-
The scheduled forum maintenance has now been completed. If you spot any issues, please report them here in this thread. Thank you!
I would not buy an AM5 right now, but even then it would last 2 or 3 cpus. Tired of the intel socketing BS.
- Oct 3, 2022
- 556
- 762
- 1,760
This idea that people with a limited budget who spend $100-$200 on a CPU have the money to upgrade CPU every few years, is complete baloney.
The most used CPU on Steam are still quad cores and 6 cores. The most used GPU on Steam are still 1650, 1060 and 1050Ti.
People on a budget tend to stick with their system for 6 years or more. By that time both AMD and Intel mobo will be completely outdated. Upgradability is irrelevant for people on a budget.
Last edited:
- Oct 3, 2022
- 556
- 762
- 1,760
Another reason why "upgradeability" is becoming increasingly irrelevant is that the hardware cycle has slowed down incredibly. People used to upgrade their PC every few years, now PC users are sticking with their PC for much longer. You can clearly see this by looking at Steam's hardware survey. PC gamers are demanding the same as consoles, longevity and relevancy of their system.
Games that don't adhere to this and push the envelope on system requirements, get ruthlessly punished for it in sales. Games that limit hardware requirements get praised for it with sales.
Games that don't adhere to this and push the envelope on system requirements, get ruthlessly punished for it in sales. Games that limit hardware requirements get praised for it with sales.
Why_Me
Titan
- Jan 17, 2008
- 16,762
- 2,607
- 72,340
randyh121
Prominent
- Jan 3, 2023
- 257
- 53
- 770
AMD CPU's have a much higher failure rate. Intel will be the best bang for your buck
- Sep 4, 2007
- 6,614
- 844
- 44,490
It's a really solid time to get a new CPU. Intel has a lot to offer at decent prices as this article shows. I've missed this level of competition between Intel and AMD. When I started REALLY getting into building PCs you had Intel with their Pentium III's and AMD just breaking the 1GHz barrier. Things would be interesting for years, partricularly the Athlon/Pentuim III/Pentuim 4 and Athlon 64 CPUs years...and to a lesser extent Phenom/Core...but once Faildozer dropped, AMD just could not compete on any reasonable level IMHO. I hope this level of fervor 1up's-manship between Intel and AMD lasts for a long uninterrupted time into the future.
csbassplayer
Distinguished
- Nov 27, 2006
- 13
- 9
- 18,515
This article glosses over one main issue: the value proposition.
Is the 13400f better than the 12400f? Sure. Is the 7% increase worth the 30% extra money? No. Right now the price of the 12400f is $160.99 on Newegg/Amazon, the 13400f is $209.99. That's just shy of $50 difference, for barely any gains at all. Why would anyone buy a 13400 over a 12400? Anyone who cares about the small improvement in productivity, isn't shopping in the $200 cpu space. The gaming performance, is minute. The other elephant in the room, is the 5600 (non X). 1% slower roughly than the 5600x. Can be had for $140 today. Is barely 2% slower than the 12400F based on Tom's own numbers. The value there is hard to top. And don't give me "AM4 is dead", so is LGA 1700, but we are giving that a pass.
Too many people are comparing new vs new. Lately, for most hardware, the new offerings are not better value than the older ones. Are they better? Sure, but they are eeking out 5% gains for 25% plus more money. Most consumers dont have that luxury anymore, but the hardware manufacturers are acting like value no longer matters. Most non K Intel 13th gens are not fundamentally newer than the 12th gens. They are essentially rebadged 12th gens, with higher price tags on them.
Is the 13400f better than the 12400f? Sure. Is the 7% increase worth the 30% extra money? No. Right now the price of the 12400f is $160.99 on Newegg/Amazon, the 13400f is $209.99. That's just shy of $50 difference, for barely any gains at all. Why would anyone buy a 13400 over a 12400? Anyone who cares about the small improvement in productivity, isn't shopping in the $200 cpu space. The gaming performance, is minute. The other elephant in the room, is the 5600 (non X). 1% slower roughly than the 5600x. Can be had for $140 today. Is barely 2% slower than the 12400F based on Tom's own numbers. The value there is hard to top. And don't give me "AM4 is dead", so is LGA 1700, but we are giving that a pass.
Too many people are comparing new vs new. Lately, for most hardware, the new offerings are not better value than the older ones. Are they better? Sure, but they are eeking out 5% gains for 25% plus more money. Most consumers dont have that luxury anymore, but the hardware manufacturers are acting like value no longer matters. Most non K Intel 13th gens are not fundamentally newer than the 12th gens. They are essentially rebadged 12th gens, with higher price tags on them.
Thats a false. Do you have any data to support this statement?
You can't test and show the performance of a cpu with a cl16 kit and give prices for a cl18 kit as thats flawed testing methodology. I'd even argue comparing a 16gb ddr4 kit to a 32gb ddr5 kit as tomshardware did in this article is flawed testing methodology.
When comparing hardware, it needs to be an apples to apples comparison, not whatever puts one product in a better light than the other according to personal preferences
Last edited:
Why_Me
Titan
- Jan 17, 2008
- 16,762
- 2,607
- 72,340
DDR4 3200 CL16 and DDR4 3600 CL18 are the go to RAM kits these days. Most peeps want 'plug & play'.
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/bc...-ddr4-3200-cl16-memory-tlzgd432g3200hc16fdc01
TEAMGROUP T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3200 32GB (2x16GB) CL16 $69.99
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/PJ...-ddr4-3600-cl18-memory-tlzgd432g3600hc18jdc01
TEAMGROUP T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 32GB (2x16GB) CL18 $75.98
DRagor
Polypheme
- Jan 23, 2017
- 9,027
- 747
- 65,440
For 4 E-cores. Sure, it adds nothing to gaming performance. But then most people do much more then just gaming while gaming. All those ytube, twitch, discord, wherever running alongside game on secondary monitor(s) eats CPU cores pretty quickly, and that's where those extra come pretty handy.
Of course in the end, 13500 having extra 4 more cores for just 10$ is even better in this scenario. It should be either 13400F or 13500, 13400 seems to be in awkward spot now.
Again, the article did not test ddr4 3200c16 or 3600c18. It tested 3600c16, then made the price difference argument between ddr4 and ddr5. You cannot show results of a d4 3600c16 kit vs a d5 6000 kit on performance charts then make the argument of double the cost between d4 and d5 when you are comparing prices of 3200c16 or 3600c18 to the d5. That is misleading and flawed testing methodology. The fact that a 2x8gb ddr4 3600c16 kit was used when compared to the 2x16gb kits of ddr5 is flawed testing methodology in this review.
Lastly, ddr4 3600 on non-k skus is not a guarantee since the SA voltage is locked and not every non-k sku will be able to run ddr4 3600 in gear 1
csbassplayer
Distinguished
- Nov 27, 2006
- 13
- 9
- 18,515
But in that case, why wouldn't you buy a 12600K(f)? $214.00. Better in every respect, $5 more (today) vs the 13400f. Non F model is literally the same $250.
- Oct 3, 2022
- 556
- 762
- 1,760
Because the 13400f has additional E-cores that use a tiny fraction of the power of the P-Cores on the 12400f.
Most tasks on PC involve simple things like browsing the internet, watching video etc. On the 12400f you are forced to use power hungry P-Cores for that. On the 13400f the system will use the efficient E-cores.
You'll quickly make up for that $40 difference by lowering your electric bill.
It's a shame so few reviews talk about the power efficiency of E-cores. Apple has this Big.Little ARM system that is the same idea, and many reviews have pointed out the improvements in drastically lowering power consumption.
Browsing the internet on P-cores is a bit like those empty school buses that drive around to pick up just 1 kid at school. For most tasks, that bus is way too big, and way too inefficient.
Last edited:
DRagor
Polypheme
- Jan 23, 2017
- 9,027
- 747
- 65,440
12600K comes without cooler. Even if we agree stock cooler is not suitable enough for 13400/13500 still you could end up with cheaper cooler for non-K. Although I could agree that at same price 12600K would be better buy - except (at least at my place) it is like 50$ more expensive. Or more specifically it seems like it is sold out at places that had lower prices.
csbassplayer
Distinguished
- Nov 27, 2006
- 13
- 9
- 18,515
Except that consumers don't shop in this fashion. And if that argument is made in this case, you can make it in any other CPU/power efficiency setup.
If you offer X component at $100 more up front price, but $200 cheaper distributed over 5 years usage, 95% of consumers will choose the cheaper up front cost item. That also assumes consumers hold on to said item long enough for the consumption over time dividends to balance out. Super efficient LED lightbulbs for example, the real efficient ones will cost a few dollars to run for a whole year (continuous, 24/7 usage), but if they cost more than a dollar or two more than the generic ones up front, (even though power wise they will more than cover that in a year), they will still be purchased far less often. Its kind of a sliding argument. Its got potential, but will it be realized? Depends on habits.
This same argument could be made in favor of the 7600 (or whatever CPU that is slightly more efficient). In 30 years power savings, you too can offset the cost of your AM5 MOBO and DDR5! (I jest, but you get the point).
- Oct 3, 2022
- 556
- 762
- 1,760
I don't disagree. Most people have no idea what E-cores are.
I think the 13400 will easily sell (relative to other CPU) because it is number 13 and 13 is a higher number than 12. And $200 is about the sweet spot for CPU if you look at Steam's hardware sales.
Not because it has E-cores over the 12400, even if users will benefit from reduced power consumption when browsing, they won't be aware of it.
Last edited:
csbassplayer
Distinguished
- Nov 27, 2006
- 13
- 9
- 18,515
This might prove prophetic. Mostly because as you said, 13 is higher than 12. The price tag is the only thing i will balance this out. Cheaper usually wins out.
- Feb 24, 2015
- 876
- 394
- 19,360
This actually isn't a better deal imo. The $160 12400F does lower the price of entry by $36, but the 12400F results in significant tradeoffs in performance — the 13400 is 7% faster in gaming, 4% faster in single-thread, and 16% faster in threaded work.
Calculating this by systems costs, you're looking at paying $2.42 per frame, which is 3% less than the Core i5-13400's $2.50 per frame, but that comes at a loss of 7% in gaming performance, not to mention the 16% in threaded that is worth at least something. Yes, the ultra-cheap 12400F would make a decent budget build, but it isn't quite the value you might think — the lower performance slots this into a lower tier. The chip is also currently on sale, and I don't think you'll see that price again after they clear stock.
- Feb 24, 2015
- 876
- 394
- 19,360
- Apr 27, 2009
- 38,454
- 3,863
- 143,290
According to a percentage calculator, that I found, and going by PCPP pricing at time of this post, the 13400f's , 209.96 is a 27.25% increase of the 12400f's 164.99. For only 7% gaming performance, it isn't worth it. Not to mention that people buying in this tier of CPU aren't buying $1500+ graphics cards. The graphics cards more likely to be paired with it, the gaming performance would be 0, as the GPU would be the limiting factor. These chips are going to typically be paired with cards most likely not costing more than a 6700xt.
This cpu simply doesn't impress me, at it's price point. Having seen HUB's shootout with it vs the 5700x, I am even less impressed, as the average gaming performance, in there data, the 5700x was slightly higher, and is a good deal cheaper. The 5700x would have no issues being paired with a cheap B550 board, like the Gigabyte B550 DS3H, at around $108. The Intel B660 boards, by and large, lack bios flashback, and similar priced options for B760 have terrible vrm solutions, for handling these chips, unless you run them at Intel's specification. Intel needs that extra power, to get the most out of their chips. Don't get me wrong, AM5 is no better, in this regard, with their 95c and stay there chips.
Anyone doing real productivity work, for a living, probably shouldn't be shopping at this price point to begin with.
This cpu simply doesn't impress me, at it's price point. Having seen HUB's shootout with it vs the 5700x, I am even less impressed, as the average gaming performance, in there data, the 5700x was slightly higher, and is a good deal cheaper. The 5700x would have no issues being paired with a cheap B550 board, like the Gigabyte B550 DS3H, at around $108. The Intel B660 boards, by and large, lack bios flashback, and similar priced options for B760 have terrible vrm solutions, for handling these chips, unless you run them at Intel's specification. Intel needs that extra power, to get the most out of their chips. Don't get me wrong, AM5 is no better, in this regard, with their 95c and stay there chips.
Anyone doing real productivity work, for a living, probably shouldn't be shopping at this price point to begin with.
Kona45primo
Honorable
- Jan 16, 2021
- 551
- 162
- 9,890
I think it's a great article
But if we're considering value here, why not value down the road. AM5 is a baby, still has 2-3 additional generations that can be used on the same system, just update to the new CPU, sell the old one... Intel 13th Gen is the dead end, so you'd need another motherboard... Which in this price is quite significant, it'll take 2, possibly 3 different Intel motherboards where AM5 would potentially require as few as 1.
Case in point: I can run 4 generations of AMD CPUs on AM4. I've used 1600x, 3700x, 5700x(current) all on the same system.
In that time with Intel id have to buy a LGA1151, LGA1200 & LGA1700. Or perhaps 2 out of the 3 if I skip a gen. (Might be incorrect, I don't agree with intels artificially short socket lifespan so I don't really pay attention to them)
But if we're considering value here, why not value down the road. AM5 is a baby, still has 2-3 additional generations that can be used on the same system, just update to the new CPU, sell the old one... Intel 13th Gen is the dead end, so you'd need another motherboard... Which in this price is quite significant, it'll take 2, possibly 3 different Intel motherboards where AM5 would potentially require as few as 1.
Case in point: I can run 4 generations of AMD CPUs on AM4. I've used 1600x, 3700x, 5700x(current) all on the same system.
In that time with Intel id have to buy a LGA1151, LGA1200 & LGA1700. Or perhaps 2 out of the 3 if I skip a gen. (Might be incorrect, I don't agree with intels artificially short socket lifespan so I don't really pay attention to them)
Last edited:
https://www.mindfactory.de/Hardware/Arbeitsspeicher+(RAM)/DDR4+Module.html/32/1160/39/60143:86006
VS
https://www.mindfactory.de/Hardware/Arbeitsspeicher+(RAM)/DDR5+Module.html/32/1160
Filtered for DDR4-3200 and DDR4-3600 RAM vs unfiltered DDR5. Even discounting that DDR4 has been around for longer and those sales play into the numbers, too, I think the difference is clear.
You do realise that personal situations evolve? When I got my ryzen 3600 I was on a very tight budget. Then, at the time GPUs price were incredibly stupid, I transitioned with a 5600G. A bit later I was comfortable enough to get a 5700X and 6700XT, kept the same mobo all that time.
That's a one generation jump in CPU, though, which is something you can very often do with Intel, too. For example, my secondary system has a 12100F. I can also easily upgrade to something like a 13600 or even higher when prices fall, while keeping the same B660 board and rest of the system. And I'm honestly not even sure if the performance difference between both CPUs was worth the switch in your case... your case is also very different than the one the original poster referred to, namely, an upgrade after a far longer time. I plan my next CPU upgrade in 7 years or so, too, for the main system which runs a 12700K. By then, both LGA1700 and AM5 will most likely be dead and gone, so longevity never mattered to me. Plus, longevity in my eyes is a fool's errand with mainboards anyways, since the newer boards and CPUs will support faster RAM, drives, and have other, newer features that will likely be worth grabbing, too. So upgrade it all, or nothing is what I do. Especially considering how slowly CPU requirements rise, outliers not considered. Yes, personal circumstances might change. In my case, I switched from an i5-7600K to the aforementioned i7-12700K because my situation changed, and because the system didn't perform to expectations anymore. And the latter was more important than the former. The formwr just influenced what CPU I got.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Review Intel Arc B580 review: The new $249 GPU champion has arrived- Started by Admin
- Replies: 55
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram