CPU Comparison: Intel Core i9-13900KF vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Key Findings

  • The Intel Core i9-13900KF leads in single-threaded performance by up to 73.0%
  • In multi-threaded workloads, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X shows superior performance with a 8.3% advantage
  • The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X has the highest core count with 32 cores

Performance Rankings & Market Position

Intel Core i9-13900KF

Desktop
Release Date
Q4 2022
Market Position
101st fastest in multithreading
4890 CPUs19th fastest in single threading
4890 CPUs27th fastest in
1398 Desktop CPUs

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Desktop
Release Date
Q4 2019
Market Position
72nd fastest in multithreading
4890 CPUs709th fastest in single threading
4890 CPUs15th fastest in
1398 Desktop CPUs

Performance

Single-Thread Performance

i9-13900KF
4,610
3970X
2,665

Multi-Thread Performance

i9-13900KF
58,321
3970X
63,136

Specifications: Intel Core i9-13900KF vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

💻CPU Model
Intel Core i9-13900KF
i9-13900KF
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X
3970X
🔄Other Names
13th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-13900KF, 13th Gen Intel Core i9-13900KF
i9-13900KF
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X 32-Core Processor
3970X
⚡Base Clock
N/A
i9-13900KF
3.7 GHz
3970X
🚀Turbo Clock
N/A
i9-13900KF
4.5 GHz
3970X
💻Cores/Threads
N/A
i9-13900KF
32 Threads: 64
3970X
🔌Socket
FCLGA1700
i9-13900KF
sTRX4
3970X
⚡TDP
125 W
i9-13900KF
280 W
3970X
💾Cache
L1 Instruction Cache: 8 x 32 KBL1 Data Cache: 8 x 48 KBL2 Cache: 8 x 2048 KBL3 Cache: 36 MB
i9-13900KF
L1 Instruction Cache: 32 x 32 KBL1 Data Cache: 32 x 32 KBL2 Cache: 32 x 512 KBL3 Cache: 128 MB
3970X

The Intel Core i9-13900KF and AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X compete in the Desktop segment. The Intel Core i9-13900KF shows superior single-thread performance, making it better for tasks like gaming and light workloads.

For multi-threaded applications, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X takes the lead, despite having the same core count.

Power consumption differs significantly, with the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X drawing more power under load (280W vs 125W). This may impact system thermal design and power supply requirements.