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

Intel Core i9-13900T and Intel Core i7-13790F are both Raptor Lake desktop parts on Socket 1700, but they target very different corners of the market. The i9-13900T is a 24-core, 32-thread chip with a 35W TDP and integrated graphics, while the i7-13790F is a 16-core, 24-thread chip with a 65W TDP and no iGPU. The benchmark data shows a remarkably close overall contest — the i7 actually holds a higher average benchmark score (63080 vs 61723) and a better percentile ranking (93rd vs 92nd) — but the i9 wins more individual tests, 9 to 8. This split suggests the choice hinges entirely on workload type rather than raw performance tiers.

Where Each One Wins

The i9-13900T dominates in rendering and traditional multi-core productivity. Across the entire Cinebench suite, it wins every single test: R15 multi-core (3680 vs 3568, +3.1%), R20 multi-core (15337 vs 14869, +3.1%), and R23 multi-core (36517 vs 35404, +3.1%). It also takes single-core Cinebench wins by the same 3.1-3.2% margin, indicating its higher 5.30 GHz boost clock provides a real advantage in lightly-threaded rendering tasks. Beyond Cinebench, the i9 wins in integer math (157324 vs 151416, +3.9%), random string sorting (63358 vs 58607, +8.1%), and data encryption (34415 vs 31703, +8.6%). The encryption win is the largest of any i9 victory, showing a clear edge in security-related workloads.

The i7-13790F, despite having fewer cores, wins in several PassMark sub-tests that appear to favor its higher base clock and different cache layout. Its biggest victories come in physics (3017 vs 2497, +17.2%) and find prime numbers (207 vs 175, +15.5%). It also wins extended instructions (34828 vs 29719, +14.7%), data compression (567473 vs 538254, +5.1%), floating point math (110512 vs 108779, +1.6%), and multithread (44737 vs 43036, +3.8%). The single-thread PassMark score goes to the i7 as well, albeit narrowly (4212 vs 4177, +0.8%). Notably, the i7 wins the PassMark multithread test even though it loses all Cinebench multi-core tests, which indicates workload-specific behavior differences between the two chips.

The Verdict

For users running Cinebench-style rendering workloads — 3D artists, video editors, or anyone relying on CPU-based rendering — the i9-13900T is the clear pick. It wins every Cinebench test by a consistent 3.1% margin, and that consistency across R15, R20, and R23 indicates a predictable advantage in threaded rendering. The i9 also pulls ahead in integer-heavy and sorting tasks, making it the better all-rounder for general productivity that involves encryption or string processing. Its 36 MB of L3 cache and 24 cores provide the headroom for heavily threaded apps, even at a much lower 35W TDP.

The i7-13790F is the better choice for physics simulations, prime number calculations, and extended instruction workloads. Its 17.2% physics win and 15.5% prime number win are substantial, and the 14.7% extended instructions lead suggests it handles AVX or similar instruction sets more efficiently. The i7 also wins data compression, which could matter for file archiving or database workloads. However, buyers should note the i7 lacks integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is mandatory. The i9’s UHD Graphics 770 provides a fallback display output and hardware encode/decode, which is valuable for troubleshooting or basic system use without a dedicated card.

If forced to pick one for mixed use, the i7-13790F’s higher average benchmark score (63080 vs 61723) and better percentile (93rd vs 92nd) make it the statistical favorite. But the i9’s consistent Cinebench wins and encryption advantage make it the safer bet for render-centric workflows. The i9 also has a higher launch MSRP of $549, while the i7 launched at $441.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The i9-13900T’s Cinebench sweep is the defining pattern. In R15 multi-core, it scores 3680 against the i7’s 3568, a 3.1% lead. That same delta repeats in R20 (15337 vs 14869) and R23 (36517 vs 35404). Single-core results mirror this: R15 shows 519 vs 503 (+3.2%), R20 shows 2165 vs 2099 (+3.1%), and R23 shows 5155 vs 4998 (+3.1%). The i9’s boost clock advantage of 5.30 GHz over 5.20 GHz likely drives these wins, despite the i7’s higher 2.10 GHz base clock versus 1.10 GHz.

The i7 fights back in PassMark. Its largest win is physics at 3017 vs 2497, a 17.2% margin. Prime numbers follow at 207 vs 175, +15.5%. Extended instructions show 34828 vs 29719, +14.7%. Data compression gives the i7 a 567473 vs 538254 score, +5.1%. Floating point math is close at 110512 vs 108779, +1.6%. The i7 also wins PassMark multithread (44737 vs 43036, +3.8%) and single thread (4212 vs 4177, +0.8%), which is notable given it loses every Cinebench test. The i9’s counter-wins include random string sorting (63358 vs 58607, +8.1%), data encryption (34415 vs 31703, +8.6%), and integer math (157324 vs 151416, +3.9%).

The data compression result is particularly interesting: the i7 wins by 5.1% despite having 3 MB less L3 cache (33 MB vs 36 MB). This suggests the i7’s higher base clock plays a larger role in compression than core count. Conversely, the i9’s encryption win at 8.6% likely benefits from its 32 threads versus 24, as encryption is often highly parallelizable.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core i9-13900T wins with a score of 36517, beating the i7-13790F’s 35404 by 3.1%.

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

A: No, the i7-13790F has no integrated graphics, while the i9-13900T includes UHD Graphics 770.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark gap between the two?

A: The i7-13790F wins PassMark physics by 17.2% (3017 vs 2497), which is the largest delta in either direction.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i7-13790F averages 63080, while the i9-13900T averages 61723, giving the i7 a higher overall score.

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The i9-13900T has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the i7-13790F has 16 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Do both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration.

Architecture Differences

Both CPUs are built on the same Raptor Lake-S architecture, using a 10 nm process at Intel’s foundry with a 257 mm² die size. The core counts differ significantly: the i9-13900T has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the i7-13790F has 16 cores and 24 threads. This core disparity is the primary architectural differentiator. Cache configurations also differ, with the i9 offering 36 MB of shared L3 cache versus the i7’s 33 MB. Both use 80 KB L1 per core and 2 MB L2 per core, so the L3 difference is the only cache distinction.

The i9-13900T includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 770), while the i7-13790F does not. The i9 also supports ECC memory, whereas the i7 does not. Both share the same PCIe configuration: Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. Both are unlocked multipliers, meaning neither can be overclocked via the multiplier. The i9’s 35W TDP is notably lower than the i7’s 65W, which is unusual given the i9 has more cores — this suggests the i9 is binned for efficiency, likely with lower clock speeds under load.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i9-13900T | Intel Core i7-13790F |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 24 | 16 |

| Threads | 32 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 1100 MHz (1.10 GHz) | 2100 MHz (2.10 GHz) |

| Boost Clock | 5.30 GHz | 5.20 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 65 W |

| L3 Cache | 36 MB shared | 33 MB shared |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | None |

| Launch MSRP | $549 | $441 |

| Release Date | 2023-01-03 | 2023-02-09 |

| Part Number | — | SRMBZ |

The i7 has a 1.00 GHz higher base clock (2.10 vs 1.10 GHz), but the i9 boosts 100 MHz higher (5.30 vs 5.20 GHz). The i9 has 8 more cores and 8 more threads, plus 3 MB more L3 cache. The i7’s TDP is nearly double at 65W versus 35W. The i9 includes ECC support and integrated graphics, both absent on the i7. The i9 launched about a month earlier (January 3 vs February 9, 2023) and has a $108 higher launch MSRP. The i7 carries the part number SRMBZ, while the i9’s part number is not listed.