Intel Core i5-13400F

[Wasteland]

The stability test is over 30 days since I use it. I don't allow system crashes in online games. A good word can put 12500, but it can't. It now runs with other memories at 3200MHz because that's what xmp has.
Unsafe is that situation where you have to increase the voltage above the specifications to maintain stability at a certain frequency.

I don't want to prove anything. Apart from HU, all reputable reviewers have tested Alder and Raptor at 3600 without problems. Keep clinging to this nonsense with "unsafe".

Ok, link me to an article from a "reputable reviewer" who tests locked Alder/Raptor Lake CPUs with DDR4-3600 in Gear 1.

And while you're at it, give me a direct quote where I used the word "unsafe." You can't because I didn't use that word. What I actually said is that it's irresponsible to tell people who may not know about memory overclocking that they can run at unstable speeds. The issue there isn't hardware "safety." The issue is inconvenience and data corruption. possibly a little wasted money.

 

[Gica]

One is here. If you want more, we go further because many have tested DDR4 vs DDR5, especially with Alder.

"Safe" I said, and you considered it irresponsible.
If so, all those who use memories clocked over DDR4 3200/DDR5 4800 (Alder), or 3200 DDR4/DDR5 5600 (Raptor i7, i9 or 13600K), or 5200 DDR5 for Ryzen 4, are irresponsible. In your opinion, of course. Even @W1zzard is irresponsible because he did not test the processors according to the manufacturers' specifications.

 

[Wasteland]

Incidentally, this Techpowerup review that Gica quoted earlier was written based on testing with an i9-12900k, which is not a locked CPU. Not only that, it was written before any of the locked Alder Lake SKUs launched. These facts point to why I harp on this issue. Most people who google for info on what memory to buy with their locked CPU will naturally encounter a lot of talk about unlocked-CPU configurations, because reviewers tend to concentrate on those models. Info on the memory-speed limitation on locked Intel CPUs is hard to come by unless you're specifically looking for it.

It caused me some headaches with my own CPUs. This isn't an AMD vs Intel issue. Good grief. This is genuinely just an issue of recommending to people the proper RAM for their build, and by proper I mean the RAM config that will run as fast as possible without causing problems.

I'm not blaming W1zzard for recommending DDR4-3600 for Alder Lake; how could he have done otherwise in November of 2021? But I doubt very much that he would agree with Gica's position that the VCCSA limitation on locked LGA 1700 CPUs is just some baseless pro-AMD-fanboy conspiracy theory put forward by Hardware Unboxed, Buildzoid, and Micro-Star International. Seriously, this convo is like taking crazy pills.

One is here. If you want more, we go further because many have tested DDR4 vs DDR5, especially with Alder.

View attachment 289143


"Safe" I said, and you considered it irresponsible.
If so, all those who use memories clocked over DDR4 3200/DDR5 4800 (Alder), or 3200 DDR4/DDR5 5600 (Raptor i7, i9 or 13600K), or 5200 DDR5 for Ryzen 4, are irresponsible. In your opinion, of course. Even @W1zzard is irresponsible because he did not test the processors according to the manufacturers' specifications.

See above. That is not a review of a locked CPU, and in fact it predates the launch of locked Alder Lake CPUs. Keep trying.

You clearly have a language barrier issue if you think I argued that you're irresponsible for running your memory at a given speed. I feel like I've said this a dozen times, but once more for old time's sake: I don't care what you do with your own computer. Nobody cares. Telling other people that they should buy memory and run it at likely unstable speeds, and all because you're fixated on some ludicrous fanboy war--that is what is irresponsible.

 

[Gica]

12400 DDR4 3800MHz Gear 1 is it good for you? And these are the first samples. Today's Alder and Raptor architecture is much more refined.

If it has a problem with running at 3600, it can quickly switch to lower speeds. There are no big price differences between 3200 and 3600 and with the 3600 you can run at 3200 with lower latencies.
The data coming from the media networks show that there are rather problems with the memory and/or the motherboard, not at all with the processor. There are millions of system configurations and sometimes incompatibilities appear.
RAM X + MoBo Y = love... or not

I can go on as long as you want, but I'm coming down to your level.
The discussion is closed.

 

[Wasteland]

Excellent, you found one. So between Tomshardware's one chip (they bought a single 12400 before retail launch for that review--they couldn't even supply 100% accurate description of the specs because the specs hadn't been announced yet), and your chip (assuming it is stable), we have two whole examples! That definitely proves that HUB, MSI, and Buildzoid are just making stuff up. The posters here, including me, must've imagined their blue screens too.

 

[Gica]

The HU administrators made their accounts on TPU, LOL.

 

[Gica]

Session: 5+ hours (gaming, installations, www, etc.)
Y-Cruncher all test: 1h (in parallel with installing a game)
Undervolt 0.2V DDR memory and CPU memory controller (VDDQ TX)
Timmings: 18, 22, 22, 42 -> 17, 20, 20, 38
I can't keep the computer running for a month to prove to you that you are talking nonsense. I repeat: 12500 also behaves identically. I have two processors, both work perfectly at 3600MHz DDR4. Am I the cloudiest person on the planet or the "unlucky" ones, a small minority, have other problems and not the VCCSA blocking?
Search the net for testing the 500 Raptor processors. Even the weakest can run stably at 7600 (35.7%), and they are a small minority, below 5%. Most can carry 8000+, that is 43% over specifications.
For DDR4, the jump from 3200 to 3600 means only 12.5%.

 

[NRANM]

Finally! The review has been updated with corrected numbers for the 7600 and 7600X. I've also retested the other Zen 4 CPUs on the 9922 BIOS with the newest chipset drivers.

While Ryzen 7600/7600X have gained quite a bit in gaming performance and power, the outcome of the conclusion remains unchanged

Sorry to re-open the topic, but were the results for the VirtualBox virtualization tests also wrong? If so, were they corrected? The Ryzen 7600's results from its own/original review seem quite different from the results in this review.

 

[rv8000]

@W1zzard

Is the efficiency chart at 1080p correct? You list an average of 217fps for the 7600 at an average of 49w, which would be 4.43 frames per watt. Then you list the 13400f at 185fps at an average of 43w, which would be 4.3 frames per watt.

 

[gasolin]

I'm not sure if it's actually that close. The 13400F comes with a stock cooler, whereas the 12600K does not. Getting a decent cooler for the 12600K will widen the price gap.

NO thermalright peerless assasin 120

According to toms harware it's the best gamer cpu and it doesn't use much power

The Best CPU for Gaming in 2025

Here is the best CPU for gaming.

www.tomshardware.com

Good review. What grinds my gears in not quoting max all core turbo frequency anywhere. I fell into this trap with a 12400 I bought lately, it's sold as a 4.4GHz CPU but good luck seeing 4.4 GHz unless you start a single-threaded load and limit affinity to a single core. I've never seen it go beyond 4.2GHz for a split second and for any realistic load it's a 4GHz CPU. Even Intel seems to be ashamed of that, hiding actual frequencies from potential customers with the usual "up to" rubbish.
Otherwise a good CPU, just scammy marketing.

Try increasing power limit