Intel Core i9-13900KF CPU Arrives Before the Official Launch

[wheresmycar]

13900KF + Z690 + DDR4 is probably the best gaming setup at reasonable price atm

Woah!! What have I missed? We're now promoting ~$600 i9s for gaming?

I'm waiting to see how the 13600k/13700k shakes things up. At $300 the 13600k sounds like a steal. If its not too much of a compromise on 1440p perf I'd be open to a non-k 13700 + a respectable b series board too.

 

[Vader]

The 13900K might likely consume 300W or more with appropriate settings, but the HWInfo screenshot in the article is showing that the true max Vcore for the sample tested was in the 1.25V range.

View attachment 265410

Package Power is based on VID, but the VID reading is not a measured voltage, just a calculation which can easily be significantly off (either above or under Vcore) depending on motherboard settings.

View attachment 265411

The motherboard used has readouts from the VRM digital controller which is also showing that voltage was closer to the 1.25V vcore than the 1.37V VID. It also shows 301W into the VRM, 244W out to the CPU. The latter is the actual value used by the CPU; the former takes into account the efficiency of the VRM (not so great at 81%, might depend on the LLC setting used):

View attachment 265412

LLC? That affects voltage output at higher loads, but why would it affect efficiency? It's not like it's turning those extra watts into heat right?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only parameter that reduces vrm efficiency (apart from vrm design itself) is switching frequency

 

[nguyen]

Woah!! What have I missed? We're now promoting ~$600 i9s for gaming?

I'm waiting to see how the 13600k/13700k shakes things up. At $300 the 13600k sounds like a steal. If its not too much of a compromise on 1440p perf I'd be open to a non-k 13700 + a respectable b series board too.

Yeah 13700F + MSI B660 Mortar MAX (BLCK overclocking) + DDR4 should be kicking ass too.

As for 13900KF, well the massive cache should help with %1 low FPS and not particularly avg FPS.

 

[Melvis]

290W CPU only to beat a stock 7950X by 5%. No, thanks.

Exactly! and with 50% more Real Cores as well, not a great result really.

 

[Minus Infinity]

I wonder how it performs with a 65w limit, the 7950x at 65w was impressive.

Intel put that up at the reveal. It's as fast at 65W as the 12900K is at 243W!

 

[Solid State Brain]

LLC? That affects voltage output at higher loads, but why would it affect efficiency? It's not like it's turning those extra watts into heat right?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only parameter that reduces vrm efficiency (apart from vrm design itself) is switching frequency

On my motherboard (MSI PRO Z690-A) VRM switching frequency has no effect whatsoever on system power consumption or VRM temperatures, while for the same load voltage a higher (or flatter) LLC setting causes them to heat up more and the system to overall consume more power, although not overly so.

It could be that the LLC setting is changing under the hood more than the slope of the VRM loadline, but otherwise I'm not entirely sure why this happens.

 

[JustBenching]

Exactly! and with 50% more Real Cores as well, not a great result really.

The 13900k has 50% real cores compared to the 7950x, since ecores are a waste. So super impressive result, its beating the 7950x that has double real cores.

 

[Arco]

The 13900k has 50% real cores compared to the 7950x, since ecores are a waste. So super impressive result, its beating the 7950x that has double real cores.

It still uses those E-cores though.

 

[Eva01Master]

"Oh, Intel, you're such a bad company, the meanest, blah, blah blah..." To go back on topic, it's great for this guy to have had his processor arriving waaay sooner than planned, early Christmas present (aligned with Michael Bublé and Mariah Carey's seasonal reappearance). And as a general note, I'm really happy with Intel and AMD actually getting so closely matched on their performance, in the big picture, it should be us, the users, the ones reaping the benefits of this situation, it's completely illogical to hate a company as if it was an individual.

 

[HenrySomeone]

"...despite their node advantage..." I hope you're not implying that AMD is the one with the advantages and that AMD should be doing better than they are....it's Intel who is in that exact position, and based upon the the financial resources that Intel has compared to AMD, it's Intel who should be doing a whole lot more than they are....

When talking about "advantage", let's not fool ourselves, because Intel has EVERY advantage AMD does not have....Intel's 2021 R&D budget is $15+ billion dollars while AMD's is only $2 billion, so let's not act like by using TSMC's nodes, it's AMD who has the high ground or anything, because with respect to resources, staff, etc, Intel has every advantage. In fact, considering what an advantage Intel does have, it's even more impressive that AMD has been able to do what they've done.

AMD being currently on a better node is a FACT. Now, they obviously didn't develop it, nor did they contribute to its development in any meaningful matter (neither by their input, nor the revenue they created for TSMC with their purchases), but they are on a better node (again) and that's the only way they can remain competitive. Back when both were at roughly 14nm, Zen(+) were simply no match for Coffee Lake (core-for-core) and again recently with N7 and Intel7 being of very similar densities (Golden Cove is simply a superior core to Zen3).

"Oh, Intel, you're such a bad company, the meanest, blah, blah blah..." To go back on topic, it's great for this guy to have had his processor arriving waaay sooner than planned, early Christmas present (aligned with Michael Bublé and Mariah Carey's seasonal reappearance). And as a general note, I'm really happy with Intel and AMD actually getting so closely matched on their performance, in the big picture, it should be us, the users, the ones reaping the benefits of this situation, it's completely illogical to hate a company as if it was an individual.

This is true, unfortunately AM5 overall price provides little incentive for Intel not to also raise their, so the real value will probably be Z690 or even B660 (the OC-able ones) + 13600k or maybe 13700 + ddr4 (although recently you can finally get good ddr5 kits at decent(ish) prices).

 

[metalkhor]

Some thing is off about this screenshots! temps and power are very low but cores are boosting to 5.5 GHz and no minimum Frequency recorded means that all core always clocked to max???!! no idle or base clock?
OS also recognized as windows 10 by cinebench R23 that is clearly windows 11

 

[CapNemo72]

Can't wait to see the independent benchmarks from websites, and have more clear on Ryzen 7000 series vs Intel 13th series.

Being that Intel is going price aggressive (they can have lower margin per chip), AMD will need to align their offer.

By January next year, DDR5 should get more reasonable prices and motherboards will resolve any bugs (if any). Waiting could save you 300 bucks.
If you already have solid system, I think, this a thing to do.

If you need PC now (from scratch, so no upgrade from 12th Intel gen to 13th, as that should be pretty straightforward), then it could be a tough choice.

 

[wheresmycar]

Yeah 13700F + MSI B660 Mortar MAX (BLCK overclocking) + DDR4 should be kicking ass too.

As for 13900KF, well the massive cache should help with %1 low FPS and not particularly avg FPS.

Are B760s a thing? Or only 600-series?

It would be interesting to see how performance varies between these chips when factoring in cache. Personally I prefer spending less with a mid-ranged CPU and board combo regardless of marginal performance compromise. The idea being upgrading earlier in 3 years (or 4-5 max). Then again i've seen plenty of people opting for i9's/R9s for gaming.

 

[ModEl4]

I'm really curious to see the gaming performance of Raptor models (down to i5 13400)

 

[KarymidoN]

What? According to the latest review frm this very site, everything beats the 3d. What are youtalking about?

Nothing beats the 5800x3D on Price/Performance (Including Mobo + RAM). It beats the 12900KS in most of the games on half the price, and it can run on a cheap B450 board and DDR4 RAM.

 

[Why_Me]

Are B760s a thing? Or only 600-series?

It would be interesting to see how performance varies between these chips when factoring in cache. Personally I prefer spending less with a mid-ranged CPU and board combo regardless of marginal performance compromise. The idea being upgrading earlier in 3 years (or 4-5 max). Then again i've seen plenty of people opting for i9's/R9s for gaming.

ASUS Z790/H770/B760 – The best motherboards for 14th Gen Raptor Lake-S refresh and 13th Gen Intel Raptor Lake-S and 12th Gen Intel Alder Lake CPUs

ASUS Z790 motherboards are designed to get the most out of 12th , 13th and 14th Gen Intel® Core™ processors and feature PCIe® 5.0, DDR5 support with AEMP II, AI-powered technologies, Thunderbolt™ (USB4®) support, and WiFi 7.

www.asus.com

 

[milewski1015]

have you even bothered verifying? R23 was built before W11 launch and does not recognize it as W11
here's mine:

Was not aware, thank you for clarifying

 

[Melvis]

The 13900k has 50% real cores compared to the 7950x, since ecores are a waste. So super impressive result, its beating the 7950x that has double real cores.

Huh? No Not really, it still has 50% more cores regardless what type of cores they are, cores are more powerful then Hyperthreaded cores, so again its not very impressive at all. Whats impressive is the 7950X having all P cores as you might call them (thats an intel naming BS now) and still use less power and heat.

It still uses those E-cores though.

Exactly, its not that hard to figure out lol

 

[HenrySomeone]

Huh? No Not really, it still has 50% more cores regardless what type of cores they are, cores are more powerful then Hyperthreaded cores, so again its not very impressive at all. Whats impressive is the 7950X having all P cores as you might call them (thats an intel naming BS now) and still use less power and heat.

I'm loving the perpetual duality of ... overzealous AMD fans! When it's an architectural debate, E cores are weak, pathetic, toy and fake, but when it's time to compare core counts (now that Intel has more), they give a huge advantage and it's a scandal that Intel uses slightly more power with 8 more of them. Keep 'em coming boys, nothing like some late night comedy!

 

[Melvis]

I'm loving the perpetual duality of ... overzealous AMD fans! When it's an architectural debate, E cores are weak, pathetic, toy and fake, but when it's time to compare core counts (now that Intel has more), they give a huge advantage and it's a scandal that Intel uses slightly more power with 8 more of them. Keep 'em coming boys, nothing like some late night comedy!

Who said anything about E cores been weak? and its not that its an advantage, it clearly isnt, its barely faster with 50% more real cores..........like hello! and Im talking about the 12900K when it comes to power since it has the exact same core count...... now your just making things up to make yaself look good, as always....The only comedy here is is you when you make up BS in every thread your in.

 

[Dirt Chip]

Nothing beats the 5800x3D on Price/Performance (Including Mobo + RAM). It beats the 12900KS in most of the games on half the price, and it can run on a cheap B450 board and DDR4 RAM.

This is what throwing the dart and then painting the circle around it looks like
Cool story bro'

Huh? No Not really, it still has 50% more cores regardless what type of cores they are, cores are more powerful then Hyperthreaded cores, so again its not very impressive at all. Whats impressive is the 7950X having all P cores as you might call them (thats an intel naming BS now) and still use less power and heat.

Exactly, its not that hard to figure out lol

As long as 12900k cost less, there nothing special about 7950x if it preform worse.
It does have the efficiency bonus but sad as it is, it doesn't translate to any meaningful advantage after you fine tune both cpus.

 

[HenrySomeone]

Who said anything about E cores been weak? and its not that its an advantage, it clearly isnt, its barely faster with 50% more real cores..........like hello! and Im talking about the 12900K when it comes to power since it has the exact same core count...... now your just making things up to make yaself look good, as always....The only comedy here is is you when you make up BS in every thread your in.

I'd almost advise you to stop embarrassing yourself, but ... nah, you keep going!

 

[Melvis]

I'd almost advise you to stop embarrassing yourself, but ... nah, you keep going!

Likewise! and we all know you will

As long as 12900k cost less, there nothing special about 7950x if it preform worse.
It does have the efficiency bonus but sad as it is, it doesn't translate to any meaningful advantage after you fine tune both cpus.

Sadly the 7950X outperforms the 12900K very easily so the 12900K should cost less.......naturally.
Even at a locked 65W the 7950X out passes the 12900K so there is actually right there a massive advantage and by using double the "P"cores to boot, simply amazing really.

 

[JustBenching]

Nothing beats the 5800x3D on Price/Performance (Including Mobo + RAM). It beats the 12900KS in most of the games on half the price, and it can run on a cheap B450 board and DDR4 RAM.

According to the review and this very site, no it doesnt beat the 12900ks. Actually it doesn't even beat the 12700k. Actually it loses to like a bunch of cpus. I don't know why people feel the need to make stuff up

Huh? No Not really, it still has 50% more cores regardless what type of cores they are, cores are more powerful then Hyperthreaded cores, so again its not very impressive at all. Whats impressive is the 7950X having all P cores as you might call them (thats an intel naming BS now) and still use less power and heat.

Exactly, its not that hard to figure out lol

Why would you care how many cores it has? Thats the silliest argument ive ever heard in my life. What matters is single threaded performance and multithreaded performance, and of course the price. Now how it achieves that performance is absolutely irrelevant. Lets say the 13900k had 9 million cores, if it wins in mt and st and costs less than the 7950x, why should i actually care? Like what the actual heck?

Do you care about how many cores your gpu has? No, the performance is what matters

 

[Dirt Chip]

Sadly the 7950X outperforms the 12900K very easily so the 12900K should cost less.......naturally.
Even at a locked 65W the 7950X out passes the 12900K so there is actually right there a massive advantage and by using double the "P"cores to boot, simply amazing really.

Not in gaming, not in all productivity tests.
So to have 8 extra threads, cost more and preform better in some cases is nothing of an exception, especially when you are at a better node.
When you factor the whole system cost of MB and DDR, 7950X have extra toll vs 12900K- one that only few can justify from cost/performance point of view.
I myself would love to switch to AMD with 7950/7900 this round but as it seems that not going to happen cus RL on Z690 will be faster and cheaper.