Intel Core i5-13600K

[Super Firm Tofu]

I don't call getting 50 fps more in Age of Empires 4 at 1080p and 30 fps more in Far Cry 6 a 5% difference (yes I still game at 1080p and sometimes 1440p it varies between game). It's fine that AMD has a selection of games that bring the average down to 5%, but most games do favor Intel, in fact I would bet money if we looked at games in the last 10 years, vast majority of them will see great gains with a 13600k vs a zen4 chip. but since only new games are ever tested, that's why we only see the 5% average.

true UH14 isn't weak I suppose, I think the U12A and NH-D15 are the better two of Noctua though. I am considering a U12A for my rig actually at the moment. I bet I can bring that stock 71 celsius down to 61 celsius or lower with a mild bump in the fan curve with a U12A. we will see soon enough I expect.

You don't really have to prove or justify anything to me - I have both. Being happy with what you spent your money on is what matters. Sounds like you did well! Can't wait to hear your experiences.

Well I instantly regret buying that 12700K last week, even at $300.

The freaking 13600K is a monster for $330.

Crushed everything at games except 13900K.

Beat everything short of 7900X / 12900K in apps.

At least I have a good upgrade path now.

AMD is going to have to lop $100+ off their 7600X and 7700X, and $200 off the 7950X/7900X for them to make any sense whatsoever.

Send it back? That's what being a prime member is all about.

 

[RandallFlagg]

You don't really have to prove or justify anything to me - I have both. Being happy with what you spent your money on is what matters. Sounds like you did well! Can't wait to hear your experiences.



Send it back? That's what being a prime member is all about.

I'll just wait and upgrade again in the spring I imagine.

Jeez though this thing is a monster.

Der8aur testing power scaling...

At 90W power limit the 13900K wiped the floor with the 5800X3D, 12900KS, and 7950X.

Look at that poor 5950X at the bottom at 93.6W and 112 FPS.

Oh man.. this is almost 50% faster than 5950X and like 31% faster than 5800X3D even at 90W limit.

 

[wheresmycar]

TBH, i wasn't entirely excited about the 13th Gen K series as higher temps/thermals were already speculated (same applies to Zen 4). Can't wait to see what the 13400 (perhaps new value king) and 13700 bring to the table paired up with affordable B-series boards. Same goes for Zen 4, something along the lines 7500/7600/7700 + eventually less pricier B-mobs. Hope we get to see the rest of the SKUs from both camps (+X3D) before the close of 2022.

@W1zzard i was hoping DDR4 memory would also make the cut in these 13600K gaming charts/etc. Is this something expected soon?

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Probably more along the lines of the average X or K series chip buyer. AIOs are quite common.

These don't cost much more than a high end air cooler.

The biggest expense you will have with a 13600K is getting a GPU than can keep it busy, at least for now.

Within that population, perhaps. My own bias toward air is probably clouding my view. But does a 280mm (or larger) qualify as "common" across the entire set of PC gamers? I suppose if one is already spending $300+ on processor, another ~$100 on an AIO doesn't seem like much. Latest SHWS has 80% on 6 cores or fewer. Let's say 10% of those have AIOs, and 50% of 8+ cores do. That makes... 18%, I think. 240mm is the most popular rad size, right? If those plus 120s make up half of the AIOs, 9% of PC gamers have 280mm or larger liquid coolers. Analysis pulled directly from me bum. Is 10-15% common? I dunno. Seems like medical conditions that affect 20% of the population get described as "rare".

None of that's on topic anyway, so Imma shut up about it now.

EDIT: Said 240 at one point when meant 280

 

[LuxZg]

@RandallFlagg - love those useless 1080p 700fps benches and 2 graphs.. I'll wait for a more comprehensive tests.

Anyway, wanted to say that I'll be waiting some more as well. Maybe 13400, maybe 7600, maybe AMD price drops... Just give them all couple months.

Likewise, looking forward to some more power tweaking results.

And why? Because at these results, you need to count on buying larger PSU, better cooler, and while 600 series MBOs will save you money, that won't go to GPU - you'll need to spend it on PSU & cooling. While your average fame doesn't pull that power, you can't plan a build based on ~100W & ~70C from gaming tests

Depending on prices, if I go either Ryzen 7000 or Intel 13000, I think power tweaking will be a must. For me (personally) even this power during gaming is much, and I'll be certainly tweaking the build for FPS target limit, and no, not 120/144/165 one.

 

[RandallFlagg]

@RandallFlagg - love those useless 1080p 700fps benches and 2 graphs.. I'll wait for a more comprehensive tests.

Anyway, wanted to say that I'll be waiting some more as well. Maybe 13400, maybe 7600, maybe AMD price drops... Just give them all couple months.

Likewise, looking forward to some more power tweaking results.

And why? Because at these results, you need to count on buying larger PSU, better cooler, and while 600 series MBOs will save you money, that won't go to GPU - you'll need to spend it on PSU & cooling. While your average fame doesn't pull that power, you can't plan a build based on ~100W & ~70C from gaming tests

Depending on prices, if I go either Ryzen 7000 or Intel 13000, I think power tweaking will be a must. For me (personally) even this power during gaming is much, and I'll be certainly tweaking the build for FPS target limit, and no, not 120/144/165 one.

Of course. Some AMD acolyte tells us that Der8auer's analysis is useless.

 

[Valantar]

I'll just wait and upgrade again in the spring I imagine.

Jeez though this thing is a monster.

Der8aur testing power scaling...

At 90W power limit the 13900K wiped the floor with the 5800X3D, 12900KS, and 7950X.

Look at that poor 5950X at the bottom at 93.6W and 112 FPS.

View attachment 266386

Oh man.. this is almost 50% faster than 5950X and like 31% faster than 5800X3D even at 90W limit.

View attachment 266387

That's impressive performance, but on the other hand it's not like those power reductions are all that huge - 25W in FC6 is okay, but 9W in PUBG is almost nothing. And of course the 5800X3D still beats it in efficiency, even when the 13900K is limited to 90W. FC6: 164/90=1.8fps/W; 142/70,5=2fps/W; PUBG: 610/89.9=6.8fps/W; 465/62.8=7.4fps/W. The 5800X3D is definitely behind in absolute performance, but you'd need to power limit the 13900K further to catch up in efficiency - if it ever does.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Within that population, perhaps. My own bias toward air is probably clouding my view. But does a 280mm (or larger) qualify as "common" across the entire set of PC gamers? I suppose if one is already spending $300+ on processor, another ~$100 on an AIO doesn't seem like much. Latest SHWS has 80% on 6 cores or fewer. Let's say 10% of those have AIOs, and 50% of 8+ cores do. That makes... 18%, I think. 240mm is the most popular rad size, right? If those plus 120s make up half of the AIOs, 9% of PC gamers have 240mm or larger liquid coolers. Analysis pulled directly from me bum. Is 10-15% common? I dunno. Seems like medical conditions that affect 20% of the population get described as "rare".

None of that's on topic anyway, so Imma shut up about it now.

Analysis paralysis?

People buying K or X series chips are buying top of the line chips, they are labelled by both AMD and Intel as enthusiast chips. Honestly, there is nothing low end about a 13600K. Upper midrange really ends with the 13600 (or 12400).

I think you'd be right if looking across the entire spectrum, excluding these enthusiast chips - but lets keep in mind 70%-80% of consumer desktop PCs are OEM rigs.

The vast, vast majority of those are running something like a 12400 / 13400 - and most are running lesser than even that. Those chips have no problem whatsoever running on air.

The K and X chips are enthusiast chips. That's why I disdain too much talk of power consumption. It's the wrong context.

It's like watching a bunch of car enthusiasts talking about a Dodge Hellcat and being concerned about MPG. 90% of people who buy these chips don't give a crap.

 

[Denver]

I'll just wait and upgrade again in the spring I imagine.

Jeez though this thing is a monster.

Der8aur testing power scaling...

At 90W power limit the 13900K wiped the floor with the 5800X3D, 12900KS, and 7950X.

Look at that poor 5950X at the bottom at 93.6W and 112 FPS.

View attachment 266386

Oh man.. this is almost 50% faster than 5950X and like 31% faster than 5800X3D even at 90W limit.

View attachment 266387

Why do test results differ so much? Here Zen4 is above AlderLake.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Why do test results differ so much? Here Zen4 is above AlderLake.

Der8auer used lower graphics quality settings. That will tend to limit the system more to the CPU.

I think he also used DDR5-6800. His results are for most of us, fast forwarding to what will happen in about 2 years IMO. I for example will not see that differentiation anytime soon, because first I need a GPU comparable to a 4090.

Maybe I will have that in 2024/2025 when the 5080 launches.

If you aren't looking at the test system setup first for every review you are looking at, you aren't going to be able to deduce much from any of them. All the sites tell you something a little different.

TPU I like to see what a rig *I* would build is likely to perform at, today or sometime in the next 12 months.

 

[Space Lynx]

TBH, i wasn't entirely excited about the 13th Gen K series as higher temps/thermals were already speculated (same applies to Zen 4). Can't wait to see what the 13400 (perhaps new value king) and 13700 bring to the table paired up with affordable B-series boards. Same goes for Zen 4, something along the lines 7500/7600/7700 + eventually less pricier B-mobs. Hope we get to see the rest of the SKUs from both camps (+X3D) before the close of 2022.

@W1zzard i was hoping DDR4 memory would also make the cut in these 13600K gaming charts/etc. Is this something expected soon?

I just watched linustechtips review, they have a ddr4 ram gaming section. long story short, ram doesn't make a damn difference. even high end ddr5 ram vs low end really horrible ddr5 kits didn't matter in the few tests they did.

 

[beedoo]

I'll just wait and upgrade again in the spring I imagine.

Jeez though this thing is a monster.

Der8aur testing power scaling...

At 90W power limit the 13900K wiped the floor with the 5800X3D, 12900KS, and 7950X.

Look at that poor 5950X at the bottom at 93.6W and 112 FPS.



Oh man.. this is almost 50% faster than 5950X and like 31% faster than 5800X3D even at 90W limit.

I can only imagine the miserable gaming experience that poor 5950X owner must be having, playing at 416fps... sucker! /s

 

[wheresmycar]

Analysis pulled directly from me bum.

80-watts of explosively explorative flatulance.... anyone got a air-freshner handy?

 

[RandallFlagg]

I just watched linustechtips review, they have a ddr4 ram gaming section. long story short, ram doesn't make a damn difference. even high end ddr5 ram vs low end really horrible ddr5 kits didn't matter in the few tests they did.

I know you meant this but qualifier, it doesn't make much difference in games. 1-3%, usually.

In productivity, in certain things like compress/decompress or some encoding, it can be huge as in 15-30%.

I can only imagine the miserable gaming experience that poor 5950X owner must be having, playing at 416fps... sucker! /s

Well I was referring to the 164FPS vs 112 FPS.

Anyone with a >100Hz refresh rate monitor is likely going to be quite interested in that difference.

And that's today.

In two years, anyone who might maybe think about getting say a 5070 or 8700XT might maybe be interested too.

 

[Space Lynx]

Well I was referring to the 164FPS vs 112 FPS.

Anyone with a >100Hz refresh rate monitor is likely going to be quite interested in that difference.

yep exactly. also one thing W1zz review doesn't mention is 1% lows and 5% lows in games, and i watched a few reviews on youtube from various youtubers. holy shit Intel decimates AMD on the min low fps side. which means smoother gaming experiences overall.

 

[ca_steve]

Thanks for the review.

I'd love to see a comparison of the R5 7600X and i5-13600K both limited to 65W (and in the case of the i5 e cores disabled) to get a fun preview of the non-X and non-K parts' performance and efficiency.

 

[RandallFlagg]

That's impressive performance, but on the other hand it's not like those power reductions are all that huge - 25W in FC6 is okay, but 9W in PUBG is almost nothing. And of course the 5800X3D still beats it in efficiency, even when the 13900K is limited to 90W. FC6: 164/90=1.8fps/W; 142/70,5=2fps/W; PUBG: 610/89.9=6.8fps/W; 465/62.8=7.4fps/W. The 5800X3D is definitely behind in absolute performance, but you'd need to power limit the 13900K further to catch up in efficiency - if it ever does.

5800X3d beat it in one of them and lost to it in another, with the 13900K being the most efficient.

I think it's fair to say that 99.99% of people actually shelling out money 13900K or 5800X3D are **NOT** buying the chips for their power efficiency. The more astute ones (like 2%) might look at dollars per FPS. The time it took me to type this is probably more valuable in terms of money earned if I were being paid than an entire year of +25W efficiency while gaming.

Now people doing full time rendering for a living, that sub 1% fraction of a fraction of people, they might care and should probably be looking at those factors.

If you make $100/hr rendering and you sacrifice 5% of your speed to save 20% on power, or spend 20% more power to get 3% more speed ($3/hr), that's a math problem only the specific business would be able to solve for.

However, my guess is that speed would win there too.

 

[RedBear]

Thanks for the review.

I'd love to see a comparison of the R5 7600X and i5-13600K both limited to 65W (and in the case of the i5 e cores disabled) to get a fun preview of the non-X and non-K parts' performance and efficiency.

I think it wouldn't be really accurate, unlike Alder Lake the middle range non-K Raptor Lake parts will feature E cores (8 of them for the 13600, according to a leaked chart and geekbench records), but they don't use the same Raptor Cove of the 12600K (and above), instead they reuse the Golden Cove of Alder Lake (which features a smaller L2 cache).

 

[L'Eliminateur]

reading reviews across all tech sites i feel like there's a lot of interesting data missing:

1) Benchmark under windows 10, everyone is testing under win11(which is a no-go for me)
2) Benchmark under win10 with only P-cores

 

[mechtech]

Looks like poor W1zz has been putting in the OT with all these reviews!!

Intel Core i5-13600K Review - Best Gaming CPU

Core i5-13600K is a gamer's dream! The new processor achieves gaming numbers that match the best AMD Zen 4 offerings, at a much more competitive $320 price point. Our review also shows that 13600K can shine in applications, beating the much higher positioned Core i7-12700K.

www.techpowerup.com

3.1% relative diff at 4k over the 5600 I just bit the bullet on............hard to go wrong with a $170 CAD sale price ($125 USD)

Probably wait until black Friday to pick up a mobo, then upgraded for another 6 years (on the cheap)

Media encoding is nice though. Like most modern CPUs it looks like OC'ing scores lower for most thing vs auto/stock.

 

[Minus Infinity]

As I said when 2 months ago, 13600 and 13700 will be beasts and AMD has no real answer at thos price points as the Intel's have moved up a tier in performance bbut stayed at same price or only sligthly risen. I mean for god's sake the 13600K often matches the 12900K, beats the 12700K 95% of the time and crushes the 7600X and 7700X also 90%+ of the time. Also the 13600K destroys my 5800X in everything. Gosh I shudder to see how pathetic my 1700X would look now.The 13900K is pointless if you don't power limit it. I'd stick to 150W max and it'll still trash 12900K by 30%+. However, I'm leaning towards the 13700K becuase I do lot's of photo editing and run sims as well as game. 13700K will easily beat 12900K and you could power limit it and equal the 12900K all for $409.

All I can say is 7600X RIP unless it cuts price $70 and MB prices plummet. Hell even 7700X looks poor value now. AMD may need to get v-cache models out faster and price them at current levels and offer a 7600X3D too. I think 13400 will give 7600X a scare in gaming for what $199?

 

[L'Eliminateur]

i'll still stick with AMD, i don't do "e-cores" at all, i don't want them, i never wanted them and i won't overpay for unused silicon that i'll end up disabling on 1st power up.

IF intel had released a 8-core P-core only cpu, then my new PC would probably be that, as it is? i don't give a toss if it's more expensive, the software i use runs better on normal cores

 

[InVasMani]

Yeah agree 13600K does nicely in terms of performance anyway. It's got some raw power consumption issue at idle and max consumption at stock as well as power unlimited, but easy enough to fix the worst of the power problems w/o heavily sacrificing much on performance. It's really reflects whats I said since back when Alder Lake launched. The E cores are good design, but needed improving and Raptor Lake certainly has. Intel should've had more of a 85w/170w base power limit and max power limit on them out of the box, but their unlocked anyway.

For the price they aren't bad and a 13600K will be a good alternative to a 5800X3D to anyone not already on AM4 socket. If on a AM4 board the 5800X3D makes a higher value consideration otherwise 13600K I would say tends to be a nicer option. It's still pretty early too in the launch so manual optimizing on the 13600K might start to making it appear to look better and better when people have more time to manually play with the hardware itself. Another perk is the integrated GPU. I'm pleasantly surprised how well the 13600K is overall.

I thought this would be about the point where Intel and AMD really got into a dog fight before even Alder Lake launched and Raptor Lake was just on a marketing slide. The next Intel generation it's going to be a bigger slug fest AMD will have A LOT to prove because Intel will be coming out swinging. It's going to be spicier still next CPU generation between AMD and Intel I can't wait to see what happens in the next generation. I feel like this is only a precursor to a bigger battle between them which for consumers should be glorious.

 

[wheresmycar]

I just watched linustechtips review, they have a ddr4 ram gaming section. long story short, ram doesn't make a damn difference. even high end ddr5 ram vs low end really horrible ddr5 kits didn't matter in the few tests they did.

Was checking other reviews for the DDR4/DDR5 skirmish and found HUs 12 game average.....

At 1080p, 13900K-DDR5 beats DDR4 with a 6% performance increase. At 1440p, its 5%. I looked at a couple of individual games... watch dog showing a WHOPPING almost-15% increase when using the DDR5 kit. What going on there?

It seems... if you've got the dollar, its a pretty compelling reason to shift up a gear to DDR5, no? I guess if you already have a spec savvy DDR4 kit, thats a viable/cost effective option too.

 

[Super Firm Tofu]

Was checking other reviews for the DDR4/DDR5 skirmish and found HUs 12 game average.....

At 1080p, 13900K-DDR5 beats DDR4 with a 6% performance increase. At 1440p, its 5%. I looked at a couple of individual games... watch dog showing almost a 15% increase when using the DDR5 kit. What going on there?

It seems... if you've got the dollar, its a pretty compelling reason to shift up a gear to DDR5, no? I guess if you already have a spec savvy DDR4 kit, thats a viable/cost effective option too.

I think you're spot on. If you have a good kit of DDR4 it's probably smart to just use that. If you need to buy RAM, might as well spend on DDR5. You can at least use that again when you replace the board.