Gaming Performance: 4K

Last, we have our 4K gaming results.

Civilization VI

(a-5) Civilization VI - 4K Min - Average FPS(a-6) Civilization VI - 4K Min - 95th Percentile

World of Tanks

(b-7) World of Tanks - 4K Max - Average FPS(b-8) World of Tanks - 4K Max - 95th Percentile

Borderlands 3

(c-5) Borderlands 3 - 4K VLow - Average FPS(c-6) Borderlands 3 - 4K VLow - 95th Percentile

Grand Theft Auto V

(e-5) Grand Theft Auto V - 4K Low - Average FPS(e-6) Grand Theft Auto V - 4K Low - 95th Percentile

Red Dead Redemption 2

(f-5) Red Dead 2 - 4K Min - Average FPS(f-6) Red Dead 2 - 4K Min - 95th Percentile

F1 2022

(g-7) F1 2022 - 4K High - Average FPS(g-8) F1 2022 - 4K High - 95th Percentile

Hitman 3

(h-7) Hitman 3 - 4K High - Average FPS(h-8) Hitman 3 - 4K High - 95th Percentile

Total War: Warhammer 3

(i-4) Total War Warhammer 3 - 4K High - Average FPS

We noticed some discrepancies in our Cyberpunk 2077 testing at 1440p and 4K; we will publish these results once we identify the issue.

As we've seen throughout our game testing, things are quite competitive between the top contenders, including the Intel Core i9-13900K, the Core i9-12900K/KS, and the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X chips. In our 4K testing, however, where the Ryzen 7 5800X3D and loads of 3D V-Cache can't be utilized, then the Core i9-13900K and Core i5-13600K perform very well. 

Gaming Performance: 1440p Closing Thoughts


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