Core i9-13900KS Special Edition Appears Barely Faster Than 13900K In Cinebench
Big dollars, small gainz.
A Twitter post by @g01d3nm4ng0 has revealed benchmark results of Intel's upcoming souped-up 6GHz Raptor Lake Core i9-13900KS in Cinebench R23 and compared it to several other CPUs, including the vanilla i9-13900K. Unfortunately, the KS model is barely any faster than its less-expensive counterpart, scoring just 5.4% higher in the single-threaded benchmark and 3.2% higher in the multi-threaded test.
Before we continue, please remember to take these Cinebench results lightly. The benchmark data shown is not official and could vary from what we'll see with the final product.
The Core i9-13900KS is an upcoming special edition processor that will succeed the previous generation i9-12900KS and be capable of 6GHz boost clocks. The chip has not been officially announced, but Intel has already teased its existence during the Intel Technology Tour earlier this year, where it announced that the Raptor Lake architecture could hit 6GHz on a single core at stock speeds.
13900KS12 JAN Y23 pic.twitter.com/AThPEuLQOiDecember 17, 2022
During the conference, we didn't know the final specifications of Intel's vanilla Core i9-13900K, so nobody knew if Intel would release a 13900K with 6GHz boost clocks or reserve it for a future KS version instead. However, now that we know the 13900K hits a maximum boost frequency of 5.8GHz (with TVB), we know for certain Intel will make a KS model that will achieve 6GHz.
This is backed up by several other leaks showing the 13900KS running other benchmarks, including Geekbench. So we know it is coming soon.
Sadly, it appears the 13900KS has inherited the same weaknesses as its 12900KS predecessor, with an underwhelming performance improvement over the 13900K. For example, in Cinebench R23, the 13900KS scored 2366 points in the single-threaded test and 40998 in the multi-threaded test, while the vanilla 13900K scored 2243 and 39689 in the same tests. Combined, both scores account for a 3.5% difference in performance.
This abysmal difference will be compounded if Intel uses the same pricing strategy on the 13900KS as it did on the 12900KS, pricing it at $160 over the vanilla part. This will make the 13900KS an absolutely terrible value for any buyer.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
But the KS has never been about value — it's also been about bragging rights and overclocking capabilities. If Intel puts all of its best quality silicon into the i9-13900KS, it will be extremely valuable to the extreme overclockers who want to break world records and for extreme hardware enthusiasts who want nothing but the best.
Aaron Klotz is a contributing writer for Tom’s Hardware, covering news related to computer hardware such as CPUs, and graphics cards.
-
Neilbob I don't think it's a shock that there is anything but a tiny difference. The clock speed increase is a tiny percentage. It won't be noticed by anyone in any circumstances other than hard numbers.Reply
This product is marketing at it's finest, but unfortunately a lot of people fall for it. -
TerryLaze Reply
The difference is in how hard you need to push either CPU to get there, the final point you get to is not the important part here.Neilbob said:I don't think it's a shock that there is anything but a tiny difference. The clock speed increase is a tiny percentage. It won't be noticed by anyone in any circumstances other than hard numbers.
This product is marketing at it's finest, but unfortunately a lot of people fall for it.
The KS part will run the same as the K at reduced power and temps or will run at least marginally higher at full blast.
Instead of ordering 4-5 CPUs to try them out and only keeping the best one sending the rest back, which in the long run hurts prices for all of us, just go and get a KS model. -
Allen_B Is there a story here? 6.0 GHz is 3.45% higher than 5.8 GHz. It seems hardly shocking that this might yield a 3.5% performance uplift.Reply
Nobody will buy these because they're a good value. Buyers will be those who want the very quickest and won't sweat the $160 (or whatever) premium. If that's not you (and I promise, it's not me), this isn't the CPU to buy. -
Elusive Ruse Where are the usual suspects who bash AMD for "bad price vs performance" on every piece of news about a red product? We are all awfully understanding suddenly...Reply -
bit_user Is this expected to be the 350 W PL1 variant, that was leaked a few months ago?Reply
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-raptor-lake-to-feature-350w-turbo-mode -
TerryLaze Reply
No it's expected to have the same 253W limit....that every mobo maker and most reviewers will completely ignore.bit_user said:Is this expected to be the 350 W PL1 variant, that was leaked a few months ago?
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-raptor-lake-to-feature-350w-turbo-mode
-
rluker5 Reply
This isn't for most. It is for just a few who want a better binned chip badly enough to pay more. These people will likely give them very good cooling and a lot of power.Elusive Ruse said:Where are the usual suspects who bash AMD for "bad price vs performance" on every piece of news about a red product? We are all awfully understanding suddenly...
If AMD were to release a 7800X with higher clocks, power draw, price do you think people would buy it? -
Elusive Ruse Reply
If AMD released a cranked up version of the 7950X that offered 5% performance increase for $200 more, I'd be the first to grab my pitchfork. But I guess Intel is just doing god's work and providing a product to people who like burning excess energy to see a counter go up.rluker5 said:This isn't for most. It is for just a few who want a better binned chip badly enough to pay more. These people will likely give them very good cooling and a lot of power.
If AMD were to release a 7800X with higher clocks, power draw, price do you think people would buy it?