News AMD's new cheap gaming chip is 25% faster than Intel's more expensive alternative — Ryzen 7 5700X3D is faster than Core i5-13600KF in early reviews...

[Admin]

An early review of the 5700X3D reveals that the chip is up to 25% quicker in some titles against Intel's mid-range king the i5-13600KF.

AMD's new cheap gaming chip is 25% faster than Intel's more expensive alternative — Ryzen 7 5700X3D is faster than Core i5-13600KF in early reviews... : Read more

 

[hotaru251]

i mean i would really hope so....its a a 700 sku vs a 600 sku...

 

[helper800]

Its pretty easy to compare the 5700X3D to the 13600K/F, just look at the 5800X3D vs the 13600K/F. The 5700X3D and the 5800X3D are essentially the same chips with different clock speeds.

 

[Pierce2623]

While I’m definitely an advocate of AMD’s 3dvcache, testing against a stock 13600k at 5.1GHZ is kind of unfair when it’s practically guaranteed to do 5.6 all core and maybe 5.7. The vcache parts can’t be multiplier overclocked so you’re limited to whatever max clock AMD sets it at. In fact, with having to also do work on my PC, I’d only get one of 2 CCD vcache chips because I also need the higher clocks of the non-vcache ccd.

 

[helper800]

While I’m definitely an advocate of AMD’s 3dvcache, testing against a stock 13600k at 5.1GHZ is kind of unfair when it’s practically guaranteed to do 5.6 all core and maybe 5.7. The vcache parts can’t be multiplier overclocked so you’re limited to whatever max clock AMD sets it at. In fact, with having to also do work on my PC, I’d only get one of 2 CCD vcache chips because I also need the higher clocks of the non-vcache ccd.

For gaming specifically, I believe the 5800x3d does better than the 13600k on average.

 

[artk2219]

While I’m definitely an advocate of AMD’s 3dvcache, testing against a stock 13600k at 5.1GHZ is kind of unfair when it’s practically guaranteed to do 5.6 all core and maybe 5.7. The vcache parts can’t be multiplier overclocked so you’re limited to whatever max clock AMD sets it at. In fact, with having to also do work on my PC, I’d only get one of 2 CCD vcache chips because I also need the higher clocks of the non-vcache ccd.

Eh, I mean they're within the same price range, the 5700X3D will retail for $250 vs the current pricing of $286 for the 13600KF. It would be worth looking at whether that extra $36 dollars is worth it, especially with AM4 platforms having similar pricing to LGA 1700.

 

[CelicaGT]

While I’m definitely an advocate of AMD’s 3dvcache, testing against a stock 13600k at 5.1GHZ is kind of unfair when it’s practically guaranteed to do 5.6 all core and maybe 5.7. The vcache parts can’t be multiplier overclocked so you’re limited to whatever max clock AMD sets it at. In fact, with having to also do work on my PC, I’d only get one of 2 CCD vcache chips because I also need the higher clocks of the non-vcache ccd.

On the contrary, testing one CPU that is overclocked and one at stock clocks is 100% unfair. It's nearly always been the case to compare things like for like in (reputable) product reviews. However, providing the overclocked results adds value to the review, and the potential buyers gain some insight on their planned purchase. The fact remains that most K SKU's remain at stock clocks, overclocking is far less common than people think.

For some context (Using an unfortunate automotive analogy that doesn't quite fit) it used to be VERY common for automakers to provide review vehicles with (undisclosed) expensive performance tires (and sometimes other modifications) that were not provided on the (stock) retail models. Tires have a MASSIVE effect on performance and fuel economy and the choice of a better performant tire can skew results favorably for an otherwise noncompetitive product . Certain review magazines (yes, this predates the internet) began calling out the practice and it mostly ended, though there is definitely some tomfoolery still. Cars are not CPU's but this does highlight WHY products are tested AS SHIPPED TO RETAIL. Whether it's clock speeds, RAM timings, single or dual channel, cooling devices and the list goes on.

Now, that all said it is perfectly OK, and encouraged for a reviewer to afterwards modify settings or add better cooling or memory, even overclock as a value add to the review. It's practically standard practice these days. For those of us who are enthusiasts it's often this information that is most valuable.

On the current "review", the wins/losses definitely highlight how cache can affect performance. A simple OC wasn't going to net a win in every situation for the i5, but for the closest ones it could be the tie breaker. Regardless, they are two mostly non competing markets. The AM4 X3D variants are aimed towards enthusiasts looking to upgrade existing rigs to modernish performance standards, not new system builders. Those people will get the i5, or go to a modern AM5 platform which DOES directly compete with the Intel offering.

 

[TerryLaze]

Like how do you people come up with these titles?
Why up to 25% ?
The biggest difference is 33% while the average is 9% why the 25% ?

 

[evdjj3j]

Like how do you people come up with these titles?
Why up to 25% ?
The biggest difference is 33% while the average is 9% why the 25% ?

You clicked didn't you?

 

[Geef]

Sadly most of the time when there are cheap chips like this they are paired with the worst of the worst of other PC equipment. Even if it is possible for the chip to handle it, the other gear won't hold up and will slow it down.

BUY GAMING PC!
It has XYZ chip in it for performance!
Chip was tested under ideal conditions. This PC is not ideal.

 

[d0x360]

While I’m definitely an advocate of AMD’s 3dvcache, testing against a stock 13600k at 5.1GHZ is kind of unfair when it’s practically guaranteed to do 5.6 all core and maybe 5.7. The vcache parts can’t be multiplier overclocked so you’re limited to whatever max clock AMD sets it at. In fact, with having to also do work on my PC, I’d only get one of 2 CCD vcache chips because I also need the higher clocks of the non-vcache ccd.

True they can't be multiplier unlocked past a certain point but they can be forced to stay at boost without thermal issues and then they can still be overclocked higher using the eclk the only problem is that crystal also is in charge of pcie and SATA clocks... But that doesn't mean it can't be used by skilled overclockers and plenty of patience.

I've seen someone get it up to 5.9 GHz but so far my best efforts top out at 5.5 but I don't think I have the best bin. That said the gains were there and temps were still very manageable and even more so if I disabled CCD1 but I usually don't bother because I haven't really had any scheduler issues and even games that get put on the non vcache ccd run great on my 4090 because it's running at 5.9ghz and my memory is a 6400mt lot overclocked to 7000mt CL28-28-30-80 +0.036 mv (I think it's 36 anyway lol) which actually shocked the hell out of me because my first kit and it's store exchanged replacements topped out at 6400mhz which was it's expo profile.

 

[rtoaht]

Cringy clickbait

 

[rtoaht]

You clicked didn't you?

I typically disable ad blockers to support journalism. But when I suspect clickbait, I make sure to turn on the ad blockers before clicking the link.

 

[rluker5]

While I’m definitely an advocate of AMD’s 3dvcache, testing against a stock 13600k at 5.1GHZ is kind of unfair when it’s practically guaranteed to do 5.6 all core and maybe 5.7. The vcache parts can’t be multiplier overclocked so you’re limited to whatever max clock AMD sets it at. In fact, with having to also do work on my PC, I’d only get one of 2 CCD vcache chips because I also need the higher clocks of the non-vcache ccd.

Tom's did test them with OC: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-13900k-i5-13600k-cpu-review/5
At stock settings the 5800X3D was faster, and when they overclocked the 13600k it was faster in games.

I only run my 13600k at 5.5 all core P and 4.4 all core E because I like to leave the volts at stock and keep my ITX imitation xbox quiet. It can do 5.6 but it is getting thirsty at that point.

 

[MoxNix]

Like how do you people come up with these titles?
Why up to 25% ?
The biggest difference is 33% while the average is 9% why the 25% ?

Actually both numbers are almost correct but the author seems to have gotten confused and got faster vs slower backwards. 25% in the title states how much faster the AMD chip is. 33% in the chart states the opposite, how much slower the intel chip is.

If AMD speed is 100 and Intel speed is 75 then 75 is 25% slower than 100 but 100 is 33-1/3% faster than 75.

IOW saying AMD is 33-1/3% faster is exactly the same as saying Intel is 25% slower. However the article states exactly the opposite which is wrong. Swap the numbers and it's correct... Assuming he didn't make other mistakes too.

 

[helper800]

Actually both numbers are correct. 25% in the title states how much faster the AMD chip is. 33% in the chart in the chart shows just the opposite, how much slower the intel chip is.

If AMD speed is 100 and Intel speed is 75 then 75 is 25% slower than 100 but 100 is 33-1/3% faster than 75.

IOW saying AMD is 25% faster is exactly the same as saying Intel is 33-1/3% slower.

Math does check out.

 

[TerryLaze]

You clicked didn't you?

I would have clicked 27% more if it said 33%

Actually both numbers are correct. 25% in the title states how much faster the AMD chip is. 33% in the chart in the chart shows just the opposite, how much slower the intel chip is.

If AMD speed is 100 and Intel speed is 75 then 75 is 25% slower than 100 but 100 is 33-1/3% faster than 75.

IOW saying AMD is 25% faster is exactly the same as saying Intel is 33-1/3% slower.

Yeah, so the article isn't confusing at all...
Also aren't you always supposed to take the smaller number as the starting point when using percentages?

 

[helper800]

Yeah, so the article isn't confusing at all...
Also aren't you always supposed to take the smaller number as the starting point when using percentages?

Nothing anywhere says one way is correct or should be said one way or another. Both ways are just two different ways of looking at the same information.

 

[samopa]

Why compare to 13600KF, where you can get 12700K cheaper than that and probably faster too.

13600KF = $285 in Amazon
12700K = $269 in Amazon

They both used roughly same spareparts.

 

[Notton]

I bought my 5800X3D when it hit its record low price of US$270 in 2023, and not its MSRP of US$450.
In fact, it's around US$300 right now, isn't it?

 

[mitch074]

AM4 still lives, 8 years later. Funny how so many people called it cr@p when it came out (to be fair, it needed a few BIOS updates to become viable)... I installed a Ryzen 5500 on a B350 motherboard last month, to replace the Ryzen 1400 I had first installed on it in mid 2017 and that was showing its age in some games. The biggest problems I had with it were...
The Nvidia GPU's driver - that GTX 1060 just wouldn't stay stable on DX9/11 games.
The rest (install an NVMe SSD instead of the original SATA one, install Win11, increase RAM to 16 Gb ) was painless, if a bit long (I had to upgrade the BIOS in 2 steps).
On my own machine (mid-2018, X470 based), I swapped the original 2700X for a 5900X : a single BIOS update (I had kept it rather current to enable reBAR), unmount the cooler, remove old chip, mount new chip, put some paste, remount cooler... Done.
I might forgo AM5 for AM6 thanks to that.

 

[helper800]

AM4 still lives, 8 years later. Funny how so many people called it cr@p when it came out (to be fair, it needed a few BIOS updates to become viable)... I installed a Ryzen 5500 on a B350 motherboard last month, to replace the Ryzen 1400 I had first installed on it in mid 2017 and that was showing its age in some games. The biggest problems I had with it were...
The Nvidia GPU's driver - that GTX 1060 just wouldn't stay stable on DX9/11 games.
The rest (install an NVMe SSD instead of the original SATA one, install Win11, increase RAM to 16 Gb ) was painless, if a bit long (I had to upgrade the BIOS in 2 steps).
On my own machine (mid-2018, X470 based), I swapped the original 2700X for a 5900X : a single BIOS update (I had kept it rather current to enable reBAR), unmount the cooler, remove old chip, mount new chip, put some paste, remount cooler... Done.
I might forgo AM5 for AM6 thanks to that.

Personally, I like stepping in when AMD is in the middle of their cadence. I went from my i5-3570k machine from 2013-ish to a 3900x on x570. The same day the 5800X3D came out I bought it for MSRP at Microcenter. I will stay on AM4 probably until I see an appreciable performance gap between what I have now and future CPUs. I will probably get an Intel CPU next if they are competitive. I typically also like to switch between Intel and AMD platforms.