Tom's Hardware Verdict
The $699 Core i9-13900KS Special Edition is the fastest gaming chip in the world with its record-setting 6 GHz peak turbo clock, but the costly chip's relatively small performance advantage over the vanilla 13900K isn't worth the eye-watering upcharge.
Pros
- +
Record-setting 6 GHz Turbo
- +
Leading gaming and single-thread performance
- +
Strong multi-thread performance
- +
Premium binned silicon
- +
Overclocking
Cons
- -
Price
- -
Power consumption
- -
Minimal gains over the standard model
- -
Requires pricey accommodations
Why you can trust Tom's Hardware
The 24-core Intel Core i9-13900KS Special Edition processor carries an eye-watering $699 price tag, but it has a feature that Intel feels warrants the price tag — this is the first consumer PC chip to run at 6 GHz without overclocking, extending Intel's lead over AMD's fastest Ryzen 7000 processors. However, with a whopping 250W base power specification, this 13th-Gen Raptor Lake chip is also now officially the most power-hungry desktop CPU in history — its voracious appetite even peaks at 320W in a new Extreme Power Delivery Profile.
Intel's Raptor Lake processors have taken the lead in gaming, productivity, and value over AMD's Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 processors, but the competition remains stiff. The relatively low-profile 13900KS launch comes as AMD preps three new Ryzen 7000X3D processors with its disruptive 3D V-Cache tech that delivers explosive gains in gaming performance.
The 3D V-Cache tech's first iteration, AMD's Ryzen 7 5800X3D, overtook Intel's Alder Lake as the best CPU for gaming, but Intel later retook the crown with Raptor Lake. AMD's Ryzen 7000X3D chips are poised to come to market in mere weeks, and the Core i9-13900KS is meant to keep Intel's silicon entrenched at the top of the CPU benchmark charts when AMD's new chips arrive.
MSRP | Cores / Threads (P+E) | P-Core Base / Boost (GHz) | E-Core Base / Boost (GHz) | Cache (L2/L3) | TDP / PBP / MTP | Memory | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Core i9-13900KS | $699 | 24 / 32 (8+16) | 3.0 / 6.0 | 2.2 / 4.3 | 68MB (32+36) | 150W / 253W / 320W | DDR4-3200 / DDR5-5600 |
Core i9-13900K / KF | $589 (K) - $564 (KF) | 24 / 32 (8+16) | 3.0 / 5.8 | 2.2 / 4.3 | 68MB (32+36) | 125W / 253W | DDR4-3200 / DDR5-5600 |
That might be a tall order — the Ryzen 7000X3D chips look exceptionally promising due to their exotic performance-enhancing tech. In contrast, the 13900KS is built on the same architecture as the 13900K, just with a higher speed binning to accommodate 200 MHz faster clock rates. Otherwise, it uses the same fundamental design as its standard counterpart, but it comes with a hefty upcharge that destroys any hint of a value proposition for all but the extreme overclocking crowd.
Naturally, if you're looking to buy a $699 chip, price considerations go out of the window — this is a pure speed play for those with deep pockets. For now, we don't know if the Core i9-13900KS will keep Intel in the top spot when the Ryzen 7000X3D chips arrive next month, but it looks like it will be close. Here's how the Core i9-13900KS stacks up against the current competition.
Intel Core i9-13900KS Specifications and Pricing
MSRP | Cores / Threads (P+E) | P-Core Base / Boost (GHz) | E-Core Base / Boost (GHz) | Cache (L2/L3) | TDP / PBP / MTP | Memory | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Core i9-13900KS | $699 | 24 / 32 (8+16) | 3.0 / 6.0 | 2.2 / 4.3 | 68MB (32+36) | 150W / 253W / 320W | DDR4-3200 / DDR5-5600 |
Core i9-13900K / KF | $589 (K) - $564 (KF) | 24 / 32 (8+16) | 3.0 / 5.8 | 2.2 / 4.3 | 68MB (32+36) | 125W / 253W | DDR4-3200 / DDR5-5600 |
Ryzen 9 7950X3D | ? | 16 / 32 | 4.2 / 5.7 | - | 144MB (16+128) | 120W / 162W | DDR5-5200 |
Core i7-13700K / KF | $409 (K) - $384 (KF) | 16 / 24 (8+8) | 3.4 / 5.4 | 2.5 / 4.2 | 54MB (24+30) | 125W / 253W | DDR4-3200 / DDR5-5600 |
Ryzen 9 7900X3D | ? | 12 / 24 | 4.4 / 5.6 | - | 140MB (12+132) | 120W / 162W | DDR5-5200 |
Ryzen 7 7800X3D | ? | 8 /16 | 4.x / 5.0 | - | 104MB (8+96) | 120W / 162W | DDR5-5200 |
Ryzen 7 5800X3D | $358 ($449) | 8 /16 | 3.4 / 4.5 | - | 104MB (8+96) | 105W | DDR4-3200 |
The 13900KS is the fastest Intel desktop PC chip, and even at stock settings, it drew up to 328W and ran at 100C to scrape out every last bit of performance. Because the 13900KS is a Special Edition, the company will only produce a limited (but unspecified) number of these processors — hence the $699 price tag. Despite the high pricing, Intel has actually lowered the ceiling for access to its most premium silicon: The previous-gen 12900KS debuted at $739, but Intel later increased the pricing of all its 12th-Gen chips, bringing it to $823 today.
Intel selects its premium-binned 13900K silicon for the 13900KS, so it is guaranteed to be among the very best silicon the company has to offer. That will make the chips very attractive to overclockers, as paying the extra $110 for the KS model improves your odds in the silicon lottery, essentially assuring you're getting a cherry chip. Here's a video that describes Intel's binning process:
As with the Core i9-13900K (architecture details here), the KS model comes with eight hyperthreaded p-cores and 16 single-threaded e-cores, for a total of 24 cores and 32 threads. The KS model's p-cores have a 3 GHz base clock and reach up to 6 GHz on two cores via Thermal Velocity Boost (TVB) tech. This allows the processor to shift into slightly higher frequencies if it remains under a certain temperature threshold (70C for desktop chips). Meanwhile, the standard Turbo Boost 3.0 clock rates reach 5.8 GHz. We found that the chip easily peaks at 6 GHz, though the impact on workloads can vary.
The e-cores kick in for background and multi-threaded tasks with a 2.2 GHz base and 4.3 GHz boost, identical to the 13900K. Most other features, like the supported DDR4-3200 and DDR5-5600 transfer rates, 32MB of L2, and 36MB of L3 cache, remain the same.
As before, the LGA 1700 chip is compatible with 600-series motherboards, but you'll want one of the best-equipped Z-series boards to quench the 13900KS' thirst for power. However, selecting the right motherboard is a bit more complicated for the 13900KS due to the new 320W "Extreme Power Profile."
13900K / KS Performance Power Delivery Profile | PL1 (PBP) | PL2 (MTP) | ICCMax |
13900K and KS Default Profile | 253W | 253W | 307A |
13900K Extreme Power Profile | 253W | 253W | 400A |
13900KS Extreme Power Profile | 320W | 320W | 400A |
Intel's power profiles have a few key variables. The PL1 power spec quantifies extended use at base clocks and is also known as the Processor Base Power (PBP). In contrast, PL2 power quantifies when the chip is under full load for short periods (boost) and is also known as the Maximum Turbo Power (MTP). ICCMax denotes the maximum current the chip can pull when under heavy load.
Intel also used to define a Tau variable that specified the duration of the boost/PL2 state before the chip dropped back into PL1. Intel has since stopped defining Tau for K-series models because it assigns PL1 and PL2 as the same value for Alder Lake and following gens in the reference BIOSes that it sends to OEMs — a first. This means the chip always operates in a boosted/PL2 state.
Intel's new policy of sending reference BIOSes with PL1=PL2 settings basically invalidates even having a PL1 value, and the fact that it still exists on the spec sheet as a "Processor Base Power (PBP)" setting — the lower of the two power specs — is misleading.
Intel defined an Extreme Power Profile for its regular 13900K — the 253W PL1/PL2 values remain the same for both the standard and extreme profile, but the extreme profile's ICCMax reaches 400A (up from 307A).
The KS model has the same default profile as the 13900K but also has its own new Extreme Power Profile that allows for a 320W PL1/PL2 and 400A ceiling. You'll need to ensure that your motherboard can deliver the peak current if you want to unleash the full power of the KS, as not all motherboards can for a long period of time. Motherboard vendors allow assigning a higher ICCMax value in the BIOS, typically under settings like "Core/CPU Current Limit" (the name varies by mobo maker), but that doesn't mean the motherboard can actually deliver that amount of current. Obviously, B- and H-series boards don't make the cut.
Intel defines these recommended power profiles but allows motherboard vendors to ignore them completely, and exceeding the default values doesn't void the warranty. Thus, by default, most motherboard makers completely ignore the limits and assign the maximum values for PL1, PL2, and ICCMax, resulting in higher performance and more heat.
Even at stock settings, the Core i9-13900KS hit up to 328W of power and 100C in our testing. We'll see what power draw, performance, and thermals look like, including gaming and productivity benchmarks, on the following pages.
- MORE: AMD vs Intel
- MORE: Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 All We Know
- MORE: Raptor Lake All We Know
Current page: The 6 GHz Special
Next Page Intel Core i9-13900KS Thermals, Power Consumption, and Boost ClocksPaul Alcorn is the Managing Editor: News and Emerging Tech for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.
-
Brian D Smith Less 'overclocking' and more on 'underclocking' articles please.Reply
That would be helpful for the ever growing segment who does NOT need the testosterone rush of having the 'fastest' ... and wants more info on the logical underclocking to...well, do things like get the most out of a CPU without the burden of water-cooling, it's maintenance and chance of screwing up their expensive systems.
These CPU's and new systems would be flying off the shelves much faster than they are if only people did not have to take such measures for all the heat they generate. It's practically gone from being able to 'fry an egg' on a CPU to 'roasting a pig'. :( -
bit_user Seems like the article got a new comment thread, somehow. The original thread was:Reply
https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/intel-core-i9-13900ks-review-the-worlds-first-6-ghz-320w-cpu.3794179/
I'm guessing because it had previously been classified as a News article and is now tagged as a Review. -
bit_user Thanks for the thorough review, @PaulAlcorn !Reply
Some of the benchmarks are so oddly lopsided in Intel's favor that I think it'd be interesting to run them in a VM and trap the CPUID instruction. Then, have it mis-report the CPU as a Genuine Intel of some Skylake-X vintage (because it also had AVX-512) and see if you get better performance than the default behavior.
For the benchmarks that favor AMD, you could try disabling AVX-512, to see if that's why.
Whatever the reason, it would be really interesting to know why some benchmarks so heavily favor one CPU family or another. I'd bet AMD and Intel are both doing this sort of competitive analysis, in their respective labs. -
letmepicyou
Well, we've seen the video card manufacturers code drivers to give inflated benchmark results in the past. Is it so outlandish to think Intel or AMD might make alterations in their microcode or architecture in favor of high benchmark scores vs being overall faster?bit_user said:Thanks for the thorough review, @PaulAlcorn !
Some of the benchmarks are so oddly lopsided in Intel's favor that I think it'd be interesting to run them in a VM and trap the CPUID instruction. Then, have it mis-report the CPU as a Genuine Intel of some Skylake-X vintage (because it also had AVX-512) and see if you get better performance than the default behavior.
For the benchmarks that favor AMD, you could try disabling AVX-512, to see if that's why.
Whatever the reason, it would be really interesting to know why some benchmarks so heavily favor one CPU family or another. I'd bet AMD and Intel are both doing this sort of competitive analysis, in their respective labs. -
bit_user
Optimizing the microcode for specific benchmarks is risky, because you don't know that it won't blow up in your face with some other workload that becomes popular in the next year.letmepicyou said:Is it so outlandish to think Intel or AMD might make alterations in their microcode or architecture in favor of high benchmark scores vs being overall faster?
That said, I was wondering whether AMD tuned its branch predictor on things like 7-zip's decompression algorithm, or if it just happens to work especially well on it.
To be clear, what I'm most concerned about is that some software is rigged to work well on Intel CPUs (or AMD, though less likely). Intel has done this before, in some of their 1st party libraries (Math Kernel Library, IIRC). And yes, we've seen games use libraries that effectively do the same thing for GPUs (who can forget when Nvidia had a big lead in tessellation performance?). -
hotaru251 Intel: "We need a faster chip"Reply
eng 1: what if we make it hotter & uncontrollably force power into it?
eng 2: what if we try soemthign else that doesnt involve using guzzling power as answer?
intel: eng1 you're a genius! -
bit_user
Part of the problem might be in Intel's manufacturing node. That could limit the solution space for delivering competitive performance, especially when it also needs to be profitable. Recall that Intel 7 not EUV, while TSMC has been using EUV since N7.hotaru251 said:Intel: "We need a faster chip"
eng 1: what if we make it hotter & uncontrollably force power into it?
eng 2: what if we try soemthign else that doesnt involve using guzzling power as answer?
intel: eng1 you're a genius! -
froggx
Intel has at least once in the past disabled the ability to undervolt. Look up the "plundervolt" vulnerability. Basically around 7th and 8th gen CPUs it was discovered that under very specific conditions that most users would never encounter, undervolting allowed some kind of exploit. The solution: push a windows update preventing CPU from being set below stock voltage. I have a kaby lake in a laptop that was undervolted a good 0.2v, knocked a good 10°C off temps. One day it started running hotter and surprise! I can still overvolt it just fine though, I guess that's what matters for laptops. Essentially, as useful as undervolting can be, Intel doesn't see it as something worthwhile compared to "security."Brian D Smith said:Less 'overclocking' and more on 'underclocking' articles please.
That would be helpful for the ever growing segment who does NOT need the testosterone rush of having the 'fastest' ... and wants more info on the logical underclocking to...well, do things like get the most out of a CPU without the burden of water-cooling, it's maintenance and chance of screwing up their expensive systems.
These CPU's and new systems would be flying off the shelves much faster than they are if only people did not have to take such measures for all the heat they generate. It's practically gone from being able to 'fry an egg' on a CPU to 'roasting a pig'. :( -
TerryLaze
Being able to withstand higher extremes is a sign of better manufacturing not worse.bit_user said:Part of the problem might be in Intel's manufacturing node. That could limit the solution space for delivering competitive performance, especially when it also needs to be profitable. Recall that Intel 7 not EUV, while TSMC has been using EUV since N7.
Intel CPUs can take a huge amount of W and also of Vcore without blowing up, these are signs of quality.
TSMC getting better is how AMD was able to double the W in this generation.
You don't have to push it just because it is pushable.
jv3uZ5VlnngView: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv3uZ5Vlnng