13th Gen Intel Core i9-13900K Benchmarks Tease Significant Gains over Core i9-12900K and AMD Ryzen 9 5950X

T

Tsing

The FPS Review
Staff member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
13,407
Points
113
New benchmarks of the Core i9-13900K have surfaced on Geekbench, giving a glimpse at the potential performance of Intel's upcoming flagship "Raptor Lake-S" desktop processor.

Go to post
 
What? Another generation already?

I feel like 12 went past in a blur. Feels like we only started hearing abouth 11th gen recently...
 
This is intel keeping up their iterative upgrade pipeline via staggered model performance boosts.
 
I'm passing on this gen as I don't see anything that my 12th gen cpus won't handle. These quick updates from both AMD and Intel are starting to get a tad over the top.
 
Niner51 said:
I'm passing on this gen as I don't see anything that my 12th gen cpus won't handle. These quick updates from both AMD and Intel are starting to get a tad over the top.
Click to expand...

I might upgrade to the next gen, I'm not sure what is going on with my PC atm but something seems dodgy with my USB, ie my keyboard seems to disconnect for a second if I add a USB device to my PC (RGB goes off) and also I can't seem to update my BIOS, if I choose the flash utility in BIOS it goes to a black screen, flash utility never comes up.

If DDR5 is at a decent price and available I might go for it.
 
Denpepe said:
I might upgrade to the next gen, I'm not sure what is going on with my PC atm but something seems dodgy with my USB, ie my keyboard seems to disconnect for a second if I add a USB device to my PC (RGB goes off) and also I can't seem to update my BIOS, if I choose the flash utility in BIOS it goes to a black screen, flash utility never comes up.

If DDR5 is at a decent price and available I might go for it.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a good reason to update to a new platform. Get rid of the Motherboard woes and get a new platform in one boot. Hope it's not the keyboard causing the issues messing with the USB bus!
 
Brian_B said:
Because we were stuck on 6 forever.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I start getting a little hazy after Haswell.

I have clear memories of each one before that.

Core -> Core 2 -> Lynnfield/Bloomfield (Nehalem) -> Sandy Bridge -> Ivy Bridge -> Haswell and Bloomfield...

After that it starts getting blurry. There are a bunch of lakes and some iced coffee and then I completely lose track.

For a while I guess I was disinterested because of the constant 14nm+++++

I guess I should start paying attention to Intel again.
 
Zarathustra said:
Core -> Core 2 -> Lynnfield/Bloomfield (Nehalem) -> Sandy Bridge -> Ivy Bridge -> Haswell and Bloomfield...
Click to expand...
In Intel parlance - you have

(idk exactly why everything before this isn't a gen, since it was still "Core" but hey, whatever)
Nehalem - Gen 1
Sandy - Gen 2
Ivy - Gen 3
Haswell - Gen 4
Broadwell - Gen 5
Skylake (and it's derivatives) - Gen's 6-10 -- all of it's some Skylake with tweaks, on 14nm and a variable number of pluses
There were a few 10nm non-Skylake SKUs in this period, but it was limited to ultramobile and a few other similar limited products
11th - Rocket Lake (the first non-"mobile only" post-Skylake architecture, and the final architecture on the 14nm line)
12th - Alder Lake (the first commercial product with bigLITTLE architecture, and the first to move large scale to the 10nm line)
 
Denpepe said:
If DDR5 is at a decent price and available I might go for it.
Click to expand...
It's getting better, and even basic DDR5 (faster than JEDEC 4800) is better than most DDR4 in most performance metrics, and is roughly even in others.

But if you need more or less then 32GB, well, wait. Only the current 16GB DDR5 DIMMs offer full performance for some reason, and very, very few boards gracefully handle more than two sticks at this time. So optimally, today, you'd get a 16GB x 2 kit.

Beyond that, I can say that MSI boards have been doing very well for the price, and Gigabyte not so much - on average. Some folks have had the opposite experience too. And ASUS has managed to put out both some stellar products while also stumbling quite a bit on a few of their higher-end releases.
 
LazyGamer said:
Beyond that, I can say that MSI boards have been doing very well for the price, and Gigabyte not so much - on average. Some folks have had the opposite experience too. And ASUS has managed to put out both some stellar products while also stumbling quite a bit on a few of their higher-end releases.
Click to expand...
I haven't tried MSI with DDR5, but I will say my current Asus board is light years ahead of the Gigabyte Master board I had used with DDR5.
 
Brian_B said:
In Intel parlance - you have

(idk exactly why everything before this isn't a gen, since it was still "Core" but hey, whatever)
Nehalem - Gen 1
Sandy - Gen 2
Ivy - Gen 3
Haswell - Gen 4
Broadwell - Gen 5
Skylake (and it's derivatives) - Gen's 6-10 -- all of it's some Skylake with tweaks, on 14nm and a variable number of pluses
There were a few 10nm non-Skylake SKUs in this period, but it was limited to ultramobile and a few other similar limited products
11th - Rocket Lake (the first non-"mobile only" post-Skylake architecture, and the final architecture on the 14nm line)
12th - Alder Lake (the first commercial product with bigLITTLE architecture, and the first to move large scale to the 10nm line)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I feel like the generations were pretty clear up until Haswell, but since then it has become a blur.

Might just be that I haven't paid close attention though.
 
LazyGamer said:
It's getting better, and even basic DDR5 (faster than JEDEC 4800) is better than most DDR4 in most performance metrics, and is roughly even in others.

But if you need more or less then 32GB, well, wait. Only the current 16GB DDR5 DIMMs offer full performance for some reason, and very, very few boards gracefully handle more than two sticks at this time. So optimally, today, you'd get a 16GB x 2 kit.

Beyond that, I can say that MSI boards have been doing very well for the price, and Gigabyte not so much - on average. Some folks have had the opposite experience too. And ASUS has managed to put out both some stellar products while also stumbling quite a bit on a few of their higher-end releases.
Click to expand...

I did not know that. This is good info.

I've been running 64GB on my desktop now since ~2014 when I decomissioned my consumer hardware FX-8120 server build, and moved the 32GB from there to my desktop (which already had 32GB).

Since downgrading is against my religion, I've just kind of been carrying forward that 64GB ever since, even though I probably haven't needed it :p

I probably won't move that system to DDR5 any time soon, but I have been toying with at some point building a dedicated machine for games, since AMD won't get their act together and keep the non-Pro Threadrippers current, and if I do (no guarantees) it will likely be an AMD 7000 or latest gen intel system with DDR5.

I was thinking 16GB was sufficient today for a system that does nothing but games, but maybe I'd have to go 32...
 
DDR5 is complicated - I've read about the reason for the performance delta, but not enough to be able to explain it other than that it exists.

I don't think it's really a problem of the technology itself more than just what DRAM IC manufacturers decided to focus their attention on first.

And yeah - it's hard to build a truly high-end gaming + everything else machine. 32GB is certainly enough for most tasks and all gaming, but if you want your storage local and / or faster than an accessibly-priced local network can provide, need more memory, or just need more cores, well, may be better farming the actual 'work' off to a separate server.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top