AMD Ryzen 9 7950X vs Intel Core i9-13900K Face Off

Core i9-13900K vs Ryzen 9 7950X
(Image credit: Shutterstock, AMD, Intel)

The Intel Core i9-13900K vs AMD Ryzen 9 7950X rivalry is a heated battle for supremacy at the top of the mainstream desktop PC market, with Intel's 13th-Gen Raptor Lake with an x86 hybrid architecture squaring off against AMD's chiplet-based Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 family. These two fundamentally different approaches have shaken up our list of the best CPUs for gaming, as the Intel vs AMD battle enters a new phase, but the competition is a bit closer than it might appear on the surface.

For Raptor Lake, Intel increased the number of E-cores across its product stack, thus technically giving the Core i9-13900K the lead in core counts  — a first for Intel since Ryzen arrived back in 2017 — and improved the chips' clock rates and cache to boost performance.

AMD's Ryzen 7000 chips come to market with an entirely new architecture and process node. The company uses only full-fledged Zen 4 cores that benefit from a 13% increase in IPC, the TSMC 5nm process, vastly improved clock speeds, and a new AM5 platform that drastically improves power delivery to the cores. All told, the Ryzen 9 7950X represents a big step forward over the Zen 3 predecessors.

Both Ryzen 7000 and Raptor Lake's modern connectivity technologies bring big increases in throughput via DDR5 memory and PCIe 5.0 interfaces, but Intel also chose to continue to support DDR4 memory to offer a less-expensive path for builders. Meanwhile, AMD's decision to support only DDR5 has proven to be a pricing pain point.

Intel is also incredibly aggressive with pricing for its newest line. As a result, the $589 Core i9-13900K's pricing lands between the $699 Ryzen 9 7950X and the $549 Ryzen 9 7900X, but the Intel chip is incredibly competitive in all manner of work against the more expensive 7950X, not to mention having lower overall platform costs.

Below we've taken the Core i9-13900K vs Ryzen 9 7950X rivalry through a six-round faceoff to see which chip takes the crown in our gaming and application benchmarks, along with other key criteria like power consumption and pricing. Let's see how the chips stack up. 

Features and Specifications: Intel Core i9-13900K vs Ryzen 9 7950X

Paul Alcorn
Editor-in-Chief

Paul Alcorn is the Editor-in-Chief for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

  • ManDaddio
    But AMD Fanboys will ignore the data.

    And every other YouTube channel and media outlet will say but amd's 3D chips will be coming out. "Wait".

    That's all everyone says when Intel beats AMD is to wait for AMD stuff to come out. I know because I've been watching the show for decades.

    Even when AMD chips were crap people kept complaining about the price of Intel and we're telling people to buy the bargain. I listened unfortunately and missed out on a decade of great Intel chips. All the while I had to keep buying a new AMD chip to keep up. Therefore, did I really save money?
    The older Intel chips we know now people were and are still effectively using 10 years running.
    Meh....
    Reply
  • kiniku
    ManDaddio said:
    But AMD Fanboys will ignore the data.

    And every other YouTube channel and media outlet will say but amd's 3D chips will be coming out. "Wait".

    That's all everyone says when Intel beats AMD is to wait for AMD stuff to come out. I know because I've been watching the show for decades.

    Even when AMD chips were crap people kept complaining about the price of Intel and we're telling people to buy the bargain. I listened unfortunately and missed out on a decade of great Intel chips. All the while I had to keep buying a new AMD chip to keep up. Therefore, did I really save money?
    The older Intel chips we know now people were and are still effectively using 10 years running.
    Meh....
    Your point is valid but I wouldn't call them fan boys, I'd call them choice boys. Some people feel they are being taken advantage of when only one manufacturer of a product is on top. So they are willing to go with an underdog out of principle even if they end up with the lesser product just to not follow "the sheep". But I wholeheartedly disagree with your sentiment that you gave up a decade with AMD. Ryzen forced Intel to stop gouging for 4 core CPUs for a "decade" and they made the CPU market competitive again. We can thank AMD also for putting multiple cores affordably on the market while Intel was telling us "you don't need them".
    Reply
  • Rico Ismail
    Admin said:
    We put the Core i9-13900K and Ryzen 9 7950X through a six-round fight to see who comes out on top.

    AMD Ryzen 9 7950X vs Intel Core i9-13900K Face Off : Read more

    Its A Funny things that monolitic 10nm chip win price and performance over chiplet 5nm + 6nm that go faster clockspeed, more transistor counts, and of course lower cost production.

    AMD need to redesign its CPU to make better price per performance ratio to fight overall cost of the system. its not a good idea to upgrade with spending 100% more money ( Mobo and DDR5 + ryzen chip) and just get +-35% performance ( 13% IPC and 25% clock speed). They need to make higher performance CPU with same price point. I think they can do with make single CCD consist of 16 cores and replace RDNA2 with L3 chace on IOD.

    Multiple CCD makes more latency, and i think AMD NEED TO make one CCD with 16 cores whithout L3 chace that will make benchmark faster in all games and application. Some games run faster in one CCD than two CCD with higher number of Cores. And like AMD have done in rx7900 series,thet was placing L3 in IOD. Because placing 32 MB of L3 chace in an expensive 5nm silicon CCD is VERY BAD idea. Remove RDNA 2 IGP on IOD and replace it with two block of L3 chaces is good idea. Integrated graphic only needed in LOW BUDGET and OFFICE System that will use only cheap DDR4 and cheap Mobo. Or if they want to get more advanced still use ryzen 7xxx with RDNA2 IGP. Mainstream and high end will only use Discrete PCIE graphic. Also enable two more cores in ryzen 5 (8600X or somewhat) to compete with intelwho has more e-cores (6P + 4E) inside core-i5 (a number of e-core in turbo mode can beat more than one P-cores). Ryzen 5 8600X (or whatever) will have 8 cores and 105 Watt and half of L3 chace enabled at IOD. And ryzen 7 8700 XTX(or X3D or something) will have same core counts (8 cores) but doubled L3 chace size (all L3 block enabled at IOD) and also higher 170W of power envelope. Ryzen 9 8990XTX (or anything that will they say) will enables all 16 cores and all L3 chaces block at maximum 170W. I think that will be a good ideas to make better price per performance value choices combine with insane Mobo And DDR5 prices, then people get more valuable choices.
    Reply
  • atomicWAR
    Rico Ismail said:
    Its A Funny things that monolitic 10nm chip win price and performance over chiplet 5nm + 6nm

    Except this article is not consideting the price drops AMD announced. A 7950X is now only 574 not 699...for example. This article needs a minor update ASAP over wrong pricing... as this pricing difference changes the outcome considerably imho.

    Edit: I am blind don't listen to my price complaints.
    Reply
  • atomicWAR
    Price of 7950X is not correct. With AMDs price drop it only 574.99 not 699.99. Please fix...

    Edit: don't listen to me I am blind lol. Apologies.
    Reply
  • fball922
    I will gladly admit to being a fan of AMD, though probably not "fanboy" because I have owned Intel products as well. I hold a grudge against Intel for their shenanigans with OEMs through their rebate programs in the early 2000s, it set competition (and consumer choice) back in a big way.

    Anyway, the 7k series is definitely underwhelming, especially for the price. I think there are probably a few things at play here- 1) wafer prices have gone up for AMD, 2) AMD feels like the big dog after the last generation and thinks they can justify a price premium, 3) they are not overly concerned about desktop demand (a shrinking market) as they would prefer to keep it restrained to dedicate limited manufacturing capacity to their server line where they are making most of their money.

    Just my 2c.
    Reply
  • Paul Alcorn
    atomicWAR said:
    Except this article is not consideting the price drops AMD announced. A 7950X is now only 574 not 699...for example. This article needs a minor update ASAP over wrong pricing... as this pricing difference changes the outcome considerably imho.

    At the time of publishing, the article mentions that in three different sections:
    1.) Features and Specification
    2.) Pricing
    3.) Conclusion

    I even put it in italics in the first section so you wouldn't miss it :P
    Reply
  • atomicWAR
    PaulAlcorn said:
    At the time of publishing, the article mentions that in three different sections:
    1.) Features and Specification
    2.) Pricing
    3.) Conclusion

    I even put it in italics in the first section so you wouldn't miss it :p

    And yet I managed to...my apologies. Thx for the very prompt rebuttal!
    Reply
  • rluker5
    I have a 13900kf.
    For overclocks directed towards performance in applications with variable loads like gaming (really my most important heavy use because I don't use my pc for work) I favor having faster single core and have increased multicore since it doesn't increase total heat output that much and adds to performance in applications that use transient number of cores.
    For my seemingly average 13900kf I run daily:
    1p 6.0ghz +20mv
    2 6.0 +20
    3 5.9 +15
    4 5.8 +10
    5 5.8 +10
    6 5.7 ---
    7 5.6 ---
    8 5.6 ---
    1-4e 4.6 ---
    5-16e 4.5 ---
    LLC 5(Asus scale)
    Balanced power plans usually.
    I found I needed the extra volts with transient clocks with a couple games. Also 5.6 thermal throttles under stress tests and my chip will only hold 5.4 with my $60 280mm AIO before thermal throttle for 40-41k CB23. But it works for games flawlessly and I have no issues with heat from the increased non all core clocks.

    On paper this is technically a 5.6Ghz OC bit averages 225Mhz over stock where a flat 5.6Ghz would be 25mhz over the stock 5.8/2, 5.5/8 stock clocks so there is some potential variability with OC testing that is not easy to explain away because a lot depends on Si lottery, mobo manufacturer and a lot of other things. If you listed everything like me it would bore a lot of readers as I likely have with this post. -At least it will get mostly covered up unless you want to read more :P

    But favoring higher single core benefits both designer's chips and I recommend it for Intel as well.
    Reply
  • rluker5
    Rico Ismail said:
    Its A Funny things that monolitic 10nm chip win price and performance over chiplet 5nm + 6nm that go faster clockspeed, more transistor counts, and of course lower cost production.

    AMD need to redesign its CPU to make better price per performance ratio to fight overall cost of the system. its not a good idea to upgrade with spending 100% more money ( Mobo and DDR5 + ryzen chip) and just get +-35% performance ( 13% IPC and 25% clock speed). They need to make higher performance CPU with same price point. I think they can do with make single CCD consist of 16 cores and replace RDNA2 with L3 chace on IOD.

    Multiple CCD makes more latency, and i think AMD NEED TO make one CCD with 16 cores whithout L3 chace that will make benchmark faster in all games and application. Some games run faster in one CCD than two CCD with higher number of Cores. And like AMD have done in rx7900 series,thet was placing L3 in IOD. Because placing 32 MB of L3 chace in an expensive 5nm silicon CCD is VERY BAD idea. Remove RDNA 2 IGP on IOD and replace it with two block of L3 chaces is good idea. Integrated graphic only needed in LOW BUDGET and OFFICE System that will use only cheap DDR4 and cheap Mobo. Or if they want to get more advanced still use ryzen 7xxx with RDNA2 IGP. Mainstream and high end will only use Discrete PCIE graphic. Also enable two more cores in ryzen 5 (8600X or somewhat) to compete with intelwho has more e-cores (6P + 4E) inside core-i5 (a number of e-core in turbo mode can beat more than one P-cores). Ryzen 5 8600X (or whatever) will have 8 cores and 105 Watt and half of L3 chace enabled at IOD. And ryzen 7 8700 XTX(or X3D or something) will have same core counts (8 cores) but doubled L3 chace size (all L3 block enabled at IOD) and also higher 170W of power envelope. Ryzen 9 8990XTX (or anything that will they say) will enables all 16 cores and all L3 chaces block at maximum 170W. I think that will be a good ideas to make better price per performance value choices combine with insane Mobo And DDR5 prices, then people get more valuable choices.
    That 32MB cache helps single core a ton, more than more cores would for sure. Look at the 300-500 series improvement where most of that was going from having 16MB L3 available per core to 32MB L3 available per core due to CCD rearrangement. Also the low cache Ryzen mobile/G performs close to Skylake arch in games while Ryzen desktop with more cache is way past that.

    Maybe taking the cache out for their version of e-cores would work, main chiplet with cache, and backup additional compute chiplet without. But you would have to fix Windows to get it to use the right chiplet first. Right now it isn't working the best with that.
    Reply