Intel Core i9-13900KS Review: The World's First 6 GHz 320W CPU

The fastest and most power hungry PC chip ever.

Core i9-13900KS
(Image: © Tom's Hardware)

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

Paying the 6 GHz Tax

The $699 Core i9-13900KS Special Edition is the fastest gaming chip in the world with its record-setting 6 GHz peak turbo clock. However, for all but extreme overclockers, collectors, and the well-heeled looking to build the ultimate system at any cost, the costly chip's relatively small performance advantage over the vanilla 13900K isn't worth the $110 upcharge.

Below, we have the geometric mean of our gaming test suite at 1080p and 1440p and a cumulative measure of performance in single- and multi-threaded applications. We conducted our gaming tests with an Nvidia RTX 4090, so performance deltas will shrink with lesser cards and higher resolution and fidelity settings.

While the 13900KS is now the fastest gaming CPU money can buy, it only holds a slim 1.5% advantage over the standard 13900K in our 1080p gaming tests. That delta shrinks to a mere 0.5% when we flip over to 1440p gaming, meaning it is essentially in the noise of the benchmarks. That certainly isn't worth paying ~20% more.

We see a similar trend in multi-threaded workloads — the KS model only offers a slight 1% improvement over the standard 13900K and essentially ties the Ryzen 9 7950X. We see a more noticeable improvement in single-threaded work against Ryzen, as the 13900KS is 14% faster than the Ryzen 9 7950X. However, the KS is only 2% faster than the standard 13900K, so the big upcharge isn't worth it.

The big appeal for the KS is that you're guaranteed to get Intel's best silicon, basically giving you the winning ticket for the silicon lottery. That will undoubtedly make the chip popular with extreme overclockers, especially those chasing world records. However, again, the overclocking advantage can vary, and we only saw a few percentage points of difference in our own head-to-head overclocking against the standard 13900K.

Overall, the KS model doesn't make much of a difference to the positioning of the 13th-Gen processors against the Ryzen lineup, and it will only be sold in limited quantities. Intel now allows pairing its consumer chips with ECC memory on motherboards with the workstation-geared W680 chipset, so the Core i9-13900KS could make for a powerful workstation machine. However, it will still only deliver small gains over the 13900K.

The Core i9-13900KS just isn't a practical buy for the majority of us, especially considering that it will need the priciest of accommodations, like the highest-end motherboard and PSU to pump 320W of power to the processor and a potent cooler to handle the 100C operating temperatures when the chip is under heavy load. All of which is a high price to pay for a few percentage points (at best) of extra performance. 

If you want to invest in the fastest gaming chip, you should wait to see how AMD's Ryzen 7000X3D chips perform when they launch next month. These chips come with 3D V-Cache tech that provided explosive gaming performance gains for Zen 3, and it's possible that it could push Zen 4 into a solid lead in gaming over Raptor Lake. Pricing remains the wild card, but we expect the high-end 16-core Ryzen 9 7950X3D to land in the same range as the 13900KS. 

In the meantime, the Core i9-13900KS represents Intel throwing value and power consumption out the window in an effort to retain the performance crown, particularly in gaming, as Ryzen 7000X3D draws near. The Core i9-13900KS might be pricey and only deliver small gains, but it does set the record as being the first 6 GHz desktop PC chip right out of the box — and that's an incredible milestone. It might even allow Intel to cling to the title of having the fastest gaming chip in the world, a nearly priceless distinction for the 13th-Gen Raptor Lake brand.

Make no mistake: the Special Edition Core i9-13900KS is the fastest desktop PC chip ever built. At least for now. However, AMD's Ryzen 7000X3D is approaching fast. Stay tuned. 

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Test System Config
Intel Socket 1700 DDR5 (Z790)Core i9-13900KS, i9-13900K, i7-13700K, i5-13600K
MotherboardMSI MPG Z790 Carbon WiFi
RAMG.Skill Trident Z5 RGB DDR5-6800 - Stock: DDR5-5600 | OC: XMP DDR5-6800
AMD Socket AM5 (X670E)Ryzen 9 7950X, Ryzen 9 7900X, Ryzen 7 7700X
MotherboardASRock X670E Taichi
RAMG.Skill Trident Z5 Neo DDR5-6000 - Stock: DDR5-5200 | OC/PBO: DDR5-6000
AMD Socket AM4 (X570)Ryzen 9 5950X, 5900X, 5700X, 5600X, 5800X3D
MotherboardMSI MEG X570 Godlike
RAM2x 8GB Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600 - Stock: DDR4-3200 | OC/PBO: DDR4-3800
All Systems2TB Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus, Silverstone ST1100-TI, Open Benchtable, Arctic MX-4 TIM, Windows 11 Pro
Gaming GPUAsus RTX 4090 ROG Strix OC
ProViz GPUGigabyte GeForce RTX 3090 Eagle
Application GPUNvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti FE
CoolingCorsair H115i, Corsair H150i
Overclocking noteAll configurations with overclocked memory also have tuned core frequencies and/or lifted power limits.
Paul Alcorn
Managing Editor: News and Emerging Tech

Paul 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.

    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'. :(
    Reply
  • bit_user
    Seems like the article got a new comment thread, somehow. The original thread was:

    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.
    Reply
  • letmepicyou
    Why doesn't somebody put this thing behind the Corsair H170i Elite?
    Reply
  • bit_user
    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.
    Reply
  • letmepicyou
    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.
    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?
    Reply
  • bit_user
    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?
    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.

    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?).
    Reply
  • hotaru251
    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!
    Reply
  • bit_user
    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!
    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.
    Reply
  • froggx
    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'. :(
    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."
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    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.
    Being able to withstand higher extremes is a sign of better manufacturing not worse.
    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
    Reply