News Core i9-13900KS Special Edition Appears Barely Faster Than 13900K In Cinebench

[Admin]

New Cinebench R23 benchmark scores show Intel's Core i9-13900KS special edition CPU is barely any faster than the vanilla Core i9-13900K.

Core i9-13900KS Special Edition Appears Barely Faster Than 13900K In Cinebench : Read more

 

[Neilbob]

I don't think it's a shock that there is anything but a tiny difference. The clock speed increase is a tiny percentage. It won't be noticed by anyone in any circumstances other than hard numbers.

This product is marketing at it's finest, but unfortunately a lot of people fall for it.

 

[atomicWAR]

13900ks...the barely better edition.

 

[TerryLaze]

I don't think it's a shock that there is anything but a tiny difference. The clock speed increase is a tiny percentage. It won't be noticed by anyone in any circumstances other than hard numbers.

This product is marketing at it's finest, but unfortunately a lot of people fall for it.

The difference is in how hard you need to push either CPU to get there, the final point you get to is not the important part here.
The KS part will run the same as the K at reduced power and temps or will run at least marginally higher at full blast.
Instead of ordering 4-5 CPUs to try them out and only keeping the best one sending the rest back, which in the long run hurts prices for all of us, just go and get a KS model.

 

[Allen_B]

Is there a story here? 6.0 GHz is 3.45% higher than 5.8 GHz. It seems hardly shocking that this might yield a 3.5% performance uplift.

Nobody will buy these because they're a good value. Buyers will be those who want the very quickest and won't sweat the $160 (or whatever) premium. If that's not you (and I promise, it's not me), this isn't the CPU to buy.

 

[LordVile]

Guessing XOC guys will be clamouring for these

 

[Elusive Ruse]

Where are the usual suspects who bash AMD for "bad price vs performance" on every piece of news about a red product? We are all awfully understanding suddenly...

 

[bit_user]

Is this expected to be the 350 W PL1 variant, that was leaked a few months ago?

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-raptor-lake-to-feature-350w-turbo-mode

 

[TerryLaze]

Is this expected to be the 350 W PL1 variant, that was leaked a few months ago?

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-raptor-lake-to-feature-350w-turbo-mode

No it's expected to have the same 253W limit....that every mobo maker and most reviewers will completely ignore.

 

[rluker5]

Where are the usual suspects who bash AMD for "bad price vs performance" on every piece of news about a red product? We are all awfully understanding suddenly...

This isn't for most. It is for just a few who want a better binned chip badly enough to pay more. These people will likely give them very good cooling and a lot of power.

If AMD were to release a 7800X with higher clocks, power draw, price do you think people would buy it?

 

[Elusive Ruse]

This isn't for most. It is for just a few who want a better binned chip badly enough to pay more. These people will likely give them very good cooling and a lot of power.

If AMD were to release a 7800X with higher clocks, power draw, price do you think people would buy it?

If AMD released a cranked up version of the 7950X that offered 5% performance increase for $200 more, I'd be the first to grab my pitchfork. But I guess Intel is just doing god's work and providing a product to people who like burning excess energy to see a counter go up.

 

[TerryLaze]

providing a product to people who like burning excess energy to see a counter go up.

Because I guess you are blind...
The KS will have the same power limits as the normal K version, so it will run faster with the same amount of power, that's what a better bin means.
It's still not worth the additional money, but then again the 13900 and the 7950 are ridiculous for desktop use from the get go and super overpriced for normal people anyway, they are luxury goods and the K model is just even more luxury, you don't buy them to survive you buy them because you have money to burn.

No it's expected to have the same 253W limit....that every mobo maker and most reviewers will completely ignore.

 

[Elusive Ruse]

Because I guess you are blind...

You are the blind one, my scenario was a reply to ruler5's post. Next time, resist the urge to needlessly insert yourself.

 

[TerryLaze]

You are the blind one, my scenario was a reply to ruler5's post. Next time, resist the urge to needlessly insert yourself.

And what I said 100% applies to your reply.
Even when overclocking the KS variant will be using less power.

 

[rluker5]

If AMD released a cranked up version of the 7950X that offered 5% performance increase for $200 more, I'd be the first to grab my pitchfork. But I guess Intel is just doing god's work and providing a product to people who like burning excess energy to see a counter go up.

Do you have your pitchfork out for the "X" versions?

 

[Elusive Ruse]

Do you have your pitchfork out for the "X" versions?

I was really pissed off at Zen 4 pricing and performance outside 50X, especially at the 7900X's performance and value since it was in my crosshairs for my new build. Now I'd rather grit my teeth and suffer through my outdated build than pay up for these products.

 

[rluker5]

I wouldn't call experiencing the performance of the 5000 series suffering. I'm not suffering too badly with my 3080 or 6800 and the difference between those and the new top end is larger than the CPU side of things.

There will always be something faster. I plan on waiting for the 5000 or 8000 series GPUs to get a more significant and appreciable performance bump for my money.

 

[Elusive Ruse]

I wouldn't call experiencing the performance of the 5000 series suffering. I'm not suffering too badly with my 3080 or 6800 and the difference between those and the new top end is larger than the CPU side of things.

There will always be something faster. I plan on waiting for the 5000 or 8000 series GPUs to get a more significant and appreciable performance bump for my money.

I meant 7950X in case you thought I meant 5000 series, I'm slowly warming up to the idea of upgrading to 5000 instead of waiting for AM5 MOBO prices to settle down.

 

[watzupken]

To me, current gen CPUs from Intel and AMD are very unattractive because of the massive amount of power required, which translates to heat, and lower power efficiency. This one in particular is usual Intel flair to try and stake their claim/ boasting rights, as having the fastest single core clockspeed and performance. What is omitted is the cost just to achieve that meagre increase in clockspeed. They might as well stake their claims as having the most power hungry and hot CPU at the same time.

 

[bit_user]

To me, current gen CPUs from Intel and AMD are very unattractive because of the massive amount of power required, which translates to heat, and lower power efficiency.

They both let you tune their power usage via BIOS settings. When run with lower limits, you'll find they're actually more efficient than previous generations.

Perhaps this would be a good aspect for Toms to investigate, in further articles.

 

[TerryLaze]

This one in particular is usual Intel flair to try and stake their claim/ boasting rights, as having the fastest single core clockspeed and performance. What is omitted is the cost just to achieve that meagre increase in clockspeed. They might as well stake their claims as having the most power hungry and hot CPU at the same time.

Even with the stupid notion of "out of the box" settings, the 13900k uses much less power in single core apps and as such is much more efficient, you have to go super saiyan stupid and overclock the 13900k to as high as you can to make it less efficient in single core than the AMD cpus.

Multithreading is where intel is less efficient because amd has more full cores that can run at lower clocks and still produce a lot of performance.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-13900k/22.html