News Intel Core i5-14400 vs AMD Ryzen 5 7600X Faceoff: AMD Delivers a Value Beatdown

[Admin]

We put Intel's Raptor Lake Refresh Core i5-14400 up against AMD's Ryzen 5 7600X in a six-round fight.

Intel Core i5-14400 vs AMD Ryzen 5 7600X Faceoff: AMD Delivers a Value Beatdown : Read more

 

[rluker5]

14400 is a locked Alder Lake rebrand. Such cherry picking in favor of AMD.
So is the faster, unlocked, currently $150 on Newegg 12600kf. Which I would think that everyone would agree, at 3/4 the price, and able to use cheaper mobos and DDR4 delivers the value beatdown on AM5's best deal.

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

14400 is a locked Alder Lake rebrand. Such cherry picking in favor of AMD.

Well, not really. The stock 7600x beats the 14400 with no OC in most games. So, your point is kinda moot.

What is impressive, is the 5700x3d beating both (for the most part), and from Zen3/AM4. Some legs left in the old girl yet! The 5700x3d is below 200 right now.

 

[rluker5]

Well, not really. The stock 7600x beats the 14400 with no OC in most games. So, your point is kinda moot.

What is impressive, is the 5700x3d beating both (for the most part), and from Zen3/AM4. Some legs left in the old girl yet! The 5700x3d is below 200 right now.

Yes, really. This is a value comparison where the faster than 14400 at stock 12600kf (and more overclockable than 7600x) is in a lower price bracket: mid $100s vs low $200.

The 5700x3D is a better deal for games, especially as a drop in, but that wasn't the point of this article was it? It was the 7600x (on AM5) putting a beatdown on current Intel in terms of value which it utterly fails to do when you choose a better option.

The article could have been on the great deal of the 5700x3D and how the 7600x is still a terrible value compared to it and to Intel offerings for budget gamers, but it was misleading instead and tried to portray the 7600x as the best deal, which it isn't. It is just not the worst deal for budget gaming.

Edit: As a longtime 5775c owner, it is easier to see the fading of the 5700x3d. Fans of it will continue to cling to the games it does well in, but more and more games that it drops back in will continue to pop up. A CPU's speed in some games is less useful when you have already finished playing them. After the newness has worn off, doing well in the relatively few "unoptimized" ones gets to be more important, as this number will only continue to grow. And it stands out a lot when you go from 200fps in a racer or scenery viewer to not being able to hold 60fps in really congested areas where you want to see what is going on even more.
Not that it is a bad chip, and won't be good for a few more years, just that cache can only do certain things and not being able to deliver playable performance on a game you want to play outweighs epeen over oceanview framerates imo.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Yes, really. This is a value comparison where the faster than 14400 at stock 12600kf (and more overclockable than 7600x) is in a lower price bracket: mid $100s vs low $200.

12600KF is $150 and 7600X is $195 right now.

cheaper mobos and DDR4 delivers the value beatdown on AM5's best deal.

Value yes but you are stuck on a dead platform and EOL RAM version. The fact that you can drop in a 9000 series and maybe a 10000 series is a bonus. Now throw on that DDR5 is going to be the RAM type going forward and overall prices will drop on that and eventually DDR4 will get more expensive.

 

[logainofhades]

For lower budgets, a DDR4 system can make more sense, as it gives you more money to put towards your GPU. If you can afford it, definitely go DDR5, but when every dollar counts, you want as much of your budget to go to GPU as you can, without cutting back too much, on CPU. Right now the best deal is 12600k/kf and ddr4 for such systems.

 

[rluker5]

12600KF is $150 and 7600X is $195 right now.


Value yes but you are stuck on a dead platform and EOL RAM version. The fact that you can drop in a 9000 series and maybe a 10000 series is a bonus. Now throw on that DDR5 is going to be the RAM type going forward and overall prices will drop on that and eventually DDR4 will get more expensive.

If you are on a budget it is better to avoid frequent upgrades. Going with a new CPU after a year or two when you absolutely don't need it is not a thrifty thing to do.
Yes the 9x3d or 9950x will be much faster than the 7600x and you can save maybe half of the price over going to a similar upgrade on a completely new platform which is convenient for many, but that upgrade is close to the price as the entire platform costs of these budget builds and unless you have a top end GPU and misuse it by playing at low resolutions and settings you won't notice a difference. Which I don't like to say because I have a 13900kf and these new Arrow Lake chips are looking really shiny so I have even less justification to spend double that on a whole new platform with some 10k CUDIMMs, but it would be completely frivolous spending.

Now, if you were trying to secretly upgrade without your wife knowing you would definitely have a better chance at getting away with it on AM5. Unless she heard to open task manager or something.

 

[TerryLaze]

Now throw on that DDR5 is going to be the RAM type going forward and overall prices will drop on that and eventually DDR4 will get more expensive.

Yeah by the time prices drop enough for you to get a decent enough upgrade from ddr5 to ddr5 your mobo will not support the new speeds anymore.
Unless you lose all of the price benefits by buying a very expensive mobo right now that will support the faster ddr5 rams at least with overclocking.

For the EOL ddr4 mobo you bought what you bought and it will last for the next 5years at least (more like 7-8) at which point you can do a full upgrade.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Yeah by the time prices drop enough for you to get a decent enough upgrade from ddr5 to ddr5 your mobo will not support the new speeds anymore.
Unless you lose all of the price benefits by buying a very expensive mobo right now that will support the faster ddr5 rams at least with overclocking.

The cheapest DDR5 AMD motherboard right now are the A620s with pcpartpicker having the MSI Pro A620M-E being the lowest priced. Specifications on that motherboard says it supports RAM up to DDR5-6800 including those with 24GB DIMMs for the 7000 series and DDR5-6400 24GB DIMMs for the 8000G series. All of that is listed on the QVL. As always going beyond the official support spec for RAM speed will depend more on the CPU than anything else. Your CPU needs to a RAM controller that is able to handle that speed. Not everyone will be lucky enough to have that.

For the EOL ddr4 mobo you bought what you bought and it will last for the next 5years at least (more like 7-8) at which point you can do a full upgrade.

My current desktop I got in 2013 (hoping to upgrade this year) is a Haswell 4770k on DDR3. I wish I had waited an gotten onto DDR4 instead of being on the EOL DDR3. I personally won't go with a DDR4 system now as DDR4 is being phased out. Better to be on the newer RAM IMO. Now if you have a very slim budget then I understand going on the old RAM.

 

[DavidLejdar]

The iGPU sure is nice. Here it is running my second screen, as a sort of side-screen with e.g. movie on.

For lower budgets, a DDR4 system can make more sense, as it gives you more money to put towards your GPU. If you can afford it, definitely go DDR5, but when every dollar counts, you want as much of your budget to go to GPU as you can, without cutting back too much, on CPU. Right now the best deal is 12600k/kf and ddr4 for such systems.

One way how to approach it, sure. The benchmarks here constantly show though, that the CPU can mean quite a difference in frames per second. So myself, when I was about to upgrade from a DDR3 rig more than a year ago, I put a bit more money down for AM5, to pretty much avoid a rather expensive GPU get bottlenecked by almost everything else of the rig. Of course, if I would have went with a RX 6900 XT or so, and with DDR4 rig, I could have had a more FPS in the past year (as the better GPU would have given more in such regard). But I still had a backlog of games to play, and now with upcoming next-gen GPUs, I should be able to make full use of such, and that without need to spend still almost the same as more than a year ago on a new MB, etc.

Comes down to personal preference, in any case though. Like, when someone plays mostly only Counter-Strike 2, casually, then even a 4GB GPU and 5+ years old CPU seems to be still good enough.

 

[ManDaddio]

AMD late to the party as usual. Some people don't want to wait 2 years for prices to drop to upgrade. I'm being a bit facetious but still.
This is the same issue AMD has with GPUs.

 

[Unolocogringo]

Depends on your opinion.
Just because AM4 is a dead end socket, Intel 1700 is also.
We here are the middle/ upper end of computer users.No offense to anyone using an older system ,most of you know who I am.
But my 3600@4.4 all core load with a 3060ti and my 5600x 4.4-4.65 all core load with a 4070 will last me 2-3 more years. Gaming is my second use for a computer, not my main.
But my mid range systems would be a massive upgrade for many people.
My wife is still on a Phenom 960t ( 4 core 3.4ghz) and my mother in law is still on a I5 2500.

Both see no reason to upgrade.

 

[thestryker]

Comparisons like this which come down to platform comparisons should be made with CPUs that are cost/feature equivalent. The 14400 currently goes for ~$230 US and the 7600X is ~$200 US whereas the 12600K is ~$175 and the 12700K is ~$210 (picked the K over KF because the 14400 and 7600X both have IGPs). Even operating under stock conditions the 12600K boosts to 200 MHz more than the 14400 and the 12700K boosts to 300 MHz more and has 2 more P-cores. While the 14400 can come with a RPL die it's limited to the specifications of ADL so it's effectively just ADL no matter what so picking either of the two CPUs I mentioned as comparison would make much more sense.

 

[35below0]

14400 is a locked Alder Lake rebrand. Such cherry picking in favor of AMD.
So is the faster, unlocked, currently $150 on Newegg 12600kf. Which I would think that everyone would agree, at 3/4 the price, and able to use cheaper mobos and DDR4 delivers the value beatdown on AM5's best deal.

I... don't think so. It's fair to compare any CPU you want but i think i'd rather have a 14400 (14500 really) than a 12600K. Because if i'm aiming at a 12600K, the 13600K is obviously the superior choice.

So, somehow we'd have to re-jigg this misadventure to be biased against AMD. That would hardly be more fair.


As for DDR4, that's not even a sane consideration. Only for intel vs intel builds, imo. (Or AM4 vs AM5)


Bottom line: the 7600X is slightly faster for a lower price (only just; it will need a cooler).

 

[35below0]

...
We here are the middle/ upper end of computer users.No offense to anyone using an older system ,most of you know who I am.
But my 3600@4.4 all core load with a 3060ti and my 5600x 4.4-4.65 all core load with a 4070 will last me 2-3 more years. Gaming is my second use for a computer, not my main.
But my mid range systems would be a massive upgrade for many people.
My wife is still on a Phenom 960t ( 4 core 3.4ghz) and my mother in law is still on a I5 2500.

Both see no reason to upgrade.

I have both a 13600K system and a 12100 4 core, no e core system. Outside of playing games (which the weaker system is not built to do anyway), i cannot tell the difference. My wallet can, but that's besides the point.
And the point would be that a 13600K is a little bit more that three times faster and just under three times more expensive. So value-wise it's the obvious choice. Unless you have no actual need for the extra performance!
Benchmarks will always betray the 13600K is much faster, but the little i3 12100 flies Win 11 equally well and handles the non-gaming workloads (and some gaming workloads i tested) without any fuss, hiccup or stutter.

I'm not writing this because of any regret. I happen to need both PCs, i'm just glad the lower end PCs of this generation are so capable because i didn't want to spend a lot of money.


Somewhere between being cheap and overspending is the right CPU for the job. 14400 and 7600X are both solid choices.
The extra edge an AM5 build has is mitigated somewhat by depreciating prices of LGA1700 motherboards and CPUs, and AMD's sensitivity to RAM.

There's no perfect, slam-dunk choice. With no strings attached or compromises. Best to consider all the strengths and weaknesses and figure out what matters and what doesn't with regard to the target use case(s).

 

[logainofhades]

I... don't think so. It's fair to compare any CPU you want but i think i'd rather have a 14400 (14500 really) than a 12600K. Because if i'm aiming at a 12600K, the 13600K is obviously the superior choice.

So, somehow we'd have to re-jigg this misadventure to be biased against AMD. That would hardly be more fair.


As for DDR4, that's not even a sane consideration. Only for intel vs intel builds, imo. (Or AM4 vs AM5)


Bottom line: the 7600X is slightly faster for a lower price (only just; it will need a cooler).

13600k is better, but not $85 better. Even a 12700k is $50 cheaper.

 

[35below0]

13600k is better, but not $85 better. Even a 12700k is $50 cheaper.

it's impossible to keep up with these prices. The 13600K is only a little bit better than a 12700K, if at all.

 

[rluker5]

I have both a 13600K system and a 12100 4 core, no e core system. Outside of playing games (which the weaker system is not built to do anyway), i cannot tell the difference. My wallet can, but that's besides the point.
And the point would be that a 13600K is a little bit more that three times faster and just under three times more expensive. So value-wise it's the obvious choice. Unless you have no actual need for the extra performance!
Benchmarks will always betray the 13600K is much faster, but the little i3 12100 flies Win 11 equally well and handles the non-gaming workloads (and some gaming workloads i tested) without any fuss, hiccup or stutter.

I'm not writing this because of any regret. I happen to need both PCs, i'm just glad the lower end PCs of this generation are so capable because i didn't want to spend a lot of money.


Somewhere between being cheap and overspending is the right CPU for the job. 14400 and 7600X are both solid choices.
The extra edge an AM5 build has is mitigated somewhat by depreciating prices of LGA1700 motherboards and CPUs, and AMD's sensitivity to RAM.

There's no perfect, slam-dunk choice. With no strings attached or compromises. Best to consider all the strengths and weaknesses and figure out what matters and what doesn't with regard to the target use case(s).

The 14400 is just a locked, lower clocked 12600kf with an igpu and $10 cooler. Spending $100 more (after sales tax) just to have a higher number, lower clocks and a cooler you won't use is not a solid choice. That $100 could take you from a 7600XT to 7700XT GPU, save $30 on top of that and you would still have better CPU performance with the 12600kf.
With the 7600x you would have to drop from DDR5 to DDR4 to have enough money left over to upgrade your GPU from a 76000XT to a 7700XT. But that is an option.

And you would make that midrange GPU the bottleneck with any of those three CPUs. Clearly the cheapest is the best value, especially since you likely wouldn't be able to tell the difference otherwise per your own observations. (I'm not going to disagree on that last point. The monitor refresh is the biggest difference in desktop responsiveness between my 13600k and 13900kf)

 

[AB382B]

I find these types of reviews a dead end.

I want to compare the CPU cost. As long as the cost is close, I don't care.

I want to know how long it takes to get work done, how long will I need to wait, or how long other stuff waits.

I want to know how much the power requirements are going to affect my utility bill. If I 'm not going to notice the watt difference on my utility bill, I don't care.

I run a lot of dockers.
I run a lot of browser tabs.
I occasionally run productivity apps.

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

Yes, really. This is a value comparison where the faster than 14400 at stock 12600kf (and more overclockable than 7600x) is in a lower price bracket: mid $100s vs low $200.

No, it's not a value comparison. It's an over all comparison with value as one data point. Overwhelmingly, the 7600x is considered better, and not for that much more cost

After the newness has worn off, doing well in the relatively few "unoptimized" ones gets to be more important, as this number will only continue to grow.

Where did you get this from? I would think that game devs would be interested in developing games that 'can' make use if the extra cache, rather than the opposite. Why would they not? (Unless some obviously Intel supported game, or the likes.

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

With the 7600x you would have to drop from DDR5 to DDR4

How would that work now? The 7600x can't use DDR4.

 

[thestryker]

No, it's not a value comparison. It's an over all comparison with value as one data point. Overwhelmingly, the 7600x is considered better, and not for that much more cost

It's effectively a platform comparison and they chose a CPU which is flat out worse than two cheaper ones on the same platform. I'm not sure how anyone could think this comparison really makes sense as good consumer advice.

 

[Unolocogringo]

It's effectively a platform comparison and they chose a CPU which is flat out worse than two cheaper ones on the same platform. I'm not sure how anyone could think this comparison really makes sense as good consumer advice.

I thought it was a comparison of the 2 latest generation "MID" budget processors. 14000 series vs 7000 series.
There will always be price drops on older CPUs a couple years after release.
Then prices start to climb back up as supply starts to dry up.
Been that way forever.
Not an article on who can make the best budget build.

 

[thestryker]

I thought it was a comparison of the 2 latest generation "MID" budget processors. 14000 series vs 7000 series.
There will always be price drops on older CPUs a couple years after release.
Then prices start to climb back up as supply starts to dry up.
Been that way forever.
Not an article on who can make the best budget build.

I might agree with you if the 14400 was actually RPL, but it's not it's ADL which means it's a 12th Gen CPU with a 14th Gen name, and Tom's sure better know that given that they're a technical outlet giving consumer advice.

 

[logainofhades]

it's impossible to keep up with these prices. The 13600K is only a little bit better than a 12700K, if at all.

Yea the 12th gen deals are amazingly good for budget builders right now.