CPU Benchmark Performance: Science

Our Science section covers all the tests that typically resemble more scientific-based workloads and instruction sets. For our 2023 CPU suite, we've also added SciMark 2.0 which measures numerical kernels and various computational routines found in numeric coding.

We are using DDR5 memory on the 12th and 13th Gen Core parts, as well as the Ryzen 7000 series, at the following settings:

  • DDR5-5600B CL46 - Intel 13th Gen
  • DDR5-5200 CL44 - Ryzen 7000
  • DDR5-4800 (B) CL40 - Intel 12th Gen

All other CPUs such as Ryzen 5000 and 3000 were tested at the relevant JEDEC settings as per the processor's individual memory support with DDR4.


(2-1) 3D Particle Movement v2.1 (non-AVX)

(2-2) 3D Particle Movement v2.1 (Peak AVX)

(2-3) yCruncher 0.78.9506 ST (250m Pi)

(2-4) yCruncher 0.78.9506 MT (2.5b Pi)

(2-4b) yCruncher 0.78.9506 MT (250m Pi)

(2-5) SciMark 2.0: Composite

(2-5b) SciMark 2.0: Monte Carlo

(2-5c) SciMark 2.0: Fast Fourier Transform

(2-5d) SciMark 2.0: Sparse Matrix Multiply

(2-5e) SciMark 2.0: Dense LU Matrix Factorization

(2-5f) SciMark 2.0: Jacobi Successive Over-Relaxation

(2-6) Primesieve 1.9.0: High Core Count

Our science-focused benchmarks highlight the fact the Core i9-13900KS and Core i9-13900K are both very similar in regard to performance. Outside of the 3DPM v2.1 AVX test where AMD gains the advantage in actually supporting AVX-512 instruction sets, the additional bump to base and turbo clock speeds doesn't yield too much benefit here.

CPU Benchmark Performance: Power And Office CPU Benchmark Performance: Simulation
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Slash3 - Saturday, January 28, 2023 - link

    They won't, but for a practical reason. It's an always online, frequently updated game, and test data would only be relevant for a single, back to back comparison between parts. No way to accurately compare to previous test results.
  • Peskarik - Saturday, January 28, 2023 - link

    Please add Microsoft Flight Simulator, Anandtech!!!
  • dontlistentome - Saturday, January 28, 2023 - link

    There was a screenshot floating around not too long ago (from Anandtech iirc) showing why not - the activation process is a nightmare if you try to flip it between machines for testing. The want to use it, MS stand in the way.
  • scottrichardson - Friday, January 27, 2023 - link

    I know this is primarily a PC/Windows oriented review but I would have loved to have seen the M2 pro/max included in here. I know that it would have been smoked in most of these benchmarks, especially multi-core, but it would still be interesting to see the power usage and relative performance. Whether we want it or not, there’s a 3rd player in the CPU game now!
  • dontlistentome - Saturday, January 28, 2023 - link

    There's a 3rd player taking part, but in a different game. If it can't run the same software or platform, it's irrelevant other than for comparing instruction sets.
  • Tunnah - Friday, January 27, 2023 - link

    1/3rd more power for single digit performance increase, how very Intel.
  • Peskarik - Saturday, January 28, 2023 - link

    AMD Ryzen 9 7900 wins for me.
  • Carmen00 - Saturday, January 28, 2023 - link

    10-20Mhz extra on average, for the "Favoured Cores" only, and for an additional $110 and 25W more. I know there are plenty of Greater Fools in the tech space, but surely there is a limit to how much even they will tolerate?
  • albie_ - Saturday, January 28, 2023 - link

    "The peak power figures from our power testing show that the Core i9-13900K drew an impressive 359.9 W at full load."

    I'm dumbfounded by this statement. Is this supposed to be selling point and good to have? What sort of tech journalist are you?
  • Ryan Smith - Saturday, January 28, 2023 - link

    "What sort of tech journalist are you?"

    The sarcastic kind.

    That statement was fully tongue in cheek. Intel made a consumer desktop chip that draws 360 Watts. It's all a bit silly, innit?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now