Intel Core i9-13900K

[Dirt Chip]

X570 was released over 2 years back, it is old by Intel standards in fact it'd be obsolete last year.

They did deliver eventually, even if was driven by the community outrage. Intel on other hand can't even guarantee 2 gens of chip compatibility on a single chipset ~ here's a trivia for you which chipset supported basically just one gen of chips?

You keep asking it over and over although you are given direct answers. why?
Do you try to support AMD and hurt Intel for their business choice about mobo longevity?

 

[R0H1T]

That's true, but realistically speaking, is it a problem?

It is a problem if you're looking to keep a system for 5-10 years, I've been burnt more than once over this & I simply will avoid Intel on desktops for this important reason. It is not the only reason but a major one, not to mention the second hand PC market is even worse in this part of the world where there are very few avenues to secure old parts even online. Now as I understand it the situation in the US is much better & probably much of Western Europe wrt used components. Not so much in 60-70 percent of the rest of the world.

Do you try to support AMD and hurt Intel for their business choice about mobo longevity?

Yes because of my experience with them in the past, although my last two laptops were Intel based ~ if that answers your question.

 

[Xuper]

any result for rendering after one hour between 13900K/7950X ?

 

[AusWolf]

It is a problem if you're looking to keep a system for 5-10 years, I've been burnt more than once over this & I simply will avoid Intel on desktops for this important reason. It is not the only reason but a major one, not to mention the second hand PC market is even worse in this part of the world where there are very few avenues to secure old parts even online. Now as I understand it the situation in the US is much better & probably much of Western Europe wrt used components. Not so much in 60-70 percent of the rest of the world.

If you intend to keep your system for 5-10 years, then you'll have to buy a new motherboard when you upgrade anyway.

 

[R0H1T]

No you don't, I have a 2700 right now and I will upgrade to either 5900x or 5950x in the next year or so ~ can you do that with Intel?

That's at least 2-4x more performance and minimal spend on the upgrade overall.

 

[AusWolf]

No you don't, I have a 2700 right now and I will upgrade to either 5900x or 5950x in the next year or so ~ can you do that with Intel?

That's at least 2-4x more performance and minimal spend on the upgrade overall.

Fair enough, I guess. It's just not something you can plan ahead. AMD said AM5 will be supported as long as AM4 was, but we'll have to see about chipset compatibility.

Edit: We'll also have to see about future CPU improvements. The 5900X is a huge upgrade over the 2700, but we don't know if there will be another big jump on AM5 or not.

 

[fevgatos]

No you don't, I have a 2700 right now and I will upgrade to either 5900x or 5950x in the next year or so ~ can you do that with Intel?

That's at least 2-4x more performance and minimal spend on the upgrade overall.

But you don't need to do that with Intel. Going by pricing on one of the biggest EU retailers, a 13600kf (just released btw, prices will drop soon) and a brand new b660 will cost you around 510€. The 5900x is 440€. Why the flying **** would you go for the 5900x??? For 70€ you get a brand new better motherboard that has 3 years warranty and all the bells and whistles, you get much much faster ST performance, you get more MT performance and way better gaming performance. And you can sell your old motherboard - even for 30€ - that would cover the 70€ extra youd have to pay.

That's my point all along, upgradability means absolutely nothing when AMD prices their CPUs skyhigh.

 

[Dirt Chip]

Yes because of my experience with them in the past, although my last two laptops were Intel based ~ if that answers your question.

OK than, now I get it
I have a different experience with my current mobo, pushing 12 years now.
The one before it (an "nForce" chipset by NV that use Athlon 3200+ CPU (hooo what a wird thought- NV mobo with AMD cpu ) last also about 10 year as main rig and then 2 more as an HTPC.
In the rear cases I needed a second hand mobo (not for myself) I could find it on eBay and such. It might have cost more than a sec hand product needed to but that`s something I can take once in a while (say 1 instance every 15 years).

I myself try not to "help" or "support" any brand by buying its product (not saying you (R0H1T) are, I`ts just a general note). That`s a bad practice imo that might cost you more, give you less and resolute in a heartbreak.
If the product is right for me (right from a selfish point of view), OK than and pay. Nothing more.

2-4x more performance

Sound like something I already heard before...

 

[R0H1T]

But you don't need to do that with Intel. Going by pricing on one of the biggest EU retailers, a 13600kf (just released btw, prices will drop soon) and a brand new b660 will cost you around 510€. The 5900x is 440€. Why the flying **** would you go for the 5900x???

I was strictly talking about the benefits of socket compatibility ~ there are just way too many to ignore. As for the current market, if you don't really care about potential mobo replacement in the future/upgrading on the same socket then 13xxx is a no brainer. It's an insane value compared to 7xxx chips, if you check any of my responses in the zen4 threads I've never once recommended it that price.

That's my point all along, upgradability means absolutely nothing when AMD prices their CPUs skyhigh.

Really depends on the person, for me securing a replacement/spare component is a quintessential part of building the system ~ while others would probably throw it completely in the bin.

 

[fevgatos]

I was strictly talking about the benefits of socket compatibility ~ there are just way too many to ignore. As for the current market, if you don't really care about potential mobo replacement in the future/upgrading on the same socket then 13xxx is a no brainer. It's an insane value compared to 7xxx chips, if you check any of my responses in the zen4 threads I've never once recommended it that price. Really depends on the person, for me securing a replacement/spare component is a quintessential part of building the system ~ while others would probably throw it completely in the bin.

Well you mixed 2 points together. Finding a spare motherboard, sure amd's way is better. Upgradability saving you money, it's just not the case. You spend as much or even more going with AMD even if you get to keep your motherboard. So what good does upgradability do in that regard? You overpay for an obsolete CPU while still keeping your old outdated out of warranty motherboard. And people, you included, are trying to convince me that's a positive thing, lol

 

[R0H1T]

Over pay for what? I bought the 2700 at roughly $150 & as I've stressed in multiple threads I could've bought the 5900x ($250) or 5950x ($400) at insane (sale) prices but was minutes late! Find me a better deal than that, in fact I'll pay you the difference if you can.

You overpay for an obsolete CPU while still keeping your old outdated out of warranty motherboard.

It still has warranty

 

[siluro818]

Well you mixed 2 points together. Finding a spare motherboard, sure amd's way is better. Upgradability saving you money, it's just not the case. You spend as much or even more going with AMD even if you get to keep your motherboard. So what good does upgradability do in that regard? You overpay for an obsolete CPU while still keeping your old outdated out of warranty motherboard. And people, you included, are trying to convince me that's a positive thing, lol

I don't see the point in switching to anything above 8 cores unless you do specific productivity apps.
With that in mind if you're upgrading from a 2700x on an AM4 you should just get the 5700x and that's that.
The price is just 60% of the 13600K, you get almost 85% of that CPU's gaming performance.
When you factor in the motherboard you get a price to performance ratio that is TWICE better than the 13600K lol
How is that not a good thing?

 

[fevgatos]

Over pay for what? I bought the 2700 at roughly $150 & as I've stressed in multiple threads I could've bought the 5900x ($250) or 5950x ($400) at insane (sale) prices but was minutes late! Find me a better deal than that, in fact I'll pay you the difference if you can.


It still has warranty

Overpay for getting to keep your motherboard. How many times do we have to go through this? A 13600kf + a brand new b660 motherboard is faster in every single workload, has more features, better upgradability, it's brand freaking new and it only costs 70€ more than just buying a 5900x. So, ill ask again, for the 5000th time, what do you actually gain by that incredible am4 upgradability?

I don't see the point in switching to anything above 8 cores unless you do specific productivity apps.
With that in mind if you're upgrading from a 2700x on an AM4 you should just get the 5700x and that's that.
The price is just 60% of the 13600K, you get almost 85% of that CPU's gaming performance.
When you factor in the motherboard you get a price to performance ratio that is TWICE better than the 13600K lol
How is that not a good thing?

According to the benchmarks from this very site, the 13600k is 30% faster in games. In productivity...yeah, let's not even talk about that. Those 2 cpus aren't really comparable

 

[siluro818]

Overpay for getting to keep your motherboard. How many times do we have to go through this? A 13600kf + a brand new b660 motherboard is faster in every single workload, has more features, better upgradability, it's brand freaking new and it only costs 70€ more than just buying a 5900x. So, ill ask again, for the 5000th time, what do you actually gain by that incredible am4 upgradability?


According to the benchmarks from this very site, the 13600k is 30% faster in games. In productivity...yeah, let's not even talk about that. Those 2 cpus aren't really comparable

The benchmarks (1080p) from this very site:

 

[Dirt Chip]

According to the benchmarks from this very site, the 13600k is 30% faster in games. In productivity...yeah, let's not even talk about that. Those 2 cpus aren't really comparable

16.5% faster in gaming average FHD, 30% average in all app.
Where did you get those numbers on TPU?

For anyone on budget and gaming looking for upgrade from zen2 right very now, zen3 is the better eco route.
But when 13400f will come, it might change.

 

[fevgatos]

The benchmarks (1080p) from this very site:

Τhe same benchmarks at 720p show different results though.

16.5% faster in gaming average FHD, 30% average in all app.
Where did you get those numbers on TPU?

For anyone on budget and gaming looking for upgrade from zen2 right very now, zen3 is the better eco route.
But going Intel ,when 13400f will come, might change it.

720p gaming the difference is around 30%.

 

[R0H1T]

A 13600kf + a brand new b660 motherboard is faster in every single workload, has more features, better upgradability,

What features? What the heck are you talking about? I see we're still in the geocentric age

So, ill ask again, for the 5000th time, what do you actually gain by that incredible am4 upgradability?

You could buy a relatively cheap 6-8 core chip in 2017 & upgrade to a chip that can be at least 2-8x faster without spending another dime on a motherboard! Oh did I mention a replacement board will not cost the same as a brand new chip itself?

Overpay for getting to keep your motherboard. How many times do we have to go through this?

So instead of spending 250~400 dollars on a zen3 chip you're saying 13600kf+B660 is cheaper? Are you sure you're doing your math right? More importantly why do you think someone upgrading every 5-10 years would overspend on such a questionable build

I'll ask again for the billionth time ~ what will a new board/chipset bring you in 2025 part from possibly USB 5.0 if at that?

According to the benchmarks from this very site, the 13600k is 30% faster in games. In productivity...yeah, let's not even talk about that. Those 2 cpus aren't really comparable

No they aren't because you keep shifting the goalposts!

 

[Dirt Chip]

720p gaming the difference is around 30%.

1- No one play at 720p for the past 10 years now, this test is only for "academic knowledge".
2- At 720p It`s 22% sharp. not close to 30%.
Sorry.

 

[siluro818]

Τhe same benchmarks at 720p show different results though.


720p gaming the difference is around 30%.

Because you will obviously game at 720p lol
That stuff's completely irrelevant.
What is of note however is that these 83.5% are achieved with DDR4 vs the DDR5 memory config the Intel uses, meaning you will have to factor the memory upgrade into your costs as well.

Let's cut this conversation short, shall we?
If you are making a brand new configuration and you have no intention of upgrading anything in the next 5 years, the 13600K is an excellent choice.
But to recommend it to someone who is already on AM4 - for the purposes of gaming nonetheless - is beyond silly.

 

[fevgatos]

1- No one play at 720p for the past 10 years now, this test is only for "academic knowledge".
2- At 720p It`s 22% sharp. not close to 30%.
Sorry.

The difference isn't 22%, your math are just wrong. 78% means that for every 100fps the 13600k gets, the 5700x gets 78. So for the 78 to become 100, you need a 30% increase (78 + 78*30/100). So the difference IS 30%.


It's not academic knowledge, it tells you how long you can keep your CPU. The 5700x WILL eventually bottleneck a graphics card at 1440p or even 4k that the 13600k won't, cause it's 30% faster. So, you can keep it longer. If you see for example a 4k benchmark with a 4090 between a ryzen 1700 and an 8700k, you will realize that the 1700 severely bottlenecks the 4090 while the 8700k does not. So you can keep it, while the 1700 needs an upgrade

Because you will obviously game at 720p lol

No you won't, but youll keep your CPU until a future GPU can turn those 720p numbers into 4k numbers. So let's say the 5700x can get an average of 80 fps at 720p while the 13600k gets 110, you can pair the 5700x with a GPU that gets 80fps at 4k (let's call it a 5080) while you can pair the 13600k with a GPU that gets 110fps at 4k (let's call it a 6080). So the 13600k will last you longer without needing an upgrade. It's logic 101 man

 

[siluro818]

The difference isn't 22%, your math are just wrong. 78% means that for every 100fps the 13600k gets, the 5700x gets 78. So for the 78 to become 100, you need a 30% increase (78 + 78*30/100). So the difference IS 30%.


It's not academic knowledge, it tells you how long you can keep your CPU. The 5700x WILL eventually bottleneck a graphics card at 1440p or even 4k that the 13600k won't, cause it's 30% faster. So, you can keep it longer. If you see for example a 4k benchmark with a 4090 between a ryzen 1700 and an 8700k, you will realize that the 1700 severely bottlenecks the 4090 while the 8700k does not. So you can keep it, while the 1700 needs an upgrade


No you won't, but youll keep your CPU until a future GPU can turn those 720p numbers into 4k numbers. So let's say the 5700x can get an average of 80 fps at 720p while the 13600k gets 110, you can pair the 5700x with a GPU that gets 80fps at 4k (let's call it a 5080) while you can pair the 13600k with a GPU that gets 110fps at 4k (let's call it a 6080). So the 13600k will last you longer without needing an upgrade. It's logic 101 man

The thing is though you will never keep a CPU for so long, because for this to happen (the 720p to 4K scenario) you will need roughly a 9x faster GPU than the 3090 we're currently using for these benchmarks.
So presuming a 60% increase from generation on generation (which is on the generous side unfortunately) you will have to wait FIVE generations, i.e. for the 8090 lmao - that's 10 years.

 

[fevgatos]

The thing is though you will never keep a CPU for so long, because for this to happen (the 720p to 4K scenario) you will need roughly a 16x faster GPU than the 3090 we're currently using for these benchmarks.
So presuming a 60% increase from generation on generation (which is on the generous side unfortunately) you will have to wait SIX generations, i.e. for the 9090 lmao

Sure, but why wouldn't you keep it for that long if it actually maxes out your GPU? Lot's of people had a 2700k until very recently for that exact reason. The 4090 already bottlenecks almost if not all CPUs in 1440p already

 

[InVasMani]

Should probably be a instant ban for that 720p remark. I would not touch that resolution with a dual core. 3090 it's 720p GG time! Someone Drake me it please.

 

[siluro818]

Sure, but why wouldn't you keep it for that long if it actually maxes out your GPU? Lot's of people had a 2700k until very recently for that exact reason. The 4090 already bottlenecks almost if not all CPUs in 1440p already

Because this sort of performance is far from the only factor to take into account when considering what will matter for your PC.
I don't know who kept a 2700K until recently or rather what you mean by recently but that CPU was a bottleneck already during the Pascal era...
Anyway we are getting OT here.
Even if getting a 13600K would allow you an extra generation of GPU without the need to upgrade it is NOT worth the cost right now as an upgrade for an AM4 user.

 

[fevgatos]

Because this sort of performance is far from the only factor to take into account when considering what will matter for your PC.
I don't know who kept a 2700K until recently or rather what you mean by recently but that CPU was a bottleneck already during the Pascal era...
Anyway we are getting OT here.
Even if getting a 13600K would allow you an extra generation of GPU without the need to upgrade it is NOT worth the cost right now as an upgrade for an AM4 user.

The pascal era (like the 1080ti) was released 6 -7 years after the 2700k. And even then, I doubt it was a bottleneck at 4k. Actually, there is a very popular video on youtube testing exactly that, a 1080ti on a 2700k vs an 8700k or something similar, don't remember exactly. No difference at all in 4k

Should probably be a instant ban for that 720p remark. I would not touch that resolution with a dual core. 3090 it's 720p GG time! Someone Drake me it please.

No one suggested you should play in that resolution. Literally no one. The only people that brought this up are people that can't argue the actual point so they are strawmaning