Monday, November 28th 2022
Intel Core i9-13900KS 6 GHz Processor MSRP 22% Higher Than i9-13900K: Retailer
Intel's upcoming Core i9-13900KS flagship processor is expected to be an estimated 22% pricier than the i9-13900K, suggests a Canadian retailer with early placeholder listings for chips that won't be in stock for months from now. The i9-13900KS is expected to be the world's first 6 GHz retail desktop processor, with its maximum boost frequency either at or beyond 6.00 GHz, compared to the 5.80 GHz of the i9-13900K. The chip will be built from the topmost tier bins of the "Raptor Lake-S" silicon. As this point we don't know if it comes with a higher Maximum Turbo Power (MTP) value than the 253 W of the i9-13900K.
Intel is designing the Core i9-13900KS to ward off the threat from AMD's Ryzen 7 7800X3D "Zen 4" processor that incorporates 3D Vertical Cache technology for a significant gaming performance uplift. 3DV cache raised gaming performance of "Zen 3" up to the levels of 12th Gen Core "Alder Lake" processors, and the expectation now is that it will similarly raise gaming performance of "Zen 4" to be competitive with that of "Raptor Lake."
Source:
VideoCardz
Intel is designing the Core i9-13900KS to ward off the threat from AMD's Ryzen 7 7800X3D "Zen 4" processor that incorporates 3D Vertical Cache technology for a significant gaming performance uplift. 3DV cache raised gaming performance of "Zen 3" up to the levels of 12th Gen Core "Alder Lake" processors, and the expectation now is that it will similarly raise gaming performance of "Zen 4" to be competitive with that of "Raptor Lake."
73 Comments on Intel Core i9-13900KS 6 GHz Processor MSRP 22% Higher Than i9-13900K: Retailer
You have to remember that desktops are a shrinking market and the future is mobile/laptop. You CANNOT put a 500W CPU in a laptop or phone, laws of physics say that progress in this direction is an eventual dead-end. Enthusiasts with massive cooling solutions will always present a distorted picture of the high-end but realistically, 90% of deesktops are using basic cooling with a single 92 or 120mm fan, adequate for ~125W at best, and this is beyond the upper echelons of what most OEMs can designate cooling systems for in a laptop where the CPU and GPU will be fighting over the same fin stack and heatpipes.
AMD are running the X3D variants with a max voltage limit, which is a fixed value based on TSMC's process node. The 7800X3D will likely run faster than the 5800X3D because of the jump from 7nm to 5nm, but the limiting factor will once again be that the 3D-vCache is limiting the peak voltage that can be supplied to any of the cores.
Given what I've been saying in this thread about diminishing returns for added voltage/power - that's no bad thing, the result will likely be far more efficient at stock than anything else in the Zen4 lineup.Indeed. I don't think a single one of my personal machines have been using the stock power limits in the last 15 years. I even found tools to extract efficiency from locked down laptops.
Even without voltage tuning, just about every CPU/GPU/APU will have perf/Watt gains by simply reducing the power budget. If you can spend that power budget more wisely by picking better voltage curves, that's just icing on the cake.
Diminishing returns ? For sure, on a KS CPU, but this is not targeted to people looking for a good deal.your post makes very little sense to me.
AMD price for 7950X is not $549. Official price still is $699 if I'm not wrong, even after AMD admitted their launch fiasco and lowered it quite a bit. So your point could be applied also to a 13900K on a deal (I found one 90€ below official price in a local store).
13900K also has all the cores unlocked, and they are much more than 16 (they are 24 actually).
You are just trying to justify your purchase here... don't need to. Everyone can buy whatever fits his needs.
AM5 platform prices are falling because they are not selling: very hard to define this a "victory" over Intel. And the launch of non-K SKUs in January will make situation even worse for AMD.
In any case, it will not be possible for Intel to achieve higher clockspeed without raising power limit, even top tier bins. A couple of hundred Mhz don't seem much until you realise that the chip is probably running at the limit of what Intel's 10nm can deliver.
You’re right everyone can buy what fits their needs.
AM5 is selling and prices are also simultaneously falling.
#4 selling processor on Newegg is 7950X. #1 on Amazon is 7900X. The sales and new pricing speak for themselves. AMD priced high on early adopters and release.
It would be different if it were a 7950X binned, at which point mainstream AIOs could still control the heat. 15-20 C higher temps on average than 7950X, 20 Watts power draw on average higher than 7950X. At the end of the day, it equates to 1% better frames. on average across 4k gaming at higher pricing that the 7590X. What kind of award is that?
The whole value proposition spreading around the internet is the ability to pair the 13900K (or other 13gen SKUs) with Z690. That's totally dismissed now with the 7950X (and other SKUs) receiving massive price drops across the board. 7950X for $549? Asrock X670E Taichi $469? B650 pricing? This is also considering that the LGA1700 platform is dead. As a hardware enthusiast you would get at least 2 more upgrade cycles, plus mini updates in between out of the AM5 platform (AT LEAST, AMD states support for AM5 until at least 2025, but their track record says longer).
Save the money, and invest in DDR5 or a new GPU, which will equate to a meaningful upgrade in average frames. Wait for Meteor Lake or jump to AM5 if you're ready for a future investment upgrade. That's my opinion. :toast:
I still agree that the 13900KS, along with all KS chips in history, is a waste of money.
It's a halo product (plus Intel's chance to go down in history as the company that broke 6GHz in the consumer space). Treat it as such.
I would agree with you if there were additions to the SKU beyond binned. More cores, more cache, more something beyond a bunch of chips that Intel withheld that were able to hit higher turbo boosts.
The x900KS is not worth the price, but overclockers are willing to pay this price. They have the guarantee of the best silicon.
And there's no reason to get offended either, it's not like bad things have happened to the rest of the stack, just because of this new SKU.
that is US.
In Europe is the same
even heavily discounted, AM5 platform is a fiasco so far
The first gen was a really cool proved they could produce them in volume and that there is a large enough market to make the investment worthwhile. The new version is reported to have a denser TSV implementation that should allow for power and throughput. It's a really interesting time to watch the dominant x86 processor manufacturers take different approaches to the consumer market.
And 13th Gen is meh? Not really, that's a pretty big gain. Nobody even noticed that with the 11th gen, which was a bit of a flop, but only because again people that love AMD ironically lack logic and go omg less cores, even Intel fanatics did...but the IPC lift was actually surprising. And whilst 14nm got old in the tooth, poor old Intel had to catch up, almost died even though AMD's marketing is the most powerful thing they do.. Heck, even i used to mock with the plus plus plus...plus, they were still trading blows so.. All AMD stuff is MEH to me, maybe the new Radeon will be the first product that impresses me, though even AMDs GPUs are now pulling 380 watts! (7900 XTX)
Used to be the case AMDs stuff always used more power and ran hotter for less performance, kinda funny really.
Imagine if AMD ever had to make their own chips...then they'd be screwed. I have to laugh when someone calls me a fangirl of Intel though.. Or nVidia.. Not really. I use whatever does and performs the best - which usually ends up being Intel and nVidia! Except when i used an EPYC CPU for a GPU server...literally because at the time it had many PCIe 4.0 lanes, not because it was faster than Intel, was mostly for GPU rendering so i wanted full speed access to all the GPUs with enough cores for each Windows VM running on top of Linux etc..plus quite a lot of RAM bandwidth to share around. Frankly wish i'd waited for an Intel equivalent so the CPU cores were more useful in terms of speed but it worked. And, now, AMD love charging more than Intel do - that chip was DAMN expensive. Since when was the underdog allowed to creep prices up beyond the usual leader?!
Once that foundry was no longer competitive at the bleeding edge, it became a burden. Just as Intel are now using TSMC for some products, AMD unshackled themselves from their foundry and are all but done with the mandatory contracts with Globalfoundries now.We can hope, but I have enough understanding of silicon design to know that the jump to a new process node and denser TSV is unlikely to help much, if at all.
I'm guessing it will still be locked, and that clock speeds will still be slightly lower than their non vCache variants.
If I'm right, I'm right.
If I'm wrong, I'm happy.
To me, that's better than unfounded optimism which most often results in disappointment.
Again, it was the right decision at the time, but if they had the cash now to afford it, I'm pretty sure they'd prefer to have the ability to build at least a part of their chips on their own. But like you pointed out, Intel one of the few players that can afford that, most of the industry does what AMD did.