How Much Does It Cost?
The i7 13700K comes in at $449 in the US and £499 in the UK which puts it cheaper than the 7900X, but around $50 more than the 7700X, so as I said in my unboxing, I kind of feel that from a money point of view, it’s competing with the unreleased and unannounced, though I’m sure it’s coming, 7800X from AMD.
Overview
So I think it’s clear to see that the i7 13700k offers up some pretty sizeable improvements over the 12th generation, and rivals AMD’s newest flagship as well, but for a lot less money. Now obviously so much of deciding how good this processor is really comes down to your use case, but it’s pretty evident that for production, rendering, calculation and web browsing, it’s good, and for gaming, it’s able to hold its own and offer some of the best value we’ve seen for the latest features.
Yes, it runs warm, but so does Ryzen, and it now paves the question for me about how the i9 13900K is going to improve on it because the performance is the best there is for the money, so can the i9 do better? That’s what we’ll find out soon enough, so definitely make sure you check that out.
Value for Money
For now, I think the i7 could end up better one of the best-selling processors for Intel, where you get strong performance, good value for money, and all of the latest features that come with it and if anything, it’s going to make AMD potentially re-evaluate things and maybe even seen some price cuts to compete. Who knows, let’s see what happens.
Should I Buy One?
For now, what do you think? Are you team blue or have AMD done enough? I think if anything, AMD 7000 3D cache versions, could be their only saving grace to fend off the competition. Do you agree? Let me know in the comments. For now though, it looks like the i7 is hitting the market pretty strong, so long as you provide it with a decent cooling solution, it’s a potent CPU for everything from work to gaming.
You seem to have got a really bad silicon. The i7 tested at computerbase consumes 25% less (gaming avg 120W).
They also kneecapped the AM5 and Intel chips at 5200 memory when we know both chips shine at 6000.
Computerbase did worse than that in the most crass way, they gave the raptor lake 5600 CL36s while AM5 CPUs got 5200MHz CL32s. AM5’s sweet spot is 6000Mhz. HUB has already shown the perf jump going from 5200 to 5600Mhz for Alder lake is getting it closer to 6000Mhz like perf. Hell they gave Alder Lake 4800Mhz. WTH? Atleast here eTecknix kept the RAM specs the same which is why eTeknix’s results more or less aligns with what HUB showed. Computerbase used to be good but now with their editorialized claims such as Intel Raptor Lake is the new gaming king, when really AM5 and Raptor Lake merely trade blows depending on the game, one has to seriously question if Intel had something to do with their *cough* editorial direction *cough*. The only thing of value in that article is the power consumption figures beyond that the whole set of benchmarks are null and void for sensible comparisons.
3090? Should have at least tested with a 3090 ti.