Power Temperature and Frequency
We will now test the power and temperature on each CPU, as well as the frequency on the Intel Core i5-13600K. To run these tests we ran Cinebench R23 for 10 minutes and took readings according to HWiNFO64, the latest version.
Power
The Intel 13th Gen Desktop Processors come with a power increase. While the maximum boost TDP is 181W with the 13600K, in actuality its socket package power runs at 227.5W at full load. At 227W the 13600K consumes 89% more power than the 12600K, a huge increase of over 100W at full load when pegging all cores. The power level is also much greater than the Ryzen 5 7600X with it pulling 94% more power or 110W more. The power level of the 13600K is on par with the Ryzen 9 7950X, and that is just nuts. Its power draw exceeds that of the 7900X.
Temperature
With this power increase comes a temperature increase. The 13600K runs at 95c, which is as hot as the Ryzen 9 7950X. Compared to the 12600K this is a large 67% temperature increase, 38 degrees hotter, than 12600K. The 12600K ran at a col 57c, and this one is at 95c, and that’s just a huge difference that cannot be ignored.
CPU Frequency
The Max Turbo Frequency on the Core i5-13600K is 5.1GHz and the E-cores should be 3.9GHz. As we can see above, running Cinebench R23 all P-cores are maxing out and sustained 5.1GHz while running, and the E-cores are at 3.9GHz. Therefore the CPU does not throttle frequency at 95c, and it is maintaining the maximum boost clocks when all the cores are pegged.
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!