The previous generation version of the Core i3-13100 was one of our favorite budget CPUs, so we're keen to see what this updated 13th-gen version has to offer.
https://www.techspot.com/review/2610-intel-core-i3-13100-vs-amd-ryzen-5600/
Intel Core i3-13100 vs. AMD Ryzen 5 5600: GPU Scaling Performance
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
So Intel is back in business with the old pricing 
In Europe that cpu cost 147$ and 12100f 113$. There is a same story with 13400f - 4-5 % improvment for 40$ more versus 12400f.
I can only recommend to skip this gen of cpus and gpus. Let that overpriced garbage root on the shelves
In Europe that cpu cost 147$ and 12100f 113$. There is a same story with 13400f - 4-5 % improvment for 40$ more versus 12400f.I can only recommend to skip this gen of cpus and gpus. Let that overpriced garbage root on the shelves
Last edited:
takaozo
Posts: 944 +1,479
To ensure that any game's performance in the test is 100% limited by the CPU's capabilities.
takaozo
Posts: 944 +1,479
This has logic until a certain point.
Like taking a 50cc 2BHP engine from a scooter and fitting it to a truck and expecting the truck to move. Also making a review about scaling without including all SKU's from both vendors looks like a waisted time. Scale from a 3050 to 4090 and from 6500 to 7900.
That really would be a waste of time! 4 CPUs, tested with 12 games, across 14 AMD GPUs and 17 Nvidia GPUs? That's 1488 individual benchmark runs; even if one just does a single test, lasting 90 seconds of gameplay, that's a total of 37 hours of non-stop benchmarking.
All that's truly required for a CPU face-off are two or three graphics cards, one from each vendor, that are powerful enough to ensure 100% CPU limitation in the tests. CPU reviews aren't about what CPU+GPU combination is best; it's about ensuring that one can see what difference there is between two central processors when all other variables (or as many as possible) have been removed or reduced to a minimum.
Anyway, this specific topic has been discussed more than enough times here.
Ludak021
Posts: 775 +590
To promote 6950XT, obviously. As you can see, sub $800 GPUs don't care if you are running i3, i5, ryzen 5,7, whatever.
takaozo
Posts: 944 +1,479
Beside the looks and the function, video cards from AMD and Nvidia are very different.
Gaming workloads on AMD cards scale better with AMD CPU's, last two gen's at least.
Correct the time needed for this king of analysis it's big. But at least 2 from each vendor are needed to come to a conclusion.
True, but I see only one Nvidia card here.
BadThad
Posts: 1,362 +1,637
Older hardware, older titles, same idea and concept...
How We Test: CPU Gaming Benchmarks
This a topic that's often raised when we do our CPU gaming benchmarks. As you know, we perform a ton of CPU and GPU benchmarks tests throughout...
www.techspot.com
Theinsanegamer
Posts: 5,440 +10,210
Amazing how when AMD starts pulling ahead in a review you see these bizzare comments appear out of nowhere.
WhiteLeaff
Posts: 469 +854
Mr Majestyk
Posts: 2,058 +1,903
LOL, what we learned is this is one of the most pathetic non-updates in cpu history, even by Intel standards. It's a disgrace it's even allowed to be called 13100.
Only 13600K and above are Raptor Lake, everything else is Alder Lake with a slight tweak.
Only 13600K and above are Raptor Lake, everything else is Alder Lake with a slight tweak.
Good article. You can still get adequate gaming performance out of even a 4 core and $150. But the 5600 is a much better general use processor, especially for the price.
Stardude82
Posts: 27 +6
Tray i5-12400T can be found for US$120, same boost speed as the i3-12100. It's an interesting option if you want to go with LGA1700. Running one with an 240mm AIO, the thing doesn't run above 35C under torture.
FreezingPC
Posts: 14 +10
Userbenchmark next ?
Thanks, very interesting article and certainly useful information !
Yes, but in this case, this is an interesting part of this article (maybe even just as a side effect):
You can see what CPU+GPU makes 'a lot of' sense, which combo 'maybe', and which combo 'doesn't' ...
With the 4090, it is clear that something (driver overhead ?) is causing performance issues (vs the 6950), so the question is if that effect would also be present with more mid-range Geforce cards ? And to what degree ?
What happens at the top end is clearly interesting, but in this case, it would have been also very useful to see an additional mid range Geforce (3060ti ?) next to the Radeon 6650.
Yes, but in this case, this is an interesting part of this article (maybe even just as a side effect):
You can see what CPU+GPU makes 'a lot of' sense, which combo 'maybe', and which combo 'doesn't' ...
With the 4090, it is clear that something (driver overhead ?) is causing performance issues (vs the 6950), so the question is if that effect would also be present with more mid-range Geforce cards ? And to what degree ?
What happens at the top end is clearly interesting, but in this case, it would have been also very useful to see an additional mid range Geforce (3060ti ?) next to the Radeon 6650.
https://www.techspot.com/article/2618-cpu-benchmarks-explained/
Techspot has their own article explaining this.
In short it is to ensure that the CPU is the bottleneck so you know you're comparing the performance of the CPUs only. This is the best way to determine which CPU is better by giving it as much performance headroom as possible with the fastest GPU available.
Similar threads
- Locked
Latest posts
-
Nintendo DMCA lawyers shut down everything Mario on Garry's Mod- stewi0001 replied
-
Generative AI could soon decimate the call center industry, says CEO- Uncle Al replied
