@@ties9123bro fr he even uses a bottleneck calculator 😭😭 (keep in mind that bottlenecks are highly situational and a bottleneck calculator wont tell the whole story)
@@plugg4mb yeah it depends on the game, resolution, settings, ram etc. It's actually not showing the full picture at all and you basically always have a bottleneck (your pc can always get better).
Ngl, i3 13th can handle a 3060ti without bottlenecking it, and I believe it could also handle 3070 even if there's a bottleneck, it would be around 1-5% only
@@nonsuspiciouscolour alas, its better to priotize a good motherboard and cpu that's futureproof, upgrading those two are way more pain in the ass than swapping a new gpu
Linus summed it up: within the same product generation The cores and the Clock speeds matter but it's when you begin to compare between 2 different generations that's where things get a little complicated. within the same product class, a later gen i3 is clearly better than the earlier gen i3. but across different product classes, it gets a little wierd and not as straightforward.
@@dennisarendse9823 lol you only worked that out recently? Linus ditched accurate deep dive content like 5 or more years ago. The first few years they were pretty good but its been more entertainment style content since then and I always laugh a little when they say they are experts. They are really only experts as a media company and being entertaining to tech community There are a few in LTT crew but its been pretty clear they arent given the time and budget to do things accurately. Even before the recent stuff, I had always noticed errors often or like linus years ago explaining process of how they do those quickbits videos and basically laughing at how they crappily, rushed and cobbled together in 15 mins so they can pump it out.
@@dennisarendse9823well I mean the above statement is common sense Linus is right in the basic stuff...it's just that once we get into the crevices we see some problems
@@deadline546 haha it was a joke bro, I never really watched LTT tbh I've preferred other you tubers, LTTs videos never grabbed my attention at all and always found them boring in my opinion
Between different generations it's not actually weird It's still mostly just frequency and core count, but here's where the microarchitecture comes into play, which factor depends mostly on how successful a specific architecture was
The letter at the end is also pretty important. The F means the chip doesn't have integrated graphics and and K means it has an unlocked multiplier(can be overclocked)
@@Josh9996 overclocking is safe to do with the company's branded overclocked speed. Anything above that is not safe. Also you need an at least 360mm AIO liquid cooler to run at the max boost clock
FYI, only the 13600k is using new 13th gen cores in the 13th gen i5 family. 13600 and or lower tiers have less L2 cache therefore actually using the 12th gen core
It also depends on the amount of security vulnerability patches that are on the older cpu. Meltdown and spectre mitigations in 2018 really slowed things down, and this last year we had downfall, but I'm not sure how much the mitigation slows things down.
@yungnachty4474 funny, I've never considered power usage when buying pc parts, other than when I decide which power supply to buy. And at that, usually more gpu dependent.
@@carlwillows it matters when the 12900K and other chips in its class like 7950X/13900K basically need a 150+ dollar AIO Don’t get me wrong, I would just get a 13900K myself. But the difference between a 12900K and 13600K for most people is small but someone wanting a casual work station wont sweat the 10% less multi thread but will probably benefit from the slightly faster single thread much more often as for general use and prosumer stuff even single thread > multi thread when its down to one versus the other at 10% or less margins
No I don't think it was this guy. There's another guy I keep calling out that gets it wrong a lot and I remember the video you are talking about cause I told them that the i5 vs i7 etc does matter and to stop telling people it doesn't (It was another guy who is British that is making these same type of videos and gets it wrong a lot)
A good rule of thumb is new generation = 1 tier. so 12th gen i9 will be roughly equal to 13th gen i7 and a 14th gen i5. Doesnt work 100% of the time but its still pretty good for rough estimates
Generations matters if we are talking a leap from 3 to 5 generations every upgrade cycle as that’s usually when you start to see big improvements over existing technology as 1 to 2 generations can be very incremental in performance metrics.
@@GeneralS1mba i7 for when you don't plan to upgrade for awhile. I bought the 12700k on launch and prob not gonna upgrade until 15th or 16th gen, also a better overclocker than a i5. With AMD yea it makes more sense getting their i7 equivalent regardless, especially for the extra IPC.
@@Realfriedpancakes yeah that's pcb. LTT made a video on why pcb is green, though they've gotten into a huge scandal recently over data accuracy and stuff so I'd take it with a grain of salt
When I originally built my pc I went with an 8100 because it was “basically last gen’s i5” and had an upgrade path. I’ve now been using my 9900k for a number of years, and it only felt “last gen” when 12th showed up.
My general rule is that i always go for latest gen CPU and a flagship(Z class) motherboard(double and tripple check quality and reviews to hell). Then i cheap out on GPU, that way i leave lots of room for future upgrades. I also buy a high end PSU to accomodate future GPU wattage eaters. Current build that is on its way got a i7-13700K, 32GB DDR5 6000Mhz, and a 4070. Didnt really cheap out on GPU this time since i had extra cash, usually i go for 2-3 gens older then what is out. This is a build im going to have for 5~ years. After 2~ years im probably going to upgrade the GPU and double the RAM or upgrade to faster RAM. Then it got another 2+ years of life.
@@FoxTheBrian Going average across the board might punish more tho, since if the CPU is old gen, the mobo is old gen and might not be able to take the newer gen CPU's and other such restrictions. And swapping a mobo means you usually have to swap cpu + ram too. Around the same price as GPU, but with more points of failure. Sure its bad if you love super high graphics all the time, but i rarely play games like that. Reason i splurged this time is bc of starfield, only reason. Otherwise i would have gone for a 3060 card since its almost half the cost of 4070.
@GeneralS1mba it will tie in games that are not cpu bound, but it won't beat it. In games that ARE cpu bound, it will beat it, HANDILY. That i5 is less than half the speed of the i9. Gaming is not a special workload. Cpu performance translates to real world gaming performance when the gpu is bottlenecked.
i did not considered this when i was building my pc back 4 years ago because i wanted to be a content creator and streamer. but now that i'm 4 years in i prefer a new gen i3 over a new gen i5, i7 and i9. over a simple fact that its cheaper no matter how high end the pc is you will not be an overnight success on content creation and streaming.
It really depends. The newest generation also will come with a support for newer memory, and PCI Express support and also the motherboards may come with more m.2 slots. So even if the raw CPU power is higher of an older high end CPU, overall the system could still be slower.
You know what makes it funny. The 13600k is the only i5 thats raptor lake (13gen ) The rest are Alderlake(12 gen) chips . Intel only made 1 13th gen chip ,and that chip is cut into i9s , i7s . And i5 13600k .
As someone who works with tech and has to decode this stuff all the time... like with many other things: it depends. If the point is to get better power efficiency and more features, then the newer gen will matter, since it's usually created using newer processes and features that save power and contribute more to efficiency than it's older counterpart, even if it's only a single generation apart. However, if you're looking for raw performance, then the older i9 will beat out it's i5 newer brother consistently. This is one of those questions where there is no "best" there's just, "best for x situation". There's a lot of discussion and debate that can be had over this, like if the node/process is the same between the two CPUs (eg, 7nm process used on both), then any power/thermal savings from the newer chip won't be significant, but may still be non-trivial, which leads again into "it depends" territory. The simple fact is: the most important metrics when picking a CPU is what you want from the chip. I wouldn't install a Core i9 from any generation into a PoS terminal, as an example, that would be insane; but at the same time, I wouldn't want an i3 of any generation powering a high-performance platform like a gaming computer; but the i3 is a great choice for low demand situations, and situations where power consumption and heat dissipation are limited, and thus more important than raw compute power. There is no "best" here, just better for you.
tbh, what i learnt when reading about what performance-category (i5, i7, i9) and generations (11, 12, 13) mean (an article BY INTEL), is that both are an indicator for which cpu has better cache, speed, and whatever else. you wont know purely by numbers whether i5-13000 or i7-12000 is better, so you need to check benchmarks when the numbers are close i doubt its correct cuz doesnt make much sense that both mean better generally, so correct me if im wrong
I do believe the i3, i5, i7, don't have much difference in cores but threads they do, all of them have a minimum and all of them have an additional thread, in gaming this doesn't matter since the minimum is all you need but a person who uses, rendering apps or programs like CAD or video editing programs need them really bad.
not only that, but the socket. you can compare properly cpu's that all fit one motherboard... but sometimes, just sometimes, with everything else the same, swapping the Motherboard can show different results, so comparing a system that problem runs DDR5 (or if you're like me, fucked up and did DDR4), then go back too far and you'll also not just be using different motherboard, but having to use different RAM, and even if not, the two motherboards might not even be able to use the proper settings through XMP (or on AMD, EXPO) so to use the same RAM.
I had used i3 540 which was first gen, with a GT 440 first and then a GTX 950 with i7 6700for light and moderate gaming, playing GTA vice city and san andreas, few versions of NFS and other games. Loved them. they are in no sense weak in those years, but as you go on applications get more demanding to deliver you better things and hardwares advance to facilitate that. Before buying any CPU or GPU check the synthetic and realworld benchmarks to know what you are getting.
He also didnt specify what the newer cpu is better for, number of cores over just speed and other things in the cpu matter as well, whether its proffessional video editing, gaming or something else. Its a bit annoying when i see kids commenting saying "13100f destroys 12400f" and just doesnt mention things like core count and think Ghz speed is everything.
He probably meant to say i5 13600k which no double is better because of extra cache & more clock speed. Superior in gaming and some productivity tasks. It draws less power and also costs less.
Anyone remember the 9900k vs 10900k? Great moment in pc hardware history, especially when passmark called out intel. Generational differences aren’t as great as you’d expect, some are exceptionally disappointing even
To make it simple, if you wanted a 12700k but waited for the 13th Gen then you can save some money by going with the 13600k instead of the 13700k. Like all things technology trickles down the line. So despite not being 100 percent accurate you can drop down a tier of the next gen to have similar performance of the higher end previous gen. So if you needed a 12900k last gen and that cpu took a dump you can buy a 13700k to replace it and you'll have more or less similar performance.
Also it depends what generations you're comparing, because for example 13th gen is basically buffed 12th gen with only a little bit of power efficiency improvements but 12th gen is waaay ahead of 11th gen (because of Apple competition mainly)
an easy way to remember (doesnt work for all but works for a lot) is to add up all the digits in the i5 13600k for example is 5+13+6=24 the i9 12900k would be 9+12+9=30 so the i9 would still be better also kinda works on gpus
With graphics cards 1 gen ~ 1 model: 2080 = 3070 = 4060. This works if we take all 8 gigs versions. It gets more complicated with different memory sizes. Same with processors: gens, models and cores all corelate with each other.
The 13600kf does beat the 12900kf in some games. Takes less power and reaches similar cine bench scores when overclocked. So I think this is a true statement.
Bro messed up hard. The advice from both Zach and that comment is generally right, however passmark exists (as somebody already pointed out) and you can use it to compare CPU performance. Eg: 12900k: 41K points in passmark 13600k: 38K points in passmark. That’s just a difference of 3K points, which is quite minimal. The 13900k scores 59K points for comparison. When using a site like a passmark, there’s different charts for different purposes. The single thread chart is a measure of how many operations a single thread/core can do in a CPU. The higher this number, the higher the general gaming performance of the CPU. But for the more general performance charts, the server CPUs with insane core counts dominate as they just have a lot of slower cores which together can perform many operations. There’s also the problem of the X3D CPUs, which have AMDs infinity cache technology which lets them just have more cache. Due to how Passmark tests the cores of CPUs, the CPUs are essentially doing the same instructions over and over again, which is a task that does not leverage the cache in CPUs like the 7800X3D. This is the reason why they perform better in games, as games benefit from the extra cache in the CPU. Overall, there are many intricacies into what makes a CPU fast, and as consumers, we usually can’t keep up with the ever-changing market, which is why tools like Passmark exist. Instead of solely relying on the i5, i9 labels, and their Ryzen counterparts, you should take a look at their performance numbers on Passmark. The labelling of CPUs is usually a good indicator to how well a CPU performs, however as shown by 13th gen intel CPUs, namely the i5-13600k, this CPU performs on par with the last generation i9-12900K, while being much cheaper and while using less power, generation is also pretty important. So basically, just look on Passmark for a CPU and compare. Don’t compare to server CPUs. And X3D CPUs generally game better while being not so good at things like video editing, I think. P.s. I wrote this coz nobody seems to understand CPU performance and I haven’t been satisfied by the lack of explanation in CPU choices in RUclips vids
the single core speeds are so similar across generations that for gaming that usually uses 4-8 cores, he's correct that a faster generational improvement is > more cores
A few years ago, when 2 core i7 laptops were still a thing, some i3 and i7 laptop CPUs were nearly identical in performance. Like the i7 would be 20% faster. The main difference you would get with a more expensive laptop is better ram, SSD, trackpad and display, until you get up to the high-performance HQ laptops. Some high-performance 6th gen i5 laptops were even faster than Ultrabook's with 7th gen i7s.
The only time when going up only one generation makes this much difference is from 11th to 12th gen. The leap in performance in 12th gen is huge (but this is also true for power consumption and thermals so bare that in mind).
Generation is never the determining factor. If you have been building PCs for half as long as i have you will remember the intel 14nm+++++ and so on. An i9 7920x, i9 9920x and i9 10920x are all identical other than the 7920x doesn't have a soldered ihs. Basically every cpu from x299 is a refresh of the 7th gen while receiving marginal boost clock increases.
Don't let bro cook ever again
He was actually right, but all his viewers are actually people who think they know everything lmao.
@@ties9123bro fr he even uses a bottleneck calculator 😭😭 (keep in mind that bottlenecks are highly situational and a bottleneck calculator wont tell the whole story)
@@plugg4mb yeah it depends on the game, resolution, settings, ram etc.
It's actually not showing the full picture at all and you basically always have a bottleneck (your pc can always get better).
@@plugg4mb He knows it ain't accurate though
Bro boiled
I think he meant the i5 13600k vs the i9 12900 (base one)
i think its still not better but indeed very close in performance
@@vgjpsychif it was an i7 12700k or the regular one then yes but an i9 no way
@@vgjpsychI thought it was better, like the 12600k was better than the 11900k
@@CosmicHaven1gamers nexus legit did a review and the 13600K was beating the 12900K
@@CosmicHaven1the 13600K is literally better.
True and it’s always a common misconception that i3 is bad no if it’s the newest gen or even a old gen but kinda recent it’s a beats
The 12100f and 13100f are incredible what are you talking about?
that's what bro said
Ngl, i3 13th can handle a 3060ti without bottlenecking it, and I believe it could also handle 3070 even if there's a bottleneck, it would be around 1-5% only
@@sydachraf3129 I don't think it's a good choice tho
@@nonsuspiciouscolour alas, its better to priotize a good motherboard and cpu that's futureproof, upgrading those two are way more pain in the ass than swapping a new gpu
Linus summed it up:
within the same product generation
The cores and the Clock speeds matter
but it's when you begin to compare between 2 different generations
that's where things get a little complicated.
within the same product class, a later gen i3 is clearly better than the earlier gen i3.
but across different product classes, it gets a little wierd and not as straightforward.
I don't think we can trust Linus with their info no more 💀
@@dennisarendse9823 lol you only worked that out recently? Linus ditched accurate deep dive content like 5 or more years ago. The first few years they were pretty good but its been more entertainment style content since then and I always laugh a little when they say they are experts. They are really only experts as a media company and being entertaining to tech community There are a few in LTT crew but its been pretty clear they arent given the time and budget to do things accurately. Even before the recent stuff, I had always noticed errors often or like linus years ago explaining process of how they do those quickbits videos and basically laughing at how they crappily, rushed and cobbled together in 15 mins so they can pump it out.
@@dennisarendse9823well I mean the above statement is common sense
Linus is right in the basic stuff...it's just that once we get into the crevices we see some problems
@@deadline546 haha it was a joke bro, I never really watched LTT tbh I've preferred other you tubers, LTTs videos never grabbed my attention at all and always found them boring in my opinion
Between different generations it's not actually weird
It's still mostly just frequency and core count, but here's where the microarchitecture comes into play, which factor depends mostly on how successful a specific architecture was
The letter at the end is also pretty important. The F means the chip doesn't have integrated graphics and and K means it has an unlocked multiplier(can be overclocked)
And it can draw much more power to give more performance too. With increased cache also.
@@theknight7619Is it safe to overclock?
Oh, thank you for telling me about this!
@@Josh9996 overclocking is safe to do with the company's branded overclocked speed. Anything above that is not safe. Also you need an at least 360mm AIO liquid cooler to run at the max boost clock
@@theknight7619 oh ok thanks
Feeling called out. I'm upgrading to a i3-12100F to replace my i7-4790K as soon as i can afford it.
Bro save up for at least an i5, especially if you have still a decent cpu
@@M1szS The idea was to get a good Motherboard and RAM now and upgrade the CPU later when 14th gen comes out.
@@modarkthemauler i mean you can, but both those things will be cheaper by the time 14th gen comes out
@@modarkthemaulerget a 7600x instead
@@modarkthemaulerWhat? And yeah I'd definitely get an i5 at this point, especially if you're gonna use it for as long as the i7 lol
He was probably talking about a 13600k, but I’d say the i9 takes too much power so unless both are free I’d choose even the 13400f regardless
with my 12900k, even under the heaviest load ive only seen it draw up to 120 watts which really isnt that much
Pretty sure the i5 he meant is 13600k, not that 13400f. lol
FYI, only the 13600k is using new 13th gen cores in the 13th gen i5 family. 13600 and or lower tiers have less L2 cache therefore actually using the 12th gen core
Yeah he messed up 😭🥱
Edit: why do I have so many likes ???!! 🤑
He actually didn't if we're talking about gaming.
@@ties9123 'K' processors would be much better for gaming compared to locked ones
Also didn't mess up if it's the 13600k and not the 13400. The 13600k is on par with the 12900k on just about every benchmark and program there is
@@dujimonthat's not true
@@metalvideos1961u can overclock on K intel cpus
I am still using the 4790k
It's an okay CPU, so no rush, but you might want to start saving for a better one. Or looking for a good deal if you have the money.
Bruh my ass on an i5 3470 and I wanna slap an i7 3770 on it
@@reedman0780 i have the exact same cpu rn
@@reedman0780Get at i3 12100 cause it's pretty cheap for a good CPU and better
Good, it's a great CPU even now, legend of the CPU world
It also depends on the amount of security vulnerability patches that are on the older cpu. Meltdown and spectre mitigations in 2018 really slowed things down, and this last year we had downfall, but I'm not sure how much the mitigation slows things down.
13600k is on par if not better than 12900k
But that highly comes down to what you actually wanna do with ur processor.
what processor would be better for gaming
Pretty sure GN proved a 13600k is better than a 12900k
even if he did it isnt ,,,,,,,,,,,,
@@alanharrison2726 oh that makes sense to nobody cool thanks
Only in single threaded tasks
@@imranzero But minor difference in multi-core
@@narrativeless404 Even more minor in single-core
I think there should be a single unit that remove heat from cpu and gpu at the same time and let it overclock or undervolt even further
That's a custom water cooling loop.
in intel for only the cpu tho its called turbo booster
The 13600K is literally 4-5% faster than the 12900K and it cost way less even when 12900K is discounted.
1 - 2% faster in some games, 10% slower in productivity.
@@carlwillows and uses half the power
@yungnachty4474 funny, I've never considered power usage when buying pc parts, other than when I decide which power supply to buy. And at that, usually more gpu dependent.
@@carlwillows it matters when the 12900K and other chips in its class like 7950X/13900K basically need a 150+ dollar AIO
Don’t get me wrong, I would just get a 13900K myself. But the difference between a 12900K and 13600K for most people is small but someone wanting a casual work station wont sweat the 10% less multi thread but will probably benefit from the slightly faster single thread much more often as for general use and prosumer stuff even single thread > multi thread when its down to one versus the other at 10% or less margins
I9 12900k have more cores
I swear I saw a video from this guy just the other day talking about how generation is the determining factor and the identifier doesn't matter
No I don't think it was this guy. There's another guy I keep calling out that gets it wrong a lot and I remember the video you are talking about cause I told them that the i5 vs i7 etc does matter and to stop telling people it doesn't
(It was another guy who is British that is making these same type of videos and gets it wrong a lot)
@@MrMali22its the Australian guy that throws gpu boxes behind him all the time
Benchmarks have shown that in gaming the 13600k
beats out all of the previous 12th gen cpus, including the 12900kf
Zach's rare footage of shooting at night
Bro was really confident with that one
This is why Passmark exists
Generation number matters if we're talking 3-5 years apart, but Core i number matters if we're talking 1-2 years.
The timing of this appearing on my Feed
When I bought a 12th gen i9 for my Expensive PC last year, and a 13th gen i5 of a budget laptop last week
A good rule of thumb is new generation = 1 tier. so 12th gen i9 will be roughly equal to 13th gen i7 and a 14th gen i5. Doesnt work 100% of the time but its still pretty good for rough estimates
He’s trying to lower the resale value by spreading misinformation
I got an old work laptop from 2010 with a first gen dual core i5 and that thing still slaps
Bro just learnt about generations and thought he's Einstein now
Generations matters if we are talking a leap from 3 to 5 generations every upgrade cycle as that’s usually when you start to see big improvements over existing technology as 1 to 2 generations can be very incremental in performance metrics.
i prefer latest i3 or i5 .... i9 usually need beast cooler too
I5 13600k is basically the same performance as the i9 12900k anyway
Whatever happened to i7
@@mycelia_ow the i7 are very situational, its best to get a 13600k or 7700x IMO, and if you want to go highre maybe 7800x3d
@@GeneralS1mba i7 for when you don't plan to upgrade for awhile. I bought the 12700k on launch and prob not gonna upgrade until 15th or 16th gen, also a better overclocker than a i5. With AMD yea it makes more sense getting their i7 equivalent regardless, especially for the extra IPC.
performance per watt is a very epic thing to look out for yeah
Why are computer parts green?
you mean pcb? Not all parts are green, just most pcb's.
@@Idk-wg9gl I'm talking about like the motherboard
@@Realfriedpancakes yeah that's pcb. LTT made a video on why pcb is green, though they've gotten into a huge scandal recently over data accuracy and stuff so I'd take it with a grain of salt
google why electronic pcbs are green, that will answer your question.
@@ravell2854 or we can be human and answer him.
Why do people always try to simplify things that are already simple? They both fucking matter.
When I originally built my pc I went with an 8100 because it was “basically last gen’s i5” and had an upgrade path. I’ve now been using my 9900k for a number of years, and it only felt “last gen” when 12th showed up.
My general rule is that i always go for latest gen CPU and a flagship(Z class) motherboard(double and tripple check quality and reviews to hell). Then i cheap out on GPU, that way i leave lots of room for future upgrades. I also buy a high end PSU to accomodate future GPU wattage eaters.
Current build that is on its way got a i7-13700K, 32GB DDR5 6000Mhz, and a 4070. Didnt really cheap out on GPU this time since i had extra cash, usually i go for 2-3 gens older then what is out.
This is a build im going to have for 5~ years. After 2~ years im probably going to upgrade the GPU and double the RAM or upgrade to faster RAM. Then it got another 2+ years of life.
I think following this rule is a bad idea. You’re giving up performance in the present so that you might have more in the future.
@@FoxTheBrian Going average across the board might punish more tho, since if the CPU is old gen, the mobo is old gen and might not be able to take the newer gen CPU's and other such restrictions.
And swapping a mobo means you usually have to swap cpu + ram too. Around the same price as GPU, but with more points of failure.
Sure its bad if you love super high graphics all the time, but i rarely play games like that. Reason i splurged this time is bc of starfield, only reason. Otherwise i would have gone for a 3060 card since its almost half the cost of 4070.
Why would you get the i7 13700k? It's in a terrible spot right now for both gaming and productivity?
@@resensegaming How so? All i have seen are good info on it.
@Ormathon the i5 13600k has 14 cores 20 threads and the i7 has 16 cores 24 threads. For gaming it's a complete waste of money to go for the i7.
I mean what the lad had drunk💀
He is right.
@@ties9123he's wrong about the i5 and i9 thing cos in gaming at least the i5 13600k ties with or beats the i9
Of last gen
@GeneralS1mba it will tie in games that are not cpu bound, but it won't beat it. In games that ARE cpu bound, it will beat it, HANDILY.
That i5 is less than half the speed of the i9. Gaming is not a special workload. Cpu performance translates to real world gaming performance when the gpu is bottlenecked.
@@raycert07 yeah, keep dreaming games don't use that many cores
i did not considered this when i was building my pc back 4 years ago because i wanted to be a content creator and streamer. but now that i'm 4 years in i prefer a new gen i3 over a new gen i5, i7 and i9. over a simple fact that its cheaper no matter how high end the pc is you will not be an overnight success on content creation and streaming.
That's true. It's also not so straightforward when i5 hyper threading was removed and when they added i9 series....
Maybe he was talking about i9 12900H and i5 13500hx the hx one gets about 400 more points in cinebench in multi core performance
He is talking about desktop cpus not mobile chips (mobile chips: laptop or aio pc cpus)
full list per item for 13600k please~
Reminded me of the i3 6100, which was an amazing entry-level CPU for gaming and then we got the Pentium G4560, which was like 99% on par with it.
The guitarist gone crazy!
Best gpu for i9 13900k 128 gb ram 6000 mghz
You should just know the answer is a 4090
Bros asking 💀you already maxed out the cpu and ram why not the gpu
Gt 710
GT 1030
Mx250
The 🥇 first 🥇🥇🥇🏆🏆🏆
🤑🤑🤑
nobody gives a phyck
This guy took Linus’ Intel CPU guide too seriously
Bro i5 13600k is better than i9 12thgen
It really depends. The newest generation also will come with a support for newer memory, and PCI Express support and also the motherboards may come with more m.2 slots. So even if the raw CPU power is higher of an older high end CPU, overall the system could still be slower.
YO! I got that i7-4790k and she is still strong! Not strong enough for windows 11 cuz 4th gen but she is still fast and doesn't complain.
You know what makes it funny.
The 13600k is the only i5 thats raptor lake (13gen )
The rest are Alderlake(12 gen) chips .
Intel only made 1 13th gen chip ,and that chip is cut into i9s , i7s . And i5 13600k .
And here I am going from a 7th gen i5 to a 14th gen i7. I have high hopes
As someone who works with tech and has to decode this stuff all the time... like with many other things: it depends. If the point is to get better power efficiency and more features, then the newer gen will matter, since it's usually created using newer processes and features that save power and contribute more to efficiency than it's older counterpart, even if it's only a single generation apart.
However, if you're looking for raw performance, then the older i9 will beat out it's i5 newer brother consistently.
This is one of those questions where there is no "best" there's just, "best for x situation". There's a lot of discussion and debate that can be had over this, like if the node/process is the same between the two CPUs (eg, 7nm process used on both), then any power/thermal savings from the newer chip won't be significant, but may still be non-trivial, which leads again into "it depends" territory.
The simple fact is: the most important metrics when picking a CPU is what you want from the chip. I wouldn't install a Core i9 from any generation into a PoS terminal, as an example, that would be insane; but at the same time, I wouldn't want an i3 of any generation powering a high-performance platform like a gaming computer; but the i3 is a great choice for low demand situations, and situations where power consumption and heat dissipation are limited, and thus more important than raw compute power.
There is no "best" here, just better for you.
tbh, what i learnt when reading about what performance-category (i5, i7, i9) and generations (11, 12, 13) mean (an article BY INTEL), is that both are an indicator for which cpu has better cache, speed, and whatever else. you wont know purely by numbers whether i5-13000 or i7-12000 is better, so you need to check benchmarks when the numbers are close
i doubt its correct cuz doesnt make much sense that both mean better generally, so correct me if im wrong
I almost teared up when you said 4790k (RIP 2018)
Compare models. Using only the generation to compare processors is a bad idea, and this Short actually teaches why.
I do believe the i3, i5, i7, don't have much difference in cores but threads they do, all of them have a minimum and all of them have an additional thread, in gaming this doesn't matter since the minimum is all you need but a person who uses, rendering apps or programs like CAD or video editing programs need them really bad.
not only that, but the socket. you can compare properly cpu's that all fit one motherboard... but sometimes, just sometimes, with everything else the same, swapping the Motherboard can show different results, so comparing a system that problem runs DDR5 (or if you're like me, fucked up and did DDR4), then go back too far and you'll also not just be using different motherboard, but having to use different RAM, and even if not, the two motherboards might not even be able to use the proper settings through XMP (or on AMD, EXPO) so to use the same RAM.
Dude you are on fire 🔥
Also depends for what use case... But I guess gaming here is it's use case.
Just here to salute a dope shirt.
It's like comparing cars, the year they were made doesn't tell you much about their performance, you have to see what's under the hood.
tbf the 12900 is a spicy chip and might run worse in a cost optimized setup that can cool only ~70w, power costs are high, etc
K series> F series and sungle generation difference doesn't make much and yes choosing i7/i9 is important
I had used i3 540 which was first gen, with a GT 440 first and then a GTX 950 with i7 6700for light and moderate gaming, playing GTA vice city and san andreas, few versions of NFS and other games. Loved them. they are in no sense weak in those years, but as you go on applications get more demanding to deliver you better things and hardwares advance to facilitate that. Before buying any CPU or GPU check the synthetic and realworld benchmarks to know what you are getting.
He also didnt specify what the newer cpu is better for, number of cores over just speed and other things in the cpu matter as well, whether its proffessional video editing, gaming or something else. Its a bit annoying when i see kids commenting saying "13100f destroys 12400f" and just doesnt mention things like core count and think Ghz speed is everything.
Not only i7 4790k , but i3 12100f beats i7 7700k and even matches performance in multiple games with i7 10700
He probably meant to say i5 13600k which no double is better because of extra cache & more clock speed. Superior in gaming and some productivity tasks. It draws less power and also costs less.
Anyone remember the 9900k vs 10900k? Great moment in pc hardware history, especially when passmark called out intel. Generational differences aren’t as great as you’d expect, some are exceptionally disappointing even
But I think we should look at price value and performance 👀
M. B
To make it simple, if you wanted a 12700k but waited for the 13th Gen then you can save some money by going with the 13600k instead of the 13700k. Like all things technology trickles down the line. So despite not being 100 percent accurate you can drop down a tier of the next gen to have similar performance of the higher end previous gen. So if you needed a 12900k last gen and that cpu took a dump you can buy a 13700k to replace it and you'll have more or less similar performance.
That’s why you look for each individual spec.
Also it depends what generations you're comparing, because for example 13th gen is basically buffed 12th gen with only a little bit of power efficiency improvements but 12th gen is waaay ahead of 11th gen (because of Apple competition mainly)
I constantly hear stuff like: "its powerful, it has an i7"
-the "powerful" i7 930:
I find it that more the last 3 numbers matter more
The algorithm is on smth crazy right now 💀
tf as someone new to all this the video vs the comments vs the comments on the comments is confusing 😭
an easy way to remember (doesnt work for all but works for a lot) is to add up all the digits in the i5 13600k for example is 5+13+6=24 the i9 12900k would be 9+12+9=30 so the i9 would still be better also kinda works on gpus
“Generation is everything. I’d take a 2024 Kia Soul over a 2023 Porsche 911 any day” -🤡
With graphics cards 1 gen ~ 1 model: 2080 = 3070 = 4060. This works if we take all 8 gigs versions. It gets more complicated with different memory sizes.
Same with processors: gens, models and cores all corelate with each other.
Comparing different architecture with model number is crazy😂
The 13600kf does beat the 12900kf in some games. Takes less power and reaches similar cine bench scores when overclocked. So I think this is a true statement.
Bro messed up hard. The advice from both Zach and that comment is generally right, however passmark exists (as somebody already pointed out) and you can use it to compare CPU performance.
Eg: 12900k: 41K points in passmark
13600k: 38K points in passmark.
That’s just a difference of 3K points, which is quite minimal. The 13900k scores 59K points for comparison.
When using a site like a passmark, there’s different charts for different purposes. The single thread chart is a measure of how many operations a single thread/core can do in a CPU. The higher this number, the higher the general gaming performance of the CPU.
But for the more general performance charts, the server CPUs with insane core counts dominate as they just have a lot of slower cores which together can perform many operations.
There’s also the problem of the X3D CPUs, which have AMDs infinity cache technology which lets them just have more cache. Due to how Passmark tests the cores of CPUs, the CPUs are essentially doing the same instructions over and over again, which is a task that does not leverage the cache in CPUs like the 7800X3D. This is the reason why they perform better in games, as games benefit from the extra cache in the CPU.
Overall, there are many intricacies into what makes a CPU fast, and as consumers, we usually can’t keep up with the ever-changing market, which is why tools like Passmark exist. Instead of solely relying on the i5, i9 labels, and their Ryzen counterparts, you should take a look at their performance numbers on Passmark.
The labelling of CPUs is usually a good indicator to how well a CPU performs, however as shown by 13th gen intel CPUs, namely the i5-13600k, this CPU performs on par with the last generation i9-12900K, while being much cheaper and while using less power, generation is also pretty important.
So basically, just look on Passmark for a CPU and compare. Don’t compare to server CPUs. And X3D CPUs generally game better while being not so good at things like video editing, I think.
P.s. I wrote this coz nobody seems to understand CPU performance and I haven’t been satisfied by the lack of explanation in CPU choices in RUclips vids
Look at the data sheet people, not just the sticker
the single core speeds are so similar across generations that for gaming that usually uses 4-8 cores, he's correct that a faster generational improvement is > more cores
Bro 6 months is going to pass. Make a video about best budget gaming,best thin and light gaming and best productive laptop. Under 800-900
What makes a newer generation better than an older generation
Bro cooked one and almost burnt the house down with that take
A few years ago, when 2 core i7 laptops were still a thing, some i3 and i7 laptop CPUs were nearly identical in performance. Like the i7 would be 20% faster. The main difference you would get with a more expensive laptop is better ram, SSD, trackpad and display, until you get up to the high-performance HQ laptops. Some high-performance 6th gen i5 laptops were even faster than Ultrabook's with 7th gen i7s.
CPU factories be like: Don't let them know
The only time when going up only one generation makes this much difference is from 11th to 12th gen. The leap in performance in 12th gen is huge (but this is also true for power consumption and thermals so bare that in mind).
He's talking about
i9 12900H and i5 13500HX
The i(insert odd number) just refers to the quality of the silicone and core count.
Yep, this mainly applies to core leap gens. 8th gen i3 matched 7th i5, 10th i3 matched 9th i5, 12th i5 matched every previous i7
i3 13100 is equal in performance to an i9 10900kf and i9 9900kf
Generation matters, that's why I have a $900 when new CPU in my secondary PC and it only cost me like $20.
13700k may be an i7 but it easily beats out the 12900k in single threaded performance, by around 14%. Generation is very important
Its a different story for laptop cpus tho as they get much more power efficient and can get much more power trough that
Gonna rock my 9th gen i9 for another couple years
You should colab with catalysm computers
Generation is never the determining factor. If you have been building PCs for half as long as i have you will remember the intel 14nm+++++ and so on. An i9 7920x, i9 9920x and i9 10920x are all identical other than the 7920x doesn't have a soldered ihs. Basically every cpu from x299 is a refresh of the 7th gen while receiving marginal boost clock increases.
HE PROB SAID THE 13600K 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
That feel when the ageless 4790K is being called less than an i3. Ooof.
3 gens apart and what the man commented is applicable
This is why you check benchmarks.