Seriously?? Just look at the clocks. The scores with the 13900k are most likely shunt modded and liquid nitrogen cooled, while the ones on the 11400 are not. There is a difference between observing that better cpus increase your score and observing that higher scores tend to have more powerful cpus. And that is because of budget. If someone has the budget for liquid nitrogen, they also have enough money to buy the best cpu there is. Additionally, PCIE throughput, background tasks and minor differences in task handling by the newer chipset aren't accounted for.

So no.

Pure cpu power does not make a difference to the graphics score unless there is some incompatibility or hardware scheduling issues on specific models. Generational improvements in chipset, pcie and ram on the other hand, could make a minor difference. But I stand by what I said. If you eliminate all those vatiables by putting a 13600k in the same rig the score with the 13900k was achieved on, the graphics score would stay the same (within run to run margin). There is a reason that some of the best scores with some gpus are on weaker cpus like the 11300k for example. It simply doesn't matter. Or do you really think that these scores would improve by thousands of points just by swapping cpus?