News Intel Core i9-13900K and Core i5-13600K Review: Raptor Lake Beats Ryzen 7000

[Bamda]

Who cares about 1080P, I haven't gamed at the resolution in over a decade. Show me the 4k resolution results.

 

[RodroX]

@Bamda

We do include 1440p testing with six of the eight tested titles. So hopefully that's a decent halfway point. Testing 4K is mentally punishing, honestly. Spending an insane amount of hours testing to show literally no difference is pretty much the definition of futility.

As GPUs get faster, I think it will make sense to do 4K — we're almost there. For now, it appears that even with the 4090 the cases where the CPU matters are quite limited (if this changes as we learn more about the 4090, we'll adjust). I definitely don't want to do 4K testing on just one title that isn't GPU-bound at 4K; there are thousands that are not.

For now, we expanded to six titles at 1440p for the new suite with the 4090 — before we only did four titles. However, I still see value in 1080p, so we'll keep doing that, too.

 

[UnCertainty08]

Awesome! Intel for the Win!

So happy Intel released a solid competitor.

Intel and Nvidia actually delivered on their marketing promises this gen.

Good Times for PC Gaming Enthusiasts!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[TerryLaze]

Well theres no official announcement yet, which does make sence, theres no reason to talk about something that will not be out till 2024. Showing the cards to the competition with soo much time left its not a good idea.

Also you talk about AMD like if they were a few years old in the business. They been around for decades. They had many products that its better to forget, but they also made the first mainstream desktop CPU to reach the 1 GHz mark and put intel into troubles for the first time (at least for a short while). AMD made the first APU which allowed many people on a small budget to actually be able to game without a GPU (with the caveats we wll know, low resolution and details). They launched the first desktop GPU with HBM. Also were the first to launch a non-HEDT desktop cpu with 4, 6 and 8 cores with SMT enable for all of them (first gen Ryzen) .
Finally if you are a gamer, they gave you the cherry on top for the AM4 socket with the Ryzen 7 5800X3D the first 3D stacked L3 cache cpu that landed on top of most gaming charts. This last one, even today can get on top on a few games vs Raptor Lake and Zen 4. And thats using DDR4 and the old Zen 3 as a base. You got to wonder what will a Zen 4/4+/5 based 3D Cache cpu + DDR 5 do in games (if it ever get to exist)?

Right now if you are a gamer building a new PC and you are not planing on going full out with an RTX 4090/RTX3090TI or RX 6950XT, then theres no wrong cpu choice, some games play better on intel, others seems to like amd a little more.

The future is unknonw, but for people/profesionals that can really leverage the performance of a desktop cpu with 8, 12, 14, 16 or 24 cores, this are great times. And you kinda (like it or not) need to thank AMD for that, well and Intel and Apple for catching up and spicing the game again.

That's all well and good but it has nothing to do with the question at hand which is if it is even technically possible to make a hybrid design on AM5, and if it is will the bios be able to handle the additional code, and if those are possible then will windows need an updated thread director, and who will code that? For intel they had to do the work themselves, will AMD do the work or will they just wait until MS may or may not do the code?
And if all of those are possible then what do you expect?! What would be a good upgrade? If they just slap an additional ccd of smaller cores on there then that will reduce the power for the main cores, if they reduce the amount of main cores...then you loose main cores.

 

[sherhi]

That's all well and good but it has nothing to do with the question at hand which is if it is even technically possible to make a hybrid design on AM5, and if it is will the bios be able to handle the additional code, and if those are possible then will windows need an updated thread director, and who will code that? For intel they had to do the work themselves, will AMD do the work or will they just wait until MS may or may not do the code?
And if all of those are possible then what do you expect?! What would be a good upgrade? If they just slap an additional ccd of smaller cores on there then that will reduce the power for the main cores, if they reduce the amount of main cores...then you loose main cores.

MS may meet AMD halfway if it benefits it's console (hence why some games are "somehow" better on AMD)

---

After seeing many tests with different builds already I think for average user it does not matter much, AMD seems to be more efficient but Intel brings more power while any of those 6+ tier CPUs will serve well for average user for 5-8 years without major issues. Most people (like myself) are still sitting on those old quad cores anyway and any modern upgrade will be like coming from a stone age, kinda.

 

[RodroX]

That's all well and good but it has nothing to do with the question at hand which is if it is even technically possible to make a hybrid design on AM5, and if it is will the bios be able to handle the additional code, and if those are possible then will windows need an updated thread director, and who will code that? For intel they had to do the work themselves, will AMD do the work or will they just wait until MS may or may not do the code?
And if all of those are possible then what do you expect?! What would be a good upgrade? If they just slap an additional ccd of smaller cores on there then that will reduce the power for the main cores, if they reduce the amount of main cores...then you loose main cores.

I know it is a big IF, and I would love to have answers for all your points, sadly no one knows at this time (well other than AMD).

But, Can any of us be sure AMD didn't have all of this steps you wrote already planned for AM5 platform ?
Thats why I wrote (up there) among the lines of: if they want to stay relevant they better have something in mind to compete with Intel.

Today 5 years after the release of the first 8 core mainstream desktop cpu, and for gaming purposes only, this race of adding more and more cores (of whatever type) is sorta going out of hands lol. But from a productivity workload standpoint its been very welcome and refreshing.

 

[-Fran-]

That's all well and good but it has nothing to do with the question at hand which is if it is even technically possible to make a hybrid design on AM5, and if it is will the bios be able to handle the additional code, and if those are possible then will windows need an updated thread director, and who will code that? For intel they had to do the work themselves, will AMD do the work or will they just wait until MS may or may not do the code?
And if all of those are possible then what do you expect?! What would be a good upgrade? If they just slap an additional ccd of smaller cores on there then that will reduce the power for the main cores, if they reduce the amount of main cores...then you loose main cores.

They already can do a hybrid CPU if they wanted. They do have the "dense" cores and they won't have an ISA mismatch like Intel either. They're not going ahead with it right now because they don't see the need for it. Look at the top end, where the need for more cores is really important and you'll see AMD still has the lead with all big cores at a lower power envelope. Until Intel can't match AMD in pure core density (performance cores), AMD has no real incentive to do so. The consumer market for hybrid CPUs is rather small compared to their server (in terms of margins).

So, from a business decision standpoint, it makes no sense for AMD to mix normal and dense cores just yet, but to be clear, they absolutely can.

As for the scheduler, yeah, it's something they'd need to account for, but they already made the kernel CCD aware, so this would be an extension to it.

Regards.

 

[TerryLaze]

They already can do a hybrid CPU if they wanted. They do have the "dense" cores and they won't have an ISA mismatch like Intel either. They're not going ahead with it right now because they don't see the need for it. Look at the top end, where the need for more cores is really important and you'll see AMD still has the lead with all big cores at a lower power envelope. Until Intel can't match AMD in pure core density (performance cores), AMD has no real incentive to do so. The consumer market for hybrid CPUs is rather small compared to their server (in terms of margins).

So, from a business decision standpoint, it makes no sense for AMD to mix normal and dense cores just yet, but to be clear, they absolutely can.

As for the scheduler, yeah, it's something they'd need to account for, but they already made the kernel CCD aware, so this would be an extension to it.

Regards.

I know that they can do it but I don't know if they can do it without changing socket/chipset or whatever else might warrant a change in mobo.

Also the halo ryzen is about 10-15% better in efficiency while loosing in absolute numbers or maybe breaking even, but breaking even against a much smaller number of real cores which is the same as loosing for many people, they aren't in a bad spot but they are also not that much ahead that they don't have to worry about what to do next.

Oh and the efficiency is only better at full load for amd, for both single core and idle 13th gen wins hands down with a small power advantage but a decent performance advantage.

Give us a guess on how many people in the desktop world use their CPUs 100% of the time at 100% load against how many people use their CPUs at low usage most of the time.

 

[KyaraM]

I really wonder what the point is anymore except selling more hardware.
Anyone gaming with this hardware is doing so at 4k and the new CPUs give them NOTHING.
Maybe people using pro software have some incremental gains, but is it really worth spending the money?
I dunno, seems like hardware review sites need to show value in new tech these days, especially for gamers, even when there is none.
That's what happens when the internet is purely driven by advertising.
Quite a sucky time for the internet IMHO.

I have a 12700K and am NOT playing at 4k. Stop talking for everyone here when most aren't like you. Thanks.

 

[-Fran-]

I know that they can do it but I don't know if they can do it without changing socket/chipset or whatever else might warrant a change in mobo.

Also the halo ryzen is about 10-15% better in efficiency while loosing in absolute numbers or maybe breaking even, but breaking even against a much smaller number of real cores which is the same as loosing for many people, they aren't in a bad spot but they are also not that much ahead that they don't have to worry about what to do next.

Oh and the efficiency is only better at full load for amd, for both single core and idle 13th gen wins hands down with a small power advantage but a decent performance advantage.

Give us a guess on how many people in the desktop world use their CPUs 100% of the time at 100% load against how many people use their CPUs at low usage most of the time.

As I said: they can. The biggest advantage AMD has is their chiplets, since as long as they can hook them via IF (which they can), they can swap any CCD for whatever CCD-type they want. They can even disable a full CCD and keep everything else the same.

And no, don't try to delude yourself. AMD is still more efficient and performs better at the same power usage on every tier. That's why Intel is desperate to improve their process, because AMD just has the edge there. Plus, they aren't moving away from monolithic still and it is punishing Intel at the higher end. Intel has slightly better IPC, but they use more power at same speeds. This doesn't make them equal.

That's just the way it is.

For instance, the reason the 13600K is such a good CPU, it's not because it's more efficient, but because it has maneagable power draw and performs better for the price, than a 7600X, but it is* less efficient than even the 7900X in productivity and in games it's less efficient than the 7600X (the 5800X3D is still king there).

View: https://youtu.be/I7-2ArdYvfA?t=833


Again, in the context of this discussion, AMD doesn't need to go hybrid. Intel still needs to catch up there. Let's see what Meteor Lake can do about that, but Raptor Lake does not change things on the high end for AMD.

Regards.

 

[TerryLaze]

And no, don't try to delude yourself. AMD is still more efficient and performs better at the same power usage on every tier. That's why Intel is desperate to improve their process, because AMD just has the edge there. Plus, they aren't moving away from monolithic still and it is punishing Intel at the higher end. Intel has slightly better IPC, but they use more power at same speeds. This doesn't make them equal.

That's just the way it is.

By about 10-15% ,don't delude yourself...
In a pretty decent amount of productivity software, with both CPUs at the highest power that the warranty will allow, the 7950x "wins" (by 3%) and does it with 10% less power, that's 13% better efficiency for AMD, and only when running at 100% load.
The results are about the same at 144W and all the way down until 45W where the 13900k actually wins out in efficiency because there isn't enough power to feed all those real cores.
And the stuff about single and idle is also still true.

Core i9-13900K, i7-13700K & i5-13600K: Gaming-Könige im Test: Leistungsaufnahme und Effizienz

Intel Raptor Lake im Test: Leistungsaufnahme und Effizienz / Leistungsaufnahme in Anwendungen ab Werk / Der Verbrauch steigt

www.computerbase.de

 

[-Fran-]

By about 10-15% ,don't delude yourself...
In a pretty decent amount of productivity software, with both CPUs at the highest power that the warranty will allow, the 13900k "wins" (by 1%) and does it with 10% more power, that's 10% better efficiency for AMD, and only when running at 100% load.
The results are about the same at 144W and all the way down until 45W where the 13900k actually wins out in efficiency because there isn't enough power to feed all those real cores.
And the stuff about single and idle is also still true.

Core i9-13900K, i7-13700K & i5-13600K: Gaming-Könige im Test: Leistungsaufnahme und Effizienz

Intel Raptor Lake im Test: Leistungsaufnahme und Effizienz / Leistungsaufnahme in Anwendungen ab Werk / Der Verbrauch steigt

www.computerbase.de

Dude... Seriously... THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.

View: https://youtu.be/4PM9Xjx7MKo?t=287


This is where I'll stop.

Regards.

 

[TerryLaze]

Dude... Seriously... THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.

View: https://youtu.be/4PM9Xjx7MKo?t=287


This is where I'll stop.

Regards.

That's exactly what I said in the post before you said exactly what I said so why are you shouting???

 

[-Fran-]

Welp, this is what we'll be seeing more of, I think:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICMKUSff_6I


And bonus track:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMcsW-myRCU


Regards xD

 

[TerryLaze]

Welp, this is what we'll be seeing more of, I think:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICMKUSff_6I

That's a 12900k and even then this is nothing new.
Pre-build systems are almost always bad.

But even with a perfectly setup system and way more cooling that you need a 12900k will be running at 100 degrees because of how turbo works.
https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...intel-technologies-boost-cpu-performance.html

Intel® Adaptive Boost Technology

Opportunistically increases all-core turbo frequency when current, power, and thermal headroom exists. Works below a temperature limit of 100°C.

Some of these reviews I get the feeling are only being done so that they can photoshop flames and deserts to their youtube screenshots to produce clicks...

 

[spongiemaster]

They already can do a hybrid CPU if they wanted. They do have the "dense" cores and they won't have an ISA mismatch like Intel either. They're not going ahead with it right now because they don't see the need for it. Look at the top end, where the need for more cores is really important and you'll see AMD still has the lead with all big cores at a lower power envelope. Until Intel can't match AMD in pure core density (performance cores), AMD has no real incentive to do so. The consumer market for hybrid CPUs is rather small compared to their server (in terms of margins).

The primary reason Intel has gone hybrid is because eco cores increase MT performance more per silcon area than large cores. It's a production cost savings. Saying AMD doesn't need to do this is to claim you see no issue with the 7000 series pricing. AMD is getting increasingly beaten as you go down the stack in value until they are getting crushed at the bottom. Is there a 13600k RPL review that hasn't said AMD is getting pummeled in the value department? It's not as rosy for AMD as you are trying to make it seem.

 

[-Fran-]

The primary reason Intel has gone hybrid is because eco cores increase MT performance more per silcon area than large cores. It's a production cost savings. Saying AMD doesn't need to do this is to claim you see no issue with the 7000 series pricing. AMD is getting increasingly beaten as you go down the stack in value until they are getting crushed at the bottom. Is there a 13600k RPL review that hasn't said AMD is getting pummeled in the value department? It's not as rosy for AMD as you are trying to make it seem.

I don't disagree with that statement, at all. I truly wish AMD would do something to make the mid bracket viable from a price/perf ratio, but why would they from a business standpoint? Why would they need to optimize their business strategy for the lower margin parts?

There is a gap with their current approach which they can't fill and Intel is exploiting it almost flawlessly, which is nice for all of us and I'm not complaining in the least*.

Regards.

 

[JamesJones44]

Also you talk about AMD like if they were a few years old in the business.

You talk about AMD like you don't know their history. You remember AM2 right?

 

[RodroX]

You talk about AMD like you don't know their history. You remember AM2 right?

You decided to neglet the part where I wrote: "...They had many products that its better to forget..."

 

[BX4096]

I've looked at more than a dozen reviews for 13900K and 7950x and I still don't see which of the two performs better in x265 and AV1 encoding. Handbrake results seem all over the place.

Does anyone know of any benchmarks that test longer encoding times? Kind of seems pointless to do these tests in mere seconds, considering that something like a quality 4K transcode in AV1/x265 will take many hours (if not days) and thermal throttling and energy use of these 100-degree processors will become much more pronounced.

 

[KyaraM]

As I said: they can. The biggest advantage AMD has is their chiplets, since as long as they can hook them via IF (which they can), they can swap any CCD for whatever CCD-type they want. They can even disable a full CCD and keep everything else the same.

And no, don't try to delude yourself. AMD is still more efficient and performs better at the same power usage on every tier. That's why Intel is desperate to improve their process, because AMD just has the edge there. Plus, they aren't moving away from monolithic still and it is punishing Intel at the higher end. Intel has slightly better IPC, but they use more power at same speeds. This doesn't make them equal.

That's just the way it is.

For instance, the reason the 13600K is such a good CPU, it's not because it's more efficient, but because it has maneagable power draw and performs better for the price, than a 7600X, but it is* less efficient than even the 7900X in productivity and in games it's less efficient than the 7600X (the 5800X3D is still king there).

View: https://youtu.be/I7-2ArdYvfA?t=833


Again, in the context of this discussion, AMD doesn't need to go hybrid. Intel still needs to catch up there. Let's see what Meteor Lake can do about that, but Raptor Lake does not change things on the high end for AMD.

Regards.

So you are gonna ignore der8auer, then, who literally showed that the two chips perform the same in productivity when limited to 90W, while the 13900K outright destroys the 7950X in games, yes? No, the 7950X does not beat the 13900K at every power limit. You are the one deluding yourself. JFC...

 

[-Fran-]

So you are gonna ignore der8auer, then, who literally showed that the two chips perform the same in productivity when limited to 90W, while the 13900K outright destroys the 7950X in games, yes? No, the 7950X does not beat the 13900K at every power limit. You are the one deluding yourself. JFC...

The context is productivity: as in "using all cores". I will venture a guess and say someone that buys either a 7950X and/or 13900K/S/F will not cap them at 90W without a very good reason.

So no. I stand by my point as being correct.

EDIT: This is sort of, kind of, "last gen", but I'm pretty sure still valid:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK5T4SvTgeQ


As I said, "in every tier" (also, don't confuse "tier" with "power draw point".

Regards.

 

[Frag Maniac]

We put all three of Intel's new 13th-Generation Raptor Lake chips, the Core i9-13900K, i7-13700K, and i5-13600K, up against AMD's competing Ryzen 7000 processors.

Intel Core i9-13900K and Core i5-13600K Review: Raptor Lake Beats Ryzen 7000 : Read more

Pretty upset that the 13,700 was left out of the bench tests, why?

 

[helper800]

AM4 users, that are only interested in gaming performance, are still best served getting a 5800x3d, and hold onto the savings.

This is almost vindication on m gamble that the 5800x3d would be good for some time to come. I knew I didn't need to build a new computer to get Alderlake/7000 series/Raptorlake performance because the 5800x3d seemed to have a generation and a half worth of performance under the hood as far as gaming s concerned. I am fully aware this is confirmation bias, but at the time the 5800x3d came out and my requirements for what I wanted aligned too good for what that CPU is. I will enjoy it and my 3080 for years to come.

 

[helper800]

Looking to upgrade my PC Thanks for the Review . Which one do I choose for Rtx 3080, intel or Ryzen?

Whatever is most important to you decides what you should get. Are you a more power concious user that can still get 90% of the performance at a slightly higher cost for the platform? Get an AMD platform. Do you want the absolute best or bang for your buck? Get either the 13600k or 13700k based platform on DDR5 for performance or DDR4 for budget. Right now is one of the best times in the last 20 years for buying a CPU and its platform. Cannot say the same for GPUs, but it is what it is.