Please note the Baldur's Gate 3 benchmark took place in the city of Baldur's Gate, the footage wasn't updated. We will make sure the footage is updated for future content featuring this test.
@@gaeborgah they could have ads on that site, which would probably mean more money tbh. A lot of people REALLY want a reliable site to compare, but most suck. They only one that’s decent to use is userbenchmark, but they are so incredibly biased and mentally Ill it makes comparing anything to amd useless
@blue-lu3iz I just wanted to ask, little bit OT... I have ASUS Prime B650 Plus MB,.. paired with fairly high end components (4090, 7700X).. am I limiting my performance by using B650?
Yeah, you know why budget cpus arent overklockeable? Because they are meant to be paired with equivalent cheapest components to get the job done. Also, CAN doesn't mean WILL.
@@Happiness-lp9fw you talking like someone that doesn't tune their system. Give me any CPU with a mid-range board and I can get great performance out of it especially if its not locked.
It's currently the lowest binned am5 part, I'd avoid it. Edit : I'm of course not saying the 13400F is worth considering, rather I would aim for the regular 7600
Locally it's only like 15 bucks short of the 7600 which seems utterly pointless but I'm in Australia, where Intel seems to dominate with pricing. I could see the US getting some really favourable deals on this but you'd wanna be saving $50 or more, I reckon.
@@masterluckyluke Everything is expensive? Lol iam buying hardware from Mindfactory for a 3 years because they have best prices in europe from my research, mindstar deals etc. And i am Czech.
One nitpick: at 12:36 the "Performance per Watt" title is inconsistent to what is then measured in the test, which is (I'd assume) W/fps. At first glance you expect "performance" to be better when higher, but the graphs and the subtitle tell the opposite. Maybe the title could be different, or the measurement should be changed to fps/W instead of the current W/fps.
Not really nitpick because the title of the graph is exactly the opposite of the results. If somebody just quickly hears out the conclusion and not really checking the graph or checking only the graph with the title, both can lead to misinformation. When Steve said the conclusion for that section I immediately raised my eyebrow. Especially because the subtitle says: [Measured in Watts] so it can't be 'per Watt'. Of course it happens and I'm not surprised that after this many benchmarking and data collection there is an error but it is still an error.
@@zoty314Yeah, that took me a second to recover from since it looked like Intel consistently scored higher "performance per watt" from the bar graphs until I read the text under the charts title 😅
@@dogdie147 I recall both but it's not the clock speed that matters here, the 13400F is a rebranded old gen product, it's at best halfway between the Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 5 7600X.
Speed alone is not enough, Steve here is using a motherboard with tuned subtimings out of the box for the Ryzen, so it's not exactly a fair comparison, but it is what it is I guess.
@@spaghettilocomotive How do you know this? In fact the intel platform is using the higher clocked memory with EXPO/XMP. Seems like you are throwing some shade there, I would love to see you back it up with evidence.
@@spaghettilocomotive WTF??? The only thing "not fair" about this video would be the fact that he's using 7200 ram vs 6000 ram. But, that's okay to me because Intel can sometimes get to 7200 and they offer 7200 and they need that extra lift. Imagine how bad Intel would look if Steve did 6000 compared to 6000. Stop being a fanboy and start being a fan of the best performer regardless of company.
Think that it's really a 12th gen part, it's a locked and downclocked 12600K die, so it's not featuring the architecture improvements brought with Raptor Lake. It was likely for it to lose. I think the locked 13600 is Raptor Lake so that one might perform better, but I dont know it's price
6:05 I Love, LOVE this new addition to your reviews!! Since a lot of modern games are CPU bound, it's very helpful to know just how much GPU you need before you're at the point of diminishing returns.
The 7500F looks like a pretty good place holder CPU with decent upgrade paths. I assume the AM5 has two more generations left to go. If the GPUs continue to be the way they are, you may not need any upgrades at all, who knows?
Exactly. It will pair well with a mid-range GPU and you got the option to do a "drop in" upgrade later on when you upgrade the gpu. A 5800X3D/5600X3D type of upgrade right at the end of the platforms lifecycle will make it a sound long term investment.
He can play with it for the next few years and have good performance with it, which is worth something. Should he play with shitty performance until the end of AM5? then you would say wait for AM6, but not the cheap ones at the start of AM6 lol. He can sell the CPU in 2 years too, so the loss is small. Also CPUs get cheaper, he could buy a 8800X3D for perhaps 300 bucks (or a cheper 8700 CPU) when the 9800X3D is released and until then have enough CPU power with the 7500F or 7600 (x)@@igelbofh
In general, I'm in favor of measuring overall system power consumption but as many have already pointed out it just doesn't make sense in this comparison. The less tech-savvy viewers might not have understood the references to other GPU's potential throughput, and thus the "quick and dirty" look at the numbers would see both contestants roughly equal, when in fact the AMD part is already superior out of the box and allows for further tuning by more advanced users, whereas the Intel part is nowhere near its contender when it comes to either power consumption as a raw figure or performance per watt.
The 7500F is a great little chip. It should be interesting how low it is actually priced here in Europe. The ACC results have been omitted from the charts, can we get them back please? As a sim racer, your service to the sim racing community is of particular help. Thanks!
The 7500F is a real performer if you're looking to get into the 7000 series from AMD, this is the perfect solution before you go paying over $700 plus for their high-end CPU's. I am surprised how much ahead the 7500F is ahead of the Intel 13400F well done to AMD.
7500F is $209 Canadian, while the 7600 is $299, price is before taxes on both, and 7500F has to be bought from Aliexpress. I guess if you are penny crunching on your build and you are patient, the 7500F is a good buy.
What a healthy, interesting battle! In recent years I've gotten rich enough to consider high-end products, but even now, it's still more interesting to me to watch the mid-range competition game playing out. Now if only the graphics market came back to something like this ...
What unit is performance per Watt actually measured in? Because it seems like, that it should be frames/Watt, if you measure performance in FPS. But as the chart is measured in Watts and lower is better, aren't you really measuring Watt per performance? And even then, the chart should show the unit as Watt/frame
The 13400F is $200 right now in the US and that doesn't count any Micro Center in-store magic. Until we know the price, the value of the 7500F is unknown. If it's the same price or lower AND actually gets stock outside China, it's interesting. If it's like $210 or $220 USD, kind of just another step on the ladder and not exciting at all.
AM5 already has budget performance options for AM5 boards. A620M-HDV/M2+ and B650M-HDV/M2, now A620 board does not support 170W cpu's but does support anything up to 120W. B650 board supports anything you throw at it. Also DDR5 6000 CL36 ram is at cheapest already at 32GB under 70$ and those two mainboards are at 96$ (A620) and 125$ (B650). And if those boards are not at good enough performance then there is MSI B650M-A WiFI at 139$, AsRock B650M PG Riptide at 169$ and if even those are not enough then Gigabyte B650M Aorus Elite at 183$ should be good enough for anything you throw at it.
There already are budget options for AM5 on the B650 chipset. DDR5 prices have also been dropping. You can get a decent set of DDR5 for well under US$100.
DDR5 is barely any more expensive than DDR4 at this point. Prices have collapsed in the past six months. B650 and X670 boards are still way too expensive though, especially if you want something with PCIe 5.0 support to set yourself up for the entire AM5 generation.
CPUs are in pretty good spot in all segments, wish I could say the same about GPUs, where there's nothing playable under $600 if you account for UE5 games.
@@overgaard1337yes, UE5 requires a midrange card. That’s a problem today because midrange means something completely different (the $600 in question isn’t “high end” anymore). Back in the day, a new engine accompanying a new console generation would be more demanding, but definitely at least playable on $200 midrange graphics hardware in a console-priced budget build. Today, PC price-performance is still drastically behind the new consoles 3 years after they launched. AMD and nVidia have played the market. nVidia don’t really care if less people buy the cards because they’re transitioning further into CAD and AI. AMD don’t really care if less people buy the cards because their hardware is in the console that you’d buy instead. So when the opportunity came to sell graphics cards with 5x the margin that they used to, nVidia jumped on it, and AMD thought it was more lucrative to join them than to operate in the budget sector with no competition. The 6700XT therefore is AMD’s only competent affordable offering (nVidia have absolutely none), and it sells for around 320. And you’re not even getting a proper midrange sweet-spot card for that money. It happens to be roughly equivalent to the PS5’s GPU, although of course you’d lack optimisation, and there’s no way you’re building a machine around it for the price of a PS5. Back when the PS4 launched you’d get a GTX 770 for that money and that would run any game comfortably for years. You’re right in that it’s totally reasonable for UE5 to require a midrange card. But the midrange is beyond people’s reach. The PC platform has never had this problem before, where the majority of players flat out can’t launch new games. It’s gonna be interesting.
@@ChrisStoneinator Nvidia manufacturing node is much more expensive. I am an AMD user since forever, zero complains. But AMD are currently in a position where they got almost no throwaways, basically way cheaper manufacturing node. If Nvidia are greedy, AMD are way greedier for these asking prices especially in the mid-below mid range, matching the competition prices (when it comes to gpus :/) A time will come where that leftover RDNA2 supply will dry out, today is a good day for buying a 1440p entry level product, compared to what we had 1-2 years ago
The 7500f would make for a perfect super budget chip for am5 once zen 5 starts to show up. Seeing this thing sub $120 would make it a perfect buy along with the 2 dimm asrock b650 board and a cheap kit of a-die. You'd have good performance up front along with an upgrade path to zen 6 as it comes along in a few years.
Crazy that 1 graphical setting makes a 1,600$ GPU the limiting factor when paired with a ~180$ budget CPU. Ray-tracing definitely still needs a lot of time before it's actually worth using.
So many great good value options on cpus. Why cant gpus have any great value products just as this... Maybe the current promo price of 6950xt is the only one right now. 6700xt perhaps. But the value for money still isnt anywhere close on what cpus can provide.
This is definitely something I'd like to look into so I can upgrade my R5 2600, which is still going strong, but showing its age, even if I'm not doing AAA gaming at all
consider a 5800x3D I have benchmarks on my YT channel as well of some indie games. It's a beast and I'm generally GPU limited even at 1080p in most games. This thing will last me at-least another 4 years, maybe even more.
even a 2nd hand $100 5600 would be an huge upgrade to your CPU. but i also recommend 5800x3d due to how fast it is while being in am4 platform. unless you want longevity, then i can understand why you opt for AM5.
Feel like if you were going intel you would just go 12600. Cheaper than the 13400 in the states. AM5 is definitely the path right now though on the budget side.
I think looking at power use with overall system consumption rather than just CPU power consumption makes the results too "contaminated" by GPU behaviour, if there are big differences in frame rate this causes the GPU to work harder and consume more energy for the best performing part regardless of it's own power use, and in the more limited scenarios the GPU can also downclock and reduce it's voltage when underutilized making it more efficient at the same time. I think it was better when the reviews compared the power use of just the reviewed component (CPU or GPU) rather than overall system power. I understand the whole metric is important specially to give an indication on what sort of power supply requirement would be needed, but the individual component power consumption should also be featured in the chart or as a separate graph I think, and make the conclusions based on that.
Didn't even know they were releasing 7500F. I wonder whether they release some super entry level CPU as well. Though arguably you could say their AM4 stuff covers that. But we will need some Athlon on AM5 sooner or later. It might be possible soon, since prices of DDR5 and AM5 mobos are going down. Or maybe there already is such product and I'm not aware? There weren't many reviews of Athlons or Pentiums (that were often sub 50$ parts). Of course you mostly cater to enthusiasts, but once or twice a year it might be good idea to cover such stuff. Cheers!
I was momentarily in awe when I saw the Baldur's Gate 3 benchmark, because I realized it was the first time that a game I am interested in was included in the benchmarks ;D I love Bethesda and FromSoftware games and those are never included given they have been FPS limited ..
Fascinating-that point about the CPU even limiting the GPU at 4k shows how high end GPUs effectively require the best CPUs to ensure no performance loss.
When the 4090 was announced, people were afraid even high end CPUs might bottleneck it. But these days we have budget CPUs that can extract the full potential of a 4090 at UHD
thats stupid, its a known fact it simply depends on the game. most games are SEVERELY gpu heavy, but something turn based tends to be more cpu heavy. also anything with a dense city, in the city will always hit the cpu harder.
When it comes to power usage, I'd be interested in seeing how much the CPUs consume power at idle. That information would make quite a big difference when it comes to choosing a CPU for a home server running 24/7, mostly at idle. Based on user self-reports I've come across online, Intel CPUs seem to consume a lot less power at idle than AMD CPUs. Additionally, Intel CPUs have Quick Sync, which is great for transcoding video, so you can efficiently stream video content from your server. So, if you have old systems lying in the corner and you're thinking of building an efficient home server with light expected CPU loads, it would seem to behoove you to build an Intel system. (In case you're curious about my power consumption, I run a home server with an I5-7500 without a discrete GPU + 3 HDDs and 2 NVMe drives for cache, and the whole system draws around 28 W from the wall at idle. For comparison, AMD systems seem to consume at least 50 or so watts.)
This has been observed to be caused by the io die chiplet which was made on older node and less efficient that the cores chiplet themself. Mobile based AMD cpu however is another matter as they usually consist of one monolithic die and lacked io die, thus uses less power at idle. If you are building cpu from gound up and idle is your primary concern, do look for mobile based amd cpu like the minisforum mini box for example.
I would love to see a 7500f vs 7600 comparison at stock and pbo. That would really show if performance between these 2 identical chips is actually the same
A direct comparrison between those two would've made more sense. The i5 is on an end of life platform. If you're building from scratch it would mean you are spending money on a PC with no real upgrade path. Other than higher end CPU of the same gen. The 7000s mobos would allow for a CPU upgrade 2 gens down the line while keeping the same. And the 7500 over the 7600 you can instead put 20-30 more on a mobo. That in the case of current prices, it does make a difference on features and VRM. $130 to 150 or 150 to 170-180. That would make sure not only that the 1 or 2 gens down the line still work. But that a higher end version would work well. Like a R7 9800 or something like that. If your are gonna nickle and dime to the point an intel 13XXX is an option. Then why go AM5 and not AM4?
How was your "Performance Per Watt" graph created? Normally such a graph would be FPS per Watt, but your graph says "Lower is Better" which would tend to suggest that you intended to create some backwards "Watt Per Performance" graph showing Watt per FPS?
I bought one for 152 USD on Ebay weeks ago. Oc'd it to 5.2 all core under a Thermalright Assassin SE for 41 Canadian and called it a day. 5.2Ghz 247365.
Im still debating either the 7500f, the 7600 or the 7600x (the 2 latter ones are the same price afaik), i planned to pair them with the asrock b650m pro rs, but im afraid with the 7500f i need to flash the bios for it to even boot, kinda afraid of that, atleast with the 7600's it can boot, but the difference is 40 dollars so dunno what to do really.
DON'T BUY INTEL! I'm stating this as a user of the 13900K. I've felt deceived. The performance of the E-cores is on par with my aging i7 3770k. It feels like a blend of modern cores with outdated ones from a decade ago. I cannot endorse this choice. Opt for AMD for the time being until Intel shifts to manufacturing CPUs with TSMC and discontinues the E-cores, which have been controversial.
That just runs contrary to how we've seen the processor behave in apps and games. The cores might run at the same clock speed as your old i7 but IPC has increased every gen.
@@nimrodery The P-cores are undeniably fast. However, I must point out that the E-cores appear to lack practical utility, and the inclusion of 16 of them seems excessive. How am I expected to utilize them effectively? Are they intended for running virtual machines with subpar CPU performance from a decade ago? It would have been more sensible to invest in a budget Ivy Bridge server CPU, which currently costs less than 50 dollars.
@@ahmedmahrotos2335 You might get more cores but they'd be slower at the same clock speed (and server parts are often clocked at half the speed of your E-cores). Maybe you just need a bigger cooler, a higher TDP would allow more headroom and you should be experiencing a damn good CPU. Either that or you got a dud that you should RMA. I'm sitting on an older i7 and it's not that great. The price to performance ratio is probably not bad on older server gear but you'll lose performance in basically every application. edit: changed "P-cores" to "E-cores," i always mix those up
If we assume that 4 e cores are equal to 1 p core in sillicon, 13900K would be an amazing 12-core CPU, if intel didn't go with these gimped e-cores. Their purpose is to inflate core counts and pump the cinebench score. And 13600K would be a 8-core monster.
Not only is the i5 slower it also has the latency issue that intel has had for the last few gens now AND intel cant keep a platform together for more than 2 years so really there is no reason to buy an intel cpu right now (and really hasnt been a reason for the last 5 or so years) Bulldozer+ (Rentable Units) better be amazing otherwise they should just give up and start making GPUs
Muy bueno y sorprendente la potencia del AMD.. me gustó mucho. Me gustaría ver una comparativa de rendimiento de ryzen 5 7500f vs ryzen 5 7600.. para ver qué tanto es la diferencia de obligar a trabajar más al GPU
The difference is going to be minuscule. The 7500f is a 7600 without integrated graphics and slightly lower clock speeds, 100mhz as stated in the video.
se ve bueno pero realmente esperaba que los rumores de que costara 160$ fuera cierto porque a 180 y con el 7600 bajando ahsta 200 en oferta como que no es muy buen incentivo para ir por el.
Maybe you should add the current fastest gaming cpu as a reference, just so we could see what we are potentially missing out on? Unless it's to distracting and extra work?
This is huge. I sometimes skip straight to the graphs and this time I was confused about the results. I thought to myself “Wasn’t intel supposed to be good or at least on par with amd?” Then I remembered intel allows for ddr4 ram sticks so maybe that’s why. Rewinded back to test configuration and shocked by the fact that both are tested with ddr5 sticks. Wow.
The problem with the 13400(F) is that it's not really 13th gen; it uses Alder Lake and is more or less a downclocked 12600K. Because of that it misses out on Raptor Lake's improved L2 and L3 cache, which makes a big difference in gaming performance. And the 13500 is a weird hybrid that has Raptor Lake L3 but Alder Lake L2. If you want an intel CPU that can really challenge Zen 4 in gaming workloads, you need a 13600K or more.
The 7500F really seems like the best option in a vast majority of cases and if I was to buy or recommend to any friends or family it's really hard to argue against. I have read about a problem with recent Intel CPUs that they have moved some scheduling hardware off package. I don't know what CPUs are affected by this and haven't had the chance to see it for myself. From the information I've seen it appears to add latency when it comes to comes to simpler tasks such as launching and interacting with 'easier' workloads such as launching a web browser or performing tasks within a program that isn't necessarily classically resource intensive. Having these kinds of scheduling means the CPU needs to be assigned their short, sort of unexpected work, off package and the physical distance is just a lot longer. Have you noticed this at HWU at all? It seems when the cpu is prepared with a more complex instruction it's not an issue. It can prepare the workload of a benchmark without any problems and so the result isn't affected in graphs like these. Do you notice anything outside of the benchmarking? Like switching between or loading tabs in internet browsers, loading parts of the control panel for example? This is something Intel were very good at with Sandy Bridge as an example, the snappyness of day-to-day operations. And how good is AMD in comparison? This would be something that I as a consumer would like more information about. Good test scores is absolutely the #1 metric but snappiness in everyday use might be a hard to test part of performance numbers but it still interests me a great deal. Thank you for your diligent work, I was just wondering if it's possible to construct some sort of test to see how, in a lack of a better word, well it performs with in the experience of how quickly it responds in regular use. (i wish I could make my point with less text but it's a complicated and very much something subjective)
How much is that after factoring avg inflation? May still not be great, prices suck on everything lately, but it's probably a smaller gap than at initial glance.
I didn't remember off-hand how the 7600 compared to Raptor Lake (or in this case should we call it Alder Lake Refresh??)... so I'd expected to see the 13400F come out on top. Pretty interesting overall. I'd have loved to have CPU-only power consumption, mostly "for science" to remove the added system power draw of the GPU driving higher FPS, but I understand that this is a lot of work and requires special tooling. Even as-is, super happy that you're covering this CPU and really like how you test.
i wish u added some productivity benchmark. id like to see 7z decompression as thats whats 99% people use. id also like to see a power efficiency comparison and benefits of undervolting
*Can you please, include at least single CPU OC graph/result:* - because all AMD cpu are unlocked - a "quick a dirty" OC is enough, I think, to get the general idea how OC cable is the CPU - especially CPUs like this, what have a reduced frequency, out of the box - one or two games of your choosing is enough (so it wont take to much of your time) ; games what benefits most of higher cpu freq. Thx! Great video by the way!👍
So if we paired the 7500f and 13400f with a 6700xt I am guessing the difference would be at max 5%. Next gen Gpus should see the 7500f pull ahead but Intel has 14th gen coming in 4 months. AM5 has better longevity with the platform but honestly IMHO if you had either Cpu you would have a great budget system for gaming. Edit- It seems the B650 AM5 Mobo costs more then a B660 or B760 board. Almost forgot you can still go DDR4 with Intel if you have a nice set of D4 Ram you are not ready to retire. Again pick which works best for you as both will give you good and fun gaming for years.
I don't like total system power usage as a metric precisely because a faster CPU will usually let a CPU-bottlenecked GPU utilise more of the GPU and therefore use more power. I understand motherboard chipsets use some power and memory could vary slightly but I am pretty sure these things are negligible or at least similar enough. Is it really enough to warrant using such a messy metric as total system power? I think total system power can be tested but only to work out if there is a big difference or an issue with the platforms, not a main benchmark.
Thanks for the video. I don't think the way you compare power usage makes much sense because power use doesn't scale linearly with performance. Instead it would make more sense to show the power use difference at the same performance level, i.e. pinned to some frame rate.
What is the difference to the 12600k? I go looking for deals and find really good deals on Intel stuff. I'd probably choose a Z690 and 12600k because it has used motherboards available for cheaper, also supply and demand. Lots of 12600k being dumped on used market or markdowns.
I know it's extremely superficial of me, but the main reason I don't jump on the AM5 platform is...I don't like any of the RGB ram aesthetics out there right now. AM4 has way better and diverse looking RGB designed ram kits still.
Please note the Baldur's Gate 3 benchmark took place in the city of Baldur's Gate, the footage wasn't updated. We will make sure the footage is updated for future content featuring this test.
Random observation: In germany the 7500F has been available for 2 weeks already. Priced around 200€ when the 7600(X) has been hovering around 225€
"Ah! See?! They don't update everything for benchmark! I told ya'!"
/s
@@warlordwossman5722 About the same as the UK, I got one for testing 5 days ago.
and 12600k is now in discount for 200$ or less!!@@warlordwossman5722
GN: The problem with hardware unboxed
Nice of them to use the same letter to indicate a lack of an iGPU.
But then what will AMD do when they have an X series CPU without an iGPU? Will we see the return of the FX branding? :)
@@leonroprobably XF similar to Intel's KF
@@vindicator879XF sounds sick
@@leonro7500F- good 7500X- good 7500FX- immediately sets your neighborhood on fire somehow 😂
I feel stupid for not realizing all AM5 processors had an iGPU by default!
It’d be sick if you guys had a website with a compare section for all the products you’ve tested. That would truly be insane
It is called Patreon :)
UA-cam views and basically livelihood: i don't feel so good
They do have a website, not sure if it has comparisons: Techspot
The tests and configurations are updated so often that there's very little overlap.
@@gaeborgah they could have ads on that site, which would probably mean more money tbh. A lot of people REALLY want a reliable site to compare, but most suck. They only one that’s decent to use is userbenchmark, but they are so incredibly biased and mentally Ill it makes comparing anything to amd useless
This CPU is a budget beast! And the upgradeability of AM5 makes the 7500F a more compelling option to use in the long run.
That is, if you choose a proper board
Yup. AM5 will have a long life.
@@vincentvega3093 I mean why wouldn't you choose a proper board for AM5, its a new platform no reason to cheap out
amd socket's longevity is the reason why im ditching intel!
@blue-lu3iz I just wanted to ask, little bit OT... I have ASUS Prime B650 Plus MB,.. paired with fairly high end components (4090, 7700X).. am I limiting my performance by using B650?
You can overclock or apply PBO2 to 7500F, while 13400f is locked.
Yeah, you know why budget cpus arent overklockeable? Because they are meant to be paired with equivalent cheapest components to get the job done. Also, CAN doesn't mean WILL.
@@Happiness-lp9fwig It makes sense but it's still free performance
Exactly
@@Happiness-lp9fwthis one can easily get 5% more juice with proper hands doing tune...
@@Happiness-lp9fw you talking like someone that doesn't tune their system.
Give me any CPU with a mid-range board and I can get great performance out of it especially if its not locked.
So hype for 7500F, really curious to see if its an affordable entryway into AM5
eh, just buy 7600
its like 220 bucks still@@fayis4everlove
It's currently the lowest binned am5 part, I'd avoid it.
Edit : I'm of course not saying the 13400F is worth considering, rather I would aim for the regular 7600
it cost 160$ in malaysia..certainly a good entry into am5..you can also find b650m pg riptide for 130$..
Locally it's only like 15 bucks short of the 7600 which seems utterly pointless but I'm in Australia, where Intel seems to dominate with pricing. I could see the US getting some really favourable deals on this but you'd wanna be saving $50 or more, I reckon.
This CPU is in stock in my country (CZE) and cost 195eur incl. VAT while 13400F cost about 230eur. Not a bad deal at all.
What's the expected delivery date? We have a few online store listings here in Latvia with 210 euro price, but with delivery date in September.
I don't know if it's true, but they say 20+ pieces in stock and delivery tomorrow.@@damdibidum
230 is too much, Mindfactory (Germany, where everything is very expensive :D) has the 13400F for 195Euros.
V jakém obchodě? Jsem si myslel že to bude jenom v prebuild sestavách
@@masterluckyluke Everything is expensive? Lol iam buying hardware from Mindfactory for a 3 years because they have best prices in europe from my research, mindstar deals etc. And i am Czech.
One nitpick: at 12:36 the "Performance per Watt" title is inconsistent to what is then measured in the test, which is (I'd assume) W/fps. At first glance you expect "performance" to be better when higher, but the graphs and the subtitle tell the opposite.
Maybe the title could be different, or the measurement should be changed to fps/W instead of the current W/fps.
Not really nitpick because the title of the graph is exactly the opposite of the results. If somebody just quickly hears out the conclusion and not really checking the graph or checking only the graph with the title, both can lead to misinformation. When Steve said the conclusion for that section I immediately raised my eyebrow. Especially because the subtitle says: [Measured in Watts] so it can't be 'per Watt'. Of course it happens and I'm not surprised that after this many benchmarking and data collection there is an error but it is still an error.
@@zoty314Yeah, that took me a second to recover from since it looked like Intel consistently scored higher "performance per watt" from the bar graphs until I read the text under the charts title 😅
Damn, i expected 13400 to put up a fight, but looks like it competes with 5600/5700x instead
The 13400F has completely identical specs to the 12600KF, except it's clocked lower which is why it cannot compete with the new Ryzens or the 13600K.
@@lharsayis it based clock or that is the max clock
@@dogdie147 I recall both but it's not the clock speed that matters here, the 13400F is a rebranded old gen product, it's at best halfway between the Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 5 7600X.
@@dogdie147Mostly Max Clock
When I heard the difference in RAM speed I thought this would be super close or even a loss for Ryzen. Impressive result by AMD. Might be a new 3600.
Speed alone is not enough, Steve here is using a motherboard with tuned subtimings out of the box for the Ryzen, so it's not exactly a fair comparison, but it is what it is I guess.
@@spaghettilocomotive How do you know this?
In fact the intel platform is using the higher clocked memory with EXPO/XMP.
Seems like you are throwing some shade there,
I would love to see you back it up with evidence.
@@spaghettilocomotive WTF??? The only thing "not fair" about this video would be the fact that he's using 7200 ram vs 6000 ram. But, that's okay to me because Intel can sometimes get to 7200 and they offer 7200 and they need that extra lift. Imagine how bad Intel would look if Steve did 6000 compared to 6000. Stop being a fanboy and start being a fan of the best performer regardless of company.
Think that it's really a 12th gen part, it's a locked and downclocked 12600K die, so it's not featuring the architecture improvements brought with Raptor Lake. It was likely for it to lose.
I think the locked 13600 is Raptor Lake so that one might perform better, but I dont know it's price
Licking intel's boots won't give you a 13900k for free@@spaghettilocomotive
I like that you're using the best ram speeds for both platforms as it really gives us an idea of how these systems can perform at the user level
6:05 I Love, LOVE this new addition to your reviews!! Since a lot of modern games are CPU bound, it's very helpful to know just how much GPU you need before you're at the point of diminishing returns.
Now i would be interested to see how it compares against an I5 13500 or maybe even an 13600 non K in FPS titles.
The pricing difference thoughh
Was getting ready to build a pc glad I watched this video I couldn’t choose between 7500F & 13400F. Now i know to get the 7500F
The 7500F looks like a pretty good place holder CPU with decent upgrade paths.
I assume the AM5 has two more generations left to go. If the GPUs continue to be the way they are, you may not need any upgrades at all, who knows?
My thought as well. Gets you onto the platform easily and then you know 100% that there will be something worth upgrading to down the line.
Don't do it. Wait and save your money. Placeholder + "real" cpu is way more in the end.
Exactly. It will pair well with a mid-range GPU and you got the option to do a "drop in" upgrade later on when you upgrade the gpu. A 5800X3D/5600X3D type of upgrade right at the end of the platforms lifecycle will make it a sound long term investment.
He can play with it for the next few years and have good performance with it, which is worth something. Should he play with shitty performance until the end of AM5? then you would say wait for AM6, but not the cheap ones at the start of AM6 lol. He can sell the CPU in 2 years too, so the loss is small. Also CPUs get cheaper, he could buy a 8800X3D for perhaps 300 bucks (or a cheper 8700 CPU) when the 9800X3D is released and until then have enough CPU power with the 7500F or 7600 (x)@@igelbofh
I still remember the 1600af. THIS is another PEAK price to performance product.
I think this would be like the Ryzen 5 3500X & 3500 where they were first introduced in China before they got sold worldwide
~US$185 here in Indonesia and already available officially, while 7600 is ~$218 and 7600x is ~$234
In general, I'm in favor of measuring overall system power consumption but as many have already pointed out it just doesn't make sense in this comparison.
The less tech-savvy viewers might not have understood the references to other GPU's potential throughput, and thus the "quick and dirty" look at the numbers would see both contestants roughly equal, when in fact the AMD part is already superior out of the box and allows for further tuning by more advanced users, whereas the Intel part is nowhere near its contender when it comes to either power consumption as a raw figure or performance per watt.
The 7500F is a great little chip. It should be interesting how low it is actually priced here in Europe.
The ACC results have been omitted from the charts, can we get them back please? As a sim racer, your service to the sim racing community is of particular help. Thanks!
Im curious to see how it compares to the 5800X3D, the recent drop prices and this new budget option would fight quite a battle
AMD's excellent processor, 13400F didn't stand a chance
The 7500F is a real performer if you're looking to get into the 7000 series from AMD, this is the perfect solution before you go paying over $700 plus for their high-end CPU's. I am surprised how much ahead the 7500F is ahead of the Intel 13400F well done to AMD.
I just noticed the subtle shading with the benchmark numbers, with red and blue respectively. I like it!
7500F is $209 Canadian, while the 7600 is $299, price is before taxes on both, and 7500F has to be bought from Aliexpress. I guess if you are penny crunching on your build and you are patient, the 7500F is a good buy.
did you have to pay any customs in canada?
So 10% more performance for 20% cheaper and better platform support with at about two more generations of amd release with am5
Win win win
What a healthy, interesting battle! In recent years I've gotten rich enough to consider high-end products, but even now, it's still more interesting to me to watch the mid-range competition game playing out.
Now if only the graphics market came back to something like this ...
So 7500F is good for up to 7900xtx and rtx 4080 and is on a future proof platform and also faster and cheaper.
7500F wins no brainer!
Steve your last few videos have been home run’s!! Honestly great comparison and thank you for all you do
What unit is performance per Watt actually measured in? Because it seems like, that it should be frames/Watt, if you measure performance in FPS. But as the chart is measured in Watts and lower is better, aren't you really measuring Watt per performance? And even then, the chart should show the unit as Watt/frame
Seems to me like it's Watt/Fps, yes
Avg fps comparison, 1% lows comparison, as well as fps/W comparisons.
I'm lovin' your work man. Absolutely mega job!
Oc the 7500f and save money guys
My 7500f can oc to 5.4 with 1.19 vc
The 13400F is $200 right now in the US and that doesn't count any Micro Center in-store magic. Until we know the price, the value of the 7500F is unknown. If it's the same price or lower AND actually gets stock outside China, it's interesting. If it's like $210 or $220 USD, kind of just another step on the ladder and not exciting at all.
Do you think it would be possible to make video including overclocks? Because with an overclocked 13400f, it is really close to the 13600k.
You can't overclock 13400F lol
Nice to see solid CPUs at a budget price. Either would get the job done. 👍👍👍
It's amazing performance for the price. Hoping AM5 boards and ddr5 ram get budget performance options too.
AM5 already has budget performance options for AM5 boards. A620M-HDV/M2+ and B650M-HDV/M2, now A620 board does not support 170W cpu's but does support anything up to 120W. B650 board supports anything you throw at it. Also DDR5 6000 CL36 ram is at cheapest already at 32GB under 70$ and those two mainboards are at 96$ (A620) and 125$ (B650). And if those boards are not at good enough performance then there is MSI B650M-A WiFI at 139$, AsRock B650M PG Riptide at 169$ and if even those are not enough then Gigabyte B650M Aorus Elite at 183$ should be good enough for anything you throw at it.
There already are budget options for AM5 on the B650 chipset. DDR5 prices have also been dropping. You can get a decent set of DDR5 for well under US$100.
DDR5 is barely any more expensive than DDR4 at this point. Prices have collapsed in the past six months. B650 and X670 boards are still way too expensive though, especially if you want something with PCIe 5.0 support to set yourself up for the entire AM5 generation.
There already have been for a while
cheap crucial ddr5 around 30 usd
Nice framing and great picture quality in this video. Something changed?
Same old, but thank you.
CPUs are in pretty good spot in all segments, wish I could say the same about GPUs, where there's nothing playable under $600 if you account for UE5 games.
Is UE5 standard for the budget gpus now? If you want top of the line performance, get a top of the line gpu
@@overgaard1337 I mean UE 4 was top of the line before , but atleast the 3060 can run it...
@@overgaard1337yes, UE5 requires a midrange card. That’s a problem today because midrange means something completely different (the $600 in question isn’t “high end” anymore). Back in the day, a new engine accompanying a new console generation would be more demanding, but definitely at least playable on $200 midrange graphics hardware in a console-priced budget build. Today, PC price-performance is still drastically behind the new consoles 3 years after they launched. AMD and nVidia have played the market.
nVidia don’t really care if less people buy the cards because they’re transitioning further into CAD and AI. AMD don’t really care if less people buy the cards because their hardware is in the console that you’d buy instead.
So when the opportunity came to sell graphics cards with 5x the margin that they used to, nVidia jumped on it, and AMD thought it was more lucrative to join them than to operate in the budget sector with no competition.
The 6700XT therefore is AMD’s only competent affordable offering (nVidia have absolutely none), and it sells for around 320. And you’re not even getting a proper midrange sweet-spot card for that money. It happens to be roughly equivalent to the PS5’s GPU, although of course you’d lack optimisation, and there’s no way you’re building a machine around it for the price of a PS5. Back when the PS4 launched you’d get a GTX 770 for that money and that would run any game comfortably for years.
You’re right in that it’s totally reasonable for UE5 to require a midrange card. But the midrange is beyond people’s reach. The PC platform has never had this problem before, where the majority of players flat out can’t launch new games. It’s gonna be interesting.
@@ChrisStoneinator Nvidia manufacturing node is much more expensive. I am an AMD user since forever, zero complains. But AMD are currently in a position where they got almost no throwaways, basically way cheaper manufacturing node. If Nvidia are greedy, AMD are way greedier for these asking prices especially in the mid-below mid range, matching the competition prices (when it comes to gpus :/)
A time will come where that leftover RDNA2 supply will dry out, today is a good day for buying a 1440p entry level product, compared to what we had 1-2 years ago
Please, when you test Baldurs gate 3, and you should, test it in the city of baldurs gate. it is the most demanding on CPU.
We did for this test. Sorry the editor didn't grab the latest footage.
oh, thats great, thanks :)@@Hardwareunboxed
The 7500f would make for a perfect super budget chip for am5 once zen 5 starts to show up. Seeing this thing sub $120 would make it a perfect buy along with the 2 dimm asrock b650 board and a cheap kit of a-die. You'd have good performance up front along with an upgrade path to zen 6 as it comes along in a few years.
Bro what 120$😅, maybe when am6 released, and 7500f become today 5600😅
Man it would be nice to have this kind of low end competition in the GPU space
you call this low end? hahahah
Crazy that 1 graphical setting makes a 1,600$ GPU the limiting factor when paired with a ~180$ budget CPU. Ray-tracing definitely still needs a lot of time before it's actually worth using.
So many great good value options on cpus. Why cant gpus have any great value products just as this...
Maybe the current promo price of 6950xt is the only one right now. 6700xt perhaps. But the value for money still isnt anywhere close on what cpus can provide.
This is definitely something I'd like to look into so I can upgrade my R5 2600, which is still going strong, but showing its age, even if I'm not doing AAA gaming at all
consider a 5800x3D
I have benchmarks on my YT channel as well of some indie games.
It's a beast and I'm generally GPU limited even at 1080p in most games.
This thing will last me at-least another 4 years, maybe even more.
even a 2nd hand $100 5600 would be an huge upgrade to your CPU. but i also recommend 5800x3d due to how fast it is while being in am4 platform. unless you want longevity, then i can understand why you opt for AM5.
Feel like if you were going intel you would just go 12600. Cheaper than the 13400 in the states. AM5 is definitely the path right now though on the budget side.
I got the 7500f on Ali for 130USD absolutely mind boggling.
I got one too for the same price and waiting for it rn, insane deal. Has it performed well in this time?
very good for 1440p with my rx 6800. Only 70% utilization max most game i played.
That is agreat CPU to get on the AMD5 plattform, slapp a 6700 or similar on it and you are good to go for like 500$.
I think looking at power use with overall system consumption rather than just CPU power consumption makes the results too "contaminated" by GPU behaviour, if there are big differences in frame rate this causes the GPU to work harder and consume more energy for the best performing part regardless of it's own power use, and in the more limited scenarios the GPU can also downclock and reduce it's voltage when underutilized making it more efficient at the same time.
I think it was better when the reviews compared the power use of just the reviewed component (CPU or GPU) rather than overall system power. I understand the whole metric is important specially to give an indication on what sort of power supply requirement would be needed, but the individual component power consumption should also be featured in the chart or as a separate graph I think, and make the conclusions based on that.
интел в афиге с райзена, англоязычных ресурсов с фейк тестами в пользу интел очень много) смотришь и диву даешься, кто то за эти тесты ведь платит
Didn't even know they were releasing 7500F. I wonder whether they release some super entry level CPU as well. Though arguably you could say their AM4 stuff covers that. But we will need some Athlon on AM5 sooner or later. It might be possible soon, since prices of DDR5 and AM5 mobos are going down. Or maybe there already is such product and I'm not aware? There weren't many reviews of Athlons or Pentiums (that were often sub 50$ parts). Of course you mostly cater to enthusiasts, but once or twice a year it might be good idea to cover such stuff.
Cheers!
I was momentarily in awe when I saw the Baldur's Gate 3 benchmark, because I realized it was the first time that a game I am interested in was included in the benchmarks ;D I love Bethesda and FromSoftware games and those are never included given they have been FPS limited ..
I hope armored core won’t be , and will be included in graphs
Fascinating-that point about the CPU even limiting the GPU at 4k shows how high end GPUs effectively require the best CPUs to ensure no performance loss.
Looking very grim for Intel. I wished they were competitive. But Arrow Lake is still more than a year away.
When the 4090 was announced, people were afraid even high end CPUs might bottleneck it. But these days we have budget CPUs that can extract the full potential of a 4090 at UHD
At 1600$ it bottleneck my wallet still
@@fabrb26😂😂
thats stupid, its a known fact it simply depends on the game. most games are SEVERELY gpu heavy, but something turn based tends to be more cpu heavy. also anything with a dense city, in the city will always hit the cpu harder.
@@bradhaines3142 so you're saying Steve isn't testing CPU intensive scenarios in his CPU benchmarks?
@@Alvin853 hes testing common benchmarks to cover his bases, it just proves the point that some games dont care about cpu as much as others
Should I buy 12400f or 13400f? There are 50-dollar differences in my region. Appreciate for help
In Germany it is in stock and available for around 200€ (incl. VAT) which translates to roughly 180-185$
200€->217$
200 euros is 217 usd right now
@@blue-lu3iz US prices will have also tax added to them, even at grocery shops
@@blue-lu3iz In EU they are close enough
EU countries have VAT included in the price, already thus €200 = €162 exVAT @ 19% = $175.60 US or about inline with the $179 suggested retail price.
When it comes to power usage, I'd be interested in seeing how much the CPUs consume power at idle. That information would make quite a big difference when it comes to choosing a CPU for a home server running 24/7, mostly at idle.
Based on user self-reports I've come across online, Intel CPUs seem to consume a lot less power at idle than AMD CPUs. Additionally, Intel CPUs have Quick Sync, which is great for transcoding video, so you can efficiently stream video content from your server. So, if you have old systems lying in the corner and you're thinking of building an efficient home server with light expected CPU loads, it would seem to behoove you to build an Intel system.
(In case you're curious about my power consumption, I run a home server with an I5-7500 without a discrete GPU + 3 HDDs and 2 NVMe drives for cache, and the whole system draws around 28 W from the wall at idle. For comparison, AMD systems seem to consume at least 50 or so watts.)
idle actually isnt practical use, low loads like browsing youtube etc that counts, ecores should lead at that
This has been observed to be caused by the io die chiplet which was made on older node and less efficient that the cores chiplet themself. Mobile based AMD cpu however is another matter as they usually consist of one monolithic die and lacked io die, thus uses less power at idle. If you are building cpu from gound up and idle is your primary concern, do look for mobile based amd cpu like the minisforum mini box for example.
I would love to see a 7500f vs 7600 comparison at stock and pbo. That would really show if performance between these 2 identical chips is actually the same
The only difference is 100 out of 5000 mhz, so 2-3%
A direct comparrison between those two would've made more sense. The i5 is on an end of life platform. If you're building from scratch it would mean you are spending money on a PC with no real upgrade path. Other than higher end CPU of the same gen. The 7000s mobos would allow for a CPU upgrade 2 gens down the line while keeping the same. And the 7500 over the 7600 you can instead put 20-30 more on a mobo. That in the case of current prices, it does make a difference on features and VRM. $130 to 150 or 150 to 170-180. That would make sure not only that the 1 or 2 gens down the line still work. But that a higher end version would work well. Like a R7 9800 or something like that. If your are gonna nickle and dime to the point an intel 13XXX is an option. Then why go AM5 and not AM4?
How was your "Performance Per Watt" graph created? Normally such a graph would be FPS per Watt, but your graph says "Lower is Better" which would tend to suggest that you intended to create some backwards "Watt Per Performance" graph showing Watt per FPS?
Another bloodbath ...
The motherboards are really expensive sadly
can't wait for those "nobody is gonna use a 4090 with those CPUs" comments
Please compare it with r5 7600.
Since the Nvidia driver overhead is probably more noticeable with these CPUs, a retest vs the 7900XTX would be super interesting!
Also a retest of nVidia vs AMD driver overhead with newer drivers, CPUs and GPUs would be nice
I bought one for 152 USD on Ebay weeks ago. Oc'd it to 5.2 all core under a Thermalright Assassin SE for 41 Canadian and called it a day. 5.2Ghz 247365.
Im still debating either the 7500f, the 7600 or the 7600x (the 2 latter ones are the same price afaik), i planned to pair them with the asrock b650m pro rs, but im afraid with the 7500f i need to flash the bios for it to even boot, kinda afraid of that, atleast with the 7600's it can boot, but the difference is 40 dollars so dunno what to do really.
DON'T BUY INTEL!
I'm stating this as a user of the 13900K. I've felt deceived. The performance of the E-cores is on par with my aging i7 3770k. It feels like a blend of modern cores with outdated ones from a decade ago. I cannot endorse this choice. Opt for AMD for the time being until Intel shifts to manufacturing CPUs with TSMC and discontinues the E-cores, which have been controversial.
That just runs contrary to how we've seen the processor behave in apps and games. The cores might run at the same clock speed as your old i7 but IPC has increased every gen.
@@nimrodery The P-cores are undeniably fast. However, I must point out that the E-cores appear to lack practical utility, and the inclusion of 16 of them seems excessive. How am I expected to utilize them effectively? Are they intended for running virtual machines with subpar CPU performance from a decade ago? It would have been more sensible to invest in a budget Ivy Bridge server CPU, which currently costs less than 50 dollars.
@@ahmedmahrotos2335 You might get more cores but they'd be slower at the same clock speed (and server parts are often clocked at half the speed of your E-cores). Maybe you just need a bigger cooler, a higher TDP would allow more headroom and you should be experiencing a damn good CPU. Either that or you got a dud that you should RMA. I'm sitting on an older i7 and it's not that great. The price to performance ratio is probably not bad on older server gear but you'll lose performance in basically every application.
edit: changed "P-cores" to "E-cores," i always mix those up
dont worry you will have an upgrade path to 14900k lol. i stopped using intel at haswell "refresh"
If we assume that 4 e cores are equal to 1 p core in sillicon, 13900K would be an amazing 12-core CPU, if intel didn't go with these gimped e-cores. Their purpose is to inflate core counts and pump the cinebench score. And 13600K would be a 8-core monster.
Not only is the i5 slower it also has the latency issue that intel has had for the last few gens now AND intel cant keep a platform together for more than 2 years so really there is no reason to buy an intel cpu right now (and really hasnt been a reason for the last 5 or so years)
Bulldozer+ (Rentable Units) better be amazing otherwise they should just give up and start making GPUs
Muy bueno y sorprendente la potencia del AMD.. me gustó mucho. Me gustaría ver una comparativa de rendimiento de ryzen 5 7500f vs ryzen 5 7600.. para ver qué tanto es la diferencia de obligar a trabajar más al GPU
The difference is going to be minuscule. The 7500f is a 7600 without integrated graphics and slightly lower clock speeds, 100mhz as stated in the video.
se ve bueno pero realmente esperaba que los rumores de que costara 160$ fuera cierto porque a 180 y con el 7600 bajando ahsta 200 en oferta como que no es muy buen incentivo para ir por el.
Maybe you should add the current fastest gaming cpu as a reference, just so we could see what we are potentially missing out on? Unless it's to distracting and extra work?
Was able to get the 7500F at around 9,000php (160usd) here in PH
where did u buy it? its still around 10k in lazada but thats like chinese seller to ph. datablitz has it for 11k
I bought 13400f as a place holder for a newer upgrade but it seems even 14th gen is a bit disappointing.
This is huge. I sometimes skip straight to the graphs and this time I was confused about the results. I thought to myself “Wasn’t intel supposed to be good or at least on par with amd?” Then I remembered intel allows for ddr4 ram sticks so maybe that’s why. Rewinded back to test configuration and shocked by the fact that both are tested with ddr5 sticks. Wow.
The problem with the 13400(F) is that it's not really 13th gen; it uses Alder Lake and is more or less a downclocked 12600K. Because of that it misses out on Raptor Lake's improved L2 and L3 cache, which makes a big difference in gaming performance. And the 13500 is a weird hybrid that has Raptor Lake L3 but Alder Lake L2.
If you want an intel CPU that can really challenge Zen 4 in gaming workloads, you need a 13600K or more.
Is it feasible to have comparison 7500f vs i5 12400f oc'ed to 5000-5200mhz using blck oc?
No, because motherboards that can do it are rare and expensive. Not worth it.
*Probably buy this CPU soon, boards and DDR5 Prices have come down in price recently!*
Ryzen 5 7500f new budget king 👍🙂
@@tilapiadave3234 spawn 25 or more cars in beamng drive then comeback
@@tilapiadave32344core 2023, goodluck
Looking forward for 9500F. I had to pull the trigger on the correct moment before it was lost to me. So no new buys for me for the 3-5 years.
Amazing review! No mistakes made! Take note LTT!
I wouldn't go so far that 'no mistakes' but definitely better than most of LTT videos. Hope they can improve also.
@@zoty314that’s impossible, it would obviously cost them more than $500 and Linus has already told us that’s not feasible.
@@joemarais7683 I guess we'll see shortly.
Of course the system power usage goes up when the GPU is being used more. Think people.
The 7500F really seems like the best option in a vast majority of cases and if I was to buy or recommend to any friends or family it's really hard to argue against.
I have read about a problem with recent Intel CPUs that they have moved some scheduling hardware off package. I don't know what CPUs are affected by this and haven't had the chance to see it for myself. From the information I've seen it appears to add latency when it comes to comes to simpler tasks such as launching and interacting with 'easier' workloads such as launching a web browser or performing tasks within a program that isn't necessarily classically resource intensive. Having these kinds of scheduling means the CPU needs to be assigned their short, sort of unexpected work, off package and the physical distance is just a lot longer.
Have you noticed this at HWU at all? It seems when the cpu is prepared with a more complex instruction it's not an issue. It can prepare the workload of a benchmark without any problems and so the result isn't affected in graphs like these.
Do you notice anything outside of the benchmarking? Like switching between or loading tabs in internet browsers, loading parts of the control panel for example? This is something Intel were very good at with Sandy Bridge as an example, the snappyness of day-to-day operations. And how good is AMD in comparison? This would be something that I as a consumer would like more information about.
Good test scores is absolutely the #1 metric but snappiness in everyday use might be a hard to test part of performance numbers but it still interests me a great deal.
Thank you for your diligent work, I was just wondering if it's possible to construct some sort of test to see how, in a lack of a better word, well it performs with in the experience of how quickly it responds in regular use.
(i wish I could make my point with less text but it's a complicated and very much something subjective)
Remember when a "budget" combo was: 70$ motherboard + 100$ CPU + 50$ kit of RAM?
*YEAH* ...
How much is that after factoring avg inflation?
May still not be great, prices suck on everything lately, but it's probably a smaller gap than at initial glance.
R5 5500 is less than 100 dollars. It's low end, not budget
I didn't remember off-hand how the 7600 compared to Raptor Lake (or in this case should we call it Alder Lake Refresh??)... so I'd expected to see the 13400F come out on top. Pretty interesting overall. I'd have loved to have CPU-only power consumption, mostly "for science" to remove the added system power draw of the GPU driving higher FPS, but I understand that this is a lot of work and requires special tooling.
Even as-is, super happy that you're covering this CPU and really like how you test.
i wish u added some productivity benchmark. id like to see 7z decompression as thats whats 99% people use.
id also like to see a power efficiency comparison and benefits of undervolting
The 12600k is also $180 on Amazon, at least in the US. Probably seems like a better option overall if people don’t upgrade their stuff often.
not at all. It will be worse for gaming compared to the 7500f. Intels hybrid architecture is a fail.
@@breakdown7553wdym? The E cores have literally nothing to do with anything lol
*Can you please, include at least single CPU OC graph/result:*
- because all AMD cpu are unlocked
- a "quick a dirty" OC is enough, I think, to get the general idea how OC cable is the CPU
- especially CPUs like this, what have a reduced frequency, out of the box
- one or two games of your choosing is enough (so it wont take to much of your time) ; games what benefits most of higher cpu freq.
Thx!
Great video by the way!👍
A bit disappointing you didn't include other cpus.
this is a well known design - there is no point
So if we paired the 7500f and 13400f with a 6700xt I am guessing the difference would be at max 5%. Next gen Gpus should see the 7500f pull ahead but Intel has 14th gen coming in 4 months. AM5 has better longevity with the platform but honestly IMHO if you had either Cpu you would have a great budget system for gaming.
Edit- It seems the B650 AM5 Mobo costs more then a B660 or B760 board. Almost forgot you can still go DDR4 with Intel if you have a nice set of D4 Ram you are not ready to retire. Again pick which works best for you as both will give you good and fun gaming for years.
First!! 😊😊😊😊
I don't like total system power usage as a metric precisely because a faster CPU will usually let a CPU-bottlenecked GPU utilise more of the GPU and therefore use more power. I understand motherboard chipsets use some power and memory could vary slightly but I am pretty sure these things are negligible or at least similar enough. Is it really enough to warrant using such a messy metric as total system power? I think total system power can be tested but only to work out if there is a big difference or an issue with the platforms, not a main benchmark.
Thanks for the video. I don't think the way you compare power usage makes much sense because power use doesn't scale linearly with performance.
Instead it would make more sense to show the power use difference at the same performance level, i.e. pinned to some frame rate.
Got the 7500F for 193 Canadian dollars (140ish USD) on 11.11 sale, this CPU is a BEAST and easily handles my 6900XT!
Deal in the EU right now, you have the whole PC with The 7500F and RX7900gre for around 1100€.
Am5 mobo prices are still a turn off.
Ryzen is astonishing for its value and efficiency.
i got it a month ago and no regret missing the 13400f
What is the difference to the 12600k? I go looking for deals and find really good deals on Intel stuff. I'd probably choose a Z690 and 12600k because it has used motherboards available for cheaper, also supply and demand. Lots of 12600k being dumped on used market or markdowns.
looking forward to test this cpu
On Amazon, 12600K is $178 and the ASUS Z690 TUF WiFi is $161. Pretty great deal.
Seriously considering getting 7500F with pbo2 + co on my future setup
I know it's extremely superficial of me, but the main reason I don't jump on the AM5 platform is...I don't like any of the RGB ram aesthetics out there right now. AM4 has way better and diverse looking RGB designed ram kits still.
You should include stock cooler temp under 15 minutes stress test. It would help a lot in these budget options.