Raptor Lake HX Mobile Thread

[1610ftw]

OK, time to start a thread about the upcoming fastest mobile gaming CPUs - in case we do not get anything socketed that is.

 

Compared to GPU manufacturers at last Intel is still trying if @OneRaichu is correct:

 

i9-13900HX: 8P+16E up to 5.4GHz

 

i7-13700HX: 8P+8E up to 5.0GHz

i7-13650HX: 6P+8E up to 4.9GHz

 

i5-13500HX: 6P+8E up to 4.7GHz

i5-13450HX: 6P+4E up to 4.6GHz

 

 

 

First geekbench from the 13900HX in a Razer Blade 18:

 

 

https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/18540793

 

 

 

 

 

[Etern4l]

3 hours ago, 1610ftw said:

OK, time to start a thread about the upcoming fastest mobile gaming CPUs - in case we do not get anything socketed that is.

 

Compared to GPU manufacturers at last Intel is still trying if @OneRaichu is correct:

 

i9-13900HX: 8P+16E up to 5.4GHz

 

i7-13700HX: 8P+8E up to 5.0GHz

i7-13650HX: 6P+8E up to 4.9GHz

 

i5-13500HX: 6P+8E up to 4.7GHz

i5-13450HX: 6P+4E up to 4.6GHz

 

 

 

First geekbench from the 13900HX in a Razer Blade 18:

 

 

https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/18540793

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just eyeballing the GeekBench score, that's slower than 12900KS so some 33-40% slower than 13900K. Still impressive in terms of efficiency. 

 

Pretty sure there won't be any socketed versions. The idea of a DTR is dead. Can you imagine a 300W CPU in a laptop? 

[1610ftw]

6 hours ago, Etern4l said:

 

Just eyeballing the GeekBench score, that's slower than 12900KS so some 33-40% slower than 13900K. Still impressive in terms of efficiency. 

 

 

That is unlikely to be indicative of the true capability. Some 12900HX scores are going up to 18K so we can expect at least a third more than that which would mean this one can go up to about 24000 at least. Efficiency is of course what will make this so interesting for the laptop world - 80W  might be enough to achieve what was the max performance of the last generation of processors.

 

6 hours ago, Etern4l said:

Pretty sure there won't be any socketed versions. The idea of a DTR is dead. Can you imagine a 300W CPU in a laptop? 

 

Of course I can - it is not like we did not have power hungry 10900K and 11900K in our laptops before 😄

So why not have that in an 18" DTR with a unified vapor chamber? That should allow at least a sustained 200W if not more and it will go a long way with the 13900K and give us at least 35K in CB R23. For me, the nice thing about desktop chips is that we can do our own binning or select better binned chips, not practical with  BGA laptops.

 

 

[Papusan]

10 hours ago, Etern4l said:

 

Just eyeballing the GeekBench score, that's slower than 12900KS so some 33-40% slower than 13900K. Still impressive in terms of efficiency. 

 

Pretty sure there won't be any socketed versions. The idea of a DTR is dead. Can you imagine a 300W CPU in a laptop? 

12900K clocked 5.5GHz on the P-cores ... Half of the E-cores but 4.3GHz on those 8 small cores, crush the 13900HX  results above... 12900K 8P-8E max (5.5/4.3) does above 22700. 13900K should do around 24500 in Geekbench 5.

 

The 5.4GHz on the P-cores is for two cores for the mobile HX chips. Then you have castrated TDP. See it this way. You can't make magic if you lack the tools in your toolbox

3 hours ago, 1610ftw said:

That is unlikely to be indicative of the true capability. Some 12900HX scores are going up to 18K so we can expect at least a third more than that which would mean this one can go up to about 24000 at least.

And where will they cap the power limits for mobile 13900HX ? Same as for the desktop chips or equal 12th gen HX mobile? And Geekbench benefits heavly from faster DDR5 ram sticks. Where will the laptop OEM put the cap for ram speed in their limited sBios? And cheapo made small motherboards isn't the best choice for ram tuning. +24K in Geekbench 5 is 20% overclock vs the Geekbench 5 results shown from the Razer-Turd above.

 

Stock 13900K@5.5/4.5 (253W) all core load. The mobile HX need to surpass those limits to be able to reach the performance target  you describe.

 

[1610ftw]

5 hours ago, Papusan said:

And where will they cap the power limits for mobile 13900HX ? Same as for the desktop chips or equal 12th gen HX mobile? And Geekbench benefits heavly from faster DDR5 ram sticks. Where will the laptop OEM put the cap for ram speed in their limited sBios? And cheapo made small motherboards isn't the best choice for ram tuning. +24K in Geekbench 5 is 20% overclock vs the Geekbench 5 results shown from the Razer-Turd above.

 

Stock 13900K@5.5/4.5 (253W) all core load. The mobile HX need to surpass those limits to be able to reach the performance target  you describe.

 

 

Thanks, that is very interesting. Do you have those all core load numbers for the 12900K?

It does indeed seem too high compared to that but maybe those people with the 12900HX who post these big numbers that I extrapolated from have ripped off the bottom of their laptops and attached a water cooler or something similarly extreme and I would count on them to do it again with the 13900HX 😄

 

What helps a lot with these scores is that only short bursts are needed. I got up to 26.5 CB R23 and change with the GT77 with the 12800HX but that was only for a single run and with a system that was about 22°C when starting the benchmark as the limiting factor was always - surprise, surprise - thermal throttling. After a 10 minute run that number had gone down to a bit more than 21K and starting a single run and when working at normal temps and more stable timings the results were only about 23,5K to 24.5K due to higher starting temperature and normal instead of crazy loud fan settings and BD Prochot was also backed down to 95°C.

 

But if I post this at HWbot people would only see this one time score in the overview and not know what is behind it of course when only looking at the score in a list, same as in geekbench that is not as transparent as this:

 

 

 

 

And that was stock without additional cooling and never opened as I only had it for testing. I would be surprised if it could not hit beyond 27 and with good binning up to 28K with added cooling, some liquid metal and starting the benchmark at something like 10 or 15 degree room temperature in some garden shed next to a leaf blower or something similarly wacky 😄

[Etern4l]

11 hours ago, 1610ftw said:

Of course I can - it is not like we did not have power hungry 10900K and 11900K in our laptops before 😄

So why not have that in an 18" DTR with a unified vapor chamber? That should allow at least a sustained 200W if not more and it will go a long way with the 13900K and give us at least 35K in CB R23. For me, the nice thing about desktop chips is that we can do our own binning or select better binned chips, not practical with  BGA laptops.

 

Well, I can imagine it but it's still nonsense - hot and noisy mess, to be more precise. It's OK though, the is just a different use case for laptops - they can only replace very basic desktops, not enthusiast ones or workstations.

 

3 hours ago, 1610ftw said:

 

 

 

 

 

And that was stock without additional cooling and never opened 

 

Sure, core temp 15-100C, definitely stock cooling. Anyway, the above is irrelevant. Just need to look at the median stock score to remove the OC variance, which will be representative of the average CPU performance:

 

12900HX: 23150  

12900KS: 29056 +25%   (notebookcheck doesn't have a page for the 12900KS to save 12900HX the embarassment)

 

The deal with laptops is that you get a portable machine at a significant premium and sacrifice around 25% (conservatively) in CPU performance, and I'd say easily 200-300% in max GPU performance (with multiple GPUs). In most cases, the user is also limited to 64GB of RAM in today's crippled thin laptops. Now, for many the trade-off will work, and that's OK.

[Papusan]

6 hours ago, 1610ftw said:

Thanks, that is very interesting. Do you have those all core load numbers for the 12900K?

It does indeed seem too high compared to that but maybe those people with the 12900HX who post these big numbers that I extrapolated from have ripped off the bottom of their laptops and attached a water cooler or something similarly extreme and I would count on them to do it again with the 13900HX 😄

If you mean package power then nope. But desktops have over the double the thermal headroom vs the most powerful laptops. And the thermal gap will be wider as the laptops will become even thinner/lighter. 18 inch sized laptops won't change this. Because they are equally messed up as its smaller siblings. 

 

Again... The results from the 18 inch Razer book isn't much to be happy about when you know how much more cooling it could offer with proper sized design. Modern 18 inch laptops ain't much wider than old gen 17,3 laptops due the narrow bezels. Shrink the thicness to make an 18 inch laptops more appealing/portable is just dumb. 

6 hours ago, 1610ftw said:

What helps a lot with these scores is that only short bursts are needed.

Yep, Intel and the notebook OEMs is very keen talk up burst clock performance for laptops. Even low power processors have high boost clocks that will fail under higher prolonged load.

 

Today's modern hardware will use a lot more juice to reach the last 5-10% performance uplift. Last gen processors as etc Raptor lake will benefits greatly from better cooling. Mostly the only limitation to reach higher boost clocks (overclock). Even more than with Alder lake. So in short, what will lack with for laptop processors.... Weak cooling due design (in all ways), ram speed limitation and cramped TDP. You just can't make it awesome with these restrictions.

 

Laptops is meant for portable nowadays. Gone is the laptops we knew as DTR (equal performance for laptops and desktops). If you need performance... Forget laptops and go for desktops (gaming & work). A laptop can often be replaced with an phone or tablet. Or just buy the cheapest laptop you can find. But a phone can't replace a real desktop.

As you can see... The performance difference between laptops and desktops will only be widen. The reason isn't the hardware in itself but the cramped laptop design + capped power budget. 

https://hwbot.org/submission/5114826_papusan_cinebench___r23_multi_core_with_benchmate_core_i9_13900k_44878_cb

[1610ftw]

5 hours ago, Etern4l said:

 

Well, I can imagine it but it's still nonsense - hot and noisy mess, to be more precise. It's OK though, the is just a different use case for laptops - they can only replace very basic desktops, not enthusiast ones or workstations.

 

The idea would not be to run a laptop at 100 degrees and max but to have some headroom to run it at 80 or below and still have good performance.

Basic desktops is too harsh but certainly it is very easy to surpass the best laptop with a moderately ambitious desktop.

 

 

5 hours ago, Etern4l said:

Sure, core temp 15-100C, definitely stock cooling.

 

Room temp was 22 to 24 degrees according to my thermometer but it looks like P-cores always reported lower minimum temperature than E-cores that seem to have been pretty close to room temp:

 

 

I will leave it at that as every desktop 12900K setup is better than that anyway and the gap will most cetainly get wider with the 13900K compared to the 13900HX.

 

5 hours ago, Etern4l said:

Just need to look at the median stock score to remove the OC variance, which will be representative of the average CPU performance:

 

12900HX: 23150  

12900KS: 29056 +25%   (notebookcheck doesn't have a page for the 12900KS to save 12900HX the embarassment)

 

The deal with laptops is that you get a portable machine at a significant premium and sacrifice around 25% (conservatively) in CPU performance, and I'd say easily 200-300% in max GPU performance (with multiple GPUs). In most cases, the user is also limited to 64GB of RAM in today's crippled thin laptops. Now, for many the trade-off will work, and that's OK.

 

25% to 50% less performance seems about right when comparing single CPU and GPU to the same model in a desktop, especially with the upcoming generation.

Indeed very few laptops these days that allow for 128GB RAM which drives prices up even more.

[Etern4l]

1 hour ago, 1610ftw said:

25% to 50% less performance seems about right when comparing single CPU and GPU to the same model in a desktop, especially with the upcoming generation.

Indeed very few laptops these days that allow for 128GB RAM which drives prices up even more.

 

Obviously adding more RAM would increase the cost of a system. If the system was upgradeable, the incremental cost would not be that high (vs for example what Dell charges for RAM upgrades), almost inconsequential compared to what say Dell charges for top-end laptops. Or are you saying that provision of extra RAM slots would drive prices up even more - that's not immediate IMHO. That might make the laptop an iota larger though, which of course these days is considered to be a terrible thing. Every 0.1mm counts.

[1610ftw]

3 hours ago, Papusan said:

If you mean package power then nope. But desktops have over the double the thermal headroom vs the most powerful laptops. And the thermal gap will be wider as the laptops will become even thinner/lighter. 18 inch sized laptops won't change this. Because they are equally messed up as its smaller siblings. 

 

Again... The results from the 18 inch Razer book isn't much to be happy about when you know how much more cooling it could offer with proper sized design. Modern 18 inch laptops ain't much wider than old gen 17,3 laptops due the narrow bezels. Shrink the thicness to make an 18 inch laptops more appealing/portable is just dumb. 

Yep, Intel and the notebook OEMs is very keen talk up burst clock performance for laptops. Even low power processors have high boost clocks that will fail under higher prolonged load.

 

Today's modern hardware will use a lot more juice to reach the last 5-10% performance uplift. Last gen processors as etc Raptor lake will benefits greatly from better cooling. Mostly the only limitation to reach higher boost clocks (overclock). Even more than with Alder lake. So in short, what will lack with for laptop processors.... Weak cooling due design (in all ways), ram speed limitation and cramped TDP. You just can't make it awesome with these restrictions.

 

I think that laptops just aren't up to it any more as power consumption has gone waaaay up over the last years. Even if you'd take a volume that is on the level of the big old Alienware 18" chassis it would be much better but not enough. We could probably come up with a solution to cool a 300W CPU with such a chassis but it would be very difficult to cool a monster Geforce 4090 GPU with it, let alone a 13900K AND the 4090!

 

That being said having a total power envelope of 600 watt would be possible with a bigger unified vapor chamber and some simple liquid cooling as developed by Tongfang / Uniwill.  Will we ever see it? Probably not except maybe as an aftermarket solution.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Papusan said:

Laptops is meant for portable nowadays. Gone is the laptops we knew as DTR (equal performance for laptops and desktops). If you need performance... Forget laptops and go for desktops (gaming & work). A laptop can often be replaced with an phone or tablet. Or just buy the cheapest laptop you can find. But a phone can't replace a real desktop.

As you can see... The performance difference between laptops and desktops will only be widen. The reason isn't the hardware in itself but the cramped laptop design + capped power budget. 

https://hwbot.org/submission/5114826_papusan_cinebench___r23_multi_core_with_benchmate_core_i9_13900k_44878_cb

 

Laptop always was meant for portable but people have apparently gotten much weaker so they have to shrink all the time. Personally I find it sickening but very few seem to complain.

I prefer to be able to take my office with me so I will stay with a laptop even though it means performance will be less. I do not game so that is a big bonus as I do not need a top GPU in my laptops.

 

That is a great hwbot score you got there - much better than the ca. 36K at 100°C that we might get from the next generation of BGA books 😄

 

[1610ftw]

1 hour ago, Etern4l said:

 

Obviously adding more RAM would increase the cost of a system. If the system was upgradeable, the incremental cost would not be that high (vs for example what Dell charges for RAM upgrades), almost inconsequential compared to what say Dell charges for top-end laptops. Or are you saying that provision of extra RAM slots would drive prices up even more - that's not immediate IMHO. That might make the laptop an iota larger though, which of course these days is considered to be a terrible thing. Every 0.1mm counts.

 

I do not think that the provision of RAM slots would have to drive prices that high but the practice to only offer 4 RAM slots in the absolute top models drives prices up a lot even without considering the cost of the RAM itself. Not to mention that indeed Dell CAMM prices are highway robbery if you happen to need 128GB.

 

A good example is the MSI GT77: It is the only 128GB capable laptop of this generation that has a 17" screen and regular memory. But it also has a 4k screen which adds cost and it also cannot be bought with anything less than a 3070 Ti which also adds cost. A version with a QHD screen and a 3060 could probably cost about 600 to 900 less but we will never know as MSI does not offer it and if they did they surely would not offer it with the 12900HX CPU.

 

I think we may have more choices again with the next generation as this time the HX Intel chips will be available earlier and I would assume that more manufacturers will jump on the 18" bandwagon. Let's hope that some manufacturers will test the waters and offer laptops that are a bit bigger than they would have to be - I have a bit of hope for that but not much.

[Etern4l]

15 minutes ago, 1610ftw said:

 

I do not think that the provision of RAM slots would have to drive prices that high but the practice to only offer 4 RAM slots in the absolute top models drives prices up a lot even without considering the cost of the RAM itself. Not to mention that indeed Dell CAMM prices are highway robbery if you happen to need 128GB.

 

A good example is the MSI GT77: It is the only 128GB capable laptop of this generation that has a 17" screen and regular memory. But it also has a 4k screen which adds cost and it also cannot be bought with anything less than a 3070 Ti which also adds cost. A version with a QHD screen and a 3060 could probably cost about 600 to 900 less but we will never know as MSI does not offer it and if they did they surely would not offer it with the 12900HX CPU.

 

I think we may have more choices again with the next generation as this time the HX Intel chips will be available earlier and I would assume that more manufacturers will jump on the 18" bandwagon. Let's hope that some manufacturers will test the waters and offer laptops that are a bit bigger than they would have to be - I have a bit of hope for that but not much.

 

Right, a need for 128GB capability limits one's options to approximately one gaming laptop, Dell Precisions, and perhaps some workstation options from Lenovo, HP, and Asus - priced at the top end, whereas most consumer desktop motherboards support it. 

[1610ftw]

In fact this generation it is 2 x 17.3" chassis from MSI and Dell and 3 x 16" chassis from Dell, HP and Lenovo - nothing from Clevo or Asus. At the same time there are easily more than hundred motherboards that allow for 128GB on the 1700 socket alone.

[1610ftw]

13700HX spotted in the new HP Omen in Romania:

 

 

https://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4090-16-gb-4080-12-gb-4070-8-gb-4060-8-gb-laptop-gpus-confirmed-by-retailer/

 

The jokster 4090 mobile moniker seems confirmed - Nvidia obviously has no shame - and interestingly not even the top HP model seems to get the 13900HX.

 

[jaybee83]

11 hours ago, 1610ftw said:

13700HX spotted in the new HP Omen in Romania:

 

 

https://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4090-16-gb-4080-12-gb-4070-8-gb-4060-8-gb-laptop-gpus-confirmed-by-retailer/

 

The jokster 4090 mobile moniker seems confirmed - Nvidia obviously has no shame - and interestingly not even the top HP model seems to get the 13900HX.

 

 

where is that facepalm reaction smiley when u need one?! dammnit Ngreedia!

 

im hoping that DDR5 SO-DIMMS will get a speed boost from these upcoming mobile CPUs 🙂 currently still stuck at 4800 with one single kit available at a measly 5200. way too far away from desktop dimms!

[1610ftw]

7 hours ago, jaybee83 said:

 

where is that facepalm reaction smiley when u need one?! dammnit Ngreedia!

 

im hoping that DDR5 SO-DIMMS will get a speed boost from these upcoming mobile CPUs 🙂 currently still stuck at 4800 with one single kit available at a measly 5200. way too far away from desktop dimms!

 

No comment on Nvidia, they are losing whatever credibility they may have had in the laptop realm with their ridiculous naming - roughly 3080 performance out of a severely pared down desktop 4080 chip that is then called 4090? Yeah right....

 

Intel keeping it real on the other hand, 13700HX is an apt name for that CPU and indeed more memory speed would be nice, especially with 4 kits installed in DTRs. 

[Papusan]

On 12/12/2022 at 10:51 AM, 1610ftw said:

The jokster 4090 mobile moniker seems confirmed - Nvidia obviously has no shame - and interestingly not even the top HP model seems to get the 13900HX.

 

LOOL. Nvidia downgrade the amount vram from 16GB (3080) down to 12GB for 4080 Mobile graphics cards. New comes always with nice improvements, LOOOL

 

https://videocardz.com/newz/next-gen-hp-omen-17-gaming-laptop-to-feature-geforce-rtx-4090-16gb-laptop-gpu

 

They lure in the 4090 mobile (scam edition) into the Jokebook lineup to increase profits. 

[jaybee83]

On 12/13/2022 at 9:09 PM, Papusan said:

 

LOOL. Nvidia downgrade the amount vram from 16GB (3080) down to 12GB for 4080 Mobile graphics cards. New comes always with nice improvements, LOOOL

 

https://videocardz.com/newz/next-gen-hp-omen-17-gaming-laptop-to-feature-geforce-rtx-4090-16gb-laptop-gpu

 

They lure in the 4090 mobile (scam edition) into the Jokebook lineup to increase profits. 

 

yep, facepalm. @Reciever! we need it 😄 

[Reciever]

As soon as I'm not working 14 hour days lol 

[Etern4l]

[1610ftw]

14 hours ago, Papusan said:

 

LOOL. Nvidia downgrade the amount vram from 16GB (3080) down to 12GB for 4080 Mobile graphics cards. New comes always with nice improvements, LOOOL

 

https://videocardz.com/newz/next-gen-hp-omen-17-gaming-laptop-to-feature-geforce-rtx-4090-16gb-laptop-gpu

 

They lure in the 4090 mobile (scam edition) into the Jokebook lineup to increase profits. 

 

The TGP of that "4090" is too low compared to the "4080" so I would assume that this is not the last word on TGP. They will want to at least go up to something like 225 or 250W including boost. Bigger DTRs and the water cooled TongFang units should not have too many problems with this. They certainly do not have any issues right now with 175W where temps barely go beyond 65°C in the better units.

 

[1610ftw]

MSI GT77 with next gen Nvidia graphics and Intel i9:

 

 

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Upcoming-MSI-Titan-GT77-to-be-the-first-to-offer-4K-144-Hz-mini-LED-display-with-1-008-dimming-zones-and-1-000-nits-peak-brightness.673883.0.html

 

Most probably 13900HX and the mobile Geforce 4090.

 

We'll see if there will also be an 88 Titan. Probably hard to justify a 17.3 16:9 and 18" 16:10 Titan at the same time.

[win32asmguy]

1 hour ago, 1610ftw said:

The TGP of that "4090" is too low compared to the "4080" so I would assume that this is not the last word on TGP. They will want to at least go up to something like 225 or 250W including boost. Bigger DTRs and the water cooled TongFang units should not have too many problems with this. They certainly do not have any issues right now with 175W where temps barely go beyond 65°C in the better units.

 

They probably want to keep the performance jump just enough to entice upgrades and leave room on the table for future products to look better. If 5090 mobile architecture ends up not much more efficient they can just add more TDP to keep the performance jump. I think this is why the so heavily push 4k panels because with QHD / FHD the same GPU can remain relevant for much longer.

[Papusan]

4 hours ago, 1610ftw said:

 

The TGP of that "4090" is too low compared to the "4080" so I would assume that this is not the last word on TGP. They will want to at least go up to something like 225 or 250W including boost. Bigger DTRs and the water cooled TongFang units should not have too many problems with this. They certainly do not have any issues right now with 175W where temps barely go beyond 65°C in the better units.

 

You think they will make 4090 with an higher TGP? I don't think so. Current flagship the 3080Ti share same 175 Watt TGP as the 3080 mobile graphics. Why would they do it different for 40xx series laptop graphics? 

[ssj92]

That MSI GT77 looks nice for a bga class notebook.

 

however, I’m still interested to see those 18” laptops next year. Wonder if Clevo/MSI will also make them. 
 

so far only Razer and Alienware have 18” models coming