Intel Core i9-13900K

[Vayra86]

If the opinion I (and other people share) ever biases my work, people can criticize as much as they want, and i'm sure it would come up a lot faster internally too.

Fine statement. I just want to add the detail that I don't think you're being accused of bias, but rather of a one-sided view on the thing. But you've explained you see more than that, so, yeah.

A more specific point I might want to make: perhaps its mighty interesting to add a duo of energy efficiency test runs instead of 'the one on the fastest GPU'. The comparison to one that is much more commonplace or 'in reach' is pretty interesting imho. Looking forward to that 4090 retest.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I didn't bring it up - people have been criticising my opinion, which supposedly should be different since I'm the proofreader? I disagree that the gaming purpose of this CPU is limited, maybe for now, when tested with a two year old 3080 it's overkill, but bear in mind people keep their CPU/Mobo platforms a lot longer than they keep their GPUs. Lots of people still on Skylake derivatives, but still rocking RTX 3xxx chips for instance. Having CPU power in excess is useful, since you'll probably keep the platform for several GPU generations, where the CPU will then be able to stretch it's legs more. You can make the same argument with AM5 and it's long lasting platform, but that assumes you're willing to also spend money to upgrade the CPU.

Eh, I use to think this way but I don't really think that is the case anymore it was more a thing during the i7 4 core era. As an example if you bought a 300 ish cpu today for gaming and then grab another 300 cpu in 2 years you are likely going to be better off than spending 600 on your cpu now. Although maybe that only applies to AM5 because lga 1700 is dead I guess.

If I was going to jump in on a platform when it was basically EOL with no future upgrade options I would probably lean towards the best in socket cpu although it would have to be generationally better than the competition for me to do that.

I still think 13th gen and Ryzen 7000 will sell poorly till DDR5 pricing comes down. Even including Alderlake these new gen cpus have been bugs on a windshield trying to stop the Ryzen 5000 train that still seem to be dominating diy sales here in the states.

 

[dgianstefani]

Eh, I use to think this way but I don't really think that is the case anymore it was more a thing during the i7 4 core era. As an example if you bought a 300 ish cpu today for gaming and then grab another 300 cpu in 2 years you are likely going to be better off than spending 600 on your cpu now. Although maybe that only applies to AM5 because lga 1700 is dead I guess.

If I was going to jump in on a platform when it was basically EOL with no future upgrade options I would probably lean towards the best in socket cpu although it would have to be generationally better than the competition for me to do that.

I still think 13th gen and Ryzen 7000 will sell poorly till DDR5 pricing comes down. Even including Alderlake these new gen cpus have been bugs on a windshield trying to stop the Ryzen 5000 train that still seem to be dominating diy sales here in the states.

The KS is coming next year with some more fuel for the haters , so not quite a dead platform. The perks of buying that $600 CPU today instead of two $300 CPUs two years apart also being that you get to enjoy the performance (not just in gaming) of that $600 CPU for the next two years, which also happens to be more than 10% faster in gaming than the more expensive competition .

Ryzen is nice for MT performance, but I'll say it again as I've said in the past. ST is always relevant, MT is sometimes relevant.

 

[damric]

Ok so I guess these new fangled CPUs from Intel and AMD are geared towards the upper high end users. These elites typically have some nice monitors like 4K or some fancy ultra wide.

But according to the performance graph at 4K, even the old Ryzen 3600x still gets 95% of the gaming performance as these new ones.

Yeah I just don't see this generation as must have.

5.8GHz stock is neat though.

 

[Anymal]

W1zz, why not 4090.

 

[fevgatos]

The KS is coming next year with some more fuel for the haters , so not quite a dead platform. The perks of buying that $600 CPU today instead of two $300 CPUs two years apart also being that you get to enjoy the performance (not just in gaming) of that $600 CPU for the next two years, which also happens to be more than 10% faster in gaming than the more expensive competition .

Ryzen is nice for MT performance, but I'll say it again as I've said in the past. ST is always relevant, MT is sometimes relevant.

The problem is - all high end CPUs nowadays, are absolutely useless unless you have a PHD in bios. Which personally I don't mind, since I never run anything stock, but I can't recommend these cpus to anyone that wants to do some serious heavy work on them - unless he wants to tinker with the bios. That goes for both AMD and Intel, ald / zen 4 / rpl are absolutely crap in that regard.

All of them are extremely efficient, but not out of the box. Out of the box they are just completely wonky. The last decent high end CPU I can recommend is the 5950x - you don't ever need to get on the bios, it runs perfectly okay out of the box.

 

[Zareek]

Ding, Ding, Ding, CPU Wars Round Two!!! It's nice to see the competition heating up. Intel is firing back, we have real competition again! Intel was content to release Quad Core after Quad Core on a 14+++++++++++++++++ process. Not anymore, the Blue Giant has been awakened! Two series in a row, they are punching back. Let the innovations flow! Prices will fall, and we can all enjoy the fireworks.

 

[pavle]

Finally we have a 400W CPU (max. but still).

 

[Why_Me]

Ok so I guess these new fangled CPUs from Intel and AMD are geared towards the upper high end users. These elites typically have some nice monitors like 4K or some fancy ultra wide.

But according to the performance graph at 4K, even the old Ryzen 3600x still gets 95% of the gaming performance as these new ones.

Yeah I just don't see this generation as must have.

5.8GHz stock is neat though.

These are the three most expensive Intel 13 gen cpu's. In January the rest of the Intel 13 gen lineup along with the less expensive B760 boards will be released. You will be able to use DDR5 or DDR4 with this generation.

 

[InVasMani]

The L2N BBRRRRRR is strong with this generation of hardware.

 

[sLowEnd]

Fast chip, but I wouldn't want to use it in the summer out of the box in my room. It looks much better after some tweaks, but I can see why some people would not like to bother with something like that. Hopefully the non-K SKUs will be much more reasonable with their power targets out of the box.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

The KS is coming next year with some more fuel for the haters , so not quite a dead platform. The perks of buying that $600 CPU today instead of two $300 CPUs two years apart also being that you get to enjoy the performance (not just in gaming) of that $600 CPU for the next two years, which also happens to be more than 10% faster in gaming than the more expensive competition .

Ryzen is nice for MT performance, but I'll say it again as I've said in the past. ST is always relevant, MT is sometimes relevant.

The KS lol.... It will be a miracle if that thing works well on anything but open loop cooling I also doubt an extra 200mhz on a couple cores will actually matter unless you look at RTSS more than game and really that's the issue these days everything from like a 140 usd 5600 up games well at 1440p with high/ultra settings on 90% of gpus. Thankfully the days of intel giving us a hella gimped i5s is dead.

These are the three most expensive Intel 13 gen cpu's. In January the rest of the Intel 13 gen lineup along with the less expensive B760 boards will be released. You will be able to use DDR5 or DDR4 with this generation.

The only problem is all the i5 non K sku and below are Just Alderlake rebrands so while still good miss all the benefits of Raptorlake.

 

[Why_Me]

The KS lol.... It will be a miracle if that thing works well on anything but open loop cooling I also doubt an extra 200mhz on a couple cores will actually matter unless you look at RTSS more than game and really that's the issue these days everything from like a 140 usd 5600 up games well at 1440p with high/ultra settings on 90% of gpus. Thankfully the days of intel giving us a hella gimped i5s are dead.



The only problem is all the i5 non K sku and below are Just Alderlake rebrands so while still good miss all the benefits of Raptorlake.

And what benefits would those be if you aren't using your PC for productivity five days a week?

 

[oxrufiioxo]

And what benefits would those be if you aren't using your PC for productivity five days a week?

The extra cache benefits games more than productivity. The 13400 is just a castrated 12600k that will always perform worse not very exciting for a new gen part that will likely be almost a year newer when launched.

 

[Why_Me]

The extra cache benefits games more than productivity. The 13400 is just a castrated 12600k that will always perform worse not very exciting for a new gen part that will likely be almost a year newer when launched.

No argument there. The 13400 is limited to 24mb of cache but I'm still interested on seeing the benchmarks.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

No argument there. The 13400 is limited to 24mb of cache but I'm still interested on seeing the benchmarks.

I'm not saying they are going to be bad or even not worth buying just not a huge fan of intel rebranding alderlake in the price segment that most people keep their hardware the longest. I will likely be recommending the 12600k especially if it comes down a bit in price over the 13th gen locked i5 parts. At least down the line you can tweak it for extra performance if necessary.

The other thing and something that may matter more down the line is Raptorlake seems to have a much better memory controller than Alderlake so for anyone doing ddr5 system who opts for a cheap 5000mhz ish kit now probably will not be able to grab a much better 7000+ kit down the line whenever ddr5 gets cheaper which kinda sucks.

 

[Ravenas]

The 7950X is a bad upgrade for me having a 5950X. This is equally bad or worse due to the power consumption.

I really am hoping AMD impresses me with GPUs.

There is absolutely zero incentive for efficiency year over year. What incentive do these firms have to provide better power consumption? The race is exclusively who produces the most frames. At this rate we will have 2000W PSUs within a decade.

 

[jamexman]

Meh, just wait for Amd’s 3D cache 7000 series if you must upgrade soon. I’m staying with my 5900x until I see Zen 4+ or 5 and/or ML. I game at almost 4K (5120x1440) so GPU perf is most decisive.

Let’s hope they can bring down power consumption.

 

[Mussels]

Somethings not adding up, after comparing a bunch of reviews of the 13th gen and reading this


One GN example of frametimes

TPU's results (ignoring the messy graph)

Same game, same resolution - but those 0.1% lows massively change how to interpret those results and the results seem so wildly different


Vs the 7700x seems the same, I'm trying to wrap my head around what hardware is different to alter these results so much

Vs: (Cropped out some CPU's between them, didnt alter order or anything) where the 13900K is 11.9% higher average (vs 27.3%) and the 99th percentile/1% swap places completely

 

[AusWolf]

Look at that gaming performance! I nearly axed my AM5 upgrade plans, but then I saw the page on temperatures and power consumption... jeez!

 

[Crackong]

Somethings not adding up, after comparing a bunch of reviews of the 13th gen and reading this


One GN example of frametimes

TPU's results (ignoring the messy graph)

Same game, same resolution - but those 0.1% lows massively change how to interpret those results and the results seem so wildly different

Vs the 7700x seems the same, I'm trying to wrap my head around what hardware is different to alter these results so much

I think this just show there is no 'domination' in this generation.
Different games behave differently
Even the same game, same CPU, but in different environments (OS, Build, thermals), behaves differently
Some game just don't like Intel
Some game just don't like Ryzen
Some OS just 'magically' breaks certain CPU performance by an automatic update.

People should pick the ones performs better in their daily workloads.
Or maybe just pick the one 'Causing less trouble to upgrade' .

 

[r9]

Silly me thinking the Ryzen 7xxx run hot 117C wtf is that?1

 

[rv8000]

Also, the 13900k can’t be found for under $649. Shouldn’t the performance per dollar chart represent that?

 

[Super Firm Tofu]

Somethings not adding up, after comparing a bunch of reviews of the 13th gen and reading this

Same game, same resolution - but those 0.1% lows massively change how to interpret those results and the results seem so wildly different

Vs the 7700x seems the same, I'm trying to wrap my head around what hardware is different to alter these results so much

My guess would be 3090Ti vs 3080, and probably a different test scene. I know the built in benchmark for FC6 can stutter like a mutter.

 

[metalslaw]

Interestingly, given the gaming cpu temps (with the noctua), the 5.8 boost on 2 cores may not happen in games hardly at all, even with a really good aio, as the temps will probably still be over 70.

That makes the chip less worth getting, and is probably why we didn't see more improvement vs last gen.

Custom loops with big radiators may be the only way to cool it sufficiently to get it below 70c when gaming.