The i5-13500 is basically a i9-12900 with two deactivated P-cores and slightly lower clock speeds. It's even using the same chip (ADL-C0) as the 12th Gen i9 CPUs. It's not so much a "downgrade" in cache, as it's simply based on a last-gen Alder Lake chip, so it never got the "upgrade" to begin with. Great review as always!
@@thefurmidablecatlucky3 Looks like you watched a completely different video or just lack comprehension. Check the 10 game average and power consumption.
I'm so happy that the CPU market has gone back to normalcy. This classic back and forth punching between red and blue team means we all benefit. I just wish the GPU market in the other hand wasn't such a mess...
> so happy that the CPU market has gone back to normalcy Still 20 - 50% expensive, what the fuck you see the "go back to normal prices"? GPUs in the other way are 100% - 500% more expensive but you know trash human garbage will bought it regardless of price so fuck it.
Just don’t buy a GPU this year. Not even a last gen one. Keep what you’ve got and send the message that the market won’t accept $1k+ GPUs now that mining and scalping are done.
@@TheMaxAwesome I wish I could be as optimistic. But morons keep giving the Paul brothers money, so all it takes is another new crypto to make anything above integrated graphics too expensive.
Classic back and forth punching in the CPU market: AMD and Intel take turns punching each other in the face. Classic back and forth punching in the GPU market: AMD and Nvidia take turns punching their customers in the face. Intel punches themselves in the face.
@@TheMaxAwesome I don't disagree but gamers shouldn't really be upgrading their CPUs either if they have decent one already with the GPU they have to stick with. This GPU mess is probably slowing down upgrades, it certainly is for me.
Steve, keep doing what you do. I've always been reliant on your reviews over anyone else's when it comes to buying hardware. You and Gamers Nexus' Steve are the best reviewers. Steve & Steve for the win.
I recently upgraded from a X99 Xeon build to the i5 13500 and its truly amazing what this CPU has to offer for 279€. I am very happy and its more than enough for me.
To be fair if you don't disable intel Quick Sync on Intel processors with iGPU you will have 30-50% more performance in Adobe premiere pro and Davinchi Resolve. They all must be on top of the charts in editing applications.
@@Manuel-rl6um The quality issues were fixed years ago. And I can give you the same argument against discrete GPUs because they have HW video engines too with the same almost invisible quality losses. I have 6 years of experience in video editing applications and Intel quick sync works very good and gives me smooth playback and faster rendering.
@@Manuel-rl6um do you have any idea even quality? production houses are using intel's quicksync now. head over to pudgetsystem and you will see some real benchmark than this biased channel
Historically Intel's 500 CPUs never made any sense over a 400 part, if you wanted more performance you'd just get the 600K one. This is the first actually interesting 500 CPU.
Thank you Steve for this detailed benchmark. On a personal note I have been having a really tough time getting my life together. Waking up this morning and seeing that there was a new Hardware Unboxed video up helped put me in a great mood and ready to take on the day. I appreciate this channel so much. Bless you and your family
The 7600 and 7700 non-X AMD chips are still of interest to me, because they have AVX-512. For those of us who are into retro gaming, that's kind of important, since those instructions can really help accelerate the emulation of various console GPUs. That said, the 13500 is functionally equivalent to a 10 core CPU for various productivity workloads. It's a beast and the obvious choice unless you're really into playing PS3 games on your PC or other things that really benefit from AVX-512.
I'd say unless you: A) play games, emulated or new; AND: B) don't do any serious rendering work of the kind where time = money. Which does account for a lot of people.
You have your recommendation revered, it makes more sense to get the AMD processor unless you have a specific productivity workload need. The vast majority of people are not going to use that many cores.
@@giglioflex For programming e cores not helping and if you add virtualization or docker is better to turn it off. It is really hard to defend new Intels. Intel for all these years of stagnation has such a base of fanboys that they probably take everything as it goes. Intel cpus do very well in benchmarks but the reality is different. ;)
Just go with one of the MSI .. eg Mortar, Bazooka or Tomahawk. They are usually well designed for reasonable money. Off cause there are other good choices from the other brands too. Good thing we have HWU to guide us to not buy a crap board
@@mrdali67 MSI's AM5 boards seem pretty underwhelming for their price, to be honest, while ASRock has stepped up in a major way and is delivering much better VRMs on their entry level boards. MSI has been milking the reputation they earned with B450 and B550 to increase prices. The B650 Tomahawk and Mortar aren't bad, but not really any better than their competitors.
Been waiting for a review and availability of this to use in a home server build. Grew impatient and bought a Ryzen 7900 instead (which indeed inflated the build budget, as you mentioned), but this still looks like the right price (at MSRP) for the number of cores/threads.
That's the CPU that I've been seriously considering honestly. It gives good performance with low power draw but also can give more if you don't care about power draw which means more flexibility than the 7900x imo. Also at only $100 more than the 7700 you get 4 more cores which I feel is good for future proofing a bit and good for productivity ect. All around I feel like it's the most appealing CPU to me right now. How have you been liking it?
@@GhostAcez only just saw this, but it's great! I'm running the 7900 with a lower profile cooler (ID-Cooling IS-55 ARGB) since it's in a smaller case (Cougar Dust 2) and it tops out at 77C in a torture workload. Power doesn't break 100W. Excellent performance.
@@zivzulander That's honestly awesome. I'm not surprised by the low temps. In Linus Tech Tips review of the non x AM5 CPUs their testing showed that the 7900 actually ran cooler than the 7700 and 7600 because it doesn't have to work as hard doing tasks. Idk what cooler they were using but in a torture test I remember their 7900 was just over 40c.
Quite happy to see that the 5800x3d is still pretty competitive, given I paid £300 for it and it was a drop in upgrade from my 1700. Just a legendary jump in performance for relatively little cost and almost no hassle.
Agreed, also jumped from a 1700 to a 5800x3D and the difference was just amazing, best upgrade I've done in years and it only cost the price of the CPU.
@@tilapiadave3234 Please do explain how this is the case when its going for around the price of an 5800x especially for those already on a AM4 motherboard.
@@tilapiadave3234 Literally the fastest gaming CPU when it launched, at 2/3 the price and 1/2 the power usage of a typical flagship gaming CPU. You're smoking crack if you think that's overpriced and overhyped.
12:1316:50 All I can gather from these tests is that if you mostly game a cheap R5 5600 combo for ~300$ is all you need. Slap a used 5800x3d into the same mobo 5 years later and you'll be good for another few years... probably...
Exactly! But the 5600x was quite a bit more expensive at launch. I needed an upgrade in summer but managed to compromise until black Friday and then bought a 7600x, 2x16gb ddr5 5600 OC'ed to 6000CL30 and the gigabyte b650 gaming x with everything I'll need in the next 10 years. Cpu 269€, ram 165€, mobo 184€. Can't wait to put a 8800x3D or 9600X in it in a few years without the need to do a clean windows install, re-do cable management etc etc. Paid a bit more but will have an easy life for 5-10 years :)
Still loving my AM4 5700X. Makes me smile every time I see the 5800X3D putting the smack down bc I know I still have an easy upgrade path for the next 1-3 yrs that will deliver solid performance when I eventually go there.
Minor gripe, but in an ideal world, it might've been nice to also have some higher end processors in the graphs too. Not because they're close competitors. It's just that it would be useful to illustrate the performance difference. Like, "you get X % of the performance available on the market, but getting 100% would be X % more". Percentage of performance difference and percentage of price difference is often how I take purchasing decisions.
I would really love to see the 12400f compared with 13500 D4/D5, 7600, 5600 etc in a mid range Gpu battle. If you are on a budget the true value IMHO of the 12400f is the fact it costs $160 (got mine for $150) most people have a set of DDR4 Ram laying around they can use and grab a $150 or less D4 mobo and you are set. If I had to guess using Rtx 3060/RX 6650XT the 12400f might be 5% maybe 10% slower on average but the cost savings would easily counteract that. Great video Steve.
Yeah the price of the 12400 is absoloutely perfect. But is it enough power? I only play a bit Fallout 4 and i do Full HD video cut with davinci resolve.
For gaming alone is not worth upgrading from a 12400f to the 13500, even if you were able to sell your 12400f for $150 you'll have to spend an extra $100 to gain maybe 2-4 fps, but if you do use productivity programs then it's a whole different story, those 8 extra e-cores help a lot .
@@f.iph7291 none, I'll get a 7600, it outperforms both, the 13500 is the same as the 12400, just higher boost clock and some e cores (which don't make a difference in games)
@@ivantsipr well i am upgrading my gpu to 4070 super so I'm on a tight budget and already have a b560 motherboard. And I'll do productivity mostly Lightroom, Capture one, Photoshop and UE5. What about now?
@@SC-hk6ui i don't have money nor cooling solution to upgrade from i5 to i9 in 13th gen. Ryzen 5 from the new generation will be a cheaper upgrade path and gaming performance upgrades will be significant in new generation than 13900k
I have a 4060 ti and this i5 and I can run any game on over 90+ fps and do any ray tracing, idk why this is considered mid tier cpu it runs in high tier benchmarks with multitasking and can handle maximum parallax on the GPU.
The thing is, if you are looking at a 7600, means your CPU budget is around ~$200. The X3D models are likely going to start at ~$399 with the 7800X3D . They are in totally different price bracket. The good thing about the X3D is you probably going to be fine with DDR5 4800 since with so much cache, the CPU won't need to access the memory that frequent. DDR5 6000 above is really expensive.
The fact you can put this i5-13500 on a $100 B660 motherboard, with DDR4, makes it an EASY win over AMD. It beats the more expensive 7600x in productivity (with $200 B650, DDR5) and is only slightly behind in gaming. I'd 100% buy the i5-13500 over a 7600x.
Thank you so much...I bought a 13500 on a bit of gamble without many reviews and I'm just about to move from a 5800x AM4 back to intel after 15 years! Being installed with DDR5 in a Z690 MSI Tomahawk wifi!
Note on 2:00, the 13600K supports DDR5-5600 natively, as supposed to the Alder Lake refresh 13500. Of course, they both support XMP, although the 13500 has a locked VCCSA so XMP at or beyond DDR5-6400 may be sketchy while the 13600K will happily do DDR5-7200 in an appropriate 2 DIMM motherboard.
speaking of sketchy, why couldn't steve get the ddr4 ram to at least hit 3600mhz? or use his old favourite 3200-cl14 kit? dodgy as! when your average joe can do it with ease with any old ddr4 kit. steve goes out of his way and pairs the intel cpu with questionable ram under the excuse that it's cheap yet goes with 32gb instead of 16? anyone cheaping out is likely to go with 16. come on, what's that saying with caesar's wife? it's not enough that she is faithful, but she must look it. steve here sure doesn't look it. there's always a chance this makes next to no difference but why make a suspect choice like that?
@@KellyWu04 point taken. still doesn't explain why others are able to achieve 3600mhz and above on locked alderlake cpus and steve can't or won't. i mention the 3200 cl14 kit (similar-ish to 3600 cl16) as that was steve's go to kit last year and it was a fair "apples to apples" comparison as it worked on all systems, but here he has chosen ram that he can't or won't get to work equally on both systems. hence sketchy.
The 13400 has 4 E cores added over the 12400, which single thread wise its a bit better than the 12400 but on multi core its pretty much +20-25% so I don't think that is DOA. Its a good entry level gaming cpu with enough cores for productivity. Just built a rig with a 3060 TI and 13400f and its great. Can stick with decent speed DDR4 and have a good range of motherboards. If I went for the 7600 which is another $80 in my country I would then have to spend more on a DDR5 motherboard along with DDR5 ram which starts off around the $200 mark while a decent DDR4 kit is about $100 for 16gb. Value for money its a good chip and if you compare it to a 12600k its essentially a downclocked locked version, same P + E core layout same cache etc
Or if you are into budget gaming, get amd 5600 for 130$/£ they have a promotion with Company of Heroes 3 right now, cheap ddr4 rams and you have a solid pc.
Excellent analysis as usual, but also very price-dependent. The best price on PCPartPicker for a 13500 this morning (Jan 21) is $300.74. That's too much for a locked 6-core CPU whose potential requires DDR5 to manifest. If I were recommending an all-around PC build right now, I'd suggest spending 10% more for the Ryzen 7700, readily available for $329 with a usable cooler. Yes, that will require an additional few dollars more for a B650 motherboard, but it's worth it for eight unlocked full-on Zen4 cores, and with the 13500 you'd be spending those dollars on decent cooler anyway.
You have to be careful using pcpartpicker for pricing. That price for the 13500 is from one 3rd party seller who doesn't have the CPU in stock. It's not actually in stock at any of the major retailers yet, so the price is pretty meaningless right now, at least in the U.S.
@hardwareunbox, would love to see a big benchmark of all Intel CPUs from 2000 series for the I7s for mainstream platforms, would be an interesting video to see how much they have actually increased in IPC and performance over the last years.
I know for 12th to 13th gen it hasn't improved at the same clock speed. You could argue that for the non K cpus it has gone down by about 20% actually as the 12th gen non K are overclockable while 13th gen isn't. And like ryzen 2000 was about a tie with the intel 4000-7000 cpus for single core speed but I don't know how they compare at the same clock speeds.
@@johnd.1618 Anything from HW onwards should be fine, so one can go at least as far back as the 4000 series, though so far I've had no problems benchmarking with a 2700K. The no. of games which do have instruction set issues is very small, and one absolutely can run a modern OS and benchmarks. As for the broad disparity in differences, well that's the whole point isn't it? Being able to see where the tech has moved on and where it hasn't, especially how this relates to power consumption which has gone through the roof. In reality a bigger problem for some modern games isn't the instruction set but rather the lack of HT for some older parts, such as the i5 4570 or i5 6600; the versions with HT run so much better in some cases, but it very much depends on the game; in other cases it doesn't matter much or at all. I would post a link to my somwhat limited results, but YT hates links in comments, one just ends up getting shadow banned or deleted.
@@barneyklingenberg4078 I recently started playing modded STALKER and because it's single core limited even on i5 11400 fps could drop significantly in some instances. I hope that new X3D cpus will help me resolve this problem
Only in gaming AMD has really been lacking recently with both their CPUs and GPUs when it comes to productivity, and I think that's something they really need to step up
@@ultratronger yeah, but if I'm dropping a ton of money on a computer I kinda want it to be good at more than one thing. Very few people have the kind of money needed to buy an Intel+Nvidia computer for just productivity and a separate AMD computer for gaming.
@@Hardwareunboxed No, the review of yours has gone well, You didnt have to go defensive on that one, I was talking about opinions on reddit, ever since AMD got a little ahead with Single Threaded performance in Zen 4. AMD fans have since then shifted from bragging about multithreaded performance to single threaded performance/gaming load, since AMD had the go to chips for productivity tasks until Raptor Lake happend
5800X3d is such a lifesaver will definitely breathe new life into my PC when I get a GPU upgrade. 7800X3d will be something to consider tho forsure just gotta w8 for Mobos too come down in price
Been looking forward to 13500 reviews. Looking at this for a potential in socket upgrade for my 12400 down the road when the prices come down a bit. If I didn't already own an LGA 1700 motherboard I'd probably go for an AM5 system since I primarily game on my system.
You go from 6 gaming cores to 6 gaming cores with higher clocks, Not worth the extra £240 it'd cost. If you had an extra £240 burning a hole in your wallet ou could have bought a 5900X years ago instead and not need the hardware cahnge at all.
@@tomstech4390 I can't run a 5900X in my system, it's only a 4.9L case and can't run a cooler large enough to handle it. If I was in a case that could handle the heat output of higher end CPUs I'd be running a 5800X3D.
12400 to 13500 probably doesn't justify the upgrade unless you can sell the 12400 for a good price. I have the same issue with my 11400F. Probably should have bit the bullet and gone 11600K in the first place. It's always the drama with these mid spec cpu's. Not bad enough to justify the upgrade, and not good enough to be a big upgrade for someone else without changing the whole mb/cpu combo. When I flick the 11400F on it will be as CPU/MB/Mem to maybe a 8700 or 14th gen intel. There's plenty of people rocking older systems out there that can do a board swap. But there's not any rush. It's probably got another 2 or 3 years in it at least, unless I get seriously hooked on a new AAA game.
Depends on what your needs are. If you need a CPU for productivity, its great value. It can still push literally any game at same performance as 5800x3d and that is more than enough for gaming especially at this price. Also no one is pairing 4090 with either 7600 or 13500 anyway. So yea, for me who have 2700x and 1060 6gb where I also didnt care much for gaming performance and went with 2700x back in the day, it looks interesting. I can also just slap my already owned ddr4 ram and just roll with it and get insanely better productivity. Still waiting for next generation though. The new platforms and motherboards dont seem that great. Adopting early is bad. I did it once with 2700x and 300s motherboards, not doing it again.
@@vasilije94 I am still on 2700@OC + RX580 on B350, no plans for upgrade yet, programming + content creation and gaming on my 75HZ monitor, i dont see any necessary upgrade still :D, the time where 4 year old cps were slowpokes are gone. But planning gaming computer to living room and by these test i will probably go with 13500+ DDR5 cos my girl doing lot of photo works and things like that and gonna use to power.
yeah, I had on order a 13500, and then found out I would have to wait 2 weeks for stock to arrive, they said 2-4 days on website, so cancelled the order and got refund, then thought , what the hell, the 7600 had just come out and was way cheaper than the 7600X at the time, went with it instead, feel happier that I'm not investing serious $ into an Intel platform that is pretty much dead end....
for budget gaming & creating this seems to be amazing, but seeing the performance delta to a 12100 with both using ddr4 I wouldn't upgrade for gaming only, but for content creation or a new budget build it looks amazing
@@mikem9536 ah for most singlepalyer games it’s plenty, I played several triple AAA and casual games on my 12100f and it’s great, ofc cyberpunk high crowd density brings it to its knees, but for me it’s a good experience. As it’s only kn my secondary system I know how great it is to have 8+ cores, but for me it is definitely enjoyable :)
hmm this one is a tough choice, 13500 vs 7600. I think the easiest way do determine which one to get is to ask yourselves how long are you going to use this cpu. If its ~5 years then 13500 is pretty obvious choice, because it has much better MT performance and at the time when you will want to upgrade to new cpu, new sockets will be out already. If the answer aligns smth with "i dont know probably sooner than 5 years" then getting 7600 would serve better. I would avoid ddr4 unless you already have nice set of that.
Eh...I think people put too much stock in the "upgrade potential" of ryzen. Yes, last cycle it was great. But that was also because zen 1 and zen 2 sucked at gaming. Being able to upgrade that rather than being stuck is great. However, something like the 13900k down the line would still be excellent. I personally swing towards upgrade potential myself, but mobo prices need to come down first. As of today, I would probably take the intel system. It is easy to get lost in the comments/reviews, but are poeple really willing to spend 100s of dollars today, and forego max performance TODAY, for the chance at better upgrades in the future?
@@boblablaw4857 i have to say that i resonate with your notion too, BUT upgrading to 13900k ~3-4 years later is kinda moot because you are more or less paying "just" for more cores, cache and better ram compatibility, IPC is basically the same. While in the meantime you will have access to much better - everything basically, with new cpus of ~2027. Its like upgrading from i5 10500 to 10900k when you can ditch all that and buy 13900k, which is much more superior cpu in literally everything.
@@h1tzzYT We'll see. I'm glad I got to reuse my mobo from zen+. But do most people really care that much? Generally a decent mobo is like ~$100-$120 max. Giving up performance NOW and pay more NOW to get potentially a better deal in 2027? EDIT: If anything, the fact intel can support ddr4 or 5 is arguably more relevant currently.
@@boblablaw4857 i think that FOMO is a major factor behind ryzen upgradability hype, but i recon most people stay with their cpus at the very least for 2 gpu upgrades, on average every 4-5 years and i honestly think that in the meantime that ryzen upgradability becomes irrelevant more or less. Well at least people have options now, which is always good.
@@boblablaw4857 That's what I have been telling my friends. Socket compatibility is great but you are limiting your new cpu on old mobo or tons of features of your new mobo with old cpu. I can only upgrade my pc every 6 years or so. Believe me when i say the jumped in performance is mind blowing. Nothing works better than a new cpu and new motherboard.
At this point of writing this comment, Micro Center in the US is still running promotion for the AMD 7000 series. You get free GSkill Flare X5 DDR5 5600 or 6000 32GB. 7600X with DDR5 for $250 is a better choice.
I can buy used 5600x for about 140 Euro, buy new B450 mob for 60 Euro and 16 Gb of DDR4 for 50 Euro. NOTHING can beat that combo for a budget build and it would eaisly last for about 5 years with a mid range gpu.
I took a gamble and ordered 13500 when there was no trustworthy reviews. Price has gone +30€ in two weeks and I'm happy to see that it's beating my 5600X by a good margin. Thank you for the review ☺️
Did you pick DDR4 or DDR5 rams for the 13500? And What motherboard brand did you opt for? I am still using an i7 4790k w/ MSI Z97 Gaming 5 combo from 2014. In need of an upgrade lol.
The i5 13500 is the ABSOLUTE BEST upgrade for the i3 12100f budget builds. If you go for anything higher you will have to upgrade the cooling and PSU together with the CPU.
Thanks for this review. The productivity numbers looked very good, but unfortunately, the gaming performance isn't good enough compared to AMDs offerings. The thing could maybe replace the 12400, but the difference isn't big it seems. I would've liked to see the 12400 and 13400 included in the comparison.
@@Manuel-rl6um or you could get a 5900 with b550? If you are making money from compiling code get a 7900 for something that's efficient and ridiculously fast in multi threading for its price
As much as an AMD fan boy I am, this is great. Love competition and processors launching with discounts. We win when there isn't just one person stonking everyone. Looks like a solid business and production processor and just a hair below 7600x at the same price. I think AMD really struggles competitively just because of board cost.
then makes it up for board longevity .. Intel has been falling behind now for years and losing market share year after year and the stupid thing is it not their CPU's ( both AMD and Intel will continue to leapfrog with cpu's) its their motherboard lifespan even a idiot cant argue that if you get 4-5 plus years out of a motherboard its still better than Intel's standard 2 max years !! anyone buying a 13th gen now has a new mother board ( at most likely at AM5 platform costs ) for 14th gen so why bother throwing good money at a near dead platform !!
@@volvot6rdesignawd702 Problem is, that board longevity is a nice extra, but I don't think not too many people care about that. Don't use the tech youtuber bubble as a measure.
@@johnscaramis2515 thats the thing people do i mean why are people still hyped and the sales figures show the 5800x3d is outselling the 13th in some cases and clearly on a overall basis the 13th is a much better cpu but even the budget builders are paying that extra for 5800x3d cpu because they know its sides straight in to a old AM4 board .. now think of that this gen there is support to 2025 + with AM5 ( now hypothetically ) lets say they support to zen 7 in theory my AM5 Asus x670e rog crosshair gene will be a pig but at that point i would be past the current Intel board past the 14th and 15th lets say z890-z990 and up to whatever the new board is from intel for 16th gen !! that is great value in my opinion !
@@johnscaramis2515 also dont get me wrong i have nothing against Intel cpu's i have a 10850k in a build and its a beast of a cpu despite the BS of the front M.2 not working in the z590i board because it only works with 11th gen.. but for my main build if i want to upgrade cpu's ( and i have my x570 has seen the 3700x the 5600x and the 5800x3d ) platform longevity makes much more sense ! This is why ive stuck to AMD
I think after Meteor Lake and Arrow Lake, Intel should consider making another change in compute tile in terms of cache after disaggregated design. In addition to Foveros and Foveros Omni packaging, maybe they can consider adding another L3 cache on top of the base L3 cache in compute tile, with Foveros Direct direct copper die stacking in the way similar to V-cache stacking
that "adding another L3 cache" was Intel's L4 cache back in the days in 4th and 5th gen CPUs. sadly Intel at that time had no competition, thus they removed the L4 cache in 6th gen. I wonder if they will ever bring it back again
@@MendAmar I meant it should be different from L4 cache. What I meant is now there is competition: 3D V-cache. So adding L3 cache on top of L3 cache would be necessary as it is more efficient than increasing clock speed in terms of performance per watt.
I Think core counts are now being used in very misleading ways - especially on laptops can have a 10 core machine but only 2 are performance cores meaning that some 6 core machines might be better
This might get more interesting a way down the track. I got a 12400F and Z690 basic motherboard in a combo on Newegg last year for a really good price. If the same thing happens with the 13500 and 13400 chips, they'll be a solid buy later.
i5-13500 seems to be a good upgrade option from my i7-7700 (which is 7 years old already, ouch). I looked at Passmark CPU benchmarks list and checked a few AMD options close to the ratings of 13500, but somehow I cannot find any of those AMD CPUs in stores in my country for about the same price as 13500, which is 260 EUR. For example, 3900X costs 450 EUR in the cheapest stores in my country. Maybe Intel has a lobbyist campaign here or something 😀 Ryzen 7600 is available for about that price, but it's much lower in Passmark results.
@@johnd.1618 Yeah. Also I have feeling that PC companies will use this 13500 in their builds. I am on the AM4 platform and going to upgrade to a 5600 soon.
It will be a stupidity to go to that as a platform upgrade (mobo+cpu+ram) but as a upgrade to previous gen keeping the ddr-4 is a great value 😁 great testing as always 😀
@@tuckerhiggins4336 BS. Steve does that when relevant. The problem for the 13500 is that if you're already on a B660 board you're likely already on a 12400/12600(k), and the 13500 doesn't offer much upgrade for the expense in that case. Sure, if you started out with a 12100 budget build and has found some spare cash it could make sense, but that's an absolute corner case.
@@andersjjensen he mentions it occasionally, but nothing more than a footnote. I'm talking about in general. It should be emphasized. Like how a 5800x3d doesn't matter if you don't have at least a 3090 to show the difference.
@@tuckerhiggins4336 The latest video is dedicated to this very topic... I can't point to a channel that is more value focused than Hardware Unboxed. Also you're absolutely wrong about the 5800X3D. For people who primarily/only play competitive e-sports titles (I'm absolutely not one of them) a 5800X3D + 6600XT/3060ti yields significantly better performance than a 5600/10600 + 6900XT/3080. For people who play single player titles, especially if they also target higher resolutions, any old potato CPU and the biggest GPU they can afford, will give them the best performance. This is old news and has been old news since the dawn of multiplayer games.
Good stuff as always. One thing I'd be curious to see is comparing DDR5 Raptor Lake vs a DDR4 setup with top tier B-die at 14-14-14-34 timings. Basically see how the best of DDR4 can compare to DDR5, both mid-range typical speed DDR5 as well as top speed DDR5. It'd be an interesting comparison
I actually don't think the 13500 allows you to do this comparison since it limits DDR4 memory OC because of the locked voltage. If you want to do a best of DDR4 vs DDR5 video justice then you'd need a 13600k at least.
Pretty cool as a secondary production or streamer rig. Shame that companies aren't trying to be as competitive on value overall. At least there's sub $300 options now... not that this price point is really 'budget'.
Yep, but currently only on Intel. The Zen 4 CPUs gain almost no performance from DDR5 above 6000 speed, and many motherboards don't even support faster 6400 RAM out of the box, even with XMP profiles
@@KimBoKastekniv47 It depends, for a new product the seller sometimes (but rarely) mentions offered stepping. You can also demand the particular stepping as a note/comment for your order. On a used market it's easier, as usually there are pictures with either the bar codes on the box or the writings on the CPU visible.
If Zen 5 is as good as leaks indicate, it will definitely be worth waiting. Intel isn't expected to have much to compete with it ("Meteor Lake" is primarily for laptops and only goes up to 6 performance cores), but should finally come out with a competitive "Arrow Lake" architecture in late 2024 or early 2025.
This is just a 12900k with 2 P-cores disabled, and lower clocked. Attentively it's a 12600k with 4 more E-cores enabled. Nothing Raptor Lake about it, really. The cache comes from the extra small cores that Alder Lake already had.
also I really wish 4K results would be included, even if just in a single segment. I know some games it makes very little difference, but even in your own guys previous videos it sometimes can make a huge difference, 30+fps. I play at 4K120 so this is the spec that matters to me the most. =)
@@AlaskanFalcon if you shelled out £2k for a 4090 and you're still 1080p or 1440p, then your priorities are a bit skewed imo Like taking your Ferrari food shopping.
Thanks for addressing BCLK OC situation as I haven't seen anyone using a 7xx motherboard to check it. I have to wholeheartedly agree that Intel could have left it with no real impact on their K SKU CPUs. Even though your focus is more on the gaming aspect I appreciate immensely the fact that you do productivity and separate it out as there are a lot of us who do some and that capability alone can make or break a part.
Review is amazing as always. You should add a new tab in these budget i3 \ i5 CPUs. Do a benchmark run with a cheaper GPU, so the people who are interested in buying this CPU, should know how it pairs with a 3060 ti, if the performance is the same with an r5 5600x, (while using an 3060 ti at 1440p) we shouldn't be misled into getting a more expensive CPU since it wont give us any more fps.
Assuming you can buy it. The i5-x500 CPUs are always harder/impossible to get at retail vs the x400 sku. Even when they're available the pricing can be wonky.
According to some outlets like the German ComputerBase all non-K i3 and i5 13th Gen. CPUs are actually Alder Lake and not Raptor Lake, similar to what Intel has done with the i3-13100, which would also explain the cache sizes. The increase in performance over the 12th Gen. CPUs of the same type is, according to them, because of the increase in clock speeds and (depending on the benchmark) the addition of the E-Cores. I also have a question regarding the locked SA voltage: is this only limiting for DDR4 but not DDR5? Or are you running DDR5 in G2 mode? btw, using the same memory for DDR4 and DDR5 and both Intel and AMD platforms would probably have improved comparability
DDR5 is always in G2 mode, so no downgrade from the memory controller unless it's around 7000 MT/s where weaker controllers would fail. 13400F and 13400 come either as Alder Lake or Raptor Lake, with Alder being much more common, at least for now. It's not any urban legend, Raptor steppings are out there and some of them were actually "reviewed" if you can call something without any gaming benchmark a review.
@@T4ish0 Yeah I know about the 13400(F) having two different steppings, either the full Alder Lake one or the Raptor Lake one but cut down to match Alder Lake. Thanks for the DDR5 G2 explanation, somehow I didn't know that.
I was going to go Ryzen 5600 for my daughter's budget build, but I'm going to use the 13500 with 16GB DDR4 on B660 for a bit more speed. In a few years, maybe I'll be able to find a used 13700K if necessary and let it yeet for a couple more years. Anyway, very interesting review. Thanks.
12400f costs roughly $160 currently. Can save $90 to put towards a faster Gpu. If you are using a midrange Gpu the difference between the 12400f and 13500 will be no more then 5%. Have fun with the build.
not much of an upgrade though when hampered By B660. 12600K on an msi-Z690 A pro with 3800+ DDR4 (like patrior steel vipers)is a good middleground if you want min max value for gaming performance. 13500 looks great for multicore workloads though.
Yes. This review unfortunately reveals how good R5 7600 is. Better game performance and lower power usage. Only if you want 7-zip compression speed, go for 13500.
I have gone with 13500 + Intel arc as it is currently good for all things instead of the Ryzen only on gaming. Anyone who builds like me don't upgrade for at least 5 years so what is the point in the upgrade path I am not sure. Coz, that will be end of life by then unless they specify the exact date when the new platform will come. Anyways I think the Intel graphics platform needs compete well to unseat Nvidia to make GPU more competitive, under current circumstances I would support Intel vs the other greedy ones.
Is the memory controller limitations new? As I've messed around with an i3 10100 on a B560 motherboard and it ran 3200 XMP all day. Then an i5 11500 was able to run XMP at 3600 all day. No tuning needed even though the spec sheet says 2666 for the i3 and 3200 for the i5. Both were in Gear 1 to clarify.
@@tyre1337 I don't think Intel decided to make the 13th gen i5s perform worse than 11th gen in terms of memory controllers. Like I said, I have an i5 11500 (currently in a server) that handles 3600 MHz XMP in Gear 1 without issue. I also have an i3 that does 3200 MHz XMP without issue despite the Intel spec sheet claiming a max of 2666. I'm not sure if they have bad samples, a new more strict limitation was set in later generations, or they're choosing to ignore greater memory frequencies either at Intel's behest or they were just busy and didn't try it.
HUB just posted a 5600 vs 12100 vs 13100 video, where 5600 was somewhat better. See that and compare to the numbers here (through the 5600). It depends on what else you have in your build and what you need.
This review just cemented that I am going to grab a 5800X3D to upgrade my 5600X and give my son my 5600X to use with his 3060ti (he has my old 3600X right now).
Thanks for the review, it really helped me to go with a 12400 for gaming instead! I've recently learned that Ryzen CPUs draw significantly more power than Intel chips during idle and low intesity applications (~8W for Intel/30-40W for AMD). As electricity costs haven risen drastically around the world and many owners will also use their PC for low intensity office applications, I'd really appreciate you adding an idle/low intesity workload test to the review
Good choice if you got a overclock motherboard. The 12400 beats the 13400 in everything at 5.2ghz. So you'd not only save money and power but also get better performance. If not its still good, but like 12th gen overclocking gives massive gains, for some reason people get mad about it lol, but if you can such a mobo it's a very good buy.
I'm pretty happy that you didn't fall for those 4 efficiency cores trap, it turns out those 4 efficiency cores are old gen i5 4th gen cores not worth it at all.
I was really rooting for 13500 but it disappointed me. Those e core are great addition but can't compete with 7600. Amd should really kick rnd for ep core structure which can blow intel how it did in while zen launch.
Well e cores are not meant for gaming, was already clear that the i5 would have performed worst than a 7600, it is like an underclocked 13600k with less L2. Besides that I think it is insanely good as a productivity cpu, 250$ for that level of performance was a dream just 3y ago
@@mastroitek absolutely but both has 6 p cores where intel kinda was a let down a bit. Still i think 2:1 ratio for p to e core can be good option like if future 6 core ryzen can come with 4 e core will be great. 8 e core to 6p look less senseable.
@@welfarestates8465 Intel is going from 8 P to 6 P. Their white paper on hyow software developers can utilise the new E cores should signal to people that chips like the 13500 will be around for a long time. They will be more supported than the AMD market share, and offer several advantages.
The 13500 exists so Intel can give Dell and HP a segmentation option for their corporate fleet products. Intel has made it abundantly clear that they don't want consumers to buy non-k parts.
recently looking into a 13500 since I am not looking for peak performance just a good all arounder. One benefit of the 13500 is also that I assumed that I could get a non-Z mobo and cut a few $$ there also. So in the cost per frame, I noticed that the 13500 DDR5 case was on a Z- mobo, but that was likely just for the memory compatability but I think it could go down a bit if not using a Z mobo
I have the 13500 in a B760 board with DDR5 5600mhz 32GB memory. Had no problems with it so far. Got the AMD RX6750XT GPU but I haven't installed it yet. Not using the stock cooler though. Not installed any games yet. Am waiting to save up for some extra SSD storage to install first. Much better than my 10 year older PC set up though, I can now watch 1080p RUclips without any buffering and stuttering issues.
It is worth mentioning that by default Intel motherboard has a 65W Power limit disabled for non-k processors like 13500. So if you put it manually box cooler wood be enough for 65W TDP. It's a little disappointing that HU didn't test this CPU with and without 65W limit. Like AMD processors in tests of 7600, 7700, 7900.
@@Lionheart1188 some b660 MBs have 65W limit on. So "Out of the box performance" depends on the motherboard. I was disappointed because they didn't even mention it.
Honestly for gaming alone the 5600x is still holding up quite well, especially when you consider you'll be pairing that with a much slower card than a 4090.
I would like you to consider the cost of cooler in the cost per frame (USD) especially in case of 7700 and 7700x since the in box cooler is enough for the 7700 and for the 7700x a good cooler is a must for getting its full potential. According to me the 7700 is a much cost effective and overall a better bang for buck CPU as compared to 7700x .
I agree with this, though really we need to see the intel box cooler numbers under a gaming workload. Throttling under cinebench is not good, but in gaming it's likely going to be fine. I get that we're trying to test the CPUs under optimal apples to apples conditions and it'd be easy to go down a rabbit hole of comparisons, so I'm kind of torn here.
Absolutely not. The cost per frame graphs are tentative at best because of constantly changing prices and different pricing across various regions. There's a good reason why a lot of outlets don't even make them. Adding coolers to the equation, not only you're facing the same problems (variable pricing) but also different people will want different coolers. Additionally, just because some people may judge the box cooler to be sufficient, that will not be the case for everyone as many people want lower temps and quieter systems. So having some CPUs with some kind of aftermarket cooler while having others without would make the whole segment completely useless.
The i5-13500 is basically a i9-12900 with two deactivated P-cores and slightly lower clock speeds. It's even using the same chip (ADL-C0) as the 12th Gen i9 CPUs. It's not so much a "downgrade" in cache, as it's simply based on a last-gen Alder Lake chip, so it never got the "upgrade" to begin with.
Great review as always!
haha yeah but it's a big upgrade at the $250~ price point :D
Good way to put it!
Wow .. If this is actually available for $250 then the 7600 would have to be $200 for people to actually consider buying
@@thefurmidablecatlucky3 wut
@@thefurmidablecatlucky3 Looks like you watched a completely different video or just lack comprehension. Check the 10 game average and power consumption.
I'm so happy that the CPU market has gone back to normalcy. This classic back and forth punching between red and blue team means we all benefit.
I just wish the GPU market in the other hand wasn't such a mess...
> so happy that the CPU market has gone back to normalcy
Still 20 - 50% expensive, what the fuck you see the "go back to normal prices"?
GPUs in the other way are 100% - 500% more expensive but you know trash human garbage will bought it regardless of price so fuck it.
Just don’t buy a GPU this year. Not even a last gen one. Keep what you’ve got and send the message that the market won’t accept $1k+ GPUs now that mining and scalping are done.
@@TheMaxAwesome I wish I could be as optimistic. But morons keep giving the Paul brothers money, so all it takes is another new crypto to make anything above integrated graphics too expensive.
Classic back and forth punching in the CPU market: AMD and Intel take turns punching each other in the face.
Classic back and forth punching in the GPU market: AMD and Nvidia take turns punching their customers in the face. Intel punches themselves in the face.
@@TheMaxAwesome I don't disagree but gamers shouldn't really be upgrading their CPUs either if they have decent one already with the GPU they have to stick with. This GPU mess is probably slowing down upgrades, it certainly is for me.
It was in the box, it's now out of the box. Hi Steve.
heyoooo
@@Hardwareunboxed Borderlands 2?
@@czbrat Steve dates back from the first Borderlands.
Back to you Steve!
@@Hardwareunboxed Thanks Steve!
Steve, keep doing what you do. I've always been reliant on your reviews over anyone else's when it comes to buying hardware. You and Gamers Nexus' Steve are the best reviewers.
Steve & Steve for the win.
Steves are the best.
Steve² 🤔
Steven Gerrard
Well, Someones name is Steve
I only trust the words of Beve Sturke
I recently upgraded from a X99 Xeon build to the i5 13500 and its truly amazing what this CPU has to offer for 279€. I am very happy and its more than enough for me.
Small thing to note too is that the 13500 gets the full uhd 770 igpu which will help when streaming and in certain productivity tasks
It's especially powerful as a Plex transcode server.
@@nathanddrews I agree. Thinking about upgrading but I think my 9500 is still more than enough
What’s it like compared to the 7600x iGPU?
@@StrewthSeeker I've got a 7700X and the IGP barely qualifies as anything except a way to connect a monitor to a motherboard without a dGPU.
@Aussie Shitposter Its better, those are very weak. It goes amd apu>intel igpu>amd igpu
Thanks for being one of the few to review the non-K 13th Gen CPUs; very insightful! And great content as always.
To be fair if you don't disable intel Quick Sync on Intel processors with iGPU you will have 30-50% more performance in Adobe premiere pro and Davinchi Resolve. They all must be on top of the charts in editing applications.
But the quality of the video suffer, doesn't it? It wouldn't be apples to apples comparison. At least that's what I heard
@@Manuel-rl6um The quality issues were fixed years ago. And I can give you the same argument against discrete GPUs because they have HW video engines too with the same almost invisible quality losses.
I have 6 years of experience in video editing applications and Intel quick sync works very good and gives me smooth playback and faster rendering.
oh no, why are you speaking of real fact? then they can't downplay this cpu.
@@Manuel-rl6um do you have any idea even quality? production houses are using intel's quicksync now. head over to pudgetsystem and you will see some real benchmark than this biased channel
17:44 - Correction. The 13400 is a 6P+4E core setup compared to 12400 (6P+0E).
Historically Intel's 500 CPUs never made any sense over a 400 part, if you wanted more performance you'd just get the 600K one. This is the first actually interesting 500 CPU.
i5 2500k was awesome
Excellent! Thank you Hardware Unboxed for the upload.
I've been waiting for a review of this cpu.
Thank you Steve for this detailed benchmark. On a personal note I have been having a really tough time getting my life together. Waking up this morning and seeing that there was a new Hardware Unboxed video up helped put me in a great mood and ready to take on the day. I appreciate this channel so much. Bless you and your family
I feel it. Hang in there, glad we can all unite to enjoy new technology on this channel.
The 7600 and 7700 non-X AMD chips are still of interest to me, because they have AVX-512. For those of us who are into retro gaming, that's kind of important, since those instructions can really help accelerate the emulation of various console GPUs. That said, the 13500 is functionally equivalent to a 10 core CPU for various productivity workloads. It's a beast and the obvious choice unless you're really into playing PS3 games on your PC or other things that really benefit from AVX-512.
I'd say unless you:
A) play games, emulated or new; AND:
B) don't do any serious rendering work of the kind where time = money.
Which does account for a lot of people.
You have your recommendation revered, it makes more sense to get the AMD processor unless you have a specific productivity workload need. The vast majority of people are not going to use that many cores.
@Zoran Each E core is functionally half of a P core. Therefore, you can think of 2 E cores as close to a P core
@@giglioflex For programming e cores not helping and if you add virtualization or docker is better to turn it off. It is really hard to defend new Intels. Intel for all these years of stagnation has such a base of fanboys that they probably take everything as it goes. Intel cpus do very well in benchmarks but the reality is different. ;)
@@rENEGADE666JEDI That's simply False.
Looking forward to the B650 testing, when you get chance.
I can only guess the amount of hours that go into it.
Thanks for everything you do for us.
Glad to see I am not the only one who buys the Mainboard based on the Hardware Unboxed reviews :).
Very curious to see if these will get a work around with the mortar max wifi external clockgen
Just go with one of the MSI .. eg Mortar, Bazooka or Tomahawk. They are usually well designed for reasonable money. Off cause there are other good choices from the other brands too. Good thing we have HWU to guide us to not buy a crap board
@@mrdali67 MSI's AM5 boards seem pretty underwhelming for their price, to be honest, while ASRock has stepped up in a major way and is delivering much better VRMs on their entry level boards. MSI has been milking the reputation they earned with B450 and B550 to increase prices. The B650 Tomahawk and Mortar aren't bad, but not really any better than their competitors.
@@steinmauer9747 Still, having big test of B650 boardsd here on HW unboxed would be of great help to many folks me included.
Been waiting for a review and availability of this to use in a home server build. Grew impatient and bought a Ryzen 7900 instead (which indeed inflated the build budget, as you mentioned), but this still looks like the right price (at MSRP) for the number of cores/threads.
That's the CPU that I've been seriously considering honestly. It gives good performance with low power draw but also can give more if you don't care about power draw which means more flexibility than the 7900x imo. Also at only $100 more than the 7700 you get 4 more cores which I feel is good for future proofing a bit and good for productivity ect. All around I feel like it's the most appealing CPU to me right now.
How have you been liking it?
@@GhostAcez only just saw this, but it's great! I'm running the 7900 with a lower profile cooler (ID-Cooling IS-55 ARGB) since it's in a smaller case (Cougar Dust 2) and it tops out at 77C in a torture workload. Power doesn't break 100W. Excellent performance.
@@zivzulander That's honestly awesome. I'm not surprised by the low temps. In Linus Tech Tips review of the non x AM5 CPUs their testing showed that the 7900 actually ran cooler than the 7700 and 7600 because it doesn't have to work as hard doing tasks. Idk what cooler they were using but in a torture test I remember their 7900 was just over 40c.
Quite happy to see that the 5800x3d is still pretty competitive, given I paid £300 for it and it was a drop in upgrade from my 1700. Just a legendary jump in performance for relatively little cost and almost no hassle.
Agreed, also jumped from a 1700 to a 5800x3D and the difference was just amazing, best upgrade I've done in years and it only cost the price of the CPU.
@@tilapiadave3234 Please do explain how this is the case when its going for around the price of an 5800x especially for those already on a AM4 motherboard.
@@tilapiadave3234 Literally the fastest gaming CPU when it launched, at 2/3 the price and 1/2 the power usage of a typical flagship gaming CPU. You're smoking crack if you think that's overpriced and overhyped.
@@tilapiadave3234 you high bro? The 5600X in the video is only 76% of the 5800x3d. That gap is enormous, you must be new to this
@@hagianghoang4026 No, I've seen him around other techtuber vids, he's been blindly hating on AMD for a while now.
12:13 16:50 All I can gather from these tests is that if you mostly game a cheap R5 5600 combo for ~300$ is all you need. Slap a used 5800x3d into the same mobo 5 years later and you'll be good for another few years... probably...
Will do for 5800x3d but most likely on next christmas day.
Exactly! But the 5600x was quite a bit more expensive at launch.
I needed an upgrade in summer but managed to compromise until black Friday and then bought a 7600x, 2x16gb ddr5 5600 OC'ed to 6000CL30 and the gigabyte b650 gaming x with everything I'll need in the next 10 years.
Cpu 269€, ram 165€, mobo 184€.
Can't wait to put a 8800x3D or 9600X in it in a few years without the need to do a clean windows install, re-do cable management etc etc.
Paid a bit more but will have an easy life for 5-10 years :)
Are you okay?? Using a 9 year old CPU ahaha, no.
@@luked4587 Are you? I have used my 3930K system for 11 years. And it still does just fine with a 6700XT.
@@PotatMasterRace You're missing out on a lot, 60fps gaming is just awful and you must be very imperceptive to stuttering..
Still loving my AM4 5700X. Makes me smile every time I see the 5800X3D putting the smack down bc I know I still have an easy upgrade path for the next 1-3 yrs that will deliver solid performance when I eventually go there.
So much better for productivity / mixed use, worse for pure gaming usage - I'd say that's pretty fair stack up.
Minor gripe, but in an ideal world, it might've been nice to also have some higher end processors in the graphs too. Not because they're close competitors. It's just that it would be useful to illustrate the performance difference. Like, "you get X % of the performance available on the market, but getting 100% would be X % more".
Percentage of performance difference and percentage of price difference is often how I take purchasing decisions.
You can use the numbers from the reviews and compare lol
@@4riel At that point I hope they start their own YT channel and get something in return for the effort.
In a nutshell, you get no benefit in gaming from spending more, especially at 1440p and higher. Save your money for a GPU.
yeah were very proud of our skills i can see that
I would really love to see the 12400f compared with 13500 D4/D5, 7600, 5600 etc in a mid range Gpu battle. If you are on a budget the true value IMHO of the 12400f is the fact it costs $160 (got mine for $150) most people have a set of DDR4 Ram laying around they can use and grab a $150 or less D4 mobo and you are set. If I had to guess using Rtx 3060/RX 6650XT the 12400f might be 5% maybe 10% slower on average but the cost savings would easily counteract that. Great video Steve.
Yeah the price of the 12400 is absoloutely perfect. But is it enough power? I only play a bit Fallout 4 and i do Full HD video cut with davinci resolve.
For gaming alone is not worth upgrading from a 12400f to the 13500, even if you were able to sell your 12400f for $150 you'll have to spend an extra $100 to gain maybe 2-4 fps, but if you do use productivity programs then it's a whole different story, those 8 extra e-cores help a lot .
@@ivantsiprwould you choose 12400 with 4070 super?? Or would you buy 13500
@@f.iph7291 none, I'll get a 7600, it outperforms both, the 13500 is the same as the 12400, just higher boost clock and some e cores (which don't make a difference in games)
@@ivantsipr well i am upgrading my gpu to 4070 super so I'm on a tight budget and already have a b560 motherboard. And I'll do productivity mostly Lightroom, Capture one, Photoshop and UE5. What about now?
My focus point is gaming so i am planning to go with ryzen 7600 , AM5 platform will also give me future upgrade options too.
@@SC-hk6ui i don't have money nor cooling solution to upgrade from i5 to i9 in 13th gen. Ryzen 5 from the new generation will be a cheaper upgrade path and gaming performance upgrades will be significant in new generation than 13900k
@@tilapiadave3234 Lol no. 5800x3d is still the best deal, anywhere. Keep seething, my dear incel.
I have a 4060 ti and this i5 and I can run any game on over 90+ fps and do any ray tracing, idk why this is considered mid tier cpu it runs in high tier benchmarks with multitasking and can handle maximum parallax on the GPU.
The 7600 leveled things out significantly. And MB and Ram prices are dropping. The X3D models are going to crush every gaming benchmark on the planet.
no, they are not. only the games which profit from the extra cache.
Extra cash is correct because they are gonna cost very much extra cash.
7600 is just $230 on Newegg. Save yourself $20 and get a better cooler. Buy the 7600.
Prices are dropping where? Not where I live, for sure ...
The thing is, if you are looking at a 7600, means your CPU budget is around ~$200. The X3D models are likely going to start at ~$399 with the 7800X3D . They are in totally different price bracket. The good thing about the X3D is you probably going to be fine with DDR5 4800 since with so much cache, the CPU won't need to access the memory that frequent. DDR5 6000 above is really expensive.
The fact you can put this i5-13500 on a $100 B660 motherboard, with DDR4, makes it an EASY win over AMD. It beats the more expensive 7600x in productivity (with $200 B650, DDR5) and is only slightly behind in gaming. I'd 100% buy the i5-13500 over a 7600x.
Will there be any performance drop in pairing b660 mb with 13400 compared to b760 mb
Thank you so much...I bought a 13500 on a bit of gamble without many reviews and I'm just about to move from a 5800x AM4 back to intel after 15 years! Being installed with DDR5 in a Z690 MSI Tomahawk wifi!
thats a downgrade lol
No its only 58003xd that is faster i think i dont know maybe
@@danielstark6170He is better off doing the so called 'downgrade'
I grabbed a 13700k, but I'm still glad for this review! Thanks for all you do Steve.
Note on 2:00, the 13600K supports DDR5-5600 natively, as supposed to the Alder Lake refresh 13500. Of course, they both support XMP, although the 13500 has a locked VCCSA so XMP at or beyond DDR5-6400 may be sketchy while the 13600K will happily do DDR5-7200 in an appropriate 2 DIMM motherboard.
@@SC-hk6ui I thought the IMC is limited by VCCSA?
@@SC-hk6ui I use a laptop and am stuck with JEDEC DDR4-3200. I am incapable of entering memory OC hell.
speaking of sketchy, why couldn't steve get the ddr4 ram to at least hit 3600mhz? or use his old favourite 3200-cl14 kit? dodgy as! when your average joe can do it with ease with any old ddr4 kit. steve goes out of his way and pairs the intel cpu with questionable ram under the excuse that it's cheap yet goes with 32gb instead of 16? anyone cheaping out is likely to go with 16. come on, what's that saying with caesar's wife? it's not enough that she is faithful, but she must look it. steve here sure doesn't look it. there's always a chance this makes next to no difference but why make a suspect choice like that?
@@despinapanagos6146 2x 16 GB DDR4-3200 CL14 is as expensive as DDR5-6000 CL36.
@@KellyWu04 point taken. still doesn't explain why others are able to achieve 3600mhz and above on locked alderlake cpus and steve can't or won't. i mention the 3200 cl14 kit (similar-ish to 3600 cl16) as that was steve's go to kit last year and it was a fair "apples to apples" comparison as it worked on all systems, but here he has chosen ram that he can't or won't get to work equally on both systems. hence sketchy.
The 13400 has 4 E cores added over the 12400, which single thread wise its a bit better than the 12400 but on multi core its pretty much +20-25% so I don't think that is DOA. Its a good entry level gaming cpu with enough cores for productivity. Just built a rig with a 3060 TI and 13400f and its great. Can stick with decent speed DDR4 and have a good range of motherboards. If I went for the 7600 which is another $80 in my country I would then have to spend more on a DDR5 motherboard along with DDR5 ram which starts off around the $200 mark while a decent DDR4 kit is about $100 for 16gb. Value for money its a good chip and if you compare it to a 12600k its essentially a downclocked locked version, same P + E core layout same cache etc
Or if you are into budget gaming, get amd 5600 for 130$/£ they have a promotion with Company of Heroes 3 right now, cheap ddr4 rams and you have a solid pc.
@@muhammedkeser7064 that is also a good choice
I've already ordered 13500. Hope it'll perform well. 13600K was out of my budget
If the 7600 can achieve this performance with its box cooler but the Intel part needs the AIO then surely the cost per frame chart needs this added.
Excellent analysis as usual, but also very price-dependent. The best price on PCPartPicker for a 13500 this morning (Jan 21) is $300.74. That's too much for a locked 6-core CPU whose potential requires DDR5 to manifest. If I were recommending an all-around PC build right now, I'd suggest spending 10% more for the Ryzen 7700, readily available for $329 with a usable cooler. Yes, that will require an additional few dollars more for a B650 motherboard, but it's worth it for eight unlocked full-on Zen4 cores, and with the 13500 you'd be spending those dollars on decent cooler anyway.
You have to be careful using pcpartpicker for pricing. That price for the 13500 is from one 3rd party seller who doesn't have the CPU in stock. It's not actually in stock at any of the major retailers yet, so the price is pretty meaningless right now, at least in the U.S.
@@zivzulander Granted. I did not check that far. But the point remains; we don't actually know what its selling price will be.
@hardwareunbox, would love to see a big benchmark of all Intel CPUs from 2000 series for the I7s for mainstream platforms, would be an interesting video to see how much they have actually increased in IPC and performance over the last years.
I know for 12th to 13th gen it hasn't improved at the same clock speed. You could argue that for the non K cpus it has gone down by about 20% actually as the 12th gen non K are overclockable while 13th gen isn't. And like ryzen 2000 was about a tie with the intel 4000-7000 cpus for single core speed but I don't know how they compare at the same clock speeds.
@@johnd.1618 Anything from HW onwards should be fine, so one can go at least as far back as the 4000 series, though so far I've had no problems benchmarking with a 2700K. The no. of games which do have instruction set issues is very small, and one absolutely can run a modern OS and benchmarks. As for the broad disparity in differences, well that's the whole point isn't it? Being able to see where the tech has moved on and where it hasn't, especially how this relates to power consumption which has gone through the roof.
In reality a bigger problem for some modern games isn't the instruction set but rather the lack of HT for some older parts, such as the i5 4570 or i5 6600; the versions with HT run so much better in some cases, but it very much depends on the game; in other cases it doesn't matter much or at all.
I would post a link to my somwhat limited results, but YT hates links in comments, one just ends up getting shadow banned or deleted.
Looks like R7 5800X3D is still one of the best cpus. Can't wait to see R7 7800X3D
That factorio score is just insane.
@@barneyklingenberg4078 I recently started playing modded STALKER and because it's single core limited even on i5 11400 fps could drop significantly in some instances. I hope that new X3D cpus will help me resolve this problem
Only in gaming
AMD has really been lacking recently with both their CPUs and GPUs when it comes to productivity, and I think that's something they really need to step up
@@Plumtopia yeah because theres barely if any productivity app that uses cache, theyre gaming cpus what did you expect
@@ultratronger yeah, but if I'm dropping a ton of money on a computer I kinda want it to be good at more than one thing. Very few people have the kind of money needed to buy an Intel+Nvidia computer for just productivity and a separate AMD computer for gaming.
Suddenly gaming has become a much more important aspect to look into than multi threaded productivity load since October 2022
Gaming has always been our primary focus. Can you show me an example in October 2022 that was different?
@@Hardwareunboxed No, the review of yours has gone well, You didnt have to go defensive on that one, I was talking about opinions on reddit, ever since AMD got a little ahead with Single Threaded performance in Zen 4. AMD fans have since then shifted from bragging about multithreaded performance to single threaded performance/gaming load, since AMD had the go to chips for productivity tasks until Raptor Lake happend
5800X3d is such a lifesaver will definitely breathe new life into my PC when I get a GPU upgrade. 7800X3d will be something to consider tho forsure just gotta w8 for Mobos too come down in price
Been looking forward to 13500 reviews. Looking at this for a potential in socket upgrade for my 12400 down the road when the prices come down a bit. If I didn't already own an LGA 1700 motherboard I'd probably go for an AM5 system since I primarily game on my system.
You go from 6 gaming cores to 6 gaming cores with higher clocks, Not worth the extra £240 it'd cost. If you had an extra £240 burning a hole in your wallet ou could have bought a 5900X years ago instead and not need the hardware cahnge at all.
@@tomstech4390 I can't run a 5900X in my system, it's only a 4.9L case and can't run a cooler large enough to handle it. If I was in a case that could handle the heat output of higher end CPUs I'd be running a 5800X3D.
12400 to 13500 probably doesn't justify the upgrade unless you can sell the 12400 for a good price.
I have the same issue with my 11400F. Probably should have bit the bullet and gone 11600K in the first place.
It's always the drama with these mid spec cpu's. Not bad enough to justify the upgrade, and not good enough to be a big upgrade for someone else without changing the whole mb/cpu combo.
When I flick the 11400F on it will be as CPU/MB/Mem to maybe a 8700 or 14th gen intel. There's plenty of people rocking older systems out there that can do a board swap.
But there's not any rush. It's probably got another 2 or 3 years in it at least, unless I get seriously hooked on a new AAA game.
If you only do gaming is not worth it, but if you do a lot of productivity work then is a whole different story.
So it seems like you need ddr5 to fully take advantage of this cpu. At that point, I think 7600 is the better choice
Depends on what your needs are. If you need a CPU for productivity, its great value. It can still push literally any game at same performance as 5800x3d and that is more than enough for gaming especially at this price. Also no one is pairing 4090 with either 7600 or 13500 anyway. So yea, for me who have 2700x and 1060 6gb where I also didnt care much for gaming performance and went with 2700x back in the day, it looks interesting. I can also just slap my already owned ddr4 ram and just roll with it and get insanely better productivity. Still waiting for next generation though. The new platforms and motherboards dont seem that great. Adopting early is bad. I did it once with 2700x and 300s motherboards, not doing it again.
@@vasilije94 I am still on 2700@OC + RX580 on B350, no plans for upgrade yet, programming + content creation and gaming on my 75HZ monitor, i dont see any necessary upgrade still :D, the time where 4 year old cps were slowpokes are gone. But planning gaming computer to living room and by these test i will probably go with 13500+ DDR5 cos my girl doing lot of photo works and things like that and gonna use to power.
I guess that for gaming the 7600 makes more sense, but man, the 13500 is crazy fast in productivity for being an i5!
yeah, I had on order a 13500, and then found out I would have to wait 2 weeks for stock to arrive, they said 2-4 days on website, so cancelled the order and got refund, then thought , what the hell, the 7600 had just come out and was way cheaper than the 7600X at the time, went with it instead, feel happier that I'm not investing serious $ into an Intel platform that is pretty much dead end....
can i use 3600 ddr4 with the i5 13500 ?
now overclock it :D
Edit: just watched the part where you said that BCLK overclocking is locked in 13th gen. What a shame
for budget gaming & creating this seems to be amazing, but seeing the performance delta to a 12100 with both using ddr4 I wouldn't upgrade for gaming only, but for content creation or a new budget build it looks amazing
4 cores simply isn't enough for gaming, 13500's 14 cores would be a huge upgrade vs 4 cores.
@@mikem9536 ah for most singlepalyer games it’s plenty, I played several triple AAA and casual games on my 12100f and it’s great, ofc cyberpunk high crowd density brings it to its knees, but for me it’s a good experience. As it’s only kn my secondary system I know how great it is to have 8+ cores, but for me it is definitely enjoyable :)
Love seeing my 5800x3d, it is everywhere, sitting between top performer to the modest one.
me too haha
hmm this one is a tough choice, 13500 vs 7600. I think the easiest way do determine which one to get is to ask yourselves how long are you going to use this cpu. If its ~5 years then 13500 is pretty obvious choice, because it has much better MT performance and at the time when you will want to upgrade to new cpu, new sockets will be out already. If the answer aligns smth with "i dont know probably sooner than 5 years" then getting 7600 would serve better. I would avoid ddr4 unless you already have nice set of that.
Eh...I think people put too much stock in the "upgrade potential" of ryzen. Yes, last cycle it was great. But that was also because zen 1 and zen 2 sucked at gaming. Being able to upgrade that rather than being stuck is great. However, something like the 13900k down the line would still be excellent.
I personally swing towards upgrade potential myself, but mobo prices need to come down first. As of today, I would probably take the intel system. It is easy to get lost in the comments/reviews, but are poeple really willing to spend 100s of dollars today, and forego max performance TODAY, for the chance at better upgrades in the future?
@@boblablaw4857 i have to say that i resonate with your notion too, BUT upgrading to 13900k ~3-4 years later is kinda moot because you are more or less paying "just" for more cores, cache and better ram compatibility, IPC is basically the same. While in the meantime you will have access to much better - everything basically, with new cpus of ~2027. Its like upgrading from i5 10500 to 10900k when you can ditch all that and buy 13900k, which is much more superior cpu in literally everything.
@@h1tzzYT We'll see. I'm glad I got to reuse my mobo from zen+. But do most people really care that much? Generally a decent mobo is like ~$100-$120 max. Giving up performance NOW and pay more NOW to get potentially a better deal in 2027?
EDIT: If anything, the fact intel can support ddr4 or 5 is arguably more relevant currently.
@@boblablaw4857 i think that FOMO is a major factor behind ryzen upgradability hype, but i recon most people stay with their cpus at the very least for 2 gpu upgrades, on average every 4-5 years and i honestly think that in the meantime that ryzen upgradability becomes irrelevant more or less. Well at least people have options now, which is always good.
@@boblablaw4857 That's what I have been telling my friends. Socket compatibility is great but you are limiting your new cpu on old mobo or tons of features of your new mobo with old cpu. I can only upgrade my pc every 6 years or so. Believe me when i say the jumped in performance is mind blowing. Nothing works better than a new cpu and new motherboard.
At this point of writing this comment, Micro Center in the US is still running promotion for the AMD 7000 series. You get free GSkill Flare X5 DDR5 5600 or 6000 32GB. 7600X with DDR5 for $250 is a better choice.
DDR5 starting to make sense
I can buy used 5600x for about 140 Euro, buy new B450 mob for 60 Euro and 16 Gb of DDR4 for 50 Euro. NOTHING can beat that combo for a budget build and it would eaisly last for about 5 years with a mid range gpu.
Yeah, AM4 is a budget king. You can still upgrade to 5800X3D down the line for solid boost in gaming performance. Or Ryzen 9 for productivity.
I took a gamble and ordered 13500 when there was no trustworthy reviews. Price has gone +30€ in two weeks and I'm happy to see that it's beating my 5600X by a good margin.
Thank you for the review ☺️
Did you pick DDR4 or DDR5 rams for the 13500? And What motherboard brand did you opt for? I am still using an i7 4790k w/ MSI Z97 Gaming 5 combo from 2014. In need of an upgrade lol.
@@BravoSixGoingDark I watch a lot of Gamers Nexus, so I went with what they had: 6000mhz CL36 from G.Skill. Mobo is Asus B760-I
@@juhanimertanen3452 Interesting Choice..
can i use 3600 ddr4 with the i5 13500 ?
@@shitsheet7277 better to run it at 3466 as mentioned by Steve
The i5 13500 is the ABSOLUTE BEST upgrade for the i3 12100f budget builds. If you go for anything higher you will have to upgrade the cooling and PSU together with the CPU.
Thanks for this review. The productivity numbers looked very good, but unfortunately, the gaming performance isn't good enough compared to AMDs offerings. The thing could maybe replace the 12400, but the difference isn't big it seems. I would've liked to see the 12400 and 13400 included in the comparison.
For a software development machine, this is great value.
@@Manuel-rl6um or you could get a 5900 with b550?
If you are making money from compiling code get a 7900 for something that's efficient and ridiculously fast in multi threading for its price
@@aravindpallippara1577 For compiling I'd go with 13600K. Faster and cheaper than 5900X.
If you do a bclk OC the 12400 is actually better than the 13400 in everything.
@@S9uareHead well 7900 is the answer to 13600k (and 13700k)
It's easier to cool and faster at the same time
As much as an AMD fan boy I am, this is great. Love competition and processors launching with discounts. We win when there isn't just one person stonking everyone. Looks like a solid business and production processor and just a hair below 7600x at the same price. I think AMD really struggles competitively just because of board cost.
then makes it up for board longevity .. Intel has been falling behind now for years and losing market share year after year and the stupid thing is it not their CPU's ( both AMD and Intel will continue to leapfrog with cpu's) its their motherboard lifespan even a idiot cant argue that if you get 4-5 plus years out of a motherboard its still better than Intel's standard 2 max years !!
anyone buying a 13th gen now has a new mother board ( at most likely at AM5 platform costs ) for 14th gen so why bother throwing good money at a near dead platform !!
@@volvot6rdesignawd702 Problem is, that board longevity is a nice extra, but I don't think not too many people care about that. Don't use the tech youtuber bubble as a measure.
@@johnscaramis2515 thats the thing people do i mean why are people still hyped and the sales figures show the 5800x3d is outselling the 13th in some cases and clearly on a overall basis the 13th is a much better cpu but even the budget builders are paying that extra for 5800x3d cpu because they know its sides straight in to a old AM4 board ..
now think of that this gen there is support to 2025 + with AM5 ( now hypothetically ) lets say they support to zen 7 in theory my AM5 Asus x670e rog crosshair gene will be a pig but at that point i would be past the current Intel board past the 14th and 15th lets say z890-z990 and up to whatever the new board is from intel for 16th gen !!
that is great value in my opinion !
@@johnscaramis2515 also dont get me
wrong i have nothing against Intel cpu's i have a 10850k in a build and its a beast of a cpu despite the BS of the front M.2 not working in the z590i board because it only works with 11th gen..
but for my main build if i want to upgrade cpu's ( and i have my x570 has seen the 3700x the 5600x and the 5800x3d ) platform longevity makes much more sense !
This is why ive stuck to AMD
cost ok,t but see what you get when buying a motherboard for am5, equivalents for intel are not cheap and have less features
Looking forward to the AM5 motherboard comparison video!!
I think after Meteor Lake and Arrow Lake, Intel should consider making another change in compute tile in terms of cache after disaggregated design. In addition to Foveros and Foveros Omni packaging, maybe they can consider adding another L3 cache on top of the base L3 cache in compute tile, with Foveros Direct direct copper die stacking in the way similar to V-cache stacking
that "adding another L3 cache" was Intel's L4 cache back in the days in 4th and 5th gen CPUs. sadly Intel at that time had no competition, thus they removed the L4 cache in 6th gen. I wonder if they will ever bring it back again
@@MendAmar I meant it should be different from L4 cache. What I meant is now there is competition: 3D V-cache. So adding L3 cache on top of L3 cache would be necessary as it is more efficient than increasing clock speed in terms of performance per watt.
I Think core counts are now being used in very misleading ways - especially on laptops can have a 10 core machine but only 2 are performance cores meaning that some 6 core machines might be better
This might get more interesting a way down the track. I got a 12400F and Z690 basic motherboard in a combo on Newegg last year for a really good price. If the same thing happens with the 13500 and 13400 chips, they'll be a solid buy later.
With that cpu the 13500 wouldn't be much of an upgrade. You want the 13700F
Wonder how 13400 will compare
Should be close but I'm not sure Intel gonna drop the price to 200
Somewhat surprised how with DDR4 12 & 13 gen are basically Zen 3 in gaming and only with DDR5 they start to lift off
i5-13500 seems to be a good upgrade option from my i7-7700 (which is 7 years old already, ouch). I looked at Passmark CPU benchmarks list and checked a few AMD options close to the ratings of 13500, but somehow I cannot find any of those AMD CPUs in stores in my country for about the same price as 13500, which is 260 EUR. For example, 3900X costs 450 EUR in the cheapest stores in my country. Maybe Intel has a lobbyist campaign here or something 😀 Ryzen 7600 is available for about that price, but it's much lower in Passmark results.
Yeah its either buying a cheaper LGA1700 platform. Or start with the AM5 platform with a 7600.
@@johnd.1618 Yeah. Also I have feeling that PC companies will use this 13500 in their builds. I am on the AM4 platform and going to upgrade to a 5600 soon.
It will be a stupidity to go to that as a platform upgrade (mobo+cpu+ram) but as a upgrade to previous gen keeping the ddr-4 is a great value 😁 great testing as always 😀
That's something reviewers don't talk enough about. They are all very data first, real life second or not at all
@@tuckerhiggins4336 BS. Steve does that when relevant. The problem for the 13500 is that if you're already on a B660 board you're likely already on a 12400/12600(k), and the 13500 doesn't offer much upgrade for the expense in that case. Sure, if you started out with a 12100 budget build and has found some spare cash it could make sense, but that's an absolute corner case.
@@andersjjensen he mentions it occasionally, but nothing more than a footnote. I'm talking about in general. It should be emphasized. Like how a 5800x3d doesn't matter if you don't have at least a 3090 to show the difference.
@@tuckerhiggins4336 The latest video is dedicated to this very topic... I can't point to a channel that is more value focused than Hardware Unboxed. Also you're absolutely wrong about the 5800X3D. For people who primarily/only play competitive e-sports titles (I'm absolutely not one of them) a 5800X3D + 6600XT/3060ti yields significantly better performance than a 5600/10600 + 6900XT/3080. For people who play single player titles, especially if they also target higher resolutions, any old potato CPU and the biggest GPU they can afford, will give them the best performance. This is old news and has been old news since the dawn of multiplayer games.
Just bought 13500 new on eBay for $185. Is a good value if you don't plan on playing above 120hz.
Good stuff as always. One thing I'd be curious to see is comparing DDR5 Raptor Lake vs a DDR4 setup with top tier B-die at 14-14-14-34 timings. Basically see how the best of DDR4 can compare to DDR5, both mid-range typical speed DDR5 as well as top speed DDR5. It'd be an interesting comparison
I actually don't think the 13500 allows you to do this comparison since it limits DDR4 memory OC because of the locked voltage.
If you want to do a best of DDR4 vs DDR5 video justice then you'd need a 13600k at least.
Pretty cool as a secondary production or streamer rig. Shame that companies aren't trying to be as competitive on value overall. At least there's sub $300 options now... not that this price point is really 'budget'.
I miss the days when one could buy a cheap i3 550, oc it to 4.7GHz and games like Crysis ran like a dream.
Man it's kind of crazy how memory bandwidth has become so relevant again, for gaming especially.
Yep, but currently only on Intel. The Zen 4 CPUs gain almost no performance from DDR5 above 6000 speed, and many motherboards don't even support faster 6400 RAM out of the box, even with XMP profiles
Looks like many games are liking DDR5 vs DDR4.
In my head and for comparison the 7600 is a 7600X. It's so easy to set the 7600X values in the BIOS.
It would be awesome if You tested both B0 (Raptor, SRMBG) and C0 (Alder, SRMBN) steppings for i5 13400F.
Can you tell which one is which before buying?
@@KimBoKastekniv47 It depends, for a new product the seller sometimes (but rarely) mentions offered stepping. You can also demand the particular stepping as a note/comment for your order. On a used market it's easier, as usually there are pictures with either the bar codes on the box or the writings on the CPU visible.
If the whole ddr5 platform cost wasn't as is, I'd buy it.
But as it is, I think I'll wait 2-3 years. With the games I play i can def afford it.
If Zen 5 is as good as leaks indicate, it will definitely be worth waiting. Intel isn't expected to have much to compete with it ("Meteor Lake" is primarily for laptops and only goes up to 6 performance cores), but should finally come out with a competitive "Arrow Lake" architecture in late 2024 or early 2025.
Still happy with my i5-10400f :) But maybe next gen will demand an upgrade.
This is just a 12900k with 2 P-cores disabled, and lower clocked. Attentively it's a 12600k with 4 more E-cores enabled. Nothing Raptor Lake about it, really. The cache comes from the extra small cores that Alder Lake already had.
man the 5800x3d looks so good
also I really wish 4K results would be included, even if just in a single segment. I know some games it makes very little difference, but even in your own guys previous videos it sometimes can make a huge difference, 30+fps. I play at 4K120 so this is the spec that matters to me the most. =)
I totally agree. After shelling out for a 4090, it would be nice to see what difference different cpus make, if any.
@@thelmaviaduct Yep! most of the time its meh, like sub 5fps. but sometimes its way way higher.
@@AlaskanFalcon if you shelled out £2k for a 4090 and you're still 1080p or 1440p, then your priorities are a bit skewed imo Like taking your Ferrari food shopping.
@@thelmaviaduct can you read what the bottom of my comment says? At no point did I say I'm playing 1440p or 1080p. Lol
@@AlaskanFalcon you can read my comments, at no point did I say you do.
Thanks for addressing BCLK OC situation as I haven't seen anyone using a 7xx motherboard to check it. I have to wholeheartedly agree that Intel could have left it with no real impact on their K SKU CPUs. Even though your focus is more on the gaming aspect I appreciate immensely the fact that you do productivity and separate it out as there are a lot of us who do some and that capability alone can make or break a part.
Makes me glad I went with the 7600. Overclocked mine to 5.55ghz with PBO things a beast.
Review is amazing as always.
You should add a new tab in these budget i3 \ i5 CPUs.
Do a benchmark run with a cheaper GPU, so the people who are interested in buying this CPU, should know how it pairs with a 3060 ti, if the performance is the same with an r5 5600x, (while using an 3060 ti at 1440p) we shouldn't be misled into getting a more expensive CPU since it wont give us any more fps.
Assuming you can buy it. The i5-x500 CPUs are always harder/impossible to get at retail vs the x400 sku. Even when they're available the pricing can be wonky.
Where I live, is almolst impossible to find any i5-x500 CPUs, so the x400 is the only option most of the time ...
1:51 "Morning! Nice day for fishing ain't it! Hu ha! " 😁
According to some outlets like the German ComputerBase all non-K i3 and i5 13th Gen. CPUs are actually Alder Lake and not Raptor Lake, similar to what Intel has done with the i3-13100, which would also explain the cache sizes. The increase in performance over the 12th Gen. CPUs of the same type is, according to them, because of the increase in clock speeds and (depending on the benchmark) the addition of the E-Cores.
I also have a question regarding the locked SA voltage: is this only limiting for DDR4 but not DDR5? Or are you running DDR5 in G2 mode?
btw, using the same memory for DDR4 and DDR5 and both Intel and AMD platforms would probably have improved comparability
DDR5 is always in G2 mode, so no downgrade from the memory controller unless it's around 7000 MT/s where weaker controllers would fail. 13400F and 13400 come either as Alder Lake or Raptor Lake, with Alder being much more common, at least for now. It's not any urban legend, Raptor steppings are out there and some of them were actually "reviewed" if you can call something without any gaming benchmark a review.
@@T4ish0 Yeah I know about the 13400(F) having two different steppings, either the full Alder Lake one or the Raptor Lake one but cut down to match Alder Lake.
Thanks for the DDR5 G2 explanation, somehow I didn't know that.
I was going to go Ryzen 5600 for my daughter's budget build, but I'm going to use the 13500 with 16GB DDR4 on B660 for a bit more speed. In a few years, maybe I'll be able to find a used 13700K if necessary and let it yeet for a couple more years. Anyway, very interesting review. Thanks.
12400f costs roughly $160 currently. Can save $90 to put towards a faster Gpu. If you are using a midrange Gpu the difference between the 12400f and 13500 will be no more then 5%. Have fun with the build.
And so it went from budget to not so budget...
not much of an upgrade though when hampered By B660. 12600K on an msi-Z690 A pro with 3800+ DDR4 (like patrior steel vipers)is a good middleground if you want min max value for gaming performance. 13500 looks great for multicore workloads though.
I love that when you say "but before we do"
Congrats for DDR4 test need more videos like this look for budget segment
I'd rather get a Ryzen 5 7600 to be honest
No
Yes. This review unfortunately reveals how good R5 7600 is. Better game performance and lower power usage.
Only if you want 7-zip compression speed, go for 13500.
I have gone with 13500 + Intel arc as it is currently good for all things instead of the Ryzen only on gaming. Anyone who builds like me don't upgrade for at least 5 years so what is the point in the upgrade path I am not sure. Coz, that will be end of life by then unless they specify the exact date when the new platform will come. Anyways I think the Intel graphics platform needs compete well to unseat Nvidia to make GPU more competitive, under current circumstances I would support Intel vs the other greedy ones.
If the prices are almost similar , what would you recommend 13500 or 12700F ? Can you please provide a suggestion on this. Thank you.
13500 alın hem Çekirdek Sayısı hem Theards
UK:
Asus Prime H610M-A £53.16, 13500 £242.08, Kingston Fury Beast 2x8GB 3600MHz DDR4 £45.46 = £340.70 delivered inc VAT at CCL.
Glad to see Intel at this level of competition
Is the memory controller limitations new? As I've messed around with an i3 10100 on a B560 motherboard and it ran 3200 XMP all day. Then an i5 11500 was able to run XMP at 3600 all day. No tuning needed even though the spec sheet says 2666 for the i3 and 3200 for the i5. Both were in Gear 1 to clarify.
yes, introduced in 11th gen
@@tyre1337 I don't think Intel decided to make the 13th gen i5s perform worse than 11th gen in terms of memory controllers.
Like I said, I have an i5 11500 (currently in a server) that handles 3600 MHz XMP in Gear 1 without issue. I also have an i3 that does 3200 MHz XMP without issue despite the Intel spec sheet claiming a max of 2666.
I'm not sure if they have bad samples, a new more strict limitation was set in later generations, or they're choosing to ignore greater memory frequencies either at Intel's behest or they were just busy and didn't try it.
Love this kind of reviews. Thank you Steve.
Still cant stand paying more for an amd motherboard than the cpu itself for a budget chip.
good upgrade from i3 12100f?
I'm currently running that cpu with a gtx 1080ti on my MSI PRO z690. Is the MSI able to update bios to be compatible for 13th gen CPUs?
@@trcs3079 yeah
HUB just posted a 5600 vs 12100 vs 13100 video, where 5600 was somewhat better. See that and compare to the numbers here (through the 5600).
It depends on what else you have in your build and what you need.
i3 12100f is only a 4 core CPU that lacks hyperthreading, i5 13500 with 6 performance cores and 8 efficieny cores would be a big upgrade.
Even 13400F would be a neat upgrade from 12100F.
This review just cemented that I am going to grab a 5800X3D to upgrade my 5600X and give my son my 5600X to use with his 3060ti (he has my old 3600X right now).
why you didn't put the 13400f up there, why? you tried your best to avoid a non favorable match up for the 13400f
this makes me even more anxious to see the 7000 series X3D parts' performance...
Thanks for the review, it really helped me to go with a 12400 for gaming instead!
I've recently learned that Ryzen CPUs draw significantly more power than Intel chips during idle and low intesity applications (~8W for Intel/30-40W for AMD). As electricity costs haven risen drastically around the world and many owners will also use their PC for low intensity office applications, I'd really appreciate you adding an idle/low intesity workload test to the review
Good choice if you got a overclock motherboard. The 12400 beats the 13400 in everything at 5.2ghz. So you'd not only save money and power but also get better performance.
If not its still good, but like 12th gen overclocking gives massive gains, for some reason people get mad about it lol, but if you can such a mobo it's a very good buy.
@@tilburg8683 but in that case u had to spend more in motherboard. Still 12400 gets destroyed in aplication workloads
I'm pretty happy that you didn't fall for those 4 efficiency cores trap, it turns out those 4 efficiency cores are old gen i5 4th gen cores not worth it at all.
I was really rooting for 13500 but it disappointed me. Those e core are great addition but can't compete with 7600. Amd should really kick rnd for ep core structure which can blow intel how it did in while zen launch.
Well e cores are not meant for gaming, was already clear that the i5 would have performed worst than a 7600, it is like an underclocked 13600k with less L2. Besides that I think it is insanely good as a productivity cpu, 250$ for that level of performance was a dream just 3y ago
@@mastroitek absolutely but both has 6 p cores where intel kinda was a let down a bit. Still i think 2:1 ratio for p to e core can be good option like if future 6 core ryzen can come with 4 e core will be great. 8 e core to 6p look less senseable.
@@SC-hk6ui X3D versions will be far much better than intel's E cores
@@SC-hk6ui A graph of Intel's cpu market share vs AMD proves your point. Game developers aren't blind.
@@welfarestates8465 Intel is going from 8 P to 6 P. Their white paper on hyow software developers can utilise the new E cores should signal to people that chips like the 13500 will be around for a long time. They will be more supported than the AMD market share, and offer several advantages.
The 13500 exists so Intel can give Dell and HP a segmentation option for their corporate fleet products. Intel has made it abundantly clear that they don't want consumers to buy non-k parts.
recently looking into a 13500 since I am not looking for peak performance just a good all arounder. One benefit of the 13500 is also that I assumed that I could get a non-Z mobo and cut a few $$ there also. So in the cost per frame, I noticed that the 13500 DDR5 case was on a Z- mobo, but that was likely just for the memory compatability but I think it could go down a bit if not using a Z mobo
I have the 13500 in a B760 board with DDR5 5600mhz 32GB memory. Had no problems with it so far. Got the AMD RX6750XT GPU but I haven't installed it yet. Not using the stock cooler though. Not installed any games yet. Am waiting to save up for some extra SSD storage to install first. Much better than my 10 year older PC set up though, I can now watch 1080p RUclips without any buffering and stuttering issues.
@@daviniarobbins9298 Did you use XMP to run your DDR at 5600MHz? Is it working in gear 2 mode?
It is worth mentioning that by default Intel motherboard has a 65W Power limit disabled for non-k processors like 13500. So if you put it manually box cooler wood be enough for 65W TDP.
It's a little disappointing that HU didn't test this CPU with and without 65W limit. Like AMD processors in tests of 7600, 7700, 7900.
Boohoo, how was it disappointing? Steve said "out of the box performance".
@@Lionheart1188 some b660 MBs have 65W limit on. So "Out of the box performance" depends on the motherboard.
I was disappointed because they didn't even mention it.
Honestly for gaming alone the 5600x is still holding up quite well, especially when you consider you'll be pairing that with a much slower card than a 4090.
Yep, 5600x paired with an rtx 3090 here, can't fault it.
yes, they are even cheaper now. I just bought one with free Company of Heroes 3 game. No regrets for the price.
y, unless you have a ridiculously unbalanced rig and play at lower res the cpu doesn't have to be the newest to do a good job
Thanks for this review, I was waiting for a long time for this. You're the best
I’m waiting for the 13600 non k can’t wait to see how that performs compared to the 13600k
I would like you to consider the cost of cooler in the cost per frame (USD) especially in case of 7700 and 7700x since the in box cooler is enough for the 7700 and for the 7700x a good cooler is a must for getting its full potential. According to me the 7700 is a much cost effective and overall a better bang for buck CPU as compared to 7700x .
I agree with this, though really we need to see the intel box cooler numbers under a gaming workload. Throttling under cinebench is not good, but in gaming it's likely going to be fine. I get that we're trying to test the CPUs under optimal apples to apples conditions and it'd be easy to go down a rabbit hole of comparisons, so I'm kind of torn here.
Absolutely not. The cost per frame graphs are tentative at best because of constantly changing prices and different pricing across various regions. There's a good reason why a lot of outlets don't even make them. Adding coolers to the equation, not only you're facing the same problems (variable pricing) but also different people will want different coolers. Additionally, just because some people may judge the box cooler to be sufficient, that will not be the case for everyone as many people want lower temps and quieter systems. So having some CPUs with some kind of aftermarket cooler while having others without would make the whole segment completely useless.