I’ve compared the two best CPUs that Intel and AMD have right now in 25 games and applications
to find out which processor is the best!
Both chips are 32 thread parts, however AMD’s Ryzen 9 7950X has 16 cores, while Intel’s
Core i9-13900K has 24 cores.
This is because the i9 has 8 P cores with hyperthreading, and 16 E cores without it.
Intel’s got more L2 cache, while AMD has more L3, and both have similar max single
core boost clock speeds.
Right now the 7950X goes for $700 USD, while the 13900K is $40 cheaper at $660, however
if you don’t need integrated graphics you can save another $30 with the 13900KF instead.
I’ve compared both CPUs in this system to find out if it’s worth paying more for AMD.
I’ve tested with the exact same memory kit with the same timings for both Intel and AMD,
so literally the only differences here are the CPUs and motherboards.
The latest Windows 11 22H2 was used with core isolation off, the same Nvidia drivers with
resizable BAR enabled, and neither CPU was subject to any power limits, which will be
obvious when we check temps.
Just before the 25 games, let’s start out with Cinebench R23, as it’s an easy way
to get a general idea of where single and multi threaded performance are at.
The 13900K was ahead in both tests, with a larger 10% boost to single core score.
The multi core score on the other hand was 5% better with Intel, so still a win, the
gap is just smaller.
Although the 13900K was performing 5% better in multicore performance in Cinebench, it’s
using 31% more power to get the win.
This results in the 7950X doing better in terms of power efficiency, as it was using
110 watts less in my test.
All that extra power needs to go somewhere.
It gets turned into heat, and the 13900K was running warmer compared to the 7950X, though
to be fair, these results aren’t directly comparable as the way both processors use
sensors to measure thermals varies.
This is what we’ve come to, running at TjMax with a 360 AIO cooler.
Both processors were running beyond 5GHz on their big cores, while the E cores in the
i9 were hitting their maximum turbo boost speed.
There’s more to life than just Cinebench though, so before we get into the 25 game
comparison let’s check a bunch more workloads that are better suited to these two chips.
Blender was tested with the Open Data benchmark, and I’ve included all three different workloads
that it tests.
This test relies on multi-core performance, but unlike Cinebench earlier, the 7950X was
slightly ahead in all three tests.
Not by much, but it is also using less power.
The 7950X was also winning in V-Ray, another rendering workload, with a 9% higher score
compared to the 13900K, but then in the Corona renderer both CPUs were completing the task
in the same amount of time.
Linux kernel compilation was tested under Ubuntu 22.04, whereas all other tests were
done with Windows 11, and again both processors were completing this task in about the same
amount of time, just a second or so faster on the 13900K.
Margin of error stuff.
LLVM compilation is the only other workload I’ve tested with Linux, and again the gap
isn’t that big with the 13900K just 3% quicker.
Back into windows and Handbrake was used to convert one of my 4K 60FPS review videos to
1080p h.265.
Lower times are better here too, and the 13900K was 10% faster here, so similar to what we
saw earlier in Cinebench.
There’s no difference in Adobe Premiere, which took me by surprise.
Both CPUs have integrated graphics, and Intel’s iGPU is known to benefit this workload by
offering quicksync, yet it didn’t seem to matter.
The differences in DaVinci Resolve were also within the margin of error range.
Honestly if I ran the tests a few more times I wouldn’t be surprised if they swapped
places, so again I’d go with equivalent video editing performance.
The differences were a bit bigger in Adobe Photoshop.
This test likes single core performance, and as we saw earlier in Cinebench, the 13900K
had a 10% lead there, so this explains the 7% higher score with Intel here in Photoshop.
There wasn’t a whole lot of difference in Microsoft Office workloads, and I think we
all know either of these CPUs will be overkill for an office PC anyway, so let’s move on.
7-Zip was used to test compression and decompression.
Intel was about 3% better in terms of compression, however AMD had a bigger 20% lead when it
came to decompression.
I don't know about you, but I decompress downloaded files way more than I compress anything.
Intel was better in terms of AES encryption and decryption, around 25% faster in these
workloads.
Geekbench tests a bunch of various workloads, and like Cinebench earlier, Intel was ahead
in terms of single core performance, but it’s only a 1% lead now and not 10% like before.
AMD added AVX512 support this generation, which gives the 7950X a boost in some of the
workloads run by this test.
On average out of all applications tested, the cheaper 13900K was 3% ahead of the 7950X
in these specific workloads.
Of course this number alone doesn’t mean much as I’ve got a random combination of
both single and multi threaded workloads.
Some workloads favor Intel, but others favor AMD, that’s just how it goes.
Alright now let’s compare some games.
I’ve compared both processors in 25 games at 1080p, 1440p and 4K resolutions, so that
should really show us all the differences.
Let’s start out with Red Dead Redemption 2.
I’ve got the 1080p results down the bottom, 1440p in the middle, and 4K up the top, with
the 7950X underneath the 13900K, just like before.
AMD was ahead in all regards here, but that’s not always the case.
Intel was ahead in Marvel’s Spider-Man Remastered, at least at 1080p and 1440p where it had more
than a 10% lead.
The i9 still had the lead in terms of 1% lows at 4K, but its average FPS was a little behind
the 7950X
Metro Exodus Enhanced was back on AMD’s side, with the 7950X delivering an 11% higher
average frame rate compared to the 13900K.
The differences at 4K were basically nothing, as most games are heavily GPU bound there,
so CPU selection matters far less.
Halo Infinite on the other hand was back to favoring the 13900K, with a 15% boost to average
FPS at 1080p, 17% at 1440p, and then again much smaller differences at the higher 4K
resolution.
The ball is back in AMD’s court for Forza Horizon 5.
Although the differences in average FPS were on the smaller side, the dips in performance
as measured by the 1% lows were a fair bit higher with the 7950X, so a more stable experience
with AMD in this game.
Total War: WARHAMMER III on the other hand liked Intel, at least at 1080p where the 13900K
was offering a 15% higher frame rate compared to the 7950X.
At 1440p and 4K there’s basically no difference though.
CS:GO is rather sensitive to CPU performance, and I’m wondering if it likes the extra
L3 cache with the 7950X, because this game had the biggest lead on the 7950X out of all
25 games tested.
Speaking of eSports games, the 7950X had a little edge in Fortnite, but compared to CS:GO
it’s far smaller of a difference, and not one that most people would be likely to actually
notice when playing.
Meanwhile Far Cry 6 had above average gains with Intel, but again when we’re hitting
166 FPS at 1080p without using features like FSR, does it really matter that the 13900K
was 8% ahead at 1080p?
I mean yeah, but you get my point.
Microsoft Flight Simulator had even slimmer margins between the two, and for the most
part, so did the rest of the 15 games that I’ve tested.
So for that reason, rather than talking through every single game, I’ll just skip through
the results on screen now so we can get into the more important details.
Feel free to pause the video to take a closer look if there’s a game you care about, but
for the most part there’s not a whole lot of difference in these remaining titles.
The reason I chose to test so many different titles is so that we can get a well rounded
average that better represents a wider selection of games, instead of making our conclusion
based on fewer data points.
On average over all 25 games tested, at 1080p Intel’s Core i9-13900K was just 2% faster
compared to AMD’s Ryzen 9 7950X.
As we can see, results can vary quite a bit depending on the game.
CS:GO, Red Dead Redemption 2 and Metro Exodus really seemed to prefer AMD for example, while
Spiderman, Halo, Warhammer and Riftbreaker had bigger gains with Intel.
Stepping up to the higher 1440p resolution and the 13900K was now just 1% faster than
the 7950X on average.
We shouldn’t ignore the fact that it’s being held up by some outliers either, the
Riftbreaker for example is a game that I believe Hardware Unboxed said has known issues for
AMD and might receive a fix.
Regardless,18 of the 25 games saw less than a 5% difference one way or the other, so nothing
major.
The difference only gets smaller at 4K, as we’re more GPU bound here, so CPU selection
starts to matter less.
Now all but 2 of the games had less than a 5% difference in either direction, so unless
you’re playing CS:GO or breaking some rifts, at 4K it really doesn’t matter which processor
you’re using.
Here’s what we’re looking at when we take the average frame rates from all 25 games
tested to try and spot some overall trends.
I think this better illustrates just how close the two are.
Of course it does vary by game, but in a 25 game average the i9 really isn’t that far
ahead, however it is also the cheaper option right now.
With the 13900K both having a lower price and performing better in most of the games,
it’s no surprise to see that it’s offering better value in terms of cost per frame.
And you’ve also got the option of saving some more money if you don’t need the integrated
graphics with the KF version.
The 13900K was also offering better value when it comes to multi core performance.
Again not only does it cost less money, but it was also delivering better single and multi
core results, at least in this one test.
It does depend on the workload though, because if we instead compare V-Ray where the 7950X
was scoring better, well it’s only just slightly beaten by the cheaper 13900KF.
Ultimately either of these two processors are going to handle any workload that you
throw at them.
In most cases though, Intel’s Core i9-13900K was the better performer.
Whether we’re talking games or applications, not always, but in more cases than not it
was ahead.
Just don’t forget that it does need more power to get the win in multicore workloads.
Now from a future upgradeability perspective, honestly I think the 7950X wins easily.
Intel’s 13th gen platform is the end of the line for their current CPU socket.
So a 14th gen CPU would need a new motherboard.
On the other hand, AMD only just launched the new AM5 socket and have committed to supporting
it through 2025.
So a future upgrade would be much easier in future if you go for AM5 today, as it would
just be a drop in CPU replacement.
Yeah the 7950X does cost a little more, but the performance difference generally isn’t
that big, it does depend on the specific workload though.
It is also more power efficient too, and electricity doesn’t just grow on batteries.
I’ve personally really been waiting to do this comparison because I’ve been waiting
to decide if I should go for the 7950X or 13900K in my next PC.
And yeah now that I’ve seen the performance difference isn’t all that big in the workloads
that I personally run, I think I’m going to go for the 7950X, mostly because of that
future upgradeability.
If you’re a bit more of a budget then check out this comparison over here next.
I’ve compared the $300 CPUs from AMD and Intel in all of these same tests.
But unlike this comparison, AMD actually has some nice leads when it comes to gaming, so
come and find out more in this video next!