Skip to main content

Alleged Core i5-13600K Elbows Past Ryzen 9 5950X in New Benchmarks

Core i9-13900K QS tested
(Image credit: Intel)

A Chinese netizen has published some eyebrow-raising screenshots claimed to be from a system powered by an Intel Core i5-13600K processor. Enthusiastic Citizen’s Bilibili post shows this purported mid-range overclocker-friendly CPU could provide an irresistible price/performance combination for enthusiasts. The chip outpaces AMD’s Ryzen 9 5950X in CPU-Z (1T and nT tests), and is just 7 or 8% slower in Cinebench R23 multi-core benchmarks.

According to the above-linked post, the Raptor Lake chip under scrutiny is an ES3 (engineering sample, third revision) but is configured with QS (qualification sample) clocks. Enthusiastic Citizen says he also has an actual QS chip, but it is “too early” to share its benchmarks and is waiting for Intel and its board partners to make various refinements before sharing more.

The key purported specs of the Intel Core i5-13600K are a core configuration of 6 Performance and 8 Efficiency cores for 20 processing threads, an all-core turbo of 5.1 GHz, with 24MB of L3 cache. Unfortunately, this processor ate up to 173W at 1.31V, with “room for optimization,” according to the tester.

(Image credit: Enthusiastic Citizen )

To give you a clear view of the performance stats that have been shared, and to put them into perspective, please check out the contemporary comparison table below. Our comparison data for all the other CPUs was pulled from our Core i9 12900K review.

Core i5-13600K

Core i5-12600K

Core i9-12900K

Ryzen 9 5950X

CPU-Z 1T

830

753

803

684

CPU-Z nT

10,032

6,692

10,921

12,078

CB23 1T

1,387

1,886

1,965

1,652

CB23 nT

24,420

17,161

27,287

26,271

Cinebench R23 Single-Thread Issues

Above there are some clear and simple conclusions that can be drawn from the numbers. But before we go further, Enthusiastic Citizen reckons there may be a BIOS bug holding the 13600K back. We don’t see motherboard details in any screenshots, but it is claimed that the “early Z790” motherboard could be at fault, causing the unexpectedly low Cinebench R23 single-threaded score. Perhaps the software used an efficiency core for this test, a basic error on unknown silicon.

(Image credit: Enthusiastic Citizen )

If we discount the Cinebench 23 single-threaded scores, the multi-threaded scores remain very impressive; coming in about 30% faster than its predecessor. It is also within single figure percentage performance differences to the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X.

CPU-Z scores are perhaps clearer to interpret, as there seems to be no ‘BIOS issue’ at play. The Raptor Lake chip has the best single-thread scores in this synthetic test, and its multi-threaded test result is within striking distance of the original Alder Lake flagship (i9-12900K).

Lastly, in subsequent comments on the benchmark scores we have shared above, Enthusiastic Citizen says he will be testing his QS chip in gaming in due course.

Over the last few days, we have reported on multiple leaked benchmarks for the Intel Core i9-13900K, covering both applications and gaming.

Mark Tyson
Freelance News Writer

Mark Tyson is a Freelance News Writer at Tom's Hardware US. He enjoys covering the full breadth of PC tech; from business and semiconductor design to products approaching the edge of reason.

  • brandonjclark
    Intel Engineering Marketing bro: {logs into China VPN}, Publishes some CPU-Z screenies

    Tech Journos: { OMFglOLZCOpters}, "Chinese netizen.."

    Intel Engineering Marketing bro: {All in a days work}, "They called me a netizen, right on!"


    :whistle:
    Reply
  • s1mon7
    There are worrying rumors that the Zen 4 Ryzen 5 going against this is a six core CPU, full stop, which is honestly worrying. This wouldn't bode well for AMD and it may be the first truly disappointing Ryzen generation if that materializes. Given the choice and the extra platform costs of AM5 I can't imagine many picking the Ryzen - the MT performance difference would be just far too overwhelming even if the total cost was about equal. Double whammy if Zen 4 cores aren't faster than Raptor Lake's P cores, as AMD's numbers don't instill much hope there either.

    I think most people by now expected an 8-core R5 and a 12-core R7, since we know that the 16-core SKU is reserved for the R9. This 13600K bench would likely land above an 8-core 7600X, but perhaps AMD could sway those who want to go all-big-core, for instance on Windows 10 builds, which is a strong niche. But a 6-core 7600X against this sounds like a bloodbath.
    Reply
  • systemBuilder_49
    Let's see it takes 50% more power and with the new Intel price increases it's probably 50% more money ... I don't think AMD is quaking in its boots. More like laughing all the way to the bank!
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    systemBuilder_49 said:
    Let's see it takes 50% more power and with the new Intel price increases it's probably 50% more money ... I don't think AMD is quaking in its boots. More like laughing all the way to the bank!
    50% more power than what?! The 12600k uses 150W max turbo, and this is OVERCLOCKED to an all core 5.1 and only uses up to 173W, I'm not great at math but that's not anywhere near 50% more.
    If OC on such an early sample on such an early mobo only uses 173W then yes AMD should be scared.

    Also if the cost of making CPUs increases that much that intel would have to charge 50% more then AMD would be out of business completely, they wouldn't be able to make any CPUs anymore at all.
    TSMC already increased prices by 10% last year and is going to increase them again by another 6% in 2023, so it's not like intel is the only one raising prices, in relation to the competition CPUs prices will remain the same.
    https://www.tomshardware.com/news/tsmc-to-hike-chip-prices-in-2023
    Reply
  • tracker1
    I'm not convinced this is at all meaningful... A yet to be released CPU is faster than the top of the line 2 years ago. Once upon a time tree top end performance doubled in that same time frame.

    I saw a leaked 6 core Ryzen successor score claiming similar gains.

    I'm not shocked, or surprised except by the claims coming from fans in either direction.
    Reply
  • KyaraM
    TerryLaze said:
    50% more power than what?! The 12600k uses 150W max turbo, and this is OVERCLOCKED to an all core 5.1 and only uses up to 173W, I'm not great at math but that's not anywhere near 50% more.
    If OC on such an early sample on such an early mobo only uses 173W then yes AMD should be scared.

    Also if the cost of making CPUs increases that much that intel would have to charge 50% more then AMD would be out of business completely, they wouldn't be able to make any CPUs anymore at all.
    TSMC already increased prices by 10% last year and is going to increase them again by another 6% in 2023, so it's not like intel is the only one raising prices, in relation to the competition CPUs prices will remain the same.
    https://www.tomshardware.com/news/tsmc-to-hike-chip-prices-in-2023
    AMD kiddies. Either notoriously bad at math, or just pulling numbers out of their butts. I genuinely hope it's the latter, because the first would be just sad.

    tracker1 said:
    I'm not convinced this is at all meaningful... A yet to be released CPU is faster than the top of the line 2 years ago. Once upon a time tree top end performance doubled in that same time frame.

    I saw a leaked 6 core Ryzen successor score claiming similar gains.

    I'm not shocked, or surprised except by the claims coming from fans in either direction.
    I genuinely can't remember when last a chip 3 down the line from the top one (four, counting the 12900KS I guess) from a previous gen, except for 11th to 12th gen. It has been the second best beating the previous flagship by maybe 2% or so for a while now and that's it. The past doesn't really matter anyways, besides, this is an early chip on an early board, they will still tune the chip further, it's not done and in shipping yet. The days of doubling performance per generation are long gone anyways. Also, the 5950X being two years old is irrelevant. There are no newer AMD chips of that performance class around, so it's currently the only ones we can compare to until we get leaks of Ryzen 7000 chip performance. I doubt anyone will actually say that Ryzen 5000 is the competition instead of Ryzen 7000, but wothout Ryzen 7000, all we can do is look at Ryzen 5000 and try to gauge performance between chips from what we know. This is such a tired old argument...
    Reply