Ryzen Z1 Extreme vs Core i9-13900K
Aggregated performance score
Core i9-13900K outperforms Ryzen Z1 Extreme by a whopping 133% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i9-13900K and Ryzen Z1 Extreme processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 69 | 359 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 72.91 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Core i9 | Phoenix (Zen 4, Ryzen 7040) |
| Architecture codename | Raptor Lake-S | Phoenix (Zen 4) |
| Release date | 27 September 2022 (1 year ago) | May 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $589 | no data |
| Current price | $600 (1x MSRP) | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core i9-13900K and Ryzen Z1 Extreme basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 32 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 5.7 GHz | 5.1 GHz |
| L1 cache | 80K (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 36 MB (shared) | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | Intel 7 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 257 mm2 | 178 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 72 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 25,000 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | No |
Compatibility
Information on Core i9-13900K and Ryzen Z1 Extreme compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA1700 | FP8 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i9-13900K and Ryzen Z1 Extreme. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Speed Shift | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | no data |
| SIPP | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | + | no data |
| Status | Launched | no data |
Security technologies
Core i9-13900K and Ryzen Z1 Extreme technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| OS Guard | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i9-13900K and Ryzen Z1 Extreme are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i9-13900K and Ryzen Z1 Extreme. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 192 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel UHD Graphics 770 | AMD Radeon 780M |
| Quick Sync Video | + | no data |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.65 GHz | no data |
| Execution Units | 32 | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i9-13900K and Ryzen Z1 Extreme integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 4 | no data |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Core i9-13900K and Ryzen Z1 Extreme integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | 4096 x 2160 @ 60Hz | no data |
| Max resolution over eDP | 5120 x 3200 @ 120Hz | no data |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | 7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz | no data |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Core i9-13900K and Ryzen Z1 Extreme integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | 12 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i9-13900K and Ryzen Z1 Extreme.
| PCIe version | 5.0 and 4.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | 20 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Core i9-13900K outperforms Ryzen Z1 Extreme by 133% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Core i9-13900K outperforms Ryzen Z1 Extreme by 133% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Core i9-13900K outperforms Ryzen Z1 Extreme by 35% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Core i9-13900K outperforms Ryzen Z1 Extreme by 109% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Benchmark coverage: 15%
Core i9-13900K outperforms Ryzen Z1 Extreme by 161% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.
Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.
Benchmark coverage: 15%
Core i9-13900K outperforms Ryzen Z1 Extreme by 16% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 38.35 | 16.44 |
| Integrated graphics card | 6.13 | 18.36 |
| Physical cores | 24 | 8 |
| Threads | 32 | 16 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 15 Watt |
The Core i9-13900K is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen Z1 Extreme in performance tests.
Note that Core i9-13900K is a desktop processor while Ryzen Z1 Extreme is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i9-13900K and Ryzen Z1 Extreme, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
