Intel Core i5-13400F

[trisstann]

13400f is DOA
i hope intel paid for this, cause reading all this, Techpowerup cant be serious right? let do 12600 refresh you locked while costing about the same, this cant go wrong lol

12400 is lot cheaper
5700x is cheaper
7600 is only slighty more expensive

its DOA, unless intel do something about price real fast

 

[Gica]

I did test my 7600X, and I received a score of 1910. It boosted very high with the stock BIOS (early release). I tested my 7600 today with the latest BIOS, and it boosts a lot less at stock (500mhz slower?). 1847 in Cinebench C23. Gigabyte B650M DS3H.

And in multithreading?
13400 will fight with r5-7500 (if it will be released in this century). 13500 is the real rival for 7600(X).

 

[tussinman]

Great, so a $10+$15=$25 price gap.

Assuming you actually need the things that the 25 extra bucks allow (CPU overclocking, Ram overclocking, quieter fan) then $25 bucks extra is an absolute no brainer and has no negative on the value aspect.

And you are getting A LOT for that $25.

Agreed. You can't even say "what about the people that don't care about ram speed, fan noise, or clock speed" because if that's the case then you're better off spending $55 less dollars and getting the 12400F

That's kind of the issue with the 13400F. It's closer to a K series price then it is the 12400F but it doesn't have any of the actual nice features of the K series

 

[sLowEnd]

Assuming you actually need the things that the 25 extra bucks allow (CPU overclocking, Ram overclocking, quieter fan) then $25 bucks extra is an absolute no brainer and has no negative on the value aspect.

A lot of people won't miss the $25, but in the context of budget-oriented parts, it can make a difference.

 

[Garrus]

And in multithreading?
13400 will fight with r5-7500 (if it will be released in this century). 13500 is the real rival for 7600(X).
View attachment 287032
View attachment 287033

the point was we were talking about how the 7600 results were wrong in the chart

the 13500 is WAY more expensive, and worse in gaming than the 7600

if all you want is multithreaded, probably better to buy and old 12 core

Assuming you actually need the things that the 25 extra bucks allow (CPU overclocking, Ram overclocking, quieter fan) then $25 bucks extra is an absolute no brainer and has no negative on the value aspect.

Agreed. You can't even say "what about the people that don't care about ram speed, fan noise, or clock speed" because if that's the case then you're better off spending $55 less dollars and getting the 12400F

That's kind of the issue with the 13400F. It's closer to a K series price then it is the 12400F but it doesn't have any of the actual nice features of the K series

also I throw out the intel coolers all the time (poor wattage cooling), and especially the AMD ones (loud motor)

if you know someone like me, you can have those coolers for free

i can buy a tower cooler like a Thermalright one for $17 USD

 

[sLowEnd]

the point was we were talking about how the 7600 results were wrong in the chart

the 13500 is WAY more expensive, and worse in gaming than the 7600

if all you want is multithreaded, probably better to buy and old 12 core



also I throw out the intel coolers all the time (poor wattage cooling), and especially the AMD ones (loud motor)

if you know someone like me, you can have those coolers for free

i can buy a tower cooler like a Thermalright one for $17 USD

Assuming the stock cooler can even properly handle the 12600K. It draws nearly 2x the amount of power the 13400F does, so there's almost 2x the heat output to deal with.

According to the review, the 12600K has a 6% advantage over the 13400F in gaming. A $17 cooler would put the difference at $27, which means paying 13.5% more for 6% more performance.

 

[Garrus]

Assuming the stock cooler can even properly handle the 12600K. It draws nearly 2x the amount of power the 13400F does, so there's almost 2x the heat output to deal with.

According to the review, the 12600K has a 6% advantage over the 13400F in gaming. A $17 cooler would put the difference at $27, which means paying 13.5% more for 6% more performance.

That is at stock settings. Any unlocked CPU is superior to the locked ones from Intel. AMD don't lock their CPUs nearly as much, with PBO there's not even much of an advantage for unlocking them usually. Intel on the other hand SEVERELY locks their CPUs. The 13500 should be 5.5Ghz, not 4.5Ghz.

The Ryzen 7600 or the 12600k or 13600k will walk all over the 13400 or 13500 once you take that in to account. Also it doesn't even require high power draw if you want 2 core high clocks for gaming instead of all core, do that with the stock cooler if you want. Also I hear people say overclocking makes a lot of heat etc, and that is not true. That's the max overclock. You can always do max MINUS 200mhz for example.

Heck, even using the free stock 65W cooler, the Ryzen 7600 can be pushed to 5Ghz all core at 80W (1.15V or you get thermal runaway with a tiny cooler). How is the 13400 and 13500 doing all core? It ain't hitting 5Ghz on all cores at 80W.

I can't take the idea that the 13400 or 13500 is good value seriously. They WERE good value at the old $150 prices. The 13500 is $250 now, $100 more. Horrible value.

IF you can buy the unlocked CPUs for the same price as the locked ones, the locked ones go in the garbage bin. I paid $440 USD for the 7600 + overclocking motherboard + 32GB DDR5600C36 + Jedi Survivor. Imagine buying the 13400 instead for more money ($430 on amazon without the game and with the cheapest DDR4 decent locked Asus motherboard and 3600C36 ram, if you use DDR5 much more money). Terrible idea. Even without the overclocking the 13400 isn't that great. Just get the 7600 instead.

 

[sLowEnd]

Yeah but that is at stock. Any unlocked CPU is superior to the locked ones from Intel. AMD don't lock their CPUs nearly as much, with PBO there's not even much of an advantage for unlocking them usually. Intel on the other hand SEVERELY locks their CPUs. The 13500 should be 5.5Ghz, not 4.5Ghz.

The Ryzen 7600 or the 12600k or 13600k will walk all over the 13400 or 13500 once you take that in to account. Also it doesn't even require high power draw if you want 2 core high clocks for gaming instead of all core. Also I hear people say overclocking makes a lot of heat etc, and that is not true. That's the max overclock. You can always do max MINUS 200mhz for example.

Heck, even using the free stock 65W cooler, the Ryzen 7600 can be pushed to 5Ghz all core at 80W (1.15V or you get thermal runaway with a tiny cooler). How is the 13400 and 13500 doing all core?

I can't take the idea that the 13400 or 13500 is good value seriously. They WERE good value at the old $150 prices. The 13500 is $250 now, $100 more. Horrible value.

IF you can buy the unlocked CPUs for the same price as the locked ones, the locked ones go in the garbage bin. I paid $440 USD for the 7600 + overclocking motherboard + 32GB DDR5600C36 + Jedi Survivor. Imagine buying the 13400 instead for more money. Terrible idea.

If we're talking strictly about a bang for the buck proposition, the 12400F is easily better than both the 13400F and the 12600K. I'm not saying the 13400F is an amazing value though - I just take issue with handwaving the cost of a cooler away and saying the 12600K is "just $10 more" when in practical terms the difference is going to be greater. It's easy to handwave away small costs and pretend they're nothing; just look at the massive success of microtransactions, but at the end of the day a cheap cooler is cheap but not free.

 

[Garrus]

If we're talking strictly about a bang for the buck proposition, the 12400F is easily better than both the 13400F and the 12600K. I'm not saying the 13400F is an amazing value though - I just take issue with handwaving the cost of a cooler away and saying the 12600K is "just $10 more" when in practical terms the difference is going to be greater. It's easy to handwave away small costs and pretend they're nothing; just look at the massive success of microtransactions, but at the end of the day a cheap cooler is cheap but not free.

I can buy an Arctic cooler for the CPU for $10 USD. Buy the 12600K instead. Pack-in coolers are not valuable coolers (AMD Prism excepted). Don't take a <$10 cooler and say it is a plus. All but one of the stock coolers from AMD and Intel are "throw it away" coolers. $9 can replace them with the better Arctic one. Don't take them in to account when building a system. Buy whatever and set your wattage limit to whatever the cooler you bought can handle. The reason we pay attention to coolers is sometimes you watch Intel reviews where the reviewer was required to use a $150 USD liquid cooler to get good results. Then include it in the costs in that case.

We see that the 7600 results are not right. On top of that there are no results for the 7600 at 5.0 and 5.5Ghz all core, the entire reason why locked CPUs can be poor value is you can't do that. A follow up article would provide more clarity, a follow up comparison. 13400F and 13500 versus Ryzen 7600. Stock, 5Ghz, 5.5Ghz. DDR5 versus DDR4, with all pricing. It's a lot of work and I mean no disrespect to the great work that Wizzard does here. He's great. I just think you're crazy to buy the 13400 instead if you look at the entire picture. There were motherboard problems earlier but AMD seems to have fixed them all. I built two failed systems with the Gigabyte B650M DS3H (bad ram compatibility) on launch day, but I just built 2 more, 3 months later, and they work perfectly. Kingston ram this time (two failed ones were Corsair and Patriot).

Also the 13400F here, if I buy everything from Amazon with the Asus H670 motherboard (cheapest) and DDR4 3600C16 is $426.92. That will be MUCH slower in gaming than the 7600 with DDR5. ~Same price, and you don't get the free game. So stock versus stock without overclocking the 7600 is still better. It's really not that complicated.

My results at 5Ghz:

Cinebench R23
Single: 1820 (i was using the computer at the same time
27W average, 1.15V, 57 degrees C, stock cooler
Multi: 14558
80W average, 1.15V, 99 degrees C (can go up to 110 without crashing), stock cooler

Much better results with a strong tower cooler. Up to a max of 5.5Ghz or so. Silicon quality varies with the highest clock speeds.

 

[sLowEnd]

You can hand wave it away. I can buy the Arctic cooler for the CPU for $10 USD. Buy the 12600K instead. Those are not valuable coolers. Don't take a <$10 cooler and say it is a plus. The cooler that comes with the Ryzen 7700 is worth a lot of money, $30 or more (AMD Prism). But the other stock coolers from AMD and Intel are "throw it away" coolers. $9 can replace them with the better Arctic one. Don't take them in to account when building a system. The reason we pay attention to coolers is sometimes you watch Intel reviews where the reviewer was required to use a $150 USD liquid cooler. Then include it in the costs. Set your wattage limit to whatever the cooler you buy can handle.

As unimpressive as the Intel stock cooler is, it is adequate for the kind of heat output a 13400F is capable of.

 

[Garrus]

As unimpressive as the Intel stock cooler is, it is adequate for the kind of heat output a 13400F is capable of.

My point is it costs less than $10. It isn't much of a value consideration that it is included when the store I buy my CPUs from will include a better Arctic cooler for $9 with any CPU that doesn't include one. I do like the Intel one the most though. The all black, the quiet motor at low RPM. The AMD one can handle much more wattage but makes more noise at lower RPMs, an annoying motor noise. It just needs to be thicker. If Intel would just make it a little stronger. 95W capable.

 

[sLowEnd]

My point is it costs less than $10. It isn't much of a value consideration that it is included when the store I buy my CPUs from will include a better Arctic cooler for $9 with any CPU that doesn't include one. I do like the Intel one the most though. The all black, the quiet motor at low RPM. The AMD one can handle much more wattage but makes more noise at lower RPMs, an annoying motor noise. It just needs to be thicker. If Intel would just make it a little stronger. 95W capable.

It isn't much, but it's not nothing.

TH did some pretty extensive tests with it. It's not fantastic, but it is adequate.

Intel Core i5-13400F Review: Leading Value Gaming at $200

Mid-range gaming has a new champion.

www.tomshardware.com

 

[Gica]

the point was we were talking about how the 7600 results were wrong in the chart

the 13500 is WAY more expensive, and worse in gaming than the 7600

if all you want is multithreaded, probably better to buy and old 12 core

Yours 7600x, sir. I doubt you can run 7600x stable with your Gigabyte B650 DS3H (6 phase) a Cinebench R23 10 minutes in multi. If you do it, please expose and VRM temperature with HWinfo, because critical temperatures kill the VRM efficiency and increase the chances of system instability.

No, it is not. It's about $ 25 more expensive. The i5-13500 is only $7 more expensive than the 7600X (I put the capture above).

I mean, to buy two processors, one for single and the other for multi-threading?! 13500 fight with 7700/7700x in multi-threading. We have a single review of 13500 in gaming and comes from HU "AMD is my love", not that they would lie, but it always puts them in such a way that the light beats to the red camp. If in the TPU review i5-13400 is up to 6% weaker than 7600(X) in 1080p and ZERO difference in 4K, 13500 (more L3 cache memory, higher frequencies) is marginally below 7600x in 1080p, but do you buy RTX 4090 for 1080p?!?!?! Everyone has RTX 4090 in their systems and are willing to install i5/r5 next to this monster?
Do you think you will see differences between 7600 and 13500 in gaming, even with the latter equipped with DDR4? I put you a capture and you avoided it elegantly. I attach again.

 

[Garrus]

Yours 7600x, sir. I doubt you can run 7600x stable with your Gigabyte B650 DS3H (6 phase) a Cinebench R23 10 minutes in multi. If you do it, please expose and VRM temperature with HWinfo, because critical temperatures kill the VRM efficiency and increase the chances of system instability.

No, it is not. It's about $ 25 more expensive. The i5-13500 is only $7 more expensive than the 7600X (I put the capture above).

I mean, to buy two processors, one for single and the other for multi-threading?! 13500 fight with 7700/7700x in multi-threading. We have a single review of 13500 in gaming and comes from HU "AMD is my love", not that they would lie, but it always puts them in such a way that the light beats to the red camp. If in the TPU review i5-13400 is up to 6% weaker than 7600(X) in 1080p and ZERO difference in 4K, 13500 (more L3 cache memory, higher frequencies) is marginally below 7600x in 1080p, but do you buy RTX 4090 for 1080p?!?!?! Everyone has RTX 4090 in their systems and are willing to install i5/r5 next to this monster?
Do you think you will see differences between 7600 and 13500 in gaming, even with the latter equipped with DDR4? I put you a capture and you avoided it elegantly. I attach again.
View attachment 287069

First of all, there are new promotions from AMD. You can get ridiculously good deals all over the place, not just Microcenter now. See my attached image. A lot of people such as yourself or this review have it all wrong when it comes to the actual prices that are out there.

Secondly, I am talking about the 7600. There's zero reason to buy an X product when you can buy the non-X and set the same settings as the X product. I saved $40 just there alone. You are talking about the TPU review, when we are all talking about how the review is wrong. Read up about how the Cinebench numbers are all wrong also.

Thirdly it is absurd to talk about VRM issues with a 6 core CPU. Any board can do it. That's the difference between Intel and AMD. The 13600K uses tons of power, I had a hard time cooling it with a giant tower cooler. No such problem with the 7600. Lucky for you Hardware Unboxed reviewed the cheapest product, the Gigabyte model, and it slays the 7950X with 300W power draw. Never mind the small 85W from the overclocked 7600. LMAO at your comment there, sorry.

Fourth, as usual you are attacking HardwareUnboxed because you don't know better or you have an axe to grind. Shame on you for attacking a reviewer out of ignorance. TPU used C36 ram. Hardware Unboxed uses the same 6000C30 ram with every review. They've also shown the incredible uplift with Ryzen if you use tuned 5600C28, so forget about Intel if you know anything about ram timings. This is a reason why a meta analysis of many reviews is ridiculous. All it does is reward all the reviews with a bad methodology. TPU and HUB are the two best sites (Techspot hosts HUB reviews) imo. I love TPU but I really wish he'd update his ram choice.

Ryzen is very sensitive to quality ram timings. It has been covered exhaustively. 5600C28 is the best, and is now only $130. GUYS, ram prices dropped off a cliff, JUST BUY THE BEST STUFF IF YOU BUY RYZEN. $130 for 32GB of the fastest stuff means all other ram is irrelevant. $65 for 16GB is the price per 16GB. Crazy cheap. This is not like last year. I actually paid even less for the ram because of the AMD promo. Just good luck finding it in stock at your local store.

Gaming performance with the 7600 and 7700 far exceed the 13400 and 13500. Not surprising since it is easy to run them almost 1Ghz higher. HUB had the Ryzen 7600 score 221 fps on average versus 182 for the 13500 with DDR4. That was at stock settings before applying an overclock. The 13400 is even worse, and if you want to keep prices at all similar for the 13500 you compare with DDR4, since even with DDR4 the 13500 is more expensive and DDR5 doesn't help it that much anyways unlike the K parts. Yes, the Ryzen is 21 percent faster in gaming. 21 percent. 21 percent. Got it? At the same price it is 21 percent faster in gaming. If you have any common sense, you'd buy Ryzen 7600 over the 13400 and 13500. They both need clock speed increases and a new 95W default TDP.

And I got a free copy of Jedi Survivor also! Saved myself $60 there also. Crazy good time to build a PC for gaming. GPUs suck, but CPUs and RAM pricing have never been better.

 

[scooze]

Small cores are not needed here, a high frequency was needed here. Dead product, like 13500 actually
Plus both are overpriced and make sense only at the price of their predecessors, replacing them.

 

[sLowEnd]

Yours 7600x, sir. I doubt you can run 7600x stable with your Gigabyte B650 DS3H (6 phase) a Cinebench R23 10 minutes in multi. If you do it, please expose and VRM temperature with HWinfo, because critical temperatures kill the VRM efficiency and increase the chances of system instability.

Getting a bit off topic here, but the DS3H VRM thermals aren't as bad as you think, despite it being a pretty basic board.

 

[Gica]

First of all, there are new promotions from AMD.

Promotions do not apply. Intel also has games on offer, promotions and others. Plus for motherboards. Two weeks ago there was Z690 TUF Gaming with a 35% discount here. It's everyone's job to buy as much as they can.
The problem is that you think you are the master of the absolute truth that you bought a 7600X and you say that the world ends here. I am convinced that if someone secretly replaces your ryzen with an i5-13400, you have no idea. You don't feel anything wrong in the games.
Don't get hung up on an error in Cinebench. It has nothing to do with the games, or do you dispute everything that doesn't suit you?

Getting a bit off topic here, but the DS3H VRM thermals aren't as bad as you think, despite it being a pretty basic board.

Not HU, please!

Thirdly it is absurd to talk about VRM issues with a 6 core CPU. Any board can do it. That's the difference between Intel and AMD. The 13600K uses tons of power

Calculation of maximum power at AMD:
TDP x 1.35
Ryzen 7600X: 105W TDP x 1.35 = 147W max power draw
Ryzen 7600: 65W TDP x 1.35 = ~88W max power draw.
13400 PL2: 148W max power draw
13500 PL2: 154W max power draw.
Do not compare with 13600K because it eats ryzen 5 for breakfast in terms of performance.
I'm not going to argue with you anymore because I need too much time to demonstrate the difference between 6 phases 50A versus 10+ phases minimum 60A.

 

[sLowEnd]

Not HU, please!

What's wrong with HU in this context?

Even if they often have a perceptible bias towards favoring AMD, this isn't an AMD vs Intel or AMD vs Nvidia comparison. It's a comparison of various AMD boards against other AMD boards.

 

[Garrus]

Promotions do not apply. Intel also has games on offer, promotions and others. Plus for motherboards. Two weeks ago there was Z690 TUF Gaming with a 35% discount here. It's everyone's job to buy as much as they can.
The problem is that you think you are the master of the absolute truth that you bought a 7600X and you say that the world ends here. I am convinced that if someone secretly replaces your ryzen with an i5-13400, you have no idea. You don't feel anything wrong in the games.
Don't get hung up on an error in Cinebench. It has nothing to do with the games, or do you dispute everything that doesn't suit you?


Not HU, please!


Calculation of maximum power at AMD:
TDP x 1.35
Ryzen 7600X: 105W TDP x 1.35 = 147W max power draw
Ryzen 7600: 65W TDP x 1.35 = ~88W max power draw.
13400 PL2: 148W max power draw
13500 PL2: 154W max power draw.
Do not compare with 13600K because it eats ryzen 5 for breakfast in terms of performance.
I'm not going to argue with you anymore because I need too much time to demonstrate the difference between 6 phases 50A versus 10+ phases minimum 60A.

You don't know anything and therefore there is no point in talking.

I love how I actually own the products and can use them and read off the figures for you, but you made up stuff in your head from things you read online and are trying to tell me you know better. Go ahread and buy a 13400 and we can post comparisons from our computers. LOL at you telling me my motherboard doesn't work.

The Gigabyte's VRM MOS hit 45 degrees with 100 percent load from the CPU with the stock cooler. And you are telling me the motherboard won't work LMAO.

What's wrong with HU in this context?

Even if they often have a perceptible bias towards favoring AMD, this isn't an AMD vs Intel or AMD vs Nvidia comparison. It's a comparison of various AMD boards against other AMD boards.

And there is no bias. I explained to him that Hardware Unboxed uses the correct memory unlike TPU. That increases all the AMD results. Also it matters which games you include as Horizon Zero Dawn heavily favors AMD and some reviewers inexplicably don't include that game.

I checked the VRM MOS max temp for you after 15 minutes of max load and it hit 45 degrees. Gigabyte has a far superior board here compared to Asus. That's why HUB recommended it. Use the Kingston ram no problem now.

 

[Gica]

Why are you afraid to expose all the information? What do you have to hide?
Secondary, talk about up $10, down $15... wow! ... are you employed in Somalia for $2 a month?

HWinfo provides much more detail, including session time.

In your style, I am attaching a printscreen with 13900K after 3 years of torture in Cinebench.

What's wrong with HU in this context?

Even if they often have a perceptible bias towards favoring AMD, this isn't an AMD vs Intel or AMD vs Nvidia comparison. It's a comparison of various AMD boards against other AMD boards.

Only 78 degrees with the 7950X tortured for 10 minutes in Cinebench R23. Seriously? 6 phases with the weakest mosfets that barely heat up at 200W consumption. If so, what's the point of motherboards with 10, 12, 16 phases, even with 90A. Six are enough, what a waste!

HU handles AMD advertising. They do as they do and always direct the spotlights towards the red corner. And it's even ridiculous because they are contradicted by the majority of reviewers with weight.
For example, in gaming, TPU and Tom's results are very close with 13400F. HU concludes by his results that 13500 is weaker than 13400. LOL!!!!
If you look at the capture, you won't see much difference between 7600(X) and 13400 with the TPU review results. They are almost identical. If you look at the HU results, 13500 is crushed by 7600. We Romanians have a word for such anomalies, but I don't say it because I risk being banned.
Anyway, they have attracted my attention for years with their red affinities.

 

[sLowEnd]

Only 78 degrees with the 7950X tortured for 10 minutes in Cinebench R23. Seriously? 6 phases with the weakest mosfets that barely heat up at 200W consumption. If so, what's the point of motherboards with 10, 12, 16 phases, even with 90A. Six are enough, what a waste!

The word for those is "overkill".
The existence of boards with dozens of power phases does not necessarily mean boards with fewer phases are inadequate.

Edit: Here's buildzoid's opinion on overkill VRMs

Edit2: And here's his visual impression of the GamingX/DS3H VRM design
tl;dw: He thinks it's fine, especially with some airflow, and it's better specced than the ITX board he put 250W through on a 9900K

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Yep vrm issues are a thing of the past, like way back to x299 days

 

[AleXXX666]

so basically 12600k w/o much memory oc headroom/potential.
meh.

rather buy the OG than the shitty, locked-down repost, tbh

thing is cheaper, and TDP is also configurable, if you have normal enough mobo. 99% don't need or won't OC CPU, at least thing with 12600K/F. RAM OC is also fun question and gives you a little performace increase but it isn't worth the fapping lol

Huh, I expected this to crush the competition in efficiency when restricted to 65W and it doesn't. But I also expected it to lose badly when not restricted to 65W and that also didn't happen. Plusses and minuses ends up being pretty good.

But wow how much faster this is than my aging i5-8400, which is considerably slower than the 10400 bottoming out those performance charts.

now remember "slow legendary i5" - 2400, or funny sibling for your one - Core2Duo E8400. Such a LOL.

 

[Lew Zealand]

HU handles AMD advertising. They do as they do and always direct the spotlights towards the red corner. And it's even ridiculous because they are contradicted by the majority of reviewers with weight.
For example, in gaming, TPU and Tom's results are very close with 13400F. HU concludes by his results that 13500 is weaker than 13400. LOL!!!!
If you look at the capture, you won't see much difference between 7600(X) and 13400 with the TPU review results. They are almost identical. If you look at the HU results, 13500 is crushed by 7600. We Romanians have a word for such anomalies, but I don't say it because I risk being banned.
Anyway, they have attracted my attention for years with their red affinities.

View attachment 287175

They test different games in different areas, no surprise the results are different.

I looked at HUB and Tom's numbers for the 3 same games they did test and lo and behold, the relative FPS are the same, though the raw FPS are different because they are likely testing in different parts of the game.

So they agree that the 7600/X is the same or faster than the 13400/13500 in those 3 games. I see no issues with HUB's numbers or Tom's. Quick check here at TPU and again the relative numbers are similar.

 

[Gica]

They test different games in different areas, no surprise the results are different.

And HU results always favor AMD.
If we turn to games, tell me, how much will the 7600X increase the performance of the 3070Ti? What would be the difference between 13400/13500/7600X in this scenario? I have captured and paid attention to GPU/CPU response times.
For $7 more than 7600X, saving DDR4 memory (-$125) and at least 25% more in multithreading than the competition, I say the 13500 is a good deal. In gaming, enjoy the performance of an RTX 4090 in reviews compared to a system equipped with a weaker video card.
I don't dispute the qualities of the 7600(X), but Mr. Garrus errs when he denies the qualities of the competition.


1080p, Highest + RT Ultra