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.