Intel Raptor Lake 13th Generation Core CPUs

[maanga]

Someone tested air cooling for 12900K and tested.
Watch if it interests you.
To me the weight of the heatsink is higher than a mac mini m1.
Regards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev2hR7ctARo

[Jim Roseberry]

My question to Jim (and everyone) is for those of us that have a 12900K/Z690 combination, already configured with multiple M.2 drives and SSD's for the VEP/EW/Kontakt/Other libraries and plugs - if dropping in a 13900K is not recommended, then would building a separate 13900K/Z790 machine solely for the purpose of running the DAW and managing the AD/DA converter interfaces, and leaving the existing 12900K/Z690 active as a VEP slave? Or have we gotten to the point with these new AMD/INTEL chips that having a VEP slave for most intents and purposes is just not warranted any longer? I would be very interested in your comments and also when a 13900K/Z790 rig would be available?

Hi Gene,

Both the 7950x and 13900k are somewhat of a "go big or go home" proposition.
7950x and 13900k both require large AIO to stay cool/quiet and reach maximum performance.
Large AIO means large case to accommodate.

Most of our professional composers are trying to get down to a single super-fast machine.
VE Pro Slaves work just fine... but it's more logistics to wade thru.

With a well-configured 13900k based machine, you'd most likely not need the 12900k as VE Pro Slave (unless your scoring template is ** MASSIVE**).

13900k is an incredible performer.
You can do things like run IK Multimedia's new ToneX plugin (similar to Kemper profiles) at 96k using a 16-sample ASIO buffer size.
With an Orion Studio Synergy Core audio interface (Thunderbolt), that's 0.5ms total round-trip latency.

We're recently built 13900k based machines for Sausalito Sound (group of composers), Sean Beeson, and others. The 13900k is available now.

The 13900k is just slightly faster than the 7950x.
In real world DAW use, there's little difference between the two.
Both offer exceptional low-latency performance (ToneX at 96k using a 16-sample ASIO buffer).
Both platforms offer rock-solid Thunderbolt connectivity.
Intel is slightly less expensive. AMD has USB4.

[poshook]

AMD is better for DAW as all cores inside CPU are identical so multithread works completely linearly. 50% of Intel Cores inside CPU is significantly slower with no hypertrading and you have no control over DAW's track to thread management.

[BONES]

Intel has "thread director" to funnel tasks to the most appropriate core/thread, so it should use your high power cores for the most demanding tasks. I have no idea how it works or how well it works but I don't see that there is an advantage for AMD here, when AMD has fewer cores to start with (but usually the same number of threads, as Intel's "efficiency" cores don't hyperthread).

[ounis]

My old 2013 build has gone bad and I've been looking for a new build and either going for i7-13700k or R9 7900x. It seems Intel is the way to go for music production however the Z790 is significantly worse when it comes to expansion compared to X670E (m.2 pcie5 slot reduces x16 pcie5 lanes to 8 if used and so forth). I have made similarly priced builds for both and the AMD is about 30€ more costly. However Intel allows for better RAM performance (6400 G.skill vs 5600 Kingston) at these builds. Does the RAM and overall better i7 performance tip the scale too much, or does the upgradeability of AM5 + better i/o of X670E mean I should go AMD? Hard choices tbh.

I will be using this build for gaming as well so I will be upgrading the GPU later.

[FranklyFlawless]

My old 2013 build has gone bad and I've been looking for a new build and either going for i7-13700k or R9 7900x. It seems Intel is the way to go for music production however the Z790 is significantly worse when it comes to expansion compared to X670E (m.2 pcie5 slot reduces x16 pcie5 lanes to 8 if used and so forth). I have made similarly priced builds for both and the AMD is about 30€ more costly. However Intel allows for better RAM performance (6400 G.skill vs 5600 Kingston) at these builds. Does the RAM and overall better i7 performance tip the scale too much, or does the upgradeability of AM5 + better i/o of X670E mean I should go AMD? Hard choices tbh.

I will be using this build for gaming as well so I will be upgrading the GPU later.

RAM speed is not very important for music production, but between the two for gaming, I would go Intel.

[Pictus]

My old 2013 build has gone bad and I've been looking for a new build and either going for i7-13700k or R9 7900x.(...)

Based on this http://www.scanproaudio.info/2023/03/03/4841/
The Intel will have better performance for audio, but the
AMD have better future upgrade ability and has AVX-512 that
Intel does not, probably an advantage if you use a plug-in like
Melda, 2CAudio and Acustica Audio's Acqua.
Without any tweak the AMD 7900 produces a lot less heat.
https://youtu.be/VtVowYykviM

The Intel is also faster for games, but I prefer the AMD
possibility to keep the system and upgrade the CPU only.

Some tweaks you may like at
viewtopic.php?p=8667750#p8667750

If you go Intel, make sure to use this
https://youtu.be/iYU1OskbY-Q

A thermal "paste" with longer lifespan for HOT cpus.
Normal(non PCM) thermal paste will not last much in high temperatures.
https://youtu.be/2BhKx0iQ4K8

I would try to undervolt/underclock the Intel.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... olt+13700k

[Jim Roseberry]

AMD is better for DAW as all cores inside CPU are identical so multithread works completely linearly. 50% of Intel Cores inside CPU is significantly slower with no hypertrading and you have no control over DAW's track to thread management.

The 13900k outperforms the 7950x (both multi-core audio and video).
I've tested both extensively.
You can easily gauge performance by looking at Cinebench R23 results.
13900k multi-threaded score is over 40k.
That beats the 7950x... and it smokes the M2.

If you go with the 13900k, you can't skimp on cooling.
Run the 13900k with top-tier 420mm AIO... and heat/noise aren't a problem.
It's large and expensive.

If you get a 13900k and under-volt, don't expect miracles.
It doesn't make sense to buy a high-end workstation CPU and "neuter" it... trying to avoid proper/necessary cooling.
Under-volt too much, and it's an unstable mess... or you wind up with significant under-clock.
If you can't cope with the larger form-factor (or expense), you'd be better off saving money and just getting something like the 12700k... which runs significantly cooler.

The 7950x is also a great performer.
For most scenarios, you won't notice an appreciable difference (vs the 13900k).
Both can run IK's ToneX at 96k using a 16-sample ASIO buffer size.
With the right audio interface, that's ~0.5ms total round-trip latency.
The only reason we don't build more 7950x machines; they're slightly more expensive... for slightly lower performance.
The 7950x also needs top-tier 420mm AIO... so that's a wash.

Both the 13900k and 7950x are more complex to configure (than previous generations).
If the 13900k didn't exist, my main DAW would be running the 7950x.

[Pictus]

The 13900k outperforms the 7950x (both multi-core audio and video).
I've tested both extensively.
You can easily gauge performance by looking at Cinebench R23 results.
13900k multi-threaded score is over 40k.
That beats the 7950x... and it smokes the M2.

The free MFreeFXBundle https://www.meldaproduction.com/MFreeFXBundle
Uses AVX-512 and the AMD should be faster than Intel in this case.

[Jim Roseberry]

The 13900k outperforms the 7950x (both multi-core audio and video).
I've tested both extensively.
You can easily gauge performance by looking at Cinebench R23 results.
13900k multi-threaded score is over 40k.
That beats the 7950x... and it smokes the M2.

The free MFreeFXBundle https://www.meldaproduction.com/MFreeFXBundle
Uses AVX-512 and the AMD should be faster than Intel in this case.

In that specific example.
In most cases, the 13900k is faster.
This can be seen in Cinebench R23 (both single-core and multi-core).
Were the 7950x faster than the 13900k (for most purposes), it would be my main studio DAW.
I've performance tested both... extensively.

[2DaT]

Uses AVX-512 and the AMD should be faster than Intel in this case.

Situation with AVX-512 is not sunshine and rainbows.

When it was introduced, processors that could do it had double the performance compared to the usual AVX2, and you could get double the performance by running an AVX-512 code.

Situation since then has changed. Consumer CPUs (AMD included) don't have double width AVX-512 units and they barely get any performance from AVX2 to AVX-512.

And intel just killed any reasonable adoption by dropping the AVX-512 from their e-cores and now ANY adoption of AVX-512 doesn't make any sense. It's not worth spending developers time to support AVX-512 which is NOT widely supported and barely gives the performance uplift on actual consumer cpus. It's dead.

[Jac459]

You can easily gauge performance by looking at Cinebench R23 results.
13900k multi-threaded score is over 40k.
That beats the 7950x... and it smokes the M2.

That's incorrect , you should say "and it smokes the M1 Ultra", as Ultra is more the equivalent of I7, I9 on PC world and M2 Ultra is not yet out (but I doubt they will outclass the 13900k anyway).
That is sad because the power efficiency of intel is so bad, it is 253w TDP peak and 150w TDP versus 60w TDP for the M1 Ultra...
If Apple was stoping its "I know better than you what you want" and started to offer a wider range, in particular in the top end, I am sure they coud propose an Ultra, really Ultra, with 8M2 core that would just blast everything arround with a TDP slightly above 100w....

[legendCNCD]

Anyone using Ableton Live 10 (Win11) with 13th gen, working great? I know, its older Live, but 11 did not offer enough for us to upgrade.

[Jim Roseberry]

You can easily gauge performance by looking at Cinebench R23 results.
13900k multi-threaded score is over 40k.
That beats the 7950x... and it smokes the M2.

That's incorrect , you should say "and it smokes the M1 Ultra", as Ultra is more the equivalent of I7, I9 on PC world and M2 Ultra is not yet out (but I doubt they will outclass the 13900k anyway).
That is sad because the power efficiency of intel is so bad, it is 253w TDP peak and 150w TDP versus 60w TDP for the M1 Ultra...
If Apple was stoping its "I know better than you what you want" and started to offer a wider range, in particular in the top end, I am sure they coud propose an Ultra, really Ultra, with 8M2 core that would just blast everything arround with a TDP slightly above 100w....

Search for M2 Cinebench R23 scores.
M2 Max will not compete head-to-head with the 13900k/s.

Apple designed the M1 and M2 for use in tight enclosures.
Comes down to if you prefer small/sleek power-efficient... or the fastest CPU available.

With proper cooling, the 13900k (and 7950x) runs fast and quiet.
What it's not is small and inexpensive.

[Jim Roseberry]

Live 10 and 11 both work great on 13th Gen CPUs.
Live isn't the most CPU efficient DAW... but that's another conversation.