All language subtitles for Intel Takes the Throne_ i5-13600K CPU Review & Benchmarks vs. AMD Ryzen-en

af Afrikaans
ak Akan
sq Albanian
am Amharic
ar Arabic
hy Armenian
az Azerbaijani
eu Basque
be Belarusian
bem Bemba
bn Bengali
bh Bihari
bs Bosnian
br Breton
bg Bulgarian
km Cambodian
ca Catalan
ceb Cebuano
chr Cherokee
ny Chichewa
zh-CN Chinese (Simplified)
zh-TW Chinese (Traditional)
co Corsican
hr Croatian Download
cs Czech
da Danish
nl Dutch
en English
eo Esperanto
et Estonian
ee Ewe
fo Faroese
tl Filipino
fi Finnish
fr French
fy Frisian
gaa Ga
gl Galician
ka Georgian
de German
el Greek
gn Guarani
gu Gujarati
ht Haitian Creole
ha Hausa
haw Hawaiian
iw Hebrew
hi Hindi
hmn Hmong
hu Hungarian
is Icelandic
ig Igbo
id Indonesian
ia Interlingua
ga Irish
it Italian
ja Japanese
jw Javanese
kn Kannada
kk Kazakh
rw Kinyarwanda
rn Kirundi
kg Kongo
ko Korean
kri Krio (Sierra Leone)
ku Kurdish
ckb Kurdish (Soranî)
ky Kyrgyz
lo Laothian
la Latin
lv Latvian
ln Lingala
lt Lithuanian
loz Lozi
lg Luganda
ach Luo
lb Luxembourgish
mk Macedonian
mg Malagasy
ms Malay
ml Malayalam
mt Maltese
mi Maori
mr Marathi
mfe Mauritian Creole
mo Moldavian
mn Mongolian
my Myanmar (Burmese)
sr-ME Montenegrin
ne Nepali
pcm Nigerian Pidgin
nso Northern Sotho
no Norwegian
nn Norwegian (Nynorsk)
oc Occitan
or Oriya
om Oromo
ps Pashto
fa Persian
pl Polish
pt-BR Portuguese (Brazil)
pt Portuguese (Portugal)
pa Punjabi
qu Quechua
ro Romanian
rm Romansh
nyn Runyakitara
ru Russian
sm Samoan
gd Scots Gaelic
sr Serbian
sh Serbo-Croatian
st Sesotho
tn Setswana
crs Seychellois Creole
sn Shona
sd Sindhi
si Sinhalese
sk Slovak
sl Slovenian
so Somali
es Spanish
es-419 Spanish (Latin American)
su Sundanese
sw Swahili
sv Swedish
tg Tajik
ta Tamil
tt Tatar
te Telugu
th Thai
ti Tigrinya
to Tonga
lua Tshiluba
tum Tumbuka
tr Turkish
tk Turkmen
tw Twi
ug Uighur
uk Ukrainian
ur Urdu
uz Uzbek
vi Vietnamese
cy Welsh
wo Wolof
xh Xhosa
yi Yiddish
yo Yoruba
zu Zulu
Would you like to inspect the original subtitles? These are the user uploaded subtitles that are being translated: 0 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:03,480 [Music] 1 00:00:01,800 --> 00:00:06,420 now we're reviewing the really 2 00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:09,300 interesting one the Intel 13600k this is 3 00:00:06,420 --> 00:00:10,380 a new CPU it's about 330 or so and the 4 00:00:09,300 --> 00:00:13,799 price point puts it in direct 5 00:00:10,380 --> 00:00:15,839 competition with amd's R5 7600x which we 6 00:00:13,799 --> 00:00:17,880 already said starts very high for Price 7 00:00:15,839 --> 00:00:19,980 Point especially when considering the 8 00:00:17,880 --> 00:00:23,160 total platform cost with the motherboard 9 00:00:19,980 --> 00:00:25,199 and ddr5 is now being required on am5 10 00:00:23,160 --> 00:00:27,840 whereas Intel tactically you could still 11 00:00:25,199 --> 00:00:29,039 run it with ddr4 if you wanted to so 12 00:00:27,840 --> 00:00:30,599 this one's going to be a really 13 00:00:29,039 --> 00:00:32,700 interesting matchup between AMD and 14 00:00:30,599 --> 00:00:34,380 Intel at the mid-range let's get started 15 00:00:32,700 --> 00:00:36,180 before that this video is brought to you 16 00:00:34,380 --> 00:00:38,100 by be quiet and there's silent wins for 17 00:00:36,180 --> 00:00:39,960 fans the silent wins four vans Market 18 00:00:38,100 --> 00:00:42,239 themselves as being useful on radiators 19 00:00:39,960 --> 00:00:44,040 Tower coolers and cases alike the fans 20 00:00:42,239 --> 00:00:45,899 have a six-pole motor and use a fluid 21 00:00:44,040 --> 00:00:48,300 Dynamic bearing which helps with the 22 00:00:45,899 --> 00:00:50,280 noise profile and with longevity the 23 00:00:48,300 --> 00:00:52,440 fans use anti-vibration mounts for 24 00:00:50,280 --> 00:00:54,719 reduced noise transfer to the case and 25 00:00:52,440 --> 00:00:56,280 have a rated lifespan of 300 000 hours 26 00:00:54,719 --> 00:00:57,780 learn more at the link in the 27 00:00:56,280 --> 00:00:59,460 description below a lot of the story 28 00:00:57,780 --> 00:01:01,500 today is going to be about that platform 29 00:00:59,460 --> 00:01:03,780 cost because CPU to CPU there's only 30 00:01:01,500 --> 00:01:06,659 about 20 or 30 difference between the R5 31 00:01:03,780 --> 00:01:09,659 7600x which weren't particularly fond of 32 00:01:06,659 --> 00:01:11,159 for its price and the 13600k however 33 00:01:09,659 --> 00:01:13,439 there have already been rumors for 34 00:01:11,159 --> 00:01:15,299 probably over a month now that AMD is 35 00:01:13,439 --> 00:01:18,000 thinking about dropping its prices for 36 00:01:15,299 --> 00:01:19,979 the ryzen 7000 series CPUs and if it 37 00:01:18,000 --> 00:01:22,740 decides to do so it's probably in the 38 00:01:19,979 --> 00:01:25,380 face of competition from Intel here so 39 00:01:22,740 --> 00:01:26,939 it's competition sorting itself out once 40 00:01:25,380 --> 00:01:29,400 again although we'll see if it takes 41 00:01:26,939 --> 00:01:30,900 until CES to drop those prices but for 42 00:01:29,400 --> 00:01:32,820 today we're reviewing based on the 43 00:01:30,900 --> 00:01:34,680 prices that exist currently at the time 44 00:01:32,820 --> 00:01:37,200 of filming this one day before launch of 45 00:01:34,680 --> 00:01:39,360 the 13th gen CPUs and we need to give 46 00:01:37,200 --> 00:01:42,119 some specs for a baseline of what this 47 00:01:39,360 --> 00:01:44,700 thing is the 13600k has six performance 48 00:01:42,119 --> 00:01:48,140 cores and eight efficient cores that's 49 00:01:44,700 --> 00:01:50,820 trimmed down from the 13900ks 8 and 16 50 00:01:48,140 --> 00:01:52,259 respectively and remember smt or hyper 51 00:01:50,820 --> 00:01:55,680 threading is not available on the 52 00:01:52,259 --> 00:01:58,380 e-course the last gen 12600k had six P 53 00:01:55,680 --> 00:02:01,079 cores as well but only four e-corps so 54 00:01:58,380 --> 00:02:03,600 that's a bump in the new cpu's favor the 55 00:02:01,079 --> 00:02:05,820 base TDP is 125 watts for this one 56 00:02:03,600 --> 00:02:08,459 that's the same as the rest of the 57 00:02:05,820 --> 00:02:10,800 Raptor like line up so far but Max the 58 00:02:08,459 --> 00:02:12,720 one that actually matters 181 Watts so 59 00:02:10,800 --> 00:02:15,180 that's a lot lower than the 3900 case 60 00:02:12,720 --> 00:02:17,819 253 watt TDP just your regular reminder 61 00:02:15,180 --> 00:02:19,440 here TDP doesn't translate directly to 62 00:02:17,819 --> 00:02:23,760 power consumption it's normally pretty 63 00:02:19,440 --> 00:02:25,260 close but uh pl1 and pl2 were how the 64 00:02:23,760 --> 00:02:27,720 power consumption numbers differed in 65 00:02:25,260 --> 00:02:30,239 the past where you had Tau or a boost in 66 00:02:27,720 --> 00:02:31,920 window measured in less than a minute 52 67 00:02:30,239 --> 00:02:34,200 56 seconds or so somewhere in that range 68 00:02:31,920 --> 00:02:36,120 and that would be where you'd have the 69 00:02:34,200 --> 00:02:38,459 highest power draw and once that died 70 00:02:36,120 --> 00:02:40,800 off boost fell down and the frequency 71 00:02:38,459 --> 00:02:42,840 stabilized then it was down to the lower 72 00:02:40,800 --> 00:02:45,239 number that was commonly in 95 Watts or 73 00:02:42,840 --> 00:02:47,580 125 or whatever it may have been now 74 00:02:45,239 --> 00:02:50,220 though they just boost indefinitely and 75 00:02:47,580 --> 00:02:52,260 hold that higher number and of course 76 00:02:50,220 --> 00:02:54,180 that actual measured power consumption 77 00:02:52,260 --> 00:02:55,739 is influenced by the motherboard by Auto 78 00:02:54,180 --> 00:02:57,660 V core and all that stuff now with 79 00:02:55,739 --> 00:02:58,920 raptor Lake you can still use ddr4 80 00:02:57,660 --> 00:03:00,900 motherboards you can find them online 81 00:02:58,920 --> 00:03:04,080 everywhere and these are cheaper than 82 00:03:00,900 --> 00:03:05,700 ddr5 versions and that means that 83 00:03:04,080 --> 00:03:08,760 there's a second Factor here which is 84 00:03:05,700 --> 00:03:11,159 motherboard cost z790 is part of this 85 00:03:08,760 --> 00:03:13,739 launch there's no real reason why though 86 00:03:11,159 --> 00:03:16,860 you would need to use a z790 board over 87 00:03:13,739 --> 00:03:18,900 z690 or even b660 for basic 88 00:03:16,860 --> 00:03:21,060 functionality and stock performance even 89 00:03:18,900 --> 00:03:23,519 for extreme overclocking we're going to 90 00:03:21,060 --> 00:03:25,319 be working with a z690 board when we 91 00:03:23,519 --> 00:03:27,959 bring it to liquid nitrogen which should 92 00:03:25,319 --> 00:03:29,940 tell you that they're fine so b660 or 93 00:03:27,959 --> 00:03:32,280 z690 they're both still very much alive 94 00:03:29,940 --> 00:03:33,840 and as long as it gets bios update to 95 00:03:32,280 --> 00:03:36,420 support the new CPUs you'll be able to 96 00:03:33,840 --> 00:03:38,519 use it the same goes for the 5800x 3D 97 00:03:36,420 --> 00:03:40,920 where that's a competitive chip it's 98 00:03:38,519 --> 00:03:44,519 somewhere in the 400 range now and you 99 00:03:40,920 --> 00:03:47,159 can use b450 if you want x470 b550 100 00:03:44,519 --> 00:03:49,920 boards without issue and again assuming 101 00:03:47,159 --> 00:03:51,720 the bio supports it b650 just became 102 00:03:49,920 --> 00:03:53,700 available for use with ryzen 7000 it 103 00:03:51,720 --> 00:03:56,220 doesn't work with a 58x3d and while 104 00:03:53,700 --> 00:03:58,019 cheaper than x670 it can't bring the 105 00:03:56,220 --> 00:04:00,180 total cost low enough to match other 106 00:03:58,019 --> 00:04:02,400 budget optimized combinations we did 107 00:04:00,180 --> 00:04:04,019 some really quick work of just putting 108 00:04:02,400 --> 00:04:05,280 together a table with some pricing 109 00:04:04,019 --> 00:04:07,680 information on it for different 110 00:04:05,280 --> 00:04:09,180 combinations of ram motherboard and CPU 111 00:04:07,680 --> 00:04:11,939 so we're calling that total platform 112 00:04:09,180 --> 00:04:13,680 cost this is not the most scientific or 113 00:04:11,939 --> 00:04:16,079 deepest dive pricing table you could 114 00:04:13,680 --> 00:04:18,060 make we didn't use price ripping and 115 00:04:16,079 --> 00:04:19,680 scraping tools we basically went through 116 00:04:18,060 --> 00:04:21,720 and we sorted by Boards we thought were 117 00:04:19,680 --> 00:04:23,580 reasonable matched with ram we thought 118 00:04:21,720 --> 00:04:26,220 was pretty comparable between all the 119 00:04:23,580 --> 00:04:28,320 combinations and opted for the cheapest 120 00:04:26,220 --> 00:04:31,020 reasonable price to get into one of 121 00:04:28,320 --> 00:04:33,960 these platforms so in other words it's 122 00:04:31,020 --> 00:04:35,880 you can probably do it cheaper but this 123 00:04:33,960 --> 00:04:37,620 is what we thought made sense and this 124 00:04:35,880 --> 00:04:41,759 table gives you an idea for it where 125 00:04:37,620 --> 00:04:45,660 with a 13600k b660 16 gig of memory at 126 00:04:41,759 --> 00:04:47,940 ddr4 uh you're at 475 bucks it is slower 127 00:04:45,660 --> 00:04:50,759 memory though and ddr5 is starting to 128 00:04:47,940 --> 00:04:53,280 show benefit but if you really need to 129 00:04:50,759 --> 00:04:55,380 chop costs somewhere and maybe you care 130 00:04:53,280 --> 00:04:57,240 more about GPU performance and want to 131 00:04:55,380 --> 00:04:59,880 spend your money there this is an option 132 00:04:57,240 --> 00:05:02,280 32 gigabytes of course brings it up a 133 00:04:59,880 --> 00:05:05,340 bit a 58x3d is also relatively 134 00:05:02,280 --> 00:05:08,280 competitive with the 13600k with ddr4 135 00:05:05,340 --> 00:05:10,020 option but you look at the 7600x and the 136 00:05:08,280 --> 00:05:12,180 pricing gets blown out of the water and 137 00:05:10,020 --> 00:05:14,880 to be clear that 600 option that we 138 00:05:12,180 --> 00:05:16,919 showed for the 7600x that's with pretty 139 00:05:14,880 --> 00:05:20,160 bad memory like it'll actually hurt the 140 00:05:16,919 --> 00:05:23,039 performance so you're closer to the 650 141 00:05:20,160 --> 00:05:24,600 plus mark for a 7600x platform okay 142 00:05:23,039 --> 00:05:26,820 enough of the basics let's get into some 143 00:05:24,600 --> 00:05:29,280 benchmarking look at Power production 144 00:05:26,820 --> 00:05:31,979 tests gaming all that stuff and keep in 145 00:05:29,280 --> 00:05:36,000 mind that the 13600k is most interesting 146 00:05:31,979 --> 00:05:37,800 for it's actually really close to Max 147 00:05:36,000 --> 00:05:40,020 performance it can get with the much 148 00:05:37,800 --> 00:05:41,699 better power envelope than the 13900k 149 00:05:40,020 --> 00:05:43,080 let's start with power consumption 150 00:05:41,699 --> 00:05:45,900 because this is one of the more 151 00:05:43,080 --> 00:05:47,759 interesting aspects of the 13600k in an 152 00:05:45,900 --> 00:05:50,220 awkward workload and blender we measure 153 00:05:47,759 --> 00:05:51,960 the power at the EPS 12 volt cables this 154 00:05:50,220 --> 00:05:54,000 isolates the results to basically just 155 00:05:51,960 --> 00:05:57,360 the CPU and doesn't include total system 156 00:05:54,000 --> 00:05:58,919 draw Intel's 13600k pulled 161 Watts 157 00:05:57,360 --> 00:06:01,919 which is 40 Watts more than we saw in 158 00:05:58,919 --> 00:06:04,560 the last generation I5 12600k and 159 00:06:01,919 --> 00:06:07,080 functionally the same as the 12 700k and 160 00:06:04,560 --> 00:06:09,840 that one had two more P cores but four 161 00:06:07,080 --> 00:06:16,199 fewer e cores than the 13-6 compared to 162 00:06:09,840 --> 00:06:19,740 the 13 900ks insane 295 Watts the 13600k 163 00:06:16,199 --> 00:06:21,960 looks pretty good but it's a creep 164 00:06:19,740 --> 00:06:24,900 upwards in power consumption for an i5 165 00:06:21,960 --> 00:06:28,199 the new I5 Drew 38 more power than the 166 00:06:24,900 --> 00:06:31,919 six core 7600x and 49 more power than 167 00:06:28,199 --> 00:06:33,900 the 8 core 5800x 3D going with those AMD 168 00:06:31,919 --> 00:06:35,880 CPUs would give you more overall power 169 00:06:33,900 --> 00:06:38,160 budget and your power supply to dedicate 170 00:06:35,880 --> 00:06:40,380 to other parts like gpus or accelerators 171 00:06:38,160 --> 00:06:41,940 this absolute power draw is really only 172 00:06:40,380 --> 00:06:43,680 part of the equation when it comes to 173 00:06:41,940 --> 00:06:46,259 production loads with efficiency being 174 00:06:43,680 --> 00:06:48,240 the other aspect the 13600k pulled 30 175 00:06:46,259 --> 00:06:50,580 watts in our single Core Power testing 176 00:06:48,240 --> 00:06:54,780 tied exactly with the 7600x and the 177 00:06:50,580 --> 00:06:56,639 12600k the I9 class 12900k and 3900k 178 00:06:54,780 --> 00:06:58,440 both pull significantly more power 179 00:06:56,639 --> 00:07:00,960 despite this being a single core 180 00:06:58,440 --> 00:07:03,360 workload and that's due to sustaining 181 00:07:00,960 --> 00:07:05,520 higher boost and TVB frequencies for all 182 00:07:03,360 --> 00:07:07,139 workloads in the I9 and next before we 183 00:07:05,520 --> 00:07:09,000 get to games is power efficiency 184 00:07:07,139 --> 00:07:11,160 calculated as a simple Watt hours 185 00:07:09,000 --> 00:07:12,960 equation we're judging how much energy 186 00:07:11,160 --> 00:07:14,759 it takes to complete an equivalent 187 00:07:12,960 --> 00:07:16,380 amount of work between all these CPUs 188 00:07:14,759 --> 00:07:18,419 our control is the amount of work 189 00:07:16,380 --> 00:07:20,460 produced rendering this Frame and 190 00:07:18,419 --> 00:07:23,460 blender and the variables are time and 191 00:07:20,460 --> 00:07:25,620 power Intel's I5 13600k plotted 192 00:07:23,460 --> 00:07:28,259 centrally here right alongside the i7 193 00:07:25,620 --> 00:07:30,599 12700 KF it's actually a great position 194 00:07:28,259 --> 00:07:33,180 compared to last generation you're next 195 00:07:30,599 --> 00:07:35,280 to an i7 but it's not the chart leader 196 00:07:33,180 --> 00:07:36,900 no one is approaching the 5950x and 197 00:07:35,280 --> 00:07:39,599 efficiency just yet that's still the 198 00:07:36,900 --> 00:07:43,020 true kin here it's certainly far better 199 00:07:39,599 --> 00:07:44,520 though than the 3900k the 3900k is 200 00:07:43,020 --> 00:07:46,440 plotted correctly in this one in our 201 00:07:44,520 --> 00:07:48,300 previous video we had one charting error 202 00:07:46,440 --> 00:07:50,580 out of the whatever 30 or something 203 00:07:48,300 --> 00:07:52,080 charts one mistake where we already 204 00:07:50,580 --> 00:07:53,520 detailed the correction we linked it 205 00:07:52,080 --> 00:07:55,440 below if you're curious what the notes 206 00:07:53,520 --> 00:07:57,180 are for it but in this setup it's all 207 00:07:55,440 --> 00:07:59,580 positioned correctly in the 13600k 208 00:07:57,180 --> 00:08:02,460 proves that Intel is blasting the power 209 00:07:59,580 --> 00:08:04,020 on the 13 9 to really try and max out 210 00:08:02,460 --> 00:08:05,819 the last few percentage points of 211 00:08:04,020 --> 00:08:07,560 performance it's expected for Halo 212 00:08:05,819 --> 00:08:09,479 products but for something like an i5 213 00:08:07,560 --> 00:08:11,819 it's not and it's behaving better here 214 00:08:09,479 --> 00:08:14,880 the 13600k ends up more efficient than 215 00:08:11,819 --> 00:08:16,620 amd's R5 7600x in this one so it is 216 00:08:14,880 --> 00:08:19,379 finally outpacing AMD and power 217 00:08:16,620 --> 00:08:22,500 efficiency and specifically it's doing 218 00:08:19,379 --> 00:08:25,199 it between the two newest gen CPUs from 219 00:08:22,500 --> 00:08:28,020 AMD and from Intel at about the same 220 00:08:25,199 --> 00:08:29,580 price class so in that regard Intel is 221 00:08:28,020 --> 00:08:32,279 in a bit of an advantage to position 222 00:08:29,580 --> 00:08:34,260 here for the I5 versus the R5 in power 223 00:08:32,279 --> 00:08:35,580 efficiency okay get into the game so 224 00:08:34,260 --> 00:08:37,800 most of the games we ran were with the 225 00:08:35,580 --> 00:08:40,260 3090 TI there are a couple where that's 226 00:08:37,800 --> 00:08:43,020 starting to become GPU bound and so for 227 00:08:40,260 --> 00:08:45,480 those we re-ran with the 4090 with just 228 00:08:43,020 --> 00:08:47,580 the four most immediate relevant CPUs 229 00:08:45,480 --> 00:08:50,160 that we sort of pulled out of the CPU 230 00:08:47,580 --> 00:08:51,720 closet and we'll be eventually re uh 231 00:08:50,160 --> 00:08:53,519 running all these tests with the 4090 232 00:08:51,720 --> 00:08:55,140 but this will get us started for now so 233 00:08:53,519 --> 00:08:56,880 let's look at some of the games we'll 234 00:08:55,140 --> 00:08:59,519 start with 39 TI numbers we'll start 235 00:08:56,880 --> 00:09:01,860 with cs go at 1080p we're the 13600k 236 00:08:59,519 --> 00:09:05,040 establishes itself as functionally equal 237 00:09:01,860 --> 00:09:07,380 to the 12 900k and 20 faster than the 12 238 00:09:05,040 --> 00:09:09,240 600k which shows good generational 239 00:09:07,380 --> 00:09:12,060 improvement over Alder lake or the 12th 240 00:09:09,240 --> 00:09:14,700 gen CPUs the closest current gen AMD CPU 241 00:09:12,060 --> 00:09:18,060 is the ryzen 7600x barely outperforming 242 00:09:14,700 --> 00:09:20,279 the 13600k for 30 less and is strictly 243 00:09:18,060 --> 00:09:22,019 the cost of the CPU remember though that 244 00:09:20,279 --> 00:09:24,420 the total platform cost should be taken 245 00:09:22,019 --> 00:09:27,480 into account as well now lows of the 246 00:09:24,420 --> 00:09:29,640 7600x and the 13600k are with an error 247 00:09:27,480 --> 00:09:31,500 of each other CS go has a very wide 248 00:09:29,640 --> 00:09:33,660 range for low results and that's 249 00:09:31,500 --> 00:09:36,720 indicated by the bars on the chart the 250 00:09:33,660 --> 00:09:39,899 13600k also falls short of the 3900k 251 00:09:36,720 --> 00:09:41,700 which beats it by 15 percent that's in 252 00:09:39,899 --> 00:09:44,940 an entirely different price class though 253 00:09:41,700 --> 00:09:48,360 with the 139 at 600 plus dollars put 254 00:09:44,940 --> 00:09:51,240 simply that means the 13600k gets 87 of 255 00:09:48,360 --> 00:09:53,760 the performance of the 139 for 55 256 00:09:51,240 --> 00:09:54,899 percent of the price and another way to 257 00:09:53,760 --> 00:09:58,260 look at this would be that you could get 258 00:09:54,899 --> 00:10:02,100 a 13 600k with 32 gigabytes of ddr4 and 259 00:09:58,260 --> 00:10:04,860 a motherboard for about 95 less than the 260 00:10:02,100 --> 00:10:06,899 price of just the 3900k at 600. we'd 261 00:10:04,860 --> 00:10:08,700 also like to point out the 5800x3d here 262 00:10:06,899 --> 00:10:11,640 it's very popular it's competitive CPU 263 00:10:08,700 --> 00:10:13,260 at 400 right now the 13600k took a 264 00:10:11,640 --> 00:10:15,779 relatively small seven percent lead over 265 00:10:13,260 --> 00:10:17,820 it moving to 1440p and CS go shows that 266 00:10:15,779 --> 00:10:19,980 we're highly CPU bound and scaling is 267 00:10:17,820 --> 00:10:21,420 intact throughout the stack we want that 268 00:10:19,980 --> 00:10:23,700 kind of bind for showing the best 269 00:10:21,420 --> 00:10:25,440 scaling between CPUs As you move up in 270 00:10:23,700 --> 00:10:27,600 resolution or play games that rely more 271 00:10:25,440 --> 00:10:29,640 on the GPU the scaling becomes less 272 00:10:27,600 --> 00:10:31,860 pronounced or it's totally wiped out 273 00:10:29,640 --> 00:10:34,800 like when playing games at 4K for modern 274 00:10:31,860 --> 00:10:36,300 games and you become GPU bound things 275 00:10:34,800 --> 00:10:38,760 are starting to look good though for the 276 00:10:36,300 --> 00:10:40,080 value of the 13600k here but we need to 277 00:10:38,760 --> 00:10:42,779 check out some other games that load the 278 00:10:40,080 --> 00:10:44,579 CPU differently the Final Fantasy 14 end 279 00:10:42,779 --> 00:10:46,920 Walker Benchmark isn't representative of 280 00:10:44,579 --> 00:10:49,079 online performance necessarily but it 281 00:10:46,920 --> 00:10:51,000 shows us the scaling in this game even 282 00:10:49,079 --> 00:10:53,760 if the absolute numbers are a bit higher 283 00:10:51,000 --> 00:10:56,040 the 13600k sits under the top spot on 284 00:10:53,760 --> 00:10:58,320 the charge with an error of the 12900k 285 00:10:56,040 --> 00:11:01,680 and higher than all of the ryzen 7000 286 00:10:58,320 --> 00:11:03,660 CPUs the 13 6 leaves the 7600x by about 287 00:11:01,680 --> 00:11:05,820 12 percent here whereas the Thirteen 288 00:11:03,660 --> 00:11:08,100 nine jumps way ahead showing that we 289 00:11:05,820 --> 00:11:11,279 aren't GPU bound on most or all of this 290 00:11:08,100 --> 00:11:13,680 charge with a 14 lead owners of the 291 00:11:11,279 --> 00:11:15,540 older Zen one Parts like the R7 1700 292 00:11:13,680 --> 00:11:17,459 might want to consider an upgrade the 293 00:11:15,540 --> 00:11:20,640 jump here would be noticeable but that's 294 00:11:17,459 --> 00:11:23,160 not so for 12th gen owners of course gen 295 00:11:20,640 --> 00:11:26,160 over gen the 12600k is getting beaten by 296 00:11:23,160 --> 00:11:27,300 16 percent on the 13600k but that's 297 00:11:26,160 --> 00:11:29,040 obviously not a difference we'd 298 00:11:27,300 --> 00:11:31,320 recommend upgrading over if you're on 299 00:11:29,040 --> 00:11:33,600 Alder Lake i-5s already and Rainbow Six 300 00:11:31,320 --> 00:11:34,980 Siege the 13600k lands in the upper 301 00:11:33,600 --> 00:11:37,440 section of the chart performing 302 00:11:34,980 --> 00:11:40,440 similarly to all of the ryzen 7000 CPUs 303 00:11:37,440 --> 00:11:42,660 and the 58x3d in average FPS with 304 00:11:40,440 --> 00:11:44,820 marginally better one percent lows the 305 00:11:42,660 --> 00:11:47,640 ryzen 7000 parts are hitting a hard wall 306 00:11:44,820 --> 00:11:49,620 at about 607 plus or minus a bit FPS 307 00:11:47,640 --> 00:11:51,360 average and that's either due to memory 308 00:11:49,620 --> 00:11:53,279 behavior on the CPUs or maybe driver 309 00:11:51,360 --> 00:11:54,959 overhead processing the communication 310 00:11:53,279 --> 00:11:57,240 with the GPU we'd have to research it 311 00:11:54,959 --> 00:11:58,980 more but Intel ceiling is split here and 312 00:11:57,240 --> 00:12:01,260 a little bit higher in this one the 313 00:11:58,980 --> 00:12:02,940 3900k holds a slight lead here of about 314 00:12:01,260 --> 00:12:05,399 three percent but since we're talking 315 00:12:02,940 --> 00:12:08,160 about over 600 FPS at this point for 316 00:12:05,399 --> 00:12:10,440 average it really doesn't matter some 317 00:12:08,160 --> 00:12:13,620 people will think it matters 318 00:12:10,440 --> 00:12:16,440 but it doesn't maybe at a pro level but 319 00:12:13,620 --> 00:12:18,660 probably still not really so the 320 00:12:16,440 --> 00:12:21,660 performance difference going from 615 to 321 00:12:18,660 --> 00:12:23,160 635 FPS it feels the same we're somewhat 322 00:12:21,660 --> 00:12:26,100 constrained in Shadow of the Tomb Raider 323 00:12:23,160 --> 00:12:28,560 we're the 13600k ties with the 12 900k 324 00:12:26,100 --> 00:12:32,040 and the 7600x but comes out ahead of the 325 00:12:28,560 --> 00:12:34,800 12 6K by 14 with proportionally better 326 00:12:32,040 --> 00:12:37,200 lows we re-ran this test using a 40 90 327 00:12:34,800 --> 00:12:39,120 as well to lift some of that ceiling and 328 00:12:37,200 --> 00:12:40,860 that constraint and gain a clearer 329 00:12:39,120 --> 00:12:43,800 picture of CPU performance so let's look 330 00:12:40,860 --> 00:12:45,240 at that in the 4090 chart shown here the 331 00:12:43,800 --> 00:12:47,579 scaling has significantly improved 332 00:12:45,240 --> 00:12:49,320 clearly the top CPUs had more room to 333 00:12:47,579 --> 00:12:52,260 breathe than the previous test with the 334 00:12:49,320 --> 00:12:55,200 3090 TI which was a very expensive card 335 00:12:52,260 --> 00:12:57,480 allowed for the 3900k was only four 336 00:12:55,200 --> 00:13:00,360 percent ahead of the 13600k in the last 337 00:12:57,480 --> 00:13:03,720 chart but that has now turned into a 17 338 00:13:00,360 --> 00:13:06,720 Gap with the GPU constraint removed the 339 00:13:03,720 --> 00:13:10,200 13900k gained 45 FPS average moving from 340 00:13:06,720 --> 00:13:12,959 the 3090 TI to the 4090 but the 13600k 341 00:13:10,200 --> 00:13:15,600 only against 9 FPS average likewise the 342 00:13:12,959 --> 00:13:18,180 7950x have performs the 13-6 by 15 343 00:13:15,600 --> 00:13:20,339 percent where the previous test it was 344 00:13:18,180 --> 00:13:23,040 only ahead by about four percent back to 345 00:13:20,339 --> 00:13:24,899 the 3090 TI bench our 1440p results 346 00:13:23,040 --> 00:13:26,700 reinforce how dependence on Graphics 347 00:13:24,899 --> 00:13:28,920 horsepower for some games can erase 348 00:13:26,700 --> 00:13:31,500 differences even between this wide range 349 00:13:28,920 --> 00:13:34,139 of CPUs because everything above an I3 350 00:13:31,500 --> 00:13:35,279 12100f is basically capped by the GPU at 351 00:13:34,139 --> 00:13:37,500 some point in the Benchmark here 352 00:13:35,279 --> 00:13:41,459 switching to the 4090 the hard cap is 353 00:13:37,500 --> 00:13:43,380 gone not quite no cap No Cap okay no 354 00:13:41,459 --> 00:13:46,260 capping but results are significantly 355 00:13:43,380 --> 00:13:48,420 freed up here the scaling at 1440p isn't 356 00:13:46,260 --> 00:13:51,240 quite as strong as it was at 1080p when 357 00:13:48,420 --> 00:13:54,480 using the 4090 the 3900k here is only 11 358 00:13:51,240 --> 00:13:58,500 faster than the 13600k and that's down 359 00:13:54,480 --> 00:14:00,959 from 17 at 1080p amd's 7900x only leads 360 00:13:58,500 --> 00:14:03,060 the I5 by 3 percent and that is down 361 00:14:00,959 --> 00:14:05,579 from an eight percent Advantage at 1080. 362 00:14:03,060 --> 00:14:07,079 if you run Tomb Raider with 1440p for 363 00:14:05,579 --> 00:14:09,959 the resolution or higher on anything 364 00:14:07,079 --> 00:14:11,880 lower end than a 40 90 you will not 365 00:14:09,959 --> 00:14:14,820 notice in difference between the two in 366 00:14:11,880 --> 00:14:18,360 Far Cry 6 the 13600k takes second place 367 00:14:14,820 --> 00:14:21,420 at 184 FPS average trailing the 3900k is 368 00:14:18,360 --> 00:14:23,339 196 half PS average the 13600k has 369 00:14:21,420 --> 00:14:25,079 better lows than the 13-9 on this one 370 00:14:23,339 --> 00:14:27,420 and that's something we explored and 371 00:14:25,079 --> 00:14:28,800 explained in our 3900k review you can 372 00:14:27,420 --> 00:14:30,240 check that one out for more detail 373 00:14:28,800 --> 00:14:31,500 specifically what's going on here but 374 00:14:30,240 --> 00:14:34,380 we'll have another chart that helps too 375 00:14:31,500 --> 00:14:36,720 the 13600k also beats all the ryzen 376 00:14:34,380 --> 00:14:39,180 offerings shown here with the 7600x 377 00:14:36,720 --> 00:14:42,779 getting outdone by about 12 percent here 378 00:14:39,180 --> 00:14:44,639 the 58x3d is close to the 13600k and is 379 00:14:42,779 --> 00:14:46,740 within standard deviation the 380 00:14:44,639 --> 00:14:48,779 generational lead over the 12600k is 381 00:14:46,740 --> 00:14:51,720 pretty good here it's about 20 19 382 00:14:48,779 --> 00:14:53,579 specifically so 13 600k at least 383 00:14:51,720 --> 00:14:55,560 generationally has a large gap but 384 00:14:53,579 --> 00:14:57,660 obviously not worth making a jump from 385 00:14:55,560 --> 00:15:01,500 Alder Lake here's another rerun with the 386 00:14:57,660 --> 00:15:03,120 4090 still at 1080p the 3900k pulls 387 00:15:01,500 --> 00:15:05,820 ahead now to take a nine percent lead 388 00:15:03,120 --> 00:15:08,940 over the 13 600k and a gap between the 389 00:15:05,820 --> 00:15:10,980 I5 and the 7900x and 7950x has shrunken 390 00:15:08,940 --> 00:15:13,500 by a few percentage points the biggest 391 00:15:10,980 --> 00:15:16,079 change we see by testing the 49 in Far 392 00:15:13,500 --> 00:15:18,360 Cry 6 is actually lower and more 393 00:15:16,079 --> 00:15:20,279 consistent frame times eliminating the 394 00:15:18,360 --> 00:15:22,560 poor lows that we saw in the 13-9 and 395 00:15:20,279 --> 00:15:24,000 the 7950x previously as for why that 396 00:15:22,560 --> 00:15:26,220 happens we think this is due to 397 00:15:24,000 --> 00:15:27,779 basically how the CPU is tripping over 398 00:15:26,220 --> 00:15:30,240 the bottleneck previously we've seen 399 00:15:27,779 --> 00:15:31,740 this in games before where as you run up 400 00:15:30,240 --> 00:15:33,540 against that bottleneck or that 401 00:15:31,740 --> 00:15:35,940 limitation by the GPU or whatever else 402 00:15:33,540 --> 00:15:37,860 is limiting the system the frame times 403 00:15:35,940 --> 00:15:39,959 can actually start to drop in their 404 00:15:37,860 --> 00:15:41,639 consistency despite being maxed out for 405 00:15:39,959 --> 00:15:45,060 average our final gaming task is 406 00:15:41,639 --> 00:15:47,040 cyberpunk 2077 at 1080p with the 40 90. 407 00:15:45,060 --> 00:15:50,279 we skipped the 3090 TI for this one the 408 00:15:47,040 --> 00:15:52,980 13600k tested ahead of the 700x by nine 409 00:15:50,279 --> 00:15:55,199 percent again positioning the am5 and a 410 00:15:52,980 --> 00:15:57,779 disadvantaged spot for value comparisons 411 00:15:55,199 --> 00:16:00,120 the 3900k also has limited value in 412 00:15:57,779 --> 00:16:02,279 gaming only tasks like this one where it 413 00:16:00,120 --> 00:16:04,260 only outperforms the 13600k by nine 414 00:16:02,279 --> 00:16:06,779 percent the extra money saved by not 415 00:16:04,260 --> 00:16:09,360 buying a 3900k could go into a better 416 00:16:06,779 --> 00:16:11,459 GPU better case or maybe more storage 417 00:16:09,360 --> 00:16:14,160 but there benefits and production 418 00:16:11,459 --> 00:16:15,660 applications for 39 at least we'll kick 419 00:16:14,160 --> 00:16:18,180 off our production section with blender 420 00:16:15,660 --> 00:16:20,339 where we time the completion of a custom 421 00:16:18,180 --> 00:16:22,800 GM logo render results are in minutes 422 00:16:20,339 --> 00:16:24,899 lower is better here the 13600k 423 00:16:22,800 --> 00:16:28,500 completed the render in 10.7 minutes 424 00:16:24,899 --> 00:16:30,959 which is a 26 less time than the 12 600k 425 00:16:28,500 --> 00:16:33,540 thanks to higher clocks and more e-corps 426 00:16:30,959 --> 00:16:36,180 amd's relevant comparisons get buried 427 00:16:33,540 --> 00:16:39,120 here with the 7600x getting led by 32 428 00:16:36,180 --> 00:16:41,880 percent and the 5800x 3D getting led by 429 00:16:39,120 --> 00:16:44,459 even more we used to commonly recommend 430 00:16:41,880 --> 00:16:46,440 ryzen 8 and 12 core CPUs for users who 431 00:16:44,459 --> 00:16:48,720 specifically mix a little bit of 432 00:16:46,440 --> 00:16:51,660 production with a lot of gaming but the 433 00:16:48,720 --> 00:16:53,759 13600k is stealing that Spotlight by 434 00:16:51,660 --> 00:16:56,820 offering major advantages in production 435 00:16:53,759 --> 00:16:59,459 where i5s previously were weaker the 12 436 00:16:56,820 --> 00:17:03,060 600k for instance required 14.4 minutes 437 00:16:59,459 --> 00:17:05,400 so the 13600k cuts its render Time by 26 438 00:17:03,060 --> 00:17:08,040 percent generationally you'd have to 439 00:17:05,400 --> 00:17:10,980 step up to a 7900x in order to gain a 440 00:17:08,040 --> 00:17:13,140 significant 25 Advantage by but you'd be 441 00:17:10,980 --> 00:17:15,419 paying over two hundred dollars more on 442 00:17:13,140 --> 00:17:17,579 the CPU alone not even counting the 443 00:17:15,419 --> 00:17:20,339 total platform cost we discussed earlier 444 00:17:17,579 --> 00:17:22,740 as for the 3900k the reduction of 38 445 00:17:20,339 --> 00:17:25,140 percent is at the cost of a huge hit to 446 00:17:22,740 --> 00:17:27,299 efficiency as you saw earlier and it's 447 00:17:25,140 --> 00:17:29,880 still not at the level of the 7950x 448 00:17:27,299 --> 00:17:31,320 chromium is up next for compile testing 449 00:17:29,880 --> 00:17:32,820 this provides a look at performance for 450 00:17:31,320 --> 00:17:36,179 programmers or anyone who frequently 451 00:17:32,820 --> 00:17:38,160 compiles code the 13600k lands near the 452 00:17:36,179 --> 00:17:40,200 top of the chart when using Windows as 453 00:17:38,160 --> 00:17:42,780 the Baseline operating system and this 454 00:17:40,200 --> 00:17:45,720 completes the job in 54.5 minutes that's 455 00:17:42,780 --> 00:17:47,760 33 less time than the 7600x and it's 456 00:17:45,720 --> 00:17:50,460 again only topped by more expensive 457 00:17:47,760 --> 00:17:52,500 choices like the 3900k another 34 458 00:17:50,460 --> 00:17:54,419 reduction on top of the previous one 459 00:17:52,500 --> 00:17:56,340 stepping up to that level would make 460 00:17:54,419 --> 00:17:58,500 more sense if you make money doing this 461 00:17:56,340 --> 00:18:00,480 type of thing but if you're more of a 462 00:17:58,500 --> 00:18:02,700 hobbyist or you aren't on an unlimited 463 00:18:00,480 --> 00:18:05,700 budget the 13600k is a more than 464 00:18:02,700 --> 00:18:08,100 adequate Choice versus the 13900k AMD 465 00:18:05,700 --> 00:18:09,900 7900x competes better here than it did 466 00:18:08,100 --> 00:18:13,380 in Blender at least where it does plot 467 00:18:09,900 --> 00:18:15,419 has of the 13600k our next test is 7-zip 468 00:18:13,380 --> 00:18:17,760 file compression measured in millions of 469 00:18:15,419 --> 00:18:20,400 instructions per second or mips the 470 00:18:17,760 --> 00:18:24,059 13600k pose strong leads over both the 471 00:18:20,400 --> 00:18:27,299 12 600k at 38 and the 7600x at 36 472 00:18:24,059 --> 00:18:30,000 percent the 12900k and the 5900x flank 473 00:18:27,299 --> 00:18:32,039 the 13600k on either side but both of 474 00:18:30,000 --> 00:18:33,780 those are higher thread count so the I5 475 00:18:32,039 --> 00:18:36,000 is punching above its weight class 476 00:18:33,780 --> 00:18:38,340 specifically in that regard here moving 477 00:18:36,000 --> 00:18:40,380 to decompression CPUs are generally more 478 00:18:38,340 --> 00:18:42,600 spaced apart but Zen's Advantage here 479 00:18:40,380 --> 00:18:45,360 wipes out some of that in relation to 480 00:18:42,600 --> 00:18:48,900 the Intel parts now we see the 13600k 481 00:18:45,360 --> 00:18:51,360 only 23 over the 7600x whereas just as a 482 00:18:48,900 --> 00:18:53,820 reminder in the last chart it was a 36 483 00:18:51,360 --> 00:18:57,299 lead so that's been reduced here the 484 00:18:53,820 --> 00:18:59,640 7700x is ahead of the 13600k by seven 485 00:18:57,299 --> 00:19:01,440 percent now and general placement within 486 00:18:59,640 --> 00:19:03,360 the stack for the 13-6 is still 487 00:19:01,440 --> 00:19:06,299 respectable it's just it's lost some of 488 00:19:03,360 --> 00:19:08,039 that uh impressive game that it had in 489 00:19:06,299 --> 00:19:09,299 the previous one it might make sense 490 00:19:08,039 --> 00:19:11,280 still to upgrade from something like an 491 00:19:09,299 --> 00:19:14,220 R7 1700 100 if you're unhappy with it 492 00:19:11,280 --> 00:19:15,840 now or an older I5 like a 10 600k where 493 00:19:14,220 --> 00:19:17,880 you're nearly doubling in performance 494 00:19:15,840 --> 00:19:19,620 for Adobe Premier testing we use Puget 495 00:19:17,880 --> 00:19:21,360 bench which creates an aggregate score 496 00:19:19,620 --> 00:19:23,400 built from a set of effects filters 497 00:19:21,360 --> 00:19:26,039 transforms and render playback functions 498 00:19:23,400 --> 00:19:28,140 the 13600k takes the fifth spot in our 499 00:19:26,039 --> 00:19:31,440 list tying with the last generation 12 500 00:19:28,140 --> 00:19:35,100 700 KF the 13600k is outperforming the 501 00:19:31,440 --> 00:19:37,740 7600x by 15 percent and the 5800x3d by 502 00:19:35,100 --> 00:19:40,740 23 this would be a good CPU for someone 503 00:19:37,740 --> 00:19:43,080 who's a game streamer maybe and cuts 504 00:19:40,740 --> 00:19:44,820 down highlight videos on the side it'll 505 00:19:43,080 --> 00:19:46,500 save some time in that process but it's 506 00:19:44,820 --> 00:19:49,260 still mostly sort of a cheaper gaming 507 00:19:46,500 --> 00:19:50,700 focused CPU cheaper obviously be 508 00:19:49,260 --> 00:19:52,679 relative to the rest of the stuff 509 00:19:50,700 --> 00:19:55,140 there's a clear dividing line in the 510 00:19:52,679 --> 00:19:57,179 sand at the 7900x and up where core 511 00:19:55,140 --> 00:19:58,740 count starts to show some advantages our 512 00:19:57,179 --> 00:20:00,539 final production task for this review is 513 00:19:58,740 --> 00:20:02,700 Photoshop also from the Adobe suite 514 00:20:00,539 --> 00:20:04,440 where we use aggregate scoring based on 515 00:20:02,700 --> 00:20:06,480 all kinds of filters and scales and 516 00:20:04,440 --> 00:20:08,460 things like that this is a little more 517 00:20:06,480 --> 00:20:10,679 heavily single threaded than Premiere is 518 00:20:08,460 --> 00:20:12,120 but that Reliance has retained just a 519 00:20:10,679 --> 00:20:15,120 lot over the years has become more 520 00:20:12,120 --> 00:20:17,460 multi-threaded finally the 13600k shows 521 00:20:15,120 --> 00:20:18,900 a strong value here overall placing high 522 00:20:17,460 --> 00:20:21,900 in the chart and Performing identically 523 00:20:18,900 --> 00:20:23,760 to a 12 900k or the 7600x the latter 524 00:20:21,900 --> 00:20:26,220 being more expensive overall than the 525 00:20:23,760 --> 00:20:28,320 13-6 but not keeping up in our previous 526 00:20:26,220 --> 00:20:30,480 production tests wrapping up then we'll 527 00:20:28,320 --> 00:20:31,440 cram as many quick numbers in here as we 528 00:20:30,480 --> 00:20:33,360 can because we know a lot of you jump 529 00:20:31,440 --> 00:20:36,720 forward so overall we think it's good 530 00:20:33,360 --> 00:20:39,120 value for gaming it is very strong value 531 00:20:36,720 --> 00:20:41,340 in production especially because the 532 00:20:39,120 --> 00:20:44,220 efficiency looks good and the 3900k just 533 00:20:41,340 --> 00:20:46,080 sets the the wrong tone really for the 534 00:20:44,220 --> 00:20:47,580 13th gen where because the Intel is 535 00:20:46,080 --> 00:20:49,860 pumping as much power into it as they 536 00:20:47,580 --> 00:20:52,140 can to try and hold that top rank in the 537 00:20:49,860 --> 00:20:53,700 charts desperately against AMD it makes 538 00:20:52,140 --> 00:20:55,679 the whole architecture look like it's 539 00:20:53,700 --> 00:20:58,440 just power hungry and inefficient that's 540 00:20:55,679 --> 00:21:01,799 not actually entirely true because you 541 00:20:58,440 --> 00:21:03,120 look at stuff like this CPU and suddenly 542 00:21:01,799 --> 00:21:05,100 it's a lot more competitive quick 543 00:21:03,120 --> 00:21:07,980 reference numbers for you just recapping 544 00:21:05,100 --> 00:21:10,260 so CS go the 7600x was faster it's about 545 00:21:07,980 --> 00:21:12,000 five percent ahead of the 13600k and and 546 00:21:10,260 --> 00:21:14,039 Rainbow Six we saw those two CPS were 547 00:21:12,000 --> 00:21:16,679 roughly tied and Far Cry 6 we saw that 548 00:21:14,039 --> 00:21:18,000 the 13600k was about tied with a 58x3d 549 00:21:16,679 --> 00:21:21,720 which is very powerful in that game 550 00:21:18,000 --> 00:21:24,480 Final Fantasy 14 the 13600k had a 12 551 00:21:21,720 --> 00:21:27,179 lead over the 7600x and in cyberpunk 552 00:21:24,480 --> 00:21:30,120 2077 the 13600k was five percent faster 553 00:21:27,179 --> 00:21:32,460 than a 7950x and production work the 554 00:21:30,120 --> 00:21:34,919 numbers for blender were good the 13600k 555 00:21:32,460 --> 00:21:37,679 was 32 faster or less time to render 556 00:21:34,919 --> 00:21:40,440 than a 7600x chromium it was about 33 557 00:21:37,679 --> 00:21:42,240 faster than the 76x but then you look at 558 00:21:40,440 --> 00:21:46,080 Adobe Photoshop and they were closer to 559 00:21:42,240 --> 00:21:49,919 tide or just about tied so this is also 560 00:21:46,080 --> 00:21:51,600 the last chance for a new ddr4 build if 561 00:21:49,919 --> 00:21:53,700 you want to get one at the end here or 562 00:21:51,600 --> 00:21:55,320 more likely if you want to carry some 563 00:21:53,700 --> 00:21:57,360 memory over from a previous build and 564 00:21:55,320 --> 00:22:01,140 really cut down your cost to build a new 565 00:21:57,360 --> 00:22:04,200 system uh for install this point they're 566 00:22:01,140 --> 00:22:06,240 now competing in value which is not 567 00:22:04,200 --> 00:22:08,700 something they've historically done so 568 00:22:06,240 --> 00:22:10,440 good job to AMD for kicking and telling 569 00:22:08,700 --> 00:22:12,360 the ass enough over the last last four 570 00:22:10,440 --> 00:22:14,280 years to start competing in value and 571 00:22:12,360 --> 00:22:16,620 not just Market on the Halo products but 572 00:22:14,280 --> 00:22:18,720 AMD now is the one that's kind of out of 573 00:22:16,620 --> 00:22:20,700 value they don't have anything truly low 574 00:22:18,720 --> 00:22:23,280 end at the moment Intel's got the I3 575 00:22:20,700 --> 00:22:25,080 1200f extremely good value for what it 576 00:22:23,280 --> 00:22:28,020 does and any of these just not fighting 577 00:22:25,080 --> 00:22:29,400 there so platform cost is significantly 578 00:22:28,020 --> 00:22:32,280 an Intel's favor just from the quick 579 00:22:29,400 --> 00:22:34,260 numbers we ran earlier and it's looking 580 00:22:32,280 --> 00:22:36,120 like the 13 series it makes a strong 581 00:22:34,260 --> 00:22:39,120 case for a high-end gaming machine on 582 00:22:36,120 --> 00:22:41,580 just the I5 so we're back to that era of 583 00:22:39,120 --> 00:22:43,200 an i5 is enough for gaming and we don't 584 00:22:41,580 --> 00:22:45,900 really have a strong reason to suspect 585 00:22:43,200 --> 00:22:47,280 that unlike the past where you're 586 00:22:45,900 --> 00:22:49,200 talking four core four thread versus 587 00:22:47,280 --> 00:22:50,580 four and eight we don't really suspect 588 00:22:49,200 --> 00:22:52,380 that game engines will change that 589 00:22:50,580 --> 00:22:53,820 significantly that you're going to just 590 00:22:52,380 --> 00:22:55,440 have horrible performance in a couple 591 00:22:53,820 --> 00:22:57,059 years or anything like that this looks 592 00:22:55,440 --> 00:22:59,760 like it'll be a pretty pretty long 593 00:22:57,059 --> 00:23:01,260 standing CPU for gaming performance now 594 00:22:59,760 --> 00:23:03,299 as usual this doesn't make a lot of 595 00:23:01,260 --> 00:23:04,620 sense as a drop-in upgrade for say like 596 00:23:03,299 --> 00:23:06,720 the 12th gen you should just keep 597 00:23:04,620 --> 00:23:08,940 running it the CPUs are really good as 598 00:23:06,720 --> 00:23:10,860 they are you don't need a 13 series 599 00:23:08,940 --> 00:23:12,780 unless it's you really hate the system 600 00:23:10,860 --> 00:23:15,000 you have now in that case it might not 601 00:23:12,780 --> 00:23:17,400 be the right solution anyway so that'll 602 00:23:15,000 --> 00:23:19,080 wrap up this one 13600k is pretty 603 00:23:17,400 --> 00:23:21,600 competitive looks far better in 604 00:23:19,080 --> 00:23:23,220 efficiency than 39 uh amd's still 605 00:23:21,600 --> 00:23:24,900 fighting a strong fight but it probably 606 00:23:23,220 --> 00:23:27,659 does have to drop those prices a little 607 00:23:24,900 --> 00:23:28,919 bit uh or get some better motherboards 608 00:23:27,659 --> 00:23:31,140 out for cheaper but that's not really 609 00:23:28,919 --> 00:23:32,159 fully in amd's control so heating up to 610 00:23:31,140 --> 00:23:33,600 be a really interesting Market in the 611 00:23:32,159 --> 00:23:34,700 next few months thanks for watching 612 00:23:33,600 --> 00:23:36,539 subscribe for more and go to 613 00:23:34,700 --> 00:23:38,880 store.gamersaccess.net to help out our 614 00:23:36,539 --> 00:23:42,480 in-depth testing directly because this 615 00:23:38,880 --> 00:23:44,880 type of stuff takes weeks of input from 616 00:23:42,480 --> 00:23:46,080 the team to put together so thanks for 617 00:23:44,880 --> 00:23:48,380 watching subscribe more we'll see you 618 00:23:46,080 --> 00:23:48,380 all next time 47653

Can't find what you're looking for?
Get subtitles in any language from opensubtitles.com, and translate them here.