Gaming Performance Cont.
In order to test gaming performance properly and really get a good feel for it, and cover all the bases for the big picture, we decided to test 1080p, 1440p, and 4K resolutions, all three resolutions to see from top to bottom how these CPUs affect performance games. For testing, we are using an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti Founders Edition video card. Since we are testing all 3 resolutions, it’ll be a good mix to see where the CPU matters and where it doesn’t.
All the graphs below are not sorted, they are not sorted from fastest to slowest as in previous graphs, instead, they are simply labeled in groups by platform, from fastest CPU to least fastest CPU. As you look at performance, try to look down the column of the resolution, to see which one is faster than the other, to help your eyes see which one is faster.
Cyberpunk 2077
In Cyberpunk 2077 performance at 4K is very similar. At 1440p we start to see some differences, and the new Intel Core i5-13600K is at the top of performance, edging out the 5800X3D by 3% and the 7600X by 6%. At 1080p the 13600K improves performance over the 7600X by 4% and the 5800X3D by 3%.
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020
Flight Sim greatly benefits from new CPUs, either Ryzen 7000 series or the Intel 13th Gen. At 4K the 13600K matches performance with the Ryzen 7000 series CPUs. It improves upon the 12600K by 7%, and this is at 4K. At 1440p the 13600K is just under the 7600X, but faster than the 5800X. The same is true at 1080p.
Crysis Remastered
In Crysis Remastered the Intel Core i5-13600K is on par with everything else at 4K. At 1440p it is 6% faster than the Ryzen 5 7600X and 3% faster than the 12600K. At 1080p the 13600K is 5% faster than the 7600X and nudges out over the 5800X3D. It’s also 9% faster than the 12600K.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider
In Shadow of the Tomb Raider, everything is the same at 4K. At 1440p, it’s also very close. At 1080p though, we see some differences. The 13600K is on par with the 7600X but does improve upon the 12600K by 6%.
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!