AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D vs Intel Core i9-13900K Faceoff: Battle of the Gaming Flagships

Ryzen 9 7950X3D vs Core i9-13900K

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D vs Intel Core i9-13900K rivalry is a battle of flagships for the highest-end of the gaming market, but the chips take drastically different approaches to serving up leading performance. The Core i9-13900K wields Intel's 13th-Gen Raptor Lake x86 hybrid architecture to square off against AMD's chiplet-based Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 chips, but AMD has a trick up its sleeve — the Second-Gen 3D V-Cache tech, which fuses on a 3D-stacked cache chiplet atop the processor to deliver market-leading gaming performance. These two fundamentally different approaches have shaken up our list of the best CPUs for gaming, but each approach has its respective strengths.

AMD's $699 Ryzen 9 7950X3D is geared specifically for gamers looking to blast through CPU-limited games while still having the threaded heft of 16 cores that remain competitive in the heaviest of productivity workloads. The Ryzen 9 7950X3D does lag competitors in some productivity apps due to the tradeoffs associated with the 3D chip-stacking tech, and it doesn't accelerate all games equally. However, one thing is certain — it is the fastest gaming chip on the market.

The $589 Intel Core i9-13900K is Intel's fastest gaming processor, and while it isn't quite as fast as AMD's Ryzen 9 7950X3D in gaming, it has a much friendlier price tag and serves up ultra-competitive performance in both gaming and productivity apps. Intel also continues to support DDR4 memory to offer a less-expensive path for builders, lowering the bar for entry to flagship performance even further. Meanwhile, AMD's decision to support only DDR5 has proven to be a pricing pain point.

The different strengths of these two chips make for a difficult decision if you're looking to pick one for your next high-end build. Below we've taken the Core i9-13900K vs Ryzen 9 7950X3D rivalry through a six-round faceoff to see which chips take the crown in our gaming and application benchmarks, along with other key criteria like power consumption and pricing. Let's see how they stack up. 

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.

  • brandonjclark
    This is a much better showing from AMD than I thought it'd be! Now I can't wait for the 7800X3D results.
    Reply
  • hotaru251
    don't trust limited tests for these.

    look for reviews/review videos for specific things related to your needs.


    When the cache matters it is very good.
    When it doesnt though tis w/e.


    Personally I would use a 3D cache chip just cause for me its simple as losing maybe 15% when doesnt matter, but when it does matter gain up to 25%.

    got more to gain than to lose on average.
    Reply
  • aberkae
    Paper launch vs a product you can actually purchase though. It's been 18 days post launch and no restock from initial batch. Update my local microcenter still has 18 units of the 7900x3d out of 24 units from launch in stock fyi.
    Reply
  • rluker5
    There is still the issue of XMP vs tuned memory. Because the X3D is less sensitive to low latency memory doing this for both would favor Intel. Not as much as game selection, or maybe disabling core isolation (optional security feature so can't really argue against leaving it enabled), and likely not enough to have the 13900k beat the X3D in cache sensitive games, but it does seem on par with all of the Intel overclocking done in this review combined and is likely additive in it's results.
    Here's a video that just came out on that: RAM/Memory Tuning & Scaling: Intel 13th gen Core Series - YouTube
    And this video clearly uses Hynix ICs, but the tuning seems reasonable for those sticks that use Hynix.
    Reply
  • atomicWAR
    rluker5 said:
    There is still the issue of XMP vs tuned memory. Because the X3D is less sensitive to low latency memory doing this for both would favor Intel. Not as much as game selection, or maybe disabling core isolation (optional security feature so can't really argue against leaving it enabled), and likely not enough to have the 13900k beat the X3D in cache sensitive games, but it does seem on par with all of the Intel overclocking done in this review combined and is likely additive in it's results.
    Here's a video that just came out on that: RAM/Memory Tuning & Scaling: Intel 13th gen Core Series - YouTubeAnd this video clearly uses Hynix ICs, but the tuning seems reasonable for those sticks that use Hynix.

    The 7950x3D actaully scales decently with ram speeds and latencies depending on the title. Yeah its not as steep an improvement compared to non x3d chips but its still noticable and arguably worth while. Yeah some games like Horizon Zero Dawn are mostly flat in gains (ie very little to be had) others like Watch Dogs Legions the gains are pretty linear (7700x gains 33 fps where a 7950x3d gained 23fps going from ddr5 4800 cl 40 to ddr5 6000 cl 30)

    https://www.techspot.com/review/2635-ryzen-7950x3d-memory-scaling/#2023-02-28-image
    But yeah much like the vcache.. your mileage my vary by title. But if it were me, I'd still consider DDR5 6000 ram cl 30 with tight sub timings with x3d chip. Yeah overall increase in speed over overall in their test suite is only 4% but Intel's increase is only 3%. And neither as as starved as the 7700x with 17% but if your getting a high end platform why cripple it even if only by a few %.
    Reply
  • drivinfast247
    Not to mention the much lower power use while being pretty much equal in gaming and better in tasks.
    Reply
  • rluker5
    atomicWAR said:
    The 7950x3D actaully scales decently with ram speeds and latencies depending on the title. Yeah its not as steep an improvement compared to non x3d chips but its still noticable and arguably worth while. Yeah some games like Horizon Zero Dawn are mostly flat in gains (ie very little to be had) others like Watch Dogs Legions the gains are pretty linear (7700x gains 33 fps where a 7950x3d gained 23fps going from ddr5 4800 cl 40 to ddr5 6000 cl 30)

    https://www.techspot.com/review/2635-ryzen-7950x3d-memory-scaling/#2023-02-28-image
    But yeah much like the vcache.. your mileage my vary by title. But if it were me, I'd still consider DDR5 6000 ram cl 30 with tight sub timings with x3d chip. Yeah overall increase in speed over overall in their test suite is only 4% but Intel's increase is only 3%. And neither as as starved as the 7700x with 17% but if your getting a high end platform why cripple it even if only by a few %.
    Just going by the average framerates from the 7 game average at 1080p from that article, I saw 12% increase on Intel vs a bit below 7% for the X3D. Mind you this was also with faster ram for Intel, but that is a reality in today's market - Intel can and does use faster ram. And this also doesn't include tuned timings like I mentioned.
    So that article supports my point. I never said X3D would have no improvement, just less.
    Reply
  • Endymio
    Below you can see the geometric mean of our gaming tests ...
    Why a geometric mean? Your base values are frame rates, no? Generally speaking:

    Normal data: arithmetic mean
    Rates: harmonic mean.
    Ratios/percentages/scaled values: geometric mean.
    Reply
  • atomicWAR
    rluker5 said:
    Just going by the average framerates from the 7 game average at 1080p from that article, I saw 12% increase on Intel vs a bit below 7% for the X3D. Mind you this was also with faster ram for Intel, but that is a reality in today's market - Intel can and does use faster ram. And this also doesn't include tuned timings like I mentioned.
    So that article supports my point. I never said X3D would have no improvement, just less.

    It supports both our points but yes the improvement is indeed smaller no question you are certainly not wrong there. Its just the performance bump is big enough I wouldn't ignore it on the high end. Unless your running a full 128 GB of ram and forced into slower speeds due to the current IMC limitations on Ryzen 7000 it just seems unwise if your building a high end rig to leave that extra performance on the table. I think if you spending 699 on a CPU you'll be spending a grand or more on a GPU... and a large amount on ram as well. So why cripple yourself...

    Now going to a 7800X3D (when it launches) where budgets become more realistic...then by all means cheap out on the ram and put that money towards more GPU power. Bang for your buck will be much better. So that would make the most sense if going AMD on a budget. 7950X3D buyers...budgets are likely going to be more flexible and when purchasing ram I see little reason to not get a decent cl 30 ddr5 6000mhz kit.

    Edit: I saw the upvote after posting, thanks...My post is a little pointless now but my comments on the 7800X3d are new so i'll be lazy and leave the post with an edit! Thanks for taking the time to read, respond and like my post(s).
    Reply
  • ottonis
    Thanks for the thorough comparative testing!
    While being the new king in gaming CPUs may be the essence of all those tests, I fail to see the relevance.

    Back in the day, a new CPU - e.g. a Pentium 120 vs a Pentium 60 - would have made the difference between a game being playable at 40 fps and non-playable at 18 fps.

    Nowadays, where are those popular games that can be played with the new 3D-cashed CPU but not with a standard CPU?
    I only see games at 350-ish fps vs 299-ish fps etc - a difference in fps that has zero relevance for the gaming experience whatsoever.

    So, the new 3D chips make only sense if they allow for a perceivable improvement in gaming experience - something AMD should have in mind if they want to rule the gaming market segment.

    They would really need to collaborate with a few of the big gaming studios and publishers and ask them to create enhanced versions of existing blockbuster games optimized for their 3D cash CPUs.
    Such optimizations would tremendously beef up physics or visual effects or AI when played on a large cash CPU and thus be a real incentive for all those pondering whether or not to get one of these new gaming CPUs.

    Back in the day, "unplayable" games were the main reason to upgrade CPU or graphics card, or both.
    Reply