reddit--links or mention of UserBenchmark are verbotten--I believe that would be a wise policy for TH. The site had a well-earned reputation for being an Intel-coordinated or owned shill site in order to mislead n00bs about Intel CPUs, calling Intel's pre-Alder Lake CPUs superior to AMD's Zen2 and Zen3 CPU, which, of course, was never the case at all. The site's objectivity seems non-existent.
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    waltc3 said:
    The UserBenchmark site has been banned at r/AMD reddit--links or mention of UserBenchmark are verbotten--I believe that would be a wise policy for TH. The site had a well-earned reputation for being an Intel-coordinated or owned shill site in order to mislead n00bs about Intel CPUs, calling Intel's pre-Alder Lake CPUs superior to AMD's Zen2 and Zen3 CPU, which, of course, was never the case at all. The site's objectivity seems non-existent.
    No benchmark tool is perfect. Having a bias towards one manufacturer doesn't mean the results aren't still useful/valid for comparing generations from the same manufacturer.
    Reply
  • waltc3
    spongiemaster said:
    No benchmark tool is perfect. Having a bias towards one manufacturer doesn't mean the results aren't still useful/valid for comparing generations from the same manufacturer.

    Wasn't talking about a benchmark--was speaking of the website itself. UserBenchmark is a website.
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    waltc3 said:
    Wasn't talking about a benchmark--was speaking of the website itself. UserBenchmark is a website.
    I know who they are. How do they determine performance without benchmarks?
    Reply
  • Specter0420
    waltc3 said:
    The UserBenchmark site has been banned at r/AMD reddit--links or mention of UserBenchmark are verbotten--I believe that would be a wise policy for TH. The site had a well-earned reputation for being an Intel-coordinated or owned shill site in order to mislead n00bs about Intel CPUs, calling Intel's pre-Alder Lake CPUs superior to AMD's Zen2 and Zen3 CPU, which, of course, was never the case at all. The site's objectivity seems non-existent.
    UserBenchmark is perfectly fine as long as you compare actual benchmark scores (single core, dual core, etc.), especially in the same brand. It boils down to which CPU can do the same math problems the fastest... Of course it is useful.

    There is only controversy over the "Overall" ranking. This is because they value single core performance more than 8+ core performance. In reality, well, it IS more valuable, especially to gamers, the site's primary audience. Some early Ryzen AMD fanboys have a big issue with this because their CPUs don't do as well here, even against budget Intel chips. I understand the outrage to a point, but this "Throw all the data out! Don't look a the real numbers! Do not speak their name! BAN THEM!" is really just AMD fanboy temper tantrum echo chamber BS. Nobody is surprised the Ryzen fanboy reddit wants an echo-chamber, we don't want Toms that way.

    Take a breath, ignore the overall ranking, and look at the cold hard data. Run the benchmark, see how your PC compares to others with the same components.
    Reply