Intel Core i7-13790F vs Intel Core i9-13900KS Comparison

The Intel Core i9-13900KS and Intel Core i7-13790F are both Raptor Lake desktop processors on the Intel Socket 1700 platform, but they occupy very different positions in the lineup. The i9-13900KS is a special-edition, fully unlocked flagship with 24 cores and a 6.00 GHz boost clock, while the i7-13790F is a more restrained, locked 16-core part with a 5.20 GHz boost clock. Benchmark data shows a consistent, substantial performance gap across every single test, with the i9-13900KS winning all 17 head-to-head comparisons. Despite the i7’s lower power draw and lower launch price, the performance delta is so large that the choice between these two is rarely about raw capability—it is about whether you need that capability at all.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head results is the uniformity of the i9-13900KS’s advantage. In Cinebench, the gap is remarkably consistent: the i9 leads by 35.6% in both R15 multicore (5196 vs 3832) and R15 single-core (733 vs 540), and that exact 35.6% delta repeats in R20 multicore (21650 vs 15970), R20 single-core (3056 vs 2254), R23 multicore (51548 vs 38026), and R23 single-core (7277 vs 5368). This consistency across single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads suggests the i9’s advantage is not just from its 24 cores versus 16, but also from its significantly higher clock speeds—3.20 GHz base and 6.00 GHz boost against the i7’s 2.10 GHz base and 5.20 GHz boost. The single-core Cinebench numbers are especially telling: a 35.6% lead in a test that typically scales with frequency and IPC shows that the i9’s higher boost clock translates directly into faster single-thread execution.

PassMark tests tell a similar story but with even wider margins in some areas. The i9-13900KS scores 814838 in data compression versus 567473 for the i7-13790F, a 43.6% advantage. Data encryption shows a 50.7% gap (47772 vs 31703), which is the largest percentage difference outside of random string sorting. Floating point math favors the i9 by 40.1% (154805 vs 110512), and integer math by 39.4% (211027 vs 151416). Extended instructions see a 38.4% delta (48217 vs 34828). Prime number finding, a test that often stresses memory latency and core efficiency, shows a 24.2% lead for the i9 (257 vs 207)—the smallest gap in the PassMark suite, but still a clear win.

The most extreme result is random string sorting, where the i9-13900KS scores 90257 against 58607, a 54% advantage. This test is highly sensitive to cache size and memory bandwidth, and the i9’s 36 MB of shared L3 cache versus the i7’s 33 MB, combined with the i9’s higher memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, likely explains this outsized win. The i7-13790F’s memory bandwidth is not listed in the data, but the i9’s explicit 89.6 GB/s figure provides a concrete advantage in bandwidth-hungry workloads. Even in PassMark’s physics test, which is often more balanced across CPU generations, the i9 wins by 14.1% (3441 vs 3017). The smallest overall delta is in PassMark single-thread, where the i9 leads by 11.9% (4712 vs 4212), confirming that the i9’s single-core advantage, while substantial, is not as extreme as its multi-core dominance.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the i9-13900KS sits at 63990 against the i7-13790F’s 63348, a 1% difference. This is surprisingly close given the individual test deltas, but it reflects the fact that the average score includes many tests beyond the head-to-head set. The i9’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 (64112, -0.2% delta) and AMD EPYC 7343 (64202, -0.3%), meaning the i9 sits right in a cluster of high-end CPUs. The i7-13790F, meanwhile, is 1% below the i9 in average score and 0.8% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (62876). Both CPUs rank in the 95th percentile versus all CPUs, so neither is a slouch—but within that top tier, the i9 is measurably ahead in every direct comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The i9-13900KS wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head data, so the “where each one wins” section is more about relative strengths than absolute victories. The i9’s biggest advantages come in memory-sensitive and multi-threaded workloads. Random string sorting, with its 54% delta, points to workloads that involve heavy data shuffling and sorting—think database operations or certain scientific computing tasks. Data encryption’s 50.7% gap suggests the i9’s extra cores and higher clocks provide a massive boost in cryptographic workloads, whether that is file encryption or secure communication processing. Floating point math (40.1%) and integer math (39.4%) are both strongly in the i9’s favor, making it the clear choice for numerical simulation, financial modeling, or any compute-heavy scientific application.

The i7-13790F’s “wins” are more about efficiency and cost containment. Its 65 TDP against the i9’s 150 TDP means it will draw significantly less power under load, making it easier to cool with a capable air cooler and less demanding on the power delivery system of a motherboard. The i7 also has a lower launch MSRP of $441 versus the i9’s $699, but the data does not include any performance-per-watt or performance-per-dollar calculations, so that comparison must remain qualitative. In single-threaded workloads, the i7’s 11.9% deficit is its best relative result, meaning that for lightly threaded applications like older games or basic office tasks, the i7 will feel closer to the i9 than in heavily threaded work. However, the i9 still wins those tests—there is no workload in the data where the i7 comes out ahead.

For a builder who already has a high-end cooling solution and a motherboard with robust VRMs, the i9-13900KS is the obvious pick for any workload that can use more than a few cores. The i7-13790F makes sense for someone building a more modest system where power draw and cooling simplicity are priorities, and where the 35.6% Cinebench multicore gap is acceptable in exchange for a less demanding CPU. The i7’s lack of integrated graphics (the i9 has UHD Graphics 770) also means it requires a discrete GPU, which is a given for most desktop builds anyway, but it is a difference worth noting.

Architecture Differences

Both CPUs are built on Intel’s Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-S codename, fabricated on Intel’s 10 nm process with a 257 mm² die size. Neither has a listed transistor count. The key architectural difference is in core configuration: the i9-13900KS has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the i7-13790F has 16 cores and 24 threads. This 8-core, 8-thread difference is the primary driver of the multi-core performance gap. The cache hierarchy is also different. Both use 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, but the i9 has 36 MB of shared L3 cache versus the i7’s 33 MB. That 3 MB difference matters in workloads that repeatedly access a large working set.

Clock speeds are another major divider. The i9-13900KS has a 3.20 GHz base clock and a 6.00 GHz boost clock, while the i7-13790F runs at 2.10 GHz base and 5.20 GHz boost. The i9’s 0.8 GHz higher boost clock explains its single-core advantage, while the combination of more cores and a higher base clock drives the multi-core lead. The i9 also has a higher TDP of 150 W against the i7’s 65 W, which reflects the additional power required to feed those extra cores and higher clocks. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, and both use PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The i9 supports ECC memory, while the i7 does not—a meaningful distinction for users who require error-correcting memory for data integrity. The i9 includes integrated UHD Graphics 770, while the i7 has no integrated graphics at all.

The i9-13900KS has an unlocked multiplier, making it a candidate for overclocking, whereas the i7-13790F is multiplier-locked. The i9 was released on 2023-01-11, roughly a month before the i7’s 2023-02-09 release. The i9’s part number is SRMBX, and the i7’s is SRMBZ. Both are listed as Active production status and target the Desktop market segment.

FAQ

Q: Is the Intel Core i9-13900KS always faster than the Intel Core i7-13790F?

A: Yes, in every benchmark included in the head-to-head comparison, the i9-13900KS wins. Across 17 tests covering Cinebench R15/R20/R23 and PassMark workloads, the i9 leads by margins ranging from 11.9% in PassMark single-thread to 54% in random string sorting.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two CPUs?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark random string sorting, where the i9-13900KS scores 90257 against the i7-13790F’s 58607, a 54% advantage. Data encryption is close behind at 50.7% (47772 vs 31703).

Q: Does the i7-13790F have integrated graphics?

A: No. The i7-13790F does not have integrated graphics listed in the data, while the i9-13900KS includes UHD Graphics 770. This means the i7 requires a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: Can the i7-13790F be overclocked?

A: No, the i7-13790F has a locked multiplier. The i9-13900KS has an unlocked multiplier, which allows for overclocking if the rest of the system supports it.

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The i9-13900KS leads in all single-threaded tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i9 scores 7277 versus 5368 for the i7, a 35.6% lead. In PassMark single-thread, the i9 scores 4712 versus 4212, an 11.9% lead.

Q: Which CPU has more cache?

A: The i9-13900KS has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i7-13790F has 33 MB. Both have 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i9-13900KS is the faster processor in every measured scenario. Its 24 cores, 32 threads, 6.00 GHz boost clock, and 36 MB of L3 cache give it a 35.6% lead across all Cinebench versions, and its PassMark advantages range from 11.9% to 54%. For anyone whose workload involves heavy multi-threading—video rendering, 3D modeling, scientific computation, data compression, or encryption—the i9-13900KS is the only choice between these two. The 50.7% encryption lead and 54% string sorting lead specifically point to workloads where the i9’s extra cores and higher memory bandwidth (89.6 GB/s) translate into near-doubled throughput.

The Intel Core i7-13790F, however, has its own appeal. Its 65 W TDP is less than half the i9’s 150 W, making it far easier to cool in a compact or quiet build. Its locked multiplier and lack of integrated graphics simplify the platform, and its 16 cores and 24 threads are still enough to place it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The 11.9% single-thread deficit means that in everyday tasks like web browsing, office applications, or lighter games, the i7 will feel nearly as responsive as the i9. The i7-13790F is also the only one of the two that supports ECC memory? No—actually, the i9 supports ECC memory, while the i7 does not, so if ECC is a requirement, the i9 is the only option. The i7’s launch MSRP of $441 versus the i9’s $699 is a notable difference, but the data does not include any cost-performance metrics.

Choose the i9-13900KS if your work is compute-bound and you have the cooling and power delivery to handle a 150 W TDP. Choose the i7-13790F if you want a high-performance CPU that sips power, runs cool, and still delivers top-tier performance in the 95th percentile. The i9 is the clear winner in raw performance; the