{"id":104322,"date":"2022-10-22T01:28:46","date_gmt":"2022-10-22T01:28:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/harchi90.com\/intel-core-i9-13900k-vs-amd-ryzen-9-7950x-at-125w-and-65w\/"},"modified":"2022-10-22T01:28:46","modified_gmt":"2022-10-22T01:28:46","slug":"intel-core-i9-13900k-vs-amd-ryzen-9-7950x-at-125w-and-65w","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/harchi90.com\/intel-core-i9-13900k-vs-amd-ryzen-9-7950x-at-125w-and-65w\/","title":{"rendered":"Intel Core i9-13900K vs. AMD Ryzen 9 7950X at 125W and 65W"},"content":{"rendered":"
Club386’s recent comparison of AMD Ryzen 9 7950X and Core i9-12900K unearthed interesting truths. Both companies’ desire for maximum performance has caused processor power to spiral above 200W, but manually restraining figures to 125W and 65W \u2013 two limits used for historical top-of-the-line and energy-efficient chips \u2013 does remarkably little to dampen gaming performance yet still produces impressive results in multi-core applications. Aside from the obvious draws of lower running costs and cooler operation, dialling down the juice is a further boon as system noise is more tolerable.<\/p>\n
As expected, AMD’s newly minted Ryzen 9 7950X effortlessly sweeps aside Core i9-12900K in multi-core programs. The chasm is vast in Cinebench, for example, where the latest Zen 4 chip at 65W is speedier than Alder Lake’s finest huffing and puffing at 241W. Food for thought.<\/p>\n
But now a new Intel container has emerged. Enter Core i9-13900K. Built on an enhanced Intel 7 process and touting 24 cores and 32 threads wrapped inside a 253W power budget, Raptor Lake’s chief performance protagonist demands attention. We’re already aware of its massive potential compared to myriad chips, but what happens when this beast is reduced to 125W and 65W \u2013 can it also provide a humdinger of an experience at lower power ratings? There’s only one way to find out.<\/p>\n
But first it’s useful to understand exactly what we’re seeking to compare. Intel 13th Gen Core uses a monolithic die which integrates cores, cache, GPU, memory controller, and PCIe connectivity. In other words, total chip power lights up these eclectic features as and when necessary. On the other hand, AMD takes a different tack. High-end Ryzen 7000 Series packages comprise three chips \u2013 two eight-core CPU blocks and a central IOD home to integrated graphics, PCIe connectivity, DDR5 memory controllers, and USB. <\/p>\n
This distinction between how Intel and AMD builds chips is important from a power point of view. AMD cites a 170W CPU budget for Ryzen 9 7950X compared to 253W for Intel Core i9-13900K. Seems like Intel uses a lot more juice, right? It’s not as simple as that; the correct full AMD package power, analogous to Intel TDP, is what the Ryzen team terms Package Power Tracking (PPT) that takes the IOD’s consumption into account, as well.<\/p>\n The Core i9-13900K is easily capped at 125W, and this limit applies to the entire processor\u2026 controllers and all. Making the wattage comparison fair, therefore, we need to cap Ryzen 9 7950X at a 125W PPT, not merely CPU power. <\/p>\n Meat, voila! The same methodology is done when reducing total chip power down to 65W. As you will see later on, total system-wide consumption at 65W, 125W and 230\/253W is eerily similar, reinforcing the correct use of PPT for AMD-based processors.<\/p>\n Common components include 32GB (2x16GB) G.Skill Trident Z5 Neo EXPO memory operating at DDR5-6000 CL30, single-fan Noctua NH-D15 chromax.black cooling, Seagate FireCuda 530 2TB NVMe SSD, Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080 FE graphics, and Asus ROG Hero boards from the Z790 (Intel) and X670E (AMD) families. A pre-production be quiet! Dark Power 13 1,000W PSU provided perfectly stable power. We couldn’t make the two platforms more similar if we tried.<\/p>\n Understanding upcoming graphs requires knowledge of how each chip behaves when starved of ideal power. Evaluated during a 10-minute run of Cinebench R23, both range-topping processors operate performance cores above 5GHz in out-the-box mode. Intel’s P-cores climb higher, going by our findings, as AMD’s symmetrical design is harder to push to loftier frequencies.<\/p>\n Massaging power down to 125W \u2013 be that Intel TDP or AMD PPT \u2013 balances the books, so to speak. AMD’s leading-edge, TMSC-built 5nm process shows intrinsic worth by scaling frequency a little higher, which bodes well for performance in a power-constrained environment. Last but not least, capping at 65W encourages the 5nm process shine; it keeps to higher frequencies than rival 10nm ESF. <\/p>\n One would therefore expect that if Ryzen 9 7950X matches Core i9-13900K at stock settings, it will pull ahead at 125W and, especially, 65W through keeping more available frequency for cores and threads. But don’t take our word for it, let’s check out the benchmarks.<\/p>\n Low loads typically are agnostic of capped power. That’s in evidence as both sets of results are similar irrespective of wattage. Core i9-13900K’s desire to steam ahead to 5.8GHz pays dividends.<\/p>\n Multi-core is where forcing power bands matters most. The first takeaway is the near-identical performance in out-the-box state. The second, as we posited, is Ryzen being able to keep more comparative frequency at 125W \u2013 remember it drops by only 10 per cent; Intel shaves off 16 per cent in the same power scenario \u2013 so the score is naturally higher. We’re pretty much at a stalemate at 65W.<\/p>\n Putting these results into wider context, a 250W Core i9-11900K from two generations back returns a score of 14,949. Today’s best chips totally blast past that at merely 65W.<\/p>\n Just look at how close it is in single-core Geekbench. Power doesn’t skew results much.<\/p>\n Horses for courses and benchmarks for chips. Intel has two wins here \u2013 stock and 65W \u2013 yet neither processor is bad.<\/p>\n These scores amalgamate performance across three scenes and are presented in samples per minute. An easy win for Ryzen 9 7950X here. It is faster in all three scenarios, peaking at almost 20 per cent speedier at 125W. In fact, it’s almost as quick at this setting as Core i9-13900K is at full-blown 253W.<\/p>\n Got nothing better to do than calculate Pi? The tested version of y-cruncher has AVX512 support, and perhaps this is why the Ryzen 7000 Series chief is so damn fast.<\/p>\n Though it may appear Intel Core i9-13900K is a good multi-core matchup to Ryzen 9 7950X, further benchmarking begins to tip the scales in favor of the ‘Symmetrical Slayer.’<\/p>\n Ryzen is especially good at keeping most of its stock performance when at 125W, suggesting a better voltage\/frequency curve than 13th Gen Core.<\/p>\n Depending upon workload, Ryzen 9 7950X at 125W is a good proxy for Core i9-13900K in rampage 253W mode.<\/p>\n Tables turned once again. Intel at 65W is better than AMD at 230W or so. Not that the bottom 8,892-mark score is bad, mind you.<\/p>\n Intel offers a lot more bandwidth than Ryzen when both use the same DDR5-6000 memory, according to the popular AIDA memory benchmark.<\/p>\n Quite the definition of a mixed bag.<\/p>\n 253W or 65W \u2013 doesn’t really matter in Forza Horizon 5.<\/p>\n The latest Raptor Lake Core architecture is bit of a gaming beast. Power limits matter far less than which brand of processor is used.<\/p>\n Setting strict total package power limits forces both chips into similar wattage behavior. We’re looking at near-identical system-wide loads in all three configurations.<\/p>\n Doing some basic sums, we can extrapolate the following figures for Ryzen 9 7950X based on the October UK Energy Price cap rate of 34 pence per kWh.<\/p>\n There are of course some rather large assumptions being made here. Our figures account for the system being on for either one or six hours each day and remaining under full load for the duration. The latter may well resemble die-hard gamers, and in such an instance, dropping from stock settings to 125W would save ~\u00a371 in annual electricity cost, again on the unlikely assumption rates won’t rise in the next 12 months. Point is, you could potentially pocket enough change for a new game or two.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n \n AMD Ryzen 9 7950X<\/td>\n Intel Core i9-13900K<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n All-core frequency at stock<\/td>\n 5,060MHz<\/td>\n 5,250MHz<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n All-core frequency at 125W<\/td>\n 4,535MHz<\/td>\n 4,430MHz<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n All-core frequency at 65W<\/td>\n 3.212MHz<\/td>\n 2,930MHz<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n CPU Performance<\/h2>\n
System and Memory<\/h2>\n
Gaming at 1080p<\/h2>\n
Gaming at 1440p<\/h2>\n
Gaming at 2160p<\/h2>\n
Efficiency, Temps and Running Cost<\/h2>\n
\n\n
\n \nrunning time<\/th>\n Annual cost @ stock<\/th>\n Annual cost @ 125W<\/th>\n Annual cost @ 65W<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n \n 1 hour per day<\/td>\n \u00a340.33<\/td>\n \u00a328.43<\/td>\n \u00a318.87<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 6 hours per day<\/td>\n \u00a3241.98<\/td>\n \u00a3170.58<\/td>\n \u00a3113.22<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n