Intel Core i5-13600K and Core i7-13700K QS CPUs Benchmarked

[Palladium]

What are you going to game on in the bunker?

in that case you would be a billionaire anyway and should be more worried about your guards murdering you when you least expect.

Don't forget Intel announced 20% price increase for just before launch.

We are all really just guessing. Even Intel and AMD are guessing (the other side's strategy).

I call and even fight, both in benches, and in price/perf. Both sides will have wins and losses. So it's down to marketing and adjusting prices

IMHO, if it ends up like that, it's actually good for everyone. (And I'll probably go for AMD just betting in AM5 longevity)

Edit: One thing Intel will obviously keep doing worse is power efficiency. But 80% ppl or more will just ignore it because it's desktop

I don't really care since I very doubt any of their new offerings will even reach the overall/$ levels of my $150 (now $140) 5600 non-X.

 

[Wirko]

It's interesting how DDR5 does not seem to make a significant difference comparing to DDR4, in a big picture. Why is this?

We'll know more when someone (like W122ard) runs the chips through some tests with both types of RAM. It should be done using same frequency, latencies and gear ratio, or close to that.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Edit: One thing Intel will obviously keep doing worse is power efficiency. But 80% ppl or more will just ignore it because it's desktop

Efficiency is a tricky one to measure.

Suppose that a processor uses a constant 100 watts to complete a workload in one minute, but another one uses 75 watts to complete a workload in one minute and 20 seconds. The 100W processor is then more efficient than the 75W one.

A faster core that chugs power but completes a task quicker is more desirable over one that is leaner on power but takes a longer span of time to complete the same task in terms of total power consumption.

 

[Deleted member 185088]

I think it's impossible for AMD to compete in MT performance in the lower segments. The 7600x will struggle against the 12600k, competing against the 13600k is completely out of the question. The 7800x is going to be sandwiched between the 12600k and the 13600k, and unless AMD decides to lower the prices compared to zen 3, it will be considerably more expensive, since I don't expect the 13600k to be above 350.

How did you come up with this?
What probably will happen is both will have their strengths and weaknesses, but given Intel's aggressive clocks AMD will be more efficient.

 

[ir_cow]

I’m repeating myself, but 13700k should be also compared to 12900k, it’s more or less the same chip and maybe the best way to directly compare AD vs RL. There is some information that 13700k @5400 MHz consumes the same with 12900k @5200 MHz, we’ll see if that means something or not.

I think it will come down to ability to cool the CPU. I manage to pull 320 watts with a 12700K overclock. Only possible being delid with LM. So if the 13700K runs at 5.4 GHz, it's probably just the turbo of 2 cores.

 

[Crackong]

From Userbarkmench, only praise for daddy Intel, aka the complete opposite of this:

View attachment 256563

But if you think the senseless anti-AMD vitriol was over, think again, today the "Advanced Marketing Devices 7600X" page was updated yet again with even more drivel after AMD surpassed Intel in total market capitalization:

View attachment 256564

It's hilarious and it pains me deeply to see anyone still using this website to measure performance with a straight face, it's basically rating PC's against whatever favoritism its author is supporting at the moment. Not to mention there is zero security and all of their user credentials are stored in plaintext.

User Benchmark is just a joke.
I still remember they adjusted the score composition to beat Ryzen, but instead they made the i3 beats everything including Intel's own 7980xe.

This time it should be some trickery about the AVX512
They do not expect Zen4 with AVX512 support would 'break' their biased benchmark.

Efficiency is a tricky one to measure.

Suppose that a processor uses a constant 100 watts to complete a workload in one minute, but another one uses 75 watts to complete a workload in one minute and 20 seconds. The 100W processor is then more efficient than the 75W one.

A faster core that chugs power but completes a task quicker is more desirable over one that is leaner on power but takes a longer span of time to complete the same task in terms of total power consumption.

In this case, power consumption of the the 13600k and 13700k were also leaked before
13600k ~ 12700k
13700k ~ 12900k
Almost no improvement in efficiency
Just more watts more performance.

 

[Dr. Dro]

In this case, power consumption of the the 13600k and 13700k were also leaked before
13600k ~ 12700k
13700k ~ 12900k
Almost no improvement in efficiency
Just more watts more performance.

It might not sound like much, but over time, this can add up fast, it is the same concept behind Speed Shift introduced with mobile Skylake processors and the logic behind Ryzen's boost algorithm in a low thread count workload scenario

Modern CPUs can max out their frequency in 1 ms, so bursting above the TDP for a small amount of time in order to rapidly complete a task actually *saves* power. Of course the usefulness of such feature on desktops is limited, and only serve as TDP rebalancing to enable higher frequencies in situations that do not leverage all processor cores.

 

[Mussels]

It's interesting how DDR5 does not seem to make a significant difference comparing to DDR4, in a big picture. Why is this?

because the IMC's have to run 1:1

DDR5 is basically doubling it again, so you need twice as fast on the memory to match up. (Over simplified, but close enough)

This is why DDR4 3600 is more or less winning in most of the performance charts for both platforms, as they can all run it 1:1 with enough room to keep latencies down - I'm not sure what the ideal value is for DDR5 yet, if people have figured that out

 

[Crackong]

It might not sound like much, but over time, this can add up fast, it is the same concept behind Speed Shift introduced with mobile Skylake processors and the logic behind Ryzen's boost algorithm in a low thread count workload scenario

Modern CPUs can max out their frequency in 1 ms, so bursting above the TDP for a small amount of time in order to rapidly complete a task actually *saves* power. Of course the usefulness of such feature on desktops is limited, and only serve as TDP rebalancing to enable higher frequencies in situations that do not leverage all processor cores.

Judging from the battery life tests of majority of the Alder Lake equipped Laptops out there I highly doubt that..
To me it is more like an 'Excuse made to cover a problem' .

 

[Minus Infinity]

How did you come up with this?
What probably will happen is both will have their strengths and weaknesses, but given Intel's aggressive clocks AMD will be more efficient.

Intel's aggressive clocks? Did you miss how the clocks on the Zen 4 are going to be well over 5GHz and have hit 5.85GHz already. We are looking at an average 14% uplift in clock speeds. Intel's one advantage is basically gone.

 

[eidairaman1]

It's interesting how DDR5 does not seem to make a significant difference comparing to DDR4, in a big picture. Why is this?

Latencies

Seeing there are people that already predicted future in the next few years, I have a question. Should i sell all of my electronics while it's still worth something before the WW3? Thanks in advance.

Yes

 

[Naito]

From Userbarkmench, only praise for daddy Intel, aka the complete opposite of this:

View attachment 256563

But if you think the senseless anti-AMD vitriol was over, think again, today the "Advanced Marketing Devices 7600X" page was updated yet again with even more drivel after AMD surpassed Intel in total market capitalization:

View attachment 256564

It's hilarious and it pains me deeply to see anyone still using this website to measure performance with a straight face, it's basically rating PC's against whatever favoritism its author is supporting at the moment. Not to mention there is zero security and all of their user credentials are stored in plaintext.

This CPUPro content reads like it was written by a pre-teen fan boy nut. Perhaps a child of an Intel exec?

 

[nguyen]

This winter looks to be interesting with AMD 7000 series, Intel 13th gen and RTX4090 coming out, time for a new build

 

[InVasMani]

This winter looks to be interesting with AMD 7000 series, Intel 13th gen and RTX4090 coming out, time for a new build

Depends how it's priced over the previous generation.

 

[Mussels]

Depends how it's priced over the previous generation.

Lotta rumours about prices dropping - see the GPU world, shortages are over

Everyones selling current stock at discounts (look at the 5900x and how low its gone), which implies the new products might be cheap enough they'd have trouble selling the old stock at current prices

 

[TheLostSwede]

Article says DDR 5200 charts are saying DDR 5600. I'm not saying you made a typo, but the charts are wrong! Or not...I guess there is another set of charts in the fine print full article sneaky sneaky.

Check the two graphs with individual results from the person that did the tests, they read 5200.

 

[nguyen]

let hope W1zzard will use RTX4090 to test these next gen CPUs :d

 

[docnorth]

I think it will come down to ability to cool the CPU. I manage to pull 320 watts with a 12700K overclock. Only possible being delid with LM. So if the 13700K runs at 5.4 GHz, it's probably just the turbo of 2 cores.

Well that's beyond my intentions and abilities...

 

[ZoneDymo]

let hope W1zzard will use RTX4090 to test these next gen CPUs :d

why?

 

[JustBenching]

How did you come up with this?
What probably will happen is both will have their strengths and weaknesses, but given Intel's aggressive clocks AMD will be more efficient.

How did I come up with what, that amd can't compete in MT performance? It's pretty obvious. The 12600k is already 30 up to 60% faster (47% in CBR20 and 61% in CBR23). So in order to compete with the 12600k, they need to boost performace by up to 60%. Which is almost impossible, and yet the 13600k will be even faster than that, since it double on the ecores. Even the 13400 will probably have ecores this times around.

There is no way in hell amd will be more efficient. Only the 7950x stands a chance at that, the rest of the lineup won't do much when testing at same wattage

 

[Hossein Almet]

What, the 12900K beats the 5950X, but consumes 100W more Power?

 

[Dr. Dro]

This CPUPro content reads like it was written by a pre-teen fan boy nut. Perhaps a child of an Intel exec?

That's the UserBenchmark developer/admin lol

Judging from the battery life tests of majority of the Alder Lake equipped Laptops out there I highly doubt that..
To me it is more like an 'Excuse made to cover a problem' .

No no the reasoning is sound, however there are other variables and constraints to account for. Batteries do not always take kindly high current bursts and discharge faster than expected, for example. It might also look especially unimpressive with Ryzen's flawless power management or the downright insane battery life of M1 and Snapdragon ARM computers too, but none of that invalidates the logic behind that

 

[Punkenjoy]

Look like either AMD and Intel are trying to capture the mindshare. First the score for userbenchmark, that I assume is related to the availability of AVX512 on Zen4. UB was tuned to perform better on intel and that is probably one of the way they used.

But overall, that really look like the Athlon X2 / Pentium 4 Northwood era all that. But this time, instead of a GHz rush by intel, it's a ultra fat core that is power hungry. We all know they ended up in a wall, but i suspect they are just trying to buy time while they get on a new leaner architecture like they did with the Core 2 architecture. And also, we now all know that the E-core are not for low power usage or background task but more for improving the multicore performance without using too much silicon space. Not a bad strategy to buy time while they work on chiplets.


On AMD, i think they still have huge place to improve their cores, The fact that a R7 5800 get so much more performance with 3D-Vcache probably mean the core are starving. I do not think they need that much rework on the execution side. They seems to need better prefetching, more/faster L2 cache and better branch prediction. All that without using too much power.

I think they will be competitive on single thread but the multiplication of e-core will give them trouble on productivity task that benefits from many cores. They should probably gave them option to have 3 chiplets, or 1x8 Zen4 chiplets + 1 x16Zen4c chiplets or something like that.

But we will see, i still think AMD can surprise with Zen4 but the fight will be hard.

In the end, the one that benefits the most is the end user. Intel is trying to push really hard the cadence after having milking the market for few generation and that prevent AMD of milking the market right now.

That will mean competitive pricing, that will mean good reason to upgrade, that will mean the baseline configuration for new games will have more and more resources. Hope they use it well.

 

[Deleted member 185088]

Intel's aggressive clocks? Did you miss how the clocks on the Zen 4 are going to be well over 5GHz and have hit 5.85GHz already. We are looking at an average 14% uplift in clock speeds. Intel's one advantage is basically gone.

But to achieve those high clocks, AMD increased the TDP limits for Zen4 but not to the level of Intel.

How did I come up with what, that amd can't compete in MT performance? It's pretty obvious. The 12600k is already 30 up to 60% faster (47% in CBR20 and 61% in CBR23). So in order to compete with the 12600k, they need to boost performace by up to 60%. Which is almost impossible, and yet the 13600k will be even faster than that, since it double on the ecores. Even the 13400 will probably have ecores this times around.

There is no way in hell amd will be more efficient. Only the 7950x stands a chance at that, the rest of the lineup won't do much when testing at same wattage

According to TPU it's the 12600k with the additional 4 e-cores is less than 10% faster in games, and less than 15% in CPU applications than the 5600x, while consuming more power, and to add to this Zen3 is one year older than Alder Lake.
With higher frequencies, new architecture, I'm pretty sure they will be both close with AMD more efficient.

 

[JustBenching]

According to TPU it's the 12600k with the additional 4 e-cores is less than 10% faster in games, and less than 15% in CPU applications than the 5600x, while consuming more power, and to add to this Zen3 is one year older than Alder Lake.
With higher frequencies, new architecture, I'm pretty sure they will be both close with AMD more efficient.

You can't read the reviews my man. Also he is not testing at same wattage. You can't compare architectural efficiency at different wattages.