• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

13900KS review

Shall see how the x3D does in comparison. The 7800x3D if only 10% faster in gaming than the rest of 7000 series only puts it around 3.5% faster than 13900KS then.

Plus the x3D appears like it will cost more. £689 for the KS. The 7900x looks to be around that.
 
EKWB just released their direct die water cooling block For the 13900KS. You'll pretty much need it

www.ekwb.com

Direct Die Cooling for the Intel 12th and 13th-Gen Core Series CPUs - ekwb.com

EK, the premium liquid cooling hardware manufacturer, is launching the Direct Die product series aimed at delidding and achieving the ultimate cooling of the LGA 1700 socket-based Intel CPUs from the 12th generation Alder Lake and 13th gen Raptor Lake families.
www.ekwb.com www.ekwb.com
 
Last edited:
I think a complete change is needed. Can’t see how they are going to squeeze anymore out of it later in the year.
 
Harshell123 said:
I think a complete change is needed. Can’t see how they are going to squeeze anymore out of it later in the year.
Click to expand...

New process node and fewer P cores with more E cores

14900k likely to look something like: 6 P cores made on Intel 4 node and 24 E cores made on Intel 7 or TSMC 5nm
 
Last edited:
As soon as Ryzen 7000 launch, IMO all three models will be above the 13900KS in the graph below. They'll also be more efficient in terms of power in games, and much more efficient in all other applications.

The 13900KS does what all 13900K can do - 6Ghz across two cores. Probably a better than average bin. Intel know there are huge global communities that will buy this regardless, as they want to chase that 0.1% for benchmark results. I am surprised it doesn't cost £700+ though, I'm sure the 12900KS was much more expensive than the 12900k.


XIZRQYv.png
 
Dave2150 said:
As soon as Ryzen 7000 launch, IMO all three models will be above the 13900KS in the graph below. They'll also be more efficient in terms of power in games, and much more efficient in all other applications.

The 13900KS does what all 13900K can do - 6Ghz across two cores. Probably a better than average bin. Intel know there are huge global communities that will buy this regardless, as they want to chase that 0.1% for benchmark results. I am surprised it doesn't cost £700+ though, I'm sure the 12900KS was much more expensive than the 12900k.


XIZRQYv.png
Click to expand...

I think the reason they aren't more expensive is because they know this, also the performance difference is 1.7%, the 13900K is already right on the limit of the architecture, the 13900KS didn't even reach its 6Ghz boost for more than a few seconds despite Steve using the TG CPU bracket and the best 420mm AIO money can buy.
It got that 1.7% because it was given a better cooling than he gave the 13900K
 
Last edited:
Memory seems to play a big part with the 13900K looking at the graphs. I gained 2000 points in Timespy CPU bench just by increasing 7200 XMP to 8000 and tightening timings. Not sure if AMD benefits from increased Ram timings.
 
OC2000 said:
Memory seems to play a big part with the 13900K looking at the graphs. I gained 2000 points in Timespy CPU bench just by increasing 7200 XMP to 8000 and tightening timings. Not sure if AMD benefits from increased Ram timings.
Click to expand...

If you can keep the IMC on Ryzen running at a 1:1 ratio to the memory it does, yes, the thing is once XMP gets to a certain level it automatically switches to a 1:2 ratio and you lose performance.

I have Teamgroup Vulcan Z 2X 16GB 3200MT/s on my 5800X, its cheap 32GB RAM, beyond 3500MT/s, so 3600MT/s the IMC switches its self to a 1:2 ratio, it does seem to depend on the quality of the RAM, some its 3600MT/s, i've seen them as high as 3800MT/s, however you can manually adjust the clock of the IMC, override what it thinks is safe, i have my RAM set to 3800MT/s XMP and manually put in 1900Mhz for the IMC, which is a 1:1 ratio, that does make a difference to performance.

AMD have told reviewers that 6000MT/s is the sweet spot for Zen 4, its why they all use 6000MT/s, but "the sweet spot" is not necessarily the best and i do wonder if reviewers are being just a bit lazy not tuning the memory faster.
 
Last edited:
Robert896r1 said:
People buying KS sku’s aren’t running auto voltages with all power limits removed like Steve is.

It’s sku for oc people who are willing to pay extra for binned silicon. Nothing more.
Click to expand...
I would buy it to run at 5.5ghz with undervolt and low power draw. I know im weird!

There arent many gains by pushing clockspeeds anymore, my ram at 7600c34 gives a much bigger boost than a 6ghz all core overclock
 
humbug said:
I think the reason they aren't more expensive is because they know this, also the performance difference is 1.7%, the 13900K is already right on the limit of the architecture, the 13900KS didn't even reach its 6Ghz boost for more than a few seconds despite Steve using the TG CPU bracket and the best 420mm AIO money can buy.
It got that 1.7% because it was given a better cooling than he gave the 13900K
Click to expand...
Trust me, the 13900k is a lot easier to cooler than the 12900k. I assume cause of the bigger die. I cant fathom what he is doing wrong but if he is throttling with a 420 aio surely he is pooping the bed somewhere.

Im using a single tower small air cooler, pushes 330-350 watts in ycruncher just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom