News Intel Core i9-13900K and Core i5-13600K Review: Raptor Lake Beats Ryzen 7000

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Both (Intel & AMD) latest CPU's are extremely fast. And so, in my eyes, it's childish to say "A mops the floor with B", just because one CPU has few fps more in majority of games games. Keep in mind, that benchmarks are done in controlled environment and real life usage is way different.
Means, depending on CPU (Intel or AMD) temperatures, we will suffer more or less performance drop. Many probably won't even know that's happening, because it's "normal" for (full load) CPU to run at 95°C/100°C. So for example, 13900K will run at 100°C no matter what cooler we use, however performance will be far from benchmarks, in case of less than ideal cooling solution.
When AMD's 7000 CPU's were introduced, I was quite disappointed by amount of power usage. But what Intel has done is.. just insane. I mean, at the end, no matter what cooling solution chosen, all that wattage (=heat) is dissipated in our room!
..maybe I should put a patent for idea on how to build-in a coffee expresso machine into PC case...

About efficiency... I think it's clear that AMD performs quite better. Here's the link at the timeline which shows exactly that:

Bogdan
 
  • Like
Reactions: SunMaster
When AMD's 7000 CPU's were introduced, I was quite disappointed by amount of power usage. But what Intel has done is.. just insane. I mean, at the end, no matter what cooling solution chosen, all that wattage (=heat) is dissipated in our room!
..maybe I should put a patent for idea on how to build-in a coffee expresso machine into PC case...
Look, if you watch a review that doesn't change settings and you don't like the power numbers then just buy a different mobo...problem solved.
Or you could just, you know, change the settings, but if your fingers are incapable of hitting the Del button just buy a mobo that has lower settings.
Here, if you don't want the overclock performance, the asrock b660m-hdv will run the 13900k at 65w out-of-the-box, 65w of heat getting blown into your room should be survivable.
zfIQvko.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: KyaraM and shady28
Both (Intel & AMD) latest CPU's are extremely fast. And so, in my eyes, it's childish to say "A mops the floor with B", just because one CPU has few fps more in majority of games games. Keep in mind, that benchmarks are done in controlled environment and real life usage is way different.
Means, depending on CPU (Intel or AMD) temperatures, we will suffer more or less performance drop. Many probably won't even know that's happening, because it's "normal" for (full load) CPU to run at 95°C/100°C. So for example, 13900K will run at 100°C no matter what cooler we use, however performance will be far from benchmarks, in case of less than ideal cooling solution.
When AMD's 7000 CPU's were introduced, I was quite disappointed by amount of power usage. But what Intel has done is.. just insane. I mean, at the end, no matter what cooling solution chosen, all that wattage (=heat) is dissipated in our room!
..maybe I should put a patent for idea on how to build-in a coffee expresso machine into PC case...

About efficiency... I think it's clear that AMD performs quite better. Here's the link at the timeline which shows exactly that:

Bogdan
He ran that cpu with the power limits turned off and this isn't the first time he's pulled this shady cr@p.

hub13900k.jpg
 
13600K looks good... OC it as high as possible!!
I agree. I think the 13600K is the best CPU this gen (Ry7K and 13K) by far. It's platform value it's really incredible and AMD has some important catch up to do there.

Anyone with a 12700K/F is pretty much equal on productivity and slightly below in gaming, so it's value will be interesting to compare to the 12700K/F in the upcoming days when price corrections are applied. If you OC the 12700K you close the gap in gaming, but the 13600K can also OC, and it does so better. Plus better DDR5 support, so it may increase it's lead with faster kits. I'm just curious about gear 1/2 penalties, but I'd say they don't matter much.

The only asterisk I'd point is that at full blast, it is as power hungry as the 12700K/F, so it needs better cooling than the 12600K/F. And that's about it. Everything else about it is quite good.

Regards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KyaraM and Sluggotg

TheBeastInside

Reputable
Oct 21, 2020
31
24
4,535
I really wonder what the point is anymore except selling more hardware.
Anyone gaming with this hardware is doing so at 4k and the new CPUs give them NOTHING.
Maybe people using pro software have some incremental gains, but is it really worth spending the money?
I dunno, seems like hardware review sites need to show value in new tech these days, especially for gamers, even when there is none.
That's what happens when the internet is purely driven by advertising.
Quite a sucky time for the internet IMHO.
 
but is it really worth spending the money?
Aaaand that's the answer to your question.
How is somebody going to figure out if it's worth it for them to upgrade if they don't have any numbers from reviewers?
If the gains are too low for that person or the cost too high or the power too much they won't upgrade but they still need the numbers to decide.

The matter with the games has been discussed to death, but most people believe that the better the FPS at lower settings the better the chances for it to keep higher FPS in the future, you might not agree with that but a lot of people do.
 

PaulAlcorn

Managing Editor: News and Emerging Technology
Editor
Feb 24, 2015
857
313
19,360
"Intel's 13th-Gen Raptor Lake processors deliver explosive generational performance increases that beat AMD's similarly-priced Ryzen chips in gaming, single- and multi-threaded work at every price point."

According to the table, Ryzen 7950x multicore performance was set to 100%, while Core i9 13900 was at 96.5%.
So, according to this table Intel's fastet raptor lake CPU still trails its AMD competitor in multi tasking performance while consuming more power at that.

"Intel's 13th-Gen Raptor Lake processors deliver explosive generational performance increases that beat AMD's similarly-priced Ryzen chips in gaming, single- and multi-threaded work at every price point."

The 7950X costs $100 more than the 13900K. The 7900X, at $50 less, is much closer — and that's before we factor in platform costs.
 

Eg0

Distinguished
Mar 1, 2015
9
5
18,515
What I find most interesting is, as Intel adds more cores they push products lower in the product stack and lower the price. What last year would have been a 1#700K is now a 1#600K at the 1#600K price point. Releasing after AMD forced AMD to shoot themselves in the foot with their greedy pricing. The 13600 will be compared to the 7600 because of price and name (600) when, by cores, it is more comparable to the 7700.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KyaraM and Sluggotg

saunupe1911

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2016
203
74
18,660
At this point they are pretty much equal. Competition is great.

I personally would choose the platform that overclocks the best which is Intel. AMD curve overclocking can be frustrating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sluggotg
forced AMD to shoot themselves in the foot with their greedy pricing.
I doubt it's out of greed, AMD has to use all big cores and they have to pay TSMC for the chips, and they have no small chips for the low end market to sell due to the console contracts, they have to charge more if they want to have any chance of keep doing research to get new products out.
AMD is down to 14% net margin over the last 12 months and that's with record revenue...
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMD/amd/net-profit-margin
 

Specter0420

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2010
111
28
18,710
There aren't a ton of us on the bleeding edge of technology anymore as far as requirements go. Sure, you may desire 320FPS in F1 or could see more profit if your workloads finish faster and more efficiently, but stuff like that isn't anywhere near a requirement.

There is an entire class of people out here on the bleeding edge that you, the professional benchmark community, continuously ignore. A workload where failing to meet the requirement can mean getting physically ill. Where we run setting on low-medium and still fail to get a good native experience with any available (last gen) rig. We're uniquely held back by CPU and GPU performance, VR flight sims.

I know it'll be work. You'll need to get a few VR headsets at different resolutions, prices, and technologies and add about 4 sims (IL2, DCS World, MSFS, etc) to your testing. There is a huge gap here that is begging to be filled. Please, just do the work for us. We really appreciate the addition of non-VR MSFS, that's a step in the right direction.
 

colossusrage

Prominent
Jun 8, 2022
53
59
610
I didn't know anyone bought a 13900K and started up some Cyberpunk at 1080p... Who cares about 1080p gaming anymore? These benchmarks are stupid
60% of users on Steam are on a 1080p monitor. I agree most of those users wouldn't get a 13900K, so the 1080p test is to show how well the CPU can handle a fast workload coming from the GPU. I do wish they started doing 4K tests, even though it's almost all GPU, the 4090 started to show that the CPU can also become a bottleneck at 4K since it can run some games over 100fps at 4K.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sluggotg

ottonis

Reputable
Jun 10, 2020
166
133
4,760
"Intel's 13th-Gen Raptor Lake processors deliver explosive generational performance increases that beat AMD's similarly-priced Ryzen chips in gaming, single- and multi-threaded work at every price point."

The 7950X costs $100 more than the 13900K. The 7900X, at $50 less, is much closer — and that's before we factor in platform costs.

Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated!
I hope that this is going to make AMD lower their prices quite a bit, especially considering that the times of huge chip-shortage seem to be over.
 

PaulAlcorn

Managing Editor: News and Emerging Technology
Editor
Feb 24, 2015
857
313
19,360
60% of users on Steam are on a 1080p monitor. I agree most of those users wouldn't get a 13900K, so the 1080p test is to show how well the CPU can handle a fast workload coming from the GPU. I do wish they started doing 4K tests, even though it's almost all GPU, the 4090 started to show that the CPU can also become a bottleneck at 4K since it can run some games over 100fps at 4K.

We do include 1440p testing with six of the eight tested titles. So hopefully that's a decent halfway point. Testing 4K is mentally punishing, honestly. Spending an insane amount of hours testing to show literally no difference is pretty much the definition of futility.

As GPUs get faster, I think it will make sense to do 4K — we're almost there. For now, it appears that even with the 4090 the cases where the CPU matters are quite limited (if this changes as we learn more about the 4090, we'll adjust). I definitely don't want to do 4K testing on just one title that isn't GPU-bound at 4K; there are thousands that are not.

For now, we expanded to six titles at 1440p for the new suite with the 4090 — before we only did four titles. However, I still see value in 1080p, so we'll keep doing that, too.
 
Last edited:
We do include 1440p testing with six of the eight tested titles. So hopefully that's a decent halfway point. Testing 4K is mentally punishing, honestly. Spending an insane amount of hours testing to show literally no difference is pretty much the definition of futility.

As GPUs get faster, I think it will make sense to do 4K — we're almost there. For now, it appears that even with the 4090 the cases where the CPU matters are quite limited (if this changes as we learn more about the 4090, we'll adjust). I definitely don't want to do 4K testing on just one title that isn't GPU-bound at 4K; there are thousands that are not.

For now, we expanded to six titles at 1440p for the new suite with the 4090 — before we only did four titles. However, I still see value in 1080p, so we'll keep doing that, too.
Well you could always do a piece on how much performance is left over on each CPU or how much stuff you can do on the side while gaming at 4k.
Intel has the e-cores, amd has that second ccd, it makes sense on CPUs with that many cores to not close down the demanding thing you do just because you want to play a game.
 

JamesJones44

Reputable
Jan 22, 2021
616
553
5,760
And maybe AM5 will last a few years like they did with AM4 , just swap the CPU.

I'm actually skeptical of this at the moment. They've only guaranteed AM5 for two years and with them kicking around the idea of hybrid designs themselves you might end up with zero upgrades with AM5. Personally I would put money on 1 upgrade, but after that I think the risk reward isn't anywhere near what we got with AM4.
 
I'm actually skeptical of this at the moment. They've only guaranteed AM5 for two years and with them kicking around the idea of hybrid designs themselves you might end up with zero upgrades with AM5. Personally I would put money on 1 upgrade, but after that I think the risk reward isn't anywhere near what we got with AM4.

At this point unless you are a content creator, coder, or a gamer with pockets full of money, investing in the fastest GPU available, and the fastest DDR5 kit (which can cost more than a motherboard) then any of the lastest midrange CPUs will have you covered for any task.

From what Ive seen so far, the Core i5 13600K looks like the more appealing all-around part for gaming + mixed workloads (anyone that does other things with their PC besides gaming). One tier down on intel will most likely be the "locked" i5 13400 and the "old" Alder Lake Core i5 or Core i7 parts (which may come down in prices soon). For profesionals, Im guessing the Core i7 13700K will prove to be a beast at a very good price.

Then again gaming with a midrange/high-midrange GPU, the overpriced R5 7600X and the old R7 5800X3D will also give you awesome performance, while the Core i5 13600K will stil have an important advantage in multi-core applications.

I think AMD will take a few days to see how this new intel CPUs sell. If they do sell well AMD will have to lower the prices, and motherboard partners will most likely do the same thing to.

Also, Who said AMD doesn't have plans in motion for a hybrid designs on AM5? If AMD wana stay relevant at multitasking, which we all need to keep getting this competitive prices and performance leaps, I would guess they have been working on hybrid designs for a while now.
 

JamesJones44

Reputable
Jan 22, 2021
616
553
5,760
Who said AMD doesn't have plans in motion for a hybrid designs on AM5? If AMD wana stay relevant at multitasking, which we all need to keep getting this competitive prices and performance leaps, I would guess they have been working on hybrid designs for a while now.

That's a big if, especially since it would be the first of its kind from AMD. I'm not saying it couldn't work with AM5, but I wouldn't bet on it either.
 
That's a big if, especially since it would be the first of its kind from AMD. I'm not saying it couldn't work with AM5, but I wouldn't bet on it either.

Well theres no official announcement yet, which does make sence, theres no reason to talk about something that will not be out till 2024. Showing the cards to the competition with soo much time left its not a good idea.

Also you talk about AMD like if they were a few years old in the business. They been around for decades. They had many products that its better to forget, but they also made the first mainstream desktop CPU to reach the 1 GHz mark and put intel into troubles for the first time (at least for a short while). AMD made the first APU which allowed many people on a small budget to actually be able to game without a GPU (with the caveats we wll know, low resolution and details). They launched the first desktop GPU with HBM. Also were the first to launch a non-HEDT desktop cpu with 4, 6 and 8 cores with SMT enable for all of them (first gen Ryzen) .
Finally if you are a gamer, they gave you the cherry on top for the AM4 socket with the Ryzen 7 5800X3D the first 3D stacked L3 cache cpu that landed on top of most gaming charts. This last one, even today can get on top on a few games vs Raptor Lake and Zen 4. And thats using DDR4 and the old Zen 3 as a base. You got to wonder what will a Zen 4/4+/5 based 3D Cache cpu + DDR 5 do in games (if it ever get to exist)?

Right now if you are a gamer building a new PC and you are not planing on going full out with an RTX 4090/RTX3090TI or RX 6950XT, then theres no wrong cpu choice, some games play better on intel, others seems to like amd a little more.

The future is unknonw, but for people/profesionals that can really leverage the performance of a desktop cpu with 8, 12, 14, 16 or 24 cores, this are great times. And you kinda (like it or not) need to thank AMD for that, well and Intel and Apple for catching up and spicing the game again.
 
Last edited: