Intel Core i5-13600K Desktop Processor 14 cores (6 P-cores + 8 E-cores) 24M Cache, up to 5.1 GHz

Product Information

See http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/hyper-threading/hyper-threading-technology.html?wapkw=hyper+threading for more information including details on which processors support Intel® HT Technology. While the 13600K has the lowest minimum power draw of the three chips tested with 1.973W (an 18% lower power consumption than the 12600K's minimum of 2.415W), it also maxes out at an astonishing 204.634W, which is about 83% more power to achieve a roughly 40% better performance. The big concern we have here: The climbing price of Core i5 processors will also likely mean budget-friendly options released further down the road will also cost more. This is a trend we have seen far too much of in recent years, and Intel certainly isn’t alone here, but that doesn’t counter our disappointment at this generational price increase.

AMD’s Ryzen 9 and Ryzen 7 chips might have handily undercut their Core i9 and Core i7 competitors in terms of power consumption, but Intel’s Core i5 processors put up a respectable fight against the Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 CPUs. Intel processor numbers are not a measure of performance. Processor numbers differentiate features within each processor family, not across different processor families. See http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/processor-numbers.html for details.In terms of core counts, the i5-13600K doubles the efficiency cores over the i5-12600K, for a total of 14 cores and 20 threads to the i5-12600K's 10 cores and 16 thread. This is also substantially more than the Ryzen 5 7600X, which is a straight six-core/12-thread chip with all its cores being full-power performance cores. This chip also draws 65% more power than the Core i5-12600K for a roughly 25% better performance. These are hardly signs of efficiency, and it continues the exact wrong trend we saw with Intel Alder Lake. For comparison, the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X has a max power draw of 211.483W, and its 3D V-Cache variant has an incredibly tight 136.414W power draw in my AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D review. The Intel Core i7-13700K, meanwhile, is meant for more professional users who have more taxing workloads like professional designers, video editors, 3D modelers, and program developers. Gamers are also major targets for the 13700K, since many games require a lot of computational power at a fairly constant rate for long stretches of time, something very few other apps demand. For as long as I can remember, I've had love of all things tech, spurred on, in part, by a love of gaming. I began working on computers owned by immediate family members and relatives when I was around 10 years old. I've always sought to learn as much as possible about anything PC, leading to a well-rounded grasp on all things tech today. In my role at PCMag, I greatly enjoy the opportunity to share what I know.

Given this information, it seemed likely that these processors would trade places, depending on the test, but instead the Core i5-13600K performs better in every test. It doesn't win by a wide margin in some tests, but it does win. The Core i5-12600K, for its part, was left in the dust,and the Core i5-13600K even manages to perform slightly better than the 16-core Ryzen 9 7950X in a few tests. (That said, the Core i5 lost to the 16-core/32-thread Ryzen 9 7950X badly in most tests, as you'd expect.) Is this a dealbreaker? Not yet, but if Intel thinks it can keep the top spot by just keeping its foot on the gas while AMD is making real investments in power efficiency within a single generation of processors, this won't be good for Intel in the long run.So with that breakdown laid out, if you're looking for something for more casual use on the family PC or you need a new processor for light to moderate business work like data entry or accounting work, the i5-13600K should be more than enough for your needs. In the end, the Core i5-13600K outperforms the Ryzen 5 7600X by about 40%, while improving on the Core i5-12600K's performance by about 25%. As far as bottom line results go, this would make this processor a slam dunk, but one thing keeps this chip from true greatness: its power consumption.