Unfortunately, besides gaming, it kinda does. I smell some price cuts for Zen 4 mid range CPUs fairly soon.From the article:
Yet from the YouTube thumbnail:
Seriously, annihilate?!
Intel Core i7-13700K Review: Ryzen 7 7700X Versus
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
Their cost analysis is off. They charge 280$ for amd ram and 200$ for Intel.
Ive got both platforms at my job and you can use the same ram between. By doing this here, it skews the whole table.
Don't think it's malicious or maybe not even intentional. They likely just forgot to update the cost on the amd side when the Intel chips came out.
Either way, they are pretty close. I'd personally choose the 7700x because the Intel is a dead platform and Im power and thermal conscious, but both are pretty evenly matched. Cheers.
Ive got both platforms at my job and you can use the same ram between. By doing this here, it skews the whole table.
Don't think it's malicious or maybe not even intentional. They likely just forgot to update the cost on the amd side when the Intel chips came out.
Either way, they are pretty close. I'd personally choose the 7700x because the Intel is a dead platform and Im power and thermal conscious, but both are pretty evenly matched. Cheers.
Different tasks, though. One can't assume that the same power consumption is taking place.
The above graph, hastily cobbled together, shows the total energy consumption in kilojoules for the Blender test (time taken x power consumption).
zecoeco
Posts: 12 +22
A 16 core CPU (13700K) versus an 8 core cCPU (7700X)..?
The comparison should be with the 7900X a 12 core CPU, still beats or equals the 13700K.
Cores are still cores, small or big, P or E, they'll give the advantage in multi-threaded workloads.
The comparison should be with the 7900X a 12 core CPU, still beats or equals the 13700K.
Cores are still cores, small or big, P or E, they'll give the advantage in multi-threaded workloads.
It's so interesting to see how the tables turned only in a few CPU generations. Intel chips now actually equal or surpass their competitors in multi core workloads. Gaming performance is very good too. That said, I like the 13700k and 13600k much better than the 13900k. I'd have liked them more if they were more energy efficient though.
The Ryzen 9 7900X has an MSRP of $549; the Ryzen 7 7700X is $399. Intel's tray price of $409 to $419 puts it between the two, but it's closer to the 7700X in price than the 7900X. Price & performance matters more than total thread count or at the very least, that's what Intel believes otherwise they wouldn't have pitched the 13700K's price at this level.
P and E cores are not equal in terms of performance (they're not even clocked the same, for example), regardless of what multithreaded support it all offers.
zecoeco
Posts: 12 +22
And that's the only difference, price point.
But cores are still cores, and intel have the advantage.
Of course, weaker cores to keep the price down
You just can't deny that, even weaker cores still make difference.
Zen 5 will likely adapt the hybrid architecture and it'll be interesting..
Didn't deny anything. Simply explained why the 7700X was chosen as the reference point.
NeoMorpheus
Posts: 1,502 +3,255
All that is irrelevant.
What matters is the end result, which in this case is being able to use stupid titles like "Intel annihilates AMD!".
Maybe someone else should make a video of an EPYC 9754 vs
Intel® Celeron N3350 and then use the same title, just reversing the names...
/S In case that is needed, plus the smiley face
Last edited:
samlebon2306
Posts: 19 +24
And throw AVX512 in the mix, then come back for a discussion. Oh, and, please, limit the power consumption.
"it can be paired with cheaper DDR4 memory on more affordable Z690 motherboards, so that's a big win in the value department"
-----------------------------------------
I ve never upgraded a CPU alone.
It is not practical if you upgrade in cycles of 3 years or more.
It does not make sense. You buy 13700k which is not a cheap cpu, but decide to save on everything else like ram and motherboard?
I also checked motherboards for both new am5 and z790s. They are about the same in price.
I think we have very even rivals this time. The only pro there is the heat. I assume people who buy one of these cpus will also want to upgrade to upper class video card. And less heat with AMD cpu sounds like a good bonus.
-----------------------------------------
I ve never upgraded a CPU alone.
It is not practical if you upgrade in cycles of 3 years or more.
It does not make sense. You buy 13700k which is not a cheap cpu, but decide to save on everything else like ram and motherboard?
I also checked motherboards for both new am5 and z790s. They are about the same in price.
I think we have very even rivals this time. The only pro there is the heat. I assume people who buy one of these cpus will also want to upgrade to upper class video card. And less heat with AMD cpu sounds like a good bonus.
I know 6000 is the recommended sweet spot for AMD. Not sure why the Intel is higher, as I believe their "standard" support is 5600 out of the box.
I tend to agree with your overall premise. On the mobo front, you can go with a Z690 and save money compared to 790. Only thing you're giving up is Gen 5 support for M.2. Not really that big of a deal right now and by the time you need it you'll be upgrading the system anyway.
NeoMorpheus
Posts: 1,502 +3,255
Now I wonder how that helps Intel in this case.
Avro Arrow
Posts: 3,594 +4,635
Why are new CPUs not selling? They've become insanely overkill as a result of hardware outpacing software for the past ten years or so. When a 7 year-old GPU (R9 Fury) can play Godfall at 1080p high settings:
And a 12 year-old CPU (FX-8350) can still game in many titles:
And then of course, there's the amazing competency of AM4:
Look at these numbers... not a single minimum under 60fps! Hell, an AM4 CPU (R7-5800X3D) has a minimum frame rate of over 100fps in the ultimate CPU-killing game, Total War: Warhammer 2 according to OC3D. For 99.9999% of people, this means that what they have will be good for years to come. Hell, my next upgrade will be to the R7-5800X3D because I'm VERY happy with my current R7-5700X. I'll probably grab a 5800X3D before they don't exist anymore and leave it in the box for a few years because by the time I'm wanting DDR5, we'll be on Zen5 or Zen6 and prices will have fallen off of a cliff by then.
Look at these numbers... not a single minimum under 60fps! Hell, an AM4 CPU (R7-5800X3D) has a minimum frame rate of over 100fps in the ultimate CPU-killing game, Total War: Warhammer 2 according to OC3D. For 99.9999% of people, this means that what they have will be good for years to come. Hell, my next upgrade will be to the R7-5800X3D because I'm VERY happy with my current R7-5700X. I'll probably grab a 5800X3D before they don't exist anymore and leave it in the box for a few years because by the time I'm wanting DDR5, we'll be on Zen5 or Zen6 and prices will have fallen off of a cliff by then.
Last edited:
It may help a little, but I doubt it's more than 1 or 2% at best.
Honest question, did you say the same thing when Ryzen was released and first brought 6 and 8-core CPUs to mainstream prices, like did you think that comparing the $170 Ryzen 5 1400 to the $350 i7 7700K would more fair than comparing the i7 to the similarly priced R7 1700, and that the 1600 and 1700 should've been compared to Intel HEDT?
A huge point of the first gen Ryzen and Alder/Raptor Lake for me is bringing higher thread count CPUs to a lower price point, ignoring that and comparing it to more expensive CPUs that have the same amount of threads doesn't make sense to me.
True, the first gen Ryzens brought in better multi-threaded performance at a lower cost. Something Intel had ignored for years.
But still, a fair mano-a-mano comparison with the 7700x would limit the 13700k to just 8 P cores. Otherwise you're just comparing them on a cost basis, not a technical basis.
I think of an Intel four E core cluster as a single core that can handle 4 threads. After all, four E cores occupy the same space as one P core. From that perspective, the 13700k is a 10 core processor (8P + 4E + 4E). Of course a 10 core will beat an 8 core like the 7700x in productivity benchmarks.
I would not be surprised if Intel sells the 13th gen below cost. They have very deep pockets and have historically had no qualms using price incentives and manipulation to drive competitors out.
IMHO platform longevity is most important. AM4 was launched in Sept 2016 and is still a great value. Contrast that with the Rocket Lake platform. It was launched March 2021 and is already passe'. They need to shell out for an entirely new platform. It's funny to hear people who spent a lot of money on Rocket Lake criticize AMD for high priced motherboards. If they had just bought into AM4 in 2016 they would be sitting pretty.
But computer DIY is not an expensive hobby. People spend far more on cars, motorcycles and vacations. It's all fun.
NeoMorpheus
Posts: 1,502 +3,255
Intel, thanks to their monopoly obtained via many illegal tactics, decided to starve us from having CPU's with more cores until AMD started fighting back with Ryzen.
Now is the other way around for Intel, being the d!cks they are, they are now giving us more cores for less money than AMD is currently charging.
The problem with that is, as usual, Intel will force you to replace your motherboard right away for any upgrades, plus you will pay out of your behind for the power bill.
But the best part is, I know how Intel behaves when on top, so I will do the darnest to make sure they dont get away with that, because we will then go back to 4 core hell with them.
m3tavision
Posts: 1,159 +965
But if you look at single-thread and gaming results you can already know that the 13700K is slightly faster than the 7700X even without the E-cores. And they cost basically the same while the 13700K comes with the extra E-cores.
I hated that Intel did that, and criticized them heavily for their thread count deficit at lower price points until they finally matched AMD with Comet Lake.
While I dislike that Intel only has 2 generations per board, I don't think it's a big issue, I consider the platform longevity to be a bonus, not a necessity, I won't buy a platform that is more expensive with a slower CPU just because I might be able to upgrade without buying a new motherboard, which is the case currently for AM5. I usually don't really consider upgrading my CPU that fast, so most of the time I would be looking into the next platform anyway.
Efficiency is similar on both AMD and Intel currently, with AMD having a small lead on high-end CPUs when comparing at similar power limits. Stock is horrible with both Zen4 and Raptor Lake, but Raptor Lake is for sure the much worse offender. I wouldn't consider using neither without tweaking power limits.
And AMD increased the CPUs pricing massively as soon as they were in the lead in performance with Ryzen 5000. And they have yet to increase the core count below ~$400 ever since Ryzen was first released. I don't want neither to be at the top alone, I dislike Intel, but it's not like I like AMD but I will still always buy the best CPU in my budget regardless if it's AMD or Intel.
m3tavision
Posts: 1,159 +965
Thinking that the CPU is the heart of your system is so flaws.
You buy the best mobo & Socket... and over time update & upgrade as you see fit. Buying an outdated mobo (no matter how good the CPU is) is a wasting money. It means you have to buy another new mobo and CPU and rip your whole rig apart in the future... just to upgrade the CPU.
LGA17 & AM4 are both dead platforms. There is a reason Intel is coming out with a new Socket in 7 months to compete with AM5...
You buy the best mobo & Socket... and over time update & upgrade as you see fit. Buying an outdated mobo (no matter how good the CPU is) is a wasting money. It means you have to buy another new mobo and CPU and rip your whole rig apart in the future... just to upgrade the CPU.
LGA17 & AM4 are both dead platforms. There is a reason Intel is coming out with a new Socket in 7 months to compete with AM5...
Similar threads
