Amazing! Thank you very much!True. Please refresh. Thanks for the feedback.
14 core CPU vs 6 core CPU... lol
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 pricesIt’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.
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.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
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%.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.
The 5800x3d is great at gaming but sucks at everything else.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.
Not at all. Considering manufacturing costs and power consumption,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 $299 it would decimate the 13600K, but as Intel adds more and more E cores AMD will fall further and further behind if they don't go hybrid, which BTW I believe they are in Zen 5. It's possible 15600K will run 22 cores given top of the line specs are 48 cores, 8P + 40E. Of course power requirements will continue to rise, so I hope the 20A process node is very energy efficient as is the all new architecture.
Cache question. There are apps that want big cache and 5800X3D is good on them too.The 5800x3d is great at gaming but sucks at everything else.
It made me smile to see the editFinally a great budget, [Edited] mainstream, processor for everybody.
Intel surprised us and managed to offer a processor which please users not just investors.
What I like most of Intel 13th gen processors is the better price than AMD Zen4.
It seems that nowadays AMD has a worse financial team than Intel.
Thank you for the review, and indeed, AMD need to cut prices and retire financial team which came with those milking prices especially for MB.
True but a 12 core and 16 core zen 4 3d chip will likely take take advantage of this opportunity and should scale with your needs. If you only game the 8 core part is all you need although a 6 core Zen 3d cpu will also likely be great for budget friendly builds but I don't hear anything about this being offered well at least initially.The 5800x3d is great at gaming but sucks at everything else.
Finally lol I HAVE to make complete build and I've been stocking Price's non stop. All cdn. 179$ 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.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.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07WNJCVNWHow 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.