Skip to main content

Leaked Raptor Lake Specs Show More Cores, Higher Power Draw

Alder Lake
(Image credit: Intel)

Igor's Lab just published a massive leak showcasing confidential slides of Intel's new Raptor Lake architecture, CPU lineup and the new 700 series platform. Intel's launch SKUs will reportedly include six new chips, including the Core i5-13600K, Core i7-13700K and i9-13900K in both K and KF variants respectively.

The Core i9-13900K/KF will feature 24 cores in total, with 8 performance cores accompanied by a whopping 16 efficiency cores for less essential tasks. Boost frequencies on the 13900K/KF have been heavily upgraded over the 12900K (and even the KS), with a peak Thermal Velocity boost of 5.8 GHz, 5.7 GHz Turbo 3.0. Cache has been upgraded to 36MB of L2 cache as well (compared to 30MB on the 12900K).

The 13700K/KF also sees these same upgrades, with a core count configuration identical to that of the 12900K featuring 8 performance cores and 8 efficiency cores. Turbo Boost frequencies top out at 5.4 GHz for now. Turbo Velocity Boost frequencies were not listed by Intel for this particular SKU. L2 Cache has been boosted up to 30MB — a 5MB upgrade over the 12700K/KF.

The 13600K/KF features the least impressive known clock speeds, however it is still a noteworthy upgrade over the 12600K/KF. Thermal Velocity Boost and Turbo Boost 3.0 frequencies are unknown, however the official "standard" boost clock goes up to 5.1GHz, so we can probably expect a 5.2 or 5.3GHz turbo clock for the other Intel Turbo Boosting algorithms. 

E cores have been doubled from 4 to 8, but the chip still retains its 6 P cores. Nonetheless, the 13600K/KF's core count alone is a significant upgrade over the 12600K/KF/s 6+4 configuration. Cache has been increased by 4MB to 24MB over the 12600K/KF as well.

CPUCoresL2 CacheBoost FrequenciesMaximum Turbo PowerProcessor Base Power
i9 13900K/KF24 - 8P + 16E32MB5.8GHz TVB - 5.7GHz TBMT 3.0 - 5.4GHz Boost253W125W
i7-13700K/KF16 - 8P +8E24MB5.4GHz TBMT 3.0 - 5.3GHz Boost253W125W
i5-13600K/KF14 - 6P +8E20MB5.1GHz Boost181W125Ws

Unfortunately, Igor's Lab's leak also confirms that Intel's Raptor Lake will be even more power hungry compared to the Alder Lake generation. Maximum Turbo Power has increased substantially to 253 W for both the Core i9 and Core i7 Raptor Lake SKUs. In comparison, the i9-12900K peaked at 241 W, and the i7-12700K at a significantly lower 190 W.

The Core i5 Raptor Lake variant also shares the same fate with a 181 W turbo power limit, compared to 150 W on the i5-12600K. All in all, with the exception of the Core i9 models, the i5 and i7 variants can consume up to 20% to 33% to hit their highest rated turbo frequencies.

Thankfully the base processor power limit is a respectable 125 W, however it remains to be seen how much faster Raptor Lake is at these lower power limits compared to Alder Lake. Hopefully Intel's P core and E Core and L2 cache enhancements are enough to increase Raptor Lake's power efficiency at lower power settings, for users which lack top-of-the-line liquid coolers and expensive 600 or 700 series motherboards.

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.

  • hotaru251
    intel : "idc how much power it draws I aint the state of CA. We just need more performance and cranking voltage is how we do it here at Intel"
    Reply
  • cknobman
    Intel is a joke.
    Improve your architecture and process, stop being lazy and just adding more power.
    Reply
  • lmcnabney
    Way way way too much power. I was annoyed at AMD's power creep with Zen4 and Intel comes on the stage and says 'Hold my beer'.

    My new build is likely to be running 12th gen or Zen3.
    Reply
  • JamesJones44
    lmcnabney said:
    Way way way too much power. I was annoyed at AMD's power creep with Zen4 and Intel comes on the stage and says 'Hold my beer'.

    My new build is likely to be running 12th gen or Zen3.

    I suspect this is only going to get worse. Back just 10 years ago it wasn't a big deal for the node sizes to shrink 8+ nm each generation. Now we are down to 1 or 2 each generation. The only way to achieve more performance without more transistors is to crank up the clock speeds (or increase the die size, though there seems to be no appetite for that).
    Reply
  • RockUT
    Why are you quibbling about less wattage than i have in my Dining room lights?

    Computers can still use a less than 500 or 400 w power supply unless you are using a
    High end gaming card full tilt and clocked.

    So a hundred watt power range difference is nothing compared to the rest of the components.
    Reply
  • Gam3r01
    RockUT said:
    Why are you quibbling about less wattage than i have in my Dining room lights?

    Computers can still use a less than 500 or 400 w power supply unless you are using a
    High end gaming card full tilt and clocked.

    So a hundred watt power range difference is nothing compared to the rest of the components.
    Alot of the issue has nothing to do with actual power consumption, because as you say 50-100w really wont cost much in the long run.
    The issue is with compatibility with other hardware. A high draw processor limits motherboard and cooling options, resulting in more money spent to just get baseline performance at stock speeds. There are also other minor concerns like the amount of heat being dumped out of the case.

    I personally would rather use a processor that I can keep in check thermally with modest hardware than having to limit myself to high end coolers just to run the thing stock. My PGE bill isnt a deciding factor in that.
    Reply
  • darkHares
    Intel is just repeating the same thing over and over, "just throw more power at the problem until it solves".
    they really should make some actual changes to the CPU and make it more efficient to be able to compete with AMD's 7000 series.
    as an Intel fan I am really disappointed and I think AMD's 7000 series better than the 13900 in every way.
    I personally have a power hungry 12900k and I regret it. Intel please make better CPU's. stop being lazy.
    Reply
  • escksu
    Gam3r01 said:
    Alot of the issue has nothing to do with actual power consumption, because as you say 50-100w really wont cost much in the long run.
    The issue is with compatibility with other hardware. A high draw processor limits motherboard and cooling options, resulting in more money spent to just get baseline performance at stock speeds. There are also other minor concerns like the amount of heat being dumped out of the case.

    I personally would rather use a processor that I can keep in check thermally with modest hardware than having to limit myself to high end coolers just to run the thing stock. My PGE bill isnt a deciding factor in that.

    OK. Perhaps you can tell us which high end CPU (should include GPU as well) has modest power consumption?

    Regarding cooling and board. Who pairs a budget cooler and board with a 5950x or 12900K?? Do you see people buying A520 boards for 5950x? Do you see pple buying H610 boards for 12900K? EVen if there are, its extremely rare and not typical of end-user scenario.

    If you are talking about processors that needs to have specific power/thermal limits, there are such processors from both camps. Eg. 35W 'T' variants, laptops have 'H' series around 45W, then 'U' series 15-25W etc...of course, they aren't flagship processors with lots of cores.
    Reply
  • Gam3r01
    escksu said:
    OK. Perhaps you can tell us which high end CPU (should include GPU as well) has modest power consumption?

    Regarding cooling and board. Who pairs a budget cooler and board with a 5950x or 12900K?? Do you see people buying A520 boards for 5950x? Do you see pple buying H610 boards for 12900K? EVen if there are, its extremely rare and not typical of end-user scenario.

    If you are talking about processors that needs to have specific power/thermal limits, there are such processors from both camps. Eg. 35W 'T' variants, laptops have 'H' series around 45W, then 'U' series 15-25W etc...of course, they aren't flagship processors with lots of cores.
    If you compare previous generations, its the trend of increased power thats apparent.
    A 9th gen i9 (top of its time) only had a 95w TDP. Why is it excusable that a 12th gen tops out at 241w on official specs, with instantaneous loads even higher? Arent things supposed to improve efficiency over time?
    Its also not about "low end" coolers, but rather what can acceptably be used.
    You could build a low profile mATX/ITX system with an i9 packed inside just a few years ago with a large number of modest coolers, yet now the same processor line demands only the biggest and baddest coolers on the market.
    Reply
  • escksu
    Gam3r01 said:
    If you compare previous generations, its the trend of increased power thats apparent.
    A 9th gen i9 (top of its time) only had a 95w TDP. Why is it excusable that a 12th gen tops out at 241w on official specs, with instantaneous loads even higher? Arent things supposed to improve efficiency over time?
    Its also not about "low end" coolers, but rather what can acceptably be used.
    You could build a low profile mATX/ITX system with an i9 packed inside just a few years ago with a large number of modest coolers, yet now the same processor line demands only the biggest and baddest coolers on the market.

    I have to say you are wrong about 9900K's power consumption. No doubt Intel rated its TDP at 95W. But thats not the peak power consumption of the CPU. 95W is just the PL1. There is still a PL2 and is around 210W. Why 9900K appears cooler? Thats only because Intel has limit the period a CPU can run under PL2. So, after some time, it will fall back to PL1. For Alderlake, the CPU can now run in PL2 indefinitely as long as board and cooler allows it.

    If you are talking about efficiency..... 12900K has 8P cores and 16E cores while 9900K has 8 cores. Pl1 is 125W, 30W more than 9900K.

    WE are no longer in the days where TDP is the max power conumpstion a CPU can have. Now with mult-core CPUs, voltage and clockspeeds are constantly adjusted to stay within a pre-defined limit.
    Reply