Thursday, January 12th 2023
Intel Launches Core i9-13900KS 8P+16E Flagship Processor at $700
Intel today formally launched the Core i9-13900KS "Raptor Lake" flagship desktop processor. At an MSRP of USD $700, the i9-13900KS is positioned a notch above the $590 i9-13900K, which it replaces as the top 13th Gen Core desktop part you can buy. The i9-13900KS features the same 8P+16E core-configuration as the i9-13900K, but at increased clock speeds and power limits. It is the world's first 6 GHz processor, with its maximum boost frequency set at exactly 6.00 GHz, up from 5.80 GHz of the i9-13900K. This is not just a minor +200 MHz speed bump, but backed by increased power-limits, which enable improved multi-threaded boost-frequency spread thanks to the Adaptive Boost Technology carried over from the previous-generation i9-12900KS.
The 8 "Raptor Cove" P-cores of the i9-13900KS are clocked at 3.00 GHz base with up to 6.00 GHz boost, compared to 3.00/5.80 GHz of the i9-13900K, while the E-core frequencies are left untouched at 2.20 GHz base and up to 4.30 GHz boost. The big change here is the processor base power value, which is now set at 150 W, compared to 125 W of the i9-13900K, and while the maximum turbo power value is the same 253 W, Intel has changed the way its power headroom is utilized to support improved boost frequency spread across the P-cores. It seems like Intel hasn't sampled tech publications this processor, and the handful publications that have posted their reviews today using processors sourced from friendly retailers, report increased power-draw, and the need for large aftermarket cooling solutions even at stock frequencies. The i9-13900KS is being offered as an overclocking-friendly chip to those who know what they're doing and can handle extreme cooling solutions.
The 8 "Raptor Cove" P-cores of the i9-13900KS are clocked at 3.00 GHz base with up to 6.00 GHz boost, compared to 3.00/5.80 GHz of the i9-13900K, while the E-core frequencies are left untouched at 2.20 GHz base and up to 4.30 GHz boost. The big change here is the processor base power value, which is now set at 150 W, compared to 125 W of the i9-13900K, and while the maximum turbo power value is the same 253 W, Intel has changed the way its power headroom is utilized to support improved boost frequency spread across the P-cores. It seems like Intel hasn't sampled tech publications this processor, and the handful publications that have posted their reviews today using processors sourced from friendly retailers, report increased power-draw, and the need for large aftermarket cooling solutions even at stock frequencies. The i9-13900KS is being offered as an overclocking-friendly chip to those who know what they're doing and can handle extreme cooling solutions.
89 Comments on Intel Launches Core i9-13900KS 8P+16E Flagship Processor at $700
check out the latest HUB video for motherboards, where the MSI motherboard using the same ram with different timings gets 164 fps, but the same ram with better timings for Gigabyte scores 184 fps
Second of all, amd cpus also throttle. Thats how they stay at 95c.
So whats the difference in that regard between an intel and an amd cpu? They both made to run at high temps and they both throttle to keep those temps.
The video you're talking about doesn't even compare what you're claiming. Most of the performance difference is from the ULCK as with the exception of the Gigabyte mobo they all have more or less the same timings.
From the holy RAM OCing bible:If you still don't believe it then you can go ask someone with a reputation like Buildzoid or Noreng and they'll say the same thing.
I went through two 3770K that could barely overclock 100 mhz above stock before I acquired one that ran 4.9 GHz with exact same hardware.
I bought a 9900K that was unable to run my 3200c14 ram at XMP and not even able to maintain stock clocks on the same system that ran a i5 8600K at 5.2Ghz with same ram 3200C14 easily (ram even went into mid 4000s).
It is possible your 12900K is a piece of crap.
DDR4 C14 ram was still bringing most games to a higher FPS than DDR5 ram that cost twice as much. Go read the Techpowerup article about it.
P-cores consume about 20% more power than E-cores while performing about 50% more operations. So yes, the e-cores consume less power per core, but that doesn't make them more efficient. And intel knows this, they simply choose to advertise the less power hungry cores as "efficient" cores for marketing.
what you're maybe forgetting is that the e-cores are only lower wattage because they are so much lower frequency.
I can run my 8 p-cores at 4ghz, and it's like 6-15 watts at idle.
here is a source testing the difference between cores.
www.google.com/amp/s/www.hardwaretimes.com/intels-big-golden-cove-cores-50-faster-than-little-gracemont-cores-156w-vs-123w-power-draw/amp/
We were talking about B650 versus B660 chipsets, and you wrote a long meaningless rant about E cores in response. Huh.
Important to find people that actually know something about computers.