M3 Ultra vs Core i9 13900KS
Head-to-head specifications
| Metric | M3 Ultra | Core i9 13900KS | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cinebench 2024 single-core | 133 | 135 | -1.5% |
| Cinebench 2024 multi-core | 2,753 | 2,156 | +27.7% |
| Cores | 32 (24P+8E) | 24 (8P+16E) | — |
| TDP (base W) | 140 | 150 | — |
- M3 Ultra is slower than Core i9 13900KS by 1.5% in single-core and faster by 27.7% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
- M3 Ultra draws less power (140W vs 150W base TDP).
Verdict: M3 Ultra or Core i9 13900KS?
M3 Ultra advantages
- Multi-core speed (+22%)
- Power efficiency (+7%)
Core i9 13900KS advantages
- No decisive advantage on the tracked metrics.
Which should you choose?
- Choose the M3 Ultra if you render video, compile code or run heavy multitasking.
- Choose the M3 Ultra if you want a cooler, quieter and more power-efficient build.
M3 Ultra vs Core i9 13900KS: which should you choose?
M3 Ultra — 32-core Apple processor (24P+8E) scoring 133 single-core and 2753 multi-core in Cinebench 2024, with a 140 W TDP.
Core i9 13900KS — 24-core Intel processor (8P+16E) scoring 135 single-core and 2156 multi-core in Cinebench 2024, with a 150 W TDP and 36 MB L3 cache.
M3 Ultra vs Core i9 13900KS: M3 Ultra leads in multi-core performance. M3 Ultra is slower than Core i9 13900KS by 1.5% in single-core and faster by 27.7% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). M3 Ultra draws less power (140W vs 150W base TDP).
Gaming and single-threaded work
Games and everyday responsiveness lean on single-core speed. The Core i9 13900KS leads there with a single-core score of 135 versus 133, so it is the marginally better pick for high-refresh gaming — though at typical resolutions the GPU usually decides frame rates.
Content creation and multitasking
For rendering, compilation, video export and other all-core workloads, the M3 Ultra is stronger, posting 2,753 multi-core against 2,156 in Cinebench 2024. Its 32 cores (24 performance + 8 efficiency) give it real headroom for heavy parallel jobs.
Power and platform
The M3 Ultra is the more efficient chip at 140 W versus 150 W, which means less heat, quieter cooling and lower running costs under sustained load.
The verdict
Both are credible choices in the processor comparison space; the specification table above lays out every metric so you can weigh the trade-offs that matter to you. Pick the one whose strengths line up with how you will actually use it.
Frequently asked questions
Is the M3 Ultra better than the Core i9 13900KS?
M3 Ultra is the clearly stronger overall choice, winning most of the dimensions that matter. M3 Ultra is slower than Core i9 13900KS by 1.5% in single-core and faster by 27.7% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024).
What is the main difference between the M3 Ultra and the Core i9 13900KS?
M3 Ultra is slower than Core i9 13900KS by 1.5% in single-core and faster by 27.7% in multi-core (Cinebench 2024). M3 Ultra draws less power (140W vs 150W base TDP).
Which should I choose?
Choose the M3 Ultra if you render video, compile code or run heavy multitasking. Choose the M3 Ultra if you want a cooler, quieter and more power-efficient build.
Methodology
Processors are compared on Cinebench 2024 single-core and multi-core scores from published leaderboard results, alongside core configuration (performance + efficiency cores), base TDP, L3 cache, PassMark CPU Mark, 1080p gaming scores and street pricing where measured. Cinebench reflects rendering-style workloads; gaming performance depends heavily on the GPU and the specific title, so treat single-core standing as directional. Figures reflect the leaderboard snapshot on the page date.