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

cristianm

Posts: 7   +15
I have to say that the 13600k has some big performance numbers, but the cooling solution used in the review costs almost as much as the cpu. Maybe when you make the perf/$ charts you also add the price of the cooler because it is not negligible. Even so, using a $250 water cooler the cpu throttles so probably using an average 70$ cooler the performance will crater, or maybe not, could you run some tests it using an air cooler?
 

Nobina

Posts: 4,051   +4,722
Impressive performance but for a mid-range product but these CPUs use way too much energy and produce a lot of heat. At some point you have to draw the line (haha).

Maybe if Nvidia got into CPUs they would make them more "green". ;)
 

error1984

Posts: 30   +44
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.
Everyone blamed Intel for stagnation with endless 4 core generations but....nobody pay attention now that AMD started to rise CPU prices starting from 5000 lineup. Lets not forget about budget segment which AMD left long time ago....they have abandoned market which kept them alive in Athlon and pathetic bulldozer era. Dont buy anything from them let that 7000 generation root on the shelves until they lower overpriced prices :)
 

Makste

Posts: 182   +132
Your graphs are so clear this time. Great work.

Intel has done a great job in the struggle for the low & mid range with these hybrid CPUs.
AMD is also doing fine. It only comes down to customer preference in my view.
 

toooooot

Posts: 1,833   +988
I like that QAMD has better integrated graphics. Or at least was.
If I need to replace a video card, that integrated gpu that can still run some games comfortably is a nice feature.
Also, with current gpus and the much heat they produce, low power consumption is much preferable.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,812   +1,492
Everyone blamed Intel for stagnation with endless 4 core generations but....nobody pay attention now that AMD started to rise CPU prices starting from 5000 lineup. Lets not forget about budget segment which AMD left long time ago....they have abandoned market which kept them alive in Athlon and pathetic bulldozer era. Dont buy anything from them let that 7000 generation root on the shelves until they lower overpriced prices :)
So when you have fastest CPUs that also run cool against Intel's 14nm++++++ CPUs and 6 year old architecture, you are not allowed to raise prices 🤦‍♂️ Hint: new CPU architectures and manufacturing techs do not come cheap.

AMD has not abandoned low end market but since GlobalFoundries f*cked up, AMD had no choice but prioritize more expensive products.
 

Mr Majestyk

Posts: 1,574   +1,484
How the times have changed. For real work, productivity is now massively in favour of Intel except for Adobe's crap software where they still can't cope with a lot of cores. In gaming 7600X is great and if they released a 7600X3D for $299 it would decimate the 13600K, but as Intel adds more and more E cores AMD will fall further and further behind if they don't go hybrid, which BTW I believe they are in Zen 5. It's possible 15600K will run 22 cores given top of the line specs are 48 cores, 8P + 40E. Of course power requirements will continue to rise, so I hope the 20A process node is very energy efficient as is the all new architecture.

If I was buying today it would be 13700K for sure. If I wait a quarter or so, I'll see where the 7900X3D lands in performance and price. AMD needs serious price cuts on specs alone, let alone total system costs.
 

AlaskaGuy

Posts: 754   +630
 

godrilla

Posts: 627   +339
The elephant in the room the 5800x3d is cheaper overall especially with the slower ram and uses the lowest power and still comes very competitive in gaming. Seems Intel's answer to Zen4 3d is the ks cpu which will be one power hungry throttle monster! While Zen 4 launch was luke warm in terms of sales I believe Zen 4 3d with B650 will be a real headache for intel.
 

flee2020

Posts: 42   +39
So, the Intel CPU uses an extra 90 watts, loses the average gaming comparison by a small margin, and uses more power to complete the Blender test. I would definitely pick the 7600X.
I think the power consumption issue is somewhat overplayed. How often do we run our CPUs at 100% utlisation? Most of the time games run at about 50-70% and if you are web browsing or doing light office work it is below 20%.

It is only when you do rendering work in Blender or Premier Pro does CPU utilisation rise. Even then, because the Intel processor is faster and has QuickSync, it does not need to spend so much time at high CPU utilisation rates.

Gamers would probably be better off with the 5800X3D or 7950X. The lesser members of the Zen 4 family will probably not be giving such good RoI as the Zen 3 chips.
 

b3rdm4n

Posts: 96   +76
AM-gree-D. Definitely seeing more and more of what they're capable of now that they're not seconds from collapsing. 5600X/7600X prices, the 6500XT... some of the debarkles surrounding AM4 CPU support, the SAM branding... Our value champion of yesteryear needs a reality check.
 

AlaskaGuy

Posts: 754   +630
The elephant in the room the 5800x3d is cheaper overall especially with the slower ram and uses the lowest power and still comes very competitive in gaming. Seems Intel's answer to Zen4 3d is the ks cpu which will be one power hungry throttle monster! While Zen 4 launch was luke warm in terms of sales I believe Zen 4 3d with B650 will be a real headache for intel.
The 5800x3d is great at gaming but sucks at everything else.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,812   +1,492
How the times have changed. For real work, productivity is now massively in favour of Intel except for Adobe's crap software where they still can't cope with a lot of cores. In gaming 7600X is great and if they released a 7600X3D for $299 it would decimate the 13600K, but as Intel adds more and more E cores AMD will fall further and further behind if they don't go hybrid, which BTW I believe they are in Zen 5. It's possible 15600K will run 22 cores given top of the line specs are 48 cores, 8P + 40E. Of course power requirements will continue to rise, so I hope the 20A process node is very energy efficient as is the all new architecture.
Not at all. Considering manufacturing costs and power consumption,
7900X and 13600K are around same ballpark. 7600X is just way too cold and cheap to put against 13600K. So even without any hybrids, Intel is way behind.

AMD also cares much more about server side than desktops. Intel have no chance on servers so they decided to slap E cores to be even remotely competitive and even when using them, Intel must cut prices heavily to be somewhat competitive. Not to mention E cores are useless for anything else than simple workloads, those that are also suitable for GPUs.

AMD will use hybrid cores aka 4C cores on Zen4 server chips already. They are also quite much same as Zen4 cores, not trash as Intel's E cores.
The 5800x3d is great at gaming but sucks at everything else.
Cache question. There are apps that want big cache and 5800X3D is good on them too.
 

Raendor

Posts: 31   +23
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.
It made me smile to see the edit :D
 

godrilla

Posts: 627   +339
The 5800x3d is great at gaming but sucks at everything else.
True but a 12 core and 16 core zen 4 3d chip will likely take take advantage of this opportunity and should scale with your needs. If you only game the 8 core part is all you need although a 6 core Zen 3d cpu will also likely be great for budget friendly builds but I don't hear anything about this being offered well at least initially.
The 5800x3d is ideal for anyone already on am4 for gaming. Imo AM5 is the most future proofing platform and should allow an upgrade path to a 2025 cpu flagship ( zen 6 3d ) potentially. Sure the Z 790 platform is competitive in the current sense with need for expensive cooling, high power utilization, and expensive ram to achieve this compared to am5 should potentially compete with even meteorlake successor.
 
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.
Finally lol I HAVE to make complete build and I've been stocking Price's non stop. All cdn. 179$ 32gb ddr5, 279$ MB, 409$ 7600x,109$ 1tb ssd, 4thgen, 99$Psu ,80$ cpu cooler and I have a case case already that was 114. No matter how you put it there's no way of making this more than an extra hour a day at work for 7-8 day's. And I only make 58 cent's more than minimum wage.
 

Alfatawi Mendel

Posts: 242   +376
"Platform costs - CPU + RAM + Motherboard should read CPU + RAM + Motherboard + Cooler, given the power running through these systems.
 

Roboyt0

Posts: 35   +62
How do these new CPUs fair with a much more modest cooling solution? That 360mm MSI liquid cooler is currently $241 in the USA.

Intel obviously gets the 'W' here in productivity albeit with a fairly healthy increase in power draw. A test against the two with the same power limits in place would be interesting to see. The i5 is blazingly faster in certain multi-core workloads, but how much of that advantage is due to the additional 70W of power draw?

It also seems like the platform cost is being beat to death (everyw)here, but there are plenty of B650 boards that are substantially less than $290. In terms of VRM capability, even the $170 ASRock B650M PG Riptide has a 12-phase (600A) which should handle anything thrown at it.

There's the argument of not having PCIe 5.0...but what benefits does it really bring in terms of performance? Yes there is the potential argument of 'platform longevity', however PCIe 3.0 is barely saturated with the majority of graphics cards leaving 4.0 as more than sufficient. Additionally there are extremely limited beneficial use cases for PCIe 4.0 storage; let alone 5.0. Motherboard cost for BOTH platforms can be less with B-series boards.

You also run different RAM between Intel and AMD. I understand AMD said DDR5-6000 was the 'sweet spot' for performance, but why limit the AMD system? Also it looks like the cheapest 6400 CL32 is a little more expensive, $26, than the cheapest 6000 CL30 at US Newegg presently. It's not a huge difference, but nearly $30 is worth mentioning.

DDR5 prices can fall drastically with lower speeds and timings; 32GB DDR5-5600 CL36 for $150. Is a 6000/6400 kit with tighter timings worth the extra 50+ percent price hike? How soon before you post an article for DDR5 speed/latency comparisons for both Intel and AMD?

GuruOf3D has an article comparing 4800/CL42, 5200/CL40 and 6000/CL30 with Ryzen 7700X which really only saw 'meaningful' benefits in 1080P gaming with a 3090. Productivity apps they tested saw nearly 0 improvements with the significantly faster/tighter RAM.
 

AlaskaGuy

Posts: 754   +630
How do these new CPUs fair with a much more modest cooling solution? That 360mm MSI liquid cooler is currently $241 in the USA.

Intel obviously gets the 'W' here in productivity albeit with a fairly healthy increase in power draw. A test against the two with the same power limits in place would be interesting to see. The i5 is blazingly faster in certain multi-core workloads, but how much of that advantage is due to the additional 70W of power draw?

It also seems like the platform cost is being beat to death (everyw)here, but there are plenty of B650 boards that are substantially less than $290. In terms of VRM capability, even the $170 ASRock B650M PG Riptide has a 12-phase (600A) which should handle anything thrown at it.

There's the argument of not having PCIe 5.0...but what benefits does it really bring in terms of performance? Yes there is the potential argument of 'platform longevity', however PCIe 3.0 is barely saturated with the majority of graphics cards leaving 4.0 as more than sufficient. Additionally there are extremely limited beneficial use cases for PCIe 4.0 storage; let alone 5.0. Motherboard cost for BOTH platforms can be less with B-series boards.

You also run different RAM between Intel and AMD. I understand AMD said DDR5-6000 was the 'sweet spot' for performance, but why limit the AMD system? Also it looks like the cheapest 6400 CL32 is a little more expensive, $26, than the cheapest 6000 CL30 at US Newegg presently. It's not a huge difference, but nearly $30 is worth mentioning.

DDR5 prices can fall drastically with lower speeds and timings; 32GB DDR5-5600 CL36 for $150. Is a 6000/6400 kit with tighter timings worth the extra 50+ percent price hike? How soon before you post an article for DDR5 speed/latency comparisons for both Intel and AMD?

GuruOf3D has an article comparing 4800/CL42, 5200/CL40 and 6000/CL30 with Ryzen 7700X which really only saw 'meaningful' benefits in 1080P gaming with a 3090. Productivity apps they tested saw nearly 0 improvements with the significantly faster/tighter RAM.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07WNJCVNW
ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 360 AIO $115.49
 
Nah, they don't need to change prices at all. They know the 5800X3D is the best value out there for users who are still on the AM4 platform without a more recent CPU. Arguably if you're buying new you could also buy now end of life hardware for cheaper. The price comparison doesn't factor in some of the b450 boards. Sales and discounts for an outgoing generation, etc.

5800x3d also covers your needs for years. So if you can find a good deal on those parts...funny as it sounds...it's a better value. Also power consumption is way better on those too.

Basically the only reason anyone should even look at any of the current generation CPUs be it AMD or Intel, is if you're in the position of building a new system.

For upgrades? Hard pass on this generation. Wait and see what the next one brings. That's pretty much the bottom line here. That's why they don't have to touch their prices.

They also kinda can't. They're going to announce the 7000 series x3d soon. Based on these very benchmarks, it's likely that a 7700x3d or 7950x3d or whatever they label it, will destroy everything Intel has in terms of gaming. Let's be real here - most people are getting these CPUs for gaming. Which sure, arguably the GPU is the more important component...all the more reason to skip on this overpriced nonsense and wait.

That's what I did. Full intention to upgrade this fall to AM5 or even Intel because I would be in need of new motherboard anyway. I noped out of that one, got a 5800x3d and will now go hibernate for a few years. See if the market is better then.

Terrible time to buy a CPU.