News Intel Core i7-13700K Review: Core i9 Gaming at i7 Pricing

[Why_Me]

Yes, those are incorrect:

At this moment, i7-13700K is $399.99 at Microcenter
https://www.microcenter.com/product...ga-1700-boxed-processor-heatsink-not-included

And, the i9-13900k is $599.99 at Microcenter:
https://www.microcenter.com/product...ga-1700-boxed-processor-heatsink-not-included

Microcenter is walk-in only. Less than a dozen US states have a Microcenter.

 

[watzupken]

The new AM5 AMD motherboard platform is expensive, and it only supports DDR 5. While it is great to have viable competition in the CPU market again. Intel wins this round.

The value really depends on how you look at it. If you are in the market looking for a new rig altogether, and also DDR5, then I feel there is not such a big difference between the 2. Between buying a Z790 and X670 board, I feel the latter is probably more value for money because you get more years of AM5 support, as opposed to the Z790 being at the end of the line for LGA1700 platform.

In any case, Intel's i7 is always a lot better in value than their i9 when it comes to gaming. Even the i5 is no worst than i9 for gaming simply because games generally don't fully use all the cores. Even if they do, I believe Windows Thread Director will only use the P-Cores, and not the E-cores for games. So by having more E-cores and bigger cache as a result is not going to give it a meaningful improvement over the i7. I settled for the i7 12700K previously simply because it draws a lot less power than the i9, and I can also clock the chip to match an i9.

 

[watzupken]

Not at Best Buy they aren't, nor at Microcenter, nor at that European site that mostly sells AMD. And I'd bet that Best Buy sells more than 10X what Newegg or some website in Europe sells.

The top selling CPUs at Best Buy :

12900K @$499
5600X @$159
13600K @$329
5600G @$129
13700K @449

The 13900K and 13900KF are sold out.

I don't see anyone showing any Zen 4 even in the top 10 CPUs selling.

If you are trying to determine how well is the sale for each camp, I can tell you that this will only tell you a part of the story. The reason for saying this is because,
1. You don't know the actual number of units sold/ available for sale. For example, 13900 is out of stock don't say much about the quantity. Usually halo products are not produced in huge quantity because most people will not pay that much more for incremental improvement over an i7 for example. And not knowing the actual number sold, for all you know, the difference between the first and 10th may be insignificant difference.

2. Intel chips may be ruling at the top of the list, but generally I feel that's because people with a 600 series chipset board may buy it as a drop in upgrade. So while they are selling more CPUs, they are not moving a lot of motherboards, or people may just be buying cheaper 600 series boards instead of 700 series. So Intel win some, they lose some on chipset sales as well.

From the top selling CPU ranking you shared, I can only tell that sale of CPU is very poor, i.e. very low units sold. As mentioned in point 1 above, halo products tend to be sold in low quantities. If they end up at the very top of the list, it only shows that the chip market is in a very bad situation.

 

[M42]

Microcenter is walk-in only. Less than a dozen US states have a Microcenter.

Yes, but it shows that the pricing closer to what is mentioned in the article CAN be found.

That said, if you know how to search, the 13700k can be found online and in stock for $429:
https://www.provantage.com/intel-bx8071513700k~7ITEP8E0.htm

13900k for $615.42, but it is back-ordered at the moment:
https://www.provantage.com/intel-bx8071513900k~7ITEP8CX.htm

 

[NP]

Honestly, I have built around 6 PC so far now, over several years. I never once decided to upgrade just the CPU without the motherboard. It never crossed my mind to keep a mobo for more than 1 CPU generation.

There was always something I wanted from newer mobo generations, newer USB 3.0, new SSD SATA support, new SSD M.2, new 2.5Gbit ethernet, new USB-C, etc.

I'm sure some people just upgrade the CPU while keeping their mobo, I just never found it to be really worth doing. I believe most people who "upgrade" upgrade their system, including mobo.

I think the "dead socket" is kind of an overblown argument, as I believe most people upgrade their mobo too when they jump on a new CPU.

It's not really "upgrading your system" if you buy everything. Then it is building an all new rig.

I assume you are an Intel user? Because with Intel upgrading doesn't really make sense as the socket changes always after two processor generations. With AM4, you could pay less than $200 at the moment for upgrading 2600X to 5600X and get an utterly insane performance upgrade.

 

[shady28]

It's not really "upgrading your system" if you buy everything. Then it is building an all new rig.

I assume you are an Intel user? Because with Intel upgrading doesn't really make sense as the socket changes always after two processor generations. With AM4, you could pay less than $200 at the moment for upgrading 2600X to 5600X and get an utterly insane performance upgrade.

That was true for AM4.

AMD has said they'll support AM5 until 2025.

Zen 5 should release late 2024.

Do the math. It's highly unlikely whatever comes after Zen 5 will support AM5. You'll get 2 CPUs, but 4 years simply because AMDs processor release cadence is every 2 years, while Intel's is every 1 year.

 

[-Fran-]

That was true for AM4.

AMD has said they'll support AM5 until 2025.

Zen 5 should release late 2024.

Do the math. It's highly unlikely whatever comes after Zen 5 will support AM5. You'll get 2 CPUs, but 4 years simply because AMDs processor release cadence is every 2 years, while Intel's is every 1 year.

And AMD said AM4 would be supported until 2020, yet released the 5800X3D in 2022. That "2025+" is not a trivial distinction, so Zen6 could still be in AM5 with all their family of CPUs.

Regards.

 

[shady28]

And AMD said AM4 would be supported until 2020, yet released the 5800X3D in 2022. That "2025+" is not a trivial distinction, so Zen6 could still be in AM5 with all their family of CPUs.

Regards.

Highly unlikely.

From 2015-2020 AMD had the benefit of going up against a lazy bean-counter run Intel that recycled Skylake architecture for a full 5 years.

Since 2020 we've had 2 different architectural upgrades from Intel. And next year, we will get our 3rd.

If AMD does that slow-poke thing again, they'll be dead on client platforms long before Zen 6.

 

[-Fran-]

Highly unlikely.

From 2015-2020 AMD had the benefit of going up against a lazy bean-counter run Intel that recycled Skylake architecture for a full 5 years.

Since 2020 we've had 2 different architectural upgrades from Intel. And next year, we will get our 3rd.

If AMD does that slow-poke thing again, they'll be dead on client platforms long before Zen 6.

Quite the contrary. If you look at the details, AM5 is as forward looking as AM4 was, so AMD can just improve using the same socket and just decide, strategically (like with AM4) which CPUs to move forward and when.

If you ask me, having more options is always a better business strategy than forcing your hand into a minimal set of options. Intel just decides to lock themselves in quick cycles for reasons, but given how the economy is looking, they may end up getting the short end of the stick* until the economy improves. Sure dual DDR support is good, but they'll be dropping that with Meteor Lake, or so it is reported. AM5 is just, right now, the better platform and it'll be supported for longer. From a consumer perspective, that's better. From a business perspective, that gives AMD options on how to segment their CPUs offerings and whatever technologies they want to include without forced segmentation.

Also, what makes you think Intel after Raptor Lake won't stagnate again? Look at the jump from Alder to Raptor. It's similar or worse than Zen1 to Zen1+ in terms of gains. Again, their new platform will be expensive, more so than AMD I think. By then, AMD will have some economy of scales with motherboard manufacturers, which Intel won't. That's also why the 700 series chipset is not that much more expensive that 600 series. Whatever chipsets AMD comes with later, will just get cheaper over time; more so than Intel's, I'm sure.

I'm not a business person and I can't quite predict exactly how things will unfold, but I don't think I'm too off the mark.

Regards.

 

[shady28]

Quite the contrary. If you look at the details, AM5 is as forward looking as AM4 was, so AMD can just improve using the same socket and just decide, strategically (like with AM4) which CPUs to move forward and when.

If you ask me, having more options is always a better business strategy than forcing your hand into a minimal set of options. Intel just decides to lock themselves in quick cycles for reasons, but given how the economy is looking, they may end up getting the short end of the stick* until the economy improves. Sure dual DDR support is good, but they'll be dropping that with Meteor Lake, or so it is reported. AM5 is just, right now, the better platform and it'll be supported for longer. From a consumer perspective, that's better. From a business perspective, that gives AMD options on how to segment their CPUs offerings and whatever technologies they want to include without forced segmentation.

Also, what makes you think Intel after Raptor Lake won't stagnate again? Look at the jump from Alder to Raptor. It's similar or worse than Zen1 to Zen1+ in terms of gains. Again, their new platform will be expensive, more so than AMD I think. By then, AMD will have some economy of scales with motherboard manufacturers, which Intel won't. That's also why the 700 series chipset is not that much more expensive that 600 series. Whatever chipsets AMD comes with later, will just get cheaper over time; more so than Intel's, I'm sure.

I'm not a business person and I can't quite predict exactly how things will unfold, but I don't think I'm too off the mark.

Regards.

I think you're going to be completely wrong on all counts.

You'll probably get a clue about how wrong this time next year.

 

[TerryLaze]

Intel just decides to lock themselves in quick cycles for reasons, but given how the economy is looking, they may end up getting the short end of the stick* until the economy improves.

Yeah I'm sure that during the tough economy people are going to herd to get an $300 CPU when they could get a $60 pentium that will do fine for anything they would need it for. Even if they go for the 5600x it's still more than double the price.

Also the point is that the 7950x already uses the full 240W of the platform so unless TSMC manages to come up with a big improvement in time for the next intel gen there is nothing that AMD could realistically do on the same platform.

And then TSMC already increased prices two times in the last year or so, hopefully they don't increase it any more because the chances for AMD to be able to compete on price get lower and lower every time.

I'm also sure that at least sony is really pissed at AMD by now, even though they aren't even to blame, but sony isn't in a great spot right now and loosing all of that business because they can't sell the amount of consoles that they want must really be hard on them.

 

[shady28]

Yeah I'm sure that during the tough economy people are going to herd to get an $300 CPU when they could get a $60 pentium that will do fine for anything they would need it for. Even if they go for the 5600x it's still more than double the price.

Also the point is that the 7950x already uses the full 240W of the platform so unless TSMC manages to come up with a big improvement in time for the next intel gen there is nothing that AMD could realistically do on the same platform.

And then TSMC already increased prices two times in the last year or so, hopefully they don't increase it any more because the chances for AMD to be able to compete on price get lower and lower every time.

I'm also sure that at least sony is really pissed at AMD by now, even though they aren't even to blame, but sony isn't in a great spot right now and loosing all of that business because they can't sell the amount of consoles that they want must really be hard on them.

I'm not sure why no one has pointed this out yet, but here it is - the category outlined is comparable (client = desktop / laptop).

Intel Q3 :

AMD Guidance for Q3 :

Intel is ripping AMD a new one in the client (desktop/laptop) space.

Data center is where Intel is losing to AMD, but not by the kind of % that AMD is losing in client.

 

[-Fran-]

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Best-Sellers-CPUs/zgbs/computers/430515031

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Computer-CPU-Processors/zgbs/pc/229189

https://www.amazon.de/-/en/gp/bestsellers/computers/430177031

https://www.newegg.com/d/Best-Sellers/Processors-Desktops/s/ID-343

I don't know, I see AMD selling Zen3 for the budget segment in high amounts and Raptor Lake barely moving the needle.

Check motherboards and Intel is selling almost zero 700-series boards with the little CPUs they're selling and AMD is actually selling a lot of motherboards with the CPUs still.

Most people willing to buy AMD are waiting for VCache CPUs. I'd even be willing to say people on Intel willing to upgrade to AMD are also waiting for VCache anouncements/numbers before making a call on what to get (reasonable). AMD fans already got the AMD system they wanted and Intel fans already got their Raptor/Alder Lake system they wanted by now. Point is: people on the fence is the "great unknown" here and I'm willing to say AMD has the upper hand with that crowd.

That is DYI though. OEM is another story and Intel is always way way higher than AMD there because Dell, HP and most big ones are tied to Intel and AMD has little to nothing to there.

But hey, I'm not a bean counter.

I just gave my Ry3800XT to a friend and they bought a B550 motherboard for it so they have a cheap capable PC.

Regards.

 

[cyrusfox]

Intel is ripping AMD a new one in the client (desktop/laptop) space.

Data center is where Intel is losing to AMD, but not by the kind of % that AMD is losing in client.

All true, AMD appears to be putting their limited Silicon to use in the high Margin data center space(In some ways abandoning consumer space by not being price competitive, free ram with purchase at micro center though). Intel is not silicon constrained and is retaking the consumer space but behind in the data center and it is affecting margin.
Competitive market and economy in decline, interesting times.

 

[shady28]

Most people willing to buy AMD are waiting for VCache CPUs. I'd even be willing to say people on Intel willing to upgrade to AMD are also waiting for VCache anouncements/numbers before making a call on what to get (reasonable). AMD fans already got the AMD system they wanted and Intel fans already got their Raptor/Alder Lake system they wanted by now. Point is: people on the fence is the "great unknown" here and I'm willing to say AMD has the upper hand with that crowd.

Most people don't buy based on brand of the CPU. They aren't sports teams you know.

 

[-Fran-]

Most people don't buy based on brand of the CPU. They aren't sports teams you know.

Not sure if serious.gif

 

[TerryLaze]

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Best-Sellers-CPUs/zgbs/computers/430515031

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Computer-CPU-Processors/zgbs/pc/229189

https://www.amazon.de/-/en/gp/bestsellers/computers/430177031

https://www.newegg.com/d/Best-Sellers/Processors-Desktops/s/ID-343

I don't know, I see AMD selling Zen3 for the budget segment in high amounts and Raptor Lake barely moving the needle.

So you think that AMD is lying in their financial statements about how much they sell???

Not sure if serious.gif

No this absolutely how most people buy PCs and laptops, they go to the big store look at what there is in their price range and ask can this thing run x y z whatever they want it to run and that's it, maybe they choose the one with the nicer screen.
They don't care and they don't even know enough to care if it is intel amd or arm as long as it does what they want.

 

[-Fran-]

So you think that AMD is lying in their financial statements about how much they sell???

No. It means, even when they're selling less, they still outsell Intel. At least in most DYI markets. As I said, and you all like to ignore, OEM is a different story.

No this absolutely how most people buy PCs and laptops, they go to the big store look at what there is in their price range and ask can this thing run x y z whatever they want it to run and that's it, maybe they choose the one with the nicer screen.
They don't care and they don't even know enough to care if it is intel amd or arm as long as it does what they want.

The reply from that person was in the context of DYI.

Regards.

 

[shady28]

No. It means, even when they're selling less, they still outsell Intel. At least in most DYI markets. As I said, and you all like to ignore, OEM is a different story.

Who decided it was about DIY? You? Why? Perhaps because there are no solid factual numbers about the DIY market? Like I said, a place like Best Buy with 1200 retail stores is probably outselling newegg 10:1 if not 50:1 - and that goes for CPUs and motherboards too.

The reply from that person was in the context of DYI.

Regards.

Me being that person, I can tell you no it was not. You're a real character you know.

 

[-Fran-]

Who decided it was about DIY? You? Why? Perhaps because there are no solid factual numbers about the DIY market? Like I said, a place like Best Buy with 1200 retail stores is probably outselling newegg 10:1 if not 50:1 - and that goes for CPUs and motherboards too.

I'm pretty sure those links are good evidence of DYI. Do you have good evidence of OEMs bulk sales? Maybe good evidence of volume of SI's?

Me being that person, I can tell you no it was not. You're a real character you know.

You quoted a paragraph from my reply talking about DYI. If you moved the* goal, that's on you, sorry.

And I know I'm quite the character

Regards.

 

[skynet-js]

Why do you all not do any 4K gaming benchmarks as it’s becoming more common. 1440p and 2160p benchmarks would make more sense than 1080p. No one is looking at these new gen CPUs for gaming in 1080p 😑

 

[Udyr]

Why do you all not do any 4K gaming benchmarks as it’s becoming more common. 1440p and 2160p benchmarks would make more sense than 1080p. No one is looking at these new gen CPUs for gaming in 1080p 😑

Because for a CPU benchmark 1440p or 4K won't make much of a difference, since those resolutions rely heavily on the GPU.

 

[skynet-js]

Because for a CPU benchmark 1440p or 4K won't make much of a difference, since those resolutions rely heavily on the GPU.

Incorrect. GPU is most important but CPU certainly plays a major role in high resolution gaming.

 

[-Fran-]

Incorrect. GPU is most important but CPU certainly plays a major role in high resolution gaming.

I don't think "bottlenecks" work the way you think they do...

At ultra high resolutions and settings, the GPU becomes the "slowest component in the chain" of producing frames for a video game. This means more CPUs will perform the same under those conditions after a certain minimum criteria is met, so the idea behind testing in lower resolution and quality is to move the bottleneck away from the GPU to the CPU (or a sub-system closer to it). Otherwise you'd be recommending CPUs which will become the bottleneck sooner than later. One caveat is threading, as some caveats apply when talking game engines and how well they manage threads and memory.

Regards.