Time for a massive benchmark comparison between the Ryzen 5 7600X and Core i5-13600K, covering 54 games across three resolutions using the GeForce RTX 4090.
https://www.techspot.com/review/2567-ryzen-7600x-vs-core-i5-13600k-gaming/
AMD Ryzen 5 7600X vs. Intel Core i5-13600K: 54 Game Benchmark
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
The new price of the 7600X makes a lot more sense.
passwordistaco
Posts: 573 +1,246
CPU is a wealth of choices right now with AMD and Intel throwing haymakers. Hopefully this kind of competition will return to the GPU space soon.
yRaz
Posts: 6,477 +9,649
I can't wait to see the new 3d versions of these chips. I play at 4k and it's good to see there will be almost zero performance difference between the platforms
Irata
Posts: 2,288 +4,002
While true, this comes at the cost of higher than 7900X power consumption (in MT) requiring a more expensive cooler.
So yes, you can build a budget productivity system trading CPU cost for power consumption but unless you run MT productivity tasks, it‘s of little value to the average user / gamer.
And yes, higher power consumption does cost money when it comes to building a system - PSU, HSF, case fans…
godrilla
Posts: 1,374 +899
This Is the exact reason I went with the 7700x. I can still use my Noctua D15 air cooler and my sfx 750 platinum psu to power the system and 4090 gpu based on a few different power supply calculators.
Intel was temping but it would mean I had to get a new psu new cooling and pay $200+ for ram and possibility of getting an annual dose of buyers remorse with zen4 3d, zen5 3d and even zen6 3d cpus. I ended the intel cycle after 13 years of purchasing intel flagship cpus.
Not necessarily true. With the range of system power draw shown here you're likely going to need a minimum 750W PSU with either CPU, especially if you pair it up with a 4090. You might squeak by with a 650W if you use a lower power GPU but that will depend on the GPU.
I doubt there's any real cost difference in CPU coolers. I've seen reviews using air coolers with the 13600K and if you're overclocking, you're likely going to go with an AIO 240/280 minimum. So, I don't see a significant price delta for either CPU. The GPU will likely drive higher PSU and cooling requirements, more so than the CPU, in this example.
From what I've seem from other reviews, there is a pretty big difference in results because of how and what they tested. A limited number of titles also influences the final result a lot. I also don't know if resizable bar was enabled or not in other reviews.
There are also differences in favour of Intel. For example, in Shadow of the Romb Raider other outlets found the 7600x to be faster. Although looking at Gamers Nexus, they found the same 0 difference between the CPUs.
Mr Majestyk
Posts: 2,065 +1,905
For gaming the 7600X3D is going to kick some Intel @ss big time. But for productivity I would still take the 13600K well actually I prefer 13700K. But I'm majorly p!ssed AMD won't be releasing a 7900/7950X3D.
Avro Arrow
Posts: 3,721 +4,821
Jeez, Intel can't beat the R5-7600X in gaming. I wonder what it's going to look like when the new X3D CPUs come out. It's going to be a slaughter.
Intel dominated the market as the gaming king for over a decade while AMD was relegated to being good at productivity tasks only. The X3D versions of Ryzen are going to bury Intel and make AMD the undisputed gaming king. Hell, Intel's 13th-gen can't even convincingly win against the R7-5800X3D, a last-gen AM4 CPU!
I have to admit though, I think that having the X3D CPU based on an R7 was a mistake. If AMD had created the R5-5600X3D instead, it's possible that they could've allowed overclocking or at least reduced the clock speed loss from the huge cache. It would've been even more potent for games than the R7-5800X3D. X3D is a gamer's CPU so I don't see the point of having it with only 8 cores. It's not like games do better with 8 cores compared to 6.
Intel dominated the market as the gaming king for over a decade while AMD was relegated to being good at productivity tasks only. The X3D versions of Ryzen are going to bury Intel and make AMD the undisputed gaming king. Hell, Intel's 13th-gen can't even convincingly win against the R7-5800X3D, a last-gen AM4 CPU!
I have to admit though, I think that having the X3D CPU based on an R7 was a mistake. If AMD had created the R5-5600X3D instead, it's possible that they could've allowed overclocking or at least reduced the clock speed loss from the huge cache. It would've been even more potent for games than the R7-5800X3D. X3D is a gamer's CPU so I don't see the point of having it with only 8 cores. It's not like games do better with 8 cores compared to 6.
Last edited:
AlaskaGuy
Posts: 868 +848
Hodor
Posts: 765 +512
It's pretty clear Intel's chip is slightly more powerful than AMD.
As the power consumption chart shows.
As the power consumption chart shows.
msroadkill612
Posts: 112 +43
Its a bit suss that they need a windows refresh due to the difficulties of switching between e & P cores.
I saw a post to the effect that this caused deal breaking difficulties for the user in VMs.
What else is hidden behind the woodwork w/ big little.
Intel's own response when a competitor (apple?) tried similar was ~"big little is what u do when u have problems with ur big processor (which they do - they are stuck at an ~8 core limit)"
I saw a post to the effect that this caused deal breaking difficulties for the user in VMs.
What else is hidden behind the woodwork w/ big little.
Intel's own response when a competitor (apple?) tried similar was ~"big little is what u do when u have problems with ur big processor (which they do - they are stuck at an ~8 core limit)"
Similar threads
- Locked
Latest posts
-
Cheyenne supercomputer sold to the highest bidder for $480,000- Steveb8189 replied
-
Corsair's latest pre-built gaming PC offers high-end hardware and a sleek design- GodisanAtheist replied
