Image: Intel

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.

The 13th Gen Intel Core i9-13900K chip that was tested managed a single-core score of 2,133 and multi-core score of 23,701. This is substantially better than what the Core i9-12900K and AMD Ryzen 9 5950X are capable of, according to charts compiled by Wccftech, which tease admirable gains in both single- and multi-core performance for the Raptor Lake-S chip.

Image: Wccftech

This means that the new flagship is up to 48% faster than the Ryzen 9 5950X and 37% faster than the Core i9-12900K in multi-threaded tests which is a huge leap. The addition of 8 extra E-cores are definitely helping the chip surpass the performance of its predecessor by a big margin. Coming to the single-core performance, since Raptor Cove and Gracemont cores aren’t a big architectural lift, most of the performance improvement comes from clock speeds in single-threaded tasks. The i9-13900K still maintains a decent 7% gain over the 12900K and a 27% gain over the 5950X in single-threaded tasks.

With this being an early sample of the Core i9-13900K, performance in the final retail version could be even higher, and users can expect a processor that features 24 cores (8 P-Cores, 16 E-Cores) and 32 threads. The Geekbench listing also indicates that the CPU should have no problem boosting to 5.5 GHz, although some rumors have hinted at single-core boost frequencies of as high as 5.8 GHz.

This test was performed on an ASUS ROG Maximus Z690 Extreme motherboard with 32 GB of DDR5-6400 memory. Intel is expected to launch its first Raptor Lake products by October, and while pricing leaks are yet to come, the Core i9-13900K will presumably be priced in the realm of the current standard Alder Lake flagship, the Core i9-12900K, which launched at $599.

Raptor Lake will officially support native memory speeds of up to DDR5-5600, according to a slide that Intel shared during a recent NAS workshop in China. Some of the motherboards that have already been teased, such as ASRock’s upcoming Z790 and H770 models, will support both DDR5 and DDR4 memory.

Source: Geekbench (via Wccftech)

Go to thread

Don’t Miss Out on More FPS Review Content!

Our weekly newsletter includes a recap of our reviews and a run down of the most popular tech news that we published.

15 comments

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

    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.
  3. 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.
    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!
  4. Because we were stuck on 6 forever.

    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.
  5. Core -> Core 2 -> Lynnfield/Bloomfield (Nehalem) -> Sandy Bridge -> Ivy Bridge -> Haswell and Bloomfield...
    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)
  6. If DDR5 is at a decent price and available I might go for it.
    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.
  7. 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.
    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.
  8. 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)

    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.
  9. 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.

    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...
  10. 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.
  11. Yeah, I feel like the generations were pretty clear up until Haswell, but since then it has become a blur.
    I entirely agree. Broadwell didn’t have a big consumer release, and they kept renaming Skylake to make it sound different. It got rediculous.

Leave a comment

Please log in to your forum account to comment