News Core i9-13900K Outperform Core i9-12900K By 5 Percent In Early Gaming Benchmarks

[Admin]

Gamers with this CPU and a high-end GPU will probably want to play at the highest settings. With max settings across popular resolutions, performance benefits will span the 3 to 6% range, on average.

Core i9-13900K Outperform Core i9-12900K By 5 Percent In Early Gaming Benchmarks : Read more

 

[hotaru251]

is it normal for a QS to only have that much improvment especially given the claims of it having much betetr performance than 12th gen?

 

[TerryLaze]

is it normal for a QS to only have that much improvment especially given the claims of it having much betetr performance than 12th gen?

It's gaming where the GPU is dictating what FPS are possible.
Also the real news is this here.
Whenever the game and the GPU allows the new CPU gets 21-27% better minimums at relevant resolutions and even 11% at 4k.

 

[-Fran-]

The increase in power is quite a lot for the gains, but the min-FPS (lower 1 percentile?) looks good. Given how the increase in power seems to be quite high, I'd imagine it's because of a higher low-core count turbo and a higher ring BUS speed so it has lower latency. Also these are using DDR4, right? I'd imagine with DDR5 these differences would grow a bit more?

I just really hope the power consumption doesn't go too much overboard... Ugh.

Regards.

 

[KyaraM]

It's gaming where the GPU is dictating what FPS are possible.
Also the real news is this here.
Whenever the game and the GPU allows the new CPU gets 21-27% better minimums at relevant resolutions and even 11% at 4k.

Those 1% low gains are quite striking indeed. More frame rate stability is always a plus. Also, none of this is final. BIOSes supporting the 13900K QS so far only offer boot for the chips; they aren't optimized yet, as stated by the manufacturers. That means that both FPS might yet increase, and max power draw decrease with more optimisation and/or the new 700 series boards. Plus, it is also important how long the peaks last, how much you cam reign the chip in via undervolting, and if limiting power draw to, say, 130W has actual drawbacks, or id the performance loss is minimal as with Alder Lake chips where limiting the CPU to 125W has pretty much no drawbacks in games and very little elsewhere. Also, the minimum resolution here is 1080p, which doesn't really show real raw performance gains. That is best tested in 720p low settings. Plus, the GPU might still hold back the processor; it would be exciting to see this CPU perform with a 4090 or 7900XT.

 

[TerryLaze]

The increase in power is quite a lot for the gains, but the min-FPS (lower 1 percentile?) looks good. Given how the increase in power seems to be quite high, I'd imagine it's because of a higher low-core count turbo and a higher ring BUS speed so it has lower latency. Also these are using DDR4, right? I'd imagine with DDR5 these differences would grow a bit more?

I just really hope the power consumption doesn't go too much overboard... Ugh.

Regards.

Well, it also states @5.5Ghz which usually means an overclock of all cores to that clock, which would explain the much higher power draw in some games.
It is supposed to get 5.5 on a couple of cores anyway so the minimums should be pretty close even at stock.
On the other hand if this is stock then for some reason those games might be loading the e-cores for no reason, since there is no increase in performance.

 

[KyaraM]

Well, it also states @5.5Ghz which usually means an overclock of all cores to that clock, which would explain the much higher power draw in some games.
It is supposed to get 5.5 on a couple of cores anyway so the minimums should be pretty close even at stock.
On the other hand if this is stock then for some reason those games might be loading the e-cores for no reason, since there is no increase in performance.

I would find it quite senseless to do the very first open testing on an OC'd system. It's probably just named so to show at what clock this sample ran, in case that things change with the final release CPUs. If e-cores are loaded accidentally, that would tell us two things. One, that the scheduler isn't final yet, which might be connected to the unoptimized BIOS; or two, that the e-cores don't hurt performance all that much, unless actual gaming performance would be tremendously higher otherwise, which I find unlikely. Personally, I feel it might simply be the BIOS at fault here...

 

[jeremyj_83]

This isn't unexpected since Raptor Lake was essentially just Alder Lake with more E cores attached to it. We probably won't see a larger performance increase from Intel until we get to Meteor Lake.

 

[octavecode]

More power consumption and i imagine even worse thermals is not progress in my books.