Conclusion
In today’s review we have put the new Intel Core i5-13600K through its paces with synthetic benchmarks, system benchmarks, and specific CPU benchmarks, and then threw a bunch of games at it. We tested at 4K, 1440p, and 1080p for the full gameplay experience that each CPU provides, using a fast GeForce RTX 3090 Ti FE video card.
The Intel Core i5-13600K is Intel’s new 13th Gen Core processor, codenamed Raptor Lake, and provides improvements versus the previous generation Alder Lake CPUs. The Core i5-13600K is 14 (total core) CPU composed of 6 P-cores and 8 E-cores culminating in 20 Total Threads for RCP USD $319-$329. It has a maximum Turbo Frequency on the P-cores of 5.1GHz and the E-cores can clock up to 3.9GHz. It has an Intel Smart Cache (L3) of 24MB and an L2 cache of 20MB. The Processor Base Power is 125W and its Maximum Turbo Power is 181W. It supports DDR5 or DDR4, and PCI-Express 5.0. With Raptor Lake CPUs you can run them on previous-generation Z690 motherboards, or the new Z790 motherboards, the socket remains the same.
Performance
Starting off in PCMark 10’s standard full system benchmark the Intel Core i5-13600K offered better performance than the 12600K, but came in under overall to the 7600X. In PCMark 10’s application benchmark testing MS Office performance the 13600K was on par with the 7600X and offered a 9% improvement over the 12600K. In 3DMarks’s CPU Profile Max Threads testing we saw the benefit of the 13600K’s added cores for multithreading. It was a whopping 42% faster than the Ryzen 5 7600X. In 1-thread testing the 13600K was just under 7600X performance. Geekbench 5 continued to show the advantage in multithreading performance with the 13600K beating the 7600X, 12600K, and even the 12700K in performance. In single-core performance, it was on par with the 12900K and beat the 12600K and 12700K.
In AIDA64 CPU AES testing the Core i5-13600K beat the 7600X and even the 12700K. Compared to the 12600K it provided a large 34% performance bump and was 19% faster than the 7600X. In CPU SHA3 the 13600K was 29% faster than the 7600X and 41% faster than the 12600K. In FPU Julia the 13600K was 7% faster than the 7600X and 31% faster than the 12600K. In FPU Mandel the 13600K was 4% faster than the 7600X and 28% faster than the 12600K. Memory bandwidth was very high and no different than the previous generation.
Rendering performance did very well on the 13600K thanks to all the cores and threads it has at this level. In Cinebench R23 it was 60% faster than the Ryzen 5 7600X and a 38% improvement over the last generation 12600K. It even beat the 12700K and 5800X3D in performance. In single-core performance, it was slightly above the 7600X in performance and beat the 12600K by 4%. The Core i5-13600K did really well in Blender as well providing nearly 50% more performance compared to Ryzen 5 7600X and 37% faster than the previous 12600K. In V-RAY the 13600K was 41% faster than the 7600X and 37% faster than the 12600K. HandBrake was impressive with it pulling in times rivaling the 12700K, 7700X, and 7600X. Its times were nearly as fast as the Ryzen 9 7900X.
In gaming performance, the Intel Core i5-13600K was at the top of the charts. Mostly 4K was a wash, but there were a few games where it made a slight difference, depending on the game. Flight Sim and Far Cry 6 are some games where 4K performance is affected by the CPU. Mostly the differences came at 1440p and 1080p. At those resolutions, we did see the 13600K provide the fastest performance, at times outperforming even the Ryzen 5 7600X and Ryzen 7 5800X3D.
A lot of people might have said that the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is the CPU to have for gaming performance at a reasonable value. However, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is still priced above $400. In our testing today, the Intel Core i5-13600K at $319-$329 matched or even outperformed the Ryzen 7 5800X3D in gaming performance. This was proven at 1440p and 1080p, and with a fast GPU. With the Core i5-13600K riveling the 5800X3D and being cheaper, it’s the clear winner for gaming performance.
Power and Temperature
The Intel Core i5-13600K is fast, there is no denying that. However, all those cores, all that frequency, and all that performance come at a cost. For this generation, on this process node, it is power and heat. The Intel Core i5-13600K consumes 90% more power than the previous generation 12600K, an increase of 100W. This is tremendous. At these power levels, it is on par with the Ryzen 9 7950X in terms of power draw. It’s more power than the 7900X and everything below it. Compared to the Ryzen 5 7600X the 13600K pulls 94% more power, 110W.
With that power draw also comes a rise in temperatures. The Core i4-12600K had a really nice running temp of 57c, but the new 13600K increases that to a whopping 95c. That’s a 67% increase in temperatures, or 38 degrees higher. At 95c it’s as hot as the Ryzen 7950X runs. Keep in mind this was with a 360mm AIO at full fan speed as well, so lesser cooling solutions will be even worse. It’s crazy to think that you need such a robust cooling solution on a $319 CPU, but with this one, you really do.
Final Points
The Intel Core i5-13600K is a big improvement in performance over the previous generation Intel Core i5-12600K. With the additional E-cores, it has more threads, and this really does prove itself in applications that require multi-threading performance. In multi-threaded performance, the Intel Core i5-13600K dominates the competition’s Ryzen 5 7600X. The simple fact is that the 6-core/12-thread 7600X cannot keep up with the 6 P-core/8-Ecore / 20-thread Core i5-13600K in multi-threaded applications. In applications like office work, rendering, content creation, and video encoding/transcoding the Intel Core i5-13600K is a step ahead at this price point. It makes the Ryzen 5 7600X seem very overpriced and underperforming for most tasks you do on your PC.
In terms of gaming, the two are competitive, but we more often than not saw the Intel Core i5-13600K also leading in gaming performance over the Ryzen 5 7600X. What was even more exciting was seeing it beat the Ryzen 7 5800X3D in gaming performance. This used to be the champ for gaming performance, but the Intel Core i5-13600K now firmly supplants it. With the 13600K being cheaper in price compared to the 5800X3D, the 13600K is now the smarter choice in gaming performance. Its single-thread performance is strong, and it will provide the best gaming experience. We even saw the 13600K rival the 12700K and 7700X in some scenarios.
The caveat with the Intel Core i5-13600K is the power demand, and heat generated. It’s fast, but it does so at a high cost of power and heat. You will need a robust cooling solution even on this $319-$329 CPU. Combine that with a more expensive Z690 or Z790 motherboard with DDR5, and the cost adds up. Though you do have the option to run DDR4 with the 13600K, which could shave off some of that cost. At the end of the day, the Intel Core i5-13600K gives the Ryzen 5 7600X and Ryzen 7 5800X3D a run for their money. It improves upon the 12600K but comes with a large power and temperature demand that you will have to decide if you want to put up with. If you can, then the 13600K offers a better value than the Ryzen 5 7600X currently.
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!