Intel Core i5-13600K vs. AMD Ryzen 5 7600X

DSirius

Posts: 380   +795
TechSpot Elite
Finally a great budget, [Edited] mainstream, processor for everybody.
Intel surprised us and managed to offer a processor which please users not just investors.
What I like most of Intel 13th gen processors is the better price than AMD Zen4.
It seems that nowadays AMD has a worse financial team than Intel.
Thank you for the review, and indeed, AMD need to cut prices and retire financial team which came with those milking prices especially for MB.
 
Last edited:

Raendor

Posts: 31   +23
Finally a great budget processor for everybody.
Intel surprised us and managed to offer a processor which please users not just investors.
What I like most of Intel 13th gen processors is the better price than AMD Zen4.
It seems that nowadays AMD has a worse financial team than Intel.
Thank you for the review, and indeed, AMD need to cut prices and retire financial team which came with those milking prices especially for MB.

It’s not budget priced by any means though despite being i5, albeit it’s a damn good and powerful cpu. The budget solution has always been non-k i5 delivering real-life performance with almost no difference to higher models in stack. We used to have i7 for that same price couple years ago. Right now it’s close to 400 in Europe with f version around 30 cheaper. I will in no way call it budget. Mainstream? Probably.
 

neeyik

Posts: 2,418   +2,953
Staff member
I have no doubt at least one person will ask for this :)

13600K_energy_consumption.png

Core i5-13600K is the orange bar, Ryzen 5 7600X is the turquoise one.
 

dangh

Posts: 851   +1,444
With release of B650 motherboards all the value graph are going to change strongly.
Best option, as usually, is to wait a few months to get better prices and better choice. This is a first time in years for AMD to switch the socket, and there are understandable growing pains and early adoption premium.
 

R00sT3R

Posts: 773   +2,403
I'd still go for the AMD setup with the promise of 'Jam Tomorrow'.

2 more CPU generations of support will give your PC much longer lasting legs, whilst Raptor Lake socket support will be dead in 12-18mths with nothing but the prospect of moving up to a 13900K, to max out your options.

..and I'm willing to bet the '8600X' will outgun the 13900K.
 

neeyik

Posts: 2,418   +2,953
Staff member
7600X with a decent B650 motherboard is even better value right?
Depending on where one lives, there's not much between them.

For example, using the UK version of PCPartPicker, a Ryzen 5 7600X with an ASRock B560M PG Riptide motherboard, and 2 x 8GB of Kingston Fury DDR5-6000 DIMMs comes to £624 (inc. VAT).

A Core i5-13600K with an MSI B660M-A WiFi motherboard and the same RAM comes to £652. That £30 difference could easily swing either way, depending on the motherboard one chooses to get.
 

neeyik

Posts: 2,418   +2,953
Staff member
Can something be done in coloring the charts in order to identify the direct compared products?
It gets very messy, very quickly, when multiple colours are used to track different vendors/models. I experimented with alternating AMD/Intel colours and found it to be pretty yucky -- different eyes may have a different view, of course.
 

takaozo

Posts: 513   +811
It gets very messy, very quickly, when multiple colours are used to track different vendors/models. I experimented with alternating AMD/Intel colours and found it to be pretty yucky -- different eyes may have a different view, of course.
It's understandable when you only review one product, but not when direct comparing two items and only one it's highlighted.
At least make all bars the same colour and underline the compared products if colors are "yucky". Otherwise it will look that the different one is prefered/better than the other.
 

Dr Roboto

Posts: 63   +156
For the author, food for thought. I am not sure that the idea of a 12 game average of FPS is statistically appropriate in how you compare the two processors. It gives an artificial and unequal weighting to the games that score 500 FPS vs. the ones that score closer to 100 FPS. I think that normalizing the FPS relative to the highest FPS for each game (max score per game is 1.0) and then averaging them would be a much better measurement across multiple games. That way you are looking at the relative % difference in performance.

My two cents to help improve an already great review. Keep up the good work.
 

Thatsdisgusting

Posts: 102   +151
I wish people would again realize that over 500$ for mediocre, absolutely mid-tier platform IS NOT OK.
...if not low-end considering the cheapest B motherboards
 

kapital98

Posts: 414   +381
For the author, food for thought. I am not sure that the idea of a 12 game average of FPS is statistically appropriate in how you compare the two processors. It gives an artificial and unequal weighting to the games that score 500 FPS vs. the ones that score closer to 100 FPS. I think that normalizing the FPS relative to the highest FPS for each game (max score per game is 1.0) and then averaging them would be a much better measurement across multiple games. That way you are looking at the relative % difference in performance.

My two cents to help improve an already great review. Keep up the good work.

I've often thought the same thing when reading Steve or Tim's work. However, there are generally only 1 or 2 extreme outliers (CS:GO is by far the worst). So... my 2 cents: normalizing the data would only make it more difficult for those guys without making any significant impact on their analysis. Even the small things (like adding an extra equation) could significantly increase the work they need to do prior to big launches.

IMO, it just makes more sense to get rid of the obvious outliers. But, once again, CS:GO is an outlier in more than one way.
 

madboyv1

Posts: 1,826   +763
A minor typo at the very very end:
As enticing as the AM5 platform is, if we were building a new PC today, for either gaming or work, we'd be going with the Core i5-13600K, it's the obvious choice, just as the 12600K was when we reviewed it back in late 2012.
I believe you meant 2600K, which yeah, the 2500K and 2600K were absolute beasts for their time.
 
Last edited:

neeyik

Posts: 2,418   +2,953
Staff member
I am not sure that the idea of a 12 game average of FPS is statistically appropriate in how you compare the two processors. It gives an artificial and unequal weighting to the games that score 500 FPS vs. the ones that score closer to 100 FPS.
This is why the geometric, not arithmetic, mean is used to calculate the averages. The former is less sensitive to additive outliers than the former.
 

Braustard

Posts: 14   +38
I think the conclusion of this article is not completely objective, the 13600k is not a smart choice cause its power consumption is horrible and it will add more COSTS, I think the best option is to wait until we see better prices on AM5 motherboards. Also as a current user of AM4 platform the investment was worth it, these Z6XX and Z7XX are obsolete from now on.
 

MarcusNumb

Posts: 108   +179
It seems to me that at this "round", power consumption put aside, Intel seems to "win" in general. But, let us all remember that AM5 is a new platform, so it's important to see how they mature. If the AM5 can mature and age as well as AM4, the next 2 years will be AMD's golden age.
For me, I'm not convinced by any new CPUs to upgrade my 3600x xD. In fact, I'm thinking about upgrading to the 5700x and call it a day for my gaming rigs. A 3070ti, 16g ram and a 5700x will be more than enough for 1080p or 1440p gaming in the next 5 years at least xD
 

Dr Roboto

Posts: 63   +156
I've often thought the same thing when reading Steve or Tim's work. However, there are generally only 1 or 2 extreme outliers (CS:GO is by far the worst). So... my 2 cents: normalizing the data would only make it more difficult for those guys without making any significant impact on their analysis. Even the small things (like adding an extra equation) could significantly increase the work they need to do prior to big launches.

IMO, it just makes more sense to get rid of the obvious outliers. But, once again, CS:GO is an outlier in more than one way.
This is a very minor point given the great article, but let me try a bit more. I just see it as an apples and oranges comparison when using FPS across different games. The absolute FPS in one game is not really comparable to the FPS in another game. You can't accurately compare the idea that one CPU can achieve 50 more FPS in a game that has a max of 400 FPS to that same 50 FPS differential in a game that max's out at 100 FPS. Thus, the idea of averaging them together just does not work IMO. I get that saying FPS is "simple" but I just don't think it is accurate.

I think that what you're really after is the "relative performance." If you are comparing all the CPUs, then normalize with the highest score for that test. In an article like this, then it would make more sense to normalize around the AMD or Intel CPU. Then you can say, that on average, the 13600K performs x% better/worse relative to the 7600X across the 12 game sample. Super simple IMO. I hope that it just adds one more column to their spreadsheet. Well, that is my thought. Hope it helps.
 

Dr Roboto

Posts: 63   +156
This is why the geometric, not arithmetic, mean is used to calculate the averages. The former is less sensitive to additive outliers than the former.
Thanks for the feedback. It is not clear in your article that is how you do it. It just states "average." I am sure your approach suitably meets the needs of the article and my argument is pedantic. I still like the normalization approach, but cheers for your use of the geometric mean.