News AMD Ryzen 9 7950X vs Intel Core i9-13900K Face Off

[JoBalz]

i plan to run my 5700x (might up to a 5800x3d 2023 just cause i might upgrade relatives system with mine) for next decade.

in my 28 yrs of gaming i was purely Intel until my current system build. Either side is great anymore as they are overkill for 90% of users.

skip a gen and then upgrade for a noticeable increase thus better value.

and in closing

Nobody (who is into tech) denies 13th gen is better performance to cost than Zen4.

but again...either are good and more than enough for most users.

then again AMD's EPYC are getting some interesting stuff (CXL is extremely interesting) that if makes its way down to the lower chips could change the story (but could be many yrs if it trickles down)

I agree with all your points but particularly those above. Most hardware is sold or disposed of long before it failed or else could no longer run newer software you have, or else have compelling new features. I'll be honest, I've built new systems for no other reason than I wanted the most up-to-date tech and I enjoy building new rigs. My last system went to my sister to replace her 10 year old Intel system. Since then, a lightning strike outside in the yard managed to take out several major pieces of hardware in my Ryzen system so I chose to upgrade from a Ryzen R5 3600X to an R7-5800X and a slightly upgraded MSI X570 board. Otherwise, I would have waited until a year or so into the AM5 era.

Bottom line is, outside of hardcore gamers, either Intel or AMD CPUs provide the performance (and usually are overkill) for most users.

But I do buy AMD since Ryzens were released because I like supporting a viable alternative to Intel. Their competition with each other encourages innovation, which we all benefit from!

 

[rluker5]

Why no real-world Gaming performance benchmarks.?

Very few people are going to blow a massive wad of cash on a top tier gaming system and then play at 1080p or 1440p, with the exception of a small number of people who play competitive twitch shooters at minimum settings at 1080p, whereupon, better performance can be had by using a better internet provider and better hardware between the ISP and the PC.!

Spending $1500 on a GPU, $550 on a CPU, plus the rest of the system and NOT using a 4K screen is going to be a tiny fraction of those using these CPU's for gaming, so, I ask, where are the 4K gaming reviews.?

I can nitpick more, such as, why is the Intel system being tested with DDR5-6800 whilst the AMD system is not, but the cost of the memory is not part of the comparison pro's and con's, and then we have the motherboard comparison of pro's and con's where you include DDR4 (yes FOUR) motherboard options to use with an i9-13900, and can sacrifice a significant proportion of the performance (depending on what is being tested).

This review seems to be rather biased and has several glaring issues.

I am pointing this out because I have read and watched several other reviews that compare these CPU's and accompanying components and they all have fair and balanced comparisons, and of course test multiple games at 1080, 1440 and 4K.

I am very disappointed, and hope that you take my criticism as it is intended to be and turn it into something constructive by adding those 4K reviews, using the same speed (and cost) RAM for both systems, and fix the other issues I have highlighted. Yes, this will mean that you have to re-do half of the benchmarks and rewrite half of this article.

"Real world benchmarks" is way too vague.
There are lots of different preferences.
I game 4k60 and want as high as graphics settings as I can get with my 3080 without getting the framerate to drop below 60 fps. I'm ok with using DLSS, typically won't use RT and will sometimes lower my settings to quiet my GPU with an undervolt/underclock if I'm using open backed headphones or it is a stealth game - because atmosphere.
Real world benchmarks for me would look pretty boring with all of the 4c8t or more CPUs from Haswell or Zen2 showing the same on the chart for almost all of the games.
That comparison would suck.

Some like to play max framerate shooters with reduced resolution and graphics settings to give them the biggest possible latency advantage.

Most people are totally GPU limited and adjust their settings to the best compromise in their opinion. Many get stutters and frame drops from FX era CPUs or Ryzens with TPM difficulties, some have crappy ram, some go for unstable overclocks, outdated drivers, inadequate cooling, and a lot of people put on some visual mods that affect performance.

Less people run 4k ultra in real life, especially if they aren't getting 60fps.
If you had a 3090, 6900XT or lower (at least 99% are in this category) would you play CP2077 at 4k ultra/rt max and get some pathetic fps? It would get very frustrating.

You need to be more specific as to what a "real" world"
scenario is.

I think the author was just trying to do a compare and contrast analysis to get out information that people would like to read. Everyone already knows that higher resolutions reduce the appearance of difference in CPU performance.

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

Having to upgrade CPUs every year is a new AMD thing.
A 4770k from 2013 will still run 99% of games well over 60 fps and still feels fast with light use. A 13900k with DDR4 and some low end mobo (that has VRMs for 500w because they all do nowadays for some unknown reason) won't need to be replaced for at least that long for the vast majority of users. They could easily skip DDR5 entirely.
Remember how silly it sounded when Huang said "the more you buy the more you save"? That's the case for AM5. Better off with an X3D if you are on AM4 already, or a 5700 if you are a normal user. Those chips are quite fast and will give enough performance that the average user would have a hard time telling the difference in real life until AM5 is EOL. That would be saving.

You literally just proved my point…am4 users 5 years later purchase the 5800x3d to stay relevant for another 5 years, that’s 10 years of usefulness out of one motherboard, one set of ddr4, and 2 CPUs (in my case going from 1700x to 5800x3d). I’ll be ready for my next cpu upgrade just in time for the am6 platform.

Btw, I still have my sandy bridge-e 6 core cpu system going everyday all core overclocked to a whopping 5 ghz which was the holy grail back in 2012. I must say though, since it does not support many of the newer instruction sets, it’s getting pretty long in the tooth to use with modern games even though it has a +52% frequency overclock. Although I gotta give it to the good old OG 32nm planar transistors, they are so robust compared to the 3D transistors we use now. 5ghz OC for 10 years straight and no degradation!

 

[rluker5]

Two CPUs + more expensive ram and motherboard aren't cheaper.

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

Two CPUs + more expensive ram and motherboard aren't cheaper.

I smell a TLDR moment….

 

[TerryLaze]

Two, power consumption is important to me. Intel's consumption is still higher than the AMD CPUs and I believe in reducing my power footprint where I can.

Have you ever run any of the 3-4 softwares listed in the review for actual work?!?!
Sure power draw for multithreaded heavy workloads is better on AMD, but if you don't use it does it exist?

If you do less threaded stuff on your system or mostly run it idle intel has far better power consumption.
They only show one single threaded power draw and no idle draw but it's enough to tell the story.

 

[TheJoker2020]

"AMD's Ryzen 7000 chips come to market with an entirely new architecture and process node. "

not according to everything or everyone else, including AMD. This is a big refresh of 5xxx/Zen 3. The Zen 5 is the entire new chip.

So, we have DDR5, PCI-E 5, AVX512, enlarged L2, updated prefetch, updated schedulers, integrated GPU and more.

Is it "entirely" new, no, is it further from Zen 3 than Zen 3 was from Zen 2, yes. We could nitpick in the same way with almost any X86 (or other CPU, GPU, other chip), most do not start 100% new, most build on previous designs just as almost every non Silicon product does. Will Zen 5 be an "entirely new chip", no, it will be largely built on the 7000 series, but the rumours are that is has "an entirely new cache layout", whatever that means, and will include "accelerators".

Will Zen 5 be a bigger difference than Zen 4 was to Zen 3, in some ways yes, in others there will just be a few tweaks here and there, but Zen 5 will be built on the groundwork of Zen 4, and the "entirely new" AM5 platform that was built alongside Zen 4. As such, Zen 4 laid the foundations for Zen 5, and Zen 5 will be able to stretch its legs.! Also worth noting for those who do not know, AMD uses two "leapfrogging" design teams, so the people creating Zen 5 were responsible for Zen 3, and the people who created Zen 4 have been working on Zen 6 for a few months.!

 

[TheJoker2020]

"Real world benchmarks" is way too vague.
There are lots of different preferences.
I game 4k60 and want as high as graphics settings as I can get with my 3080 without getting the framerate to drop below 60 fps. I'm ok with using DLSS, typically won't use RT and will sometimes lower my settings to quiet my GPU with an undervolt/underclock if I'm using open backed headphones or it is a stealth game - because atmosphere.
Real world benchmarks for me would look pretty boring with all of the 4c8t or more CPUs from Haswell or Zen2 showing the same on the chart for almost all of the games.
That comparison would suck.

You seem to both miss my point and highlight it.

All any reviewer needs to do is pick the hardware, pick the game, pick the settings, benchmark it, post the results noting the hardware and specifics of the game settings, GPU driver version, OS + Version, Hardware etc, and those reviews should clearly involve a cross section of games. When I say "real World benchmarks", I mean a real situation that most people using said product would be using, and as I mentioned in my previous post, omitting 4K resolution games with a CPU, platform and GPU that laughs at and it utterly wasted on 1080p is NOT "real World" except for a tiny niche of gamers.

I also run at 4K60, but I am not quite so bothered about FPS dropping a little below 60 from time to time as I am using a 5700XT and a FreeSync monitor, but for the most part I run my games and system much like yours, which is why I am interested in 4K gaming reviews for when I upgrade my GPU, I will also be looking at whether I need to upgrade my CPU as well, or possibly my whole platform, and for my purposes, this review is absolutely useless.

 

[Rico Ismail]

Except this article is not consideting the price drops AMD announced. A 7950X is now only 574 not 699...for example. This article needs a minor update ASAP over wrong pricing... as this pricing difference changes the outcome considerably imho.

Edit: I am blind don't listen to my price complaints.

Conclussion may change if the price is edited. Making new article is much easier Buy ryzen 5900x + B550M + ddr4 in pair always cheaper than 7600X + insane AM5 Mobo prices + Expensive DDR5 but 5900x give more performance. If they making the price they must also increases CPU horse power too

 

[Rico Ismail]

That 32MB cache helps single core a ton, more than more cores would for sure. Look at the 300-500 series improvement where most of that was going from having 16MB L3 available per core to 32MB L3 available per core due to CCD rearrangement. Also the low cache Ryzen mobile/G performs close to Skylake arch in games while Ryzen desktop with more cache is way past that.

Maybe taking the cache out for their version of e-cores would work, main chiplet with cache, and backup additional compute chiplet without. But you would have to fix Windows to get it to use the right chiplet first. Right now it isn't working the best with that.

Single core performance most influence by larger L2 chace (intel has 2MB per P-core) since AMD just 1MB per core. And also L1 chace that AMD never goes UP whatever IPC jumping like ROCKET. AMD must increase L1 chace size same as IPC jump and maybe L2 chace if they want to more single core performance. i think under 128kb L1 is very very very small number whatever how faster they are since IPC and branch prediction rocket up and need more L1 chace to work faster. Also single core turbo frequency makes one thread benchmark goes up too. L3 chaces mostly used to multi thread performance because used by all cores in CCD. Bigger and faster L3 will boost multi thread performance. And they can be placed in less expensive silicon in 6nm IOD like MCD inside radeon 7900xtx to reduce price and make larger L3 chace

 

[bernardv]

And the higher cost of the new AMD platform?

"the recommended 280mm AIO (or air equivalent) for Intel, or 240mm AIO (or air equivalent) for AMD."

The price comparison does not take cooling into account, just the motherboard costs which are in favor of Intel of course. In fact you might end up even spending more on a power supply if you go with Intel, but none of that is added up here as well.

 

[TerryLaze]

The price comparison does not take cooling into account, just the motherboard costs which are in favor of Intel of course. In fact you might end up even spending more on a power supply if you go with Intel, but none of that is added up here as well.

Overclocking costs are never part of a normal review, and never have been.
Ryzen uses 231W while intel uses 253W, that difference does not change a single thing on cooling or PSU cost.

If you put a CPU on unlimited power and enable MCE and whatever else you can think of to increase power draw while also forcing as much throttling as possible then that's beyond the scope of normal use and normal cost.

And you can see from the results of this review that they did test with the power limit in place since the power draw "only" goes up to 245W when measuring the CPU power draw alone.
So it's no loss of performance either compared to the results of this review you will get these results when limit is intel stock and not out-of-the-box whatever the mobo maker put in.

 

[rluker5]

If you do an actual cost analysis between Intel and AMD, AMD is cheaper in the long run to stay up to date (IE: AMD=buy one motherboard, set of ddr5, and cpu then buy the last generation of cpu compatible with am5 to stay relevant, whereas Intel = buy raptor lake, set of ddr4 to save $50-100, ddr4 motherboard to save another $100, then 4 years later having to purchase new gen cpu, new set of ddr5, and a new motherboard) and this scenario is 2 cpu purchases on AM5, if you are a power user and anticipate upgrading at each new generation it’s one motherboard, one set of ddr5, and 4 CPU’s for AMD versus 3 motherboards, ddr4 and ddr5, and 4 CPU’s)

Two CPUs + more expensive ram and motherboard aren't cheaper.

I smell a TLDR moment….

2>1
Edit: or are you recommending that no one who has AM4, except power users should buy AM5?

 

[Rico Ismail]

Let me inform you of why.

First, Intel shareholders are very frustrated right now because profit is significantly down since alderlake came out because margins have been decreased significantly in order to price their processors at their respective price points to stave off market loss to AMD. Intel will 100% increase their prices for next generation due to the prospect of shareholders suing Intel for dereliction of duty to their shareholders.

Second, AMD does not have in house fabrication to build their processors. They have to purchase wafers, lithography, and packaging from 3rd party companies that demand healthy margins for their services. That is the main reason why AMD pursued chiplet based products, in order to partially counter the added costs of 3rd party manufacturing.

Third, AMD did not implement compatibility with both ddr4 and ddr5 because their socket generations last 2.5 times longer than intel’s. Next generation, Intel will be ddr5 only when they switch sockets for the next 2 year cycle, whereas AMD’s design philosophy includes a socket with a 5 year lifespan and AMD purchasers would be very angry that their 5 year relevant motherboards are not compatible with zen 5, 6, etc. because they bought a ddr4 600 series board. From a design perspective, since the am5 socket will last significantly longer than Intel’s 2 year sockets, it makes no sense to include ddr4 as an end of line motherboard design when their marketing pushes “buy one motherboard and have 5 years of easy cpu upgrades on each of their sockets.

If you do an actual cost analysis between Intel and AMD, AMD is cheaper in the long run to stay up to date (IE: AMD=buy one motherboard, set of ddr5, and cpu then buy the last generation of cpu compatible with am5 to stay relevant, whereas Intel = buy raptor lake, set of ddr4 to save $50-100, ddr4 motherboard to save another $100, then 4 years later having to purchase new gen cpu, new set of ddr5, and a new motherboard) and this scenario is 2 cpu purchases on AM5, if you are a power user and anticipate upgrading at each new generation it’s one motherboard, one set of ddr5, and 4 CPU’s for AMD versus 3 motherboards, ddr4 and ddr5, and 4 CPU’s)

And also AMD has AVX512 instruction set but intel None. Only intel have its own foundry. Apple, huawei, qualcomm, etc only order chip from TSMC, Samsung. They just design the circuity diagram. AMD using ciplet because they have infinity fabric. DRAM Controller, chace, PCIE HUB, and something that no need advance proces placed in Cheap silicone, then CPU Cores placed in more advanced litography that capable of higher frequency possible while drawing less power but more expensive wafer. They connected via infinity fabric. That will give more benefit than monolitic Die.

DDR5 have more component ( on chip ECC, PMIC, SPD HUB, etc ) will be more expensive than DDR4. And New Mobo with 170w typical / 230W peak power need more VRM, Solid caps, cooling system, than 105W. LGA 1718+ pins AM5 is more expensive than previous PGA 1331+ AM4 pins. Also new PCIE 5.0 HUB ICs, usb 3.2 controller, etc.

It will be strange if build ryzen 7600x system + expensive AM5 Mobo + pricey DDR5. The total price is more expensive than building a 5900x 12C/24T + cheap B550 + cheap DDR4 system, but 7600x only got 6C/12T performance. Build 7900X or 7950X is more rational with that high cost system. When 7600x comes with only $99 it still doesnt help the total cost spends of the entire system build. So wait until DDR5 and AM5 Mobos price calm down. Or wait X3D model.

Now intel get tripple crown for best Gaming, Best performance, and best price per performance value. Hey blue team shines again !!! I hope Ryzen 7800X3D came with 170W TDP so it will be taking back All best gaming CPU title, and pass the highest turbo clock 6.2 GHz, with lower price. And Ryzen9 7990X3D will come with two 3D v-chache installed on both CCD and retaking back the high end with more price per performance value. I think L3 chace die is more cheaper to placed on infinity fabric or base pcb like any other Die, than place it verticaly above CCD or IOD with TSV bounds. TSV is likely an expensive method for interconneting two or more dies.

 

[The Historical Fidelity]

2>1
Edit: or are you recommending that no one who has AM4, except power users should buy AM5?

So I’m basically saying that if consumers follow the regimen that I have calculated and I have actually followed, I went from a1700x in 2017 to the 5800x3d in 2022 with one motherboard and drr4 set and fully anticipate it lasting me until the AM6 socket comes out in 2027ish. So in a way yes, I’m telling people the smart move is to upgrade at every other AM socket release. Getting the first and last processor released for the AM socket you bought in to really allows you to stay relevant for 10 years with cutting edge use cases while being able to comfortably skip AM socket generations. So I would anticipate upgrading to the first gen of AMD CPU’s on the AM6 platform then repeating the process.

 

[TerryLaze]

So I’m basically saying that if consumers follow the regimen that I have calculated and I have actually followed, I went from a1700x in 2017 to the 5800x3d in 2022 with one motherboard and drr4 set and fully anticipate it lasting me until the AM6 socket comes out in 2027ish. So in a way yes, I’m telling people the smart move is to upgrade at every other AM socket release. Getting the first and last processor released for the AM socket you bought in to really allows you to stay relevant for 10 years with cutting edge use cases while being able to comfortably skip AM socket generations. So I would anticipate upgrading to the first gen of AMD CPU’s on the AM6 platform then repeating the process.

You expect your mobo to last 10 years?
How much did you pay for it, which one is it?
Did you do any test to see if your VRMs haven't already degraded? Because they are rated for a certain amount of hours and after that it's going to lose performance until it dies.
You also better leave it alway on because the caps and all other parts only have that many power on cycles they can handle.

 

[-Fran-]

You expect your mobo to last 10 years?
How much did you pay for it, which one is it?
Did you do any test to see if your VRMs haven't already degraded? Because they are rated for a certain amount of hours and after that it's going to lose performance until it dies.
You also better leave it alway on because the caps and all other parts only have that many power on cycles they can handle.

Sorry to say, but that's a lot of misleading things you're implying.

I have a Crosshair VII (X470), which I got with a 2700X and I now have a 5900X running with zero issues. I'm 100% sure this motherboard can push the 5900X even harder, but I don't see a need to do so. Previous to this PC, I had an i7 2700K, which I got in the USA when I traveled there (and fell in love with MicroCenter, but that's another topic XD) on a Z77 board, and it is still being used for gaming by a friend with my old RX480. Sure it's not a gaming power house compared to new CPUs and GPUs, but it runs most games you throw at it with little to no issues.

A PC will last as long as you want it to and it does what you want/need it to. You need to be just a little bit responsible and do minor maintenance, but much like a car it'll just keep on running even after you die.

As for the main point: AMD does offer CPU drop-in upgrades for AM4 and AM5 (to be seen) and Intel is just doing it for 2 gens (rumour mill says Meteor Lake may have an LGA1700 variant for Z790). That's how it goes. If you buy Intel, you should go into their platform knowing this. AMD just started doing this in a believable way with AM4, so I'm hoping they keep it with AM5. There's a precedent now and it's not an empty/dubious promise like it was with AM4. This is an advantage from AMD and it's a nice to have for those that actually want to upgrade every few gens. On a personal note here: I kept my 2700K running for almost 10 years, because all new gens from Intel were just not worth it until Covfefe Lake, but then AMD had gotten its act together.

Regards.

 

[TerryLaze]

Sorry to say, but that's a lot of misleading things you're implying.

I have a Crosshair VII (X470), which I got with a 2700X and I now have a 5900X running with zero issues. I'm 100% sure this motherboard can push the 5900X even harder, but I don't see a need to do so. Previous to this PC, I had an i7 2700K, which I got in the USA when I traveled there (and fell in love with MicroCenter, but that's another topic XD) on a Z77 board, and it is still being used for gaming by a friend with my old RX480. Sure it's not a gaming power house compared to new CPUs and GPUs, but it runs most games you throw at it with little to no issues.

A PC will last as long as you want it to and it does what you want/need it to. You need to be just a little bit responsible and do minor maintenance, but much like a car it'll just keep on running even after you die.

As for the main point: AMD does offer CPU drop-in upgrades for AM4 and AM5 (to be seen) and Intel is just doing it for 2 gens (rumour mill says Meteor Lake may have an LGA1700 variant for Z790). That's how it goes. If you buy Intel, you should go into their platform knowing this. AMD just started doing this in a believable way with AM4, so I'm hoping they keep it with AM5. There's a precedent now and it's not an empty/dubious promise like it was with AM4. This is an advantage from AMD and it's a nice to have for those that actually want to upgrade every few gens. On a personal note here: I kept my 2700K running for almost 10 years, because all new gens from Intel were just not worth it until Covfefe Lake, but then AMD had gotten its act together.

Regards.

What was the misleading part?!
I just asked for a price because if you go for a cheap mobo the things I said are very relevant especially on unlocked CPUs and if you push them even conservatively.

 

[-Fran-]

What was the misleading part?!
I just asked for a price because if you go for a cheap mobo the things I said are very relevant especially on unlocked CPUs and if you push them even conservatively.

Much like with Intel, with AMD motherboards the CPUs will run, but will be hard limited to a power limit or TDP and that is known when you buy it; for AM4 motherboards, all of them can provide 142W and AM5 240W. As for the implied "if you don't buy quality, it won't last 10 years", that is just not correct. Faulty motherboards not withstanding, any motherboard should last ages within their operating margins, including whatever "OC" you want to do with them as long as it's within their spec (power one).

Going by memory, only a handful B350 boards can't deliver the whole 142W for all Ry5K CPUs, but those don't support the new CPUs for that reason. As I understand it, all B650 boards do support the full 240W and most are over-spec'ed for OC'ing. Not sure about A320 and the future "A620".

Regards.