The Testing of Intel's Core i9-13900K and AMD's Ryzen 9 7950X: A Comparison of Performance in Various Games and Workloads

In our recent testing, we compared the performance of Intel's Core i9-13900K processor to AMD's Ryzen 9 7950X processor across a range of different games and workloads. We tested 25 different titles to get a well-rounded average that better represents a wider selection of games, rather than making our conclusion based on fewer data points.

The results showed that over all 25 games tested, at 1080p resolution, Intel's Core i9-13900K was just 2% faster compared to AMD's Ryzen 9 7950X. However, the difference in performance varied greatly depending on the game. Some games, such as CS:GO, Red Dead Redemption 2, and Metro Exodus, really seemed to prefer AMD, while others like Spiderman, Halo, Warhammer, and Riftbreaker had bigger gains with Intel.

As we stepped up to the higher 1440p resolution, the difference in performance between the two processors narrowed to just 1% on average. We shouldn't ignore the fact that it's being held up by some outliers, such as Riftbreaker, which is a game that Hardware Unboxed said has known issues with AMD and might receive a fix.

When we looked at the results from all 25 games tested, it became clear that the difference in performance between Intel's Core i9-13900K and AMD's Ryzen 9 7950X is relatively small. In fact, 18 of the 25 games saw less than a 5% difference in either direction, so nothing major. The only games that showed significant differences were CS:GO, Red Dead Redemption 2, and Metro Exodus, which all favored AMD.

However, things changed when we moved on to the higher 4K resolution, where the CPU selection becomes more relevant. At 4K, the difference in performance between Intel's Core i9-13900K and AMD's Ryzen 9 7950X grows larger, as the GPU becomes a bottleneck that is less affected by the CPU choice. In this case, the Intel processor was slightly faster on average.

To further illustrate the close performance of the two processors, we took the average frame rates from all 25 games tested to spot some overall trends. This comparison better illustrates just how close the two are, showing that it's difficult to tell the difference between them in many cases.

However, it's worth noting that when it comes to multi-core workloads, Intel's Core i9-13900K is generally faster than AMD's Ryzen 9 7950X. This is because Intel's processor has more cores and threads, which allows it to handle complex workloads more efficiently. However, the cost difference between the two processors means that the difference in multi-core performance may not be enough to justify the higher price.

Another factor to consider when choosing between these two processors is future upgradeability. Intel's 13th gen platform is the end of the line for their current CPU socket, which means that a new processor would require a new motherboard. On the other hand, AMD has just launched the new AM5 socket and has committed to supporting it through 2025, making it easier to upgrade in the future.

In conclusion, while Intel's Core i9-13900K is generally faster than AMD's Ryzen 9 7950X in most cases, the difference in performance is relatively small. The main deciding factor when choosing between these two processors will likely be future upgradeability and cost. If you're looking for a processor that will offer better value and easier upgrades in the future, AMD's Ryzen 9 7950X may be the better choice.

"WEBVTTKind: captionsLanguage: enI’ve compared the two best CPUs that Inteland AMD have right now in 25 games and applicationsto find out which processor is the best!Both chips are 32 thread parts, however AMD’sRyzen 9 7950X has 16 cores, while Intel’sCore i9-13900K has 24 cores.This is because the i9 has 8 P cores withhyperthreading, and 16 E cores without it.Intel’s got more L2 cache, while AMD hasmore L3, and both have similar max singlecore boost clock speeds.Right now the 7950X goes for $700 USD, whilethe 13900K is $40 cheaper at $660, howeverif you don’t need integrated graphics youcan save another $30 with the 13900KF instead.I’ve compared both CPUs in this system tofind out if it’s worth paying more for AMD.I’ve tested with the exact same memory kitwith the same timings for both Intel and AMD,so literally the only differences here arethe CPUs and motherboards.The latest Windows 11 22H2 was used with coreisolation off, the same Nvidia drivers withresizable BAR enabled, and neither CPU wassubject to any power limits, which will beobvious when we check temps.Just before the 25 games, let’s start outwith Cinebench R23, as it’s an easy wayto get a general idea of where single andmulti threaded performance are at.The 13900K was ahead in both tests, with alarger 10% boost to single core score.The multi core score on the other hand was5% better with Intel, so still a win, thegap is just smaller.Although the 13900K was performing 5% betterin multicore performance in Cinebench, it’susing 31% more power to get the win.This results in the 7950X doing better interms of power efficiency, as it was using110 watts less in my test.All that extra power needs to go somewhere.It gets turned into heat, and the 13900K wasrunning warmer compared to the 7950X, thoughto be fair, these results aren’t directlycomparable as the way both processors usesensors to measure thermals varies.This is what we’ve come to, running at TjMaxwith a 360 AIO cooler.Both processors were running beyond 5GHz ontheir big cores, while the E cores in thei9 were hitting their maximum turbo boostspeed.There’s more to life than just Cinebenchthough, so before we get into the 25 gamecomparison let’s check a bunch more workloadsthat are better suited to these two chips.Blender was tested with the Open Data benchmark,and I’ve included all three different workloadsthat it tests.This test relies on multi-core performance,but unlike Cinebench earlier, the 7950X wasslightly ahead in all three tests.Not by much, but it is also using less power.The 7950X was also winning in V-Ray, anotherrendering workload, with a 9% higher scorecompared to the 13900K, but then in the Coronarenderer both CPUs were completing the taskin the same amount of time.Linux kernel compilation was tested underUbuntu 22.04, whereas all other tests weredone with Windows 11, and again both processorswere completing this task in about the sameamount of time, just a second or so fasteron the 13900K.Margin of error stuff.LLVM compilation is the only other workloadI’ve tested with Linux, and again the gapisn’t that big with the 13900K just 3% quicker.Back into windows and Handbrake was used toconvert one of my 4K 60FPS review videos to1080p h.265.Lower times are better here too, and the 13900Kwas 10% faster here, so similar to what wesaw earlier in Cinebench.There’s no difference in Adobe Premiere,which took me by surprise.Both CPUs have integrated graphics, and Intel’siGPU is known to benefit this workload byoffering quicksync, yet it didn’t seem tomatter.The differences in DaVinci Resolve were alsowithin the margin of error range.Honestly if I ran the tests a few more timesI wouldn’t be surprised if they swappedplaces, so again I’d go with equivalentvideo editing performance.The differences were a bit bigger in AdobePhotoshop.This test likes single core performance, andas we saw earlier in Cinebench, the 13900Khad a 10% lead there, so this explains the7% higher score with Intel here in Photoshop.There wasn’t a whole lot of difference inMicrosoft Office workloads, and I think weall know either of these CPUs will be overkillfor 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 itcame to decompression.I don't know about you, but I decompress downloadedfiles way more than I compress anything.Intel was better in terms of AES encryptionand decryption, around 25% faster in theseworkloads.Geekbench tests a bunch of various workloads,and like Cinebench earlier, Intel was aheadin terms of single core performance, but it’sonly a 1% lead now and not 10% like before.AMD added AVX512 support this generation,which gives the 7950X a boost in some of theworkloads run by this test.On average out of all applications tested,the cheaper 13900K was 3% ahead of the 7950Xin these specific workloads.Of course this number alone doesn’t meanmuch as I’ve got a random combination ofboth single and multi threaded workloads.Some workloads favor Intel, but others favorAMD, that’s just how it goes.Alright now let’s compare some games.I’ve compared both processors in 25 gamesat 1080p, 1440p and 4K resolutions, so thatshould really show us all the differences.Let’s start out with Red Dead Redemption2.I’ve got the 1080p results down the bottom,1440p in the middle, and 4K up the top, withthe 7950X underneath the 13900K, just likebefore.AMD was ahead in all regards here, but that’snot always the case.Intel was ahead in Marvel’s Spider-Man Remastered,at least at 1080p and 1440p where it had morethan a 10% lead.The i9 still had the lead in terms of 1% lowsat 4K, but its average FPS was a little behindthe 7950XMetro Exodus Enhanced was back on AMD’sside, with the 7950X delivering an 11% higheraverage 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 tofavoring the 13900K, with a 15% boost to averageFPS at 1080p, 17% at 1440p, and then againmuch smaller differences at the higher 4Kresolution.The ball is back in AMD’s court for ForzaHorizon 5.Although the differences in average FPS wereon the smaller side, the dips in performanceas measured by the 1% lows were a fair bithigher with the 7950X, so a more stable experiencewith AMD in this game.Total War: WARHAMMER III on the other handliked Intel, at least at 1080p where the 13900Kwas offering a 15% higher frame rate comparedto the 7950X.At 1440p and 4K there’s basically no differencethough.CS:GO is rather sensitive to CPU performance,and I’m wondering if it likes the extraL3 cache with the 7950X, because this gamehad the biggest lead on the 7950X out of all25 games tested.Speaking of eSports games, the 7950X had alittle edge in Fortnite, but compared to CS:GOit’s far smaller of a difference, and notone that most people would be likely to actuallynotice when playing.Meanwhile Far Cry 6 had above average gainswith Intel, but again when we’re hitting166 FPS at 1080p without using features likeFSR, does it really matter that the 13900Kwas 8% ahead at 1080p?I mean yeah, but you get my point.Microsoft Flight Simulator had even slimmermargins between the two, and for the mostpart, so did the rest of the 15 games thatI’ve tested.So for that reason, rather than talking throughevery single game, I’ll just skip throughthe results on screen now so we can get intothe more important details.Feel free to pause the video to take a closerlook if there’s a game you care about, butfor the most part there’s not a whole lotof difference in these remaining titles.The reason I chose to test so many differenttitles is so that we can get a well roundedaverage that better represents a wider selectionof games, instead of making our conclusionbased on fewer data points.On average over all 25 games tested, at 1080pIntel’s Core i9-13900K was just 2% fastercompared to AMD’s Ryzen 9 7950X.As we can see, results can vary quite a bitdepending on the game.CS:GO, Red Dead Redemption 2 and Metro Exodusreally seemed to prefer AMD for example, whileSpiderman, Halo, Warhammer and Riftbreakerhad bigger gains with Intel.Stepping up to the higher 1440p resolutionand the 13900K was now just 1% faster thanthe 7950X on average.We shouldn’t ignore the fact that it’sbeing held up by some outliers either, theRiftbreaker for example is a game that I believeHardware Unboxed said has known issues forAMD and might receive a fix.Regardless,18 of the 25 games saw less thana 5% difference one way or the other, so nothingmajor.The difference only gets smaller at 4K, aswe’re more GPU bound here, so CPU selectionstarts to matter less.Now all but 2 of the games had less than a5% difference in either direction, so unlessyou’re playing CS:GO or breaking some rifts,at 4K it really doesn’t matter which processoryou’re using.Here’s what we’re looking at when we takethe average frame rates from all 25 gamestested to try and spot some overall trends.I think this better illustrates just how closethe two are.Of course it does vary by game, but in a 25game average the i9 really isn’t that farahead, however it is also the cheaper optionright now.With the 13900K both having a lower priceand performing better in most of the games,it’s no surprise to see that it’s offeringbetter value in terms of cost per frame.And you’ve also got the option of savingsome more money if you don’t need the integratedgraphics with the KF version.The 13900K was also offering better valuewhen it comes to multi core performance.Again not only does it cost less money, butit was also delivering better single and multicore results, at least in this one test.It does depend on the workload though, becauseif we instead compare V-Ray where the 7950Xwas scoring better, well it’s only justslightly beaten by the cheaper 13900KF.Ultimately either of these two processorsare going to handle any workload that youthrow at them.In most cases though, Intel’s Core i9-13900Kwas the better performer.Whether we’re talking games or applications,not always, but in more cases than not itwas ahead.Just don’t forget that it does need morepower 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 ofthe line for their current CPU socket.So a 14th gen CPU would need a new motherboard.On the other hand, AMD only just launchedthe new AM5 socket and have committed to supportingit through 2025.So a future upgrade would be much easier infuture if you go for AM5 today, as it wouldjust be a drop in CPU replacement.Yeah the 7950X does cost a little more, butthe performance difference generally isn’tthat big, it does depend on the specific workloadthough.It is also more power efficient too, and electricitydoesn’t just grow on batteries.I’ve personally really been waiting to dothis comparison because I’ve been waitingto decide if I should go for the 7950X or13900K in my next PC.And yeah now that I’ve seen the performancedifference isn’t all that big in the workloadsthat I personally run, I think I’m goingto go for the 7950X, mostly because of thatfuture upgradeability.If you’re a bit more of a budget then checkout this comparison over here next.I’ve compared the $300 CPUs from AMD andIntel in all of these same tests.But unlike this comparison, AMD actually hassome nice leads when it comes to gaming, socome and find out more in this video next!\n"