News Intel Core i5-13600K vs AMD Ryzen 7 7700X and Ryzen 5 7600X Face Off

[salgado18]

Well there might be bias or they may be half assing it, like I said above lacking correct comparisons. I'd like to think they are on the level, and Jarred certainly seems to be regarding NVIDIA and AMD. As far as Paul goes I'm fine with some of his picks as I stated above. Some others puzzle me though. I was just trying to bring attention to them as I would love this to be a "go to" site like Anandtech was back in the day.

If, after Paul's response, you and others still think there is bias towards Intel, then I believe you should get specific about it. Where exactly did the article (this or others) made Intel look better or AMD look worse than the numbers indicate? Like giving victory to one side based on 1% difference, or turning a blind eye to a fault on one side.

Because, as I see, all their articles and reviews are very explicit about everything. This comparison, for example, puts all cards on the table until the editor decides (as his opinion here) which one won. To me that's not bias, that's working with facts and being explicit about their choices.

Oh, and maybe Intel is not actually bad? Ever since Ryzen, Intel's biggest hurdle has been power efficiency, otherwise their chips are very capable, and often pull ahead in many areas. And all that has always been explained by Tom's writers.

 

[bit_user]

Ever since Ryzen, Intel's biggest hurdle has been power efficiency, otherwise their chips are very capable, and often pull ahead in many areas.

Until Alder Lake, Intel didn't have a good answer to Zen 3.

 

[Elusive Ruse]

Weird, I was under the impression, after watching a slew of reviews, after the 13600K launch that it was beaten soundly by 7700X in gaming but was a beast in productivity and multi-threaded workloads. According to this review, 13600K dominates everything.

 

[RabidLemur]

It is interesting why the gaming results were so much different in this article versus the exact same head2head done here. The other site also shows the speed of the RAM used (6000 for AMD and 6400 for Intel).

Hardware Unboxed/Techspot get some interesting results at times. I kind of stopped reading their stuff after doing some comparisons of their latest gen CPU results with other sites. E.g

Far Cry 6 at 1080p unless stated otherwise, in reviews where 13600k and 7600x/7700x were tested. % shown is average fps advantage of 13600k over 7600x. Memory speeds are obviously pretty varied.

HUB/Techspot 0%

LanOC +4.9% (Intel DDR5 4800, AMD DDR5 6000)

Tom's HW +8%

Forbes +8.5%

CrazyTechLab +8.5%

NJ Tech +8.6%

Club386 +8.7%

PC Tuning (DDR4 4400) +9.7% vs 7700x

Comptoir Hardware +9.8%

Overclockers.com +10% vs 7700x

Clubic +10.7%

Computerbase 720p +10.7%

Linus TT +11%

Techdeals +11%

Gamers Nexus +12%

Chip.de +12%

Igor's Lab +12% vs 7700x

Cowcotland +12.9%

FPS review +13%

Ithardware +15.7% vs 7700x

Tweakers +20%

Eurogamer +21%

Kitguru +21%

Gizmodo +23.7%

Pause HW +27%

TPU +28%

 

[RodroX]

For me it doesn't matter which one is best, when the difference in money doesn't represent whats going on everywhere.

Where I live Zen 4 are cheaper than Raptor Lake, for whatever insane economic reason. And thats if you can even get raptor lake in stock.

So its never easy to translate to everyone which one is better for this or for that, when around the big wide world have tons of different situations going on.

 

[cyrusfox]

For me it doesn't matter which one is best, when the difference in money doesn't represent whats going on everywhere.

Where I live Zen 4 are cheaper than Raptor Lake, for whatever insane economic reason. And thats if you can even get raptor lake in stock.

So its never easy to translate to everyone which one is better for this or for that, when around the big wide world have tons of different situations going on.

Best ability is availability

 

[Cheeno76]

Platform longevity is much harder to quantify, which is AMD's main draw with the AM5 platform. Although I do think it was smart for Intel to offer DDR4 and DDR5 motherboards for Alder/Raptor Lake boards, DDR5 seems like a much more viable/affordable choice now and will likely continue that trend. It's nice that another generation gives us viable choices from team blue and team red.

 

[JamesJones44]

One suggestion for the charts on these articles. It would be nice if Overclocked/PBO numbers were different shades or moved to a separate chart. Showing overclocked scores are important, but there are a lot of times I really want to view the overclocked scores separate from the base scores to determine if one is really better than the other for a given benchmark.

 

[JamesJones44]

For me it doesn't matter which one is best, when the difference in money doesn't represent whats going on everywhere.

Where I live Zen 4 are cheaper than Raptor Lake, for whatever insane economic reason. And thats if you can even get raptor lake in stock.

So its never easy to translate to everyone which one is better for this or for that, when around the big wide world have tons of different situations going on.

So true, I'll never understand fanboyism for corporate products. Buy the best thing for your use case(s) at the cheapest price. Who cares which company made it, neither of these companies truly care about the people who buy their products, so why should the people who buy them care care about these companies?

 

[vMax]

I think some forget how powerful the E-Cores are especially on the productivity side as they are real cores and make such a huge difference to overall performance. Good overview and with the DDR4 option, it gives many an easier upgrade path as they can reuse there DDR4 sticks to save money, especailly for a cost effective gaming rig upgrade.

Bottom line, we are so lucky to have both Intel and AMD going at each other as we have great CPU's right now...Doesn't matter if you go AMD or Intel, you are going to get a good CPU...

 

[bit_user]

So true, I'll never understand fanboyism for corporate products.

Tribalism, insecurity, vested interests, and trolls.

Tribalism: People form identities around the strangest things. Community and a sense of belonging are basic human needs. It's not for nothing, either. If you buy brand X, and help make brand X popular, then brand X will have more resources with which to support current products and design future ones. So, if you like AMD GPUs and plan to buy another one, then helping AMD boost their revenues will tend to result in better GPUs for the next generation (as well as better drivers for the current one).

Insecurity: People like to be reassured that they made the best choice. If someone attacks Nvidia GPUs and I just bought one, maybe I defend Nvidia because I don't want to believe I made a bad choice.

Vested Interests: Investors, employees, and paid contractors all have a vested interest in defending one brand or attacking the others.

Trolls: Some people just like to to create chaos. Some state actors & other organizations also try to stir up trouble, on the internet, for their own nefarious reasons.

 

[bit_user]

Good overview and with the DDR4 option, it gives many an easier upgrade path as they can reuse there DDR4 sticks to save money, especailly for a cost effective gaming rig upgrade.

Not so much for an i5, but for an i7 or i9 I'd probably get a single stick of DDR5 and use that until I could afford to buy a second one, rather than going with a DDR4 board + RAM.

For an i5 and someone who already has enough fast DDR4, I agree that it probably makes sense to stay with DDR4 - assuming they're not planning to upgrade the CPU at any point.

 

[RabidLemur]

For an i5 and someone who already has enough fast DDR4, I agree that it probably makes sense to stay with DDR4 - assuming they're not planning to upgrade the CPU at any point.

Was exactly what I ended to doing. Upgraded from an 8600K to a 13600K and already had some B die DDR4 to reuse. Seems to fare well when properly tuned.

View: https://youtu.be/vsKTg5zy8NI

 

[M42]

Puget Systems is not a reliable source.

What evidence do you have that they are not reliable? They provide source code and benchmark utilities that anyone can download and benchmark your system against others with different CPUs.

 

[M42]

Yes, as a system builder, they have vested interests. That's why we like independent sites like Toms, which aren't trying to sell you anything.

And doesn't almost every independent site have vested interests as well? (subscriber numbers, advertisers, etc.)

 

[bit_user]

And doesn't almost every independent site have vested interests as well? (subscriber numbers, advertisers, etc.)

The only potential conflict of interest that I see is that of getting review samples & advertising. However, the advertising seems to go through intermediaries that would seem to remove any direct links between Toms and whoever is running the ads. Of course, we can't be sure, without them opening their books...

But, it's a lot better than the situation of someone who is dependent on Intel for product to sell. Over the years, there've been numerous credible allegations and court cases of Intel using its supplier arrangement as leverage over its OEMs, by means of pricing and product availability. If you introduce a new product line with AMD CPUs, you might just find your next order of Intel CPUs takes a little longer to get filled or maybe is smaller than you requested. Maybe you don't get price breaks or rebates that other OEMs are getting. And you're just left wondering why...

 

[M42]

The only potential conflict of interest that I see is that of getting review samples & advertising. However, the advertising seems to go through intermediaries that would seem to remove any direct links between Toms and whoever is running the ads. Of course, we can't be sure, without them opening their books...

But, it's a lot better than the situation of someone who is dependent on Intel for product to sell. Over the years, there've been numerous credible allegations and court cases of Intel using its supplier arrangement as leverage over its OEMs, by means of pricing and product availability. If you introduce a new product line with AMD CPUs, you might just find your next order of Intel CPUs takes a little longer to get filled or maybe is smaller than you requested. Maybe you don't get price breaks or rebates that other OEMs are getting. And you're just left wondering why...

Sorry, but this sounds like a lot of conjecture. Puget sells both AMD and Intel CPUs and they comprise a small fraction of the actual price of any system they sell. What makes sense is that they are benchmarking applications for the benefit of customers so that they can best match systems to a customer's needs. As I said in another post you can download the same benchmarking scripts they use in their tests and try them on your computer(s). Of course you will need to have a licensed copy of the applications you want to run (e.g. Photoshop, Adobe Premiere, etc.) .

Although I have never purchased a system from them I have over the years downloaded their scripts and measured the performance of many of the AMD and Intel computers I have built for my software business and the results they have posted have always seemed correct, so I trust the articles they post.

 

[bit_user]

Sorry, but this sounds like a lot of conjecture.

It is. Citing potential conflict of interest isn't the same as saying they're actually swayed by it. I'm not saying they are, just that the potential exists.

Puget sells both AMD and Intel CPUs

That means nothing. Just because they sell AMD CPUs doesn't make them impervious to improper influence by Intel (or vice versa).

and they comprise a small fraction of the actual price of any system they sell.

Doesn't matter if they sell the CPUs at-cost or even at a loss. The key point is they're an absolutely essential component, and have a single source. That makes them a great point of leverage.

What makes sense is that they are benchmarking applications for the benefit of customers so that they can best match systems to a customer's needs. As I said in another post you can download the same benchmarking scripts they use in their tests and try them on your computer(s).

Benchmarks can be cherry-picked to bias whatever you want. Either for Intel's benefit, or maybe their own.

Caveat emptor. That's all I'm saying.

 

[M42]

Benchmarks can be cherry-picked to bias whatever you want. Either for Intel's benefit, or maybe their own.

Caveat emptor. That's all I'm saying.

The point I was trying to make is that you can download their benchmark scripts and run them on your own computer and compare the results against other systems that have done the same. What independent sites are you aware of that provide this type of benchmarking resource for content creation?

 

[bit_user]

The point I was trying to make is that you can download their benchmark scripts and run them on your own computer and compare the results against other systems that have done the same. What independent sites are you aware of that provide this type of benchmarking resource for content creation?

I wasn't saying they'd lie about the results. I was saying they could pick benchmarks that favor one type of system or another, if they wanted to.

And the bias doesn't even have to be brand-oriented, but could instead be biased towards more expensive components, like favoring the multi-channel memory setup of ThreadRipper Pro and Xeon W 3300.

 

[TerryLaze]

I wasn't saying they'd lie about the results. I was saying they could pick benchmarks that favor one type of system or another, if they wanted to.

And the bias doesn't even have to be brand-oriented, but could instead be biased towards more expensive components, like favoring the multi-channel memory setup of ThreadRipper Pro and Xeon W 3300.

That is 100% happening but it's not bias, or I guess it is but it's not the bad kind everybody talks about.
They are in the server market and as such have a heavy bias towards whatever makes servers better for the end user.

Intel Core i9 13900K: Impact of MultiCore Enhancement (MCE) and Long Power Duration Limits on Thermals and Content Creation Performance

Intel's 13th Gen processors bring terrific performance across the board, but many modern processors have been criticized for their high power draw and heat output. However, we have found that most CPUs only operate at these high temperatures when the motherboard BIOS is allowed to automatically...

www.pugetsystems.com

Example:
They realise that "out of the box" is the stupidest excuse for anything that was ever made by anyone, so they make sure to tell their customers that they test at stock settings and that everybody should use them in that way and they also show the difference so that anybody can make up their own mind about it.

On Intel, the story is much the same, with just a difference in the specifics. In the case of the ASUS Z690 motherboards we are currently using for the 12th and 13th Gen Intel processors, there are three main settings that allow the CPU to be overclocked by default:

1. MultiCore Enhancement (MCE) allows the CPU to run at the maximum turbo frequency on all cores, regardless of how many cores are in use. Typically, the boost frequency varies based on how many cores are being used.
2. Long Duration Package Power Limit (P1) defines the maximum wattage the CPU is allowed to run when under sustained loads. By default, this is set to 4095W (unlimited), whereas Intel's spec is 125W for the new 13th Gen CPUs.
3. Short Duration Package Power Limit (P2) is similar to the P1 power limit, but is a secondary wattage that the CPU is allowed to hit for short bursts. By default, this is set to 4095W (unlimited), whereas Intel's spec is either 181W (13600K) or 253W (13700K/13900K)

As a workstation system integrator, we almost always prefer to run hardware at reference speeds in order to maximize reliability. Over the years, we have had some success convincing motherboard manufacturers to stop overclocking by default, but recently it has been a losing battle. And now that we are seeing similar behavior on AMD Ryzen platforms, we have fairly low expectations that this will change anytime soon.

 

[salgado18]

Tribalism, insecurity, vested interests, and trolls.

Tribalism: People form identities around the strangest things. Community and a sense of belonging are basic human needs. It's not for nothing, either. If you buy brand X, and help make brand X popular, then brand X will have more resources with which to support current products and design future ones. So, if you like AMD GPUs and plan to buy another one, then helping AMD boost their revenues will tend to result in better GPUs for the next generation (as well as better drivers for the current one).

Insecurity: People like to be reassured that they made the best choice. If someone attacks Nvidia GPUs and I just bought one, maybe I defend Nvidia because I don't want to believe I made a bad choice.

Vested Interests: Investors, employees, and paid contractors all have a vested interest in defending one brand or attacking the others.

Trolls: Some people just like to to create chaos. Some state actors & other organizations also try to stir up trouble, on the internet, for their own nefarious reasons.

Conscious consumption: People sometimes care about the impacts the production of such products cause on society and the environment. They may choose to stick to a brand that works ethically, even if the product is slightly inferior.

Vote with the wallet: some companies have a history of making bad decisions for consumers, and people may decide they will buy only from other companies which have better practices. Intel and Nvidia both lock all their tech under paywalls and force users to buy their products to enjoy them, while AMD prefers to go the open source and standardized route, allowing the community as a whole benefit from their advances.

There are legitimate reasons for people to stick to brands and companies, it's not always selfish interest or lack of awareness/intelligence/maturity/etc. They may seem to fit into the Tribalism category, but unlike that, these actually have a rational reason behind the decision.

 

[bit_user]

Intel and Nvidia both lock all their tech under paywalls and force users to buy their products to enjoy them, while AMD prefers to go the open source and standardized route, allowing the community as a whole benefit from their advances.

Intel has been on the open source track, for quite a while. I think their Linux GPU stack is entirely open source, whereas even AMD maintains a (legacy) closed-source, proprietary userspace (this is expected to disappear, in the near future).

As for Nvidia, they finally have an Open Source GPU driver that's being written from scratch, but it's probably years away from being competitive with their proprietary driver. Their CUDA API remains closed-source and proprietary, as does most of their core IP built upon it. They have some open source stuff, but it tends to be middleware layers, rather than where their key IP resides.

 

[M42]

I wasn't saying they'd lie about the results. I was saying they could pick benchmarks that favor one type of system or another, if they wanted to.

And the bias doesn't even have to be brand-oriented, but could instead be biased towards more expensive components, like favoring the multi-channel memory setup of ThreadRipper Pro and Xeon W 3300.

You don't have to believe their benchmarks nor buy anything from Puget (I haven't done the latter). But you can download the same benchmarking scripts they use for presenting results in their articles, run them on your computer and compare content creation performance against results submitted by other users with different systems (AMD or Intel).

And, some consumers will buy their systems and run the same benchmarks. If the results are very different a consumer could theoretically return their system for a refund. Given that, doesn't it seem like it would be self-defeating for Puget to post biased results?

 

[Elusive Ruse]

Personally I'm thankful for the Puget benchmarks, they offer benchmarks for software that's always ignored by "gaming" outlets whether it be websites or YT channels. AFAIK there's no other place which offers such detailed measurements of performance for productivity.