Intel 13900 non-k review

[A Computer Guy]

Reviews tend to neglect Intel non-k parts such as i9 13900 and I'm interested in seeing power consumption and performance per dollar comparisons with these often ignored CPU's.

 

[W1zzard]

I agree with you, but no concrete plans at the moment. I have 13400F almost ready to post, 7900 non-X next, 13900KS is shipping from Intel this week, after that I'm open to look into other CPUs, or it's already 7800X3D time

 

[nomdeplume]

Reviews tend to neglect Intel non-k parts such as i9 13900 and I'm interested in seeing power consumption and performance per dollar comparisons with these often ignored CPU's.

I fully agree with your choice of processor and probably the reasonings underlying it. Solid testing done by someone mentally flexible enough to arrive at how or whether to tame it is a worthwhile proposition to fight for.

I have 13400F almost ready to post, 7900 non-X next, 13900KS is shipping from Intel this week, after that I'm open to look into other CPUs, or it's already 7800X3D time

The question modern 65w processors at opposite ends of the product line ask is a fairly complicated one that will require subtlety exposing in writing and test results.

Honestly, I don't think many of us care which line or position in it manages to be an exciting high point. We care to discover it and be informed by that knowledge.

 

[N/A]

Not a 65W CPU. And does a locked CPU make any sense at all. Provided that motherboards are circumventing any limits. So it's the same CPU running at 253 watts and 219 that can easily be simulated. I wouldn't buy the locked CPU, for what. Installed on h610 m-itx it would be limited to less than 125 and this is a more realistic usage for me.

 

[Selaya]

they locked SA voltage on non-Ks for 12th and 13th, which basically makes them useless for any rig that's above like, super budget.
and you're not buying an i9 when you're on a budget.
pointless review imho

 

[ir_cow]

@Selaya besides for academics, yeah... I agree

 

[Hyderz]

Unlocked K series intel doesn’t have that much more to unlock for the premium price they charge

 

[AusWolf]

Not a 65W CPU. And does a locked CPU make any sense at all. Provided that motherboards are circumventing any limits. So it's the same CPU running at 253 watts and 219 that can easily be simulated. I wouldn't buy the locked CPU, for what. Installed on h610 m-itx it would be limited to less than 125 and this is a more realistic usage for me.

My opinion is the exact opposite. When the difference between K and non-K CPUs is a couple hundred MHz at most, but up to 50 bucks in price, I see no reason to pay extra for basically nothing. Like you said, power limits can be circumvented with a decent motherboard and custom settings, which gives you 99% of the performance much cheaper.

Unlocked K series intel doesn’t have that much more to unlock for the premium price they charge

Exactly my point.

 

[fevgatos]

If reviewers review the non k and the t versions theyd have to admit that Intel has the most efficient cpus out of the box, by far. Imagine the lashback from the amd fans that don't want to hear the truth. Would be crazy

 

[AusWolf]

If reviewers review the non k and the t versions theyd have to admit that Intel has the most efficient cpus out of the box, by far. Imagine the lashback from the amd fans that don't want to hear the truth. Would be crazy

That would never happen. Similarly, Intel fans would never admit that they're paying unreasonable amounts of money for only an extra letter in the model name.

 

[fevgatos]

That would never happen. Similarly, Intel fans would never admit that they're paying unreasonable amounts of money for only an extra letter in the model name.

What do you mean? You have the option to choose the t or the non k or the f or the kf or the ks cpu, nobody is forcing you

 

[AusWolf]

What do you mean? You have the option to choose the t or the non k or the f or the kf or the ks cpu, nobody is forcing you

Sure, but a lot of people buy the K version only because they firmly believe that the other versions are rubbish, when in fact, they're not far from the K at all. (edited)

 

[fevgatos]

Sure, but a lot of people buy the K version only because they firmly believe that the other versions are rubbish, when in fact, they're far from it.

I think it's also availability, most of the time k and kf versions are more readily on stock, while if you want the normal versions usually you have to wait 1 or 2 weeks.

 

[AusWolf]

I think it's also availability, most of the time k and kf versions are more readily on stock, while if you want the normal versions usually you have to wait 1 or 2 weeks.

I'd much rather wait when there is a 50-quid difference in price and nearly zero in performance with a decent board.

I'm trying to think back when I last owned a "K" CPU, but as a matter of fact, I'm not sure if I ever did. My last two gaming CPUs were non-K Core i7s (7700 and 11700) except for a short test with a 5950X and my secondary HTPC has an i7 4765T. Before them, I had an AMD FX and a Core i3 1st and 4th gen, and a Core 2 Duo way before that. Nope, no K-SKU here.

 

[Keullo-e]

they locked SA voltage on non-Ks for 12th and 13th, which basically makes them useless for any rig that's above like, super budget.
and you're not buying an i9 when you're on a budget.
pointless review imho

I have to disagree, even though I'm leaning towards AMD, but what I've watched on youtube, locked i5/i7 SKUs are great for price/performance especially for gaming.

 

[tabascosauz]

I'd much rather wait when there is a 50-quid difference in price and nearly zero in performance with a decent board.

I'm trying to think back when I last owned a "K" CPU, but as a matter of fact, I'm not sure if I ever did. My last two gaming CPUs were non-K Core i7s (7700 and 11700) except for a short test with a 5950X and my secondary HTPC has an i7 4765T. Before them, I had an AMD FX and a Core i3 1st and 4th gen, and a Core 2 Duo way before that. Nope, no K-SKU here.

Rocket Lake -K had a fair bit of headroom with Gear 2 but good DJR wasn't cheap and it didn't make a difference to performance. 13th gen is a bit different - Hynix A is not expensive, the IMC is strong, and you potentially leave a lot of easy performance on the table with the locked VCCSA non-K.

Been hearing about lack of AC/DC loadline and locked down undervolting as of late as well - not sure it's a great idea to go non-K for anything that's not super affordable, like 13400 + cheap board

In the past few weeks at least locally it didn't seem like -K actually commanded much of a premium, it's more the iGPU that seemed to come with a big markup as the -KF usually lands around the non-K in price. That's been the general trend in the last 4 gens as well.

 

[the54thvoid]

I have to disagree, even though I'm leaning towards AMD, but what I've watched on youtube, locked i5/i7 SKUs are great for price/performance especially for gaming.

What @Seleya said:

and you're not buying an i9 when you're on a budget.

I think the point was specifically about i9 processors.

 

[R0H1T]

13900KS is shipping from Intel this week

How about limiting TDP of this to 35/65/125W or similar levels & checking the (peak & total) power consumption as well as benchmark scores for overall efficiency, something like ~

As one "esteemed" member likes to claim that limiting the TDP, of unlocked K chips, will not affect the overall performance much this should throw a fair light on that hypothesis.

 

[Keullo-e]

What @Seleya said:



I think the point was specifically about i9 processors.

Ah, I thought that he meant all locked SKUs. Though still the locked ones can boost almost as high and manual CPU overclocking is practically dead these days.

K SKUs have way better resell value though.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Lower TDP locked SKUs from Intel are great for compact/ITX form factor builds. The i9-13900T is especially interesting, targeting a 35 W envelope but having the ability to stretch as far as 106 W or so. The difference is that Intel sells these many variants, mostly targeted at system integrators, while AMD offers an eco mode toggle for their CPUs so you could, as a consumer, buy the regular off-the-shelf chip and bring them down to a more earthly power level

Disregarding -F variants whose only difference is having the iGPU disabled, there's 4 speed tiers available:

i9-13900T / base 800 MHz E-core, 1.1 GHz P-core / P-max 5.3 GHz / 35 W nominal, up to 106 W
i9-13900 / base 1.5 GHz E-core, 2 GHz P-core / P-max 5.6 GHz / 65 W nominal, up to 219 W
i9-13900K / base 2.2 GHz E-core, 3 GHz P-core / P-max 5.8 GHz / 125 W nominal, up to 253 W, unlocked
i9-13900KS / base 2.4 GHz E-core, 3.2 GHz P-core / P-max 6 GHz / 150 W nominal, up to 253 W, unlocked, specially binned

Intel oddly omitted the S model this time around, presumably because of the 13900KS to avoid confusion, but normally this would be a locked 45W target type CPU. The reason the -13900 performs practically the same is because it's only some 30 odd watts short from the 13900K's turbo power target.

 

[KrazyT]

I have 13400F almost ready to post

Cool, expecting great things from it, as good as it's little brother 12400F

 

[AusWolf]

Lower TDP locked SKUs from Intel are great for compact/ITX form factor builds. The i9-13900T is especially interesting, targeting a 35 W envelope but having the ability to stretch as far as 106 W or so. The difference is that Intel sells these many variants, mostly targeted at system integrators, while AMD offers an eco mode toggle for their CPUs so you could, as a consumer, buy the regular off-the-shelf chip and bring them down to a more earthly power level

Disregarding -F variants whose only difference is having the iGPU disabled, there's 4 speed tiers available:

i9-13900T / base 800 MHz E-core, 1.1 GHz P-core / P-max 5.3 GHz / 35 W nominal, up to 106 W
i9-13900 / base 1.5 GHz E-core, 2 GHz P-core / P-max 5.6 GHz / 65 W nominal, up to 219 W
i9-13900K / base 2.2 GHz E-core, 3 GHz P-core / P-max 5.8 GHz / 125 W nominal, up to 253 W, unlocked
i9-13900KS / base 2.4 GHz E-core, 3.2 GHz P-core / P-max 6 GHz / 150 W nominal, up to 253 W, unlocked, specially binned

Intel oddly omitted the S model this time around, presumably because of the 13900KS to avoid confusion, but normally this would be a locked 45W target type CPU. The reason the -13900 performs practically the same is because it's only some 30 odd watts short from the 13900K's turbo power target.

It's a shame that "T" CPUs are so rare, though. I'm a sucker for processors that can be customized along a very wide TDP range for various use cases.

 

[Selaya]

What @Seleya said:



I think the point was specifically about i9 processors.

yes, and the 13700 to a certain extent asw.
i'd be more than glad to see what something like, a 13400 performs like - might be a great budget contender, might not

the thing is just - if you are on a budget (but not a hard budget), you'd be far better off going w/ a 13600k than 13900 (non-k) - you are very likely to be able to get more total (gaming) power out of your system, esp if you choose to upgrade your (d5) memory sometimes later.

 

[fevgatos]

How about limiting TDP of this to 35/65/125W or similar levels & checking the (peak & total) power consumption as well as benchmark scores for overall efficiency, something like ~

As one "esteemed" member likes to claim that limiting the TDP, of unlocked K chips, will not affect the overall performance much this should throw a fair light on that hypothesis.

This has been done. You don't need a 13900, even a 12900 non k (so 65w) beats the 7950x in efficiency. The 13900 will just further the lead, and so will the 13700, 13900t, 13700t, 12900t etc.

https://www.club386.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/graph-125-65-11-1200x546.png

And here it is for the 13900

https://www.club386.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Wattage-Comparison-17C5Hk9NKZFrktfm-1200x567.png

At 65w (so basically a stock out of the box 13900) it's 60% more efficient than a stock out of the box 7950x

At similar wattages, which is the proper way to make efficiency comparisons, the 7950x has a lead but it's tiny

 

[95Viper]

Stay on topic please.
The topic is:
Intel 13900 non-k review

Reviews tend to neglect Intel non-k parts such as i9 13900 and I'm interested in seeing power consumption and performance per dollar comparisons with these often ignored CPU's.

It is about the reviews.
If you want to discuss the CPUs, then start the appropriate thread in the proper forum section.