Although the big excitement is mostly on next-gen graphics cards slated to launch later this year, Intel and AMD are both gearing up for their next-gen processors as well. Specifically, an engineering sample of the next flagship CPU from Intel has appeared in benchmarking tests online, and the results are pretty promising…
The Intel Core i9-13900K has a few improvements over its previous generation flagship, the Intel Core i9-12900K, namely in core counts and clock speeds. In a Cinebench R23 test, the 13900K outperforms the 12900K by a massive 39%. However, this is for multi-core performance, as single core only scores a 14% improvement.
The reason for that is the 400MHz increase in clock speeds, which has been improved from 5.1GHz to 5.5GHz. This time though, the 13900K has another 8 ‘E’ cores which comes to 8P + 16E cores altogether (or 24 Threads) as opposed to just 8P + 8E (16 Threads) for the 12900K.
Other benchmark tests found an average of 30-40% performance improvement in multi threaded tests, with some notable examples going even further than that like CPU-Z (46% improvement), 7-Zip decompressing (52%), and more. However, one notable issue is the TDP, which comes in at 433W (yikes!). Although it may be due to the engineering sample, improvements will likely be made before launch.
Speaking of launch, the Core i9-13900K is expected to release sometime in Autumn 2022, which is also the same time AMD’s next-gen Ryzen 7000 chips will release, so we’ll be in for some stiff competition. If it’s going to be anything like the recent GPU rumors though, it seems like power draw is going to be a major factor this generation for both CPUs and graphics cards.
Hopefully we’ll learn more about the Intel Core 13th gen processors at the next Intel Innovation event later this year, which runs from September 27th-28th. It’s possible the first batch of 13th gen Core CPUs could launch around then, so we may also get the full specs and pricing details revealed!
What do you think? Are you excited for Intel Core 13th Gen? How do you feel about the performance leaks above? Do they look good to you? Or underwhelming? And how much is that single-core vs multi-core performance debate really important for PC gamers? Let us know your thoughts!
Login or Register to join the debate
I'm a big fan of big-small core architectures(or in intel's case small and smaller). I wish AMD would do so as well. We need 4x massively wide cores(much wider than the current ones in Adler Lake and Zen3) and as many small cores as possible, ideally 8-16x small cores.
Get 13100F and your good to go.
If they put 4x E cores along with the 4x P cores, it'd be perfect.
Might be too soon to pack all that in to a ~130USD package
No such thing as too soon, we are 3 years too late. In 2019 with 7nm Ryzen 5 should have been 8 cores.
What Intel needs to do right now is update their iGPU or introduce a new GPU that is equal to AMD Ryzen 680M cause their Xe 96EU is old.
For gaming, it will be worth waiting for actual game benchmarks, since games aren't as simple as productivity workloads, which scale in a way more perfectly. I am not saying 10% single core uplift is bad, neither that it is great, but they way I put it, if it gives great real world performance, I will take it, the more the merrier. But games aren't just about single core performance, a lot of things effect games and today games also do scale with cores to an extent. But performance really is mix of everything inside CPU and it also depends on game. Numbers do look nice, but that is about it. We will have to see how it translates to real world and what exactly it will compete at the time... sadly Intel tends to be late. Plus what will the price be. And most importantly, the rest of the lineup. i9 is for that top end few percent, if even that. Vast majority will buy i5. Will that also be 10% single core faster and 40% multithraded? Just too many questions with no answers.
But as always, I am looking forward to see what future brings. I do hope it will be competitive, so AMD doesn't slip into top dog position too comfortably. Competition is always best and unfortunately in duopoly, there isn't much in terms of options.
That's where HUB huge selection of benchmarks come in, with the 1080p/1440p average game FPS. Games are too temperamental to just go off cinebench some love cache, older engines max out 1 core, some love frequency, other IPC...too many variables.
I can't wait to play Cinebench again, it's been so long....what a classic.
If demand of CPU goes 250% in most demanding games my i5-10400f will still be good for me. 35% is the most game pushed him . Hey i hear 16k is coming on 500hz 70kg monitors