Test Bed and Setup: Updating Our Test Suite for 2023

As per our processor testing policy, we take a premium category motherboard suitable for the socket, and equip the system with a suitable amount of memory running at the manufacturer's highest officially-supported frequency. This is also typically run at JEDEC subtimings where possible. It is noted that some users are not keen on this policy, stating that sometimes the highest official frequency is quite low, or faster memory is available at a similar price, or that the JEDEC speeds can be prohibitive for performance.

While these comments make sense, ultimately very few users apply memory profiles (either XMP or other) as they require interaction with the BIOS, and most users will fall back on JEDEC-supported speeds - this includes home users as well as industry who might want to shave off a cent or two from the cost or stay within the margins set by the manufacturer. Where possible, we will extend out testing to include faster memory modules either at the same time as the review or a later date.

The Current CPU Test Suite

For our Intel Core i9-13900K and Core i5-13600K testing, we are using the following test system:

Intel 13th Gen Core System (DDR5)
CPU Core i9-13900K ($589)
24 Cores, 32 Threads
125 W TDP

Core i5-13600K ($319)
14 Cores, 20 Threads
125 W TDP
Motherboard MSI MPG Z790 Carbon WIFI (BIOS E7D89)
Memory SK Hynix
2x16 GB
DDR5-5600B CL46
Cooling EKWB EK-AIO Elite 360 D-RGB 360mm 
Storage SK Hynix Platinum P41 2TB PCIe 4.0 x4
Power Supply Corsair HX1000
GPUs AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT, 31.0.12019
Operating Systems Windows 11 22H2

As we are in a transitional period between our current CPU 2021 suite and data, and optimizing our CPU 2023 suite with different data comparisons required, we have included a varied selection of benchmarks for this review. This ranges from our traditional un-updatable Google Octane 2.0 web test, through a variety of rendering benchmarks such as CineBench R23 and Blender, to encoding, and all the way to our more scientific-related tests.

With our processor reviews, especially on a new generational product such as AMD's Ryzen 9 7950X, we also include SPEC2017 data to account for any increases (or decreases) to generational single-threaded and multi-threaded performance. It should be noted that per the terms of the SPEC license, because our benchmark results are not vetted directly by the SPEC consortium, it is officially classified as an ‘estimated’ score.

Our CPU 2023 Suite: What to Expect

Looking ahead to our updated CPU 2023 suite, we've updated some of our existing benchmarks to the latest and current release versions (as of Sept '22), such as Blender 3.3, C-Ray 1.1 rendering, as well as adding more scientific-based workloads such as SciMark 2.0 and Primesieve 1.9.0. We have also decided to add UL's latest Procyon suite which measures overall system performance when doing tasks such as office-based tasks, as well as video and photo editing.

Meanwhile we've also carried over some older (but still relevant/enlightening) benchmarks from our CPU 2021 suite. This includes benchmarks such as Dwarf Fortress, Factorio, and Dr. Ian Cutress's 3DPMv2 benchmark.

We have also updated our pool of games going forward into 2023 and beyond, including the latest F1 2022 racing game, the CPU-intensive RTS Total War: Warhammer 3, and the popular Hitman 3.

Our aim is to provide varying levels of data points across a variety of different workloads, instruction sets, and tasks. Going forward, we will keep our CPU 2023 suite updated as frequently as possible, and when we have a consistent and suitable number of data points, it will feature on our Bench database as we continue testing new and older CPUs for varying data points.

The CPU-focused tests featured specifically in this review are as follows:

Power

  • Peak Power (y-Cruncher using AVX)

Office & Web

  • Octane 2.0: More comprehensive test (but also deprecated with no successor)
  • UL Procyon Office: Various office-based tasks using various Microsoft Office applications
  • UL Procyon Photo Editing: Covers a variety of different photo editing tasks such as batch processing

Science

  • 3D Particle Movement v2.1 (Non-AVX + AVX2/AVX512)
  • y-Cruncher 0.78.9506 (Optimized Binary Splitting Compute for mathematical constants)
  • SciMark 2.0: Part of the Phoronix Suite, and measures across a variety of scientific-based workloads
  • Primesieve 1.9.0: This test generates prime numbers using an optimized sieve of Eratosthenes implementation

Simulation

  • Dwarf Fortress 0.44.12: Fantasy world creation and time passage
  • Dolphin 5.0: Ray Tracing rendering test for Wii emulator
  • Factorio v1.1.26 Test: A game-based benchmark that is largely consistent for measuring overall CPU and memory performance
  • John The Ripper 1.9.0: A password cracker simulation that scales well with core and thread count, as well as IPC performance

Rendering

  • Blender 3.3: Popular rendering program
  • Corona 1.1: Ray Tracing Benchmark
  • POV-Ray 3.7.1: Another Ray Tracing Test
  • V-Ray: Another popular renderer
  • CineBench R23: The fabled Cinema4D Rendering engine

Encoding

  • x264: Encoding video files at 1080p and 4K resolutions
  • 7-Zip: Open-source compression software
  • WinRAR 5.90: Popular compression tool

Legacy

  • CineBench R10
  • CineBench R11.5
  • CineBench R15
  • CineBench R20
  • Geekbench 5: Single and multi-threaded
  • Handbrake 1.32: Popular Transcoding tool

SPEC (Estimated)

  • SPEC2017 rate-1T
  • SPEC2017 rate-nT

We have also added new games to our games suite for 2023. Our current games in our CPU testing and those featured in this review are as follows:

  • Civilization VI: 480p, 1080p, 1440p and 4K (both avg and 95% percentile)
  • World of Tanks: 768p, 1080p, and 4K (both avg and 95% percentile)
  • Borderlands 3: 360p, 1080p, 1440p, and 4K (both avg and 95th percentile)
  • Grand Theft Auto V: 720p, 1080p, 1440p, and 4K (both avg and 95th percentile)
  • Red Dead Redemption 2: 384p, 1080p, 1440p, and 4K (both avg and 95th percentile)
  • Cyberpunk 2077: 720p, 1080p, 1440p, and 4K (both avg and 95th percentile)
  • F1 2022: 720p, 1080p, 1440p, and 4K (both avg and 95th percentile)
  • Hitman 3: 720p, 1080p, 1440p, and 4K (both avg and 95th percentile)
  • Total War Warhammer 3: 720p, 1080p, 1440p and 4K (only avg fps measured)

Out of all the games we test, we measure both the average frame rate at each resolution/preset using the default benchmarking option, eg Bahrain map on F1 2022 and Battle Mode in Total War: Warhammer 3. The only game we don't measure 95th percentile framerates (5% lows) is Total War Warhammer, as this currently doesn't allow third-party software to directly take framerate metrics.

Z790 Chipset: More I/O Than Z690, But Same Performance Core-to-Core Latency
POST A COMMENT

169 Comments

View All Comments

  • m53 - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    PCs are idle (or used for light browsing, reading bews, watching youtube or a movie, etc.) most of the time. Intel idles at around 12W due to E cores while AMD idles at around 45W which will make the energy consumption 4x. Reply
  • t.s - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    idle around 45w? sources? My 5600G idle at 11W. others, around 7 s/d 17W. Reply
  • titaniumrock - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    here is the source link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNmpVvTUkJE&li... Reply
  • t.s - Friday, October 21, 2022 - link

    And where it states the AMD vs Intel watt vs watt? Reply
  • Wrs - Friday, October 21, 2022 - link

    A 5600g is a monolithic chip, just like the Intels. A 7600x or 7950x is a multi-chip module, though, with 2 or 3 modules, and the IOD idle is very substantial now with all the PCIe5 lanes. Bottom line Zen 4 is more efficient when doing major work, courtesy of being one process generation ahead, but Raptor Lake and Alder Lake idle lower. If you want low idle with Zen4, wait for the SoC variants like your 5600g. Reply
  • tygrus - Saturday, October 22, 2022 - link

    They don't run constantly with at maximum power consumption in all workloads. They use less while gaming or more integer & less FP/AVX. Highest usage probably when they have a performance lead over the other. AMD can run at lower power limits & loose a few % in many cases. Reply
  • neblogai - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    I was hoping for Ryzen 7000X iGPU benchmarks too. There are no proper comparisons of them vs Intel's 32EU iGPUs on the internet. Reply
  • nandnandnand - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    ETA Prime 7700X iGPU tests (no comparisons):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4cwNn4kI6M (gaming)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnSVPM78ZaQ (emulation)

    7600X vs. 12900 vs. 5700G
    https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/09/ryzen-7600...

    All Zen 4 vs. 12900K vs. others
    https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-770...

    It's similar to the UHD 770 in Alder Lake, sometimes a little better or worse. About half the performance of a 5700G which is impressive for 2 CUs.

    UHD 770 in Raptor Lake gets +100 MHz across the board, so that could make a slight difference.
    Reply
  • neblogai - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    Thanks. I liked the ones on Techpowerup, as they include tests at 720p low, and tested more than a few titles. Part of my interest is the need to compare to Tomshardware 7950 iGPU results, which looked suspiciously low for the specs, and probably faulty: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ryzen-7000-integ... Reply
  • CiccioB - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    About power consumption.
    I think it is completely useless to measure it when running a useless benchmark that you then don't even use to compare the relative performances to other CPUs.
    It would be much worth having a measurement for some more useful (common?) benches, just to understand when a real work is applied how much the CPU is consuming and, related to the performances, understand how efficient it is.

    Just think what the results would be if the CPU would be artificially limited (by BIOS/driver) in Prime95 bench: you would measure a much lower consumption that extrapolated for other tests, and you could just think the CPU is consuming a fraction of what is does. It's the same for the torture benches of GPUs. The max consumption in that test is useless to understand how much they really consume while gaming, and in fact, most of them are artificially limited or just hit the max TDP (which is again not a measure of power consumption).

    If you don't want to provide the power consumption for most benches, at least use a bench that gives a comparable performance, so that (at least for that test) one can make a comparison of the efficiency.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now