Early Core i9-13900K Review Hints that it Holds up to the "20-40" Claim

[Punkenjoy]

I ordered my i7 12700K on May 1st 2022, glad I did since prices went up short after that.

In my opinion, unless you bought it and you didn't utilized it, you got plenty of time with it.

That is always the trade off. Let say i am looking to upgrade for Zen4 X3D/Raptor Lake gen, well while I wait, I don't benefits from a faster platform. Same thing with Ada/RDNA3

For CPU, that would mean Q1 2023, so that is a bit later. if i was running a 2600K, well i could see the benefits of upgrading, but since i have a 5800x, that wouldn't be worthwhile. (let say even a 3600x or a 9700K.)

For GPU, well that depend on what performance level you aim since they are going to release the top end first.

Having your PC right now and playing on it for some time have some kind of value. I had a friend that were always waiting for the next thing before buying. he had a very crappy PC that couldn't barely run anything for years.

At this point does more than 500 FPS in CSGO really matter?? I still do 240 FPS in CSGO (with frame lock) on my 9900K with HT disabled lol

Well, that depend, if people are willing to spend all that money for that, maybe? but in the end, CSGO is far from being the only game around.

 

[tussinman]

People buying both right now shouldn't unless they need, but if they purchased it in 2021 and maybe even the first half of 2022, they got enough for their money.

Even now they'd get enough for their money if where being honest. An AM4 system now will be like half the price of AM5 and still offer within 85% of the performance in most real world situations. 12th gen now wouldn't even be bad since motherboard prices have dropped (600 series will be cheaper barrier of entry then 700 series), you can upgrade to 13th gen whenever you want, and sub $300 13th gen along with B boards won't even be out till Q1 2023

The whole "wait it out", "look at these synthetic benchmarks" and "the latest and greatest" is more geared towards enthusiast but it's moot because there in the economic bracket where price doesn't matter.

 

[P4-630]

For CPU, that would mean Q1 2023, so that is a bit later. if i was running a 2600K, well i could see the benefits of upgrading

You probably didn't read all I posted....

My previous CPU was a i7 6700K Skylake CPU, I didn't want to upgrade sooner since all CPU's after 6th gen till 11th were basically still 14nm "Skylake-refresh" CPU's (albeit with more cores).
So I waited for 10nm Alder Lake. I was running Skylake since 2016.
And let me tell you that from i7 6700K to i7 12700K is a quite an upgrade and I'm satisfied for now.

 

[Punkenjoy]

You probably didn't read all I posted....

My previous CPU was a i7 6700K Skylake CPU, I didn't want to upgrade sooner since all CPU's after 6th gen till 11th were basically still 14nm "Skylake-refresh" CPU's (albeit with more cores).
So I waited for 10nm Alder Lake. I was running Skylake since 2016.
And let me tell you that from i7 6700K to i7 12700K is a quite an upgrade and I'm satisfied for now.

i read it all

i was putting more emphasis on your post than counter arguing it actually.

 

[ymdhis]

At this point does more than 500 FPS in CSGO really matter?? I still do 240 FPS in CSGO (with frame lock) on my 9900K with HT disabled lol

It's a first world problem, if you still play CS:GO then you obviously aren't from there.

 

[InVasMani]

Even now they'd get enough for their money if where being honest. An AM4 system now will be like half the price of AM5 and still offer within 85% of the performance in most real world situations. 12th gen now wouldn't even be bad since motherboard prices have dropped (600 series will be cheaper barrier of entry then 700 series), you can upgrade to 13th gen whenever you want, and sub $300 13th gen along with B boards won't even be out till Q1 2023

The whole "wait it out", "look at these synthetic benchmarks" and "the latest and greatest" is more geared towards enthusiast but it's moot because there in the economic bracket where price doesn't matter.

A 5600G with a B550 board like Asus Pro Art, Asrock Taichi/Razer, or Gigabyte Vision D-P seem like good value for dollar options. I wish the 5700G was better price positioned by AMD. It's a nice looking chip part, but pricing seems a bit lackluster since it's priced so closely to some of Intel's better value for dollar options. It's good if you want nice integrated graphics and at the same time the TDP is excellent I just think it's priced too high and not aggressively enough as it needs to be positioned. If they dropped it down to $175 +/- $10's it'll be a very compelling option to pretty much anyone on a budget.

Is there a reason AMD can't or hasn't done a AM4 5900G pairing a 5600X an 5600G together!!? Wouldn't that even allow for a hybrid mixture of PCIE 3.0/4.0 connectivity!!? Sort of a AM4 5900G big LITTLE?

 

[Valantar]

Is there a reason AMD can't or hasn't done a AM4 5900G pairing a 5600X an 5600G together!!? Wouldn't that even allow for a hybrid mixture of PCIE 3.0/4.0 connectivity!!? Sort of a AM4 5900G big LITTLE?

A reason? No, quite a few I would think:
- Needing a whole new CPU substrate, a significant cost
- Layout difficulties - the APU die is far, far too large to fit within the standard AM4 IOD+2xCCD layout (at ~3x the size of a CCD)
- Lack of scheduler support/tuning for cores of the same architecture but with different amounts of cache
Among others.

Also, how would you get the connectivity from both dice off the package? Do you think AM4 just has a bunch of spare PCIe pins free, that are in motherboards but not being used? And if you're using the PCIe from the APU die as PCIe, where would you find the IF links to connect it to the IOD of the rest of the chip? Those APUs don't have a ton of connectivity, so you'd need to pick - either off-package PCIe, or on-package IF to connect to the other chip. And you'd obivously go with the other as you can't just run two CPUs in a system willy-nilly. And the lack of I/O also means it wouldn't work to use an APU die as a "CCD+IOD" combo with a second CCD paired to it, as you'd have, what, four PCIe lanes left? Something like that.

 

[mechtech]

Then you should feel bad for the people that bought AMD 5xxx as well

Everyone here knows that you can expect a new CPU gen every year.

I bought a i7 12700K, May 2022, I have no regrets, my previous CPU was a i7 6700K....
I can still do a Raptor Lake upgrade later on if I want to.

I meant more the people who bought in the past 3 months. 20-40% is a huge jump for that time span.

 

[Minus Infinity]

Someone explain to me why I would ever want an 1x900k CPU anytime soon though. It was pointless in 12th gen, and its going to be pointless in 13th.

Well not everyone just plays games, plenty of good reasons for productivity to go for the 24 core version. But given this year's 13700K is basically a better version of last year's 12900K are you going to apply the same logic to the 13700K? Who needs 13700K now!

 

[exodus1337]

Getting ready for launch.

 

[vMax65]

Still cannot understand this whole AMD versus Intel thing...Have had Zen which was great especially Zen 2 for the cost to performance and now running Alder Lake in the 12700K and very much impressed with the performance across the board and in terms of power use, not even a slight issue for my use case which is some gaming with a fair bit on editing and encoding...Will see me through the next 4 to 5 years.. Very hard to buy a bad CPU these days be it AMD or Intel and each to his own.

 

[Vader]

That's the thing: just like with smartphones, any real need to buy a high end CPU has long since evaporated for most people. As soon as we got 6c mid-range CPUs (thanks, AMD!), the only meaningful differentiator became boost clocks, and now even those are high across the board. Tbh I only see myself buying lower end CPUs in the future unless it's specifically for a production-oriented build that needs a lot of cores. The only reason my main PC has a 5800X is that the 5600X was entirely unavailable at the time - and these days as I'm not at home I'm using an i5-4670S. Which, while slow in a lot of cases, is still perfectly usable. But then again I don't play competitive online shooters, which do tend to need a bunch of threads these days.

There are people that would want i9 processing power, but these use cases are outside of gaming. I think their post was more in the vein of "If these processors are so power hungry, why buy a K if there's no headroom for OC". Similar to buying an unlocked processor on a laptop. Pointless really.

 

[Berfs1]

It's a first world problem, if you still play CS:GO then you obviously aren't from there.

I'm... from Texas, as you can see in my profile. I have money. I just choose not to spend more money if it doesn't really help. You can have all the FPS you want, but if you were a shit player before, you will likely still be a shit player after a 1000$ PC upgrade. BTW I play other games than CSGO, I was merely stating CSGO in particular doesn't need to be a benchmark anymore because it's a useless benchmark today.

There are people that would want i9 processing power, but these use cases are outside of gaming. I think their post was more in the vein of "If these processors are so power hungry, why buy a K if there's no headroom for OC". Similar to buying an unlocked processor on a laptop. Pointless really.

I don't think it's pointless at all. I have a scenario where it actually makes sense to get an i9, I have an i7-11700K right now on a B560 board, and a liquid cooler (because my C14S does get noisy when this CPU is under load). I use this PC as my editing rig as well as for transcoding, so if I could overclock the CPU to like 5 GHz, that would help. Only problem is, I'm on a B560, so it doesn't support overclocking. However, Intel did make a special feature for 11th gen on 500 series, and that's called "Adaptive Boost Technology", and only works on the i9 K processors. That allows an 11900K/KF to do 5.1 GHz all core on non-Z 500 series boards (provided the BIOS and board supports it). So would I rather sell my 11700K for like 200$+ and get an 11900K for less than 300$? Or would I get a Z590 board? The 11900K with ABT method requires zero overclocking, and after several years of overclocking my systems, I'd rather have the ABT route.

We are getting to the era where unlocked multipliers don't really matter anymore because the OC headroom is way less than say, 4790K era. Back then the stock frequencies were averaging in the 3 GHz range, while overclocked you could do upwards of 4.5 GHz, that's a 28.6% increase in clock speed from 3.5 (for example). Now? We have CPUs that do 4.6 GHz+ stock, and the oc frequency is maybe 5.1 GHz all core, that's a 10.9% increase in frequency in exchange for paying extra for a motherboard that supports multiplier overclocking, and a cooler that can handle it. Why not just get a fast CPU regardless of unlocked, and pair it with a decent B or H board, and get a cooler? That way you don't have to do any of the tuning work, and it runs almost as fast without any of the headaches (also you can't void your warranty doing it this way).

 

[Vader]

I'm... from Texas, as you can see in my profile. I have money. I just choose not to spend more money if it doesn't really help. You can have all the FPS you want, but if you were a shit player before, you will likely still be a shit player after a 1000$ PC upgrade. BTW I play other games than CSGO, I was merely stating CSGO in particular doesn't need to be a benchmark anymore because it's a useless benchmark today.


I don't think it's pointless at all. I have a scenario where it actually makes sense to get an i9, I have an i7-11700K right now on a B560 board, and a liquid cooler (because my C14S does get noisy when this CPU is under load). I use this PC as my editing rig as well as for transcoding, so if I could overclock the CPU to like 5 GHz, that would help. Only problem is, I'm on a B560, so it doesn't support overclocking. However, Intel did make a special feature for 11th gen on 500 series, and that's called "Adaptive Boost Technology", and only works on the i9 K processors. That allows an 11900K/KF to do 5.1 GHz all core on non-Z 500 series boards (provided the BIOS and board supports it). So would I rather sell my 11700K for like 200$+ and get an 11900K for less than 300$? Or would I get a Z590 board? The 11900K with ABT method requires zero overclocking, and after several years of overclocking my systems, I'd rather have the ABT route.

We are getting to the era where unlocked multipliers don't really matter anymore because the OC headroom is way less than say, 4790K era. Back then the stock frequencies were averaging in the 3 GHz range, while overclocked you could do upwards of 4.5 GHz, that's a 28.6% increase in clock speed from 3.5 (for example). Now? We have CPUs that do 4.6 GHz+ stock, and the oc frequency is maybe 5.1 GHz all core, that's a 10.9% increase in frequency in exchange for paying extra for a motherboard that supports multiplier overclocking, and a cooler that can handle it. Why not just get a fast CPU regardless of unlocked, and pair it with a decent B or H board, and get a cooler? That way you don't have to do any of the tuning work, and it runs almost as fast without any of the headaches (also you can't void your warranty doing it this way).

What about the i9 11900 (non K)?
That is precisely my point. Since the OC headroom is next to 0 on the higher end chips, why not buy the non K version?

 

[Berfs1]

What about the i9 11900 (non K)?
That is precisely my point. Since the OC headroom is next to 0 on the higher end chips, why not buy the non K version?

My apologies, I didn't check the forums in a while so I missed your comment. The reason I wouldn't buy the 11900, is because I have a capable B560 board and I already have an 11700K. The 11900K does 5.1 GHz all core (with ABT), while 11900 does 4.7 GHz all core. My 11700K does 4.6 GHz, no point in changing CPUs for a 100 MHz difference. For a 500 MHz difference though, it makes more sense. If I needed the stock cooler, well even then the 11700 non K would have made more sense, but I have an AIO, so I should be able to run the 11900K maxed out under AVX 512 workloads.