Intel Launches Core i9-13900KS 8P+16E Flagship Processor at $700

[Dr. Dro]

"You're comparing apples to oranges in bad faith throughout. Z790 isn't positioned in the B650's tier, it's on the X670E's."

Total lie. The B650 is the same as the Z790. Both unlocked for overclocking. You got fooled by a letter. X670 adds USB and SATA ports and it is a scam, it doesn't add overclocking. LMAO. Who did the positioning you talked about? You? Intel's dreams?

That's very rich coming from you, talking about arguing in bad faith when you start with such a whopper. We're done.

What is it with Intel users and the constant lying. B760 is not comparable to B650, or B650E, not even close. You know that. Don't lie.

You can argue about how AMD is not stingy with features (which is a pro), however, the B650 is a low-end chipset intended to be used in low-end motherboards. The Z790 is not. If that's a "whopper", then we truly don't have anything to discuss, the B650 is straight positioned against the B660 and the X670 positioned against the H670, neither of Intel's offerings are unlocked for overclocking, but you can also argue that they don't have to be, since the i7-13700 and i9-13900 perform to almost their full potential without any user tweaking - and they do allow memory configuration.

If anyone has any sort of grift going on with chipset naming schemes this generation - that would be AMD, by inserting the B650E and X670E in the on top of each tier and raising motherboard prices throughout... the end result is just that: buyers aren't interested, and Zen 4 is not selling anywhere near as well as it should have been.

 

[JustBenching]

Somebody's talking about energy efficiency...
So, for what reason do you think they added some E-cores to it? Because P-cores are simply not energy-efficient enough of course.
Then why didn't they make it all E-cores, say 32 E-cores? Because it won't be powerful enough.
So, they make it hybrid, something they still dare not to apply to business segment to this day...

That is wrong. P cores are more efficient than E cores, the reason they didn't put 24 P cores is because of die space, the die to fit 24 of those would be huge and insanely expensive.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Is TPU going to be reviewing it?

 

[Garrus]

You can argue about how AMD is not stingy with features (which is a pro), however, the B650 is a low-end chipset intended to be used in low-end motherboards. The Z790 is not. If that's a "whopper", then we truly don't have anything to discuss, the B650 is straight positioned against the B660 and the X670 positioned against the H670, neither of Intel's offerings are unlocked for overclocking, but you can also argue that they don't have to be, since the i7-13700 and i9-13900 perform to almost their full potential without any user tweaking - and they do allow memory configuration.

If anyone has any sort of grift going on with chipset naming schemes this generation - that would be AMD, by inserting the B650E and X670E in the on top of each tier and raising motherboard prices throughout... the end result is just that: buyers aren't interested, and Zen 4 is not selling anywhere near as well as it should have been.

Yeap we're done Actual feature sets don't matter to you. The B letter is all you can think about. Overclockable versus not overclockable is the same tier to you. You're the only one that thinks that.

 

[Dr. Dro]

LMAO sure hahaha, yeap we're done Actual feature sets don't matter to you. The B letter is all you can think about. Overclockable versus not overclockable is the same tier to you. You're the only one that thinks that.

I own a ROG B550-E. I know exactly what premium motherboards with mid-range chipsets can do, because I have one of the most egregious examples of said motherboards on my own build, this used to be an $300 motherboard when new. If anyone is telling you that even such higher-end designs have no drawbacks compared to X570 models, they are lying to you. The number of USB ports on this motherboard is remarkably low, and connectivity is rather limited considered its price. However, it is reliable, well-supported and suits my needs now as it did when I purchased it, one Gen 4 GPU and M.2 slot are all I need. The second one M.2 does not support Gen 4, but my drives are both Gen 3, anyway.

While we're talking about actual feature sets, the Z790 chipset offers superior I/O and connectivity when compared to the B650. It's not fair to compare both, they are not the same tier of product and the prices aren't even remotely the same, if AMD B650 designs are being sold at even remotely same price realm of entry level Intel Z790 (and they are - they start at $180 or so), then it only served to prove my point further: most people would rather buy a simple motherboard which just works instead of pouring hundreds of dollars on a high end one they do not need. I've seen people arguing for things like the Gigabyte DS3H lineup far more often than anything else, the B650 edition of this one is an extremely simple micro-ATX board with a very weak VRM, the bare essentials in I/O (it has a grand total of four SATA ports), a terribad integrated audio codec - just enough to get a functioning system, and that will currently set you back $170.

Meanwhile, the same $170 will buy you a ROG Strix B550-A. DDR4 costs are much lower. You can buy a 5800X3D and enjoy first-class gaming, for less than it'd cost to get that bottom tier motherboard, a 7600X and a very basic DDR5 kit. It just has no appeal to the common buyer right now.

 

[Melvis]

The same people who buy zen 4 i guess? 6 cores foe 350 euros working at 95c. Your description fits them perfectly

Huh? ummm no No idea where your getting that BS from. FYI AMD is made to run at that temp and the 6 core doesnt go that high and its still cooler then this blazing pile of shit that no cooler can keep it under 100c.....

PC hardware released couple of days ago is way above MSRP and abnormally expensive? shocking!

$300 over for what? 1-2% performance increase over the already terrible 13900K?

 

[Sabotaged_Enigma]

That is wrong. P cores are more efficient than E cores, the reason they didn't put 24 P cores is because of die space, the die to fit 24 of those would be huge and insanely expensive.

That's ridiculous. Think you know better than Intel? If P-cores are more efficient, tell me why it needs so much power? And why E-cores are called E-cores? Just for show? Just for benchmark?
P-cores are IPC efficient, not energy efficient.
Looking at your replies I feel you keep making things up out of nowhere. I'm pretty speechless.

 

[JustBenching]

Huh? ummm no No idea where your getting that BS from. FYI AMD is made to run at that temp and the 6 core doesnt go that high and its still cooler then this blazing pile of shit that no cooler can keep it under 100c.....

Intel is also made to run that temp. What kind of stupid argument is that? I have my 13900k on a small single tower cooler. It stays way below 100c, I have no idea the heck you are talking about

That's ridiculous. Think you know better than Intel? If P-cores are more efficient, tell me why it needs so much power? And why E-cores are called E-cores? Just for show? Just for benchmark?
P-cores are IPC efficient, not energy efficient.
Looking at your replies I feel you keep making things up out of nowhere. I'm pretty speechless.

What do you mean "it needs so much power"? How much power does it need? The 13900T has a 35w power limit. So it needs 35 watts.

They are called ecores cause they are efficient in terms of die space. If you take a Pcore and put it at 10 watts,, and then take an ecore and put it at 10 watts, the P cores is going to be faster. Same wattage - more performance = more efficient. It's not a hard concept to grasp, is it?

 

[Sabotaged_Enigma]

The 13900T has a 35w power limit. So it needs 35 watts.

Then how much performance 35 W gives you? A 13900T power gives you 13900KS performance? Oh boy.
If you say so, whatever. That's the end of conversation. I don't wanna waste any time talking to you. Do not reply.

 

[JustBenching]

Then how much performance 35 W gives you? A 13900T power gives you 13900KS performance? Oh boy.
If you say so, whatever. That's the end of conversation. I don't wanna waste any time talking to you. Do not reply.

What does it matter? You said "why do P cores need so much power". That doesn't make sense as a question. Cores don't require any specific amount of power. They will use what you give them.

You said ecores are more efficient, you were wrong, get over it.

 

[ThrashZone]

PC hardware released couple of days ago is way above MSRP and abnormally expensive? shocking!

Hi,
Sucker bait is all.

 

[Ayhamb99]

The Ryzen 7700X is so vastly superior to the 13900K and 13900KS it is kind of silly at this point. 7800X3D will end it.

There are an awful lot of people grasping at anything to keep Intel on top. Meanwhile the 7700X is beating the 13900KS at counter strike, Horizon, Hitman 3, and more. If you're trading blows but being limited to 280W at 100 degrees with a 420mm $300 cooler and thermal Grizzly contact frame, you've lost the plot. Can cool the 7700X with a $25 tower cooler.

Vastly superior? Are you sure about that? And you hand picked 1 total game average chart from one review site instead of looking at multiple different sources. Let's first clear this up, the 13900k is not supposed to be a gaming chip from the start, it is a productivity chip. If someone is going to be gaming only, Of course a 13600K or 7600X/7700X would be a better choice price/performance wise but not have superior performance to the 13900K . The 13900K and the KS variant are halo products.

Also the 13900K does not consume 280W while gaming, i do not understand why everyone keeps quoting that power figure between 240-280W when benchmarks show that the 13900K will only consume that in heavy MT workloads such as blender and cinebench or stress tests like prime95. In TPU's power consumption measurements for gaming averaged, it is way lower than 280W.

When you take a look at this graph from here where they average the performance of all the CPUs from 28 different reviews at launch day, Raptor Lake for now still has a lead in gaming performance with the 13900k being at the top, i do expect that the X3D Chips will bring about another gaming performance improvement and possibly take the performance crown but it is best to wait for reviews of that to come out. (Website is in German)

Can we stop with the fanboyism and just be happy that you can't go wrong with both sides and that from now on every CPU generation is going to come with double digit performance improvements over the last generation thanks to the renewed competition between both companies? There are pros and cons to each platform.

 

[ARF]

You can argue about how AMD is not stingy with features (which is a pro), however, the B650 is a low-end chipset intended to be used in low-end motherboards. The Z790 is not. If that's a "whopper", then we truly don't have anything to discuss, the B650 is straight positioned against the B660 and the X670 positioned against the H670, neither of Intel's offerings are unlocked for overclocking, but you can also argue that they don't have to be, since the i7-13700 and i9-13900 perform to almost their full potential without any user tweaking - and they do allow memory configuration.

If anyone has any sort of grift going on with chipset naming schemes this generation - that would be AMD, by inserting the B650E and X670E in the on top of each tier and raising motherboard prices throughout... the end result is just that: buyers aren't interested, and Zen 4 is not selling anywhere near as well as it should have been.

B650 is definitely NOT a low-end chipset - it's the lowest in AMD's 5th gen product stack, but the entry level motherboards are somethings along the A520, A320 line

Yeah, Zen 4 is not competitive - a result of the macro and micro-economic situation worldwide and management at AMD run by people who don't know what they are doing and completely destroy any advices in the theory which could guide them to higher sales.

 

[Dr. Dro]

B650 is definitely NOT a low-end chipset - it's the lowest in AMD's 5th gen product stack, but the entry level motherboards are somethings along the A520, A320 line

Yeah, Zen 4 is not competitive - a result of the macro and micro-economic situation worldwide and management at AMD run by people who don't know what they are doing and completely destroy any advices in the theory which could guide them to higher sales.

There's no A level chipset for socket AM5 thus far, and all concessions that the A320 and A520 have given up against their B series counterparts such as lower connectivity and simpler I/O have already been detracted from B650.

We may still see a budget A-series, we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Garrus]

Vastly superior? Are you sure about that? And you hand picked 1 total game average chart from one review site instead of looking at multiple different sources. Let's first clear this up, the 13900k is not supposed to be a gaming chip from the start, it is a productivity chip. If someone is going to be gaming only, Of course a 13600K or 7600X/7700X would be a better choice price/performance wise but not have superior performance to the 13900K . The 13900K and the KS variant are halo products.

Also the 13900K does not consume 280W while gaming, i do not understand why everyone keeps quoting that power figure between 240-280W when benchmarks show that the 13900K will only consume that in heavy MT workloads such as blender and cinebench or stress tests like prime95. In TPU's power consumption measurements for gaming averaged, it is way lower than 280W.

When you take a look at this graph from here where they average the performance of all the CPUs from 28 different reviews at launch day, Raptor Lake for now still has a lead in gaming performance with the 13900k being at the top, i do expect that the X3D Chips will bring about another gaming performance improvement and possibly take the performance crown but it is best to wait for reviews of that to come out. (Website is in German)

View attachment 279104

Can we stop with the fanboyism and just be happy that you can't go wrong with both sides and that from now on every CPU generation is going to come with double digit performance improvements over the last generation thanks to the renewed competition between both companies? There are pros and cons to each platform.

You intentionally misunderstood.

It is superior overall.

Power consumption, cost to manufacture, perf per dollar (it is way cheaper than the 13900k, and is on a massive sale). Gaming differences are almost nil. 7700X beats every CPU except for the overpriced 13900k nobody should be buying.

Also those meta review analysis are useless. Most reviewers do a bad job reviewing CPUs. The Techpowerup review was not good either.

I suggest you watch the latest Hardware Unboxed review video where he shows how important correct ram settings are for the reviews. 164 fps to 184 fps with the same ram, just one with the correct settings.

I watched 10 reviewers and only one, Jarrod's Tech, used normal ram, and used the same ram for both CPUs. Also <10 percent of reviewers check more than 10 games. Intel supplied faster very expensive ram for the reviewer kits.

Test 50 games. Same ram. 7700X is faster than every CPU except the 13900k.

All you are saying is that if you spend $400+ on ram, Intel can win. Big deal. Nobody should be spending more than $150 on ram. All you are saying is Intel can win by a few single percentage points if you spend twice as much money. Put the 7700X computer and the 13900k computer side by side with that overpriced ram instead of the 6000C36 that everyone should be buying, and you've already spent more than $800 more on the Intel one.

Let's compare a reviewer's hardware for pricing. Asus hasn't even released a DDR5 Tuf yet, so you need Strix to compare for Intel.



Spend $700 more to win in gaming by <5 percent on average. Ok. That's the average Intel reviewer or fanboy on these forums. They are talking about a system that costs $700 more against the superior performance and value. I'd rather buy the second fastest CPU for gaming.

And a month from now, it will not only be the second fastest, but the fastest. The 7900X3D will not require overpriced ram, overpriced cooler, overpriced CPU, nor an overpriced motherboard. It's gonna look pretty dumb to buy the 13900k for gaming very soon. Ever more dumb than it looks right now.

I'll take my 7700X + RTX 4090 gaming computer for less money than your i9-13900k + 4080 computer.

 

[JustBenching]

You intentionally misunderstood.

It is superior overall.

Power consumption, cost to manufacture, perf per dollar (it is way cheaper than the 13900k, and is on a massive sale). Gaming differences are almost nil. 7700X beats every CPU except for the overpriced 13900k nobody should be buying.

Also those meta review analysis are useless. Most reviewers do a bad job reviewing CPUs. The Techpowerup review was not good either.

I suggest you watch the latest Hardware Unboxed review video where he shows how important correct ram settings are for the reviews. 164 fps to 184 fps with the same ram, just one with the correct settings.

I watched 10 reviewers and only one, Jarrod's Tech, used normal ram, and used the same ram for both CPUs. Also <10 percent of reviewers check more than 10 games. Intel supplied faster very expensive ram for the reviewer kits.

Test 50 games. Same ram. 7700X is faster than every CPU except the 13900k.

All you are saying is that if you spend $400+ on ram, Intel can win. Big deal. Nobody should be spending more than $150 on ram. All you are saying is Intel can win by a few single percentage points if you spend twice as much money. Put the 7700X computer and the 13900k computer side by side with that overpriced ram instead of the 6000C36 that everyone should be buying, and you've already spent more than $800 more on the Intel one.

Let's compare a reviewer's hardware for pricing. Asus hasn't even released a DDR5 Tuf yet, so you need Strix to compare for Intel.

View attachment 279136View attachment 279137

Spend $700 more to win in gaming by <5 percent on average. Ok. That's the average Intel reviewer or fanboy on these forums. They are talking about a system that costs $700 more against the superior performance and value. I'd rather buy the second fastest CPU for gaming.

And a month from now, it will not only be the second fastest, but the fastest. The 7900X3D will not require overpriced ram, overpriced cooler, overpriced CPU, nor an overpriced motherboard. It's gonna look pretty dumb to buy the 13900k for gaming very soon. Ever more dumb than it looks right now.

I'll take my 7700X + RTX 4090 gaming computer for less money than your i9-13900k + 4080 computer.

Just lol. How can every sentence be wrong?

 

[maxfly]

6000c36 bs ram that eerbody should be buyin and Asus mbs...yuh huh.
Sorry dude, I ain't buyin whatchersellin hahaha.

 

[Ayhamb99]

You intentionally misunderstood.

It is superior overall.

Power consumption, cost to manufacture, perf per dollar (it is way cheaper than the 13900k, and is on a massive sale). Gaming differences are almost nil. 7700X beats every CPU except for the overpriced 13900k nobody should be buying.

Also those meta review analysis are useless. Most reviewers do a bad job reviewing CPUs. The Techpowerup review was not good either.

I suggest you watch the latest Hardware Unboxed review video where he shows how important correct ram settings are for the reviews. 164 fps to 184 fps with the same ram, just one with the correct settings.

I watched 10 reviewers and only one, Jarrod's Tech, used normal ram, and used the same ram for both CPUs. Also <10 percent of reviewers check more than 10 games. Intel supplied faster very expensive ram for the reviewer kits.

Test 50 games. Same ram. 7700X is faster than every CPU except the 13900k.

All you are saying is that if you spend $400+ on ram, Intel can win. Big deal. Nobody should be spending more than $150 on ram. All you are saying is Intel can win by a few single percentage points if you spend twice as much money. Put the 7700X computer and the 13900k computer side by side with that overpriced ram instead of the 6000C36 that everyone should be buying, and you've already spent more than $800 more on the Intel one.

Let's compare a reviewer's hardware for pricing. Asus hasn't even released a DDR5 Tuf yet, so you need Strix to compare for Intel.

View attachment 279136View attachment 279137

Spend $700 more to win in gaming by <5 percent on average. Ok. That's the average Intel reviewer or fanboy on these forums. They are talking about a system that costs $700 more against the superior performance and value. I'd rather buy the second fastest CPU for gaming.

And a month from now, it will not only be the second fastest, but the fastest. The 7900X3D will not require overpriced ram, overpriced cooler, overpriced CPU, nor an overpriced motherboard. It's gonna look pretty dumb to buy the 13900k for gaming very soon. Ever more dumb than it looks right now.

I'll take my 7700X + RTX 4090 gaming computer for less money than your i9-13900k + 4080 computer.

So you're telling me that most of the other reviews are useless? nice one mate

As I mentioned, the 13900K is a Halo product so price per performance is thrown out the window for the best performance possible and so do not make sense at all for a gaming build and is a completely different class compared to the 7700X, it is a productivity chip first and foremost, The 7700X price-wise right now competes with the 13600K which will basically be equivalent to the 7700X in gaming depending on which game you play exactly and be faster in productivity thanks to the E-Cores. Of course 7700X/13600k + 4090 >13900K + 4080.

I do agree with you, spending $700 more for 9-10% more performance is a shit idea, that's why the 13900K doesn't make sense for a gaming build and why the 13600K should be talked about in comparisons to the 7700X for gaming. Not the 13900K which is a halo/flagship product so the priority is the best possible performance with thermals and price per performance thrown out the window.

Here is a reasonable comparison of the total platform cost, each platform right now has their pros and cons and the person can decide on whether AMD or Intel suits them better depending on their needs, Neither of them are "superior", both have their advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Dr. Dro]

You intentionally misunderstood.

It is superior overall.

No, it isn't. The entire issue people took with you, including myself, is that you aren't reasonable or honest. The 7700X is not anywhere near the level of the i9-13900K, it's just like comparing that low-cost DeepCool heatsink with the Arctic Freezer 420 - you're trying to skew things so hard and so badly against Intel that by picking the lowest budget AMD parts and the most expensive Intel CPU + lots of premium segment accessories and a motherboard that is on a completely different tier, that the harder you try the more you expose the quintessential problem with the AM5 platform.

It. Is. Too. Expensive! Even if the performance is fine; it's not fine to the point they are charging, the early adopter issues (and the potential long-term ones, as seen with socket AM4), the costs of DDR5 memory and the asking price of the processors make it a very unsavory proposal when you can just buy a 5800X3D or a i5-13600K. This is especially true in markets outside the United States, which tend to lag behind on price reductions - DDR4, quality AM4 mainboards and Zen 2/3/Alder/Raptor Lake CPUs are already widely available for a reasonable cost worldwide.

The (already canceled and postponed) X3D chips will be anything but cheap. You're mocking the Core i9 now, but the X3D parts are not positioned at a budget and not even the 7800X3D is going to be considered a low-cost processor. Expect AMD to ask at least 799 on the 7950X3D.

FYI - They have released a DDR5 Z790 TUF, and they have from the start. Raptor Lake also works natively with the previous-generation Z690 chipset and is an option if you want to save a buck. It'd be cool if you stopped making things up.

 

[JustBenching]

No, it isn't. The entire issue people took with you, including myself, is that you aren't reasonable or honest. The 7700X is not anywhere near the level of the i9-13900K, it's just like comparing that low-cost DeepCool heatsink with the Arctic Freezer 420 - you're trying to skew things so hard and so badly against Intel that by picking the lowest budget AMD parts and the most expensive Intel CPU + lots of premium segment accessories and a motherboard that is on a completely different tier, that the harder you try the more you expose the quintessential problem with the AM5 platform.

It. Is. Too. Expensive! Even if the performance is fine; it's not fine to the point they are charging, the early adopter issues (and the potential long-term ones, as seen with socket AM4), the costs of DDR5 memory and the asking price of the processors make it a very unsavory proposal when you can just buy a 5800X3D or a i5-13600K. This is especially true in markets outside the United States, which tend to lag behind on price reductions - DDR4, quality AM4 mainboards and Zen 2/3/Alder/Raptor Lake CPUs are already widely available for a reasonable cost worldwide.

The (already canceled and postponed) X3D chips will be anything but cheap. You're mocking the Core i9 now, but the X3D parts are not positioned at a budget and not even the 7800X3D is going to be considered a low-cost processor. Expect AMD to ask at least 799 on the 7950X3D.

FYI - They have released a DDR5 Z790 TUF, and they have from the start. Raptor Lake also works natively with the previous-generation Z690 chipset and is an option if you want to save a buck. It'd be cool if you stopped making things up.

Funny thing is, I checked a while ago, a 7600x + the cheapest x670 + an expo ddr5 kit costs roughly the same as a 13700k + a cheapo mobo + ddr4. That's just insane

 

[gffermari]

Funny thing is, I checked a while ago, a 7600x + the cheapest x670 + an expo ddr5 kit costs roughly the same as a 13700k + a cheapo mobo + ddr4. That's just insane

Come on mate. Don't do the same mistake as the guys above.

The 7600, even the X, is way cheaper now than it was when it released.
The X670 is the worst chipset ever produced. The B650E is better in everything while the B650 is the one you should compare to the cheapo Intel mb.
And Intel+DDR4 is nowhere near a 7000 Ryzen. That's normal and it's not an advantage that you can use a great Intel cpu (12 or 13 gen) with DDR4 ram.

And because we are in the 13900KS topic.
If anyone bought it, please post a benchmark or LN2 OC numbers.
The rest of us should continue the discussion in other topics.

 

[JustBenching]

The 7600, even the X, is way cheaper now than it was when it released.

The same is true for the 13700k though. It launched at 550, now you can find it in stock for 450.

The X670 is the worst chipset ever produced. The B650E is better in everything while the B650 is the one you should compare to the cheapo Intel mb.

The cheapest x670 WAS the cheapest AM5 mobo available when I checked, about a month ago. I literally took the cheapest stuff I could find and a 7600x, and it turned out to be more expensive than a ddr4 13700k system

And Intel+DDR4 is nowhere near a 7000 Ryzen. That's normal and it's not an advantage that you can use a great Intel cpu (12 or 13 gen) with DDR4 ram.

Ill take a 13700k + ddr4 over a 7600x any day of the week, not even a contest there

 

[Vario]

I own a ROG B550-E. I know exactly what premium motherboards with mid-range chipsets can do, because I have one of the most egregious examples of said motherboards on my own build, this used to be an $300 motherboard when new. If anyone is telling you that even such higher-end designs have no drawbacks compared to X570 models, they are lying to you. The number of USB ports on this motherboard is remarkably low, and connectivity is rather limited considered its price. However, it is reliable, well-supported and suits my needs now as it did when I purchased it, one Gen 4 GPU and M.2 slot are all I need. The second one M.2 does not support Gen 4, but my drives are both Gen 3, anyway.

While we're talking about actual feature sets, the Z790 chipset offers superior I/O and connectivity when compared to the B650. It's not fair to compare both, they are not the same tier of product and the prices aren't even remotely the same, if AMD B650 designs are being sold at even remotely same price realm of entry level Intel Z790 (and they are - they start at $180 or so), then it only served to prove my point further: most people would rather buy a simple motherboard which just works instead of pouring hundreds of dollars on a high end one they do not need. I've seen people arguing for things like the Gigabyte DS3H lineup far more often than anything else, the B650 edition of this one is an extremely simple micro-ATX board with a very weak VRM, the bare essentials in I/O (it has a grand total of four SATA ports), a terribad integrated audio codec - just enough to get a functioning system, and that will currently set you back $170.

Meanwhile, the same $170 will buy you a ROG Strix B550-A. DDR4 costs are much lower. You can buy a 5800X3D and enjoy first-class gaming, for less than it'd cost to get that bottom tier motherboard, a 7600X and a very basic DDR5 kit. It just has no appeal to the common buyer right now.

You get more M.2 with the pricey chipsets as you noted. It is really nice to have a lot of M.2. I have three M.2. on this machine. Even a fourth would be decent. M.2 have replaced all spinners and SATA SSDs for me.

 

[Dr. Dro]

You get more M.2 with the pricey chipsets as you noted. It is really nice to have a lot of M.2. I have three M.2. on this machine. Even a fourth would be decent. M.2 have replaced all spinners and SATA SSDs for me.

More M.2, more bandwidth for ports (which means you won't be limited to the 4 to 6 USB ports most B550 motherboards are limited to), both/all of your storage slots will be Gen 4, amongst other things, and same, I've proudly gotten rid of SATA and mechanical drives at this point.

Come on mate. Don't do the same mistake as the guys above.

The 7600, even the X, is way cheaper now than it was when it released.
The X670 is the worst chipset ever produced. The B650E is better in everything while the B650 is the one you should compare to the cheapo Intel mb.
And Intel+DDR4 is nowhere near a 7000 Ryzen. That's normal and it's not an advantage that you can use a great Intel cpu (12 or 13 gen) with DDR4 ram.

And because we are in the 13900KS topic.
If anyone bought it, please post a benchmark or LN2 OC numbers.
The rest of us should continue the discussion in other topics.

I might get one, if I manage to flip my 5950X. Currently looking at it. However, I will use it with DDR4 memory. DDR5 is just not a game changer for the most part, especially considering the cost.

 

[Snoota]

More M.2, more bandwidth for ports (which means you won't be limited to the 4 to 6 USB ports most B550 motherboards are limited to), both/all of your storage slots will be Gen 4, amongst other things, and same, I've proudly gotten rid of SATA and mechanical drives at this point.



I might get one, if I manage to flip my 5950X. Currently looking at it. However, I will use it with DDR4 memory. DDR5 is just not a game changer for the most part, especially considering the cost.

Any decent DDR4 + Z690-A more than enough accommodates most people's needs quite frankly. I'd only really consider DDR5 (maybe) worth bothering if you're pursuing the absolute crème de la crème performance with a Z790i Edge + Hynix A-Die without a care for budget (or time for that matter). But given that Brazilian pricing for DDR5 is especially cucked, not even bothering considering it makes sense.