7600X was mis-labeled as 8core/16threads in that chart

Plus no need to worry about Bug11 and any software compatibility issues caused by the Hybrid core architecture.

Looks like for the big spenders, it's going to be pretty close between the 7950x and 13900k.

CrackongPlus no need to worry about Bug11 and any software compatibility issues caused by the Hybrid core architecture.

Just 1 million Ageesa updates to worry about, they still release them now for AM3 even after all this time.

AM4isGODLooks like for the big spenders, it's going to be pretty close between the 7950x and 13900k.



Just 1 million Ageesa updates to worry about, they still release them now for AM3 even after all this time.

Not to mention some of them will break bios settings, even from backup, so you'll have to photo your entire tune and reenter them.

Geekbench is highly memory sensitive. My stock 12900k gets 2050 point in st so... Yeah.

the problem of 13900k is how long can sustain those oc clocks LOL

Will the 13900K be priced at $699?

I really hate these PR stunts. I'll wait for the actual reviews before thinking about upgrading.

The Core i5-13600K is as fast as the Ryzen 9 5950X?

Ryzen 5 7600X 6-core / 12-thread will have very serious problems to be competitive.

AMD is in a trouble!

ARFThe Core i5-13600K is as fast as the Ryzen 9 5950X?

Ryzen 5 7600X 6-core / 12-thread will have very serious problems to be competitive.

AMD is in a trouble!

Did you miss the part where this chart literally includes scores for the 7600X? Yes, it's mislabeled as 8c16t, but that is likely a typo on VideoCardz' end. Intel definitely has an MT advantage thanks to the E cores, but the ST performance of that 7600X is still damn impressive. Looks like it'll be a fantastic choice for gamers - and very, very promising for lower end chips coming further down the line.

ValantarDid you miss the part where this chart literally includes scores for the 7600X? Yes, it's mislabeled as 8c16t, but that is likely a typo on VideoCardz' end. Intel definitely has an MT advantage thanks to the E cores, but the ST performance of that 7600X is still damn impressive. Looks like it'll be a fantastic choice for gamers - and very, very promising for lower end chips coming further down the line.

No one will buy the poor 6-core instead of the far superior Core i5-13600K.
You are looking at performance difference +50% and lower cost!

ValantarDid you miss the part where this chart literally includes scores for the 7600X? Yes, it's mislabeled as 8c16t, but that is likely a typo on VideoCardz' end. Intel definitely has an MT advantage thanks to the E cores, but the ST performance of that 7600X is still damn impressive. Looks like it'll be a fantastic choice for gamers - and very, very promising for lower end chips coming further down the line.

isn't that stock configs? because you can OC the 13600 further then the 7600x

"Crushes" is bit overstretch in my opinion. The difference it's not so big.

Lots of different results floating around already.

TheLostSwedeLots of different results floating around already.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1564660482681802755

Someone will argue that's unfair because it's not using latest Z790 motherboard :rolleyes:

ARFNo one will buy the poor 6-core instead of the far superior Core i5-13600K.
You are looking at performance difference +50% and lower cost!

The higher core count is definitely an argument for the 13600K, yes, and AMD will need to price the 7600X accordingly. 6c12t is still plenty for gaming and most regular use though - most people don't do frequent video renders or heavy multitasking. But if you do, the 13600K is clearly a better option (assuming it's not a ton more expensive). As for your "lower cost" thing ... you're talking about an unreleased CPU, where are you getting pricing from?

Bomby569isn't that stock configs? because you can OC the 13600 further then the 7600x

How on earth do you know that, when speaking of two unreleased CPUs on brand new nodes with brand new architectures? Intel traditionally has more OC headroom, sure, but ... so what? We can't just expect that to continue forward given these fundamental changes, especially seeing how both these new CPU families are pushing clocks higher than ever before. It is possible that this is true, but you're talking as if this is established knowledge, which is just BS. Also, of course, >99% of users run stock. Heck, most users don't even enable XMP. Stock configs matter a lot.

ARFThe Core i5-13600K is as fast as the Ryzen 9 5950X?

Ryzen 5 7600X 6-core / 12-thread will have very serious problems to be competitive.

AMD is in a trouble!

Do you think before you spew fanboyish BS?

LionheartDo you think before you spew fanboyish BS?

Says the fanboy :D

ValantarThe higher core count is definitely an argument for the 13600K, yes, and AMD will need to price the 7600X accordingly. 6c12t is still plenty for gaming and most regular use though - most people don't do frequent video renders or heavy multitasking. But if you do, the 13600K is clearly a better option (assuming it's not a ton more expensive). As for your "lower cost" thing ... you're talking about an unreleased CPU, where are you getting pricing from?

It has been discussed already that the intel platform cost will be lower..

What do you mean by this cliche "unreleased"? What is not released? We know everything already!

How fair was it from AMD anyway to compare with intel CPU's from 2021.
Ok , Raptor Lake wasn't out yet, now waiting for Raptor Lake little boys.....

A next-generation CPU defeats a current-generation one in a benchmark that is fundamentally useless shit... time for another btarunr headline!

Both Intel and AMD will have to be competitive in pricing if they wish to lure people to buy their CPU's this generation. The performance seems to be similar, so the only factor will be performance to price ratio!

tfdsafBoth Intel and AMD will have to be competitive in pricing if they wish to lure people to buy their CPU's this generation. The performance seems to be similar, so the only factor will be performance to price ratio!

...Plus power consumption.

ValantarHow on earth do you know that, when speaking of two unreleased CPUs on brand new nodes with brand new architectures? Intel traditionally has more OC headroom, sure, but ... so what? We can't just expect that to continue forward given these fundamental changes, especially seeing how both these new CPU families are pushing clocks higher than ever before. It is possible that this is true, but you're talking as if this is established knowledge, which is just BS. Also, of course, >99% of users run stock. Heck, most users don't even enable XMP. Stock configs matter a lot.

By AMD's own words and charts nothing actually changed besides a smaller node and some optimizations, it's exactly the same cpu. So i don't expect any changes there neither should you.

AssimilatorA next-generation CPU defeats a current-generation one in a benchmark that is fundamentally useless shit... time for another btarunr headline!

The same can be said when people were comparing Alder Lake with Zen 3 which was around for almost a year. The point is that it is not uncommon to compare new with competitors' fastest solution at the given point in time. So I actually don't see any problem. Till Intel launches Raptor Lake, it is factual that Alder Lake is the fastest retail CPU and the best comparison.

Having said that, I think we should wait for official results, and ultimately, independent and official review/comparison of Zen 4 and Raptor Lake. I sense both will be very close in terms of performance if we are looking at the top end, i.e. i7 and i9 vs Ryzen 9. Intel may have the advantage of more physical cores in the form of efficient cores to give them a bump in multicore performance. However if the E-cores pretty much stick to the "Skylake" level performance, then the much faster Zen 4 cores would surely close the gap between what we see now when comparing Alder Lake with Zen 3.

in 2 words "Im impressed" but a tad worried about the power draw.