Gaming Performance Cont.
In order to test gaming performance properly and really get a good feel for it, and cover all the bases for the big picture, we decided to test 1080p, 1440p, and 4K resolutions, all three resolutions to see from top to bottom how these CPUs affect performance games. For testing, we are using an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti Founders Edition video card. Since we are testing all 3 resolutions, it’ll be a good mix to see where the CPU matters and where it doesn’t.
All the graphs below are not sorted, they are not sorted from fastest to slowest as in previous graphs, instead, they are simply labeled in groups by platform, from fastest CPU to least fastest CPU. As you look at performance, try to look down the column of the resolution, to see which one is faster than the other, to help your eyes see which one is faster.
Cyberpunk 2077
While we don’t see much difference at 4K in Cyberpunk 2077, we do start to see some at 1440p. Generally, the Intel Core i9-13900K is 3-4FPS faster than the Ryzen 7000 series CPUs. It’s also a couple of FPS faster than the Ryen 7 5800X3D. At 1080p the 13900K is 5% faster than the 7950X and a few percent faster than the 5800X3D. It’s about the same performance as the 12900K is.
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020
Microsoft Flight Sim 2020 is one of those games that is severely bottlenecked by CPUs, even at 4K. The first thing we notice is that all of the Ryzen 7000 series CPUs are much faster in this game compared to all the 12th Gen Alder Lake CPUs, as well as the Ryzen 7 5800X3D. The Zen 4 CPUs are very good here for this game, and an improvement over Alder Lake and the 5800X3D. However, the new Intel Core i9-13900K is really giving those new CPUs a run for its money. Quite simply, the 13900K is 10% faster than the Ryzen 9 7950X at 1440p, and 9% at 1080p. The 13900K is also faster than the 5800X3D. The 13900K also improves upon the 12900K by 15% at 1440p and 15% at 1080p, which are pretty big gains.
Crysis Remastered
In Crysis Remastered, we see some differences in performance start to show themselves at 1440p. The Ryzen 7000 series CPUs fall slightly behind the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, which has an advantage. The Alder Lake 13th Gen CPUs pull ahead of the Ryzen 7000 series CPUs, but the new Intel Core i9-13900K pulls ahead of even them. The 13900K is 6% faster than the 7950X at 1440p. At 1080p it is 12% ahead of the 7950X, and even 6% ahead of the Ryzen 7 5800X3D. Compared to the 12900K the 13900K is 8% faster at 1080p.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider
In Shadow of the Tomb Raider, we see the same performance at 4K and 1440p. However, at 1080p there are some clear differences. The Ryzen 7000 series CPUs do quite well at 1080p against the 12th Gen Alder Lake CPUs, offering higher performance. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D actually has the highest performance. However, the new Core i9-13900K competes well and pushes beyond the Ryzen 7000 series CPUs slightly and reaches 5800X3D performance at 1080p. Compared to the 12900K the new 13900K is 3% faster.
Discussion (16 replies)
Join Discussion →Brent, very well done with the review! This thing is a power monger (both in terms of performance and consumption!).
I'm torn though and not liking the current "Trend" from AMD and Intel with their strategy on becoming the performance king. Throwing more power a the device shouldn't be the way to achieve this.
I'm inclined to make my next CPU decision based on Performance per watt. I can deal with slower performance if it means I'm not going to be spending an arm and a leg with the Electric Company.
Nice review enjoyed reading it. Would have loved to have seen some 5900x and 5950x cpu comparisons since you had the previous gen intel ones. But chart space is a thing. :) Gotta make it so eyeballs can read it!
Looks like I'm keeping the 12700k a while longer, this thing runs hot enough as it is, don't need a bigger heater.
If the AMD GPU's don't make for a good upgrade I might just upgrade my AMD machine with a 5800X3D and leave it at that.
That's the most cost effective upgrade you can do strictly for gaming. Obviously not a slow CPU in any desktop task of course. But that's if you have a need for it; the 12700K ain't slow by any means!
Alas, my poor Haswell-E...
I think both AMD and intel dropped the towel on power efficiency (and nvidia too for that matter). To think that all of them at some point touted power efficiency for their next gen products. At least nvidia delivered with Maxwell and Pascal.
Think of it another way - compare a modern V8 that's more powerful (more torque and horsepower) across its RPM range than a similarly displacing V8 from thirty years ago, and then note that said modern V8 is not only more efficient when putting power down, but has cylinder deactivation and is more efficient at idle. Or, can be made significantly more powerful than the older V8 peak to peak tuned, but again peak to peak, the newer V8 uses more fuel. Because it can, not because it needs to.
We're seeing massive leaps in efficiency, and we're also seeing companies be able to push their parts closer to the limit stock.
Hey, I'm right there with you with my Ivy Bridge E. I was thinking of saving up for one of these this summer but now after seeing the gaming performance I'm rethinking it.
I do need to upgrade but I think I'll wait for the Ryzen 7000 3D versions. The only thing I know for sure is I'd like something that can last around 7-10 years as this has and since I've already got a rig with a 5800X3D it doesn't make sense to build another with the same, especially seeing it within a couple of frames of this processor at 4K gaming. Those 3930/4930/5930 K processors are still amazing after all this time but definitely getting long in the tooth.
I think this is closer to the truth.
The flip side of that coin is that stock power goes up when companies hit walls on other means to generate performance increases.
If you can't engineer it in more performance as part of the architecture, or throw more cores at it, then you hope like hell you can just push more power through it and boost the clocks.
It will continue to go up until people stop buying them. For the mass market - you aren't going to see 280W 13900K's in the average desktop computer in a cubicle for a call center, or in a POS cash register, or a laptop. All the chips in that market will continue to get more efficient -- because the cost of cooling is an overhead item they can cut out as the technology does get more efficient - the performance boosts just aren't as pronounced when the technology to run it has been fast enough for more than a decade now.
That part the V8 analogy still carries through - you don't see big Hellcat-driven minivans mass produced at the car lot, you see smaller displacement and more fuel efficiency and more gears in the transmission, while staying around a hp/torque level that seems "good enough" for the size of the car. The speed limit on the highways haven't changed in a long time, after all (but Americans have gotten fatter - hence turbochargers becoming more common ---- that's a bad joke, but only because part of that is at least true).
Those big, power hungry chips really only have two markets: big workstations that do serious work (pro content creation, engineering CAD, simulations, etc) - and gamers/enthusiasts. And in those markets - they won't really care about power until they start tripping breakers. And even then, good odds on them just saying "Oh well, I'll call the electrician" and still not caring.
Great review. This just drives home the point, if you use your rig for gaming primarily, and that's done in 4K, jumping up to the 13th Gen isn't really worth it since you are more GPU bound.
IMO the current price/performance cpu for 4k would be a 5800X3D. Might go as low as a 5600X if in a budget.
If you're on Intel... 7th-gen maybe, or have an AMD board that cannot take a 5800X3D, then it's a good upgrade if you also have a higher-end GPU. Especially keeping in mind that GPUs drive higher average framerates, while CPUs drive minimum framerates.
Well I went against my thoughts and got a 13900K as my buddy wanted my 12900K and offered me a fair deal. I thought about just going with a 13700K or 13600K, but I wanted to stick with an i9. Honestly when gaming this chip only gets about 5 degrees Celsius hotter than the 12900K using a NH-U12A cooler which isn't bad at all to me. Goes to show you what a good air cooler and a high airflow case can do to even a hot running chip.
This... is entirely relative to the load. Granted, that only matters if you do something that would benefit from more cooling - gaming and general desktop usage aren't going to really tax these CPUs.
Agreed, but I was just comparing it to my 12900K and what temps I had with that chip doing the same games/work loads. I'll probably never push this chip to its limits, but I never really did that with the 12900K either, just on occasion. I'm just impressed with the NH-U12A on how it has been effectively cooling this chip so far. I had some doubts, but it shows that air cooling isn't dead.