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

[Garrus]

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.

well said, cheers

 

[JimmyDoogs]

Upgraded from a 12900K to a 13900KS for RAM overclocking. Using a z690 still + 6400 MHz RAM and it's getting considerably better performance than when using the 12900K. My RAM was only getting up to 5600 MHz before without crashing and now I'm getting the full 6400 MHz with 0 crashes even with the last gen z690 board. I'm getting almost about a 20% boost in 4k in demanding titles like Collisto Protocol and Gotham Knights. And the 12900k is getting a nice home, I'm selling it to a friend who needs it.

 

[Garrus]

Upgraded from a 12900K to a 13900KS for RAM overclocking. Using a z690 still + 6400 MHz RAM and it's getting considerably better performance than when using the 12900K. My RAM was only getting up to 5600 MHz before without crashing and now I'm getting the full 6400 MHz with 0 crashes even with the last gen z690 board. I'm getting almost about a 20% boost in 4k in demanding titles like Collisto Protocol and Gotham Knights. And the 12900k is getting a nice home, I'm selling it to a friend who needs it.

6400 versus 5600 isn't giving you a boost. It is CPU clock speed and cache that does it. Not ram clock speed. Ram timings can help, but clock speed almost not at all.

 

[napata]

6400 versus 5600 isn't giving you a boost. It is CPU clock speed and cache that does it. Not ram clock speed. Ram timings can help, but clock speed almost not at all.

RAM clocks are the nr. 1 thing you should aim for and have always been. For DDR5 this is even more the case than DDR4. RT especially heavily benefits from pure bandwidth over everything else. Spider-Man being the most extreme example.

 

[JustBenching]

Upgraded from a 12900K to a 13900KS for RAM overclocking. Using a z690 still + 6400 MHz RAM and it's getting considerably better performance than when using the 12900K. My RAM was only getting up to 5600 MHz before without crashing and now I'm getting the full 6400 MHz with 0 crashes even with the last gen z690 board. I'm getting almost about a 20% boost in 4k in demanding titles like Collisto Protocol and Gotham Knights. And the 12900k is getting a nice home, I'm selling it to a friend who needs it.

Doubt

 

[Garrus]

RAM clocks are the nr. 1 thing you should aim for and have always been. For DDR5 this is even more the case than DDR4. RT especially heavily benefits from pure bandwidth over everything else. Spider-Man being the most extreme example.

timings, not ram speed

check out the latest HUB video for motherboards, where the MSI motherboard using the same ram with different timings gets 164 fps, but the same ram with better timings for Gigabyte scores 184 fps

 

[Melvis]

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

Oh really? made to run at that temp and throttle all the time? yeah ok whatever you say....... and you think mines a stupid argument? you take the cake on this one thats for sure! and now I know your trolling! as many other reviews show this not to be true when set at Intels specs.......not even a decent 360 rad can keep it under 100c, so stop talking BS kid.

 

[JimmyDoogs]

I'm not as savvy as you guys so I'm sorry if I said something incorrect. I know timings are important here too. This reflects maybe my own inability to use DDR5 properly. Am I alone here in seeing improvements in 4k gaming 1% lows with strictly higher clock speeds? This is especially noticeable to me in Unreal Engine 4 titles such as Collisto Protocol, FF7 Remake and Kena: Bridge of Spirits.

 

[JustBenching]

Oh really? made to run at that temp and throttle all the time? yeah ok whatever you say....... and you think mines a stupid argument? you take the cake on this one thats for sure! and now I know your trolling! as many other reviews show this not to be true when set at Intels specs.......not even a decent 360 rad can keep it under 100c, so stop talking BS kid.

First of all, intel specs is 253w. The review you posted is power unlimited, which are not intel specs

Second of all, amd cpus also throttle. Thats how they stay at 95c.

So whats the difference in that regard between an intel and an amd cpu? They both made to run at high temps and they both throttle to keep those temps.

 

[napata]

timings, not ram speed

check out the latest HUB video for motherboards, where the MSI motherboard using the same ram with different timings gets 164 fps, but the same ram with better timings for Gigabyte scores 184 fps

Speed is more important. Speed is always the thing you go for first as it's the most important. This just makes sense too as clock speed influences almost every timing as the actual speed of a timing in ns is 2000*cycles/clock speed. Obviously when I'm making my previous statement I'm talking about an equivalent change so not 200 more mhz vs fully tweaked timings.

The video you're talking about doesn't even compare what you're claiming. Most of the performance difference is from the ULCK as with the exception of the Gigabyte mobo they all have more or less the same timings.

From the holy RAM OCing bible:

• Generally speaking, frequency should be prioritized over tighter timings, as long as performance is not negatively impacted by FCLK sync, Command Rate, or Memory Gear mode.

If you still don't believe it then you can go ask someone with a reputation like Buildzoid or Noreng and they'll say the same thing.

 

[Vario]

Upgraded from a 12900K to a 13900KS for RAM overclocking. Using a z690 still + 6400 MHz RAM and it's getting considerably better performance than when using the 12900K. My RAM was only getting up to 5600 MHz before without crashing and now I'm getting the full 6400 MHz with 0 crashes even with the last gen z690 board. I'm getting almost about a 20% boost in 4k in demanding titles like Collisto Protocol and Gotham Knights. And the 12900k is getting a nice home, I'm selling it to a friend who needs it.

That is interesting. I am not having any issues with ram on 12900KS, but you would definitely have a better bin on the KS regardless, that may be as much of it as the generational bump. I have noticed very large differences in performance between identical intel SKUS in the past, seen this with 3770K, 9900K, etc.

I went through two 3770K that could barely overclock 100 mhz above stock before I acquired one that ran 4.9 GHz with exact same hardware.

I bought a 9900K that was unable to run my 3200c14 ram at XMP and not even able to maintain stock clocks on the same system that ran a i5 8600K at 5.2Ghz with same ram 3200C14 easily (ram even went into mid 4000s).

It is possible your 12900K is a piece of crap.

 

[Garrus]

Speed is more important. Speed is always the thing you go for first as it's the most important. This just makes sense too as clock speed influences almost every timing as the actual speed of a timing in ns is 2000*cycles/clock speed. Obviously when I'm making my previous statement I'm talking about an equivalent change so not 200 more mhz vs fully tweaked timings.

The video you're talking about doesn't even compare what you're claiming. Most of the performance difference is from the ULCK as with the exception of the Gigabyte mobo they all have more or less the same timings.

From the holy RAM OCing bible:


If you still don't believe it then you can go ask someone with a reputation like Buildzoid or Noreng and they'll say the same thing.

Not true. Everyone bought the C14 DDR4 for a reason. I don't need to ask Buildzoid, since Techpowerup did a comparison on this very website.

DDR4 C14 ram was still bringing most games to a higher FPS than DDR5 ram that cost twice as much. Go read the Techpowerup article about it.

 

[kinz]

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.

No, fevgatos is 100% correct here.

P-cores consume about 20% more power than E-cores while performing about 50% more operations. So yes, the e-cores consume less power per core, but that doesn't make them more efficient. And intel knows this, they simply choose to advertise the less power hungry cores as "efficient" cores for marketing.


what you're maybe forgetting is that the e-cores are only lower wattage because they are so much lower frequency.

I can run my 8 p-cores at 4ghz, and it's like 6-15 watts at idle.


here is a source testing the difference between cores.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hardwaretimes.com/intels-big-golden-cove-cores-50-faster-than-little-gracemont-cores-156w-vs-123w-power-draw/amp/

 

[Garrus]

No, fevgatos is 100% correct here.

P-cores consume about 20% more power than E-cores while performing about 50% more operations. So yes, the e-cores consume less power per core, but that doesn't make them more efficient. And intel knows this, they simply choose to advertise the less power hungry cores as "efficient" cores for marketing.


what you're maybe forgetting is that the e-cores are only lower wattage because they are so much lower frequency.

I can run my 8 p-cores at 4ghz, and it's like 6-15 watts at idle.


here is a source testing the difference between cores.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hardwaretimes.com/intels-big-golden-cove-cores-50-faster-than-little-gracemont-cores-156w-vs-123w-power-draw/amp/

Good thing people don't come to this forum to educate themselves. They'd buy a 13900k for gaming when the 7700X is all they need. They'd think Intel is just as cheap as AMD even though it is not, and they'd think the AM5 B650 and Intel B660 are equivalent. LMAO. Keep on going. And yeah, they'd pay a lot of money for high frequency DDR5 despite timings being the only thing that matters. Despite Techpowerup doing the best review of ram timings and proving otherwise. Why come here if you don't read their articles? You can adjust the clock speed after you buy it anyways without any difficulty, unlike timings. I bought 5600 DDR5 and just set it to 6200 and voila, saved a ton of money. Keep on going We're done.

We were talking about B650 versus B660 chipsets, and you wrote a long meaningless rant about E cores in response. Huh.

Important to find people that actually know something about computers.

 

[JustBenching]

Good thing people don't come to this forum to educate themselves. They'd buy a 13900k for gaming when the 7700X is all they need. They'd think Intel is just as cheap as AMD even though it is not, and they'd think the AM5 B650 and Intel B660 are equivalent. LMAO. Keep on going. And yeah, they'd pay a lot of money for high frequency DDR5 despite timings being the only thing that matters. Despite Techpowerup doing the best review of ram timings and proving otherwise. Why come here if you don't read their articles? You can adjust the clock speed after you buy it anyways without any difficulty, unlike timings. I bought 5600 DDR5 and just set it to 6200 and voila, saved a ton of money. Keep on going We're done.

We were talking about B650 versus B660 chipsets, and you wrote a long meaningless rant about E cores in response. Huh.

Important to find people that actually know something about computers.

You think intel only has the 13900k?

 

[Melvis]

First of all, intel specs is 253w. The review you posted is power unlimited, which are not intel specs

Nope! that is incorrect as proven down below

Second of all, amd cpus also throttle. Thats how they stay at 95c.

So whats the difference in that regard between an intel and an amd cpu? They both made to run at high temps and they both throttle to keep those temps.

Nope also incorrect as many reviews showed and proved this is how the 7 series was designed to run.

 

[JustBenching]

Nope! that is incorrect as proven down below

Nope also incorrect as many reviews showed and proved this is how the 7 series was designed to run.

You are replying to a 2 year old post bud.


This is how intel cpus are designed to run as well.What the heck are you talking about?

 

[Melvis]

You are replying to a 2 year old post bud.


This is how intel cpus are designed to run as well.What the heck are you talking about?

And?

are you daft or something? Read what you wrote then look at the video and I know you didnt as its been only 5mins since you replied......