Synthetic System Benchmarks
We are going to start with synthetic system application benchmarks on this page. Gaming performance will be shown later on. Note that the graphs are arranged from fastest to slowest and contain all the CPUs on each graph for a large comparison. The Ryzen 9 7900X is highlighted in orange.
PCMark 10
Standard PCMark Benchmark
Starting in PCMark 10, which looks at overall application performance utilizing various different types of workloads, the new Intel Core i5-13600K is just slightly under the Ryzen 5 7600X, about 1% slower, which is very close. If we compare the 13600K versus the previous 12600K, the new 13600K improves upon performance by 4%, so not a huge difference, but it is a slight improvement. We also see it performing 13% faster than the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, which is an 8-core/16-thread CPU, so that is an improvement over that mid-range CPU. We do not have a result on the Ryzen 7 7700X, we encountered a system issue that kept us from receiving a result, so that is not included for this specific test.
PCMark Application Benchmark
In this graph, we are looking at PCMark 10’s Applications Benchmark. This test is very specific, it tests the performance of Microsoft Office, using Excel, Word, PowerPoint, and even Edge. We are using Microsoft Office 2021 for these tests. In this benchmark, the Intel Core i5-13600K is practically at the same performance as the Ryzen 5 7600X. Compared to the 12600K the 13600K improves upon performance by 9% over the last gen. We also see the 13600K perform 21% faster than the 8-core/16-thread Ryzen 7 5800X3D.
3DMark CPU Profile
In 3DMark’s CPU Profile test, we are running the “Max Threads” test and looking at overall performance. This is where the thread benefit of the new Intel Core i5-13600K shows itself, at 20 threads versus 12 threads on the Ryzen 5 7600X, the new 13600K is a whopping 42% faster than the 7600X. In fact, it’s even 12% faster than the 8-core/16-thread Ryzen 7 7700X!
In 3DMark’s CPU Profile “1-Thread” test the Intel Core i5-13600K is about on par if just a tad under, (but practically the same) the performance of the Ryzen 5 7600X. Now here, for single-thread, the 7700X is faster than the 13600K.
Geekbench 5
In Geekbench 5 Multi-Core testing we can also see the advantage of the 20 threads on the Intel Core i5-13600K with it being 49% faster than the Ryzen 5 7600X, which is quite huge. Also, it’s faster than the 16-thread Ryzen 7 7700X by 20%. Compared to the last generation 12600K the new 13600K improves performance by 29% which is a pretty big increase.
In Single-Core testing of Geekbench 5, the Intel Core i5-13600K is more significantly under the 7600X performance. Here the 7600X is 9% faster in single-core performance over the 13600K. However, compared to the previous gen 12600K the new 13600K is 4% faster in single-core performance. It’s a pretty big difference over 5800X3D at 24% faster.
Discussion (13 replies)
Join Discussion →These CPU's are amazing... but the high core counts... seem odd.
IF you need high core count systems are you really gonna 'save' the 50-100 bucks and not just get the higher end part? I mean there are efficiencies and such and desktop consumers who see a 50 buck price difference as just TOO much of a hurdle... but lets get real. Those are starting enthusiests... and will they be doing something that need or warrants that many threads? Couldn't they have gotten the performance for gaming without the complexity of more threads and reduced cost even more? Even if only cost internally for the product stack?
I think, as you move down the stack - it's all about salvage bins and strategically pricing/marketing them. Not that these were specifically created for this mid-market segment.
I really like Intel's CPU. I want to REALLY like them. That power draw though. I can't. I can't do it.
It's kind of funny that all those Efficiency cores and the power is still what it is.
They are "Efficient" at consuming power.. :)
E-cores are cheap. Really cheap, as they're essentially re-worked, stripped-down Skylake cores. They lack HT which was one of the main sources of security issues for Skylake.
And for Raptor Lake, over Alder Lake before, the E-cores run a bit faster, have lower latency, and do not inhibit ring clock speed - which results in higher overall memory bandwidth and lower memory access latency for every core.
So those eight E-cores on the 13600K and 13700K are extremely helpful. They still have full-fat FPUs and so on, so you could think of them as being something like having a whole 9700K (at 10nm / Intel 7) bolted on to the side of the six or eight P-cores in these CPUs. They can handle any work assigned to them.
For the 13600K, you probably should stretch to the 13700K for the additional two P-cores. But just for gaming? Hard to make that argument depending on what other budget considerations are at hand.
I guess this depends on the comparison. There's a lot of elegance to be found in AMD's more traditional approach, but for those that do more with their systems than just gaming - and by more I mean they have all the stuff running that a desktop user and a gamer would have in the background - Intel's approach makes sense. The P-cores can handle the demanding gaming threads, the E-cores can handle everything else - effortlessly.
Hard to measure and hard to reproduce I know, as no reviewer would purposefully use such a methodology on a product launch review, let alone variability with all the additional variables and likely run-to-run variance casting doubt on the results. This is just how I look at it.
As long as Intel has been doing these bins, I expect they very much planned things this way. Intel needed to both head off AMD's gains with Zen 4 as well as provide an uplift in comparison to Alder Lake, thus providing a motive for folks with anything older to jump in this round.
Strong gaming performance, strong MT performance, and available inexpensive boards and support for less expensive DDR4 with Raptor Lake all put Intel pretty substantially in the value leader slot.
Zen 4 is leading in perf/watt at the very highest loads, but average loads are surprisingly 'normal' for both of them. For gaming and general desktop use, outside of say 3D rendering, both ecosystems are more or less equivalent.
Such a mixed bag with these new processors for gamers but this one is a bit more palatable than the 13900K. Still going to wait and see what AMD's next 3D offering is but it all adds up to more knowledge for the most informed purchase.
Yeah, if I were building a system from scratch right now, I could see going any direction really and coming out with a really solid system. Would probably come down to whatever I could catch on sale that particular day.
Hell no, just factor the cost of an AIO cooler and suddenly the value crashes to the ground.
Zen 3 is a much better value if only not as fast.
I'd have figured that in anyway :unsure:
Not a 'fan' of using HSFs except where necessary or in truly low-powered scenarios.
Bringing up this old thread due to my "downgrading" from a 13900K to a 13600KF. After moving into my new home and being in a designated main level bedroom/man cave over my basement man cave in my previous home where temperatures were not as noticeable I just wanted to have something that ran cooler which this does compared to my previous 13900K. The 13600KF is just as good as the 13900K at 4K with little to no drop off in FPS as this review suggests.
That's nice to see! Thanks for sharing!
So, I take this back. The latest round or two of air coolers have pushed more than adequate cooling down to US$50 to US$70. Obviously be mindful of voltages under load!