The new Intel Core i9-13900KS looks very similar to its predecessors, the 12900KS and 9900KS. Simply means whiskers are faster and boatloads are more expensive.
We’re already familiar with the flagship Core i9-13900K, so it won’t take long to get used to the KS. The Thermal Velocity Boost frequency rating has been increased from 5.8 GHz to 6 GHz, and the P-core base frequency has also been increased from 3 GHz to 3.2 GHz. This increases the base TDP from 125 Watts to 150 Watts and increases the maximum turbo power. 253w does not change. And now you’re speeding up.
This translates to a 7% increase in base clock and a 3.5% increase in peak operating frequency. Actually, I forgot the price. Currently Intel is charging $600 for the standard 13900K, while the new KS version is set at $699. That’s a 17% price premium for a potential performance boost of about 5%.
There are usually quite a few application and game benchmarks, but as we’ll see, there’s very little that differentiates the K and KS models when it comes to performance. So instead of repeating the same kind of results over and over, we sped up the process, reduced the number of application benchmarks, and skipped most of the individual game results of the 10-game average.
We tested the Core i9-13900KS using the Arctic Liquid Freezer II 420mm AIO with Thermal Grizzly CPU Contact Frame. The Pure Loop 2 FX 360mm AIO is normally tested without a contact frame. I’ll show you the results soon. Our system also had a GeForce RTX 4090, Windows 11, and resizable BARs enabled on all configurations. Let’s get into it…
clock speed
Before we dive into the blue bar graphs, let’s take a look at all the cores in Cinebench R23 in action. On average, we saw a package power of 280 Watts at a peak of 300 Watts, which allowed for an average clock frequency of 5480 MHz. For reference, the 13900K saw the same package power figures but could only sustain a frequency of 5330 MHz, making the KS model about 3% faster.
Interestingly, running a single-core Cinebench R23 test showed a typical operating frequency of 5580 MHz, with occasional random and very short spikes to 5985 MHz.
Now, the biggest problem with the 13900KS is surprise, surprise… power and thermals, the same problems as the 13900K and 12900K before it. Running the workload on all cores causes the 13900KS to spike to at least 100c after a few seconds, at which point core throttling is triggered and the package power drops from 300 Watts to 260 Watts.
Please be quiet! The Pure Loop 2 FX 360mm AIO, 13900KS, averaged 5370 MHz, which is only 40 MHz higher than the 13900K, both of which are thermally throttled in our tests. But as mentioned, the Arctic 420mm AIO with CPU contact frame allowed the 13900KS to sustain a clock speed of 5480 MHz. This is after looping Cinebench R23 for an hour.
That’s only a 3% increase over the 13900K, and given that most people interested in the 13900KS are looking at a cooling upgrade, benchmarking the Arctic Liquid Freezer with the Contact Frame makes the most sense. Let’s do it because we think there is.
benchmark
This is the Cinebench R23 score I got after a 10 minute loop. The 13900KS improved the original score by only 5%, scoring 40789 points and 7% faster than the 7950X.
We also see a 5% improvement in single core performance over the 13900K, or a 6% improvement with faster DDR5-7200 memory.
The effect you can get in Adobe Photoshop is subtle. The 13900KS offered just a 3% performance boost, achieving a score of 1665 points compared to the 1612 points offered by the original 13900K.
Blender Open Data results are disappointing with a 1% performance improvement. Equipping the 13900KS with DDR5-7200 yielded up to a 3% margin, so the faster memory makes the biggest difference in this test.
power consumption
So far the only impressive aspect of the 13900KS is power consumption. The power usage of this generation of Core i9 parts isn’t huge, but compared to the 13900K, you can still get a little extra performance at no real cost in power usage.
High-quality binned silicon can operate at slightly lower voltages, which gives us the numbers shown here. However, compared to the 7950X, the overall system utilization is about 40% higher on the i9 part, which is pretty bad considering he has a Ryzen 9 processor that is 12% faster in this test.
So the 13th Gen Core i9 series is less productive when it comes to power usage, can be power capped, but performance constrained, giving the 7950X a significant performance advantage.
game benchmark
Time for some gaming benchmarks. There is no better way to deliver this news. The 13900KS is 1.3% faster than the Hitman 3’s 13900K at 1080p on the RTX 4090.
That said, with DDR5-7200 memory you can get a ‘greater’ 4% boost, but leaving the 13900K on DDR5-6400 and using 7200 for both CPUs is profitable with a margin of 1%. may be obtained.
Horizon Zero Dawn on the 13900KS delivers a 1.5% performance boost, and with DDR5-7200 memory it delivers another 2% performance boost, reaching 218 fps.
The uninspired gains in Cyberpunk 2077 feel the difference, where the 13900KS provided a 1% performance improvement from 217 fps to 219 fps. fps reached. This is a 4% boost. Compared to 2 fps, it’s kind of nice.
Riftbreaker is a benchmark that Intel does very well. For example, the 13900K is 2% faster than the 7700X, but here the 13900KS only provides an extra percentage, so 2 fps or more. The biggest advantage here seems to be the faster DDR5-7200 memory. The extra bandwidth boosted performance by 11%, reaching 229 fps.
FPS fanatic CSGO players can enjoy a 20 fps boost at 1080p on the RTX 4090. That’s a 4% delta, but for the 19300KS, this is a huge result, and opting for DDR5-7200 memory can push it up to 544 fps.
Before we look at the game’s average performance, let’s take a look at the new additions to the CPU test in A Plague Tale: Requiem. Here the 13900K did a good job averaging 120 fps, just 3% slower than the 7700X. However, the 13900KS was comparable to the 7700X, with DDR5-7200 memory for an extra 3% performance boost.
11 game average
Looking at the 11-game average, as mentioned above, the Ryzen 7700X and Core i9-13900K are evenly matched. So a roughly 2% increase in the 13900KS means it’s a whopping 2% faster than the 7700X. All heap and power for an average 2% boost. Then, DDR5-7200, which cannot be used with 7700X, was 5% faster with 13900KS.
Here’s the 1440p data for those interested. Under these slightly GPU-limited test conditions, the 13900KS was 2% faster than the 13900K, so it doesn’t make much sense.
what we learned
When I reviewed it a few months ago, I was unimpressed with the 13900K. It basically takes all the dummy attributes of the original and doubles them, so there is basically no extra performance at the price premium.
What you are paying for is binned silicon. Of course, these special edition processors are for extreme overclockers and are generally intended for enthusiast overclockers, so if you think the 17% premium is worth it, I guess that’s fine, but for everyone else it just doesn’t make sense – and I think the same can be said for the regular 13900K.
Generally speaking, the Ryzen 9 7950X is a bit cheaper, but that savings is eaten up by the motherboard cost. However, while Ryzen chips offer great productivity, they generally offer great performance with significantly lower power consumption. Memory cost is irrelevant and does not need to be paired with DDR4 memory.
The 7950X might prefer to run at 95c but it doesn’t throttle and it’s easy to maintain that temp with a basic cooler but the 13900K wants to go over 100c with 360mm AIO so it tends to throttle I have. The Core i9 part also gives off significantly more heat in your case. If that sounds trivial to you, believe me, it’s not. that later this year.
For gaming though, I prefer something like the Ryzen 7 7700X or the more efficient 7700 version (you can also use low voltage or eco mode on the 7700X). Again, if gaming is your primary concern, you might want to wait until Zen 4 3D V-Cache parts land next month to see what they have to offer.
The Core i9-13900KS is a garbage dump for processors, and its $699 price point is something most builders should ignore. For the right price, this could be a great product. Just limit the power for a better operating temperature, but if you do that, 13900K makes more sense. Except for extreme overclockers, this is a hard pass.
