News Core i5-13500 ES CPU Beats Core i5-12500 By Over 50 Percent In Early Multi-Threaded Benchmarks

[Admin]

A new engineering sample of Intel's Core i5-13500 was recently reviewed by a Bilibili content creator, showcasing the chip's immense multi-threaded performance, 56% faster than its Core i5-12500 predecessor.

Core i5-13500 ES CPU Beats Core i5-12500 By Over 50 Percent In Early Multi-Threaded Benchmarks : Read more

 

[Deleted member 2731765]

The MT scores/results indeed look quite promising for an ES2 chip sample.

Also, the fact that users will be able to have the chip run on any LGA 1700 socketed motherboard with both DDR5 & DDR4 support means that it will become one of the most popular gaming budget chips, and a very competitive SKU in the sub-$250 US price range.

Unlike the AMD AM5 platform, which only supports DDR5, Intel's Raptor lake chips seems to be more competitive, and offer flexible choice when it comes to upgrade. Not to mention the choice of a more affordable Intel B760 motherboard as well.

 

[setx]

And where is the "flexible choice when it comes to upgrade" in the dead end that LGA 1700 is? There is no future for the platform and the next generation will change the socket again.

 

[zoridon]

A system built for gaming off the LGA 1700 platform will last a minimum of 5 years with the only upgrade needed is a GPU. I have been building computers for gaming and business for over 25 years and by the time the CPU and connections need an upgrade I'm well past 5 years and usually closer to 7 or even 8 years. In the meantime I may have changed my GPU 2 or 3 times. After that much time you will want something totally new anyway with the newest PCIe express etc.. for example historically moving to USB 1 then 2 then 3 thane type c, or moving from DDR 1 then 2 then 3 then 4 and now 5. PCIE express you should know the cadence by now. 6 P core with 8 e cores will suffice for many years to come. If your worried about that then get the 8 p and 8 e core next step up model. Never build a system today without at least 32 gig of ram if used for gaming as well.

 

[Elusive Ruse]

The MT scores/results indeed look quite promising for an ES2 chip sample.

Also, the fact that users will be able to have the chip run on any LGA 1700 socketed motherboard with both DDR5 & DDR4 support means that it will become one of the most popular gaming budget chips, and a very competitive SKU in the sub-$250 US price range.

Unlike the AMD AM5 platform, which only supports DDR5, Intel's Raptor lake chips seems to be more competitive, and offer flexible choice when it comes to upgrade. Not to mention the choice of a more affordable Intel B760 motherboard as well.

This reads like an Intel press release.

 

[digitalgriffin]

This reads like an Intel press release.

Metal messiah has always been pragmatic and even handed IMHO. He is right in this case. And I'm not an Intel fanboi. Look at my systems in my sig. AMD just stepped into a pile of Doo Doo this round with the motherboard and memory cost. 7000 improvements would be largely wiped out by ddr4 I believe. It's basically Zen 3 shrunk down with some minor improvements in clock speed and scheduler.

 

[watzupken]

The increase in multithreaded performance is great, but almost mostly contributed from having no E-cores to having 8 E-cores. Having said that, I don't think this increase in performance comes free and will likely result in a higher i5 price tag. At the end of the day, it really depends on the use case of each buyer to determine the worth of the product. For gamers, the 8 E cores will not be of much benefit since games should use the P-cores exclusively. The E-cores may help to alleviate some of the background tasks running.

 

[TerryLaze]

The increase in multithreaded performance is great, but almost mostly contributed from having no E-cores to having 8 E-cores. Having said that, I don't think this increase in performance comes free and will likely result in a higher i5 price tag. At the end of the day, it really depends on the use case of each buyer to determine the worth of the product. For gamers, the 8 E cores will not be of much benefit since games should use the P-cores exclusively. The E-cores may help to alleviate some of the background tasks running.

The xx500 went from a 6 core on the 9th to a 6/12 core on the 10th and kept the $192 price for the next few gens until the 12th gen where it was still 6/12 but went up in price to $222.
It could increase but it could also not increase, there is precedent for both from intel.

At the end of the day if prices do increase, but core count on lower CPUs also increases then people can just go with a lower CPU, if people don't need the extra MT of the i5 then better for the people because if the i3 is now as fast as an older i5 they will get off with paying much less.

 

[-Fran-]

Ah... Competition. Feels good.

As predicted, no surprises there: the i5s were going to be a good deal.

Let's see how AMD reacts when this launches, because the 7600X won't cut it for long at the same price due to the platform costs. Maybe AMD needs to hurry with the A620 boards.

Regards.

 

[Elusive Ruse]

Metal messiah has always been pragmatic and even handed IMHO. He is right in this case. And I'm not an Intel fanboi. Look at my systems in my sig. AMD just stepped into a pile of Doo Doo this round with the motherboard and memory cost. 7000 improvements would be largely wiped out by ddr4 I believe. It's basically Zen 3 shrunk down with some minor improvements in clock speed and scheduler.

Is it performance we are bashing AMD for or costs? It cannot be both. Is it expensive to move to AM5? Yes, it is. Is it AMD's fault that MOBO manufacturers are charging premiums for early adopters? I disagree. Yet there are good value B650 boards out there so it's not out of the question
Is DDR5 expensive? It used to be, it is not anymore, you can find good deals easily.
Are Zen 4 CPUs too expensive? Not anymore.

When it comes to performance, AMD and intel are neck-and-neck overall, with the caveat that 13600K at around 20 bucks cheaper than the 7700X offers a much better rounded performance. But all of this performance parity is possible only through pairing Intel chips with 6400 DDR5 RAMs.

TL;DR, the cost to move to AM5 has been declining, and drastically at that recently, while the idea that Intel offers flexible upgrade path is only valid if you acknowledge that the performance will not come close to Zen4.

 

[JamesJones44]

Is it performance we are bashing AMD for or costs? It cannot be both. Is it expensive to move to AM5? Yes, it is. Is it AMD's fault that MOBO manufacturers are charging premiums for early adopters? I disagree. Yet there are good value B650 boards out there so it's not out of the question
Is DDR5 expensive? It used to be, it is not anymore, you can find good deals easily.
Are Zen 4 CPUs too expensive? Not anymore.

When it comes to performance, AMD and intel are neck-and-neck overall, with the caveat that 13600K at around 20 bucks cheaper than the 7700X offers a much better rounded performance. But all of this performance parity is possible only through pairing Intel chips with 6400 DDR5 RAMs.

TL;DR, the cost to move to AM5 has been declining, and drastically at that recently, while the idea that Intel offers flexible upgrade path is only valid if you acknowledge that the performance will not come close to Zen4.

There are no broad strokes this generation. Your comment is trying to do that but it doesn't make sense. Every computer system should be bought with your use case in mind.

Gaming: At the moment this is be best single core score, most games don't use more than a few cores so 8 e cores vs 8 p cores is largely irrelevant.
Web browsing/Word Processing: Cheapest thing you can buy
Workstation like workload: 7950x end of story.

When you go through that list I would say gaming is a coin flip with the x3ds coming, web browsing is Intel (cheap) and workstation is AMD. All the rest of the arguments are just fanboy positioning.

 

[Elusive Ruse]

There are no broad strokes this generation. Your comment is trying to do that but it doesn't make sense. Every computer system should be bought with your use case in mind.

Gaming: At the moment this is be best single core score, most games don't use more than a few cores so 8 e cores vs 8 p cores is largely irrelevant.
Web browsing/Word Processing: Cheapest thing you can buy
Workstation like workload: 7950x end of story.

When you go through that list I would say gaming is a coin flip with the x3ds coming, web browsing is Intel (cheap) and workstation is AMD. All the rest of the arguments are just fanboy positioning.

My post was about debunking talking points like Zen 4 is too expensive or Intel is cheaper with better performance that is thrown around. Your post has nothing to do with mine, other than the fact that you decided to quote me and slap some generic statements in "broad strokes" under it.

 

[TerryLaze]

When it comes to performance, AMD and intel are neck-and-neck overall, with the caveat that 13600K at around 20 bucks cheaper than the 7700X offers a much better rounded performance. But all of this performance parity is possible only through pairing Intel chips with 6400 DDR5 RAMs.

Couldn't you find a worse picture of this?!
Also please don't link to the actual video so that people can get a better perspective on it.

As far as I can tell from that pic the
13600k with 3600 mem gets 53.5FPS min and 153FPS avg, the
13600k with 6400 mem gets 53.9 min and 175 avg while the
7700x with 6000 mem gets 54 min and 183 avg.

So minimums are the same at all prices and you are arguing that you have to spend more money to get more avg FPS because ...reasons...!?
Nobody cares about 30FPS difference in avg when you are getting over 150FPS with the slowest option.
Especially since you would have to do a heavy overclock on the ram, on top of paying more for it.
And if this pic is from a video with only a small selection of games (those with the highest possible difference) then it's even less of an issue.

 

[digitalgriffin]

Is it performance we are bashing AMD for or costs? It cannot be both. Is it expensive to move to AM5? Yes, it is. Is it AMD's fault that MOBO manufacturers are charging premiums for early adopters? I disagree. Yet there are good value B650 boards out there so it's not out of the question
Is DDR5 expensive? It used to be, it is not anymore, you can find good deals easily.
Are Zen 4 CPUs too expensive? Not anymore.

When it comes to performance, AMD and intel are neck-and-neck overall, with the caveat that 13600K at around 20 bucks cheaper than the 7700X offers a much better rounded performance. But all of this performance parity is possible only through pairing Intel chips with 6400 DDR5 RAMs.

TL;DR, the cost to move to AM5 has been declining, and drastically at that recently, while the idea that Intel offers flexible upgrade path is only valid if you acknowledge that the performance will not come close to Zen4.

Every major YouTuber agrees. In terms of total cost per frame Intel wins this generation.

 

[-Fran-]

Couldn't you find a worse picture of this?!
Also please don't link to the actual video so that people can get a better perspective on it.

As far as I can tell from that pic the
13600k with 3600 mem gets 53.5FPS min and 153FPS avg, the
13600k with 6400 mem gets 53.9 min and 175 avg while the
7700x with 6000 mem gets 54 min and 183 avg.

So minimums are the same at all prices and you are arguing that you have to spend more money to get more avg FPS because ...reasons...!?
Nobody cares about 30FPS difference in avg when you are getting over 150FPS with the slowest option.
Especially since you would have to do a heavy overclock on the ram, on top of paying more for it.
And if this pic is from a video with only a small selection of games (those with the highest possible difference) then it's even less of an issue.

Funny you say that, because I can see the 5600 also has a 30FPS difference and it's the cheapest option overall. 🤷‍♂️

Regards.

 

[TerryLaze]

Funny you say that, because I can see the 5600 also has a 30FPS difference and it's the cheapest option overall. 🤷‍♂️

Regards.

Yes the 5600 does have a 30FPS difference...below the slowest option. (of what we compared)
But yeah ok, that was my point also, without knowing what these games are and if it translates to many games or if this is the most difference you will ever see it doesn't matter, the min for all the systems are within 3-4 FPS of each other so there is no point in it.

 

[-Fran-]

Yes the 5600 does have a 30FPS difference...below the slowest option. (of what we compared)
But yeah ok, that was my point also, without knowing what these games are and if it translates to many games or if this is the most difference you will ever see it doesn't matter, the min for all the systems are within 3-4 FPS of each other so there is no point in it.

Don't get me wrong with my reply (just in case!). Except for VR, I share more or less the same opinion about FPS'es (proof is I still use my Vega64 for 1440p) and I classify anything over 90FPS a luxury item/combo (some draw the line at 60, others at 30). As it's been established and, more or less, we all agree on, the higher end is now more of a "technical" win instead of a meaningful one.

I guess there is a consideration for people looking for the cheapest they can get away with for games exclusively that is not a wash for some mild/light threaded work. I say that, because my GF does process video as she cycles and likes to report bad drivers, so she does a lot of video conversion via software to upload it (her camera has its own software to do so) and she's perfectly fine with her 5600X doing that. It doesn't take her 2 seconds to do everything and the slowest thing is by far watching the video and cutting it in the right time, lol. Encoding it takes like 2 minutes, which is almost nothing (h264, L5@High, 720p). Sorry, point is: even when you have a PC for "more than just gaming", anything at or above 6c/12t is more than enough for a while until cheaper stuff (150-250 range) takes over in per-core performance and price/perf.

Regards.