DIESER PROZESSOR macht DEN INTEL CORE i9 13900K MAL WIEDER unnötig! Intel Core i7 vs. Intel Core i9

Yes, now that I've seen the three new Intel processors, I can give you spoilers. Even in this generation I think the Intel Core i9 13,900k is simply unnecessary for a large portion of the masses and that is again because it is i7. It's so incredibly powerful that the i9 is difficult on several levels, but what exactly do I mean by that? Let's take a look. When Raptor Lake launched, we looked at the flagship model, the Intel Koi 9 13,900k, and found one thing. In fact, I always find it quite funny. Intel has been sending a very fancy box to all reviewers and editorial teams for several generations, but at launch it only contains two processors, usually the Intel Core i5 and the Intel Core i5.

Intel 9, at least that's how it was with the last four Intel releases and now I understand why, because anyone who's been looking here for a while knows that some time after release I get the Intel Core i7, try it and then I usually have to determine that it is Intel Core i7. In principle, it is often so good that the Intel Core i9 becomes unnecessary. Intel really knows this and that's why I guess they just don't ship the i7 at first. The eleventh generation of the Intel Core ipus, was even a little more extreme than with the others because the i9 was actually only eight

core

s, but it was almost always like that in the later generations, but let's see what is the big difference between the Intel Core i7 13,700k and the Intel 9 13,900k from the last or even the 12th generation of the island before the CPU, so keep in mind that the processors have two types of

core

PI and icos, everyone should know that by now the course It's like this - called performance course for heavy tasks like gaming or rendering and Echoes are for less complex tasks and background action and that's why they are called fishing course.

The 13,900k have eight picors which also have 16 tracks at the same time but also 16 e-cores. of the island Core i7 13700k has 8 image courses with 16 trades but also only 8 e-cores and that means there are 32 threads on the Intel Core i9 versus 24 friends on the Intel Core i7. The interesting thing here is one more thing. If you have been paying attention, you will have noticed one thing: the Intel Core i7 13700k actually has the same specifications in terms of its cores, Intel Core i9 12900k, that is, the i9 of the last generation and with the current one the new ones.

It has simply doubled up on the Ecos, it can say it has turned the i7 into the last generation i9, but that's not the only difference. The flagship, of course, also has one. The amplifier is slightly higher at 5.8 gigahertz, while the i7 is only 5.4 gigahertz. At least as far as the peaks are concerned, the ikor frequencies at 4.3 or 4.2 GHz are of course a little lower, but the TDP of the two CPUs is 125. Up to 253 watts are indicated immediately, although it must be done. Of course at this point this also depends a little on the power limits you set in the BIOS, the thing is that the power limits are set to maximum by default on most motherboards, which would be 4,095.

No CPU consumes that many watts, but that is the maximum value you can set and as I already showed in my test, the i9 can use around 330 watts, which is a little different with the i7, we'll get to that in a moment but also We'll take a look again. , but one difference would also be very important for me and it is above all the price because the cheapest Intel Koi 9 13.900k currently costs €734, the cheapest i7 13.700k costs €475, so keep that in mind on the back of I think the i7 is almost 55% cheaper than the Intel Core i99 because this will be important, especially when it comes to price and performance, but I can say right away that the 13,700k is 10-20% faster than the i9. at each benchmark 12,900k so the old 9 although the good one is more expensive so there is really no reason to get an Orderlake E9, the information may be important to some people because the old 12,900k no longer worth it, no I don't play at all with this thought, but the big question now is again that the Intelco i7 13,700 km works in contrast to the Intel Core i9 13,900k and that's exactly what I saw on a really fancy motherboard, i.e. , the Asus z790 Stream, let's say it. like it's at the top of the Asus motherboard line which actually leaves almost nothing to be desired, but I will also tell you first of all that you buy an ATX motherboard which is just huge and secondly these Side angled connectors are not necessarily for everyone, otherwise that is the case.

But especially for really tall NPCs, it's a crazy board with a crazy power supply, a fat heatsink, and what seems like infinite connections but is actually just a word for everyone who says hello, I'm rich and I don't give a damn about everything because more than €1000 for a motherboard is a lot of money, but if you want to know what else I tried, just watch the video description as always. We have to differentiate a little bit between rendering performance and gaming performance because I already made a video about the Intel Core i5 13600k and I say For gaming, your WLAN i7 also needs an i9 because the i5 is just an ultra crazy gaming machine. and it only runs a little less than an i9 or i7.

If you want to watch the video again, you can see the link in the video description in the render task, but you can see that it is again a little different in the Cinebench R23 multicore test, i.e. the. test where you simply render an image across all CPU cores, the Intel Core i7 13700k is around 27% faster than the i5, but the E39 13,900k is even better thanks to its additional ikors, a 25 % faster than the seven, but that was somehow Sure, more cores means shorter lead times when it comes to single performance. So if there is only a single core advantage, we have very similar performance values ​​for all three CPUs, although it is also curious that the i7 is about 5%. faster than the i5 and the i9 is also somehow 5% faster than the i7, which is placed right in the middle here.

Next would be the hand break rendering test. I always run a video and see how long it's been here. it's also the i7 and 27% faster than the Intel Core i5 so it scales similarly to Cinebench and the i9 is a good 28% faster than the i7 and that somehow becomes clear again, it means a difference of 18 seconds overall. I think the difference is now. isn't big enough to say it's worth it, so 3D Mark benchmarks would be interesting. I found an interesting thing here because the Mark Fire Strike 3D physics score differs quite a bit for the three CPUs, the i7 is around there.

Here it is 25% faster than the five, the difference with the Intel Core i9 is a little less here and around 17%, but if you look at the 3D times with others, the differences are significantly smaller, so you can see that all three CPUs in a very similar performance range. I have no idea how that's good and like I said, when gaming you don't need an i9 or an i7, we'll still take a look at the performance values. The important thing is that I tried it. all games in 720p, so it's a resolution that really hardly anyone plays and if you have to play in that resolution, type F in the chat in this resolution and we are actually only at this resolution, but we are not at the limit of GPU, which means If you play at higher resolutions you will be so good that I don't see any difference, although I find it very small at 720p.

In Cyberpunk, for example, the Intelkoi 9 13,900k is only three percent faster than the 13,700. k, but you can also see that the E5 is not significantly slower and as far as the gaming experience is concerned, you won't notice any differences here, at best you can only measure them. Even in Far Cry 6, we only have almost four. percent more performance with the Intel Core i9 compared to the Intel Core i7, which doesn't sound like the i7 is, however, only 3% faster than the Intel Core i5, so that's like I just said, yeah just gaming, then it is better to go for the i5 for Assassin's Creed Valhalla.

When comparing the i7 and i9, I would even talk about measurement tolerance, there are only two FPS between them, the i5 is slightly behind, but even there we are in a similar situation. Low single digit fps range No one will notice and in Shadow of the Tomb Raider there is only one FPS difference between the i7 and i9. However, I find it interesting that the i5 is really lagging behind, there may be. Two reasons: either I made mistakes while eating, which I think is most likely, or this game just scales incredibly well with multiple cores. If you have any information about it, write it in the comments below, but you have it.

Seeing as the games Technically, the differences between the three CPUs are extremely small in terms of performance, it must be said that the additional e-cors mean that the i9 is of course faster, which in my opinion is disproportionate to the additional. It costs 54% more for less than 30%. In my opinion, more rendering power and perhaps three to five percent more gaming performance are absolutely disproportionate. Another thing I also find interesting is the power consumption, at least in the open version. power limits, because the i7 is 245 watts, the i9 is up to 330 watts, of course you can limit the power limits on the i9, but the fact is that the power limits are usually set at 495 watts, but this also means that you can use the i7 a little bit it can cool better because in the same conditions we are 9 degrees colder so that is crazy my conclusion is that it is actually like the latest launchers but it is not that extremely important for a small number of people if you really do render 24/7 and want to build a big machine for it, then an i9 like this can really be worth it. 30% more performance at the edge means a savings of three hours with 10 hours of rendering time, but if you're just here and you want to render a video, you want to stream, etc., then the i7 should do the job just as good and it's cheaper, significantly cheaper if it's just games, but like I just said, you save money. for such a high core count CPU and just buy an i5 because in my opinion you are much better positioned because you spend less money to be able to put it back into a graphics card or something and you will still get good multicore performance. money and minimally lower gaming performance than with thick CPUs, but my question would be: which processor would you choose at this time and above all why i5 i7 i9 or a price-performance ratio that is actually worse in this moment? ?

Don't hesitate to write it in the comments if you like the video. So I'm happy for the north direction. Take a look at my latest videos. I would tell you that we will see you again in the next video. I'm out, ciao