Gaming Performance: 1080p

Moving along, here's a look at a more balanced gaming scenario, running games at 1080p with maximum image quality.

Civilization VI


(a-7) Civilization VI - 1080p Max - Average FPS(a-8) Civilization VI - 1080p Max - 95th Percentile

World of Tanks

(b-3) World of Tanks - 1080p Standard - Average FPS(b-4) World of Tanks - 1080p Standard - 95th Percentile(b-5) World of Tanks - 1080p Max - Average FPS(b-6) World of Tanks - 1080p Max - 95th Percentile

Borderlands 3

(c-7) Borderlands 3 - 1080p Max - Average FPS(c-8) Borderlands 3 - 1080p Max - 95th Percentile

Grand Theft Auto V

(e-7) Grand Theft Auto V - 1080p Max - Average FPS(e-8) Grand Theft Auto V - 1080p Max - 95th Percentile

Red Dead Redemption 2

(f-7) Red Dead 2 - 1080p Max - Average FPS(f-8) Red Dead 2 - 1080p Max - 95th Percentile

F1 2022

(g-3) F1 2022 - 1080p Ultra High - Average FPS(g-4) F1 2022 - 1080p Ultra High - 95th Percentile

Hitman 3

(h-3) Hitman 3 - 1080p Ultra - Average FPS(h-4) Hitman 3 - 1080p Ultra - 95th Percentile

Total War: Warhammer 3

(i-2) Total War Warhammer 3 - 1080p Ultra - Average FPS

Cyberpunk 2077

(k-3) Cyberpunk 2077 - 1080p Ultra - Average FPS(k-4) Cyberpunk 2077 - 1080p Ultra - 95th Percentile

The 1920 x 1080p resolution is still popular with users (even I still game at 1080p), and looking at our results with our AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT graphics card, the 13th Gen Core series processors are highly competitive. In some cases, AMD's Ryzen 7 5800X3D with 96 MB of 3D V-Cache makes for a great value in gaming, even if it's not really on par with Ryzen 7000 or Intel's 13th Gen in compute performance.

There are certainly trade-offs depending on the title on whether the game favors AMD or Intel, but the key thing to take is, things are competitive, especially at 1080p gaming.

Gaming Performance: 720p And Lower Gaming Performance: 1440p


View All Comments

  • Nero3000 - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    Correction: the 12600k is 6P+4E - table on first page Reply
  • Hixbot - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    I am hoping for an high frequency 8 core i5 with zero ecores and high cache. It's would be a gamer sweet spot, and could counter the inevitable 3d cache Zen 4. Reply
  • nandnandnand - Friday, October 21, 2022 - link

    big.LITTLE isn't going away. It's in a billion smartphones, and it will be in most of Intel's consumer CPUs going forward.

    Just grab your 7800X3D, before AMD does its own big/small implementation with Zen 5.
  • HarryVoyager - Friday, October 21, 2022 - link

    Honestly, I'm underwhelmed by Intel's current big.LITTLE setup. As near as I can tell, under load the E cores are considerably less efficient than the P cores are, and currently just seem to be there so Intel can claim multi-threading victories with less die space.

    And with the CPU's heat limits, it just seems to be pushing the chip into thermal throttling even faster.

    Hopefully future big.LITTLE implementations are better.
  • nandnandnand - Friday, October 21, 2022 - link

    Meteor Lake will bring Redwood Cove to replace Golden/Raptor Cove, and Crestmont to replace Gracemont. Gracemont in Raptor Lake is the same as in Alder Lake except for more cache, IIRC. All of this will be on "Intel 4" instead of "Intel 7", and the core count might be 8+16 again.

    Put it all together and it should have a lot of breathing room compared to the 13900K(S).

    8+32 will be the ultimate test of small cores, but they're already migrating on down to the cheaper chips like the 13400/13500.
  • Hixbot - Saturday, October 22, 2022 - link

    Yes it does seem backwards that the more efficient architecture is in the P core. Reducing power consumption for light tasks seems better to keep it on the P core and downclock. I don't see the point of the "e" cores as effiency, but rather academic multithreaded benchmark war. Which isn't serving the consumer at all. Reply
  • deil - Monday, October 24, 2022 - link

    E is still useful, as you get 8/8 cores in space where you could cram 2/4. I agree E for efficiency should be B as background to make it clearer what's the point. They are good for consumers as they offer all the high speed cores for main process, so OS and other things dont slow down.
    I am not sure if you followed, but intel cpu's literally doubled in power since they appeared, and at ~25% utilization, cpu's halved power usage. What you should complain about is bad software support, as this is not something that happens in the background.
  • TEAMSWITCHER - Monday, October 24, 2022 - link

    I don't think you are fully grasping the results of the benchmarks. Compute/Rendering scores prove that e-cores can tackle heavy work loads. Often trading blows with AMD's all P-Core 7950X, and costing less at the same time. AMD needs to lower all prices immediately. Reply
  • haoyangw - Monday, October 24, 2022 - link

    That's an oversimplification actually, P-cores and E-cores are both efficient, just for different tasks. The main efficiency gain of P-cores is it's much much faster than E-cores for larger tasks. Between 3 and 4GHz, P-cores are so fast they finish tasks much earlier than e-cores so total energy drawn is lower. But E-cores are efficient too, just for simple tasks(at low clockspeeds). Below 3GHz and above 1GHz, e-cores are much more efficient, beating P-cores in performance while drawing less power.

  • Great_Scott - Friday, November 25, 2022 - link

    Big.LITTLE is hard to do, and ARM took ages and a lot of optimization before phone CPUs got much benefit from it.

    The problem of the LITTLE cores not adding anything in the way of power efficiency is well-known.

    I'm saddened that Intel is dropping their own winning formula of "race-to-sleep" that they've successfully used for decades for aping something objectivly worse because they're a little behind in die shrinking.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now